Tensions in the Middle East

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Trump just told CNN that on a scale of 1-10 of how the war is going, he is giving it a 12 or 15! Lol. Turnip math!

nothing-to-see-here.gif

[Fuzz]

You are missing the point in that the US has been arming various nations and factions over there for decades, increasing tensions, profiting from their resources and generally making whatever divisions existed there far worse. You think it's just coincidence the US is now on team Saudi Arabia, also a horrible regime that uses faith as a tool to strangle opposition(probably well learned from the US)?


And I'm not giving these horrible religious based conflicts anymore leeway than I do when I criticize other religions. It's all ridiculous. It's specifically why it is so bad to exploit these weaknesses in blind faith and use it to extract resources. Which is exactly what the US has done, and I still haven't seen one shred of anything from anyone here to indicate this isn't the case. Just nonsense dancing around authors and incorrect details.


So fine, it's either Cliff's view that the west had no roll in using an existing conflict to amplify sectarian tensions for their benefit, and they were always bound to deepen the hatred, or mine that the west has meddled in the middle east using religious divisions to achieve their own goals, and creating deeper divisions for their own benefit. I'll let the facts of history settle that. You can believe whatever you want, apparently based on my mistake of posting an old video.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

OK, the article was the first Google result. No, I didn't look up the author. But I did find some of his points about western intervention accurate. I still haven't heard anyone actually go after the points, so I suspect they stand?

What did you search for. Search for Iran history / Persia history / shia-sunni relations don't yield that article.

What points? How did you find that some of his points were accurate? That the west has significant colonial and economic pressure on the regions including Iran? That could have been said by a much better source (with actual historical examples versus a rant and again antisemitic stance).

Did you know Iran was invaded by the British and the Soviets during WWII to secure oil supplies? The 1953 coup d'etat was a direct retaliation for Iran's nationalization of oil after overthrowing the shah (partly due to the invasion) which impacted the Anglo-Persian Oil Company to protect British and American interests.

Not disputing western impact on the region. But none of that was defined with historical events in your linked opinion piece. The main takeaway and purpose is this claim which is dubious of a claim at best and outright fabricated with no sources to back this claim.

The colonially manufactured and stoked Sunni-Shia transhistorical conflict has been used to explain away Euro-American wars, Zionist violence, and foreign intervention in the region.

Religion was deployed as an imperial instrument to motivate and stimulate interventionist policies, and to expand colonial economic and political footprints around the globe.

How you found both this opinion piece in question, and the state propaganda video is questioning how and what you are looking for and how biased you are in those searches.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

apparently based on my mistake of posting an old video.

You are deliberately dodging the issue with you posting that video as factual of something that did not occur, and downplaying it - (not that it's an old video, it's a repurposed video used for deliberate misinformation by a regime state media that you parroted as fact).

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

It’s crazy how much propaganda there is. It seems to be just as important to project information (or misinformation) than it is to actually be winning on the battlefields.

I’m glad that you are trying to look at things with an open mind (or, this is just another one or your posts that isn’t genuine). I hope not. It isn’t the thread for those types of posts.

Anyways, it appears that you have a vested interest with family members involved, so I hope that they are doing ok under the circumstances.

I've really struggled with this conflict from the beginning. It's very hard to know what's actually going on.

On the one hand, I see Persian/Iranian friends largely praising the US attacks on their social media. They are people who had to flee with their families from the Ayatollahs, and obviously have no love for the regime. It must be a great relief for them to see the regime that took everything from them finally being taken down.

On the other hand, a US invasion, especially a Trump led, invasion seems just wrong. The US's track record on these types of invasions is not good. I don't know why they would openly involve Israel in this invasion either. The optics are just horrendous.

That being said, there are some major differences between this US invasion and the past ones. The Iranian people are not the same as the Iraqi or Libyan people. Iranians, for the most part, are highly educated, have few children, and in many ways are modernizing very quickly. I don't see them doing a 180 and forming religious based armed hordes. Additionally, as it was Iran itself that was funding a lot of these militias that were destabilizing Iraq, for example.

Before the invasion, the Iranian people were already in the process of revolting. This US invasion could upset that. On the other hand, the protestors in Iran weren't, for the large part, militias themselves. They were regular citizens. How do they deal with the regime and it's henchmen on their own? Iranian society seemed to be split between a majority educated and modernizing population and repressive fundamentalist militant groups.

How does this progressive majority deal with Iran's army and militia groups on their own? The regime has been funded for decades by oil sales and Russia. They have their people in every part of Iranian society. They follow a non-rationale belief system that glorifies martyrdom and murdering blasphemers.

Now that Trump has acted, the ball is in his court now. It's up to him and his supporters to come through with a success here. They're privy to information none of us are. If they've made the wrong call and things in Iran collapse or the regime reasserts itself, that's largely on them. Despite the evilness of the Iranian regime, I still don't see how the Trump's administration actions could be the correct ones. Surely there was a better way?

[Fuzz]

This was the search I used(checked my history)


https://www.google.com/search?q=did+...####e+violence


It's the first result that isn't a Wiki link. I think that's a pretty innocuous search, and it was the first article, and I wasn't planning on spending days on this because it all seemed pretty obvious. Usually when the first link shows the gist of what you are getting at, subsequent ones will to. Here's an NPR one on how the US war in Iraq increased the divide.

When the United States invaded Iraq four years ago, on March 20, 2003, it didn't set out to deepen the Sunni-Shia divide in the Islamic world. But that may be one of the most important outcomes of the war.

https://www.npr.org/2007/02/15/74117...ni-shia-divide


And another...

In a 1997 paper, prior to becoming major figures in the Bush foreign policy team, David Wurmser, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith predicted that a post-Saddam Iraq would likely be “ripped apart” by sectarianism and other cleavages but called on the United States to “expedite” such a collapse anyway.

https://fpif.org/the_us_role_in_iraq...rian_violence/


Again, no one has provided anything to dispute my point, so, like, move the #### on? Sorry I didn't deep dive on the sources. I think we've hashed that enough, unless you need me on the pillory for a day.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by blankall

I've really struggled with this conflict from the beginning. It's very hard to know what's actually going on.

On the one hand, I see Persian/Iranian friends largely praising the US attacks on their social media. They are people who had to flee with their families from the Ayatollahs, and obviously have no love for the regime. It must be a great relief for them to see the regime that took everything from them finally being taken down.

On the other hand, a US invasion, especially a Trump led, invasion seems just wrong. The US's track record on these types of invasions is not good. I don't know why they would openly involve Israel in this invasion either. The optics are just horrendous.

That being said, there are some major differences between this US invasion and the past ones. The Iranian people are not the same as the Iraqi or Libyan people. Iranians, for the most part, are highly educated, have few children, and in many ways are modernizing very quickly. I don't see them doing a 180 and forming religious based armed hordes. Additionally, as it was Iran itself that was funding a lot of these militias that were destabilizing Iraq, for example.

Before the invasion, the Iranian people were already in the process of revolting. This US invasion could upset that. On the other hand, the protestors in Iran weren't, for the large part, militias themselves. They were regular citizens. How do they deal with the regime and it's henchmen on their own? Iranian society seemed to be split between a majority educated and modernizing population and repressive fundamentalist militant groups.

How does this progressive majority deal with Iran's army and militia groups on their own? The regime has been funded for decades by oil sales and Russia. They have their people in every part of Iranian society. They follow a non-rationale belief system that glorifies martyrdom and murdering blasphemers.

Now that Trump has acted, the ball is in his court now. It's up to him and his supporters to come through with a success here. They're privy to information none of us are. If they've made the wrong call and things in Iran collapse or the regime reasserts itself, that's largely on them. Despite the evilness of the Iranian regime, I still don't see how the Trump's administration actions could be the correct ones. Surely there was a better way?

Like most wars, we won’t fully know if it is a success or not until years down the road. Who steps up to take over in Iran will certainly give us a clearer picture of the short term.

My biggest fear is that there is a leader that takes over in Iran that the citizens there don’t want. I don’t see how you could view this as a fully successful mission if that happens.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Like most wars, we won’t fully know if it is a success or not until years down the road. Who steps up to take over in Iran will certainly give us a clearer picture of the short term.

My biggest fear is that there is a leader that takes over in Iran that the citizens there don’t want. I don’t see how you could view this as a fully successful mission if that happens.

What's the last time there was a 'successful war' in your opinion?

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

This was the search I used(checked my history)


https://www.google.com/search?q=did+...####e+violence


It's the first result that isn't a Wiki link. I think that's a pretty innocuous search, and it was the first article, and I wasn't planning on spending days on this because it all seemed pretty obvious. Usually when the first link shows the gist of what you are getting at, subsequent ones will to. Here's an NPR one on how the US war in Iraq increased the divide.

You have a weird definition of innocuous search. My assumption was right...your search is slanted to give you a slanted outlook from a very slanted source. No way you would ever get that article as a primary source with a normal search (which should clue you that the search may be slanted). Describing it as "The west" is weighted as well.

If you want to champion against misinformation, you want to avoid making yourself susceptible to it. This is no different from those searching for conspiracy theories and finding sources validating their stances. See what this very slanted and biased search gets you as first result.

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+m...ruining+canada

On Iraq, you likely would want to understand its history as well as Saddam Hussein, as well as the religious demographics which allowed for such a powder keg. The US didn't stoke it, it was always there. The vacuum left with the removal of Hussein without a great transition plan would cause those century old divides to rise up. Imagine a deeply oppressed majority suddenly finding itself in a void of power, with the minority wanting to keep power at the same time while other sects wanting their turn.

More than likely Iraq's fate would have been even worse if left to itself with an arab spring and Syria like civil war (also heavily influenced by Sunni-Shia factions).

Case and point, the Iran-Iraq was fought over mostly religious differences (Khomenei asked for the Shia majority to rise up and take out Hussein and his party, and calling for an Islamic revolution).

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Again, no one has provided anything to dispute my point, so, like, move the #### on? Sorry I didn't deep dive on the sources. I think we've hashed that enough, unless you need me on the pillory for a day.

I highly dispute the premise that the west specifically stoked shia-sunni divide. Look up the Ottoman Empire's treatment of Shias (seen as heretics within the empire) and the Ottoman-Safavid Wars which were heavily religious based wars.

The Shia-Sunni division is not a west made phenomenon and is heavily downplayed to put the blame on 'The West' and "the Zionists" (if both of these are used in the same article, objectiveness may be dubious).

Anyways, you clearly have your opinion on it, but hopefully you look at it from a more neutral perspective versus going towards the subject with a perception already done and actively finding sources validating a viewpoint.

[opendoor]

It's not just Sunni-Shia though; the US has been supporting Kurdish fighters (who are mostly Sunni) on and off for years whenever it suited US aims, and there are reports that the CIA is now trying to arm Iranian Kurds, who make up about 10% of the country. Obviously that's an attempt to destabilize whatever country the US is targeting (Iraq, then Syria, and now Iran) without a ton of thought about how it may negatively impact long-term stability.

I mean, the US is exceedingly unlikely to send ground troops into Iran to enforce regime change. So by its nature, this current intervention is designed to potentially lead to the destabilization of Iran and possibly a bloody civil war. That's not a controversial statement or a conspiracy theory, it's just the reality of what they're doing.

[Firebot]

Apparently there's footage of an Apache helicopter firing at a PMF (Iran backed shia militia) base in Mosul (yes that Mosul). Because why not.

[Cappy]

My question is how do you get an unconditional surrender without boots on the ground?

Yes, that is somewhat rhetorical and one could argue the Japanese in WWII unconditionally surrendered before any US troop set foot on the main islands, but if you are planning regime change without ground forces... good luck

[TherapyforGlencross]

Originally Posted by Cappy

My question is how do you get an unconditional surrender without boots on the ground?

Yes, that is somewhat rhetorical and one could argue the Japanese in WWII unconditionally surrendered before any US troop set foot on the main islands, but if you are planning regime change without ground forces... good luck

And if ground troops are in the equation, how do you effectively take over a hardened landscape?

I’d have to assume that ground troops in Iran may be the most difficult mission since WWII.

[Fuzz]

The mostly did it in Venezuela, so I guess they think this is the same thing. Both countries governed by people they despise, both countries have lots of oil, both countries have massive structural issues, both countries work with China and Russia. They are basically identical, so I can see how it confused them.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Like most wars, we won’t fully know if it is a success or not until years down the road. Who steps up to take over in Iran will certainly give us a clearer picture of the short term.

My biggest fear is that there is a leader that takes over in Iran that the citizens there don’t want. I don’t see how you could view this as a fully successful mission if that happens.

Even in the unlikely scenario that Iranians eventually get a government they want, it still doesn't mean the US decision to go to war was a wise one. The track record of these types of interventions in the Middle East isn't a good one, and the results always seem to be decades of instability and carnage.

Then you add on top of that the amount of civilian lives lost in the fighting, the soldiers killed in combat, the destruction of infrastructure, the immense cost to US taxpayers... not to mention the destabilization of the Middle East as a whole, and other risks such as the rise of terror groups like ISIS...

No, there really is no honest way you can justify this war, IMO.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Cappy

My question is how do you get an unconditional surrender without boots on the ground?

Yes, that is somewhat rhetorical and one could argue the Japanese in WWII unconditionally surrendered before any US troop set foot on the main islands, but if you are planning regime change without ground forces... good luck

Good question. They needed to level multiple cities including Tokyo for that to happen, and then drop two nuclear bombs after that.

I also eally struggle to see what could be done with the Revolutionary Guard and other religious militants in the armed forces that are holding up the theocracy.

Even if somehow a new more moderate government structure was formed, how long would it take before the Revolutionary Guard, who also currently own massive chunks of the Iranian economy, would be calling the shots?

It looks obvious that the Revolutionary Guard would need to be disbanded, but what then?

Iran already struggled with high unemployment before this, and the modern economy is kind of terrible for the creation of large numbers of new jobs in the civilian sector. This isn't the fourties where economic growth automatically translated to tons of new jobs.

What are those men going to do other than form gangs and/or militias? Hire themselves out as mercenaries?

Tons of men suddenly released from the military with no economic future was a big reason Iraq went the way it went.

[CliffFletcher]

The colonially manufactured and stoked Sunni-Shia transhistorical conflict has been used to explain away Euro-American wars, Zionist violence, and foreign intervention in the region.

That's face-palm bad history. Beyond satire.

The Battle of Karbala (630 AD) took place when Europe was plunged in the dark ages and not colonizing anyone.

Nor were colonial powers responsible for:

* The religious and military wars between the neighboring Ottoman and Safavid Empires (16th - 18th century).

* The Sack of Shamakhi (1721) where 4,000 to 5,000 Shia were massacred.

* The Wahhabi Sack of Karbala (1802) that left 2,000 to 5,000 civilians dead.

* In the 20th century the Therhi (1963) and Gilgit (1988) massacres in Pakistan, and Zaria massacre in Nigeria (2015) cannot plausibly laid at the feet of Western powers. Nor can the rise of Wahhabism and consequent severe persecution of religious minorites in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

And that's not even getting into the long-stanging hostility between Persian and Arab, Turk and Arab, and Turk and Persian that precede Western colonialism by centuries.

It's easy to tell when people regard history solely as a bludgeon to attack their contemporary political enemies. Their ignorance and disinterest in any history that doesn't feature Western actors as villains is the giveaway.

The funny part is the people who take this posture imagine themselves as sophisticated and worldly. But there's nothing more parochial than regarding anyone who isn't a Westerner as a child lacking agency for their actions.

[Fuzz]

All those things being true does not mean that it isn't also true the western intervention used these divisions for the own goals, and by doing so, made those divisions far worse.


You haven't dis-proven anything I've claimed, you are, I think attempting to show divisions existed before(I never denied that) and continued to today. Great. I'm not disputing that.


You done fart sniffing now?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

All those things being true does not mean that it isn't also true the western intervention used these divisions for the own goals, and by doing so, made those divisions far worse.


You haven't dis-proven anything I've claimed, you are, I think attempting to show divisions existed before(I never denied that) and continued to today. Great. I'm not disputing that.


You done fart sniffing now?

Must be going through a rough patch at home. He had a similarly weird early morning outburst in the Epstein thread where it seems all he wants to do is shift conversations or real issues into negative commentaries on perceived political groups he doesn’t like.

I wouldn’t take it personally or engage more than you have.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

What's the last time there was a 'successful war' in your opinion?

Good question. I really don’t know. WWII maybe