4 ms·

I'd say Iran isn't a bad actor. They're not an American client state, bit they're no worse than America, China, or Saudi Arabia You can argue that they're a t

by 8note 5y ago

I'd say Iran isn't a bad actor. They're not an American client state, bit they're no worse than America, China, or Saudi Arabia You can argue that they're a threat to american interests and an embarrassment to the American intelligence agencies, but that's not exactly the same as being a bad actor.

eloff 5y ago
That's a logical fallacy. Two wrongs don't make a right. China and Saudi Arabia are pretty dirty, but I don't see the US in that camp lately.
- vimacs2 5y ago
  Really? You don't think the US selling billions in arms to both Saudi Arabia and Israel makes them complicit in those ally's crimes against humanity? What about the fact that the US has been sponsoring military and paramilitary organisations in central and Southern America for decades to fight against attempts at unionisation or socialisation efforts to help ensure their control over the rare earth metals and oil there? There are death squads that have mowed down entire villages after being informed of talk about unionisation as well as driving away indigenous tribes who happen to live in areas that are inconvenient to the interest of US multinational companies. Are you also somehow forgetting the war in Afghanistan and Iraq that was perpetuated for decades after the given reason for invasion were dealt with for the transparent motivation to plunder the resources there? More than 200,000 civilians dead (and that's on the optimistic side of projections) as a direct result of actions from the US army. All of these examples I gave are crimes that the US are currently engaging in and even with that restriction, this is far from a complete list. If I expanded it out to what they have been up to in the last 5 decades, then it would be a lot longer still. If you don't see the US as dirty, then I don't know what standards you are operating under.
  - eloff 5y ago
    > Really? You don't think the US selling billions in arms to both Saudi Arabia and Israel makes them complicit in those ally's crimes against humanity? Crimes against humanity? How am I supposed to take you seriously. I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia, but they're a necessary evil. But Israel? I don't know what standards you're operating under...
    - vimacs2 5y ago
      So you don't see Saudi Arabia's actions against the Yemenese or Israel's actions against the Palestinians as crimes against humanity? I guess then you have no standards at all then since the ones I'm operating under are shared by the UN and the international community outside of the US and it's sycophants.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
This is so full of false equivalency I don't really know where to start. I'll just say supporting a theocratic dictatorship that sponsors terrorists all over the world (no doubt partially through bitcoin). Also China who is currently committing genocide on a large scale as well as trying to take over commerce by building artificial islands in the strait. You can't "build" an island and expect to take over shipping lanes.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>I'll just say supporting a theocratic dictatorship that sponsors terrorists all over the world Which country are you talking about? The Western foreign policy elite and Gulf Arab states funded a massive influx of Islamic militants into Syria to try change that country's regime: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/foreign-fighters-flow-to-syria/2015/01/27/7fa56b70-a631-11e4-a7c2-03d37af98440_graphic.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/foreign-fighters-flow-t... The largest insurgent faction, and the one receiving the bulk of this material support, was effectively led by al-Qaeda's Syrian franchise, the al Nusra Front. Unfortunately, every state has the blood of innocent people on their hands.
  - eloff 5y ago
    > Unfortunately, every state has the blood of innocent people on their hands. Yes, but that doesn't mean they are equal either. Some are worse than others.
    - vimacs2 5y ago
      Pretty sure the US and friends are easily the worst when it comes to sponsoring international terrorism, especially if you don't just arbitrarily decide that state mandated actions are exempt from consideration as terrorism. Iran and other "bad actors" are not even remotely on the same level.
      - eloff 5y ago
        > Pretty sure the US and friends are easily the worst when it comes to sponsoring international terrorism. That's nonsense, but I welcome you to make a case for it with facts. > especially if you don't just arbitrarily decide that state mandated actions are exempt from consideration as terrorism If it quacks like a duck, yes. State mandated actions are not exempt. But don't go equating drone strikes on military targets - actual terrorists - as terrorism. That's military action, not terrorism. > Iran and other "bad actors" are not even remotely on the same level. Don't even get me started on Russia and North Korea. If you think the US is a worse actor internationally, your moral compass is very poorly calibrated.

by 8note 5y ago

eloff 5y ago

That's a logical fallacy. Two wrongs don't make a right. China and Saudi Arabia are pretty dirty, but I don't see the US in that camp lately.

vimacs2 5y ago
Really? You don't think the US selling billions in arms to both Saudi Arabia and Israel makes them complicit in those ally's crimes against humanity? What about the fact that the US has been sponsoring military and paramilitary organisations in central and Southern America for decades to fight against attempts at unionisation or socialisation efforts to help ensure their control over the rare earth metals and oil there? There are death squads that have mowed down entire villages after being informed of talk about unionisation as well as driving away indigenous tribes who happen to live in areas that are inconvenient to the interest of US multinational companies. Are you also somehow forgetting the war in Afghanistan and Iraq that was perpetuated for decades after the given reason for invasion were dealt with for the transparent motivation to plunder the resources there? More than 200,000 civilians dead (and that's on the optimistic side of projections) as a direct result of actions from the US army. All of these examples I gave are crimes that the US are currently engaging in and even with that restriction, this is far from a complete list. If I expanded it out to what they have been up to in the last 5 decades, then it would be a lot longer still. If you don't see the US as dirty, then I don't know what standards you are operating under.
- eloff 5y ago
  > Really? You don't think the US selling billions in arms to both Saudi Arabia and Israel makes them complicit in those ally's crimes against humanity? Crimes against humanity? How am I supposed to take you seriously. I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia, but they're a necessary evil. But Israel? I don't know what standards you're operating under...
  - vimacs2 5y ago
    So you don't see Saudi Arabia's actions against the Yemenese or Israel's actions against the Palestinians as crimes against humanity? I guess then you have no standards at all then since the ones I'm operating under are shared by the UN and the international community outside of the US and it's sycophants.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

This is so full of false equivalency I don't really know where to start. I'll just say supporting a theocratic dictatorship that sponsors terrorists all over the world (no doubt partially through bitcoin). Also China who is currently committing genocide on a large scale as well as trying to take over commerce by building artificial islands in the strait. You can't "build" an island and expect to take over shipping lanes.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>I'll just say supporting a theocratic dictatorship that sponsors terrorists all over the world Which country are you talking about? The Western foreign policy elite and Gulf Arab states funded a massive influx of Islamic militants into Syria to try change that country's regime: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/foreign-fighters-flow-to-syria/2015/01/27/7fa56b70-a631-11e4-a7c2-03d37af98440_graphic.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/foreign-fighters-flow-t... The largest insurgent faction, and the one receiving the bulk of this material support, was effectively led by al-Qaeda's Syrian franchise, the al Nusra Front. Unfortunately, every state has the blood of innocent people on their hands.
- eloff 5y ago
  > Unfortunately, every state has the blood of innocent people on their hands. Yes, but that doesn't mean they are equal either. Some are worse than others.
  - vimacs2 5y ago
    Pretty sure the US and friends are easily the worst when it comes to sponsoring international terrorism, especially if you don't just arbitrarily decide that state mandated actions are exempt from consideration as terrorism. Iran and other "bad actors" are not even remotely on the same level.
    - eloff 5y ago
      > Pretty sure the US and friends are easily the worst when it comes to sponsoring international terrorism. That's nonsense, but I welcome you to make a case for it with facts. > especially if you don't just arbitrarily decide that state mandated actions are exempt from consideration as terrorism If it quacks like a duck, yes. State mandated actions are not exempt. But don't go equating drone strikes on military targets - actual terrorists - as terrorism. That's military action, not terrorism. > Iran and other "bad actors" are not even remotely on the same level. Don't even get me started on Russia and North Korea. If you think the US is a worse actor internationally, your moral compass is very poorly calibrated.