But this is unproductive and apparently working just a little on my nerves. I can’t quite understand why folks seem to think responding to aggression with aggression here( on either side )is reasonable. It’s foolish in the extreme IMHO.
But whatever, I suppose.
But the invasion of Iraq directly led to the formation of ISIS (like, very directly, explicitly based on how the US dealt with its prisoners of war) which then caused a lot of death and misery worldwide. It’s not just about Saddam.
And, similarly, if the US blew half of Iran to smithereens ; or worse yet destroyed its governmental structure and left chaos and a gigantic power vacuum, possibly to be claimed by paramilitary groups “friendly” to the US (helloooo, Afghanistan) it would directly cause a worldwide wave of terrorism.
At some point, the international community will twig that letting the US tromp about willy nilly in the Middle East is not a great idea. Soon. Surely.
As for Iran, well, they do have Saddam’s example to show that bending over and appeasing doesn’t work when the big bully is determined to blow all of your shit up. Saddam might have been a terrible leader, but he did absolutely *nothing *the US and MI6 accused him of doing in the run-up to the invasion ; had nothing to do with Bin Laden whatsoever ; was bending over backwards to comply with UN inspections and so on. Still got hanged.
And the American actors involved now have **openly **said war with Iran and toppling the regime was their end goal. So maybe rattling sabers works, maybe it doesn’t. But I don’t think they’re playing to the US crowd or to Trump, who they know will just do what he do no matter what (see:nuclear deal) ; and I think they’re confident the international opinion will see the US as the bully, which it mostly does. I think rather that they’re playing to their home crowd to garner support for the firestorm that’s very probably coming.
This is what I snipped out:
Nothing in there about “I’m not so sure I would really apply it”, that came in your later post. I read the first post just fine.
I understand what you post. It’s what you don’t post that I wouldn’t presume to parse. Up to that point, that would include the answer to the question “Do you think the US is bullying Iran?”
Feel free.
nm, tech issue
This is the first time I’ve heard that ISIS formed “explicitly based on how the US dealt with its prisoners of war” or anything along those lines. What’s your source?
A specifically ISIS-style and quite as widespread a reaction is unlikely given the different religious ideologies at play. But very generally speaking you’ll get no argument from me. A massively destabilized Iran is no bueno.
I can’t possibly see how it does, which is where we are at loggerheads. Rightly or wrongly American international diplomacy tends to embrace the “never give up, never surrender” brand.
Oh, I have no doubt of that. It works fine as a type of Gulf of Tonkin incident from the Iranian POV as well - propaganda goes in all directions. But I suspect firing up the base is rather unnecessary and it is hideously dangerous. Because a massively destabilized Iran is no bueno.
Here’s a piece to get you started.
Look up Camp Bucca and the bad stuff that went on there, or the low standard of “evidence” that was enough to be sent there for years on end without a trial. According to a leaked Red Cross memo, up to 90% of the inmates were sent there for more or less no reason besides having been at the wrong place at the wrong time and being a male Iraqi. Even if that percentage is inflated, it’s still a whole bunch of regular people being made to live in a camp with actual jihadi radicals ; and treating the whole lot like absolute shit for years on end (the usual Abu Ghraib stuff - violence, humiliation, rape and even torture have been reported multiple times).
Surprise, surprise, most didn’t come out of the camp with a rosy outlook on life and a friendly heart towards outsiders.
(my real source is a book by an Iraq specialist at the French Research and Study Institute on the Muslim World (Iremam) ; but it’s in French and I can’t exactly be arsed to translate it all ;))
Of course it’s a *bit *more complicated that just Camp Bucca, local actors share a part of the blame, there are historical tensions at play as well etc etc… Still, Camp Bucca was a giant radicalization engine for the region, and the generally ignorant and/or hamfisted way the US acted as an occupation force is mind boggling when you look into it a little.
Truth be told, I take your objection as validation. Trump clearly isn’t a warmonger. Trump is, above all, a promoter of Trump. He’ll talk like a warmonger if that’ll get an audience cheering but following through on whatever he said to get them cheering, let alone having to take responsibility for the outcomes, is an alien concept to him.
Your simplistic interpretation demonstrates to me that I’m onto something, and why Trump’s tactics have worked out surprisingly well for him his entire life when by any rational standard he should be universally viewed and dismissed as a con-artist.
You really are completely missing the point.
“The international community will back you” – what does that have to do with anything? The United States is forcing other countries to comply with anti-Iran sanctions that many countries have already said they don’t like and might even try to get around. In the end, however, they comply because they take threats to their biggest, most important companies and businesses seriously and it’s a risk they can’t afford to take. So they “cooperate” with the U.S.
Most of our allies have already said that they strongly disagree with our decision to withdraw from the joint framework. We did it anyway.
This administration does not give two shits what the outside world thinks. It will agitate for war with Iran international opinion be damned. Don’t you get that? Iran gets it. They also saw how the US ignored international opinion in 2003 when, despite massive international outcry, we invaded and overthrew a sovereign regime, and basically lied shameless about the reasons for doing it.
“Shooting a drone is provocative and unwise” :rolleyes: History shows that hoping right wing aggressors hellbent war just go away isn’t going to work out too well. At the same time, they know that they are no match for the American military and would get crushed in a conflict, particularly one that we have time to prepare for. The only option they really have is to somehow put pressure on the international community to push back against the US, which probably means disrupting the flow of trade and taking a smaller war to the US before the US is really and truly ready to make a move.
Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there!
It’s not “bullshit”, it’s “how Iranians see the situation”.
So: doing nothing leads to death. What would you do?
Ah, okay, I’ve found where we differ the most, perhaps. Could you please describe the way that Iran started the fight with the US?
In your opinion, is Iran smart to attack a Japanese tanker while the Japanese PM is in the country? I say no: jaw-jaw is better than war-war, and you and the IRGC are clearly on the war-war path here.
Ignoring the personal comment, you may be relieved to know that my principal vocation is finding ways to thwart Trump’s stupid national security policies. I’ve had a couple of fleeting successes in the past several weeks that I don’t care to elaborate on, but I think you are laboring under a serious misconception of my political views and role in everything.
To highlight another one, based on what you and I have posted in this thread, I consider myself to be the more anti-war one: I’m opposed to Trump’s terrible JCPOA and sanctions policy; I’m opposed to a US attack on Iran; and I’m opposed to Iranian attacks on anyone else. You cannot say the same.
You literally asked me a broad question – “I can’t understand why you think it shouldn’t be applied to “international relations”” – and then you get upset that I answer in broad terms? Good lord, your debating style reminds me of the old geezers who complain about everything at their favorite restaurant: “The food is terrible and the portions are too small.”
Wow! A few posts ago, you couldn’t venture a guess as to what the plain meaning of “bullying” is, and somehow my post enlightened you enough to grasp the definition! Man, I am a fantastic SDMB poster. I can dispel ignorance with hardly an effort!
Ok, in your world, the US and Iran have not been poking at each other for decades. I suppose the Beirut bombing, the Vincennes, the tanker wars, etc. were just snuggle parties then.
Work to split the EU from US policies using diplomacy and trade.
I bet you could google it. I don’t care to since it has nothing to do with any point I was making. While you’re at it, how much does an iPhone cost in Tehran these days?
Let’s just be very clear about Iran’s attempts to start a small war here: the deaths that Iranian leaders are concerned about are their own. The crippling sanctions are a threat to their own survival, as it seems pretty clear that the Iranian public is blaming both the US and the corruption/incompetence of the Iranian government for the terrible economy. So, it seems clear to me that by stirring the pot with the US, it makes the Iranian leaders look tough on the US, deflecting the issue away from everything that’s wrong with the Iranian government. These dangerous schemes like blowing up drones and tankers are meant as message both to the US and to their own people. ETA: So I think it’s most plausible that Iranian leaders are trying to save themselves from the unwashed masses who are bearing the brunt of all this; plus the sad part is that Trump’s outright stupid policies are paving the way for a new Supreme Leader who is as hardline as can be, since Khamenei isn’t exactly going to be present on this mortal coil for a whole lot longer.
This is why the situation is so fraught with peril: some folks here on the left believe that bad wars are started by incompetent US presidents with a hidden agenda. Bad wars also get started when various sides start painting themselves into corners, leaving them no ways to de-escalate without losing face, and we end up with people being killed for reasons that nobody actually wanted.
That’s why I’m so aghast that the sympathy for Iranian aggression/reaction/whatever you want to call it is so short-sighted and dangerous: everyone should be able to see that both the idiot Trump and the idiot Khamenei (or perhaps his underlings, hard to tell) are rapidly cutting off their options to de-escalate, and that’s a terrible, terrible thing that needs to be reversed.
Eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
A mind boggling boondoggle was Iraq; aye.
I would encourage you to learn more about the history of US-Iranian interactions if you want to understand the current situation more.
I would also encourage you to wait until you have actual information before you make decisions, but you’ve clearly already gone beyond that and seem quite comfortable, smug even, about it.
Good luck with that.
Says the guy who denies the the US and Iran have been trading shots at each other.
I disagree with the characterization. “Punching back” is not the same as “punching” and in the Iranians eyes, they have only ever been punching back. The US has been punching Iran since 1953. Why is it so hard to understand that someone would punch back?
In this context, would you assert that the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing was a defensible thing for Iran to sponsor?
What you fundamentally and repeatedly fail – refuse – to acknowledge is that not attacking a Japanese tanker will not fundamentally change Iran’s situation, which is that the U.S. is applying crushing sanctions in a prelude to regime change. Japan and other countries opposed the U.S. withdrawal from the anti-nuclear agreement, and the U.S. did it anyway. Moreover, many countries have tried to avoid getting involved on the side of the US but the US still threatens them with sanctions if they don’t. From their point of view, why not just start making the U.S. and every country helping them cripple their economy feel a little pain in return. That’s why I said, if Iran is under the impression that the US and allies are trying to destabilize their economy and their regime, then why would anyone not expect them to use the leverage they have to do the same in return?
Where do you get the idea that anyone here isn’t opposed to Iranian aggression? Nobody here (to my knowledge anyway) has attempted to make the argument that Iran is justified in attacking tankers or attacking the Navy in international waters - I don’t know where you keep getting that idea. It’s a pretty binary conclusion. No, what I’m saying - and I think what others of a like mind are also saying - is that it’s understandable that Iran would do this. I disagree that you can dismiss the relative power differential as well, as you seem inclined to do. If the US were a relatively powerful country that wanted to impose its own trade sanctions and forbid US companies from doing business with Iran, that would be one thing. But the US is essentially imposing a regime of global sanctions, and again, there’s that part about having ZERO diplomatic presence in the White House and having foreign policy administered by people on record as having a goal of Iranian regime change. You can dismiss that all you want, but that’s not a position most people worldwide are going to take seriously.
It’s not sympathizing with Iran as much as empathizing and understanding their situation, and understanding how they might interpret our behavior. Empathizing is not appeasement; it’s how you begin negotiations and diplomacy in earnest.
I don’t think we really are - I’m not saying they’re *right *to do it or that it’s the best course of action or whatever ; I’m just trying to see things from their subjective POV.
I admit I don’t recall seeing you, Bo, Dibble, or a few other of the participants saying anything that would come across as a condemnation of Iran attacking the Japanese tanker etc. In general, I’ve seen long lectures of how if any of us were in Iran’s shoes, we’d be doing the same thing (or something like that).
Was there a condemnation that I have missed? Or do you oppose it? Because when I’ve posted it’s a stupid and dangerous thing to do, I haven’t seen many people agree with that, other than Tamerlane.
I think understanding the POV of the other party is the starting point for negotiations. Empathizing means not only understanding, but sharing the feelings of another. I do not share the feelings that Iran should blow up things.