Talk Elections

Iran of course

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

It would depend on who the aggressors are in the conflict, though that would be a wee bit hard to discern given how much provocation and saber-rattling has been going on. If it were to begin with Israel deciding to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities however, I would be inclined to side with Iran but remain open to changing my mind depending on what I later learn and how events develop.

lol.  Iran is surrounded by dozens of military bases, is threatened daily by the US-Israel Axis with the threat of utter annihilation, has not invaded anyone in hundreds of years... and the question of aggression is "difficult to discern".  the power of propaganda.

I already consider Israel and the United States much more aggressive in the region than is Iran,  but when I lack a thorough understanding of a particular issue from lack of adequate experience and research it seems prudent to err toward positions where the supporting rationale is offered up with terms of limited certainty. If I simply come out with a one-sided rant that backs one side or another 100% I am liable to overstep the bounds of my limited knowledge.

I am also aware of the heavily slanted, negative portrayal of Iran in the States, but that does not mean that Iran is blameless, either. The rest of the post you quoted from included my intention to remain flexible on the issue so that as I receive, analyze, and eventually synthesize more facts I won't be tempted to dogmatically cling to my original stance. If you want to laugh about it that is alright, but I am trying to be modest and not overestimate my ability to weigh in on the subject assertively without making a fool of myself. :p

I would support the Iranian people.

America, obviously.

This thread further confirms my thesis that Tweed is an HP...


Anyways...US/Israel, of course.

He's not the one hypothetically supporting aggressor states in an illegal war, bro.

I always will support America, but I will also oppose the war. And I would not at all care what happens to Israel unless they are actually nuked or attacked first.

I'm sure they will be thrilled at your sympathy after they've been nuked.

I'd not support the fascist theocracy. I guess that makes me a right-winger.

Is Israel anymore free then Iran? I would compare Israel to the Apartheid, South Africa, and Iran to Stalins USSR. I would not support either of them, on a moral basis, despite the fact that Stalins Russia was far more dangerous and evil.

Do we even know if Iran is building nukes? Because they sure were right about Iraq ;)

::)



Oh give me a break.  Apartheid Israel?  Soviet Iran?  Can you explain either of those?

Yes. Iran is a totalitarian dictatorship which fits the Stalinist mold, while Israel is a much more moderate dictatorship that reminds me of Apartheid South Africa. I’m making comparisons.

Which one?

come on man, I can all but forgive you for your habit of regurgitating neoliberal economic propaganda, as it operates with the compelling guise of scientificity, but on this front.. you should know better.

I'm gonna go with the nations that let gay people exist in them and not the theocracy that regularly executes people for things like drug trafficking.

as for the illegal war claim, US-Israeli aggression against Iran without the support of the UN would clearly be a violation of both the rulings issued at the Nuremberg tribunal as well as the UN Charter.  so either a) the US would be in violation of international law or b) the Nazis tried and executed at Nuremberg were lynched.

this only seems like such a joke to you because the world's leading terror state has repeatedly and flagrantly violated the above in probably dozens of cases in the post-War.

Apartheid Israel is well-documented and not difficult to defend; there is a race-based system of seclusion that not only keeps its victims outside of the upper echelons of society, but moreover, without the essentials of life (food, water, electricity) in many cases and does so through militarization.

as if this is the issue at hand here.

Hmm, the country which last started a war in 1826, or the one which last started one at earliest 1982 (depending on your definition of "started a war"), that one being an intervention in support of self-proclaimed fascists whom they assisted and directed in the murder of thousands of civilians, while they were simultaneously selling nuclear material and ballistic missiles to Apartheid South Africa and selling weapons to Northern Irish Protestant death squads.

Seriously, Israel is almost cartoonishly evil.  It's an embarassment that the US government is so subservient to them.

Calling Israel the nation "evil" is extreme in my book. I simply believe they are the aggressor, and are no better then any other ally of the USA.

There are two fascist theocracies in this hypothetical, Gus. Please specify.

And of course you're a right-winger.

Question - if I answer US/Israel can people please not suggest that this makes me a neocon warmonger or whatever? Merely that, given the choice of "supporting" either side I'm going to go for the ones that, whatever their obvious flaws, aren't out and out fascists.

Anyway, US/Israel.

No man, didn't you read Lief?  They are the same facist theocracy that Iran is....somehow.

Heh, Yeah, about that -

Look, I'd be the first person (well, uh, maybe not the first, but 'yknow :P) to criticise Israel, but suggesting that Israel - and the United States - are as "bad" (for want of a better word, I suppose) as Iran just serves to look silly and overshadow legitimate criticism of Israel.

Of course neither Israel nor Iran is fascist, but I assume Gustaf was using the word as shorthand for un-democratic/nationalist.

Is it too late for a Jewish state in Pomerania?

yes

It was a joke, a joke.

Ahh, I see you are making fun of the people that actually think that way.  My mistake.

There are people that actually want to create a Jewish state in Pomerania?

Well it's more like sitting in a lifeboat from the sinking Titanic and asking if it's too late to to stay in Ireland.

Anyway, to answer the question, I would be forced to favor the US/Israel. (And separately if Israel has indeed decided it will attack, the US has no choice but to do everything possible to get Iran to stop enrichment, even if the US itself believed Iran's enrichment were not problematic).

But the analogy with Iran vs. US/Israel war here is you drove your brother to the 7-11 and he comes out with a pistol and a bag of money. You're implicated, so you have no choice but to drive him as fast as you can to the border. Just because you're evading a 10-year jail sentence, doesn't mean you condone robbery (or in this case murder).

sh**t, I'd drive him to the police station and feel just fine about it.

1. Israel is ALWAYS right to me.
2. If I think that Israel is wrong there, I look at n1.

...

That's what we have to deal with in the states Oak. I know it's hard to comprehend when you're not constantly bombarded with the joke that is american media...

It's weird though, isn't Pingvin Russian? ???

I don't know, wow.

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.

if the first act of war is an Iranian airstrike/invasion on/of US/Israeli territory, please develop a scenario in which you would classify the US/Israel as the aggressor.

A response of nuclear missiles should do it.

that either didn't make sense or I was not clear in what I was asking for.  please read Reply #43 and try again before I rephrase.

I would support whoever was attacked. At this point, it looks more likely to be Iran than Israel who gets nuked.

I would give you 100:1 odds.

If, in your scenario, there was an Iranian airstrike/invasion of US/Israel territory as the first action, I'd obviously see Iran as the aggressors. But then if the US/Israel opted for a nuclear retaliation, that would be a scenario in which - despite Iran starting the war - I'd then classify them as the aggressors.

If you're asking a different question, you'll have to rephrase.

Yes, I'm Russian and I'm a stanuch supporter of Israel. I quite hate our foreign ministry for their pro-Palestine stances.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

+5

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.

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

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.

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

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

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?

Whoever didn't strike first.

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!

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.

America and Israel, of course.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Since when is Egypt an Iranian ally?

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

no, you're misreading.  I stated,


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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

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

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

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

You're an awful person.

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.


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.

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

Assuming the U.S. and Israhell are the aggressors, Iran.

Case solved.

I'll go easier on him then. I used to believe the same when I was 14, as I'm sure many of you can remember :P

Iraq is better off now than it was in, say, 2002, yes?


I'm pretty sure its reasonable to say the Israeli government, while not perfect, is preferable to the Iranian regime.


Perhaps I'll think like you do when I hit whatever age you're at now :P

I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Right. When I were 7 I deeply believed in tooth fairy. I guess I still believe this :P

I deeply believe in the tooth fairy and anyone who disagrees with me is an enemy (BTW, I misread your post at first, thought you'd said 71, and did a double take).

You're an awful debater.

I never got the intellectual reasoning behind the idea that one must take part oneself in all actions one support. Why is that?

Are you stalking me now or something?

Do you have any arguments that aren't ad hominem attacks? And, no, I don't stalk you. You might be exaggerating your importance to me just a tad, there. You just happened to say particularly bad things on threads I was following.

Yes, I do. I just choose not to use them with you because its utterly pointless to attempt any sort of debate with you - you're always right in your head and everyone else is some feckless idiot for not believing the same as you.

much as Kucinich said he was "proud" when the 60% of (D)s in the House in 2002 voted against the authorization of force in Iraq, I am proud here as a non-negligible slice of the Atlas pledges to stand with the sovereign Islamic Republic of Iran if and when it is attacked by the West.

Yes, the knee jerk anti-Americanism on this board must make a fellow hater "proud".

Yeah, yeah the US (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=150708.0) and Israel (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=148976.0) are the only aggressors here.  ::)  Keep the blinders on buddy, it's the only way you can stay safe.

yes, they should sit back and do nothing.

()



call me when Iran opens 40+ military bases in Canada and Mexico!

also, I should here cite Peter Hitchens, ironically enough: "a knee-jerk is a sign of a healthy reflex"

We shall kill them with martinis and neck ties.

Lief supported intervention against Gaddafi.

Yes, very strongly.

Would you care to explain how America isn't making the situation worse?

And, for me, opposing US intervention in Libya was one of my few moments of dovishness...

It was one of many for me...

Yes, I've noticed that. It's very ideologically out-of-context for me, considering I support an invasion of Iran. (And before someone accuses me of reflexively opposing Obama, I have vocally supported, for instance, his Pakistan policy).

Was it because it was a Democrat bombing people instead of a Republican?

Why would anyone support Iran? I understand being opposed to the idea of a war, but if you had to choose, why a repressive dictatorship?

And don't bulls**t me about how the US is a dictatorship, man! because it's a representative democracy, no matter what you may think.

What punishment for Iran do you suggest?

They'd lose cred to the other "internet rebels" if they didn't defend Iran.

Israel, hands down.

Definitely the US/Israel, if it's about Iran getting nukes. Many people here apparently think that Israel should sit back and not do anything to prevent a state which is committed to the destruction of Israel gaining a weapon which, if used, would destroy Israel.

I think some people are grossly underestimate Tehran's regime self-preservation instinct.