IRAN / USA

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, John Foote said:

It's counter-intuitive, but we might have handed the hardliners in Iran a gift, and good luck hoping this helps the moderates in the region. I do think Trump absolutely had the right to order it. But I think he was a fool to do so. Get the F out. 

The idea that extra-judicial killings can be legitimized is truly anathema and shows the rest of the world that the USA cannot now be relied upon to act rationally.

[remake it + 288]

16 minutes ago, James Regan said:

I think it’s easier than that the Middle East has been and will continue to be “invaded” due to the vast amounts of oil in the hands of religious lunatics and this cannot be tolerated in a modern society whom require said resource. Not a hard concept to get your head around, but throw in religion and an unwanted procurer of said resources and there you have it, the oil business.....

Apparently the words sovereign nation mean nothing to you.

[0R0 + 6,251]

35 minutes ago, remake it said:

Apparently the words sovereign nation mean nothing to you.

It definitely doesn't mean squat to Iran. 

It was a mistake to let go the oil and create the post colonial middle East. It is an artificial creation structured around misconceptions of the colonial powers as to governance - heavily centralized vs. the traditional regionally autonomous structure, hence endless instability, civil war and mass atrocities. Letting them control the oil was equally stupid. Just as the US kicking UK and France off the Suez Canal in 1956.   Besides Iran, none of these countries existed before WWI. All were colonies of the Ottoman empire and British Empire. And the Ottoman loss in WWI put those in UK and French control. They should have carved out oil provinces to keep for themselves, giving the US the Saudi portion and stayed there. The population centers and their rural environs would have been made into a collection of small states as they had effectively been as Turkish provinces. 

Now the choice appears to be to separate the oil from the people of the region. Considering Turkish realignment, it should help cause disruption if a Kurdistan state were carved out of Iraq  and Iran sitting on top of 1/2 of Iraqi oil. 

 

Edited January 4, 2020 by 0R0
Typo

[remake it + 288]

2 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

It definitely doesn't mean squat to Iran. 

It was a mistake to let go the oil and create the post colonial middle East. It is an artificial creation structured around misconceptions of the colonial powers as to governance - heavily centralized vs. the traditional regionally autonomous structure, hence endless instability, civil war and mass atrocities.

Again, all you are doing is concluding that the concept of a sovereign nation is meaningless, and of itself allows all and sundry to do as they please to create a world of international anarchy.

[James Regan + 1,776]

45 minutes ago, remake it said:

Apparently the words sovereign nation mean nothing to you.

Very much so United Kingdom is a true Sovereign Nation with Kings and Queens and a Religion that has managed to modernize itself out of the cave from whence it was spawned...

[0R0 + 6,251]

51 minutes ago, remake it said:

The idea that extra-judicial killings can be legitimized is truly anathema and shows the rest of the world that the USA cannot now be relied upon to act rationally.

That discussion is done and dusted. The courts allowed it  a very long time ago. All you needed was to be in some sort of war. By having Hezbollah take the embassy, Iran created the automatic authority of war in the president's hands. So their officials are all fair game for US strikes. Congress does not need to approve a war after an attack on US sovereign soil, which is what embassies are. It is already legally a war.    

[remake it + 288]

2 minutes ago, James Regan said:

Very much so United Kingdom is a true Sovereign Nation with Kings and Queens and a Religion that has managed to modernize itself out of the cave from whence it was spawned...

Sadly your nation, which was so good at establishing a framework of laws, forgot what the concept of terra nullius meant during its colonial days.

[remake it + 288]

1 minute ago, 0R0 said:

That discussion is done and dusted. The courts allowed it  a very long time ago. All you needed was to be in some sort of war. By having Hezbollah take the embassy, Iran created the automatic authority of war in the president's hands. So their officials are all fair game for US strikes. Congress does not need to approve a war after an attack on US sovereign soil, which is what embassies are. It is already legally a war.    

Please, moderators/administrators, where is that conspiracy theory trinket when it's needed.

[0R0 + 6,251]

10 minutes ago, remake it said:

Again, all you are doing is concluding that the concept of a sovereign nation is meaningless, and of itself allows all and sundry to do as they please to create a world of international anarchy.

I am saying that respect of sovereignty is a two way street. If one nation continuously operates within other nations as Iran has done for decades in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and now Iraq - and recall that Iraq and Iran had a prolonged war around their border - then they have no claim to have their sovereignty respected. 

[remake it + 288]

1 minute ago, 0R0 said:

I am saying that respect of sovereignty is a two way street. If one nation continuously operates within other nations as Iran has done for decades in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and now Iraq - and recall that Iraq and Iran had a prolonged war around their border - then they have no claim to have their sovereignty respected. 

Please look at what the USA has been doing since WWII and realize the hollowness of your claims.

[0R0 + 6,251]

Just now, remake it said:

Please look at what the USA has been doing since WWII and realize the hollowness of your claims.

The US was getting legal cover from UN Security Council decisions, or retaliatory war, but has gone beyond it quite some time ago. The US was the legal sovereign of Iraq after the war, whatever terms of withdrawal or remaining occupation, it is there legally, Syria is a different matter, I don't know what legal straw man  was used in that case. But sovereignty of other countries is an internal legal issue within the US justice system and government, because treaties are inside the US legal system. So you can claim whatever you like as to US behavior, but it is only done within the leeway given by the treaties governing sovereignty. Iran just discovered what it means. 

 

[Marcin + 519]

18 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

I am saying that respect of sovereignty is a two way street. If one nation continuously operates within other nations as Iran has done for decades in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and now Iraq - and recall that Iraq and Iran had a prolonged war around their border - then they have no claim to have their sovereignty respected. 

United States operates freely and without consent and often against the will of many sovereign nations.

At the end of the day, it is always the power of the arguments against the argument of power.

All countries are just bullies exercising their raw power to meet its interests.

Human rights only apply to own citizens, others are collateral damage.

It was always like that and always will be.

Some countries try to bring narrative to their actions calling people they kill terrorists, and countries they invade rogue powers.

It often also happens that public opinions of these bullies believe these narratives (all other countries do not believe, few dare to speak up).

But at the end of the day raw power, mainly military power is what rules.

Smaller and weaker nations has always tried to bring some appearance of civility to these barbarian rules, creating League of Nations and recently United Nations.

But strongest countries like United States, Soviet Union/Russia, British Empire, Roman Empire always had upper hand by means of their military or economic superiority.

Funny example is China, it still purports to believe in sovereignty and international organizations.

My take is for not more than 10 years. Later, when all these fancy military gear will be completed it will be great bully like currently United States is.

They would somehow divide the world between them, or not come into agreement but clash in nuclear war.

But it is not of concern for other 205 weaker countries, we can only watch and hope they will come to some agreement.

But to  conclude, in the next 10 years, while China bides its time, US has the world all to itself to plunder.

Edited January 4, 2020 by Marcin
typo

[remake it + 288]

1 minute ago, 0R0 said:

The US was getting legal cover from UN Security Council decisions, or retaliatory war, but has gone beyond it quite some time ago. The US was the legal sovereign of Iraq after the war, whatever terms of withdrawal or remaining occupation, it is there legally, Syria is a different matter, I don't know what legal straw man  was used in that case. But sovereignty of other countries is an internal legal issue within the US justice system and government, because treaties are inside the US legal system. So you can claim whatever you like as to US behavior, but it is only done within the leeway given by the treaties governing sovereignty. Iran just discovered what it means. 

 

Post-fact justifications of warring on another nation is not acceptable to an international community which over many decades has put together a framework of covenants that has avoided until now the prospect of major calamity.

[Papillon + 485]

@Marcin , get ready for some red arrows sir. Luckily in your maturity you can 'handle' it.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

27 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

That discussion is done and dusted. The courts allowed it  a very long time ago. All you needed was to be in some sort of war. By having Hezbollah take the embassy, Iran created the automatic authority of war in the president's hands. So their officials are all fair game for US strikes. Congress does not need to approve a war after an attack on US sovereign soil, which is what embassies are. It is already legally a war.    

 

24 minutes ago, remake it said:

Please, moderators/administrators, where is that conspiracy theory trinket when it's needed.

 

Please point put which part of ORO's comment is "conspiracy".

An embassy is considered sovereign soil.

Iran - backed Hezbollah attacked the U.S. Embassy in Iraq - which is legally U.S. sovereign soil.

Iran declared war on the U.S. by attacking U.S. sovereign soil.

So ... what part of this is "conspiracy"?

 

 

/edit      p.s.

 

Edited January 4, 2020 by Tom Kirkman

[0R0 + 6,251]

14 minutes ago, remake it said:

Post-fact justifications of warring on another nation is not acceptable to an international community which over many decades has put together a framework of covenants that has avoided until now the prospect of major calamity.

These were not post-fact. And you should give George Friedman and Peter Zeihan a good read as to who it is that put meaning into those covenants. The only framework is that the US imposed the sovereignty principle in order to prevent France and Britain from rebuilding their colonies. You need to take your legal blinders off and take a look at reality. Russia had no real legal backing to take out Crimea, nor to try and get the Eastern Ukraine to secede and join Russia. 

You are obviously a believer in the European religion of legal definition and magical mechanisms of enforcement. It is a conceit of the administrative dictatorship of Europe which Britain is so anxious to leave. I can only hope that your class survives with their lives intact when the nationalist uprising that will dismember the EU comes around. 

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

40 minutes ago, remake it said:

Please look at what the USA has been doing since WWII and realize the hollowness of your claims.

Yes, dig out your history books and see what the USA has done for the world. If creating vaccines and helping build countries from ground up to a civilized state is bad then so be it. Or would you rather be speaking Russian??

[remake it + 288]

16 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Yes, dig out your history books and see what the USA has done for the world. If creating vaccines and helping build countries from ground up to a civilized state is bad then so be it. Or would you rather be speaking Russian??

Wouldn't you prefer post of photos from US war zones which showed what friendly fire looked like?

[James Regan + 1,776]

43 minutes ago, remake it said:

Wouldn't you prefer post of photos from US war zones which showed what friendly fire looked like?

How about this photo, Trumps any picture you may have, this was a 20th Century Reciprocal Crusade...

[remake it + 288]

13 minutes ago, James Regan said:

How about this photo, Trumps any picture you may have, this was a 20th Century Reciprocal Crusade...

Sir, an excellent reminder of what can be done by just a few Middle-eastern men on a mission!

[frankfurter + 562]

2 hours ago, 0R0 said:

That discussion is done and dusted. The courts allowed it  a very long time ago. All you needed was to be in some sort of war. By having Hezbollah take the embassy, Iran created the automatic authority of war in the president's hands. So their officials are all fair game for US strikes. Congress does not need to approve a war after an attack on US sovereign soil, which is what embassies are. It is already legally a war.    

So by your definition, when the USA closed the Russian embassies in the USA and forced the staff to exit the USA, the USA is now at war with Russia? 

[Zhong Lu + 845]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iran-student-leader-says-he-regrets-1979-u-s-embassy-n1075626

At the time, what led to the 1979 takeover remained obscure to Americans who for months could only watch in horror as TV newscasts showed Iranian protests at the embassy. Popular anger against the U.S. was rooted in the 1953 CIA-engineered coup that toppled Iran's elected prime minister and cemented the power of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

The shah, dying from cancer, fled Iran in February 1979, paving the way for its Islamic Revolution. But for months, Iran faced widespread unrest ranging from separatist attacks, worker revolts and internal power struggles. Police reported for work but not for duty, allowing chaos like Marxist students briefly seizing the U.S. Embassy.

In this power vacuum, then-President Jimmy Carter allowed the shah to seek medical treatment in New York. That lit the fuse for the Nov. 4, 1979, takeover, though at first the Islamist students argued over which embassy to seize. A student leader named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who later became president in 2005, argued they should seize the Soviet Embassy compound in Tehran as leftists had caused political chaos.

But the students settled on the U.S. Embassy, hoping to pressure Carter to send the shah back to Iran to stand trial on corruption charges. Asgharzadeh, then a 23-year-old engineering student, remembers friends going to Tehran's Grand Bazaar to buy a bolt cutter, a popular tool used by criminals, and the salesman saying: "You do not look like thieves! You certainly want to open up the U.S. Embassy door with it!"

"The society was ready for it to happen. Everything happened so fast," Asgharzadeh said. "We cut off the chains on the embassy's gate. Some of us climbed up the walls and we occupied the embassy compound very fast."

Like other former students, Asgharzadeh said the plan had been simply to stage a sit-in. But the situation soon spun out of their control. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the long-exiled Shiite cleric whose return to Iran sparked the revolution, gave his support to the takeover. He would use that popular angler to expand the Islamists' power.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Now imagine if they had listened to Ahmadinjead back then and instead seized the Soviet Embassy!

[frankfurter + 562]

2 hours ago, 0R0 said:

The US was getting legal cover from UN Security Council decisions, or retaliatory war, but has gone beyond it quite some time ago. The US was the legal sovereign of Iraq after the war, whatever terms of withdrawal or remaining occupation, it is there legally, Syria is a different matter, I don't know what legal straw man  was used in that case. But sovereignty of other countries is an internal legal issue within the US justice system and government, because treaties are inside the US legal system. So you can claim whatever you like as to US behavior, but it is only done within the leeway given by the treaties governing sovereignty. Iran just discovered what it means. 

 

The USA invasion of Iraq was unilateral: it was opposed by the UN Security Council. Mr Kofi Annan expressed this clearly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

You believe the UN SC is a law making and law abiding body. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Edited January 5, 2020 by frankfurter

[0R0 + 6,251]

26 minutes ago, frankfurter said:

So by your definition, when the USA closed the Russian embassies in the USA and forced the staff to exit the USA, the USA is now at war with Russia? 

The closing of an embassy and repatriation of its staff are by international law. All host countries can demand removal  of an embassy, and by that same law the embassy must be removed, indeed, not removing it is considered  an act of aggression. It is part of international law embedded in treaties everyone has signed to.