Iran shoots down U.S. aircraft over international waters.

Great Debates
241

Well, you did put words in my mouth that I think that the current situation consists of bullying. I said asahi is making that argument without actually using the word bullying. So you made a mistake there, but I guess you won’t acknowledge that.

And about the definition of bullying? I’m not so sure I would really apply it to the topic of international relations as a general matter. I sure wouldn’t apply it to the current situation, as we have two main actors who are both currently intent on provocative, dangerous, and dumb policies towards each other. I don’t think their relative sizes is very material to the crisis we find ourselves in.

Same question back at you.

242

So you think he’s wrong, and Iran is not being bullied?

It’s a really simple question - do you, Ravenman, think Iran is being bullied, yes or no?

243

You make it sound like a bad thing to have concern for those that are bullied.

The U.S.-imposed economic sanctions are unjustified. They have no support from the international community - outside perhaps of the U.S.'s local Middle Eastern allies - and the United Nations International Court of Justice unanimously “ordered” them stopped.

Do you disagree that the economic sanctions are unjustified? If so, why?

If the economic sanctions are unjustified, then what would you suggest the Iranians do? Go to the U.N.? The U.S. are ignoring the U.N.'s directives. Impose sanctions on the U.S. and tell all the countries of the world that if they trade with the U.S. then they will not be allowed to trade with Iran? The U.S. are 1st in GDP in the world, while Iran are 27th. The economic gulf is so great that, as a stand-alone country, Texas would be the 10th largest economy in the world. Few will choose Iran over the U.S.

I see your view of the situation as being like this. The U.S. are strangling the Iranians (in my opinion as an act of clear and unjustified aggression). The Iranians should just stand there with their arms at their side - if the Iranians punch back, then they are being provocative and are the aggressors. I see this as being rather naive and unrealistic.

One of the only strong cards Iran holds is the possibility of closing the Strait of Hormuz, which would affect global oil trade, and also appear to be a weapon of last resort. How would they close the Strait of Hormuz? Unfortunately, this can only be achieved through violence of some sort. They could indiscriminately send out floating mines, that could sink ships and lead to loss of life. If the Iranians perpetrated the oil tanker attacks - and that is still an if, as no conclusive evidence has been publicly revealed - then they have deliberately done it in such a way as to avoid loss of life. As with the downing of the unmanned drone, these would be warnings to the U.S. to show what could happen if they continue to choke Iran.

For the view of things from the Iranian side, I recommend listening to interviews made a couple of months ago with Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif, such as here on Fox with Chris Wallace, and here on Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.

244

We’re not talking about general matters.

In this specific case, do you think the US is bullying Iran?

How can it not be? Not relative sizes, just relative force, that is…

245

Please read what I wrote before repeating questions.

246

Ok, so one more vote for the Iran in this thread. I gotcha.

247

Obviously that was crossing timelines in posting - but can I take “wouldn’t apply it” as a “no”, then? Just so I know where you stand on actual question asked of you.

Oh, and if you’re counting, count me as thoroughly pro-Iran on this particular matter.

248

It was in the post that you quoted when you first asked the question, but you snipped it out. So it wasn’t crossing timelines – either you didn’t read it the first time or something else.

And, I think you understand my English just fine. Unless you want me to start questioning what you mean by each one of your sentences?

249

:confused:

Well I disagree with your assessment of the situation as “two main actors who are both currently intent on provocative, dangerous, and dumb policies towards each other” and you haven’t offered any clarification on what bullying would be defined as, so I’m not only reluctant to venture an opinion on that, exactly, I don’t think we’re talking about the same things in a lot of ways. That’s why I’m asking you questions, dude. I’m trying to understand your point of view, which is seems different than mine but then you make statements like “I think ‘bully’ is a reasonable term to describe those events” only to seemingly deny it immediately thereafter. You’re all over the place here.

250

No, I don’t wonder. It has avoided war. They are not acts of war. They are things you must grasp to make a exceedingly weak argument that President Trump wants war, or has increased the likelihood of war.

From his history and his actions, he does not want war, and the argument that showing strength (sanctions, positioning military) and not being afraid of getting out of a bad deal = war, well that is weak.

I’m not shining the Bush light on Trump, and if President Trump has some Bush leftovers around, what we do know is that if they have a basic disagreement with one of his tenets of how he operates, and how he doesn’t want wasted war in the middle east, unlike many other tools, Trump will have Bolton’s and such lose their minds trying to force him into something.

This is definitely something Trump wants as a legacy: No more wasted wars in the Middle East. I see no indication that is changing.

.

251

How do you see it, then?

Uhh… I’m also starting to think we are not on the same page. I subscribe to the common definition of “bullying.” I’m not sure what’s confusing about that. I’ve also said that I wouldn’t tend to use the term in the context of international relations. And if you are confused by the term bulling, I’m not sure how you then have no opinion of the term at all. You have… heard… of the word “bullying” before… right?

Perhaps you are hung up on that one sentence. I’m using the term “bullying” to describe asahi’s view of the situation, not mine. To put it another way:

asahi: Let’s go play that game with the stick and the ball where you run around in a field.
Ravenman: So you want to play baseball. I hate that game.
Snowboarder Bo: Ravenman, why do you want to play baseball? And then why are you saying that you hate baseball?

Those words coming out of my keyboard are an interpretation of what asahi is saying, not my own position. Which is why I said you’re putting words in my mouth that I want to play baseball/I think the situation is bullying.

252

I see one actor and one re-actor.

If the term isn’t something you think should be used, then I see little common ground for continuing the discussion: we are talking about different things, perhaps.

I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, I’m trying to get answers to questions. Your answers aren’t clear to me, so I seek clarifications.

If you can’t offer a definition of bullying, I can’t understand why you think it shouldn’t be applied to “international relations”.

253

Was that the same drone which was flying over Tonkin Bay and caused the incident with its proven material misrepresentation by the US government to justify a war against Vietnam?

The United States claims this and Iran claims that, all in all this-and-that.

Has the US government ever lied to its people?
Has the Iranian government ever lied to its people?

254

After I get done cataloging all the WMDs we found in Iraq, I’ll respond to your post.

255

Are you clear now that “bullying” is something that I believe asahi would say that’s happening, and I disagree?

Now that’s a question I can answer, because it makes sense. Asking me to provide the common definition of a common word is bizarre. Asking me why that doesn’t really fit international relations (IMHO) is a fine question.

I don’t think “bullying” really applies to most international relations disputes (there may be some, I’ll think about that later) is because nations, being sovereign, are generally in the business of coercing each other literally all the time, in ways that are advantageous to any actors’ particular capabilities in goals.

And in the vast, vast majority of circumstances, that coercion happens within a framework of laws and norms that specifically exist to protect but limit that behavior. I have a hard time seeing activities that are within the rules as constituting “bullying.” I think bullying implies illegitimate actions.

Also, it is clear that in this case, both the US and Iran have been poking at each other for decades, and it’s pretty much been a draw. The US has overwhelming military might, but it has not been leveled at Iran (yet, hopefully never). Iran through its proxies killed more Americans than any terror group before AQ. I have a hard seeing the term “bullying” apply to a situation where both sides are taking shots at each other, even if one hasn’t yet escalated as far as they could.

I think the element that most would say applies to “bullying” in this context are size/power imbalance. While that is true, I don’t think as a general matter that it’s a very useful lens to examine international disputes. For example, Israel versus Iran: is one bullying the other? I don’t think so. Iran has ten times the population plus a ton of influence in some of Israel’s neighbors. Both have similar defense budgets, but Israel has better technology. Iran has instigated far, far more attacks in Israel than vice versa. For these kinds of comparisons, I think applying the term bully is simply a facile perjorative that indicates one sympathies rather than shedding insight on the conflict. (Sort of like, my side has freedom fighters, your side has terrorists.)

That’s why I don’t think the word bully is really appropriate to describing the situation. Shoot, it’s possible that Iran could sink a couple carriers and make us limp home to terror attacks in our cities if we don’t escalate to a nuclear war - let’s not pretend they are 90 pound weaklings. (I strongly oppose war with Iran for the costs they would bear, and that we could bear also).

That’s why I think it’s third-grade level thinking to say the US is bullying Iran.

256

Yours is the usual, tired “schoolyard” bully analogy. Hint: not every political conflict can be reduced to schoolyard bully analogies.

No, I’m not saying that Iran is being “bullied.” I don’t necessarily see Iran as a “victim,” either. In fact, if you’re analyzing the situation correctly, their behavior is sending the exact opposite message – on purpose. What Iran is trying to tell you, Ravenman, is not that they are being bullied, but rather that they are not going to be bullied. They are not going to just sit and fall victim to a country that wants to overthrow their government. Trying to overthrow a government, or even trying to destabilize one, has consequences, like raising the risk of a destructive war which isn’t really necessary.

257

Trump doesn’t give a fuck about Iran. Trump only gives a fuck about Trump. He was only against the original Iran deal because Obama was in favour of it, and bashing Obama got idiots cheering and voting for Trump.

Fortunately, for all the game he talks, he seems to be too cowardly to actually do anything violent, unless it’s to a cornered woman.

258

Sometimes the debates here strike me as particularly ridiculous. This is one of those times. If President Trump strikes Iran, he’s a warmonger / murderer / whatever. If he doesn’t strike Iran then he’s “cowardly”.

“Orange man bad” is about as perfect a summary of the SDMB’s default position on virtually everything as I’ve ever heard.

259

This is also one of those times where if the President strikes Iran, he’s forceful, but if he doesn’t, he’s merciful.

Perhaps you should decide on your own what America should do, and determine if the President’s actions agree or disagree with that?

260

I think a limited military response would have been appropriate to the shooting down of the RQ-4A last week. I wish President Trump had not called off the strikes, but I don’t believe his decision had anything to do with cowardice.