Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[iceaura]

The only territories Israel is currently looking to "expand" into are the same territories it's been occupying since 1967, which were both previously owned by hostile powers who refused to negotiate peace or accept the UN's rulings on Israel's right to exist.

Israel has been the main obstacle to such negotiations, apparently because it wants to continue expanding - new settlements are being built as we speak.

The only border Israel hasn't committed to recognizing is the one between the West Bank and Israel proper.

And the one between Israel and the Golan Heights, apparently.

And Syria already violated international law prior to 1967 by attempting to divert the flow of that water away from Israel.

What happened fifty years ago does not write a blank check for Israel into the indefinite future - unless you want to revisit Israel's behavior on a similar time frame? Maybe we could talk about car bombs and other international terrorism, directly involving Netanyahu in the past. Or maybe this, more recent: https://www.npr.org/2018/08/07/6364...cket-scientist-some-are-blaming-israeli-intel
Or maybe we could talk about Israel's handling of the Palestinian's water supply.

it is not, however, a mass-murdering expansionist occupying and ethnically cleansing millions of square kilometres of stolen land

True - only crowd murdering expansion, involving mere hundreds of square kilometres of ethnically cleansed land, is involved. Israel is the smallest nuclear power, with the most local ambitions, unless I have overlooked someone.

occupying and ethnically cleansing millions of square kilometres of stolen land like the US, Russia, China and Iran all do

Much as one hates to even attempt this: neither the US nor Iran has occupied and ethnically cleansed any large region of the planet in a long time, and Iran has done little in the way of mass murder. Iran, in particular, given its situation, has been a remarkably restrained and peaceable nation - which may of course be mere prudence on their part.
- - - - -

My point is that I don't think anyone will take him seriously.

That would be best. But what if someone does?

 

[CptBork]

Israel has been the main obstacle to such negotiations, apparently because it wants to continue expanding - new settlements are being built as we speak.

I know (that it continues building settlements). I also know that most of the people who make a big fuss about it also unfortunately consider Tel Aviv and West Jerusalem to be settlements too, hence a stalemate which works to the advantage of people like Trump and Netanyahu who want the status quo.

And the one between Israel and the Golan Heights, apparently.

Israel has offered to concede the majority of the Golan Heights in various proposals dating back to the period of Hafez Assad. None of them were accepted mainly because it would mean an end to the Assad dynasty's vital support for Hezbollah in Lebanon.

What happened fifty years ago does not write a blank check for Israel into the indefinite future - unless you want to revisit Israel's behavior on a similar time frame? Maybe we could talk about car bombs and other international terrorism, directly involving Netanyahu in the past. Or maybe this, more recent: https://www.npr.org/2018/08/07/6364...cket-scientist-some-are-blaming-israeli-intel
Or maybe we could talk about Israel's handling of the Palestinian's water supply.

Maybe we should talk about the rocket scientist. The guy researched and developed WMD's for Assad, which have been used countless times with relative impunity. He is potentially responsible for thousands of deaths. International terrorism is when you intentionally target civilians for the purpose of effecting political or cultural change. You consider this an act of terrorism? How does it compare to blowing up hundreds of hospitals and schools with the coordinates already clearly marked by the UN, and bombing UN aid convoys?

True - only crowd murdering expansion, involving mere hundreds of square kilometres of ethnically cleansed land, is involved. Israel is the smallest nuclear power, with the most local ambitions, unless I have overlooked someone.

You overlooked everyone on the planet who finished their opponents off so there would be no one left to complain about all the stolen land and property 50+ years later. Maybe Israel should let the Palestinians run casinos as their primary income source.

Much as one hates to even attempt this: neither the US nor Iran has occupied and ethnically cleansed any large region of the planet in a long time, and Iran has done little in the way of mass murder. Iran, in particular, given its situation, has been a remarkably restrained and peaceable nation - which may of course be mere prudence on their part.

Yeah sure, if you ignore the 500,000+ deaths Iran just had a central role in creating in Syria, the decades of conflict and militancy beyond its borders, the ongoing shit it stirs in Iraq and Yemen, the attacks on American soldiers and Sunni civilians in Iraq prolonging the occupation, now Farsi-speaking Martians running around damaging oil tankers...

That would be best. But what if someone does?

What if someone does care? Why don't you tell us what difference you expect it to make with everything else going on in the world right now.

 

[iceaura]

You overlooked everyone on the planet who finished their opponents off so there would be no one left to complain about all the stolen land and property 50+ years later.

They weren't relevant.

Maybe Israel should let the Palestinians run casinos as their primary income source.

That would be a large and radical step up from what Israel is doing, which is very bad.

Israel has offered to concede the majority of the Golan Heights in various proposals dating back to the period of Hafez Assad

Totally unnecessary, and therefore questionably motivated from jump (before those offers have even been examined - afterwards, they have been commonly dismissed by neutral observers as obvious ploys); Israel is in complete control of the situation. All it would have to do is abide by the UN rulings, unilaterally.

I also know that most of the people who make a big fuss about it also unfortunately consider Tel Aviv and West Jerusalem to be settlements too, hence a stalemate which works to the advantage of people like Trump and Netanyahu who want the status quo.

? There's no "stalemate" - Israel won, and controls.
Netanyahu wants to expand Israel yet more (the "status quo" of which you speak is continual Israeli expansion and oppression and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians). He also wants to avoid being brought up in the Hague on various charges. Trump approves of all that - it's strong manly behavior, and leads to lucrative hotel and branding deals for Trump.
It will end badly. These guys are fuckups. A Netanyahu made bolder by Trump will fuck up worse in consequence, for starters - and Israel is already headed for a cliff.

Yeah sure, if you ignore the 500,000+ deaths Iran just had a central role in creating in Syria

Not central. Derivative. Secondary.
Turkey, the US, Russia, and Israel have sent soldiers and pilots and drones to kill people and make refugees in Syria. The bombings and dronings of civilians have had special effect. The Iranian air force is dropping bombs on nobody, Iran is expanding nowhere, and its more prudent and better motivated behavior is highlighted by the fact that it faces enemies who are stationing combat ready armed forces on its borders, breaking treaties, supporting terrorist attacks, and threatening it with nuclear weapons. Iran is under siege, and not of its own arranging - it has more latitude, morally and ethically, than its attackers.

Meanwhile, even on the indirect: Saudi Arabia has played - or at least attempted to play - a bigger role than Iran in supporting horrible terrorist proxies in Syria - as has the US, and Russia, and possibly even Qatar. And in addition to the Saudi role in auxiliary matters of regional business, and while Trump's lame bolstering of Netanyahu gets the attention of "latest embarrassment",

Netanyahu's ability and apparent willingness to handle some of the dirty work around Trump Familia business dealings involving Yemen and Qatar and so forth is not to be overlooked when assessing America's future in Syria.

He doesn't respect President Bone Spurs personally, of course - he's a veteran of actual war, he earned his positions from which he could enrich or empower himself via corruption and con - but game knows game.

 

[CptBork]

They weren't relevant.

They were entirely relevant. The only difference between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the ones fought in Europe and just about every other region of the planet over the last century, is that this conflict remains frozen without a clear victor. Granted Israel has full military control of the situation and the Palestinians at its mercy, but Israel for the time being remains constricted by international pressure and (one would hope) a sense of moral decency.

That would be a large and radical step up from what Israel is doing, which is very bad.

And if it were to do so, it shouldn't be judged any more harshly than everyone else who has stolen something from a weaker party and continues to refuse returning it to whatever remains of the rightful owners. Don't mistake this as an endorsement of Israel's settlement activities, it's simply about glass houses and stones.

Totally unnecessary, and therefore questionably motivated from jump (before those offers have even been examined - afterwards, they have been commonly dismissed by neutral observers as obvious ploys); Israel is in complete control of the situation. All it would have to do is abide by the UN rulings, unilaterally.

I guess then you never learned about the history between Netanyahu and Hafez Assad negotiating peace and the return of the Golan back in the 1990's. A deal was done and ready to be signed, Israel's reward for conceding was going to be a massive multibillion-dollar weapons gift from the US, then Hafez conveniently died. I think given subsequent developments in the region, Netanyahu is now very glad that he didn't make that deal.

If the Russo-Iranian imposed regime in Syria has historically refused to recognize international law and negotiate a peaceful end to its conflict with Israel, including a complete halt to its financial and military support for radical Shia Lebanese terrorists, not to mention violating international laws by carpet bombing and dropping weapons of mass destruction on its own cities, why would you want Israel to be stupid and drop its pants by unilaterally handing back a piece of territory which is vital to guarding its basic existential security?

If Israel hands the entirety of the Golan back without any concessions from Assad, what's in it for them exactly? Are folks like pjdude going to come out of the woodwork and call it a positive step which helps legitimize Israel's right to self-determination? Will Russia and Iran pack up and leave?

? There's no "stalemate" - Israel won, and controls.
Netanyahu wants to expand Israel yet more (the "status quo" of which you speak is continual Israeli expansion and oppression and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians). He also wants to avoid being brought up in the Hague on various charges. Trump approves of all that - it's strong manly behavior, and leads to lucrative hotel and branding deals for Trump.
It will end badly. These guys are fuckups. A Netanyahu made bolder by Trump will fuck up worse in consequence, for starters - and Israel is already headed for a cliff.

I don't know what you mean by "Israel is already headed for a cliff", but calling someone a criminal for the crime of being born in Israel and not immediately burning all their personal possessions in shame, calling for collective punishment that refuses to discriminate between settlers and people who don't want anything to do with them, what do you suppose Israel's harshest critics are trying to achieve with these provocations? Do you suppose they think less people will vote for guys like Netanyahu and Trump if they wave around existential threats all the time?

Not central. Derivative. Secondary.

Bullshit, Assad would have been hanging from a flagpole by his balls if Iran hadn't stepped in with its militias almost from the very beginning. There wouldn't have been time for a Russian intervention, sarin gas, barrel bombs, mass arrest-executions, hundreds of thousands of deaths (conservative estimate) and 12 million or so first-generation refugees.

Turkey, the US, Russia, and Israel have sent soldiers and pilots and drones to kill people and make refugees in Syria. The bombings and dronings of civilians have had special effect.

The number of civilians dying in Syria due to Russian activity - plus Syrian army activity enabled only by Russian training, weapons, financing and general support - is orders of magnitude higher than anything created by the US an Israel, indeed greater than all the combined military and civilian deaths caused by Israel in all of modern history. Unless you want to blame Facebook for enabling the uprising to organize itself in the first place, why don't you try placing some of the blame on the people dropping bombs on other people for disagreeing with Schmelzer's political views?

The Iranian air force is dropping bombs on nobody

They don't need to, that's Russia's job.

Iran is expanding nowhere

Yemen might be a shithole but that doesn't make it "nowhere". Also WTF are they still doing in Iraq now that ISIS is gone, what are they still doing in Syria now that Assad has declared victory, what have their officers and paid operatives been doing in Lebanon for the last 40 years? What of all the speeches about the Global Islamic Revolution?

... and its more prudent and better motivated behavior is highlighted by the fact that it faces enemies who are stationing combat ready armed forces on its borders, breaking treaties, supporting terrorist attacks, and threatening it with nuclear weapons. Iran is under siege, and not of its own arranging - it has more latitude, morally and ethically, than its attackers.

It's not under fricking siege. If Japan wants to buy Iranian oil, the US isn't going to go bomb their tankers, although apparently Iran feels entitled to when Japan switches to a different supplier. "I won't do business with anyone who does business with anyone who does business with you" is neither illegal nor an act of war. Since America is apparently the devil and Iran's mullahs are the saviours of global civilization, why doesn't Iran try starving America into bankruptcy instead, perhaps by choking off the supply of carpets, dates and figs for all of America's friends?

Meanwhile, even on the indirect: Saudi Arabia has played - or at least attempted to play - a bigger role than Iran in supporting horrible terrorist proxies in Syria - as has the US, and Russia, and possibly even Qatar.

Where the hell did you learn how to count? Iran has over 100,000 militant proxies in Syria, the vast majority of them are Shia foreigners, and none of them would be able to operate there without Iranian command and logistics. It is not a frigging country under siege, they assassinated a former Lebanese prime minister who barely had time to dust off his jacket after leaving office.

Netanyahu's ability and apparent willingness to handle some of the dirty work around Trump Familia business dealings involving Yemen and Qatar and so forth is not to be overlooked when assessing America's future in Syria.

Great, and when it finally comes time for Netanyahu and Trump to face their big reckoning, please don't go attacking all the coffee-drinking hipsters in Tel Aviv who never supported them.

 

[iceaura]

Yemen might be a shithole but that doesn't make it "nowhere". Also WTF are they still doing in Iraq now that ISIS is gone, what are they still doing in Syria now that Assad has declared victory, what have their officers and paid operatives been doing in Lebanon for the last 40 years?

Yemen has not become a part of Iran, de facto or otherwise. Neither has Iraq. Neither has any part of Syria. Iran is the same size now it has been since WWII.
Some of what Iranian proxies are doing in the nations bordering Iran is obvious - Iran is under siege, and wants as much buffer as it can get. It has been invaded, with US and Israeli backing, within the adult memory of many of its leaders. It is being threatened now, with invasion.

"I won't do business with anyone who does business with anyone who does business with you" is neither illegal nor an act of war

What the US has been doing to Iran, as well as threatening Iran with, includes acts of war.

Where the hell did you learn how to count? Iran has over 100,000 militant proxies in Syria, the vast majority of them are Shia foreigners, and none of them would be able to operate there without Iranian command and logistics.

And?

Bullshit, Assad would have been hanging from a flagpole by his balls if Iran hadn't stepped in with its militias almost from the very beginning.

Almost.
At that very beginning, and before, it wasn't Iran starting things on its own borders and neighbors. And it wasn't Facebook, either.

Since America is apparently the devil and Iran's mullahs are the saviours of global civilization, why doesn't Iran try starving America into bankruptcy instead, perhaps by choking off the supply of carpets, dates and figs for all of America's friends?

You are now babbling - as well as admitting the basic situation, which is this: Iran has been under attack, under sanction and siege and economic blockade, with foreign armies gathered on its borders and foreign terrorists inside them and military threats a constant presence, ever since it overthrew its foreign power installed dictator and restored itself to government by Iranian choice.

Great, and when it finally comes time for Netanyahu and Trump to face their big reckoning, please don't go attacking all the coffee-drinking hipsters in Tel Aviv who never supported them.

It won't be me, or anyone supported by me, who does the attacking of Israel. Israel has cornered itself, authored its own demise.

 

[CptBork]

Yemen has not become a part of Iran, de facto or otherwise. Neither has Iraq. Neither has any part of Syria. Iran is the same size now it has been since WWII.

Ok and Israel is smaller now than it was at the end of 1967 (after returning Sinai to Egypt), and hasn't seized any new territory since 1973 when the borders of its Golan holdings shifted a bit. You act like they just took the West Bank and Golan yesterday.

Some of what Iranian proxies are doing in the nations bordering Iran is obvious - Iran is under siege, and wants as much buffer as it can get. It has been invaded, with US and Israeli backing, within the adult memory of many of its leaders. It is being threatened now, with invasion.

Are you trying to argue that Iran is entitled to intervene in Yemen by supporting the Houthis and Ali Abdullah Saleh against the elected government that overthrew him?

What the US has been doing to Iran, as well as threatening Iran with, includes acts of war.

Sending terrorists to bomb American troops and Iraqi Sunnis is a bigger act of war than anything I've seen the US do to Iran on Iranian soil. You might argue about supporting Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, but that was when he was close to being completely overrun and the Ayatollahs were demanding that a mullah be installed in Baghdad. Even if you consider that an act of war, that was 30 years ago, bud.

And?

So that's basically equal or greater than the number of people fighting in the whole rebellion. Which means that Iran plays and has played a bigger role in that genocide than all of the rebel backers combined. Would you like me to explain fractions to you next, or should we start with the multiplication tables?

Almost.
At that very beginning, and before, it wasn't Iran starting things on its own borders and neighbors. And it wasn't Facebook, either.

Telling people that they have a right to overthrow medieval dictators seems like a morally good thing to do, but maybe that's just me. Iran says all the time that our governments don't deserve to exist because they weren't elected by Allah, that doesn't trigger mass retaliation bombings in the streets of Tehran. Next you're going to tell me that Trump calling someone fat is an act of war. Or maybe you think it's the Mossad's fault that Syrians don't like medieval dictators.

You are now babbling - as well as admitting the basic situation, which is this: Iran has been under attack, under sanction and siege and economic blockade, with foreign armies gathered on its borders and foreign terrorists inside them and military threats a constant presence, ever since it overthrew its foreign power installed dictator and restored itself to government by Iranian choice.

If Iranians had a choice who to vote for, opposition politicians wouldn't be banned from running when they become too popular. Maybe you don't see it, but I find some pretty juicy irony in a country's leaders calling other countries evil and then crying when those countries stop trading with them and supplying them with goods that require post-19th century technology to be developed domestically from scratch.

It won't be me, or anyone supported by me, who does the attacking of Israel. Israel has cornered itself, authored its own demise.

Germany wiped out half the global Jewish population and killed tens of millions of Soviet citizens. Lo and behold, they still have a country, and they didn't have to drop a single nuke to protect it. I think Israel will be alright for the time being, much better off in fact if they lost the blank cheque signed by US evangelicals.

 

[sculptor]

one wonders
How much is Israel and/or Saudi Arabia paying Trump to attack Iran?

 

[CptBork]

one wonders
How much is Israel and/or Saudi Arabia paying Trump to attack Iran?

Clearly nowhere near as much as Russia pays him to leave Assad alone.

 

[iceaura]

So that's basically equal or greater than the number of people fighting in the whole rebellion. Which means that Iran plays and has played a bigger role in that genocide than all of the rebel backers combined.

No, it doesn't.

Ok and Israel is smaller now than it was at the end of 1967 (after returning Sinai to Egypt), and hasn't seized any new territory since 1973 when the borders of its Golan holdings shifted a bit. You act like they just took the West Bank and Golan yesterday.

You overlook the settlements. https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2017/50-years-illegal-settlements/index.html

Sending terrorists to bomb American troops and Iraqi Sunnis is a bigger act of war than anything I've seen the US do to Iran on Iranian soil.

Apples to apples:
It was the Saudis who sent terrorists to bomb American troops on American soil. At least, the bigger fraction was Saudis.
The Iraqis sent not only terrorists but their army, to bomb Iranians on Iranian soil.
The Americans supported terrorist operations from Iraq into Iran, also. That's part of what those American soldiers were doing in Iraq - those soldiers Iran attacked by proxy.
Meanwhile, blockading medical and public health supplies to a country living under threat of invasion is no trivial matter.

Maybe you don't see it, but I find some pretty juicy irony in a country's leaders calling other countries evil and then crying when those countries stop trading with them and supplying them with goods that require post-19th century technology to be developed domestically from scratch.

I don't see the Iranians complaining about the loss of imports from the US itself. As far as "evil" - considering the US treatment of Iran over the past few decades: are they wrong?

Are you trying to argue that Iran is entitled to intervene in Yemen by supporting the Houthis and Ali Abdullah Saleh against the elected government that overthrew him?

Nope. I'm saying they are well and understandably motivated. They have reason.
- -

 

[CptBork]

No, it doesn't.

Ok then explain to me how you evaluate "who is most responsible". If it's not the people with the most soldiers under their command killing the most people and settling Shia loyalists in former Sunni neighbourhoods, what exactly are your criteria?

You overlook the settlements. https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2017/50-years-illegal-settlements/index.html

Still much smaller and less valuable than the areas Israel gave back to Egypt for peace and recognition, and again no new territory is being claimed that hasn't already been claimed and disputed for the last 50 years. There are presently no claims beyond the West Bank and Golan. There are and always have been far worse things going on in the world, being conducted by other peoples and civilizations. I've tried arguing with Jews and Israelis about this stuff many times in the past, and until I can deliver them some kind of guarantee that ending the West Bank dispute constitutes an end to the entire Palestinian military conflict, they're not going to budge even if it comes down to nuclear war.

Apples to apples:
It was the Saudis who sent terrorists to bomb American troops on American soil. At least, the bigger fraction was Saudis.

I never said the Saudis don't deserve a reckoning of their own. I was really excited to see MBS hanging out to dry after the Khashoggi affair and disappointed to see Trump coming to his rescue. If it were up to me I'd just put Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran in a room together and lock them in until they either kill each other, make peace, or at least one of these parties is no longer interested in enslaving and exterminating the others and can be free to leave the room.

The Iraqis sent not only terrorists but their army, to bomb Iranians on Iranian soil.

America wasn't responsible for every little thing Saddam chose to do at the outset, they got involved once he was on the retreat, and Iran received US assistance in that war too so it would be hypocrisy for them to complain. I do however recognize the irony in Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand, selling him chemical weapon technologies and then declaring war on him for having chemical weapons.

The Americans supported terrorist operations from Iraq into Iran, also. That's part of what those American soldiers were doing in Iraq - those soldiers Iran attacked by proxy.

Can you cite some examples of such terrorist operations and some evidence they were connected to US soldiers in Iraq? If you believe that Palestinians have a right to fight for their independence (which I actually do, provided they're fighting for their own independence on their own legally recognized territory and not to exterminate someone else), then the Kurds in their own historic lands have such a right too.

Meanwhile, blockading medical and public health supplies to a country living under threat of invasion is no trivial matter.

Oh you mean like what Iran does whenever it takes over a Sunni territory in Syria, and what the Houthis do when the people in their territories rebel? I'm unaware of the US blocking any supplies of anything to or from Iran, other than the threat of sanctions for purchasing their oil and selling them nukes.

I don't see the Iranians complaining about the loss of imports from the US itself.

Why are they be desperate to trade with and enrich Satan's heathen friends? If you hate a civilization, then you should hate everything they and their friends provide for you.

As far as "evil" - considering the US treatment of Iran over the past few decades: are they wrong?

I don't see millions of Americans being rallied into the streets screaming for the deaths of rival civilizations. Yes America has bullied Iran, and Iran has bullied smaller people in turn, none of it justifies the mass murder Iran is participating in at present, which is of a greater scale than anything directly caused by the US in Iraq or anywhere else in the middle east throughout history.

Nope. I'm saying they are well and understandably motivated. They have reason.
- -

Hitler had reasons to feel threatened too and some of his grievances were perfectly legit, but I don't think he should have been appeased regardless.

 

[iceaura]

Hitler had reasons to feel threatened too and some of his grievances were perfectly legit, but I don't think he should have been appeased regardless.

At which point we know where the discussion has come to rest.

Why are they be desperate to trade with and enrich Satan's heathen friends?

Same reasons as anyone else who wants to trade across national borders - Iran has been a trading center for centuries.

I'm unaware of the US blocking any supplies of anything to or from Iran, other than the threat of sanctions for purchasing their oil and selling them nukes.

You were unaware of the US role in blocking Iranian access to international banking and finance, sequestration of Iranian assets, and so forth, for decades now. Really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_sanctions_against_Iran

After the election of Iranian reformist President Mohammad Khatami in 1997, President Clinton eased sanctions on Iran. In 2000 the Khatami government managed to reduce the sanctions for some items like pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, caviar and Persian rugs.- - - -
In February 2004, during the final year of Khatami's presidency, the U.S. Department of the Treasury ruled against editing or publishing scientific manuscripts from Iran, and stated that U.S. scientists collaborating with Iranians could be prosecuted.

I don't see millions of Americans being rallied into the streets screaming for the deaths of rival civilizations.

America has not spent the past thirty years surrounded by the military forces of more powerful enemies openly threatening invasion and war, openly threatening anyone who comes to its aid, running terrorists into its territory, crippling its economy and politics, and imposing various hardships and miseries on its citizens - all as a reaction to a perfectly legitimate and well motivated defiance of colonial imposition.
And even so, we have seen many thousands of Americans, tens of thousands, rallied into stadiums and speaking halls, "screaming for the deaths of other people's civilizations". At least, I have.

If you hate a civilization, then you should hate everything they and their friends provide for you.

? Hardly follows, especially when talking about people subjected to colonial oppressions and dependencies and the like.
Besides, as noted: Iranians have the reputation of being among the most congenial of people in the region for Americans - Iran seems to be America's natural ally in the Middle East and Central Asia.

I've tried arguing with Jews and Israelis about this stuff many times in the past, and until I can deliver them some kind of guarantee that ending the West Bank dispute constitutes an end to the entire Palestinian military conflict, they're not going to budge even if it comes down to nuclear war.

As noted - they've cornered themselves. They've set up a genuine disaster.

 

[CptBork]

At which point we know where the discussion has come to rest.

I don't quite liken Iran's mullahs to Hitler (thus far), but the point stands. Everyone has beefs, but there are appropriate ways to address them and inappropriate ways that will rightfully have others beefing at you instead.

Same reasons as anyone else who wants to trade across national borders - Iran has been a trading center for centuries.

The Iran you so fondly remember wasn't run by Ayatollahs.

You were unaware of the US role in blocking Iranian access to international banking and finance, sequestration of Iranian assets, and so forth, for decades now. Really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_sanctions_against_Iran

None of that breaks international law or constitutes an act of war. If British banks hold Iranian accounts and the US tells them to shut those accounts down or freeze them, Britain has the right to refuse if it wishes, and they won't be bombed in response (on the other hand, Hezbollah has no trouble bombing Lebanese banks that try to close their accounts). Iran has no legal authority over foreign banks, so they should find somewhere else to park their money where the banks prefer doing business with Iran rather than the US. If Iran has no American bank accounts to freeze, it's their own fault for creating an unattractive investment climate.

America has not spent the past thirty years surrounded by the military forces of more powerful enemies openly threatening invasion and war, openly threatening anyone who comes to its aid, running terrorists into its territory, crippling its economy and politics, and imposing various hardships and miseries on its citizens - all as a reaction to a perfectly legitimate and well motivated defiance of colonial imposition.

Does that same logic apply to Israel against all the Muslim neighbours who've spent centuries colonizing it and wish to do so again?

And even so, we have seen many thousands of Americans, tens of thousands, rallied into stadiums and speaking halls, "screaming for the deaths of other people's civilizations". At least, I have.

Not comparable to having an annual festival day where all the acolytes assemble to blame Americans and Jews for all their personal shortcomings and call for their annihilation while putting missiles on parade.

? Hardly follows, especially when talking about people subjected to colonial oppressions and dependencies and the like.

Like I say, I feel Iran has some legitimate grievances when it comes to issues such as past support for the Shah. Nevertheless, the "Islamic revolutionary" regime specifically has caused more misery for people outside Iran than the US has caused for them, and it's not justifiable- this regime isn't owed anything.

Besides, as noted: Iranians have the reputation of being among the most congenial of people in the region for Americans - Iran seems to be America's natural ally in the Middle East and Central Asia.

The issue isn't with the Iranians as a people, it's with the dictatorship that refuses to let them freely speak out, organize, oppose, and which distracts them by creating mass destruction outside Iran's borders. Their actions in Iraq, Syria and Yemen since Obama took office belie all the excuses that would have been bandied about in their defense in years prior, when the unacceptable threats they were making were mostly vacuous.

As noted - they've cornered themselves. They've set up a genuine disaster.

It's a frustrating issue to get involved in, and the ultimate conclusion I keep settling on when I think about or discuss it is that neither side is currently interested in a lasting peace based on the traditional principles of international law which justify the existence of everyone else's nations. In Israel's defense, the present state of the international dialogue gives them no reason to believe their security or diplomatic situation will improve by giving up the West Bank, as it seems all of the remaining territory will be demanded shortly thereafter. I'm sure they will prefer whatever "disaster" might come from continued occupation or escalation to the potential consequences of appeasing enemies, spending copious amounts of money to resettle the settlers or provide fair compensatory territory, only to whet their appetite for even more.

 

[iceaura]

The Iran you so fondly remember wasn't run by Ayatollahs.

Remember?
Anyway: Sounds good. Time for diplomacy.

The issue isn't with the Iranians as a people, it's with the dictatorship that refuses to let them freely speak out, organize, oppose, and which distracts them by creating mass destruction outside Iran's borders

Well then the diplomacy has been screwed up - time for improvements.
Meanwhile, no one would be surprised to find that the Iranians - having seen and felt what can happen when the US has a country in its sights - view favorably the exporting of war to border nations. It's not a "distraction", for them.

Btw: describing the Iranian contributions to the violence on their borders as "mass destruction" might be best left to a non-American - in simple decency.

. If Iran has no American bank accounts to freeze, it's their own fault for creating an unattractive investment climate.

We are now entering the realm of complete bullshit, on top of indecency.

None of that breaks international law or constitutes an act of war.

Some of it does. The medical stuff, in particular - and the financial stuff, on occasion.
Recall that all this started and was kept going with the US violating international law and engaging in acts of war, flagrantly and obviously.

Not comparable to having an annual festival day where all the acolytes assemble to blame Americans and Jews for all their personal shortcomings and call for their annihilation while putting missiles on parade.

Sounds comparable, off hand. Certainly familiar.

I'm sure they will prefer whatever "disaster" might come from continued occupation or escalation to the potential consequences of appeasing enemies, spending copious amounts of money to resettle the settlers or provide fair compensatory territory, only to whet their appetite for even more.

No need to put "disaster" in quotes - otherwise, that description of what it feels like to corner oneself, of the rationalizations involved in backing one's country off a cliff, seems plausible to me. What the Israelis are thinking is going to be of historical interest, no doubt - worth documenting.

 

[CptBork]

Remember?
Anyway: Sounds good. Time for diplomacy.

Sure, and sanctions are the only non-violent way I can think of that will ultimately compel the Ayatollahs to negotiate. Their paid militias are already feeling the cash crunch along with their client in Syria, so it's clearly having an effect.

Well then the diplomacy has been screwed up - time for improvements.
Meanwhile, no one would be surprised to find that the Iranians - having seen and felt what can happen when the US has a country in its sights - view favorably the exporting of war to border nations. It's not a "distraction", for them.

That logic doesn't in any way justify what Iran has been doing to export Shiite militarism in Yemen, Iraq and Syria, which only escalated after the US left Iraq. They are not reacting to foreign war exports with these activities, they've been exporting their own wars since 1979.

Btw: describing the Iranian contributions to the violence on their borders as "mass destruction" might be best left to a non-American - in simple decency.

I'm Canadian and have no problem calling the murder of hundreds of thousands "mass destruction", and that doesn't include those who died from the chemical weapons used by the regime Iran prevented from collapsing. Lebanese, Iraqis, Syrians and Yemenis aren't Americans, you can't rationally say "Iran is entitled to kill ____ people because America did something 40 years ago". Even from 2000 onward, more human beings have died at the hands of Iranian militias than American and allied troops. The brutality they display is truly shocking, cutting off the testicles of old men in villages they just captured and then posting this stuff on Youtube, are you telling me that's Iranian self-defense against American imperialism? Also Lebanon and Syria don't share a border with Iran, not sure why you seem to think they do.

We are now entering the realm of complete bullshit, on top of indecency.

Persia has a long history of empire going back to when Rome was just a farming community. They've had all the time in the universe to establish themselves as superpowers, yet for some reason there's no Mahmoud Edison these days inventing things and making America cry that it's being prevented from buying Iranian technological goods. They have a religious and cultural barrier against modern progress, and that's why their economy hits the skids whenever America stops doing business with their circles. The Ayatollahs owe an explanation to the masses as to why Allah's chosen government representatives are so pathetic when it comes to running a functional country despite all the oil they were selling up until recently. Other countries have been blown up and rebuilt multiple times over and still prosper more than Iran despite not having lucrative resources to poke out of the ground.

Some of it does. The medical stuff, in particular - and the financial stuff, on occasion.
Recall that all this started and was kept going with the US violating international law and engaging in acts of war, flagrantly and obviously.

I'm skimming the article you linked and haven't noticed anything about sanctions on medical supplies. Can you please cite more details?

Sounds comparable, off hand. Certainly familiar.

I don't know if you're comparing Al Quds day to what AIPAC does or if you have some other militant racist gathering in mind like a KKK rally. I don't hear AIPAC calling for the entire people of Iran to be exterminated and have their country handed over to colonists from somewhere else, but that's what Al Quds day is all about.

No need to put "disaster" in quotes - otherwise, that description of what it feels like to corner oneself, of the rationalizations involved in backing one's country off a cliff, seems plausible to me. What the Israelis are thinking is going to be of historical interest, no doubt - worth documenting.

And I'm sure the Israelis will be happy to document it for you in 50 years when they either have self-determination or a continuation of the status quo, with or without foreign aid.

 

[iceaura]

I don't know if you're comparing Al Quds day to what AIPAC does or if you have some other militant racist gathering in mind like a KKK rally.

Trump rally will do. Or W rally - although people seem to have forgotten. Not the only venue, of course.

I'm skimming the article you linked and haven't noticed anything about sanctions on medical supplies

The word "pharmaceuticals" - in the quote, right there on the thread - would be your first clue.

I'm Canadian and have no problem calling the murder of hundreds of thousands "mass destruction", and that doesn't include those who died from the chemical weapons used by the regime Iran prevented from collapsing.

Ok. Canadians can overlook the elephant without shame.

Sure, and sanctions are the only non-violent way I can think of that will ultimately compel the Ayatollahs to negotiate.

Sanctions are not exactly "nonviolent".
Meanwhile: They have negotiated. They have signed treaties, made agreements. The US has been the obstacle to negotiations, so far. And Israel.

Even from 2000 onward, more human beings have died at the hands of Iranian militias than American and allied troops.

Apples to apples - and an odd count:
America has the blood of how many Iraqis on its hands?

The Ayatollahs owe an explanation to the masses as to why Allah's chosen government representatives are so pathetic when it comes to running a functional country despite all the oil they were selling up until recently. Other countries have been blown up and rebuilt multiple times over and still prosper more than Iran despite not having lucrative resources to poke out of the ground.

The curse of having oil that America wants to control has few clearer examples.

 

[CptBork]

Trump rally will do. Or W rally - although people seem to have forgotten. Not the only venue, of course.

Do they call for the extermination of the Iranian people so their country can be handed back to the Greeks?

The word "pharmaceuticals" - in the quote, right there on the thread - would be your first clue.

That was nearly 20 years ago, and Clinton dropped them. I thought you were talking about something recent. Plus there's nothing illegal about the US blocking its own medical companies from exporting whatever the US government doesn't want them to export, that's not a "blockade". It might not be nice, it might not be productive, but it's not an act of war or a violation of international law. Physically blocking Iran from receiving something legal from a willing foreign trade partner would be an act of war, not sanctions and laws governing what American companies can export and to whom.

Ok. Canadians can overlook the elephant without shame.

I'm not overlooking the elephant, I'm trying to point out to you that there's an entire zoo you seem to not be noticing.

Sanctions are not exactly "nonviolent".

Oh so not letting you into the treehouse club is now an act of violence? The only people who experience violence as a consequence of sanctions are the Americans led away in cuffs for doing business with sanctioned parties, and sanctioned foreigners who choose to travel to the US thinking they're exempt from its laws.

Meanwhile: They have negotiated. They have signed treaties, made agreements. The US has been the obstacle to negotiations, so far. And Israel.

They negotiated only because Obama implemented sanctions, and the sanctions were nowhere nearly tough enough to have the desired results. There's no point to making a deal which boosts Iran's economy and leaves it in a stronger position to attain nukes when the deal expires, as compared to where it was at in the beginning, while also leaving it a free hand to spend tens of billions of dollars financing foreign militias and tyrants.

This is one issue where I agree with Trump, the deal Obama accepted stinks and he should have waited the Iranians out until they simply had no money left with which to cause regional chaos. No more sponsoring of any militias in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon, no more nuclear missile or warhead development, no more highly enriched uranium or plutonium. Until then, they can take all those US and Israeli flags they like to burn and have them on a stick with ketchup or babaganouj for lunch.

Apples to apples - and an odd count:
America has the blood of how many Iraqis on its hands?

I believe the standard estimates are in the 100,000-200,000 range, far less than the number of Iraqi deaths attributed to Sunni and Shiite militias. And then there's the death toll in Syria where Russia bombs and Iran cuts elderly civilians' balls off. When it comes to Syria at least, the US should be proud that it helped give people in Syria who wish for democracy a fighting chance to stand up to Assad and Putin, and that fight is still far from over, nor will it be forgotten by the next generation when it eventually rises up yet again.

The curse of having oil that America wants to control has few clearer examples.

Canada has oil and you guys won't even let us export most of it to you, I think there are other ancillary causes behind what happens in the middle east that go well beyond oil. I don't deny that the US, Britain, France, Russia and a lot of other foreign parties have messed around in the M.E. in highly disruptive and destructive ways, but so have many of the players situated in the M.E. itself, with genocides being conducted by the likes of Turkey and Iran even as we chat, every bit as unjust and disruptive as the Israeli settlement of West Bank communities.

 

[pjdude1219]

I said nothing about it being legal under international law, I said Trump recognizing it makes virtually no difference to its de facto status or anyone else's diplomatic stance. Israel already declared sovereignty 39 years ago and the US has never, to my knowledge, punished any of its citizens for doing business or traveling there or .

From a humanitarian point of view I don't personally have any problem with Israel owning the territory rather than Assad, but that's just me. As for getting a pass on other crimes, that's for Trump to answer along with the people who give financial aid to Israel's military despite it having plenty of excess cash to spend on West Bank settlements and perks for the most religious Jews.

so you are dodging the issue that as far as people like you are concerned terrorism and war crimes are ok so long jews are doing it got it.

 

[CptBork]

so you are dodging the issue that as far as people like you are concerned terrorism and war crimes are ok so long jews are doing it got it.

Don't be an asshole. You clearly fail to read my posts and understand my position. I've been calling this entire time for Assad and his buddies to be rewarded for the slaughter they just conducted by receiving prizes such as the Golan to legitimize their continued rule, unilaterally, against the wishes of the indigenous Druze population there, without any security or diplomatic concessions in return. It's vitally important that Israel have no means of defending itself or a significant portion of its water supply.

Not only do I want Israel to be punished, but just like you I want it to be punished in the most biased, hypocritical anti-semitic fashion possible, so that everyone else's crimes can be implicitly endorsed, forgotten and enabled in the process.

 

[pjdude1219]

Don't be an asshole.

im not. just because you don't like your double standards called out doesn't make me an asshole.

You clearly fail to read my posts and understand my position.

no i understand just fine. i just disagree with the double standards and rationalizations its based on.

I've been calling this entire time for Assad and his buddies to be rewarded for the slaughter they just conducted by receiving prizes such as the Golan to legitimize their continued rule, unilaterally, against the wishes of the indigenous Druze population there, without any security or diplomatic concessions in return.

so if your gonna call me an asshole for calling you on your bs perhaps you shouldn't lie. you continue to support israel's crimes. and whether or not assad the most evil man alive or a fucking saint is irrelevant to the fact it is illegal for Israel to annex it.

It's vitally important that Israel have no means of defending itself or a significant portion of its water supply.

there are those bigoted zionist notion that demands a different standard for israel and special rights. if israel wants other countries to to not treatit like a hostile power perhaps it should stop being a hostile power. and its the height of hypcrisy to whine about syria treating israel like it treats the palestinians. Israel cant just steal land cause it wants. why is that so hard for bigots like you to understand?

Not only do I want Israel to be punished, but just like you I want it to be punished in the most biased, hypocritical anti-semitic fashion possible,

cute the bigot can snark. to bad you can't think and just mindlessly repeat talking points. so im anti semitic because i think israel should be held to the same standards as everyone else.?

so that everyone else's crimes can be implicitly endorsed, forgotten and enabled in the process.

no i'll leave that up to bigots like you, i firmly believe everyones crimes should be punished. thats the difference between me and you. your a bigot who has vastly different standards for different people and i think both bush and obama should be tried before the hague for war crimes. as well as all the israeli terrorists and war criminals you think just want to be left alone.

 

[CptBork]

so if your gonna call me an asshole for calling you on your bs perhaps you shouldn't lie. you continue to support israel's crimes. and whether or not assad the most evil man alive or a fucking saint is irrelevant to the fact it is illegal for Israel to annex it.

I'm curious why you think I said it was legal for Israel to annex anything. All I said was it doesn't bother me if Sykes and Picot stir in their graves for a while until a proper representative democratic government is there in Syria to negotiate.

there are those bigoted zionist notion that demands a different standard for israel and special rights.

Not true, I've long felt that you spend way too much time focussing on continuing genocides like the ones in Myanmar, or persecution of ethnic minorities in Pakistan, or racism and fascism in Hungary and Poland, but not nearly enough time spent singling Israel out, especially when they do something in an area that was previously sparsely populated.

if israel wants other countries to to not treatit like a hostile power perhaps it should stop being a hostile power. and its the height of hypcrisy to whine about syria treating israel like it treats the palestinians. Israel cant just steal land cause it wants. why is that so hard for bigots like you to understand?

Maybe you need to look at the map to see that the Golan is actually a separate territory from the West Bank and not considered part of the Palestinian conflict. I was only discussing Israeli activity in the Golan, I've already made my stance on West Bank settlements more than clear.

cute the bigot can snark. to bad you can't think and just mindlessly repeat talking points. so im anti semitic because i think israel should be held to the same standards as everyone else.? no i'll leave that up to bigots like you, i firmly believe everyones crimes should be punished.

Ok, so tell me what we should do about China's occupation of Tibet, Russia's occupation in Crimea, Ukraine and Georgia, the Turkish occupation of Kurdistan and whatnot.

thats the difference between me and you. your a bigot who has vastly different standards for different people and i think both bush and obama should be tried before the hague for war crimes. as well as all the israeli terrorists and war criminals you think just want to be left alone.

Now you're beefing at Obama too? How about all the Presidents and Prime Ministers and Chancellors of France, England, Germany and so on? They all participate in NATO activities and actions in Syria, Afghanistan, Libya etc. The Prime Minister of Malta probably has some dirt on him, should we lock him up too? What about that jerk in Spain who jails people for organizing referendums?

How come you never call for Erdogan or Xi Jinping to get thrown in the slammer?