FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Written by an Iranian Woman
Written by an Iranian Woman
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Even those who say its broken wouldn't swap it for regimes like Iran, North Korea and Russia etc.. | |||
| |||
| |||
"It an impassioned piece of writing, and on the surface "she" is asking the "liberal West" not to impose their own culture wars on her country. . Dive a lot deeper however and the symbolic reference is clear: she hankers for the the pre-1979 monarchy under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. . That system: - Was authoritarian. - Had a secret police (SAVAK). - Was not a liberal democracy. - But was secular and socially more permissive than today’s Islamic Republic. . Here's where things get spicy. . If a new regime emerged, but they had the death penalty or severe punishment for LGBTQIA+ people, then us helping usher in that regime makes us complicit in more human suffering, doesn't it ? . Western governments that materially supported that transition and outcome could be morally implicated. Based on her overall tone, she wants - Removal of the Islamic Republic - A secular state - Cultural freedom (music, women singing, no morality police) - Elections . She probably assumes (optimistically and with rose-tinted glasses) that a post-theocratic Iran would trend towards liberalism because - Iran has high literacy rates - Strong middle class traditions - Large diaspora exposure to Western norms - Significant youth dissatisfaction with religious rule - Normal relations with the West . That is projective thinking and not a firm guarantee however. . It really boils down to this : "If we help remove one oppressive regime, but the replacement isn’t fully liberal, are we complicit?" and the answer is "Yes, potentially." . I suppose her framing is survival and dignity and I appreciate that. But she is not considering the moral liability of those assisting her country. . It's not wrong to push back against a rose-tinted view of the past. However many Iranians explicitly want a new future, not a return to an older one. I suspect many of the younger generation would not agree with her views, no matter how eloquently, impassioned or sincerely they were put." I think you should read her last paragraph again. She doesn’t want people in Europe telling her people what they should do or how they should live, they want freedom. They want elections. But yeah, you tell her what she should be thinking | |||
"It an impassioned piece of writing, and on the surface "she" is asking the "liberal West" not to impose their own culture wars on her country. . Dive a lot deeper however and the symbolic reference is clear: she hankers for the the pre-1979 monarchy under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. . That system: - Was authoritarian. - Had a secret police (SAVAK). - Was not a liberal democracy. - But was secular and socially more permissive than today’s Islamic Republic. . Here's where things get spicy. . If a new regime emerged, but they had the death penalty or severe punishment for LGBTQIA+ people, then us helping usher in that regime makes us complicit in more human suffering, doesn't it ? . Western governments that materially supported that transition and outcome could be morally implicated. Based on her overall tone, she wants - Removal of the Islamic Republic - A secular state - Cultural freedom (music, women singing, no morality police) - Elections . She probably assumes (optimistically and with rose-tinted glasses) that a post-theocratic Iran would trend towards liberalism because - Iran has high literacy rates - Strong middle class traditions - Large diaspora exposure to Western norms - Significant youth dissatisfaction with religious rule - Normal relations with the West . That is projective thinking and not a firm guarantee however. . It really boils down to this : "If we help remove one oppressive regime, but the replacement isn’t fully liberal, are we complicit?" and the answer is "Yes, potentially." . I suppose her framing is survival and dignity and I appreciate that. But she is not considering the moral liability of those assisting her country. . It's not wrong to push back against a rose-tinted view of the past. However many Iranians explicitly want a new future, not a return to an older one. I suspect many of the younger generation would not agree with her views, no matter how eloquently, impassioned or sincerely they were put. I think you should read her last paragraph again. She doesn’t want people in Europe telling her people what they should do or how they should live, they want freedom. They want elections. But yeah, you tell her what she should be thinking " Freedom and elections comes from stability. Violent regime change isn’t going to bring that any time soon. The Iranian regime is awful, heinous - but bombing the shit out of them isn’t going to change a damn thing except create more extremists. | |||
"Unfortunately unless it's a bloke in a dress, or preferably a burqa, the far left won't be interested in her opinion." Yep, you’re probably right mate. They aren’t interested in freedom or liberty. They love totalitarianism and murdering anyone who doesn’t agree. Just ask Charlie Kirks kids. | |||
"It an impassioned piece of writing, and on the surface "she" is asking the "liberal West" not to impose their own culture wars on her country. . Dive a lot deeper however and the symbolic reference is clear: she hankers for the the pre-1979 monarchy under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. . That system: - Was authoritarian. - Had a secret police (SAVAK). - Was not a liberal democracy. - But was secular and socially more permissive than today’s Islamic Republic. . Here's where things get spicy. . If a new regime emerged, but they had the death penalty or severe punishment for LGBTQIA+ people, then us helping usher in that regime makes us complicit in more human suffering, doesn't it ? . Western governments that materially supported that transition and outcome could be morally implicated. Based on her overall tone, she wants - Removal of the Islamic Republic - A secular state - Cultural freedom (music, women singing, no morality police) - Elections . She probably assumes (optimistically and with rose-tinted glasses) that a post-theocratic Iran would trend towards liberalism because - Iran has high literacy rates - Strong middle class traditions - Large diaspora exposure to Western norms - Significant youth dissatisfaction with religious rule - Normal relations with the West . That is projective thinking and not a firm guarantee however. . It really boils down to this : "If we help remove one oppressive regime, but the replacement isn’t fully liberal, are we complicit?" and the answer is "Yes, potentially." . I suppose her framing is survival and dignity and I appreciate that. But she is not considering the moral liability of those assisting her country. . It's not wrong to push back against a rose-tinted view of the past. However many Iranians explicitly want a new future, not a return to an older one. I suspect many of the younger generation would not agree with her views, no matter how eloquently, impassioned or sincerely they were put. I think you should read her last paragraph again. She doesn’t want people in Europe telling her people what they should do or how they should live, they want freedom. They want elections. But yeah, you tell her what she should be thinking " I do truly believe in education, truth, and humanity. From a Humanistic viewpoint. . Which sits considerably higher than some of the things she was asking for. . Her aim is good, if not a little too low. A rising tide lifts all boats, not just those for some. . I am disappointed that you decided to throw shade, instead of wanted to elevate what Iran could cooperatively become. | |||
"Unfortunately unless it's a bloke in a dress, or preferably a burqa, the far left won't be interested in her opinion. Yep, you’re probably right mate. They aren’t interested in freedom or liberty. They love totalitarianism and murdering anyone who doesn’t agree. Just ask Charlie Kirks kids. " Interesting to mention Kirk. He was vehemently against action in Iran. | |||
"It an impassioned piece of writing, and on the surface "she" is asking the "liberal West" not to impose their own culture wars on her country. . Dive a lot deeper however and the symbolic reference is clear: she hankers for the the pre-1979 monarchy under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. . That system: - Was authoritarian. - Had a secret police (SAVAK). - Was not a liberal democracy. - But was secular and socially more permissive than today’s Islamic Republic. . Here's where things get spicy. . If a new regime emerged, but they had the death penalty or severe punishment for LGBTQIA+ people, then us helping usher in that regime makes us complicit in more human suffering, doesn't it ? . Western governments that materially supported that transition and outcome could be morally implicated. Based on her overall tone, she wants - Removal of the Islamic Republic - A secular state - Cultural freedom (music, women singing, no morality police) - Elections . She probably assumes (optimistically and with rose-tinted glasses) that a post-theocratic Iran would trend towards liberalism because - Iran has high literacy rates - Strong middle class traditions - Large diaspora exposure to Western norms - Significant youth dissatisfaction with religious rule - Normal relations with the West . That is projective thinking and not a firm guarantee however. . It really boils down to this : "If we help remove one oppressive regime, but the replacement isn’t fully liberal, are we complicit?" and the answer is "Yes, potentially." . I suppose her framing is survival and dignity and I appreciate that. But she is not considering the moral liability of those assisting her country. . It's not wrong to push back against a rose-tinted view of the past. However many Iranians explicitly want a new future, not a return to an older one. I suspect many of the younger generation would not agree with her views, no matter how eloquently, impassioned or sincerely they were put. I think you should read her last paragraph again. She doesn’t want people in Europe telling her people what they should do or how they should live, they want freedom. They want elections. But yeah, you tell her what she should be thinking I do truly believe in education, truth, and humanity. From a Humanistic viewpoint. . Which sits considerably higher than some of the things she was asking for. . Her aim is good, if not a little too low. A rising tide lifts all boats, not just those for some. . I am disappointed that you decided to throw shade, instead of wanted to elevate what Iran could cooperatively become." I’m glad you think education is important. Women aren’t allowed an education under the Iran regime you support. They are allowed to be shot in she street by paramilitary troops tho which is much better than an education | |||
"Unfortunately unless it's a bloke in a dress, or preferably a burqa, the far left won't be interested in her opinion. Yep, you’re probably right mate. They aren’t interested in freedom or liberty. They love totalitarianism and murdering anyone who doesn’t agree. Just ask Charlie Kirks kids. Interesting to mention Kirk. He was vehemently against action in Iran. " Charlie Kirk opposed military action against Iran because he believed it could trigger another long, destabilizing Middle East war, repeating mistakes like Iraq and contradicting the “America First” goal of avoiding costly foreign interventions. . This issue split the MAGA movement, because Kirk’s stance actually put him at odds with some very pro-Israel conservatives. That divide is quite interesting politically. . The MAGA split over Iran comes down to a clash between “America First” isolation-leaning populists and traditional hawkish conservatives who favour military deterrence. . The Iran issue triggers this split very acutely, more than any other foreign policy. Is “America First” mainly about avoiding foreign wars, or about using American power to defeat U.S. enemies and protect allies?. Both sides of MAGA believe they represent the real MAGA philosophy. Schrodinger's MAGA perhaps ?  | |||
" I’m glad you think education is important. Women aren’t allowed an education under the Iran regime you support. " You keep accusing anyone of not being 100% on board with this war as ‘supporting’ Iran. You know some things are a tad bit more complex than that? | |||
"I’m glad you think education is important. Women aren’t allowed an education under the Iran regime you support. " I beg your pardon ? "under the Iran regime *you* support". . What on earth are you talking about ? | |||
| |||
| |||
"It an impassioned piece of writing, and on the surface "she" is asking the "liberal West" not to impose their own culture wars on her country. . Dive a lot deeper however and the symbolic reference is clear: she hankers for the the pre-1979 monarchy under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. . That system: - Was authoritarian. - Had a secret police (SAVAK). - Was not a liberal democracy. - But was secular and socially more permissive than today’s Islamic Republic. . Here's where things get spicy. . If a new regime emerged, but they had the death penalty or severe punishment for LGBTQIA+ people, then us helping usher in that regime makes us complicit in more human suffering, doesn't it ? . Western governments that materially supported that transition and outcome could be morally implicated. Based on her overall tone, she wants - Removal of the Islamic Republic - A secular state - Cultural freedom (music, women singing, no morality police) - Elections . She probably assumes (optimistically and with rose-tinted glasses) that a post-theocratic Iran would trend towards liberalism because - Iran has high literacy rates - Strong middle class traditions - Large diaspora exposure to Western norms - Significant youth dissatisfaction with religious rule - Normal relations with the West . That is projective thinking and not a firm guarantee however. . It really boils down to this : "If we help remove one oppressive regime, but the replacement isn’t fully liberal, are we complicit?" and the answer is "Yes, potentially." . I suppose her framing is survival and dignity and I appreciate that. But she is not considering the moral liability of those assisting her country. . It's not wrong to push back against a rose-tinted view of the past. However many Iranians explicitly want a new future, not a return to an older one. I suspect many of the younger generation would not agree with her views, no matter how eloquently, impassioned or sincerely they were put." AI;DR lol | |||
| |||
"I think this is an eloquent and well written letter. If I was living in Iran I would hope I would be able to put something like this together. That said I am not and I don’t understand why _we_ need to be the ones to solve her problem. Why hasn’t she asked the Japanese or the South Koreans to replace her government with force? What about the Argentines or the Ghanaian army? Why is it always us that is showing a “moral” failing by not sending our men to be killed and not the armed forces of any other country?" Most countries don’t have the capability in the form of high tech weapons to strike Tehran from the Med or the Gulf. Boots on the ground would be a massive logistical operation in a part of the world where supporting those troops once there, would be even harder than getting them there in the first place. | |||
"I think this is an eloquent and well written letter. If I was living in Iran I would hope I would be able to put something like this together. That said I am not and I don’t understand why _we_ need to be the ones to solve her problem. Why hasn’t she asked the Japanese or the South Koreans to replace her government with force? What about the Argentines or the Ghanaian army? Why is it always us that is showing a “moral” failing by not sending our men to be killed and not the armed forces of any other country? Most countries don’t have the capability in the form of high tech weapons to strike Tehran from the Med or the Gulf. Boots on the ground would be a massive logistical operation in a part of the world where supporting those troops once there, would be even harder than getting them there in the first place. " 100% agree. Question still stands: why is it _our_ _moral_ failing? Our military piggy bank is empty. We cannot even deploy a single destroyer quickly. The pennies that are left need to be focussed on _our_ defence in the Arctic and the Atlantic. Some realism about our _actual_ current capabilities would be good. | |||
"I think this is an eloquent and well written letter. If I was living in Iran I would hope I would be able to put something like this together. That said I am not and I don’t understand why _we_ need to be the ones to solve her problem. Why hasn’t she asked the Japanese or the South Koreans to replace her government with force? What about the Argentines or the Ghanaian army? Why is it always us that is showing a “moral” failing by not sending our men to be killed and not the armed forces of any other country? Most countries don’t have the capability in the form of high tech weapons to strike Tehran from the Med or the Gulf. Boots on the ground would be a massive logistical operation in a part of the world where supporting those troops once there, would be even harder than getting them there in the first place. 100% agree. Question still stands: why is it _our_ _moral_ failing? Our military piggy bank is empty. We cannot even deploy a single destroyer quickly. The pennies that are left need to be focussed on _our_ defence in the Arctic and the Atlantic. Some realism about our _actual_ current capabilities would be good. " The answer still stands as well. I suppose a better question is how much value do you place on human life in other countries? Not you personally, but society as a whole. Is an extra 10p on a litre of fuel ok but 20p isn’t? Military spending is next to nothing compared to what we spend on some other things. We have a government at the moment which is holding back on any serious involvement but wouldn’t have any qualms about putting taxes up to pay for it if we were to get involved. | |||
"I think this is an eloquent and well written letter. If I was living in Iran I would hope I would be able to put something like this together. That said I am not and I don’t understand why _we_ need to be the ones to solve her problem. Why hasn’t she asked the Japanese or the South Koreans to replace her government with force? What about the Argentines or the Ghanaian army? Why is it always us that is showing a “moral” failing by not sending our men to be killed and not the armed forces of any other country? Most countries don’t have the capability in the form of high tech weapons to strike Tehran from the Med or the Gulf. Boots on the ground would be a massive logistical operation in a part of the world where supporting those troops once there, would be even harder than getting them there in the first place. 100% agree. Question still stands: why is it _our_ _moral_ failing? Our military piggy bank is empty. We cannot even deploy a single destroyer quickly. The pennies that are left need to be focussed on _our_ defence in the Arctic and the Atlantic. Some realism about our _actual_ current capabilities would be good. The answer still stands as well. I suppose a better question is how much value do you place on human life in other countries? Not you personally, but society as a whole. Is an extra 10p on a litre of fuel ok but 20p isn’t? Military spending is next to nothing compared to what we spend on some other things. We have a government at the moment which is holding back on any serious involvement but wouldn’t have any qualms about putting taxes up to pay for it if we were to get involved. " How do propose to solve the lack of military capability in the next two weeks before all the bombing and the shouting is over? And if it isn’t over in two weeks then how do you propose to stand up and equip an army to put boots on the ground in Iran because that will be the next thing required. Then what do you propose we don’t defend because we still won’t have the cash for it all. It is just not realistic. This letter is calling for action _now_. We cannot do now. | |||
"I think this is an eloquent and well written letter. If I was living in Iran I would hope I would be able to put something like this together. That said I am not and I don’t understand why _we_ need to be the ones to solve her problem. Why hasn’t she asked the Japanese or the South Koreans to replace her government with force? What about the Argentines or the Ghanaian army? Why is it always us that is showing a “moral” failing by not sending our men to be killed and not the armed forces of any other country? Most countries don’t have the capability in the form of high tech weapons to strike Tehran from the Med or the Gulf. Boots on the ground would be a massive logistical operation in a part of the world where supporting those troops once there, would be even harder than getting them there in the first place. 100% agree. Question still stands: why is it _our_ _moral_ failing? Our military piggy bank is empty. We cannot even deploy a single destroyer quickly. The pennies that are left need to be focussed on _our_ defence in the Arctic and the Atlantic. Some realism about our _actual_ current capabilities would be good. The answer still stands as well. I suppose a better question is how much value do you place on human life in other countries? Not you personally, but society as a whole. Is an extra 10p on a litre of fuel ok but 20p isn’t? Military spending is next to nothing compared to what we spend on some other things. We have a government at the moment which is holding back on any serious involvement but wouldn’t have any qualms about putting taxes up to pay for it if we were to get involved. How do propose to solve the lack of military capability in the next two weeks before all the bombing and the shouting is over? And if it isn’t over in two weeks then how do you propose to stand up and equip an army to put boots on the ground in Iran because that will be the next thing required. Then what do you propose we don’t defend because we still won’t have the cash for it all. It is just not realistic. This letter is calling for action _now_. We cannot do now." You’d be amazed what you can get delivered within a couple of weeks. And I personally don’t advocate for boots on the ground, certainly not in the next couple of weeks. The new leader is already softening the party line by apologising to their neighbours for attacking them. If the genocide stops then the bombing can stop. If elections are on the agenda then the military can stand down. But, and this is the thing, Ukraine has received supplies and loans on the whole. Much of which are expected to be repaid at some point. There’s no reason this logic can not be the case with Iran. They are a very rich country, they can repay the west very easily if sanctions were lifted, which they would be. | |||
| |||
"I think this is an eloquent and well written letter. If I was living in Iran I would hope I would be able to put something like this together. That said I am not and I don’t understand why _we_ need to be the ones to solve her problem. Why hasn’t she asked the Japanese or the South Koreans to replace her government with force? What about the Argentines or the Ghanaian army? Why is it always us that is showing a “moral” failing by not sending our men to be killed and not the armed forces of any other country? Most countries don’t have the capability in the form of high tech weapons to strike Tehran from the Med or the Gulf. Boots on the ground would be a massive logistical operation in a part of the world where supporting those troops once there, would be even harder than getting them there in the first place. 100% agree. Question still stands: why is it _our_ _moral_ failing? Our military piggy bank is empty. We cannot even deploy a single destroyer quickly. The pennies that are left need to be focussed on _our_ defence in the Arctic and the Atlantic. Some realism about our _actual_ current capabilities would be good. The answer still stands as well. I suppose a better question is how much value do you place on human life in other countries? Not you personally, but society as a whole. Is an extra 10p on a litre of fuel ok but 20p isn’t? Military spending is next to nothing compared to what we spend on some other things. We have a government at the moment which is holding back on any serious involvement but wouldn’t have any qualms about putting taxes up to pay for it if we were to get involved. How do propose to solve the lack of military capability in the next two weeks before all the bombing and the shouting is over? And if it isn’t over in two weeks then how do you propose to stand up and equip an army to put boots on the ground in Iran because that will be the next thing required. Then what do you propose we don’t defend because we still won’t have the cash for it all. It is just not realistic. This letter is calling for action _now_. We cannot do now. You’d be amazed what you can get delivered within a couple of weeks. And I personally don’t advocate for boots on the ground, certainly not in the next couple of weeks. The new leader is already softening the party line by apologising to their neighbours for attacking them. If the genocide stops then the bombing can stop. If elections are on the agenda then the military can stand down. But, and this is the thing, Ukraine has received supplies and loans on the whole. Much of which are expected to be repaid at some point. There’s no reason this logic can not be the case with Iran. They are a very rich country, they can repay the west very easily if sanctions were lifted, which they would be. " We can’t even load a single destroyer in a week. I genuinely don’t know what viable military capabilities could be stood up from scratch today whilst they are still loading HMS Dragon. If you can give me a coherent list then I will entertain the idea. If not then I won’t. | |||
"I think this is an eloquent and well written letter. If I was living in Iran I would hope I would be able to put something like this together. That said I am not and I don’t understand why _we_ need to be the ones to solve her problem. Why hasn’t she asked the Japanese or the South Koreans to replace her government with force? What about the Argentines or the Ghanaian army? Why is it always us that is showing a “moral” failing by not sending our men to be killed and not the armed forces of any other country? Most countries don’t have the capability in the form of high tech weapons to strike Tehran from the Med or the Gulf. Boots on the ground would be a massive logistical operation in a part of the world where supporting those troops once there, would be even harder than getting them there in the first place. 100% agree. Question still stands: why is it _our_ _moral_ failing? Our military piggy bank is empty. We cannot even deploy a single destroyer quickly. The pennies that are left need to be focussed on _our_ defence in the Arctic and the Atlantic. Some realism about our _actual_ current capabilities would be good. The answer still stands as well. I suppose a better question is how much value do you place on human life in other countries? Not you personally, but society as a whole. Is an extra 10p on a litre of fuel ok but 20p isn’t? Military spending is next to nothing compared to what we spend on some other things. We have a government at the moment which is holding back on any serious involvement but wouldn’t have any qualms about putting taxes up to pay for it if we were to get involved. How do propose to solve the lack of military capability in the next two weeks before all the bombing and the shouting is over? And if it isn’t over in two weeks then how do you propose to stand up and equip an army to put boots on the ground in Iran because that will be the next thing required. Then what do you propose we don’t defend because we still won’t have the cash for it all. It is just not realistic. This letter is calling for action _now_. We cannot do now. You’d be amazed what you can get delivered within a couple of weeks. And I personally don’t advocate for boots on the ground, certainly not in the next couple of weeks. The new leader is already softening the party line by apologising to their neighbours for attacking them. If the genocide stops then the bombing can stop. If elections are on the agenda then the military can stand down. But, and this is the thing, Ukraine has received supplies and loans on the whole. Much of which are expected to be repaid at some point. There’s no reason this logic can not be the case with Iran. They are a very rich country, they can repay the west very easily if sanctions were lifted, which they would be. " And of course Britain had to repay much of the military aid it received from US in WW2, as well as sharing valuable technology and territory. | |||
"The morality point is an interesting one, not downplaying the examples given by any means but the facts are that annually there are more deaths in infant mortality than there has been in all conflicts collectively since 1945.. The WHO figures for 2022 are 2.2 million and the majority were preventable, a back of affordable health care and clean water, sanitation etc.. None of that means the suffering for the individuals highlighted is any less grievous and absolutely tragic for the families but the hourly reality in some countries are largely paid lip service too.. Cuts in funding and support from some of the richest nations for what looks like purely political reasons is a truly obscene thing.." There are so many metrics and statistics regarding global deaths and the circumstances of those deaths. There is an argument that we are already paying for a military that we don’t use (thankfully). The supplies and munitions and extra Costs for being 9,000 miles from home is a different matter of course. The book The Habits of Highly Successful People encourages you to think about putting everything you do and everything you should or want to do into one of 4 categories, 1. Not important and not urgent 2. Urgent but not important 3. Important but not urgent 4. Important and urgent I would class the Iran situation as urgent and important. Affordable heath care in Somalia is clearly important but the civil war there prevents urgent action even if you wanted to. I think stabilising the population of the planet is urgent but nobody seems to think its important. And I don’t mean letting people die, I mean having less children. | |||
| |||
"The morality point is an interesting one, not downplaying the examples given by any means but the facts are that annually there are more deaths in infant mortality than there has been in all conflicts collectively since 1945.. The WHO figures for 2022 are 2.2 million and the majority were preventable, a back of affordable health care and clean water, sanitation etc.. None of that means the suffering for the individuals highlighted is any less grievous and absolutely tragic for the families but the hourly reality in some countries are largely paid lip service too.. Cuts in funding and support from some of the richest nations for what looks like purely political reasons is a truly obscene thing.. There are so many metrics and statistics regarding global deaths and the circumstances of those deaths. There is an argument that we are already paying for a military that we don’t use (thankfully). The supplies and munitions and extra Costs for being 9,000 miles from home is a different matter of course. The book The Habits of Highly Successful People encourages you to think about putting everything you do and everything you should or want to do into one of 4 categories, 1. Not important and not urgent 2. Urgent but not important 3. Important but not urgent 4. Important and urgent I would class the Iran situation as urgent and important. Affordable heath care in Somalia is clearly important but the civil war there prevents urgent action even if you wanted to. I think stabilising the population of the planet is urgent but nobody seems to think its important. And I don’t mean letting people die, I mean having less children. " Its not a simple solution by any means of course.. There are many conflicting ideological factors that are part of the equation that need addressing before any sort of viable long term ideas can stabilise such things but yes with a global disparity in the first and third world birth rates wise it presents challenges politically as well as socially.. | |||
"Since 85 all three services have been reduced to half of what they were.. The cold war 'dividend'.. Wasn't just thatchers government and all that have followed since then, innthe mid to late 70s we were often told this or that set of training was reduced or cut due to lack of funds.. We are a pitifully small military power presently and big decisions need to be taken going forward.." I would happily pay 1% more income tax if it was spent on non nuclear defence. We have relied on nukes keeping the enemy at bay. The new world order is cyber war, terrorist cells and conventional warfare. Non of which are put off by us having trident. | |||
"I would class the Iran situation as urgent and important. Affordable heath care in Somalia is clearly important but the civil war there prevents urgent action even if you wanted to. " Why does the military situation in Somalia make it untenable to intervene whereas the military situation in Iran makes it an imperative? I would have thought a much stronger case could be made for fighting in Somalia. The belligerents are weaker, less well equipped and more poorly trained. Surely that is a much easier fight to win and the impact on Somali health would be an overwhelming positive moral victory wouldn’t it? | |||
"I would class the Iran situation as urgent and important. Affordable heath care in Somalia is clearly important but the civil war there prevents urgent action even if you wanted to. Why does the military situation in Somalia make it untenable to intervene whereas the military situation in Iran makes it an imperative? I would have thought a much stronger case could be made for fighting in Somalia. The belligerents are weaker, less well equipped and more poorly trained. Surely that is a much easier fight to win and the impact on Somali health would be an overwhelming positive moral victory wouldn’t it? " Somalia is a civil war, both sides armed. Whose side should we take? And what if involvement turns both sides against whoever steps in? Somalia aren't working to get nukes to use against the rest of the world. Iran is a genocide where the government are slaughtering their own citizens at the number of tens of thousands per week. They want to nuke Isreal, the US and pretty much most of the non Muslim world. The list is endless, there’s no similarity | |||
"I would class the Iran situation as urgent and important. Affordable heath care in Somalia is clearly important but the civil war there prevents urgent action even if you wanted to. Why does the military situation in Somalia make it untenable to intervene whereas the military situation in Iran makes it an imperative? I would have thought a much stronger case could be made for fighting in Somalia. The belligerents are weaker, less well equipped and more poorly trained. Surely that is a much easier fight to win and the impact on Somali health would be an overwhelming positive moral victory wouldn’t it? Somalia is a civil war, both sides armed. Whose side should we take? And what if involvement turns both sides against whoever steps in? Somalia aren't working to get nukes to use against the rest of the world. Iran is a genocide where the government are slaughtering their own citizens at the number of tens of thousands per week. They want to nuke Isreal, the US and pretty much most of the non Muslim world. The list is endless, there’s no similarity" But I am assuming that if the Iranian regime falls without any credible replacement which seems the most likely post collapse outcome (if collapse happens) then you won’t want to get involved in the ensuing civil war? Or you think that a ethnically diverse country with a homeless northern Kurdish population won’t fall into civil war? | |||
"I would class the Iran situation as urgent and important. Affordable heath care in Somalia is clearly important but the civil war there prevents urgent action even if you wanted to. Why does the military situation in Somalia make it untenable to intervene whereas the military situation in Iran makes it an imperative? I would have thought a much stronger case could be made for fighting in Somalia. The belligerents are weaker, less well equipped and more poorly trained. Surely that is a much easier fight to win and the impact on Somali health would be an overwhelming positive moral victory wouldn’t it? Somalia is a civil war, both sides armed. Whose side should we take? And what if involvement turns both sides against whoever steps in? Somalia aren't working to get nukes to use against the rest of the world. Iran is a genocide where the government are slaughtering their own citizens at the number of tens of thousands per week. They want to nuke Isreal, the US and pretty much most of the non Muslim world. The list is endless, there’s no similarity But I am assuming that if the Iranian regime falls without any credible replacement which seems the most likely post collapse outcome (if collapse happens) then you won’t want to get involved in the ensuing civil war? Or you think that an ethnically diverse country with a homeless northern Kurdish population won’t fall into civil war?" Define credible? My definition would be free elections and the winner gets to form a government. The military support that government and keep the peace. As in those who wish to bring down a democratically elected government by force should be prevented from doing so. Define getting involved? Installing a puppet regime without elections? Absolutely not! Helping to police elections? I’m sure the UN would love that job. Isn’t that their purpose? The Kurdish situation is a separate issue although I understand they make claim on territory that is currently under Iranian control so talks with a new government would be welcomed. As for civil war, there is already civil war. It’s just that only one side has weapons at the moment. I think the peoples of many countries are split in half by religion, ideology, heritage, culture, values etc. it’s often said that multiculturalism is our strength. I’d like to have this logic explained to me. Having a black friend or neighbour doesn’t make me a better person. It doesn’t impact me in any way, in fact the best scenario is I don’t even notice they are black. | |||
"Since 85 all three services have been reduced to half of what they were.. The cold war 'dividend'.. Wasn't just thatchers government and all that have followed since then, innthe mid to late 70s we were often told this or that set of training was reduced or cut due to lack of funds.. We are a pitifully small military power presently and big decisions need to be taken going forward.. I would happily pay 1% more income tax if it was spent on non nuclear defence. We have relied on nukes keeping the enemy at bay. The new world order is cyber war, terrorist cells and conventional warfare. Non of which are put off by us having trident. " Can't disagree but as we've seen in Ukraine tech only goes so far, boots on the ground are still necessary to take and hold territory.. Drones gave been a huge impact and have changed how all conflicts will be fought.. | |||
"Since 85 all three services have been reduced to half of what they were.. The cold war 'dividend'.. Wasn't just thatchers government and all that have followed since then, innthe mid to late 70s we were often told this or that set of training was reduced or cut due to lack of funds.. We are a pitifully small military power presently and big decisions need to be taken going forward.. I would happily pay 1% more income tax if it was spent on non nuclear defence. We have relied on nukes keeping the enemy at bay. The new world order is cyber war, terrorist cells and conventional warfare. Non of which are put off by us having trident. Can't disagree but as we've seen in Ukraine tech only goes so far, boots on the ground are still necessary to take and hold territory.. Drones gave been a huge impact and have changed how all conflicts will be fought.." So maybe we arm the civilians of Iran. Take all the AK47s in Gaza and give them to the Iranian citizens to use against the government that paid for them. | |||
| |||
