4 ms·

It's entirely understandable that Iran fears a US or NATO attack, but I also think it's incredibly stupid for so many people in the US to consider such an attac

by mcv 5y ago

It's entirely understandable that Iran fears a US or NATO attack, but I also think it's incredibly stupid for so many people in the US to consider such an attack. For one thing, the current situation of Iran is largely the result of the US/UK overthrow of their democratic government in 1953. This has only caused grief and problems. The attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan didn't really accomplish much either. The US should stop trying to solve problems through war, because it's pretty clear that doesn't work. Use soft power instead; much more effective.

Physkal 5y ago
Soft power failed to stop Putin from invading Ukraine, twice.
- mcv 5y ago
  Russia is not the same as Iran, though. One big difference is that Russia is the aggressor. Against Iran, the US would be the aggressor. Force may be unavoidable to stop aggression, but if you want a safer world, invading random countries for questionable reasons is a really bad idea.
  - kingcharles 5y ago
    Israel might also be the aggressor. And Israel has nukes, in violation of the NPT.
- matthewdgreen 5y ago
  Hard power and threats also failed to stop North Korea from developing thermonuclear weapons and ICBMs they can deliver to North America. Can’t see how it’s going to work out differently for Iran.
- eynsham 5y ago
  Soft power in Russia would have been something along the lines of a Marshall Plan starting from the dissolution of the USSR, and could well have worked.
  - anamax 5y ago
    And yet, the Euros didn't bother. You remember the Euros. They're constantly telling anyone who will listen that they (the Euros) have the world's largest economy (which is true by some measures, but seems to be irrelevant outside of the EU) and that soft power is more important, decisive even, in a modern world. And yet, Euros don't seem to be willing to actually use soft power, at least not when they're paying. Of course, I probably got this wrong, which is to be expected because I'm an American. What's the reason this time (there's always an excuse): [1] The US stopped Euros from using soft-power. [2] The US kept said soft-power from working. [3] The US wouldn't pay its share. Yes, the good cop receives the results in good-cop/bad-cop, but that doesn't imply that the bad-cop was irrelevant.
    - eynsham 5y ago
      This is something of a non sequitur. Yes, Europe would have been just as important as the US in this scenario. Your comment seems to assume that I am blaming the Americans solely; of course not—this is the West’s mistake. > And yet, Euros don't seem to be willing to actually use soft power, at least not when they're paying. Well we did pay—just not in Russia, which was a bit stupid of us. The Germans paid to reintegrate the DDR, and we paid generally to expand the EU to its present borders with substantial investment through Union institutions. This doesn’t always work (e.g. in Hungary) but it’s been surprisingly successful. > Of course, I probably got this wrong, which is to be expected because I'm an American. It’s a bit ridiculous to comment so confidently on a topic on which you admit you are ignorant. As for the question of what the ‘excuse’ is, I’m, again, not Major, Chirac, or Kohl; I feel no need to defend this European failure. We didn’t really need the Americans, although you have lots of money so that would hardly hurt. We should have done it ourselves.
      - anamax 5y ago
        You was unclear. I ignored any hint of US blaming. Instead, I put this all on the Euros. (BTW - West Germany doesn't get any credit for re-integrating the DDR - you're expected to take care of your own.) The fall of the Soviet Union was a perfect opportunity for the Euros to show the US how it's done. It's in their backyard, they tell the US that they know how to deal with the USSR/Russia, and they claim to have the resources. If what the Euros have been saying for years is true, there was no reason to have any US involvement in this project. And yet you want me to accept that this is "the West's fault." I do apologize for the Americanism - I wasn't actually admitting ignorance. Instead, I was pointing out that the Euros have made more than their share of screwups yet somehow always blame the US.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Soft power failed to stop Putin from invading Ukraine, twice. No, just once with an escalation at 8 years in.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan didn't really accomplish much either The 1991 attack on Iraq achieved quite a lot with regard to both terminating the brief invasion of Saudi Arabia and the less brief and more total one of Kuwait and ending Iraq’s active WMD programs and disarming them of their existing WMD. (The 2003 attack achieved less, largely because the things it was supposedly aimed at achieving had in fact been achieved in 1991.)
- ncmncm 5y ago
  The 2003 invasions succeeded in transferring $5T from US taxpayers to a much, much smaller number of US non-taxpayers. Any objective in Iraq was just cover.

by mcv 5y ago

Physkal 5y ago

Soft power failed to stop Putin from invading Ukraine, twice.

mcv 5y ago
Russia is not the same as Iran, though. One big difference is that Russia is the aggressor. Against Iran, the US would be the aggressor. Force may be unavoidable to stop aggression, but if you want a safer world, invading random countries for questionable reasons is a really bad idea.
- kingcharles 5y ago
  Israel might also be the aggressor. And Israel has nukes, in violation of the NPT.
matthewdgreen 5y ago
Hard power and threats also failed to stop North Korea from developing thermonuclear weapons and ICBMs they can deliver to North America. Can’t see how it’s going to work out differently for Iran.
eynsham 5y ago
Soft power in Russia would have been something along the lines of a Marshall Plan starting from the dissolution of the USSR, and could well have worked.
- anamax 5y ago
  And yet, the Euros didn't bother. You remember the Euros. They're constantly telling anyone who will listen that they (the Euros) have the world's largest economy (which is true by some measures, but seems to be irrelevant outside of the EU) and that soft power is more important, decisive even, in a modern world. And yet, Euros don't seem to be willing to actually use soft power, at least not when they're paying. Of course, I probably got this wrong, which is to be expected because I'm an American. What's the reason this time (there's always an excuse): [1] The US stopped Euros from using soft-power. [2] The US kept said soft-power from working. [3] The US wouldn't pay its share. Yes, the good cop receives the results in good-cop/bad-cop, but that doesn't imply that the bad-cop was irrelevant.
  - eynsham 5y ago
    This is something of a non sequitur. Yes, Europe would have been just as important as the US in this scenario. Your comment seems to assume that I am blaming the Americans solely; of course not—this is the West’s mistake. > And yet, Euros don't seem to be willing to actually use soft power, at least not when they're paying. Well we did pay—just not in Russia, which was a bit stupid of us. The Germans paid to reintegrate the DDR, and we paid generally to expand the EU to its present borders with substantial investment through Union institutions. This doesn’t always work (e.g. in Hungary) but it’s been surprisingly successful. > Of course, I probably got this wrong, which is to be expected because I'm an American. It’s a bit ridiculous to comment so confidently on a topic on which you admit you are ignorant. As for the question of what the ‘excuse’ is, I’m, again, not Major, Chirac, or Kohl; I feel no need to defend this European failure. We didn’t really need the Americans, although you have lots of money so that would hardly hurt. We should have done it ourselves.
    - anamax 5y ago
      You was unclear. I ignored any hint of US blaming. Instead, I put this all on the Euros. (BTW - West Germany doesn't get any credit for re-integrating the DDR - you're expected to take care of your own.) The fall of the Soviet Union was a perfect opportunity for the Euros to show the US how it's done. It's in their backyard, they tell the US that they know how to deal with the USSR/Russia, and they claim to have the resources. If what the Euros have been saying for years is true, there was no reason to have any US involvement in this project. And yet you want me to accept that this is "the West's fault." I do apologize for the Americanism - I wasn't actually admitting ignorance. Instead, I was pointing out that the Euros have made more than their share of screwups yet somehow always blame the US.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Soft power failed to stop Putin from invading Ukraine, twice. No, just once with an escalation at 8 years in.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan didn't really accomplish much either The 1991 attack on Iraq achieved quite a lot with regard to both terminating the brief invasion of Saudi Arabia and the less brief and more total one of Kuwait and ending Iraq’s active WMD programs and disarming them of their existing WMD. (The 2003 attack achieved less, largely because the things it was supposedly aimed at achieving had in fact been achieved in 1991.)

ncmncm 5y ago
The 2003 invasions succeeded in transferring $5T from US taxpayers to a much, much smaller number of US non-taxpayers. Any objective in Iraq was just cover.