War, what is it good for?

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 9:32 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 8:52 pm
The West erred (criminally) by installing a brutal dictatorship in Iran. I'm not sure how that's an argument in favour of maintaining the brutal dictatorship that continues to run Iran. Regime change could definitely produce an even worse government, but it's not a foregone conclusion that Iranian leadership can only get worse. A silver lining to hope for in this conflict is that it ultimately takes both Bibi and the Mullahs out of power.

First it's an argument against the West backing Israel in just massacring civilians wherever it bloody well wants. Which is absolutely what the West is doing.

Second, why do you think Bibi will be removed / lose power as a result of any of this?

by **Octavious** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 9:31 pm

The world according to Jamie:

Britain was responsible for the creation of the brutal Israeli regime therefore has a responsibility to facilitate it's removal

Britain was responsible for the creation of the brutal Iranian regime therefore has a responsibility to ensure it's survival

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 8:52 pm

The West erred (criminally) by installing a brutal dictatorship in Iran. I'm not sure how that's an argument in favour of maintaining the brutal dictatorship that continues to run Iran. Regime change could definitely produce an even worse government, but it's not a foregone conclusion that Iranian leadership can only get worse. A silver lining to hope for in this conflict is that it ultimately takes both Bibi and the Mullahs out of power.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 8:47 pm

On the subject of Iran we should not forget that the West destroyed Iran’s progressive democracy in 1953, bringing about a military coup which deposed a democratic a leader beloved of his people, and installing a brutal dictatorship in its place.

The US and UK have been terrorising Iran for over 60 years.

Israel is the vanguard of Western imperialism in the region, and Netanyahu is now openly calling for assassination and regime change in Iran, clearly with Trump's backing. They want to destroy the country to extend their hegemony. These are murderous, evil people.

An Israel-Western "regime change" operation against Iran will unavoidably lead to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian deaths. We have seen this play out before, several times in the past decades. Anyone who tries to justify this fucking madness will have more blood on their hands than they can ever wash off.

by **CaptainFritz28** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 8:13 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:39 pm

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:33 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 8:22 am

When? Where and when was this promise made, by whom? I have looked online and cannot find any reliable source that verifies this.
They've called for Israel's destruction many times. Perhaps I'll post a source later when I'm not so busy, but just about everyone, from their supreme leader to various generals and the sentiment of the common people, wants Israel destroyed.
Unless you mean to say that their funding of a multiplicity of terrorist groups with the specific goal of Israel's destruction means nothing.
It does not automatically mean promising to launch nuclear weapons, which is the specific thing you claimed.

Launching nukes is kind of a big deal.

I'll defer to Bert's response, and add a caveat to my earlier statement that you are right, they've not promised specifically to nuke Israel. But they have promised to destroy them and have taken action to work towards that even at great cost to themselves. I don't think anyone wants to see a conventional war between two nuclear powers with madmen at their heads. If Iran got a nuke, that would set a clock that I think would almost inevitably end in one or the other launching.

I conflated "destruction of Israel at all costs" to "nuking Israel at the cost of being nuked." My apologies.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 8:02 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:39 pm

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:33 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 8:22 am

When? Where and when was this promise made, by whom? I have looked online and cannot find any reliable source that verifies this.
They've called for Israel's destruction many times. Perhaps I'll post a source later when I'm not so busy, but just about everyone, from their supreme leader to various generals and the sentiment of the common people, wants Israel destroyed.
Unless you mean to say that their funding of a multiplicity of terrorist groups with the specific goal of Israel's destruction means nothing.
It does not automatically mean promising to launch nuclear weapons, which is the specific thing you claimed.

Launching nukes is kind of a big deal.

A key problem here is Iran denies it is developing nukes. In fact, Iran’s leaders say having nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam (via Khamenei’s “nuclear fatwa”).

There is no case of Iran threatening to nuke Israel with nukes they don't have. There are, however, countless examples of senior Iranians threatening to end Israel's existence. That puts them in the same genocidal category as Jamie, the difference being (i) Iran already engages in endless proxy wars against Israel for that purpose and (ii) they're developing nuclear weapons that could kill every Israeli with the push of a button.

Of course, even with a bomb Iran almost certainly wouldn't first-strike Israel, because Israel would retaliate in kind. Likewise, Israel could nuke Tehran today, but won't for a whole host of good reasons (that Pakistan would nuke Israel being foremost among them). But the logic of MAD only works if neither side emboldens messianic psychopaths (as both sides have). Most of the rest of the world (including the Arab states) greatly prefer only one volatile and messianic country to have nukes in the region rather than two.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:39 pm

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:33 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 8:22 am

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:46 am
Y'know why Iran doesn't get nukes? Because they've promised to use them. If your plan is to let them do so because you can't handle Israel, then you're just as brainwashed as you're calling Bert.
When? Where and when was this promise made, by whom? I have looked online and cannot find any reliable source that verifies this.
They've called for Israel's destruction many times. Perhaps I'll post a source later when I'm not so busy, but just about everyone, from their supreme leader to various generals and the sentiment of the common people, wants Israel destroyed.
Unless you mean to say that their funding of a multiplicity of terrorist groups with the specific goal of Israel's destruction means nothing.

It does not automatically mean promising to launch nuclear weapons, which is the specific thing you claimed.

Launching nukes is kind of a big deal.

by **CaptainFritz28** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:33 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 8:22 am

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:46 am
Y'know why Iran doesn't get nukes? Because they've promised to use them. If your plan is to let them do so because you can't handle Israel, then you're just as brainwashed as you're calling Bert.
When? Where and when was this promise made, by whom? I have looked online and cannot find any reliable source that verifies this.

They've called for Israel's destruction many times. Perhaps I'll post a source later when I'm not so busy, but just about everyone, from their supreme leader to various generals and the sentiment of the common people, wants Israel destroyed.
Unless you mean to say that their funding of a multiplicity of terrorist groups with the specific goal of Israel's destruction means nothing.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:21 pm

It's definitely an out-loud threat to kill Khomeini if they don't capitulate. Some reporting I saw suggested that Israel would have already assassinated Khomeini were it not for a US request to hold off.

"Unconditional" no doubt covers a full dismantling of the military nuclear project, but could conceivably extend to other goals (some conventional military disarmament; forcible cutting ties with the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah; maybe even a change in leadership).

This could yet be a long war, but it's looking like a deeply humiliating defeat for Iran.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 6:24 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 5:13 pm
Think it's safe to say the US is basically in the war now. Trump is calling for Iran's unconditional surrender.

He also said they're not going to assassinate Iran's head of state "for now". The "for now" element of that can only be interpreted as a threat to kill him if Iran does not surrender.

What does an "unconditional surrender" for Iran even look like?

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 5:13 pm

Think it's safe to say the US is basically in the war now. Trump is calling for Iran's unconditional surrender.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 1:53 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 1:22 pm
And based on current behaviour I am beginning to think they would.

Which is why all support should be withdrawn from this murderous evil regime.

For those same reasons I'd rather Iran not get the bomb.

Israel's can't be easily taken away, because they already have them. Iran can be prevented from developing them, but at a high cost.

The goal of preventing Iranian nukes is a good one. But the chosen method may prove to be extremely foolish. I saw last night Trump basically evacuated the 10m+ population of Tehran with a vague Truth Social post. I desperately wish that saner US and Israeli leaders were at the helm.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 1:22 pm

And based on current behaviour I am beginning to think they would.

Which is why all support should be withdrawn from this murderous evil regime.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:39 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 8:23 am

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:56 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:05 pm

Maybe what I would do differently would be mostly symbolic but sometimes symbolism matters.

I would place every member of the Israeli government and all senior IDF commanders on the sanctions list.

I would immediately place a trade embargo on Israel, ceasing all exports military or otherwise, and blocking the import of any Israeli goods. A drop in the ocean but a signal.

I would publicly declare the UK's support for South Africa's ongoing case against Israel in the International Court of Justice.

I would place travel restrictions on people with Israel-issued passports travelling to or from the UK or transiting through this country.

I would seek to use the UKs position on the Security Council to bring international action against Israel despite the knowledge that the USA would block it.

If these actions did not yield a significant impact (which I don't believe they would) I would liaise with UN agencies and the Red Cross / Red Crescent to sponsor a plan to deliver an increase in humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Ultimately, gunboats? Yes. I would deploy Royal Navy units to international waters in the Mediterranean Sea to prevent the interception of any UK-flagged vessels seeking to transport aid to Gaza provided such vessels submitted to a search by Royal Navy forces to confirm their humanitarian cargoes.

Reasonable and humane steps in the face of a murderous regime hellbent on genocide.
Oh, sorry, I missed this. That's great, really is. Except that it means nothing to the state of Israel when they're considering whether or not to keep their nukes. They'd rather have that insurance policy than all the Western support we'll give.

And... I think you've got a bit of an overinflated view of the UK's ability to send gunboats. Y'all have twice as many admirals as active warships.
The UK has considerably greater naval power than Israel.

Israel could nuke London...

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 8:23 am

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:56 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:05 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 1:51 pm

The current actions specifically referring to the strikes on Iran? Pretty much what Starmer is doing. As much as possible stay out of it, but make sure increased forces are at hand to react to any threats against British interests.

I'm genuinely curious about what you'd do differently. Cry "Rule Britainnia!" and send out the gunboats to beat a bit of civilisation into Johnny Foreigner?
Maybe what I would do differently would be mostly symbolic but sometimes symbolism matters.

I would place every member of the Israeli government and all senior IDF commanders on the sanctions list.

I would immediately place a trade embargo on Israel, ceasing all exports military or otherwise, and blocking the import of any Israeli goods. A drop in the ocean but a signal.

I would publicly declare the UK's support for South Africa's ongoing case against Israel in the International Court of Justice.

I would place travel restrictions on people with Israel-issued passports travelling to or from the UK or transiting through this country.

I would seek to use the UKs position on the Security Council to bring international action against Israel despite the knowledge that the USA would block it.

If these actions did not yield a significant impact (which I don't believe they would) I would liaise with UN agencies and the Red Cross / Red Crescent to sponsor a plan to deliver an increase in humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Ultimately, gunboats? Yes. I would deploy Royal Navy units to international waters in the Mediterranean Sea to prevent the interception of any UK-flagged vessels seeking to transport aid to Gaza provided such vessels submitted to a search by Royal Navy forces to confirm their humanitarian cargoes.

Reasonable and humane steps in the face of a murderous regime hellbent on genocide.
Oh, sorry, I missed this. That's great, really is. Except that it means nothing to the state of Israel when they're considering whether or not to keep their nukes. They'd rather have that insurance policy than all the Western support we'll give.

And... I think you've got a bit of an overinflated view of the UK's ability to send gunboats. Y'all have twice as many admirals as active warships.

The UK has considerably greater naval power than Israel.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 8:22 am

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:46 am
Y'know why Iran doesn't get nukes? Because they've promised to use them. If your plan is to let them do so because you can't handle Israel, then you're just as brainwashed as you're calling Bert.

When? Where and when was this promise made, by whom? I have looked online and cannot find any reliable source that verifies this.

by **CaptainFritz28** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 8:01 am

I should clarify - in regards to dealing with Gaza, those are good ideas for the UK. Practical, useful, and showing intent to aid the people in need and decry war crimes. I only mean the above in regards to disarmament.

by **CaptainFritz28** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:56 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:05 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 1:51 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 12:56 pm
If you woke up this morning to find you were the Prime Minister of the UK, or the President of the USA, what would you do about Israel's current actions?
The current actions specifically referring to the strikes on Iran? Pretty much what Starmer is doing. As much as possible stay out of it, but make sure increased forces are at hand to react to any threats against British interests.

I'm genuinely curious about what you'd do differently. Cry "Rule Britainnia!" and send out the gunboats to beat a bit of civilisation into Johnny Foreigner?
Maybe what I would do differently would be mostly symbolic but sometimes symbolism matters.

I would place every member of the Israeli government and all senior IDF commanders on the sanctions list.

I would immediately place a trade embargo on Israel, ceasing all exports military or otherwise, and blocking the import of any Israeli goods. A drop in the ocean but a signal.

I would publicly declare the UK's support for South Africa's ongoing case against Israel in the International Court of Justice.

I would place travel restrictions on people with Israel-issued passports travelling to or from the UK or transiting through this country.

I would seek to use the UKs position on the Security Council to bring international action against Israel despite the knowledge that the USA would block it.

If these actions did not yield a significant impact (which I don't believe they would) I would liaise with UN agencies and the Red Cross / Red Crescent to sponsor a plan to deliver an increase in humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Ultimately, gunboats? Yes. I would deploy Royal Navy units to international waters in the Mediterranean Sea to prevent the interception of any UK-flagged vessels seeking to transport aid to Gaza provided such vessels submitted to a search by Royal Navy forces to confirm their humanitarian cargoes.

Reasonable and humane steps in the face of a murderous regime hellbent on genocide.

Oh, sorry, I missed this. That's great, really is. Except that it means nothing to the state of Israel when they're considering whether or not to keep their nukes. They'd rather have that insurance policy than all the Western support we'll give.

And... I think you've got a bit of an overinflated view of the UK's ability to send gunboats. Y'all have twice as many admirals as active warships.

by **CaptainFritz28** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:50 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:16 am
Not everyone accepts this approach to international relations, and we should fight hard against the view that Bert is advancing. Sorry Bert but your willingness to take this shit is fucked up and you've lost any moral compass, it seems to me.

Then tell us, since you know so much about what NOT to do, what should be done? HOW do you intend to go about convincing Israel and North Korea and Russia and India and Pakistan to unwillingly get rid of their nuclear stockpiles?

You've done an awful lot of criticism. Let's hear what your solution is.

by **CaptainFritz28** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:46 am

Jamie, thing is, you're absolutely right. Having nukes shouldn't mean that a nation gets any sort of moral get-out-of-jail-free card. It shouldn't mean that we allow Israel or anyone else to do whatever they like to attack Iran because they've got nukes.

Well... I should qualify that. You're absolutely right about one thing, and that's that the world would probably be better if nobody had nukes.

But nations do. And if every politician in the West adopted you're approach we'd all be dead. You rely on everybody else in the world doing their part to agree with your ideas, but if any group doesn't, things go south immediately. If the USA, UK, Israel, and all of NATO disarms and gets rid of our nukes, North Korea or someone else who hates America or Israel and has sworn to destroy said nations launches against us. Her allies follow suit. Millions upon millions die.

Y'know why Iran doesn't get nukes? Because they've promised to use them. If your plan is to let them do so because you can't handle Israel, then you're just as brainwashed as you're calling Bert.

I'd love to see your ideals here succeed. I really would. Depose the evil rulers, disarm all the world's nukes, everybody comes together and sings "kumbaya" and makes a worldwide society where no one does any harm to anybody else and everyone works together. But if you think that's even a remote possibility you've got another thing comin', and if you can't factor in reality to your opinions on policy, you've got to change 'em.

War, what is it good for?

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?