Sincronos.net Forums

Sincronos.net Forums

Nothing is permanent, everything is constant.
 
It is currently Sun Nov 17, 2019 8:41 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Is War with Iran inevitable?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 1098
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
We've all heard about the Saudi oil fields being hit by drones and the Trump administration is blaming Iran. The Saudis are also blaming Iran. I'm more inclined to believe it was the Houthis in Yemen, though, seeing as Saudi Arabia has been invading their country and committing genocide against their nation for several years now. A strike on Saudi oil facilities is logical, as it would slow their war effort and hit their bottom line.

I don't see Iran benefitting from a brazen attack like this, which would invite an attack from the US, which has been practically begging for an excuse to invade since Trump took power. Make no mistake, I don't like the regime in Tehran. AT ALL. But if the US decides to invade Iran on false pretenses, we'll be looking at the biggest conflict since WWII, and millions will die. You can expect Israel and Saudi Arabia to join you as they're equally eager to see Iran destroyed, but don't count on anyone else. The sentiment I've picked up indicates the rest of the world is fed up with America right now.

I hope it doesn't come to war. But the way things are going, war seems inevitable.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is War with Iran inevitable?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:24 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:17 am
Posts: 3379
Location: NoDak, U.S.A.
Admittedly, I don't know much about the Houthis in Yemen, but by all accounts this was a cruise missile attack launched from inside the borders of Iran.

Anyway, if Trump had any stomach for a shooting war with Iran, he wouldn't have accepted (now ex-Secretary of Defense) John Bolton's resignation last week, and I would put the likelihood of the US invading Iran anytime in the foreseeable future at -2000%. Probably less than that, in fact.

Whether or not you find any reassurance in that is up to you. Personally, I'm inclined to think it will ultimately make an escalating conflict more likely, not less, in the same way that Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler paved the way to World War II.

_________________
Image
Image Image
Snow banner by Synkopated; Family banner by The Phiend


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is War with Iran inevitable?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 1098
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
CWS wrote:
Personally, I'm inclined to think it will ultimately make an escalating conflict more likely, not less, in the same way that Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler paved the way to World War II.


And we've already come to Nazi comparisons. That didn't take long. :roll: From what I've seen, Iran is hardly the expansionist warmonger you think it is. If anything, Iran is serving to limit Saudi power in the Middle East, whose influence has proven faaaaar more corrosive. Remember where 15 of the 19 hi-jackers of 9/11 came from? How the Saudis are spreading their extreme Wahhabi dogma throughout the Islamic World like a virus? How their country is an absolute monarchy that believes in witches, restricts women's rights and publicly executes people in the street with swordsmen? These guys are your allies, by the way.

Iran's current regime is horrible. But a violent invasion of their country will make things so much worse. Who is to say a far more extreme government won't take the Ayatollah's place? You'll be repeating the same mistake you've made in Vietnam and Iraq; creating a puppet government with no popular support, who will rebel at the earliest opportunity, and tie down more of your men and resources in a forever war which you could have better used to fix your own house. And consider this: without Iran, Saudi Arabia gains hegemony over the Middle East. Do you really want a Middle East where Saudi Arabia - an extreme theocracy who funds terrorists and is actively undermining the West - is ascendant and unchallenged because you've created a power vacuum for them to fill? Trust me, keeping Iran around is infinitely preferable to that alternative. At least with the current status quo, Iran and the Saudis are more focused on each other, limiting one another's power and influence.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is War with Iran inevitable?
PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:24 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:17 am
Posts: 3379
Location: NoDak, U.S.A.
snowman1989 wrote:
CWS wrote:
Personally, I'm inclined to think it will ultimately make an escalating conflict more likely, not less, in the same way that Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler paved the way to World War II.
And we've already come to Nazi comparisons. That didn't take long. :roll:
This is one of the rare instances where such a comparison is actually appropriate, as they do share a striking number of philosophies, no to mention one specific goal, in common.
snowman1989 wrote:
From what I've seen, Iran is hardly the expansionist warmonger you think it is. If anything, Iran is serving to limit Saudi power in the Middle East, whose influence has proven faaaaar more corrosive. Remember where 15 of the 19 hi-jackers of 9/11 came from? How the Saudis are spreading their extreme Wahhabi dogma throughout the Islamic World like a virus? How their country is an absolute monarchy that believes in witches, restricts women's rights and publicly executes people in the street with swordsmen? These guys are your allies, by the way.

Iran's current regime is horrible. But a violent invasion of their country will make things so much worse. Who is to say a far more extreme government won't take the Ayatollah's place? You'll be repeating the same mistake you've made in Vietnam and Iraq; creating a puppet government with no popular support, who will rebel at the earliest opportunity, and tie down more of your men and resources in a forever war which you could have better used to fix your own house. And consider this: without Iran, Saudi Arabia gains hegemony over the Middle East. Do you really want a Middle East where Saudi Arabia - an extreme theocracy who funds terrorists and is actively undermining the West - is ascendant and unchallenged because you've created a power vacuum for them to fill? Trust me, keeping Iran around is infinitely preferable to that alternative. At least with the current status quo, Iran and the Saudis are more focused on each other, limiting one another's power and influence.
We've already established that the possibility of a US invasion of Iran, at any time in the foreseeable future, is less than zero so I have no idea why you're continuing to flog that specific straw man. It simply is not going to happen. And while I have no illusions about Saudi Arabia, the terms you're using to condemn them, while defending the leading state sponsor of Islamic terrorism on this planet, require an astounding level of cognitive dissonance to repeat. Because virtually every single point you've made about the Saudis, above, is even more applicable to the Iranians. In fact, the way you're describing them, it seems like you have their roles completely reversed.

Let's make a checklist of some of the Saudis' diabolical activities over just the past couple of months. Are they developing nuclear weapons in violation of international agreements? Nope, that's Iran. Did they recently seize a couple of British oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz? No, that was also Iran. Did they launch a major attack on Israel last month? No, Iran again. And going back to your original post in this very topic, was it the Saudis who just launched a cruise missile attack against Iran's oil production capability? No...it was the other way around.

_________________
Image
Image Image
Snow banner by Synkopated; Family banner by The Phiend


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is War with Iran inevitable?
PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 1098
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
CWS wrote:
We've already established that the possibility of a US invasion of Iran, at any time in the foreseeable future, is less than zero so I have no idea why you're continuing to flog that specific straw man.


Is it a strawman argument when you have a president that is wildly belligerent in rhetoric and throws American weight around like it's nobody's business? He's a proven compulsive liar, so you can't trust anything that he says, or anything agreement he signs. Oh, and the American establishment warhawks in Washington have wanted war with Iran for decades, and with Trump in office, they're the closest they've ever been to finally getting their wish.

CWS wrote:
And while I have no illusions about Saudi Arabia, the terms you're using to condemn them, while defending the leading state sponsor of Islamic terrorism on this planet, require an astounding level of cognitive dissonance to repeat. Because virtually every single point you've made about the Saudis, above, is even more applicable to the Iranians. In fact, the way you're describing them, it seems like you have their roles completely reversed.


Where did I say anything about actively endorsing Iran? I've already told you their government is a sack of shit. I simply don't want to see an avoidable conflict arise in the Middle East that will inflict misery on a scale not seen since the World Wars.

And you have no illusions about the Saudis? Really? Because to me, Iran and the Saudis are two sides of the same coin. But there's a primary difference. Iran is Shia, and Saudi Arabia is Sunni. Why does this matter? Because Iran is a minority voice in the Islamic world. Shi'ites and Sunnis generally don't get along, but Shi'ites are a global minority. In fact, the only Shia-majority countries in the world are Iraq, Iran and Bahrain (currently ruled by a Sunni-majority government).

Sunnis on the other hand make up around 85% of the Islamic World. Every other Muslim nation except Oman is majority Sunni. Iran's reach, therefore, is very limited compared to what the Saudis can do. The Saudis control Mecca and Medina, the two holiest cities of Islam, which gives them immense religious prestige that Iran can't match. Also, since they don't suffer from sanctions like Iran has, they've been free to spread their Wahhabi virus across every single Sunni country in the world, and they've been very successful at it.

Iran hasn't had the same amount of success because they represent a minority. There are Shi'ites in Sunni majority nations, but they're highly distrusted minorities, by and large. Internationally, the Saudis have a massive, overwhelming advantage because they represent a global majority, one they're slowly trying to turn into a worldwide Wahhabi caliphate.

CWS wrote:
Let's make a checklist of some of the Saudis' diabolical activities over just the past couple of months. Are they developing nuclear weapons in violation of international agreements? Nope, that's Iran.


Yeah... international agreements that America broke first. The Iran nuclear deal was doing its job, and Iran was fully complying with the International Atomic Agency, until Trump ripped it up and re-imposed sanctions for no good reason. What did you think was going to happen? You think Iran would just roll over like a good boy and give into all of your demands? Remember what I said about how you can't trust Trumps word, nor pen?

CWS wrote:
Did they recently seize a couple of British oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz? No, that was also Iran. Did they launch a major attack on Israel last month? No, Iran again.


Iran's gotten more belligerent because you are pushing them to take a more belligerent stance. Here's a general rule of thumb for any country that's going through tough times: If an economy is doing poorly, go to war. It ain't right, it does nothing to solve your domestic disputes, but the idea is to unify the population against an external threat and minimise internal resistance. You've enacted crippling sanctions that do nothing to actually harm the regime. Haven't you noticed that economic sanctions NEVER work? It hasn't worked on Cuba. It hasn't worked on North Korea. If anything, you're helping Iran's government by isolating them. By enacting sanctions, you harm everyday people who will then blame YOU for their misery. By isolating them from the rest of the world, you give dictators and theocracies full control of information, you're letting THEM set the narrative to their people. By doing this, you make it so that instead of the people rallying against their government, the people rally with the government against you. America's "hearts and minds" strategy is retarded.

Though, at the moment, Saudi Arabia are the ones waging an offensive war against a weaker neighbour. As of this moment, Iran has not waged a single offensive war on any of its neighbours since the Revolution in 1979. Might be because it's... I dunno, totally surrounded by Sunni states. and because of geographic limitations.



CWS wrote:
And going back to your original post in this very topic, was it the Saudis who just launched a cruise missile attack against Iran's oil production capability? No...it was the other way around.


This hasn't been proven yet without a shadow of a doubt, and until it has, I'd be more careful about pointing fingers. After all, your reasons for invading Iraq circled around them supposedly having WMDs (they didn't), and US intelligence has shown that they willingly fabricate information to justify conflicts, so any information they "provide" is untrustworthy and therefore worthless unless there's other reputable sources to back it up.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Is War with Iran inevitable?
PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2019 11:50 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:17 am
Posts: 3379
Location: NoDak, U.S.A.
snowman1989 wrote:
CWS wrote:
We've already established that the possibility of a US invasion of Iran, at any time in the foreseeable future, is less than zero so I have no idea why you're continuing to flog that specific straw man.
Is it a strawman argument when you have a president that is wildly belligerent in rhetoric and throws American weight around like it's nobody's business? He's a proven compulsive liar, so you can't trust anything that he says, or anything agreement he signs. Oh, and the American establishment warhawks in Washington have wanted war with Iran for decades, and with Trump in office, they're the closest they've ever been to finally getting their wish.
The most reliable indicator of exactly how much Trump doesn't want to go to war against Iran was back in June, when he publicly humiliated himself by ordering a retaliatory strike against Iran for shooting down one of our drones, and then cancelling it supposedly "at the last minute", by his own (dubious) account. Plus, as I pointed out earlier, the fact that he just "fired" his third(?) Secretary of Defense in John Bolton, a man who has a well-earned reputation for being the most hawkish hawk who ever hawked a hawk. That's not something you do if you're eager to throw down with, well, anyone.

*EDIT: (I say "fired" in quotes because Trump says he fired Bolton, but Bolton says he resigned. Between the two of them, I'll take Bolton's word over Trump's every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.)

If you study Trump's behavior with any degree of objectivity and for any period of time, you'll come to notice pretty quickly that he loves to talk tough, especially on Twitter, but he almost never follows through. As President, this is in fact one of his worst qualities. In part for some of the reasons you've noted, only in the opposite direction: most of our enemies are figuring out by now that he's all talk and no action. Except when it comes to slapping tariffs on everything, which ultimately does the most economic damage to us, and not their supposed targets.

*EDIT: I forgot to point out that all of the Iranian activities I pointed out in my previous reply have taken place since the incident I mentioned above. It's almost as though they're suddenly feeling emboldened by something. I can't imagine why that could possibly be.
snowman1989 wrote:
Though, at the moment, Saudi Arabia are the ones waging an offensive war against a weaker neighbour. As of this moment, Iran has not waged a single offensive war on any of its neighbours since the Revolution in 1979. Might be because it's... I dunno, totally surrounded by Sunni states. and because of geographic limitations.
That's what's been so clever about the approach they've taken ever since '79. Geographic limitations aren't so limiting when you're the leading financier of international terrorism on the planet, which they are. That's also great for plausible deniability. They're not marching the Revolutionary Guard all over the place, because they don't need to. Instead, they pay other people to strike at their enemies.

You know what else is great for overcoming geographical limitations? ICBMs. Which they're also busily developing, alongside nuclear capabilities. But I imagine that's probably our fault, too. They're just trying to defend themselves against the "Great Satan", or whatever.
snowman1989 wrote:
CWS wrote:
And going back to your original post in this very topic, was it the Saudis who just launched a cruise missile attack against Iran's oil production capability? No...it was the other way around.
This hasn't been proven yet without a shadow of a doubt, and until it has, I'd be more careful about pointing fingers. After all, your reasons for invading Iraq circled around them supposedly having WMDs (they didn't), and US intelligence has shown that they willingly fabricate information to justify conflicts, so any information they "provide" is untrustworthy and therefore worthless unless there's other reputable sources to back it up.
You mean these.

_________________
Image
Image Image
Snow banner by Synkopated; Family banner by The Phiend


Last edited by CWS on Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Added a couple of relevant notes.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Template made by DEVPPL