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

[© tweed]

Iran of course

[© tweed]

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.

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.

[© tweed]

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.

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.

[© tweed]

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

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?

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.

[© tweed]

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 if this is the issue at hand here.

[© tweed]

Circumstances dictate, really. If either sides clearly the aggressor, and we're seeing massive loss of life I'd probably come down on whichever side, but I'd be reluctant to support either side, 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.

[© tweed]

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.

[© tweed]

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.

[© 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.

[© tweed]

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

[© 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.

[© 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.

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.

[© tweed]

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.

[© tweed]

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).

[© tweed]

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.

[© tweed]

yes, they should sit back and do nothing.





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

[© tweed]

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