War, what is it good for?

Forum rules
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:points: :-D :eyeroll: :neutral: :nmr: :razz: :raging: :-) ;) :( :sick: :o :? 8-) :x :shock: :lol: :cry: :evil: :?: :smirk: :!:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is OFF
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

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

Re: War, what is it good for?

by orathaic » Sun Apr 21, 2024 5:52 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 21, 2024 1:07 pm
 Not the nuclear site itself, in fact. Israel, in a brilliant display of hotspur, targeted the missile defence system that protects the nuclear site.

So, the dialogue of the last few weeks can be summised as follows

Israel assassinate Zahedi while he thinks he's safe in the fake consulate: "We're pissed off and we're not playing games any more. The rules have changed. If you think you can continue to waltz back and forth through your vassal states to fight a proxy war against us you have another think coming. No more"

Iran, firing a barrage of missiles and drones at Israel: "Unacceptable, I'm afraid. If you target our people directly like this we are more than willing to attack you directly in response. You don't want to do that, and if you try it again we will respond with even greater magnitude"

Israel, firing a missile to take out some of Iran's defence system: "The difference is that we have an effective defence system and you don't. We can hit you hard whenever we want, and we know where your nuclear sites are. You can do shit. So, off you fuck"

Time will tell as to who has made the stronger argument, but my money is on Israel
By and large this seems accurate.

The details of the Israeli strike which I saw seemed to indicate hitting Iranian planes which would be used to defend against strikes on their nuclear facilities, but maybe that is the same reported strike you saw with different details.

The other issue is that this strike was near a nuclear facility for (let's just say Step 3) an early stage of bomb production, but their centrifuges (let's say step 4) are deep underground and possibly safe from air strokes (also far away from the attack).

If Iran has already processed enough Uranium Ore through step 3, hitting that facility will do nothing to prevent step 4. And some estimates indicate this is indeed the case.

Hopefully this will not escalate. But then, we've recently seen a dramatic shift in the nuclear deterence game.

Basically, Putin has decided to call the nuclear bluff. You won't attack him because he has nuclear weapons and thus he can do whatever he wants... And it is possible that this strategic thinking will spread, the a NATO country deciding to strike Russian assets (whether the US hitting something in Syria, or France in Africa) seems pretty likely.

You can't let you opponent take advantage of the situation like that, in the long term (unless Russia loses the war in Ukraine) so the question is how long before a NATO country calls Russia's bluff, and then we are one step closer to nuclear disaster.

Thankfully the US appears to be sending Ukraine military aid, and the EU continues to work to improve their own defensive capabilities. So despite being a pacifist, I am happy to see defence of self and others.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by orathaic » Sun Apr 21, 2024 5:40 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Thu Apr 11, 2024 2:36 pm
 That it isn't a fact is Jamie's opinion
That it is a fact is Fritz's opinion

One of those opinions happens to be true, but it is a fact that regardless of how strongly those opinions are held it is not possible to conclusively prove which one is correct.
I by and large disagree.

It is entirely possible that both are wrong. You could provide empirical evidence of God existing, and Jamie might decide, "well sure that thing exists, but it isn't what I meant when I said God" - or you could provide empirical evidence that prayer doesn't work and Fritz could say "no, but what I believe about God doesn't require prayer to work".

Neither opinion is defined clearly enough for it to be a clear dichotomy.

As such, wait, this thread was about War not religion...

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Octavious » Sun Apr 21, 2024 1:07 pm

Not the nuclear site itself, in fact. Israel, in a brilliant display of hotspur, targeted the missile defence system that protects the nuclear site.

So, the dialogue of the last few weeks can be summised as follows

Israel assassinate Zahedi while he thinks he's safe in the fake consulate: "We're pissed off and we're not playing games any more. The rules have changed. If you think you can continue to waltz back and forth through your vassal states to fight a proxy war against us you have another think coming. No more"

Iran, firing a barrage of missiles and drones at Israel: "Unacceptable, I'm afraid. If you target our people directly like this we are more than willing to attack you directly in response. You don't want to do that, and if you try it again we will respond with even greater magnitude"

Israel, firing a missile to take out some of Iran's defence system: "The difference is that we have an effective defence system and you don't. We can hit you hard whenever we want, and we know where your nuclear sites are. You can do shit. So, off you fuck"

Time will tell as to who has made the stronger argument, but my money is on Israel

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Esquire Bertissimmo » Fri Apr 19, 2024 2:18 pm

Looks like Israel has responded with limited missile strikes on Iran. Among the targets were Iran's nuclear sites. The online left is furious, but Iran itself has downplayed the attack.

Hopefully this closes the loop of escalation. Everyone gets a domestic political victory out of this if they sell it well. Iran is hopefully reminded that it's offensive capabilities are limited and its nuclear weapons program is vulnerable.

As a totally separate issue from Israel-Gaza, I'm personally happy that Israel is demonstrating it's ability and willingness to strike at Iran's nuclear sites. There is plenty that is unfair about Iran's history (as Orthaic laid out above). It's understandable why Iran would want the bomb. But nuclear proliferation in that part of the world could literally kill us all. The nuclear "deals" from the West were never going to stop Iran from getting the bomb — the US, the Gulf states, hell the whole world are really banking on Israel using hard power to prevent this.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Octavious » Fri Apr 19, 2024 11:59 am

orathaic wrote: ↑
Fri Apr 19, 2024 8:56 am
 I am firmly of the opinion that Iran should be negotiated with, that their internal protests should be given every opportunity to succeed - rather than attacks which will risk a generation who trusts that only the government can protect them from foreign threats (like North Korea's dictatorship relies on).
Everything is a negotiation. Military action, at the end of the day, is just a device for setting the context for talks. The Ukraine war can be summed up as Ukraine telling Russia that trying to take its territory will be far more costly than they bargained for, and Russia telling Ukraine it's prepared to pay the price. The deal that Trump abandoned was a disaster and it's great that it's gone. What will replace it remains to be seen

Re: War, what is it good for?

by orathaic » Fri Apr 19, 2024 8:56 am

Octavious wrote: ↑
Thu Apr 18, 2024 10:41 am
Iran made a complete pig's ear of its response. But if it were to attack an Israeli - US meeting that would be a massive strategic mistake and unleash a world of pain on another level, which is why they're not going to do it.
On this we are agreed. But it is not a moralistic position (unless you believe might makes right). It is a realist position, real politic (befitting for a diplomacy site).

I am firmly of the opinion that Iran should be negotiated with, that their internal protests should be given every opportunity to succeed - rather than attacks which will risk a generation who trusts that only the government can protect them from foreign threats (like North Korea's dictatorship relies on).

Iran unfortunately is fighting several proxy wars because it can't risk a conventional war. But the root cause of those fighters being willing to take up arms is not for Iran, it is against those power that have oppressed them. They don't care who gives them the weapons... There is nothing particularly evil about the Iranian regime's foreign policy, any more so than every other international actor who pushes to further their own interests and weaken their enemies. It is just the norm of international relations at this point.

That said, the Iranian Theocracy is almost certainly worse than what Trump's Christo-fascist America will do if they regain power. Though expectations of America are much higher, so relatively speaking it seems worse.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Octavious » Thu Apr 18, 2024 10:41 am

orathaic wrote: ↑
Thu Apr 18, 2024 7:02 am
 The responce i would expect from Israel would the bombing Iranian drone factories. Because that at least could be seen as self-defence/pre-emptive strike. G7.
Maybe so. I guess it depends on whether they have identified viable targets that would seriously degrade Iranian capability. Or, or course, whether they have declared every drone factory to be a Syrian embassy ;)
orathaic wrote: ↑
Thu Apr 18, 2024 7:02 am
 I doubt you would think it is appropriate for Iran to strike a military meeting of NATO high command or high level strategy meeting of US-Israeli military officials (say, in responce to an Israeli strike), so why is it ok for Iranian military officials to be targeted?
I think the appropriate response is for Iran to apologise and beg forgiveness, abandon their dictatorship and install democracy.

But in the real world what I think is appropriate doesn't matter. What matters is what Iran wants to achieve, what it believes it is capable of, what it wants to avoid, and what it thinks it can get away with. Israel wanted to kill Zahedi, saw an opportunity to do so, and believed it could mitigate the retaliation. It was right on all counts. It also tore a wedge between Iran and its allies in the process. Aside from the monetary cost of the defensive action it was a glorious success.

Iran made a complete pig's ear of its response. But if it were to attack an Israeli - US meeting that would be a massive strategic mistake and unleash a world of pain on another level, which is why they're not going to do it.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by orathaic » Thu Apr 18, 2024 7:02 am

Octavious wrote: ↑
Wed Apr 17, 2024 6:39 pm
orathaic wrote: ↑
Tue Apr 16, 2024 11:06 pm
 So Israel provoked Iran by bombing their Embassy, what is the appropriate level of responce to someone blowig up your embassy and killing your citizens?

What would the US or UK do in these circumstances? How has this changed the media narratives /likely good of further deaths in Gaza?
The US and the UK generally speaking don't use embassies as military HQs from which to run paramilitary operations. There were very few diplomats in the consulate and rather a lot of high ranking military men, including the target General Zahedi, senior member of the Quds force that runs Iranian paramilitary operations in Syria and Lebanon. Using a diplomatic mission as cover for terrorist activities is an illegal act.

The appropriate response depends on what you want to happen. I frankly don't see how Iran's response was appropriate from any obvious perspective. It escalated tensions, it demonstrated Israel and her allies formidable defences, and it demonstrated the limitations of Iran's offensive capabilities. Unless it was a message from Iran's political leadership to its military forces that they should know the limits of their capabilities it doesn't make much sense, but that would imply that Iran is more divided and vulnerable than is generally believed.
The responce i would expect from Israel would the bombing Iranian drone factories. Because that at least could be seen as self-defence/pre-emptive strike. G7.

I doubt you would think it is appropriate for Iran to strike a military meeting of NATO high command or high level strategy meeting of US-Israeli military officials (say, in responce to an Israeli strike), so why is it ok for Iranian military officials to be targeted?

Sure, they can be considered a military target, which makes sense when you are at war. But being at war is something nobody wants... Apart from the people in Hamas who seek justice for Palestinians, and the Israel right wing who seek elimination of Gaza as an entity.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by orathaic » Thu Apr 18, 2024 6:57 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Wed Apr 17, 2024 1:41 am
 Or maybe Iran provoked Israel by sponsoring a terror group that murdered 1,000+ civilians last fall? Or the decades of support for Hamas and Hezbollah? Or their stated aim to get nuclear weapons and use them to finish what Hitler started?

Obviously Israel isn't blameless here but it's ridiculous to start the narrative at the embassy bombing, though that was indeed provocative.
You are right that starting the narrative with any one point is missing context.

But you are also missing the context of Hamas having their own autonomy.

Iran does support proxies in their efforts to undermine their enemies. But Hamas in particular exists and is willing to use force against Israel regardless of Iranian support. The lack of a peace process in Palestine is not something which you can pay entirely at Iran's door. Similarily Hezbollah in Lebanon have reasons to fight Israel of their own - see also the Israeli invasions of Lebanon.

It is only really the Houthis in Yemen who have been drawn into this conflict despite not having any particular/specific reason to want to fight Israel (in that their conflict has largely been with Saudi proxies, and an internal issue within Yemen, rather than being about Israel, Iran's support of them reflects their desire to undermine Saudi Arabia as the major political power within Islam... Which seems like an entirely different conflict for Iran).

It also lacks the context for why Iranians oppose the West at all, like why does the Iranian theocracy exist (as a backlash to CIA operations in Iran, and western exploitation of Iranian oil resources). It is arguable that Iran was actually correct to push foreign influences out and protect its own resource and people, it is unfortunate that doing so resulted in a proxy war where the US back Iraq in invading Iran and killing of hundreds of thousands of Iranians, and perhaps a million people in total (or maybe twice that, depending on who you count).

So yeah, their use of proxy forces to avoid a direct confrontation makes sense, and their reaction to decades of western influence makes a lot of sense. It is a shame that the Iranian nuclear deal was abandoned by Trump, when it might have been the begining of a new era of cooperation and peaceful relations with Iran.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Octavious » Wed Apr 17, 2024 6:39 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑
Tue Apr 16, 2024 11:06 pm
 So Israel provoked Iran by bombing their Embassy, what is the appropriate level of responce to someone blowig up your embassy and killing your citizens?

What would the US or UK do in these circumstances? How has this changed the media narratives /likely good of further deaths in Gaza?
The US and the UK generally speaking don't use embassies as military HQs from which to run paramilitary operations. There were very few diplomats in the consulate and rather a lot of high ranking military men, including the target General Zahedi, senior member of the Quds force that runs Iranian paramilitary operations in Syria and Lebanon. Using a diplomatic mission as cover for terrorist activities is an illegal act.

The appropriate response depends on what you want to happen. I frankly don't see how Iran's response was appropriate from any obvious perspective. It escalated tensions, it demonstrated Israel and her allies formidable defences, and it demonstrated the limitations of Iran's offensive capabilities. Unless it was a message from Iran's political leadership to its military forces that they should know the limits of their capabilities it doesn't make much sense, but that would imply that Iran is more divided and vulnerable than is generally believed.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by CaptainFritz28 » Wed Apr 17, 2024 3:49 am

The fact that the attack did little damage is a testament to the fact that Israel is ready for such attacks... because they must be, due to Iran's terrorist proxies and attacks.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Esquire Bertissimmo » Wed Apr 17, 2024 2:15 am

All the G7 leaders have begged Israel not to respond. At this point the risk of escalation seems somewhat low — no doubt Israel will keep up its not-so-covert operations to disrupt Iran, but no one seems to have an appetite for a hot war.

I saw a lot of mainstream news try to downplay Iran's attack because it was foreseeable and ultimately did little damage. I think that's not exactly the right way to think about it — this was not a particularly minor attack and the competent defense we saw was not guaranteed.

Iran's attack may have slightly delayed Israel's assault on Gaza but I don't see it having a major impact on how that war develops unless something crazy happens soon (e.g., more attacks from Iran, a real push from Hezbollah, etc.).

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Esquire Bertissimmo » Wed Apr 17, 2024 1:41 am

Or maybe Iran provoked Israel by sponsoring a terror group that murdered 1,000+ civilians last fall? Or the decades of support for Hamas and Hezbollah? Or their stated aim to get nuclear weapons and use them to finish what Hitler started?

Obviously Israel isn't blameless here but it's ridiculous to start the narrative at the embassy bombing, though that was indeed provocative.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by orathaic » Tue Apr 16, 2024 11:06 pm

So Israel provoked Iran by bombing their Embassy, what is the appropriate level of responce to someone blowig up your embassy and killing your citizens?

What would the US or UK do in these circumstances? How has this changed the media narratives /likely good of further deaths in Gaza?

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Jamiet99uk » Tue Apr 16, 2024 8:03 pm

learnedSloth wrote: ↑
Tue Apr 16, 2024 5:05 am
Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Apr 15, 2024 11:11 pm
learnedSloth wrote: ↑
Mon Apr 15, 2024 1:48 pm
Of course God has more to offer, even the way of salvation, which leads to the eternal life. However, just the fear of God should make people consider their motives.
Why should I consider my motives in the face of someone whose main motivation is that of fear? How is that any different from a child, who obeys their abusive father to avoid being beaten?
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever. -- Psalm 111:10

The fear of the Lord just makes you do it.
Well screw you and screw him; I won't.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by learnedSloth » Tue Apr 16, 2024 5:05 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Apr 15, 2024 11:11 pm
learnedSloth wrote: ↑
Mon Apr 15, 2024 1:48 pm
Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 14, 2024 11:27 am
 You think God is loving, but you think the only way to make people behave is to have them be terrified of him.
Of course God has more to offer, even the way of salvation, which leads to the eternal life. However, just the fear of God should make people consider their motives.
Why should I consider my motives in the face of someone whose main motivation is that of fear? How is that any different from a child, who obeys their abusive father to avoid being beaten?
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever. -- Psalm 111:10

The fear of the Lord just makes you do it.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Jamiet99uk » Mon Apr 15, 2024 11:15 pm

If your "God" was real, and was as described in scripture, I would hate him. He is a capricious despot. His demands are self-serving, his works are inconsistent, his lessons are unjust.

Fuck "Him". I feel assurance and satisfaction in my conclusion that there is no such fucking thing.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by Jamiet99uk » Mon Apr 15, 2024 11:11 pm

learnedSloth wrote: ↑
Mon Apr 15, 2024 1:48 pm
Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 14, 2024 11:27 am
 You think God is loving, but you think the only way to make people behave is to have them be terrified of him.
Of course God has more to offer, even the way of salvation, which leads to the eternal life. However, just the fear of God should make people consider their motives.
Why?

Why should I consider my motives in the face of someone whose main motivation is that of fear? How is that any different from a child, who obeys their abusive father to avoid being beaten? For me, the right thing to do is to rise up and overthrow such an abuser. Christianity thinks otherwise because it is a centuries-outdated philosophy based on the worship of a violent, paternal, father figure.

The imaginary God you idolise is a violent, abusive parent who rules through fear and pain. It is just as well "he" does not exist.

Re: War, what is it good for?

by learnedSloth » Mon Apr 15, 2024 1:48 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 14, 2024 11:27 am
 You think God is loving, but you think the only way to make people behave is to have them be terrified of him.
Of course God has more to offer, even the way of salvation, which leads to the eternal life. However, just the fear of God should make people consider their motives.
Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Sun Apr 14, 2024 3:09 pm
 Hamas members are amongst the most God fearing people on earth lol, doesn't seem to be helping.
Source?

Re: War, what is it good for?

by CaptainFritz28 » Sun Apr 14, 2024 11:54 pm

I'm not claiming that Christians are perfect, I've never claimed that. I'm not saying that Christian nations are pacifist either. I also find it highly unlikely that those in the Middle East would ever concert to Christianity.

However, I do believe that Christianity tends a nation towards less violence, and indeed less war. I've found a couple of studies on this, when I have more than 30 seconds to write I'll find them and paste them in here. I've done so before, I think in this very thread, but so far back that I'll not make you find them again.

Top