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

[TNF]

My own country, obviously. I don't see how as an American you can root for our troops to be killed in the field, or hope for a victory of the other side. That's disgusting, frankly.

[Lief 🗽]

TNF's comment reminds me of a somewhat famous little two or three minute clip of a televised debate between William Buckley and Gore Vidal (famous because it ends with Vidal calling Buckley a crypto-Nazi and Buckley responding by threatening to sock the "queer" (his words, said with a patrician non-rhotic effeteness) in the "goddamn face"). They're discussing whether or not it was right for police to attack protestors of the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, and Buckley (and the moderator) imply that it was, because they were waving Vietcong flags, and a similar hypothetical protest involving Nazi flags during World War II would have been similarly violently dispersed. Vidal, of course, defends their right to wave Vietcong flags, because as he points out there exists the mainstream opinion in America, Western Europe, and the rest of the world that the Vietcong are correct in wanting to organize their country politically as they would like and the United States is wrong.

And I'm just afraid that TNF, who is by all accounts a very left-wing person, is representative of a problematic movement in the American left since the 60s where we are cowed into supporting military efforts that are immoral and wrong, because our opposition would be seen as wishing death on American soldiers. We are so afraid of looking like traitors that we are forced to cheer on American soldiers as they illegally pillage and bomb. Can you imagine, a few years from now when we are bogged down in Iran, anyone on television or in the mainstream political discourse defending some protestors waving an Iranian flag as they're beaten up and carried away? They'd be sold out immediately as the left hurriedly rallied around the American flag. It's really depressing. If a military action is wrong, then I want it to fail, regardless of whether or not the soldiers undertaking that military action are my fellow citizens or not.

[dead0man]

It's one thing to say, "this action by us is wrong and should stop immediately".  There is nothing wrong with that (even if you are wrong).  It's a totally different thing to cheer on the other side or give sh**t to an individual serving in our armed forces.  That is wrong.  You might not be a traitor, but you'd wearing a traitor's uniform and should be treated as such.

[Lief 🗽]

Obviously I don't want individual soldiers dead on either side. (The whole idea of some grunt being told to go die on a battlefield by a guy sitting thousands of miles away in a comfortable air conditioned room is one of the most tragic things I can think of. It's the most complete dehumanization and mechanization of human-beings imaginable to reduce them to Risk pieces to be thrown at each other until one team runs out.) And I'd never give sh**t to an individual soldier because, let's be honest, they're much braver than I could ever hope in my life to be. But I don't know why it's wrong to hope the other side wins, if you think your side is doing something very wrong. I hate to Godwin's law this sh!t, but surely the Germans in the 1940s who wanted their armies to lose battles weren't in the "wrong." Now an American attack on Iran would be nowhere near as "wrong" as the Nazis conquering vast swaths of Russia so they could ethnically cleanse it and turn it into Lebensraum, but it would still be wrong.

[dead0man]

Maybe if we were picking on otherwise normal, freedom loving countries you'd have a point, but here in the real world you would be siding with a govt that claims homosexuals don't exist in their country.  You are siding with a govt that regularly hangs people in public for moving drugs.  Yes, the US/Israel do stupid and wrong things, but Iran does stupid and wrong things too.  And regularly more stupid and more wrong things.  If we were threatening Finland you could have the moral high ground while waving the Finnish flag, but we're not threatening Finland.  We are threatening a country that is, by any meassure, substantially worse than we are.  Yes, it may be a low bar, but they are still under it.  To borrow your analogy, you are a Frenchman in 1940 waving a German flag because you think it's stupid and wrong to go to war in the defense of Poland.  Maybe it was stupid and wrong to go to war with Germany to defend Poland, but siding with Germany (or in our case, Iran) is MORE stupid and MORE wrong.

Again, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with going to war with Iran (I'm not FOR attacking Iran, despite what I'm sure you think), but there is something wrong with cheering on our enemies because you disagree with the actions of your own government.

[Leftbehind]

Well firstly you can favour a side in the conflict without "cheering" them on; ie I favour such-and-such countries right to retain their ability to set their own policies and to not have their politics imposed on them by a foreign country, which are often pursuing their own interests - and would be sad if they were defeated and lost that. Does that mean I actively want British soldiers dead? Of course not: it goes without saying - but equally I don't want soldiers of the country we're invading dead, either (and f' the jingoism that says I should give less of a sh**t). I'll also have to quibble with your use of "our enemies" as well, as if that's a given - I think Lief gave fine examples when people have justifiably disregarded any appeal to see the country they're at war with as enemies, and your Poland example completely sidesteps a case that's popularly seen as an easily defensible action but fits every definition of your "traitor" label, so you've effectively answered that with "but they're not freedom-loving and liberal like Finland!". The Poland example itself is particularly ill-fitting because wars defending countries from a foreign aggressor don't usually face nearly as much dissent.

[Mechaman]

Circumstances dictate, really. If either side's clearly the aggressor, and we're seeing massive loss of life I'd probably come down on whichever side, but I'd normally be reluctant to support either, given it's a war between two sets of reactionaries.

[Mechaman]

Obviously I don't want individual soldiers dead on either side. (The whole idea of some grunt being told to go die on a battlefield by a guy sitting thousands of miles away in a comfortable air conditioned room is one of the most tragic things I can think of. It's the most complete dehumanization and mechanization of human-beings imaginable to reduce them to Risk pieces to be thrown at each other until one team runs out.) And I'd never give sh**t to an individual soldier because, let's be honest, they're much braver than I could ever hope in my life to be. But I don't know why it's wrong to hope the other side wins, if you think your side is doing something very wrong. I hate to Godwin's law this sh!t, but surely the Germans in the 1940s who wanted their armies to lose battles weren't in the "wrong." Now an American attack on Iran would be nowhere near as "wrong" as the Nazis conquering vast swaths of Russia so they could ethnically cleanse it and turn it into Lebensraum, but it would still be wrong.

+5

[© tweed]

Lief at 230am and presumably on some form of substance >>>>> normal Lief.  that said, I don't encourage him to use more, only to be able to "see in technicolor" whilst sober.

[Lief 🗽]

Thank you Tweed. I've always believed that I do my best thinking at 2 in the morning.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

1. No war.
2. Minimal duration and loss of life.

lol I love how all the lefties are agreeing with Wormy on this.

Anyway, I wouldn't "favor" either side because all of the sides involved are militarist fascists.

[© tweed]

the Iranian ruling class may be a lot of things, certainly "militarist" is not one of them.

[dead0man]

Yeah....homophobic, bigoted, racist, misogynist, theocratic, oligarchic, hate filled, fundamentalist...but not militarist.

[k-onmmunist]

How the hell is US and Israel winning? Iran all the way. Guess how many wars Iran has started guys?

Guess how many America has started?

[morgieb]

Whoever didn't strike first.

[Mechaman]

Did you guys know that when there is lots of traffic Iranians love to scream "DEATH TO TRAFFIC!"?

You know what they say?  The more ya know!

[politicus]

USA/Israel obviously. I actually hope the Israelis will attack, even if the negative consequences will be substantial. They would be doing the entire Western world a favour. An Iranian nuclear bomb is a nightmare. The present regime may not want to use it, but given the nature of the theocratic regime more radical elements can always prevail in the more or less constant internal power struggle.

Furthermore the Iranian government oppresses its people massively, supports terrorism - including supporting Hezbollah, which undermines the national sovereignty of Lebanon - and wants to destroy Israel. Don't understand why anyone in the West would be on the side of those bastards. Israels human rights violations and aggressions don't even come close to the Iranians.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

America and Israel, of course.

[Gustaf]

TNF's comment reminds me of a somewhat famous little two or three minute clip of a televised debate between William Buckley and Gore Vidal (famous because it ends with Vidal calling Buckley a crypto-Nazi and Buckley responding by threatening to sock the "queer" (his words, said with a patrician non-rhotic effeteness) in the "goddamn face"). They're discussing whether or not it was right for police to attack protestors of the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, and Buckley (and the moderator) imply that it was, because they were waving Vietcong flags, and a similar hypothetical protest involving Nazi flags during World War II would have been similarly violently dispersed. Vidal, of course, defends their right to wave Vietcong flags, because as he points out there exists the mainstream opinion in America, Western Europe, and the rest of the world that the Vietcong are correct in wanting to organize their country politically as they would like and the United States is wrong.

And I'm just afraid that TNF, who is by all accounts a very left-wing person, is representative of a problematic movement in the American left since the 60s where we are cowed into supporting military efforts that are immoral and wrong, because our opposition would be seen as wishing death on American soldiers. We are so afraid of looking like traitors that we are forced to cheer on American soldiers as they illegally pillage and bomb. Can you imagine, a few years from now when we are bogged down in Iran, anyone on television or in the mainstream political discourse defending some protestors waving an Iranian flag as they're beaten up and carried away? They'd be sold out immediately as the left hurriedly rallied around the American flag. It's really depressing. If a military action is wrong, then I want it to fail, regardless of whether or not the soldiers undertaking that military action are my fellow citizens or not.

Do you know anyone from Vietnam, Lief? Because bad idea as the Vietnam war may have been, the Vietcong was not a good bunch.

It always baffles me how the left is fine with stuff they'd never otherwise accept as long as the US is opposed to it.

[© tweed]

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.

[© tweed]

much as in this situation any Iranian mad dash to develop a nuke in these final months is because the loaded gun is being so blithely pointed at their heads.

[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).

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

America and Israel because presumably any government we'd impose on Iran would be superior to the one they current have. Our involvement in such an endeavor wouldn't be justified or moral and the motives for installing such a government would be undoubtedly imperialistic but I suppose by default that I'd "support" America if I was forced to pick a side.

The real correct answer is emigrating to Canada.

[they don't love you like i love you]

America and Israel because presumably any government we'd impose on Iran would be superior to the one they current have. Our involvement in such an endeavor wouldn't be justified or moral and the motives for installing such a government would be undoubtedly imperialistic but I suppose by default that I'd "support" America if I was forced to pick a side.

The real correct answer is emigrating to Canada.

You seriously think the Harper government wouldn't be 100% lockstep on the US/Israeli side?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

America and Israel because presumably any government we'd impose on Iran would be superior to the one they current have. Our involvement in such an endeavor wouldn't be justified or moral and the motives for installing such a government would be undoubtedly imperialistic but I suppose by default that I'd "support" America if I was forced to pick a side.

The real correct answer is emigrating to Canada.

You seriously think the Harper government wouldn't be 100% lockstep on the US/Israeli side?

For political reasons, I think he would abstain.