who would you favor in an Iran vs. US/Israel war?

[© Tweed the Younger]

no, you're forgetting your dialectic, Gustaf: the worst excesses of the VC, the rise of the Khmer Rouge, whatever you could find to legitimately complain about re: the Sandinistas, etc was an outgrowth and directly causally related to US aggression.  and aggression isn't the right word, decimation.  don't split our world into these simple ahistorical binaries for the purpose of propagating caricatures.

Yes, yes. You assign agency only to the people you dislike. It's not particularly novel and it's not particularly sensible either. If anything it's subconsciously imperialist, which is quite ironic.

Congrats on the big words in the final sentence though. You could probably use that in an 'essay' (I assume you'd never write one without quotation marks).

I think what you may be sensing, if you are seriously trying to sense at all, is that I hold people to responsibility for their own agency, ie, moral responsibility, in more-or-less direct proportion to the quantity and quality of resources at their proposal.  hence I will, without need for apology, hold the US and the West, the epicenter of all wealth and power, to a much higher standard than I will the rag-tag indigenous militias that inevitably will crystallize once the US bombs are dropped -- people will resist by the means that they can.

I suppose you can, again, presuming you presume to be serious, read a thread of Anglocentrism / white man's burden / cultural imperialism into this, but I think to do so you have to prove it a degree back from its outward appearance, as it has a perfectly independent internal logic of its own.  whether or not this is 'infected' with the long threads of Western imperialism, I cannot say, and don't have to as a) you did not levy a serious charge and b) if your crew were to make such an attempt, I would advise them to select a prosecutor with more credibility on such a front than the Mr Lundgren.

[Old Europe]

USA/Israel if Iran strikes first.

Neutral if USA/Israel strikes first.


So, probably neutral.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

USA/Israel if Iran strikes first.

Neutral if USA/Israel strikes first.


So, probably neutral.

Don't forget Iran's allies. Syria, Hamas, Hezbullah, Egypt, etc. the US won't be involved on this one.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Since when is Egypt an Iranian ally?

[dead0man]

Well, they certainly aren't today, nor where they yesterday, but they could be tomorrow.  Probably won't be.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

Since when is Egypt an Iranian ally?

The Muslim Brotherhood has no intrest in honoring Sadat's treaty with Israel. They may not be at the moment but with the way it's looking I see Egypt taking a more anti-Israel/American stance thus a likely opening of an alliance with Iran is likely.

[So the Heroes Fall]

The Muslim Brotherhood does not control Egypt, and the military will never let them, no matter what election results are.

[dead0man]

Indeed, the Army knows who their golden goose is and it's not the MB.  Sadly, it's the American tax payer.  Anybody with a brain in Egypt knows they wouldn't last a week in a fight with Israel.

[Purch]

Lol another war... When we're 15 trillion dollars in debt.

Where are we getting this money from?

Eventually we're going to have to stop borrowing money to fund these undeclared wars(Since no one seems to care about the constitution anymore which is why all we care about is NATO approval rather than actually asking congress). We have to cut spending both Overseas and domestically if we're ever gonna fix the problems within our own economy. The rate we spend money overseas is unsustainable.

And how about we just leave Iran alone haven't we realize that the longer we stay in the middle east the stronger the  blow back becomes as a result of our actions. I'd argue that in terms of foreign policy the way we've dealt with Iran from 1953 onward  has been an embarrassment to America, all the way from the overthrow of their democracy to the trade embargoes we've had on them for decades now.

If Israel feels threatened let them protect their own interest. In terms of Military strength what threat does Iran hold to Israel if Israel desires to make a strike?

[politicus]

If Israel feels threatened let them protect their own interest. In terms of Military strength what threat does Iran hold to Israel if Israel desires to make a strike?

10-15.000 Hezbollah  missiles in Southern Lebanon that can reach every major city in the northern part of Israel including Tel Aviv. This is probably the main reason Israel hasn't already attacked.

[Gustaf]

no, you're forgetting your dialectic, Gustaf: the worst excesses of the VC, the rise of the Khmer Rouge, whatever you could find to legitimately complain about re: the Sandinistas, etc was an outgrowth and directly causally related to US aggression.  and aggression isn't the right word, decimation.  don't split our world into these simple ahistorical binaries for the purpose of propagating caricatures.

Yes, yes. You assign agency only to the people you dislike. It's not particularly novel and it's not particularly sensible either. If anything it's subconsciously imperialist, which is quite ironic.

Congrats on the big words in the final sentence though. You could probably use that in an 'essay' (I assume you'd never write one without quotation marks).

I think what you may be sensing, if you are seriously trying to sense at all, is that I hold people to responsibility for their own agency, ie, moral responsibility, in more-or-less direct proportion to the quantity and quality of resources at their proposal.  hence I will, without need for apology, hold the US and the West, the epicenter of all wealth and power, to a much higher standard than I will the rag-tag indigenous militias that inevitably will crystallize once the US bombs are dropped -- people will resist by the means that they can.

I suppose you can, again, presuming you presume to be serious, read a thread of Anglocentrism / white man's burden / cultural imperialism into this, but I think to do so you have to prove it a degree back from its outward appearance, as it has a perfectly independent internal logic of its own.  whether or not this is 'infected' with the long threads of Western imperialism, I cannot say, and don't have to as a) you did not levy a serious charge and b) if your crew were to make such an attempt, I would advise them to select a prosecutor with more credibility on such a front than the Mr Lundgren.

Not only do I presume to be serious, I actually am. I just don't take you all that seriously.

I guess your internal logic isn't necessarily racist then, but it doesn't make much sense. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that only rich people are capable of moral agency whereas poor people are more akin to animals whose primitive reactions we cannot judge.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess. I just wish you wouldn't pretend to be some sort of champion for the people you so deeply despise.

[© Tweed the Younger]

no, you're misreading.  I stated,

I hold people to responsibility for their own agency, ie, moral responsibility, in more-or-less direct proportion to the quantity and quality of resources at their proposal.

this has nothing to do with capability; I don't touch that topic.  only that, as the great folk-punk artist Pat the Bunny brilliantly said, 'principles are for the well fed': people with fewer resources will have to resort to more crude and broad means of resistance, simply incapable of access to cutting edge war technologies.

[perdedor]

Iran's ideology is antithetical to any sort of progressive mindset. Of course, I would not favor the war...but I wouldn't cheer for our defeat at the hands of Islamic theocrats.

[Gustaf]

no, you're misreading.  I stated,

I hold people to responsibility for their own agency, ie, moral responsibility, in more-or-less direct proportion to the quantity and quality of resources at their proposal.

this has nothing to do with capability; I don't touch that topic.  only that, as the great folk-punk artist Pat the Bunny brilliantly said, 'principles are for the well fed': people with fewer resources will have to resort to more crude and broad means of resistance, simply incapable of access to cutting edge war technologies.

Yes - so you are assigning moral agency only to the rich. Thus, you're not arguing White Man's burden but merely Rich Man's burden.

You're basically defining the "Other" as the poor person, too poor to be a proper human being (although still an object of abstract sympathy).

And I think you might want to go with Brecht for that quote - fewer hipster points, perhaps, but I still think it jives better with the whole  pseudo-intellectual thing.

[© Tweed the Younger]

I think we're at a dead end as far as the actual debate goes, but I would like to point out that you've taken the time to personally attack me in each of your three posts (while I only attacked you in one, and not using epithets, only description).

[Californian Tony]

This happening would be a catastrophe in first place.

Anyways, I'd be formally neutral but, realistically speaking, the US winning is of course the less worse option.

[Gustaf]

I think we're at a dead end as far as the actual debate goes, but I would like to point out that you've taken the time to personally attack me in each of your three posts (while I only attacked you in one, and not using epithets, only description).

Eh...after you devoted a month or something to attack me personally in every post you made, even in discussions where I was not participating you can hardly expect me to have any respect for you.

And I haven't attacked you personally. I observed that you seem to despise poor people and I gave you some helpful advice on how to build your image as a café philosopher. I did say I didn't take you seriously, but that's hardly a personal attack, is it?

[Vosem]

Not only would I support US/Israel, I'm hoping they start it.

[dialectical fetishist]

Not only would I support US/Israel, I'm hoping they start it.

Why don't you sign up and go fight yourself then?

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Some people's contributions are no longer pathetic, just disgusting.

[Χahar]

Not only would I support US/Israel, I'm hoping they start it.

You're an awful person.

[Senator Snowstalker]

Not only would I support US/Israel, I'm hoping they start it.

You're an awful person.

[dialectical fetishist]

Not only would I support US/Israel, I'm hoping they start it.

You're an awful person.

[Vosem]

Not only would I support US/Israel, I'm hoping they start it.

Why don't you sign up and go fight yourself then?

I'm 14; otherwise I would certainly consider it. I do understand how hypocritical it is to support a war but have some convenient excuse for not fighting in it -- there's really no comeback possible to this one; Winston's right.

Not only would I support US/Israel, I'm hoping they start it.

You're an awful person.

Clearly, I'm an awful person for suggesting overthrow of a belligerent theocracy that actively uses the US and its allies (particularly Israel and the UK) as 'the bad guy' in propaganda; the overthrow of which would also advance American interests in a whole host of neighboring countries. I would love to be able to remove the Supreme Leader in some non-violent way, but unfortunately the government is much too entrenched to be removed in any way other than foreign invasion.

[Senator Snowstalker]

Because foreign invasion to oust a pariah dictator worked so well in 2003.