3 ms·

Those memes were indicative of the feelings around the seriousness of the US attacking another govt. It is very rational to feel scared that a war with another

Those memes were indicative of the feelings around the seriousness of the US attacking another govt. It is very rational to feel scared that a war with another country, a UN member, with backings of two other UN security council members wouldn't extend farther than Iran given their vested interests in that country and the region. I don't believe for a second that they would not intervene if their economies are affected by another Middle East war where this time it is one of their significant business partners.

ping_pong 7y ago
What does UN membership have anything to do with this? Iran is a terrorist state, openly funding terrorist attacks on Israel. They have a repressive, horrible government, admittedly made worse by the US themselves through the overthrow of the Shah decades ago. The idea this would cause an escalation from Russia and China is also absurd. Of course they are backing them now because it's politically convenient, but when push comes to shove, they won't fight. As long as the US doesn't try to expand its geopolitical aspirations in the Middle East, which has been a complete and utter disaster ever since George W., nothing will come of this skirmish.
- excerionsforte 7y ago
  Iran a terrorist state? You mean the country whose twice had US intervention and you expect the leadership there to embrace the US with open arms. Right, makes sense. What in your mind makes a country a terrorist state. It sure seems like the US has a pretty darn terrorist mind set when it came down to spreading fear about communism. > The idea this would cause an escalation from Russia and China is also absurd. Of course they are backing them now because it's politically convenient, but when push comes to shove, they won't fight. The best surprises are the ones you do not see coming. You can say what you want. You don't make the decisions. Furthermore I stated my opinion that they would intervene. It was not a prediction as you take it. I strongly dissented from your opinion. > if the US hits its refineries, etc, Iran is hosed This one makes me laugh! To believe that one country would be hosed from striking at oil. There's an elephant in the room that indicates it would not be in the best interest of anyone to stifle turmoil in an OPEC state given that other countries will have to deal with the offsets and refugees. Think we've all seen the effects around the world with these wars. Very funny!
  - ping_pong 7y ago
    I suggest you google Iran and Hezbollah. Iran is 100% a terrorist state and a horrible country ruled by evil people. And I never said the US was pristine. The entire Middle East is fucked up because of the US. US fucked up Persians by helping overthrow the Shah. As far as I'm concerned, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld should be tried on crimes against humanity. Trump is a moron and a despot but he is only the second worst US president in my opinion. But they are all better than the current government of Iran.
- mywittyname 7y ago
  What's the difference between a "terrorist state" and a state with military that attacks civilians (or finds them to be acceptable casualties)? I don't think the term even makes sense when applied to a country. Lots of countries offer support for militia groups that work to destabilize governments and terrorize the populations of different countries. At this point, calling someone a terrorist is a dog whistle, because it's so broad to be almost meaningless. The differentiating factor seems to come down to US-backing.

ping_pong 7y ago

What does UN membership have anything to do with this? Iran is a terrorist state, openly funding terrorist attacks on Israel. They have a repressive, horrible government, admittedly made worse by the US themselves through the overthrow of the Shah decades ago. The idea this would cause an escalation from Russia and China is also absurd. Of course they are backing them now because it's politically convenient, but when push comes to shove, they won't fight. As long as the US doesn't try to expand its geopolitical aspirations in the Middle East, which has been a complete and utter disaster ever since George W., nothing will come of this skirmish.

excerionsforte 7y ago
Iran a terrorist state? You mean the country whose twice had US intervention and you expect the leadership there to embrace the US with open arms. Right, makes sense. What in your mind makes a country a terrorist state. It sure seems like the US has a pretty darn terrorist mind set when it came down to spreading fear about communism. > The idea this would cause an escalation from Russia and China is also absurd. Of course they are backing them now because it's politically convenient, but when push comes to shove, they won't fight. The best surprises are the ones you do not see coming. You can say what you want. You don't make the decisions. Furthermore I stated my opinion that they would intervene. It was not a prediction as you take it. I strongly dissented from your opinion. > if the US hits its refineries, etc, Iran is hosed This one makes me laugh! To believe that one country would be hosed from striking at oil. There's an elephant in the room that indicates it would not be in the best interest of anyone to stifle turmoil in an OPEC state given that other countries will have to deal with the offsets and refugees. Think we've all seen the effects around the world with these wars. Very funny!
- ping_pong 7y ago
  I suggest you google Iran and Hezbollah. Iran is 100% a terrorist state and a horrible country ruled by evil people. And I never said the US was pristine. The entire Middle East is fucked up because of the US. US fucked up Persians by helping overthrow the Shah. As far as I'm concerned, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld should be tried on crimes against humanity. Trump is a moron and a despot but he is only the second worst US president in my opinion. But they are all better than the current government of Iran.
mywittyname 7y ago
What's the difference between a "terrorist state" and a state with military that attacks civilians (or finds them to be acceptable casualties)? I don't think the term even makes sense when applied to a country. Lots of countries offer support for militia groups that work to destabilize governments and terrorize the populations of different countries. At this point, calling someone a terrorist is a dog whistle, because it's so broad to be almost meaningless. The differentiating factor seems to come down to US-backing.