Jump to content


Photo

Global News Thread


  • Please log in to reply
174 replies to this topic

Poll: Global News Thread Poll (19 member(s) have cast votes)

What topic(s) you'd most like to read and discuss in Global News Thread?

  1. Social and politics (regional and/or international) (13 votes [31.71%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.71%

  2. Science and technology (12 votes [29.27%])

    Percentage of vote: 29.27%

  3. Business and economics (8 votes [19.51%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.51%

  4. Human interest (6 votes [14.63%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.63%

  5. Other (2 votes [4.88%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.88%

Should there be separate threads for GNT; "news-only" and "news-discussion-only"?

  1. Yes, news materials stay in GNT on GCC, while both discussions and debates go to Debate Subforum (2 votes [20.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.00%

  2. Yes, news materials and friendly discussions both stay *in a same thread* at GNT on GCC, while debates of all sort go to Debate Subforum (1 votes [10.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

  3. Yes, news materials and friendly discussions both stay in GCC but at different threads (GNT *and* GNT discussion threads); while debates of all sort go to Debate Subforum (1 votes [10.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

  4. No, let the news plus the discussions and/or debates stay in the same thread at GNT on GCC (6 votes [60.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.00%

  5. I have another opinion and I shall post it in this thread (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

What makes a news news a news news?

  1. Breaking news (namely, 0-72 hours release timeframe) (1 votes [10.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

  2. Controversial/polemical/triggerworthy news (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. Faith-in-humanity-restoring news (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. Insightful, interesting, and informative news from the fields of science and tech (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. 1 and 2 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  6. 1 and 3 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  7. 1 and 4 (1 votes [10.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

  8. 1, 2, and 3 (1 votes [10.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

  9. 1, 2, and 4 (1 votes [10.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

  10. 2 and/or 3 and/or 4, excluding 1 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  11. 1, 2, 3, and 4, if ever any (6 votes [60.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.00%

  12. I have another opinion and I shall post it in this thread (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#161 Otaku-N.

Otaku-N.

    Otaku

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,398 posts
  • LocationReverse Cockaigne

Posted 08 January 2020 - 07:45 AM

To them, America is the world, lol

JaAjRjC.png?1

 

Spoiler muh outdated stuffs

#162 YoWid

YoWid

    Rock Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,776 posts

User's Awards

     

Posted 09 January 2020 - 01:36 AM


So World War 3?

 

Not likely, if you're talking grand, global scale a la WW2.

 


Nah, people need to chill with the doomsaying.

 

And even if this somehow ended up in a full blown war between the US and Iran, that's still nowhere near a world war.


 

This.

 

It's gonna be trade war (AKA embargo and/or economic sanctions) at best, and proxy wars (what with those sectarian mooks scattered around the Middle East) at worst.

 


People are serious when they say world war?

 

Iran still ain't got that nuke (yet), so, nah.

 


To them, America is the world, lol

 

Speaking of the US of A, gotta admire Trump's gamble on the Iran situation:

 

Their impotent (zero-casualty) missile strikes on that US airbase, deliberate or otherwise, would boost his image as an actually competent wartime president; a hawk with real bargaining power on brokering peace (or at least effective truce) with his potential enemies, like he just did in the latest press conference--or so he'd like the world to notice.

 

Strong diversion from his potentially-dud impeachment and nice fuel for his 2020 re-election.


 


People are serious when they say world war?

 

Oh, if you mean are they *dead* serious on the WW3 thing?

 

.

.

.

 

They'll be seriously dead if they do (stroke, heart attack, butthurt) and seriously dead if they don't (old age, heart-busting fuck, and unnatural causes not otherwise specified), so, there you have it.


 

Also, since I don't think this fits the spirit of the Movie Discussion thread (no actual movies are discussed, even if it's about Golden Globes 2020), I'll just dump it here.

 

I mean, 'globes', 'news', y'know what I'm saying.

 

.

.

.

 

We need more Ricky Gervais.

 

He took no prisoners with his comments on Epstein, Thunberg, and the worldwide woke hype. Gotta love seeing Tom Hanks squirmed like that.

 

Speaking of woke, Titania's McGrath's Woke (ya, shameless plug since forever, sue me) is just gold:

 

 
In order to be truly woke, one must also be ready to adopt a range of differently gendered pronouns, which can vary from individual to individual. The traditional pronouns of ‘she’ and ‘he’ are deployed so thoughtlessly, and involve a shocking degree of prejudice. Note, for instance, that historians tend to refer to King Henry VIII as a ‘he’. But why? Do they ever stop to think that Henry might have preferred a nonconformist pronoun? There is nothing particularly male about having a huge beard, broad shoulders and a massive cock. My friend Belinda is hung like a shire stallion. That doesn’t make her any less feminine.
 
It takes very little effort to learn someone’s pronouns, or to announce your own. Many universities across the UK issue badges during freshers’ week for this very purpose, so you can immediately see when it is appropriate to use she/her/her, he/him/his, they/them/their, xe/xem/xyr, ne/nym/nis, ne/nem/nir, ae/aer/aers, ve/ver/vis, ey/em/eir, fae/faer/faers, shey/shem/sheir, per/per/pers, tey/ter/tem, ze/hir/hir, zhe/zhim/zhers or zie/zim/zir. What could be simpler than that?
 

One of the highlights of my year is International Pronoun Day on 17 October when, as the University of Wisconsin’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center puts it, we can all help to ‘transform society to celebrate people’s multiple, intersecting identities’. Of all the problems that the global community faces today, surely this has to take priority. I can envisage no better way to celebrate diversity than to shun those bigots who refuse to learn the correct terminology, to enforce the use of multiple neopronouns through robust hate speech laws, and to seek out dissenters and punish them without mercy. It’s what Mahatma Gandhi would have done if xe were alive today. 


Spoiler Music by Gazillions

 


#163 Revenant

Revenant

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 79 posts

Posted 09 January 2020 - 02:13 AM


Their impotent (zero-casualty) missile strikes on that US airbase, deliberate or otherwise, would boost his image as an actually competent wartime president; a hawk with real bargaining power on brokering peace (or at least effective truce) with his potential enemies, like he just did in the latest press conference--or so he'd like the world to notice.

 Strong diversion from his potentially-dud impeachment and nice fuel for his 2020 re-election.

I think both sides, for now, got what they wanted. Trump got the terrorist and Iran got to bomb some bases with no american casualties. Both can say with some reason they slapped their enemies. Trump now holds much more power than the USA had over Iran before, and as far as war goes, id say its become a more distant possibility. War with the USA puts the whole Iran regime on risk, and Trump is showing hes not going to just stand and watch while troops get killed by proxy militias and terrorist attacks. Is it risky? Yes, but it also has the chance to put the whole situation to rest, at least for some time. I dont think Trump wants to be a wartime president or seen as one. 

 

Also, I just dont agree that this situation is a diversion at all from the impeachment. Trump benefited from the impeachment situation. Its a bipartisan democrat sham that most Americans can see through. Even to people that arent part of his base, such a desperate attempt to remove him from office while trivializing the impeachment process is gonna come across as dishonest and corrupt. The people who are for this impeachment wanted it to happen since day one of his administration. I would say the impeachment debacle was the best thing that could have happened for him. 



#164 Oben

Oben

    ♪~

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,104 posts

User's Awards

         2   

Posted 09 January 2020 - 01:33 PM


I think both sides, for now, got what they wanted.

 

Now everyone's just back to the situation of last Thursday, which wasn't exactly the most stellar either... Except the Iraq now (officially) wants to throw out the international forces and the Iran gave up the nuclear deal for good, and these developments are going to stick around. And the other conflicts in the region didn't change either. The whole conflict will still last for years imo.


Edited by Oben, 09 January 2020 - 01:33 PM.


#165 Professor

Professor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 09 January 2020 - 02:29 PM

The Iranians will have their retribution,attacking a base with zero casualties will not be enough for assassinating one of their top Generals.The only issue is when.



#166 Revenant

Revenant

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 79 posts

Posted 14 January 2020 - 02:54 AM

Now everyone's just back to the situation of last Thursday, which wasn't exactly the most stellar either... Except the Iraq now (officially) wants to throw out the international forces and the Iran gave up the nuclear deal for good, and these developments are going to stick around. And the other conflicts in the region didn't change either. The whole conflict will still last for years imo.

Except a terrorist leader who was responsible for countless deaths including American soldiers is now dead, and now the US has Iran on a much tighter leash. Plus the nuclear deal was a joke. What, we gotta bribe these guys with billions of dollars so they behave? And they still were enriching uranium at a higher rate than the deal stipulated. There is no deal to make with a nation whose culture is fundamentally based on the US` destruction. The only way to keep them at bay is to directly threaten the Ayatollah regime, be it economically or by military action. 



#167 Professor

Professor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 14 January 2020 - 08:11 AM

Except a terrorist leader who was responsible for countless deaths including American soldiers is now dead, and now the US has Iran on a much tighter leash. Plus the nuclear deal was a joke. What, we gotta bribe these guys with billions of dollars so they behave? And they still were enriching uranium at a higher rate than the deal stipulated. There is no deal to make with a nation whose culture is fundamentally based on the US` destruction. The only way to keep them at bay is to directly threaten the Ayatollah regime, be it economically or by military action. 

 

This post reeks of propaganda obtained from Fox News



#168 Oben

Oben

    ♪~

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,104 posts

User's Awards

         2   

Posted 14 January 2020 - 12:44 PM

Except a terrorist leader who was responsible for countless deaths including American soldiers is now dead, and now the US has Iran on a much tighter leash. Plus the nuclear deal was a joke. What, we gotta bribe these guys with billions of dollars so they behave? And they still were enriching uranium at a higher rate than the deal stipulated. There is no deal to make with a nation whose culture is fundamentally based on the US` destruction. The only way to keep them at bay is to directly threaten the Ayatollah regime, be it economically or by military action. 

 

Nah, the deal was basically everything it could've hoped to be. Keep in mind that the alternative was no change to the previous situation whatsoever. It would've resulted either in another North Korea situation, where some rogue state has the US by the balls, or an Israeli and/or Saudi attack on Iranian facilities, and you'd have to explain in both cases why that'd be preferrable. It also strengthened the liberal faction in the Iranian government, which has now lost out to the hardliners even more than before, it gave the IAEA access to its facilities and us a new developing market to get oil from, instead of Saudi-Arabia, Russia or the US.

 

(Of course, I'm aware that no definitive counterfactual statements can be made since Trump did withdraw, but for what it attempted to be, the deal was just fine)


Edited by Oben, 14 January 2020 - 12:45 PM.


#169 Revenant

Revenant

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 79 posts

Posted 15 January 2020 - 04:07 PM


Keep in mind that the alternative was no change to the previous situation whatsoever.

Well, thats quite debatable. We could sanction them, we could threaten a military takeover, we could help fund the opposition and arm them. We did this with many other rogue states. To me it seems like the only reason we did this was to get oil and such from them. 

 


It would've resulted either in another North Korea situation, where some rogue state has the US by the balls

Well, thats a hyperbole. 

 


or an Israeli and/or Saudi attack on Iranian facilities, and you'd have to explain in both cases why that'd be preferrable.

Its difficult to say. I dont know the circumstances which these countries found themselves back when the deal was signed. But if these attacks were comparable to the attack that killed the general, then yes, that would be preferable. Definitely more preferable than funding a terrorist state. 

 


It also strengthened the liberal faction in the Iranian government, which has now lost out to the hardliners even more than before

Seems to me like it was always a losing battle. Plus I dont see much logic in that, because the money we were sending was going to the hardlines anyway. What, are you saying the optimal situation was to keep bribing the Iranian government and helping them arm themselves while also hoping for the liberals to get strong enough to overthrow them? Its a confusing proposition. 

 


us a new developing market to get oil from, instead of Saudi-Arabia, Russia or the US.

Now thats the real reason why the deal happened at all, wasn't it? Giving money to a terrorist government so we could get oil from them. That was the real deal all along.

 


This post reeks of propaganda obtained from Fox News

And your post reeks of projection and desperation. Cant say ive ever watched Fox News for more than 4 minutes. 

 

And please, you wanna talk about propaganda when you already had a nice little accusation prepared? If thats all youre capable of then id suggest you go back to whatever little echo chamber you think this site is supposed to be and stay there until you can conjure up an actual argument. 



#170 YoWid

YoWid

    Rock Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,776 posts

User's Awards

     

Posted Yesterday, 12:01 AM


I think both sides, for now, got what they wanted. Trump got the terrorist and Iran got to bomb some bases with no american casualties. Both can say with some reason they slapped their enemies. Trump now holds much more power than the USA had over Iran before, and as far as war goes, id say its become a more distant possibility. War with the USA puts the whole Iran regime on risk, and Trump is showing hes not going to just stand and watch while troops get killed by proxy militias and terrorist attacks. Is it risky? Yes, but it also has the chance to put the whole situation to rest, at least for some time. I dont think Trump wants to be a wartime president or seen as one. 

 

It had (has?) already been happening now, though, isn't it?

 

Even if it's being waged in the form of irregular and/or asymmetrical warfare--what with the Hezbollah-backed Hamas (under Suleimani's guidance); proxy combats conducted by the Quds force (also orchestrated by Suleimani); and the rabble-rousing ruse involving militias (especially of Shiite/Shi'a sect versus their Sunni counterpart) as can be seen with that early 2019 oil compound sabotage and US embassy siege.

 

And no sooner had the "put whole situation to rest for some time" situation ends than the mourning period for Suleimani is over (which, arguably, would last indefinitely, since his death makes the best case of martyrdom since Karbala, which is of monumental impact to Iranian ultra-nationalists and/or Shi'a hardliners as a whole.)

 


Also, I just dont agree that this situation is a diversion at all from the impeachment. Trump benefited from the impeachment situation. Its a bipartisan democrat sham that most Americans can see through. Even to people that arent part of his base, such a desperate attempt to remove him from office while trivializing the impeachment process is gonna come across as dishonest and corrupt. The people who are for this impeachment wanted it to happen since day one of his administration. I would say the impeachment debacle was the best thing that could have happened for him. 

 

Agreed, Trump indeed succeeded in painting the impeachment as a witch-hunt done by the Democrats against him, unfortunately the debacle would also court the potential voters that are not simply wanting to be an informed and rational voters, but also those bent on populism and emotion-fueled reasons to pick anyone other than Trump, simply mirroring most of the MAGA bunch.

 

I somehow picture the Trump rivals in the next election would observe political correctness and adopt progressive (read: woke) tenets (still on the fence about Green New Deal, but I guess that counts as one) a little too enthusiastically--if only to paint themselves as the polar opposite to the current president.


Spoiler Music by Gazillions

 


#171 YoWid

YoWid

    Rock Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,776 posts

User's Awards

     

Posted Yesterday, 12:45 AM

Notable bits I got on Iran (and especially on Suleimani) with sources under each point:

 

Spoiler Suleimani being targeted for assassination by US since 2007
 
Spoiler Suleimani self-proclaimed post as the "Viceroy of Iraq
 
Spoiler Suleimani the puppetmaster to Iraq then-PM and initial detraction among Iranian moderates

 

Spoiler Iran-Syria tag team & Suleimani as real-life Revolver Ocelot

 

Spoiler Iran - US Situation Summary (Late 2019)
 
 
 
 

 

I, however, would very much like to know the opinion/comment of OMF's resident Iranian herself/himself on Iran versus US situation, @kenkage , since you were quite active in the Global News Thread before, and surely know best of what really happened, what is happening, and what is likely going to happen next after Suleimani's death in your country.

 

.

.

.

 

That is, of course, if you're willing to share about it here  :hai:


Spoiler Music by Gazillions

 


#172 Revenant

Revenant

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 79 posts

Posted Yesterday, 12:53 AM


It had (has?) already been happening now, though, isn't it?

 Even if it's being waged in the form of irregular and/or asymmetrical warfare--what with the Hezbollah-backed Hamas (under Suleimani's guidance); proxy combats conducted by the Quds force (also orchestrated by Suleimani); and the rabble-rousing ruse involving militias (especially of Shiite/Shi'a sect versus their Sunni counterpart) as can be seen with that early 2019 oil compound sabotage and US embassy siege.

 And no sooner had the "put whole situation to rest for some time" situation ends than the mourning period for Suleimani is over (which, arguably, would last indefinitely, since his death makes the best case of martyrdom since Karbala, which is of monumental impact to Iranian ultra-nationalists and/or Shi'a hardliners as a whole.)

I mean, what really has happened so far? Iran has only succeeded in killing its own citizens, 56 on Sulemanis own funeral and 70-80 on an attack on a Ukranian airlines plane. 0 Americans have died thus far. Thats the line in the sand and Ive seen no rush on Irans part in crossing it anytime soon, not unless they think Trump is bluffing. None of that world war 3 shit some "specialists" have prophetized. Im not saying theres a 100% guarantee that Iran will not attempt something, but its much better than bribing them with billions of dollars theyll use to fund terrorism and oppression against its own people.

 

What really fucked me in the whole business is the fucks from America sympathizing with Iran, just so they could stick it to Trump. Theres no line these people wont cross.

 


mehow picture the Trump rivals in the next election would observe political correctness and adopt progressive (read: woke) tenets (still on the fence about Green New Deal, but I guess that counts as one) a little too enthusiastically--if only to paint themselves as the polar opposite to the current president.

I mean, what else can they do? Theyve been playing the woke card even since before Trump got elected. The woke strategy didnt work before and I doubt it will work again, not with Trumps first term on his belt. The only one who seems to be a moderate on the dems side is Joe Biden, who is a charisma black hole and doesn't inspire confidence in nobody. 



#173 Professor

Professor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted Yesterday, 07:42 AM

And your post reeks of projection and desperation. Cant say ive ever watched Fox News for more than 4 minutes. 

 

And please, you wanna talk about propaganda when you already had a nice little accusation prepared? If thats all youre capable of then id suggest you go back to whatever little echo chamber you think this site is supposed to be and stay there until you can conjure up an actual argument. 

 

The accusation has nothing to do with propaganda moreso with the nonsense which was posted.Orginally I was not going to address this post but as seeing as your arrongant stance on the USA is quite nauseating I'll be brief.

 

 

When it comes to American interest in Iran,once simply has to return to the year 1953,where the British(SIS) with the aid of the CIA plotted a coup to remove the Prime Minister of Mohammad Mosaddeg.The reason?  Mohammad Mosaddeg wanted to nationalize the oil which the British had interest in.The 1953 coup also marked the first peacetime use of covert action by the United States to overthrow a foreign government  it also served as a template for the 1973 overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile.

 

This is a snippet of the British strategy which was posted in the Journal of the Middle East in 1987.

 

Spoiler

 

As you can see this is a British led operation,so it begs the question why did the US get involved.In the late 1940's the US  had lttle involvement.So what changed? In the early 1950's after the nationalization law was enacted in Iran ,under the Truman administration interest surged.

 

Iran was to be kept within the Western Camp at all cost  with the secondary goal being stabillizing the worlds oil market.The US stated that they had no intention of challenging Irans sovereignty  while engaging in covert operations with the aim of weakening  the Soviets Union's influence in  Iran.

They claimed they wanted  the oil dispute to end  through diplomatic means but were  still aware of the British covert operations being done within the region against Mosaddeq and occasionally discussed such matters.

 

After plan after plan was rejected by Mossadeq to bring an end to the oil dispute.The US aimed to manipulate the political process in Iran. This was done via BEDAMN a propaganda and a politcal action program.

 

 

As to its impact 

 

 

The CIA officers who directed BEDAMN are themselves unclear as to its impact; one described it as "important" in encouraging Kashani and Baqai to split with Mosaddeq, while another said it was "limited" in scale. While the CIA thus cannot be credited exclusively with provoking these splits in the National Front, it may well have had a significant role.

 

An issue which is in some ways more important is the question of who authorized these attacks against Mosaddeq and the National Front. As described above, the official policy of the Truman administration was to support Mosaddeq and not to undermine his government. The State Department, headed at the time by Dean Acheson, unquestionably followed this policy. It thus appears that the decision to undermine Mosaddeq through BEDAMN was taken within the CIA itself. Since the top CIA officials with responsibility for covert operations at this time are now either dead or unable to recall who might have authorized these actions, it is impossible to determine where in the CIA chain of command this "rogue elephant" component of BEDAMN originated.

 

 

 

Why is all this important? What does this have to do with modern Iran?

 

The 1953 coup ended the slow, halting progress that Iran had been making since the early 1900s toward a more representative form of government and toward freedom from foreign interference. These two aspirations were embodied in Mosaddeq's movement; with the coup, he became a martyr to these causes.

 

In the years after the coup, an authoritarian regime was gradually consolidated in Iran with massive assistance from the United States.

 

From the same source 

 

"The 1953 coup ended the slow, halting progress that Iran had been making since the early 1900s toward a more representative form of government and toward freedom from foreign interference. These two aspirations were embodied in Mosaddeq's movement; with the coup, he became a martyr to these causes. In the years after the coup, an authoritarian regime was gradually consolidated in Iran with massive assistance from the United States. Martial law was instituted and remained in effect for several years. Thousands of National Front and Tudeh supporters were arrested. Pro-Mosaddeq demonstrations in the Tehran bazaar and at Tehran University were broken up. A successor to the National Front known as the National Resistance Movement was suppressed. The Qashqai tribe was attacked and its leaders were sent into exile. Press censorship was instituted. A secret police force was established that soon evolved into the notorious SAVAK. Majlis elections in February 1954 were blatantly rigged. Except during a brief period in the early 1960s, the instruments of dictatorship were kept firmly in place until the Iranian revolution began to unfold in 1978. By then, any hope of establishing a democratic alternative to the Shah had long since been lost.

 

The 1953 coup was thus a decisive turning point in Iranian history. Had the coup not occurred, Iran's future would undoubtedly have been vastly different. Similarly, the U.S. role in the coup and in the subsequent consolidation of the Shah’s dictatorship was decisive for the future of U.S. relations with Iran. U.S. complicity in these events figured prominently in the terrorist attacks on American citizens and installations that occurred in Iran in the early 1970s, in the anti American character of the 1978-1979 revolution, and in the many anti-American incidents that emanated from Iran after the revolution, including, most notably, the embassy hostage crisis. Latter-day supporters of the coup frequently argue that it purchased twenty-five years of stability in Iran under a pro-American regime. As the dire consequences of the revolution for U.S. interests continue to unfold, one can only wonder whether this has been worth the long-term cost"

 

 

 

Keep peddling that "destruction of the US is fundamental to Iran's culture" bullshit.Any country which has vast oil reserves will involve American meddling.Libya,Iraq,Iran and Venezuela just recently.Bush and Cheney should be tried for war crimes for that bullshit in Iraq. The Solemani and the nuclear deal is also riddled with inaccuracies but I am not going to waste my time going further.


Edited by Professor, Yesterday, 07:47 AM.


#174 kenkage

kenkage

    Shinigami

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts

Posted Yesterday, 12:30 PM

I, however, would very much like to know the opinion/comment of OMF's resident Iranian herself/himself on Iran versus US situation, @kenkage , since you were quite active in the Global News Thread before, and surely know best of what really happened, what is happening, and what is likely going to happen next after Suleimani's death in your country.


correction.. I'm Iraqi not Iranian, nonetheless my openion regarding the Soleimani issue is:-
*short answer: I support Iran.

*long answer: the main cause & the core of all crises in the ME is the Palestinian issue, Israel is America & America is Israel, in order to gain good relations with the US most Arab countries have chosen to give up on Palestine, that is why most Arab states haven't provided the Palestinians with a single bullet to use against the IDF, the only thing the Arabs do is condemn Israel & express support for Palestine at the UN & that's it, obviously that won't work, an agressive country like Israel will not give up a single inch of Al-Quds / Jerusalem if there isn't any military pressure on them, those Arabs who say that one day Israel would just feel generous & give the land back to the Palestinians if they just complain enough at the UN are living in La La land, the Arabs have been complaining at the UN for how many years now? 50 or 60 years? what did that bring them?

only a select few Arab countries chose resistance, These are Lebanon (more specificaly Hezbollah) which went to war with Israel around one decade ago, Syria (which before 2011 didn't have any major wars with Israel but non the less they provided Palestinian resistane groups such as Hamas with weapons) & Iran (which even though it is not an Arab country yet they are the core of the axis of resistance).

ofcourse the resisctance has utterly failed, resistance (I mean military resistance) against Israel cannot work without the support of the entire muslim world, not just a handfull of Palestinian milititas with their Lebanese /Iranian/Syrian backers, but the problem is.. due to the spread of Wahabism & in general the spread of radical Islam (since there is some radicalism in the Shia world too though it's far much less previlant than in it's Sunni counterpart) , the muslim world will be f***ed royaly, show me a wahabi who has absolutely no thirst for Shia blood & I will show you a real life unicorn, that is why personaly my advice to Iran & it's allies is.. give up on Palestine, when you have half the muslim world trying to drink your blood because you allegedly slander Omar & Abu Baker.. two figures who died like hundreds of years ago.. that is when the Iranians should realize when to quit.

regarding what my own country (Iraq) should do now, we should do absolutely everything to make sure the US get's out of Iraq, as long as the US has a presence in Iraq then there will always be a danger of Iraq becoming a battle ground in an all out war between Iran & the US which is what should be avoided, as for the Hashid, they should either go to Iran /Syria or simply quit.

for the last 2 months or so there has been anti corruption protests in Iraq, the Iraqi government responded by a complete shutdown on the internet for several weeks (not just censorship but a shutdown so even VPN is useless) along with killing hundreds & wounding thousands of protesters, Hadi al-Amiri who is one of the main leaderships in the popular mobilisation forces (PMF AKA Hashid) made a crusial mistake because he was one of the main supporters of the Iraqi government, without popular support the PMF is practicaly powerless, the Americans are not idiots, they saw how Al-Amiri & the Iraqi government were losing popular support due to their brutal crackdown on the people so the US decided to strike, so in a way the Iraqi government has brought this on itself.

KfDNJUs.png


#175 Oben

Oben

    ♪~

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,104 posts

User's Awards

         2   

Posted Yesterday, 03:00 PM

Well, thats quite debatable. We could sanction them, we could threaten a military takeover, we could help fund the opposition and arm them. We did this with many other rogue states. To me it seems like the only reason we did this was to get oil and such from them.

 

The US has frozen Iranian property, sanctioned business, imposed arms embargos and funded Iranian enemies and opposition ever since Carter (and most of these never went out of effect!). That's what I mean, that wouldn't have been new. The only thing really that the US hasn't tried is a full-scale invasion. All of the above did not hold Iran back from pursuing nukes, so a deal was the next best step.

 

(Don't get me wrong, I also think the world would be better off if the current regime were replaced by something moderate. But it not having nukes is the priority, and I also don't trust the US on the regime change front... at all)
 

Well, thats a hyperbole.

 

Only a little, the core message is true :P

Which I guess you accept because there's no actual reply here?
 

Its difficult to say. I dont know the circumstances which these countries found themselves back when the deal was signed. But if these attacks were comparable to the attack that killed the general, then yes, that would be preferable. Definitely more preferable than funding a terrorist state.

 

Israel has always hated the Iranian nuclear program (understandably) and resorted to killing Iranian scientists and the likes, but every once in a while, before the deal, the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iranian facilities was a big topic in the news. They still didn't trust the deal at all, but the the whole thing got more relaxed after 2015.
 

Seems to me like it was always a losing battle. Plus I dont see much logic in that, because the money we were sending was going to the hardlines anyway. What, are you saying the optimal situation was to keep bribing the Iranian government and helping them arm themselves while also hoping for the liberals to get strong enough to overthrow them? Its a confusing proposition.

 
 It would've been more of a bonus, sure, the first goal is nuclear non-proliferation (which, fun fact, was also one of the very few things the US and the Soviet Union were in agreement with during the Cold War). But if it helps showing the virtues of diplomacy over violence, giving the respective factions a "win" doesn't hurt, does it?
 

Now thats the real reason why the deal happened at all, wasn't it? Giving money to a terrorist government so we could get oil from them. That was the real deal all along.

 
A deal has to benefit both parties in a way :shrug: Yeah, Iran wants to have some sanctions lifted in exchange for rolling back the nuclear program, so what?

(and before you say "but what if we just force them!?!" - the deal was necessary because forcing didn't work, that's where we were before)


Edited by Oben, Yesterday, 03:10 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users