Iran vs the US Megathread

[Novus America]

If they have a gun to their heads why do they do the opposite of what we want them to do?

Like tell you to get out of their country and stop killing their people?

The vast majority of people killed on Iraq and Afghanistan were killed by their own government or each other. So yeah, it makes since to then assume the governments are indeed the biggest issue.

Qassem Soleimani didn't personally kill anyone. Or at least, probably not many people. He backed various groups who killed people, and thus was held responsible for those deaths. Consider, then, the responsibility of the United States when soldiers they trained, who work for a government they created and are supporting, kill people.

Tell me, if we got up and left tomorrow do you really think there would be less terrorism and less sectarian warfare on those places?

Compared to your proposal of eternal war, of constantly killing people and pretending it's okay because they're foreigners and they're not killing many of your citizens? Yeah.

We left in 2011, they kept slaughtering each other and begged us to come back.

And they have not asked to repeal the current treaty. If they want to they can and we cannot stop them.
Iraqis will still keep killing Iraqis.

You again totally miss the point. As Iraqis have killed the vast majority of Iraqis, why would us leaving stop them from killing each other?
Iraq has been slaughtering Iraqis for what over 60 years?
Iraq is eternal war.

So our current (limited) involvement is not the primary issue.

[Novus America]

This would all go away very quickly if Iran would hand over the black box and/or admit they accidentally hit the aircraft and owned up to it.

The 1953 Iranian coup was a mistake.

It was literally the only correct course of action the US has taken towards Iran as a state ever since Howard Baskerville died lmao. And really, do you think the IR is going to give up the black box and reveal it's shot down a plan with 180 people on it; either accidentally or in order to garner sympathy in the wake of a possible war with the US?

The 1979 coup was the mistake. That should have been prevented at all costs, in retrospect.

[North German Realm]

It was literally the only correct course of action the US has taken towards Iran as a state ever since Howard Baskerville died lmao. And really, do you think the IR is going to give up the black box and reveal it's shot down a plan with 180 people on it; either accidentally or in order to garner sympathy in the wake of a possible war with the US?

The 1979 coup was the mistake. That should have been prevented at all costs, in retrospect.

Not implementing regime change and restoring the monarchy or at least a nationalist republic was certainly a mistake, especially after the US Embassy was taken. It would both ensure Iran wouldn't go to shit, and it would save the Middle East from the most terrible war in its modern history.

[Cisairse]

Tell me, if we got up and left tomorrow do you really think there would be less terrorism and less sectarian warfare on those places?

That being a fact has been a common point of agreement by (non hawkish/extremist) political pundits since...a really long time ago.

[North German Realm]

Tell me, if we got up and left tomorrow do you really think there would be less terrorism and less sectarian warfare on those places?

That being a fact has been a common point of agreement by (non hawkish/extremist) political pundits since...a really long time ago.

That being factually wrong has been established even before the US engaged Afghanistan in war.

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

1 Iran used soviet misled

2 it’s within Russia’s interest to have Iran and USA fight.

2+2= somehow Russia may have helped along this insident.

[Ifreann]

Like tell you to get out of their country and stop killing their people?


Qassem Soleimani didn't personally kill anyone. Or at least, probably not many people. He backed various groups who killed people, and thus was held responsible for those deaths. Consider, then, the responsibility of the United States when soldiers they trained, who work for a government they created and are supporting, kill people.


Compared to your proposal of eternal war, of constantly killing people and pretending it's okay because they're foreigners and they're not killing many of your citizens? Yeah.

We left in 2011, they kept slaughtering each other and begged us to come back.

And they have not asked to repeal the current treaty. If they want to they can and we cannot stop them.

Unless you topple the government by force. Again.

You again totally miss the point. As Iraqis have killed the vast majority of Iraqis, why would us leaving stop them from killing each other?

It would give the people of Iraq the chance to govern themselves, something that tends to have a pretty positive effect on peace and stability, rather than having a government imposed on them by invaders. This at least offers a possibility of peace, as opposed to your plan of killing Iraqis and Afghans until the sun explodes.

Iraq has been slaughtering Iraqis for what over 60 years?
Iraq is eternal war.

So our current (limited) involvement is not the primary issue.

You're proposing to maintain your occupation indefinitely and openly don't care about the lives being lost. You are advocating for conflict without end.

[Nakena]

You're proposing to maintain your occupation indefinitely and openly don't care about the lives being lost. You are advocating for conflict without end.

He didn said that.

[Page]

At what point is pulling out still the lesser evil even if all the predictions of civil war and resurgent terrorism came true? I'd say we are already past that point.

[Novus America]

We left in 2011, they kept slaughtering each other and begged us to come back.

And they have not asked to repeal the current treaty. If they want to they can and we cannot stop them.

Unless you topple the government by force. Again.

You again totally miss the point. As Iraqis have killed the vast majority of Iraqis, why would us leaving stop them from killing each other?

It would give the people of Iraq the chance to govern themselves, something that tends to have a pretty positive effect on peace and stability, rather than having a government imposed on them by invaders. This at least offers a possibility of peace, as opposed to your plan of killing Iraqis and Afghans until the sun explodes.

Iraq has been slaughtering Iraqis for what over 60 years?
Iraq is eternal war.

So our current (limited) involvement is not the primary issue.

You're proposing to maintain your occupation indefinitely and openly don't care about the lives being lost. You are advocating for conflict without end.

We would not topple the government by force even if they did end the treaty. We have no appetite to do that. And again your premise is totally wrong.

The have been governing themselves for 16 years! We are not occupying it by keeping a small force there, at the request of their government.

The current government is not imposed by us. We do not run it at all.
Us leaving completely would leave literally the exact same government in place! At least in the short term until it implodes again.

And Iraq has not had peace and stability outside rule by brutal dictatorships which is not really peace. Tell me when has Iraq been peaceful?

When a terrorist becomes particularly dangerous we have to take them out, we will continue to do that, but we are not just killing people for the lols or whatever.

The problem is you do not understand the current situation at all. We are killing very few people, and have very few troops there. We are not waging a large war with a massive force. We occasionally kill a few terrorists but that is it. We are not running the place, or using troops for law enforcement or anything like that. Our troops there are in a few small bases in middle of nowhere or in the embassy, not in the streets.

And you have yet to answer this. As the vast majority of killings are by Iraqis, against other Iraqis, why do you think us have a very limited force their, with their permission is the primary cause of issues? Especially when said killings were going on before we even got there?

[Plzen]

[[...] or at least a nationalist republic

Ah, yes. “Nationalist” “republics.” Those are definitely paragons of freedom.

As long as the dissident-murdering dictator is on your side, it’s all good, eh?

Typical pro-American hypocrisy.

[Novus America]

Tell me, if we got up and left tomorrow do you really think there would be less terrorism and less sectarian warfare on those places?

That being a fact has been a common point of agreement by (non hawkish/extremist) political pundits since...a really long time ago.

What is the agreement? That us pulling out our very small forces with limited involvement will stop them from killing each other?
That is silly.

[Novus America]

The 1979 coup was the mistake. That should have been prevented at all costs, in retrospect.

Not implementing regime change and restoring the monarchy or at least a nationalist republic was certainly a mistake, especially after the US Embassy was taken. It would both ensure Iran wouldn't go to shit, and it would save the Middle East from the most terrible war in its modern history.

The best thing would have been to keep the monarchy from collapsing while it reformed. The irony was it was already reforming when it was toppled. But yes a orderly transition to secular republic would have been fine.

The Iran Iraq war could have been avoided, perhaps some of the chaos in Lebanon would be, etc.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

You're proposing to maintain your occupation indefinitely and openly don't care about the lives being lost. You are advocating for conflict without end.

He didn said that.

I mean I am just being realistic. You just keep beating these groups down, you can only keep them down by beating them down.

Kind of like HIV, you will be on the suppression drugs forever.

[Novus America]

He didn said that.

I mean I am just being realistic. You just keep beating these groups down, you can only keep them down by beating them down.

Kind of like HIV, you will be on the suppression drugs forever.

One it is not an occupation. Two I do want to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible.

But we do have to keep taking out terrorists when they become too dangerous.

And yes, realistically terrorists are not disappearing any time soon. Working to suppress terrorism is not something that just ends.

It is something akin to saying “do you want to keep going after murderers forever?”.
Ideally no, but realistically murder is not just going to disappear.
You will be doing your best to suppress it, but it is not going to ever end.

[North German Realm]

[[...] or at least a nationalist republic

Ah, yes. “Nationalist” “republics.” Those are definitely paragons of freedom.

As long as the dissident-murdering dictator is on your side, it’s all good, eh?

Typical pro-American hypocrisy.

I mean, it's still better than an Islamic Republic. Your average Cold War era Capitalist dictatorship may be terrible, but it will never be even remotely as bad as the shit that happened in the first 2 decades of the Islamic Republic.

I'd still prefer a restoration, mind you.

[Nakena]

Ah, yes. “Nationalist” “republics.” Those are definitely paragons of freedom.

As long as the dissident-murdering dictator is on your side, it’s all good, eh?

Typical pro-American hypocrisy.

I mean, it's still better than an Islamic Republic. Your average Cold War era Capitalist dictatorship may be terrible, but it will never be even remotely as bad as the shit that happened in the first 2 decades of the Islamic Republic.

I'd still prefer a restoration, mind you.

For some people anything is better than le ebil murican imperializm. Even the very stable genius of most glorious Leader Marshall Kim Yong-Un.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

How is it in the rest of the world's interest to reward aggression by siding with the aggressor?

Basically everyone hates Iran. If there's a world war over Iran, it's going to be a pile on affair.

(Which is to say, there won't be a world war over Iran, but if there were, that's what it would look like.)

An enemy of an enemy is not a friend. If the USA assassinates foreign generals, how is any other country supposed to know their own generals aren't fair game?

[Novus America]

Ah, yes. “Nationalist” “republics.” Those are definitely paragons of freedom.

As long as the dissident-murdering dictator is on your side, it’s all good, eh?

Typical pro-American hypocrisy.

I mean, it's still better than an Islamic Republic. Your average Cold War era Capitalist dictatorship may be terrible, but it will never be even remotely as bad as the shit that happened in the first 2 decades of the Islamic Republic.

I'd still prefer a restoration, mind you.

Honestly I think something like Jordan would be ideal.
It is not a totalitarian dictatorship, it is a Constitutional monarchy but the government has enough powers to maintain order.

[Ifreann]

Unless you topple the government by force. Again.


It would give the people of Iraq the chance to govern themselves, something that tends to have a pretty positive effect on peace and stability, rather than having a government imposed on them by invaders. This at least offers a possibility of peace, as opposed to your plan of killing Iraqis and Afghans until the sun explodes.

You're proposing to maintain your occupation indefinitely and openly don't care about the lives being lost. You are advocating for conflict without end.

We would not topple the government by force even if they did end the treaty. We have no appetite to do that. And again your premise is totally wrong.

The have been governing themselves for 16 years! We are not occupying it by keeping a small force there, at the request of their government.

The current government is not imposed by us.

Is that so? Because yesterday you said this:

But the point is not about killing more people per se, the failure was trying to impose a single liberal democracy on a divided, tribal society.

If you're going to contradict yourself just for the sake of disagreeing with me then I really don't see any point in continuing. Go "Nuh uh!" at someone else.

[Novus America]

We would not topple the government by force even if they did end the treaty. We have no appetite to do that. And again your premise is totally wrong.

The have been governing themselves for 16 years! We are not occupying it by keeping a small force there, at the request of their government.

The current government is not imposed by us.

Is that so? Because yesterday you said this:

But the point is not about killing more people per se, the failure was trying to impose a single liberal democracy on a divided, tribal society.

If you're going to contradict yourself just for the sake of disagreeing with me then I really don't see any point in continuing. Go "Nuh uh!" at someone else.

Oh I admit the use of the term “impose” in that previous quote was not a good term in retrospect. Although there I meant it differently, more rhetorically there, yes using the same term with different meanings (one time rhetorically and the other literally) could be confusing especially when you ignore the context.

It would have been better for me to say “the failure was trying to create a single liberal democracy in a divided, tribal society”.
Okay my somewhat hyperbolic language there got the better of me.

I have now made the correction.

[Galloism]

Basically everyone hates Iran. If there's a world war over Iran, it's going to be a pile on affair.

(Which is to say, there won't be a world war over Iran, but if there were, that's what it would look like.)

An enemy of an enemy is not a friend. If the USA assassinates foreign generals, how is any other country supposed to know their own generals aren't fair game?

All the more reason.

[Tarsonis]

Basically everyone hates Iran. If there's a world war over Iran, it's going to be a pile on affair.

(Which is to say, there won't be a world war over Iran, but if there were, that's what it would look like.)

An enemy of an enemy is not a friend. If the USA assassinates foreign generals, how is any other country supposed to know their own generals aren't fair game?

If they don’t attack the US then they have nothing to worry about

[North German Realm]

Aand there's been an attack on the Al-Balad American Base in Salahuddin province, Iraq.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

An enemy of an enemy is not a friend. If the USA assassinates foreign generals, how is any other country supposed to know their own generals aren't fair game?

If they don’t attack the US then they have nothing to worry about

Iran didn't attack the US. At least not until this.