Iran Is Winning Big In The Middle East

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

 

Heroes. Sweet jesus. I,m sure they are roasting somewhere warm for their heroics. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2019 at 6:43 PM, JR EWING said:

I would put either on the same page, just more recently the US

In your fevered imagination are you actually suggesting the USA has operated extermination policies of entire races at a national level in the same way Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan did? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

(edited)

29 minutes ago, JR EWING said:

Heroes. Sweet jesus. I,m sure they are roasting somewhere warm for their heroics. 

Yes you're right, we should have just left Germany and Japan to it.

Weird how you don't mention the millions of people they killed. That would distract you from your anti US / UK bullshit I guess. 

Go back to trolling, and enjoy doing it in English.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, NickW said:

In your fevered imagination are you actually suggesting the USA has operated extermination policies of entire races at a national level in the same way Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan did? 

The US did. Against the native Indian population. As for Nazi,s. Were they only German?. A few countries in Europe could hang their heads in shame a longside the Germans. 

Are you justifying the dropping of nuclear bombs on civilians, schools, hospitals, temples, kindergartens etc. No effort made to convince the japanese to surrender, for example dropping a bomb on an unpopulated part of the country or a low density military installation on an island somewhere.

No, that the bombs were dropped a week apart suggests that at least the second bomb was knowingling committing the war crime of genocide. There is no defense for that.

 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JR EWING said:

The US did. Against the native Indian population. As for Nazi,s. Were they only German?. A few countries in Europe could hang their heads in shame a longside the Germans. 

Are you justifying the dropping of nuclear bombs on civilians, schools, hospitals, temples, kindergartens etc. No effort made to convince the japanese to surrender, for example dropping a bomb on an unpopulated part of the country or a low density military installation on an island somewhere.

No, that the bombs were dropped a week apart suggests that at least the second bomb was knowingling committing the war crime of genocide. There is no defense for that.

 

US policy was never to annihilate the Native Americans but assimilate them into the general population. OK there are ethical issues about that but its quite different from annihilation. I accept localised atrocities happened at different points. 

The Japan issue has been discussed 100x over here. The bombing was the lesser of two evils and bought the war to a swift end. An invasion of mainland Japan would have cost millions of civilian lives. Fuchida (Pearl Harbour Supremo) told Paul Tibbets (Enola Gay Pilot) the US did the right thing to drop the bomb as it ended the war and prevented Japan from committing national suicide. 

Drop it on an uninhabited area - this was 1945 with 1945 communication methods not 2019. Dropping it on an uninhabited area would have been meaningless. 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, NickW said:

US policy was never to annihilate the Native Americans but assimilate them into the general population. OK there are ethical issues about that but its quite different from annihilation. I accept localised atrocities happened at different points. 

The Japan issue has been discussed 100x over here. The bombing was the lesser of two evils and bought the war to a swift end. An invasion of mainland Japan would have cost millions of civilian lives. Fuchida (Pearl Harbour Supremo) told Paul Tibbets (Enola Gay Pilot) the US did the right thing to drop the bomb as it ended the war and prevented Japan from committing national suicide. 

Drop it on an uninhabited area - this was 1945 with 1945 communication methods not 2019. Dropping it on an uninhabited area would have been meaningless. 

Its simple hypocrisy, did the lads come up with that assessment over a few sakis. I believe the bombs were dropped as a warning to the russians, we have em and we will use em. Bit like the donald stating recently he would use them and he would annihilate north korea and/or iran.

As for the indians, whatever helps you sleep at night. They werent having any of it hence i suppose they just had to go.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

57 minutes ago, NickW said:

the US did the right thing to drop the bomb as it ended the war and prevented Japan from committing national suicide.

The first bomb sure; my understanding is that Japan was already preparing for surrender when the second bomb was dropped. It wasn't required - it was a signal to the world saying "we won't just hurt you, we will obliterate you."  Dick move, but you could argue it led to cooler heads during the cold war, maybe.

Edited by Enthalpic
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DayTrader said:

Yes you're right, we should have just left Germany and Japan to it.

Weird how you don't mention the millions of people they killed. That would distract you from your anti US / UK bullshit I guess. 

Go back to trolling, and enjoy doing it in English.

What are you talking about. The us only got involved after pearl harbour. Had no intentions of getting involved but for that. The knight in shining armour crap doesnt work. Dachau wss opened in 1933. Pearl harbour was 1941.

The UK invented and operated concentration camps in africa. Thousands died in them. Learn your history before jumping on a high horse about the great and the good in the us and uk. If you think they are interested in anything except where the money goes then thats nothing short of delusional.

Its all about cause and effect. Putting on the blinkers is exactly whats expected of of you mushroom.

 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, JR EWING said:

Its simple hypocrisy, did the lads come up with that assessment over a few sakis. I believe the bombs were dropped as a warning to the russians, we have em and we will use em. Bit like the donald stating recently he would use them and he would annihilate north korea and/or iran.

As for the indians, whatever helps you sleep at night. They werent having any of it hence i suppose they just had to go.

Japan:

Perhaps the alternative option of costing over a million allied troops lives helped the US make that decision. Whatever message it sent to the Russians was an additional bonus. 

Indians: 

Meanwhile in the real world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States

3 million full ancestry alive today

Another 3 million part ancestry alive today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JR EWING said:

What are you talking about. The us only got involved after pearl harbour. Had no intentions of getting involved but for that. The knight in shining armour crap doesnt work. Dachau wss opened in 1933. Pearl harbour was 1941.

The UK invented and operated concentration camps in africa. Thousands died in them. Learn your history before jumping on a high horse about the great and the good in the us and uk. If you think they are interested in anything except where the money goes then thats nothing short of delusional.

Its all about cause and effect. Putting on the blinkers is exactly whats expected of of you mushroom.

 

Dachau was effectively a prison. Realistically why would any country go to war over a prison inside a country?

Secondly the USA was primarily a Naval power. Its airforce and army were smaller than the UK's in 1939 which was much smaller than either the German or French Army. There was bugger all the USA could do militarily in 1939 against Germany even if it had wanted to do as the war was on the land and in the air. . It did what it could at that stage and used its industrial capacity to supplies the allies and then Russia from June 1941. 

The definition of Concentration camp is a place of internment for people without trial. Its not necessarily an extermination camp. You are conflating the two issues. The Boer War internment camps were more an issue of neglect than a deliberate attempt to exterminate Boers. Once conditions were publicised there were protests and attempts were made to improve conditions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

(edited)

Meanwhile, in the real world, in 2019... 

#TROLL

Still no mention of the tens of millions the other side killed. Those deaths were fine in your blinkered eyes clearly.

Blocked by the way. I don't have time to argue with morons who are so desperate they bring up Native Americans.

 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US hedged bets in ww2 wrt european war. Banks loaned to both sides, without sanctions on one or the other.

You are splitting hairs on concentration camps. The nazis didnt come up with the plan to exterminate jews in 1939 either. It was later. Many died from neglect prior to the plan to begin extermination. 

I simply offer contrarian view, and wont be brain wsshed into believing that the these countries with power are behaving in the interest of humanity. They arent. 

Im far more concerned about the real threat posed by the US over the implied threat posed by iran or nk.

PS. Ive seen how the majority of native indians live in the us and canada. Wow. They sure did ok out of assimilation.

 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Meanwhile, in the real world, in 2019... 

#TROLL

Still no mention of the tens of millions the other side killed. Those deaths were fine in your blinkered eyes clearly.

Blocked by the way. I don't have time to argue with morons who are so desperate they bring up Native Americans.

 

Makes it nice and easy to set a cut off date that suits the mindset...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Sigh. Looking at the Iranian economy I doubt they're winning big.  

And if you think Iran allying with Russia is a good idea for Iran in the long run, think again.  

Unlike the Iranians, the Vietnamese at least know who their REAL historical enemy is (hint: it's not the large country on the other side of the ocean).

Edited by Zhong Lu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Sigh. Looking at the Iranian economy I doubt they're winning big.  

And if you think Iran allying with Russia is a good idea for Iran in the long run, think again.  

Unlike the Iranians, the Vietnamese at least know who their REAL enemy in the long run 

I could care less who sides with who, but i wont be brainwashed into believing any one of these actors is morally any better than the other.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Ok.  So if all politics was to be done by brute power, how long do you think Iran would last? And I'm not talking about the US here.  The Tang dynasty once stretched to the borders of Iran, as did the Russian Tsarist and Communist empires.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_dynasty#/media/File:Tang_China_669AD.jpg

Last I checked the Chinese Communist Party weren't particularly sympathetic to Muslims in their areas of control.  They're also building major infrastructure projects down the old Silk Road.  

Edited by Zhong Lu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to discuss you can compare situation of native nations of Syberia with Indians. I  also think that we can talk of extermination of Indians on future US territory.

And back to the topic Iran is clearly biggest winner of Arab Spring- unfortunate result for US Department of State that backed  revolutions in Middle East in order to finally make a revolution in Iran

. But you can also never forget that Iran didnt start an agressive war for last 200 years. I know you had bad memories from 1979 but its really rather peaceful nation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

In terms of peacefulness, Iran is as peaceful as China.  Technically, China hasn't started any large aggressive wars in the last 200 years either.

Edited by Zhong Lu
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

25 minutes ago, JR EWING said:

PS. Ive seen how the majority of native indians live in the us and Canada. Wow. They sure did ok out of assimilation.

 

Canada is trying to fix things but it's difficult.  So much substance abuse (a problem Europeans purposefully created) and the band leaders control all the money so corruption is everywhere.

But yeah, smallpox blankets...

Edited by Enthalpic
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

2 hours ago, JR EWING said:

Makes it nice and easy to set a cut off date that suits the mindset...

STILL no mention of the MILLIONS the other side killed...?  Not one negative comment about that.  Interesting.  

A cut off date??!!    You cut off half the story to please your anti US / UK narrative. 

 

2 hours ago, JR EWING said:

Im far more concerned about the real threat posed by the US over the implied threat posed by iran or nk.

LOL. And you claim OTHERS have blinkers on. Unreal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

Sigh. Looking at the Iranian economy I doubt they're winning big.  

And if you think Iran allying with Russia is a good idea for Iran in the long run, think again.  

Unlike the Iranians, the Vietnamese at least know who their REAL historical enemy is (hint: it's not the large country on the other side of the ocean).

Unexpectedly, I seem to agree with you on all 3 points.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Unexpectedly, I seem to agree with you on all 3 points.

Damn! I do too!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was one of the most effective postings I have seen for a while on OilPrice, just the title managed its agenda very well, not trolling by any means but a brilliant manoeuvre to start a virtual war, and bate allies into inter fighting.

We are definitely entering into a polarising epoch, its blatantly apparent that as "we" continue with the trade war with China, Brexit, anti Middle East rhetoric and the red tsunami in general its having a reverse affect, or the desired affect, in this thread anyway.

 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much James Regan

In fact, the greater purpose is to know the opinions of the international community for my research and thesis.

no one advocates war and bloodshed

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.