Discussion in 'Current Affairs & Debate' started by Mugatu, Jan 3, 2020.
Watch Trump start a fucking war...
So we're all fucked
Yet another reason to ignore the news for the next five years and pretend that none of it is happening
Pass me the opiates and liquor would you @Shirley
COMING RIGHT UP
The US embassy in Iraq has urged all US citizens to leave
Shamelessly stolen from HIGNFY on facebook...
I actually cannot deal with the news today, what with Twitter screaming WORLD WAR 3, Australia turning into an inferno and Dominic Cummings posting a BIZARRE JOB ADVERT > https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-calls-for-weirdos-and-misfits-for-no-10-jobs
It really is TOO DEPRESSING FOR WORDS
This is so fucking brazen. Was something like this on the cards? I know there was stuff about the tankers being held but this seems like a very conscious acceleration.
I did see a Tweet suggesting that Trump got the idea from Bill Clinton, who also got the missiles out after he was impeached.
He's not even original.
Also, hand-wringers, remember when it was Hillary who was the warmonger? Huh.
I'll happily accept that she wouldn't have gone into Iran, and the idea that Trump is anti-war in any meaningful way is laughable at this point, but Hillary would absolutely have been more hawkish on Russia, Syria and Venezuela.
She's as fully-paid a subscriber to the rotten American foreign policy consensus as Trump and his advisors. It isn't hand-wringing to point out her destructive record as Secretary of State, and she shouldn't get a pass for opposing one incredibly dumb war.
Yeah, Trump or Hilary, the actual problem is the US
The actual problem is geopoilitics and human nature. If it wasn’t the US it would have been someone else.
Well, definitely. Hard agree there. But in the context of US elections, we have to understand that American imperialism is the issue here (just as the imperialism of other states is also destabilising our world right now)
The US just doesn't know how not to invade a place, or assassinate a political/military figure or otherwise leave another nation alone.
Yes, they’ve been really terrible at it, but partly due to their own democratic values (and moral dilemma) and internal political issues. An authoritarian superpower (like China or Iran) with the US’ military and economic capabilities and dominance would have went all in, without any regard to public opinion and the likes.
This feels significant enough to merit its own thread.
I wonder if he will use this to postpone the election.
But actually, we have no idea how a country like Iran would respond, given its very existence as a Islamic Republic (in its current form) is a result of US intervention.
Well at least if WWIII happens it will be over the death of someone pretty bad
Well the Iranian regime would hardly take into consideration which state enabled its existence?
Anyway, nothing would really come out of this other than the poor Iraqis getting fucked over again.
No, my point is different. You say that an authoritarian Iran would do worse; I'm saying that Iran's authoritarian turn did not happen by itself - it is a direct consequence of US intervention.
Must say I’m thrilled that there’s a fresh and exciting war around the corner. That’ll certainly bring the nation together again and I’m busily crafting a WW3 appliqué to sew onto my wet look catsuit in preparation for the bloodshed
Yeah but what does that have to do with what I’m talking about. Iran was just an example; see also Nazi Germany or Japanese Empire.
Blanket statements about how a nation would or would not behave prove useless unless you try to understand why a nation does what it does. Iran doesn't have the same motivations as the US, for example. Not all States see hegemony as their only way of survival.
No but superpowers do, unless they don’t want to remain so.
Also the motivation of the current Iranian regime is to be the dominant power in the Middle east, to defeat Saudi arabia (both as a regional power and as the leader of Islam) and to annihilate Israel. They’re hardly a seclusive, peaceful country that is only acting in defence.
Not saying that the rest are innocent and peaceful, but my point is that everyone is an asshole (and always blaming everything on the US is a bit simple).
But why is Iran even in this competition with Saudi anyway? Cos one has western backing and one doesn't, cos one was chosen and one wasn't, cos one was cultivated as the centre of the Muslim world and one wasn't. And let's not forget that the Saudi regime holds Shia Muslims in contempt. So whilst I'd never claim that Iran is peaceful and tolerant whatever - the nation state IS nearly always violent - I sort of reject the prisms that the story of thr Middle East is always told.
I’m not being exclusively anti-Iran; in my own personal opinion, I think the US should have backed Iran against the Gulf states because the latter are even worse. But to say that Iran and Saudi arabia are arch enemies only because of the West is a bit rich, don’t you think?
Is it a recent thing that world leaders take to Twitter to rile each other up? Seeing Trump tweet things they affect the whole world makes me cringe.
I didn't say that. I mentioned how anti-Shia wahhabism is. But I do think the West has played a role in fuelling it over the last 100 years.
I guess everyone is over this already,
I’m quite looking forward to potential large-scale cyber attacks on the US, which could be a giggle
Not where @Phoenix lives, though (he adds hastily, noticing that he’s looking at the thread). Or is he in Canada?
"Iran launches ballistic missile attack on Iraqi airbase where US troops are stationed" https://twitter.com/i/events/1214703703401197568