[Rich]

They can; but when they do they tend to be authoritarian and conformist progressives. Likewise, when they are conservatives they tend to be authoritarian and conformist conservatives. Atlantis is... very German. Lol.

The Battle of Britain (our finest hour) is quite interesting. The Germans seem to suffer from a lazy, romantic, British amateurism, while Dowding prosecuted the campaign with ruthless Teutonic efficiency.

[Rugoz]

What makes you think the USA is trying to "further the cause of peace"? Their purpose is clearly to cripple any potential rivals to their influence in that region of the world. They successfully crippled Iraq and now they intend to do the same to Iran. Remember what Condoleeza Rice said about "creative chaos"? Furthering the cause of peace is the last thing on their minds.

Iraq was already crippled before the invasion. Iraq was supposed to be the Japan of the ME. The neocons had this idea that America only had a few decades left to shape the world in its image.

[Potemkin]

The Battle of Britain (our finest hour) is quite interesting. The Germans seem to suffer from a lazy, romantic, British amateurism, while Dowding prosecuted the campaign with ruthless Teutonic efficiency.

The Germans made the mistake of putting Goering in charge of the Luftwaffe.

[late]

This may seem out of place, but I can warmly suggest a book written by a pilot who was there, it's called Piece of Cake and it is shockingly good.

The docudrama is also excellent, we watch it almost every year. But, of course, not nearly as good as the book.

When I bought the dvds, it was about 20 bucks. But it's out of print now, and crazy expensive. It deserves to be back in print. You can get the British Region 2 version for $13.82, if your dvd player can play a Region 2 disc, most can't.

https://www.amazon.com/Piece-Cake-Complete-DVD/dp/B002GDM2XC/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=piece+of+cake+dvd&qid=1579202375&sr=8-2

[Rich]

The Germans made the mistake of putting Goering in charge of the Luftwaffe.

I can't claim to be really up to speed on the latest stuff, but my understanding is that there is a bit of historical revisionism going on as to Goering's leadership that puts the competence of his leadership in a better light. I should also say that although I made my little joke about the Italians, I think its generally felt that the poor performance of Italian forces in North Africa was exaggerated by Rommel. A bit like the Gallic Wars really. We can't always be 100% certain that Caesar was always trying as hard he might to be fully objective about the events he describes. I believe some historians believe that both Caesar and Rommel might even have used their writings to put themsleves in a good light.

[Atlantis]

Iraq was already crippled before the invasion.

That's what he's saying. The US first crippled Iraq by sanctions, then by the invasion and finally by letting it descend into anarchy.

[Atlantis]

@Atlantis Does Iran have the right to massacre protesters? (not only in Iran they also did it in Iraq)
You dont understand one important aspect and its that the regime is not popular WITHIN Iran not just in the diaspora community
Islamic republic regime is illegitimate

I have no intention of defending the Mullah's. What I'm saying is that whatever they do, it has to be seen in view of the threat they are facing from Sunni terror, Yankee imperialism and the descendants of the Shah's regime of terror. The Shah was universally hated because he imposed a regime of terror to rob the country in the service of US imperialism.

There is discontent in most countries in the ME. In Iran that discontent is motivated by the economic hardship resulting from the US's economic warfare against Iran.

The political opposition is supported by a minority of the educated elite. The great mass of people will stay loyal to the clerics, when push comes to shove. The Iranian revolution won because it had the backing from the Mullahs. Western propaganda about Iran is as credible as the stories about Saddam's WMDs. Only fools believe it.

The neocons are still nurturing the demons of the past to prepare future aggression against Iran:

Iran crown prince predicts regime collapse as protesters ‘smell opportunity’

These are the traitors who urge young Iranian to spill their blood so that the US can once again impose a puppet regime in Tehran. Why should Iran not want to hang them?

Iran is not a liberal democracy, but it has far more legitimacy than most regimes in the ME.

[skinster]

you mean like Hezbollah ?
Since when do the Hezbollah terrorists claim that Israel is their land ?

Hezbollah were the force fighting invading Israeli terrorists on their own land. And they wouldn't exist without that invasion. Just like Hamas.

So powerful that they can't feed their own people, and can't rule without using secret police to crack down on opposition.

Let's ignore 40 years of threats and sanctions from the Empire. This is all Iran's fault.

Both the US and Iran are imperialists.

In reality, of course, oppression is oppression and injustice is injustice, no matter who commits it or under what 'justification'.

OK dude who gives zionists and their borderless colonial state legitimacy.

There is a 'Great Game' being played between Iran and the USA. The fact that one of the players is far more powerful than the other should not blind us to the fact that they are essentially doing the same things with the same motivations.

Regime-change, decades-long attack and sanctions...and defence of these things are the same thing, according to this oracle.

That's like saying the Irish and British played the great game for 800 years. The British were the aggressors. To suggest anything else is utterly disgusting.

No, you are wrong. History isn't a thing. Everything is exactly the same and nothing means anything. Where did you go to school?

@Atlantis Does Iran have the right to massacre protesters?

Did a LOL at this considering The Great March of Return is almost years old at this stage.

Obama was trying to swim against the tide. His greatest achievement was leaving office without being assassinated.

Oh please. He served the agenda of empire just like he before him and he after.

[anasawad]

I have no intention of defending the Mullah's. What I'm saying is that whatever they do, it has to be seen in view of the threat they are facing from Sunni terror, Yankee imperialism and the descendants of the Shah's regime of terror. The Shah was universally hated because he imposed a regime of terror to rob the country in the service of US imperialism.

There is discontent in most countries in the ME. In Iran that discontent is motivated by the economic hardship resulting from the US's economic warfare against Iran.

The political opposition is supported by a minority of the educated elite. The great mass of people will stay loyal to the clerics, when push comes to shove. The Iranian revolution won because it had the backing from the Mullahs. Western propaganda about Iran is as credible as the stories about Saddam's WMDs. Only fools believe it.

The neocons are still nurturing the demons of the past to prepare future aggression against Iran:

Iran crown prince predicts regime collapse as protesters ‘smell opportunity’

These are the traitors who urge young Iranian to spill their blood so that the US can once again impose a puppet regime in Tehran. Why should Iran not want to hang them?

Iran is not a liberal democracy, but it has far more legitimacy than most regimes in the ME.

Bullshit.

The opposition has been fighting politically since the mid 90s.
After continuous banning of opposition politicians from even running in elections (Those elections you claim to be legitimate) and many being either arrested or placed under house arrest, the protests began in the street in the late 2000s.
The protests main demands were social reforms (The increasingly oppressive Islamic laws), against corruption, and demanding political rights.
After many years now with the protests and the opposition growing in size both as the younger generation is growing in number, and more collage graduates and students find themselves trapped in the system after they graduate, and as the economic conditions worsen all while the upper class becomes wealthier (This was before Trump withdrew from the deal, so don't try).
The war in Syria and the constant intervention further increased the size of the protests and the opposition due to the worsening economic conditions and increasing poverty even with the increasing size of economic resources (This was during the early stages after the nuclear deal, and when the country received the 400B dollars).

The opposition further increased as the Kurdish and Azzari independence movements (Has been around since the times of the Qajars, totally American made.) began gaining momentum with the protesters and opposition support culminating in the 2016 renewal of clashes in the northwest of the country.

Finally, the 2018-2019-present which began after even worse economic conditions brought about by :
1- The nuclear deal failing.
2- lack of social reforms.
3- The cutting down or complete removal of social welfare and aid programs.
4- The much higher degree of corruption as the opposition has been almost entirely removed from administrative positions by force.
5- The over expenditure of scarce resources on supporting outside militias all while the country is dying out internally.

This last wave of protesters joining the opposition effectively splits the population into 4 political segments:
1- The remaining pro-regime pro-Khamenei crowd, those are mainly present in Qum and Mashhad and they represent the overwhelming majority of members of the revolutionary guards and the various security agencies of the country along with filling most government and clerical positions.
Basically, Mashhad and Qum are stuffed with people who are fully integrated into the regime.
2- The reformist opposition. Those have been active since the 90s and are made up of all the various liberal (not western Liberalism), centrists, socialists, and communist parties and movements in the country along with most worker unions and a small minority of reformists clerics like Khatami.
The large majority of the leadership of this opposition is currently either under house arrest, jail, or have been killed off or simply went missing.
3- The various separatist movements in the peripheries of the country like the Kurds, Azzari Turks, Arabs, Baha'is, Balochis, Lurs and some Pashtuns in the south and Turkmen in the northeast.
4- And finally, there are the people who are pro Islamic republic but want the entire political class gone and are joining the opposition primarily to remove the corruption and as they say, clean up the country.

Although there are no official estimates, by simply counting out the ethnic groups seeking independence (around 40% of the population) and by taking the provinces that has been seeing massive anti-regime protests over the years and have continuously been a political battlefronts against the clerics, we can easily put over 65-70% of the overall population as anti-regime, and if we added the anti-corruption protesters and movements who are mainly against Khamenei's regime but not the Islamic republic, then we can easily push it up to 80-85% of the populations.

[Atlantis]

Abdul Mahdi urges Kurds to help rid Iraq of US troops

So what now @anasawad, are you going to bash the Kurds as US proxy in the ME again? Or are you supporting the continued illegal presence of the US in Iraq to fuck with Iran? Tough choice?

Whatever it is, your obvious bias destroys your credibility. I support democracy in Iran and everywhere, but I won't support terrorists who try to drag us into a conflict for their own agenda, which has nothing to do with democracy.

It's a bit rich that you keep on blaming Western interference for all the ills of the ME and at the same time want the West to interfere for you favorite terrorist network.

[anasawad]

@Atlantis

So what now @anasawad, are you going to bash the Kurds as US proxy in the ME again? Or are you supporting the continued illegal presence of the US in Iraq to fuck with Iran? Tough choice?

When the fuck did I wanted western interference?
Your interference is the main excuse for the regime.

And the Kurds are US allies and supported by the US, how many times should this be made clear, they're pro-US since the US presence in Iraq protects them.
And I didn't bash them for allying with the US, I bash the Kurds for selling out their neighbors to serve their interests multiple times in favor of foreign empires, starting with the Ottomans.
And in the post you, thus far, have misquoted around a dozen time, I have given a short explanation of why there are hostilities between the Kurds and their various neighbors going back to Ottoman times, and why they now ally with the US and potentially Russia next for protection.
But I know you'll keep misquoting since that seems to be a frequent attribute of your group.

Whatever it is, your obvious bias destroys your credibility.

True, my bias is for the people to get their rights and freedom, and your bias is for the fascists to remain in power.
It's not all that complex really.

I support democracy in Iran and everywhere, but I won't support terrorists who try to drag us into a conflict for their own agenda, which has nothing to do with democracy.

And no you don't. You don't support democracy or freedom or rights at all, you're defending fascists and theocrats all day.

It's a bit rich that you keep on blaming Western interference for all the ills of the ME and at the same time want the West to interfere for you favorite terrorist network.

And I don't "blame western interference" on all ills, whenever the US causes a problem, I blame it, and whenever the problem is local, I'm the one who usually points it out while you and your bunch blame the US for everything without exception.
Try reading my posts and not put words in my mouth.
Needless to say, the posts above alone are more than sufficient who actually put the blame where it is due, and who blames the US for everything.

[noemon]

There is not a single Iranian I know who supports the Tehran regime and I am actually married to an Iranian. Anasawad as an Iranian himself echoes what the huge majority of Iranians want, and that is the Theocratic regime gone by any means possible. That does not mean however that I will ever support Iranian people getting killed by Americans in this process.

[Patrickov]

That does not mean however that I will ever support Iranian people getting killed by Americans in this process.

I always remember Hermann Goering's "the ordinary people don't want war" quote whenever I see such statements.

Instead of "it's the leaders who can control people's will" response, I offer another counter-hypothesis instead: "Sometimes it's inevitable or necessary".

The key is to prevent ourselves from falling into the dark side and not letting the hatred consume us.

[blackjack21]

Iran was regime-changed because Mossadegh tried to nationalise Iranian oil, your trivia is only meant to obfuscate/hide this reality.

Mossadeq tried to nationalize British-owned oil interests. That was the UK's motivation. The US was unmoved until Mossadeq began working with the Tudeh party (communists) and held an unlawful plebiscite. One of the things I find most fascinating about anti-Trumpers is that, like Trump, Mossadeq was a nationalist.

1. sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy.

Iraq's military was primarily a Soviet footprint. The US did not make the types of weapons or ammunition that Iraq needed. Maybe they turned a blind eye to arms traffickers. Most of what Iraq needed to fight had to come from the Soviet bloc or Soviet allies. Secondarily, Iraq also had some French fighter planes and missiles. In other words, Iraq got no significant military help from the US aside from intelligence that would have tipped so much as a battle one way or another. Incidentally, I'm more of a realist, so trying to pitch me a moral argument is kind of a waste of time.

But those are not alt-facts, so they don't count...

I pretty much already detailed that for you, but I'm not a communist. So I'm not particularly sympathetic to those polemics.

Of course, we could develop alternative energy resources so that we don't have to be involved in the Middle East for the purposes of oil, but even then we might still be involved in the Middle East solely because of it's strategic location on the global map. The Middle East is important to all major powers around the globe, not just solely the US and the UK.

The US really doesn't need oil from the Middle East. We can source any deficit we have from other regions. We're practically energy independent now. In fact, we are one of the few countries that can process heavy sour crude, so we are a net exporter of refined petroleum distillates. That's why there is increasing pressure on European powers to beef up and start taking on more of the responsibility for securing their own energy supply lines.

The Shah's reign was shit, he was a tyrant by all means.

He had a lot of opponents. The Qajar factions, the aristocracy (particularly wealthy land owners who didn't want land reform), the mullahs (who were not happy about equal rights for women), and the communists (who wanted to overthrow his government and make Iran part of the Soviet bloc).

The problem with the clerics is that they're not only copying his policies but put it on steroids.

Their policies retard economic growth, so they more or less have to be more brutal.

You are too young to know that the Shah's regime was the most repressive at the time.

That's ridiculous. Sure, if you were a communist, it wasn't so sweet. The Shah was no Saddam Hussein, however. The Shah gave women the right to vote. His reforms were largely to help the poor and dispossessed. The big problem he faced is that when you modernize farming, you don't need that many laborers--who end up moving to cities and if they are unemployed are none too happy about it.

By comparison, the Mullahs run a benign regime.

If you were among the aristocrats it was fine, but if you were among the peasants, it sucked. It really sucked if you were a woman and lost all the social gains that occurred under the Shah.

Primarily because clerical Iran is copying the US foreign policy to the letter.

So is Saudi Arabia to a certain extent.

The British were the aggressors. To suggest anything else is utterly disgusting.

Militaries are good for short term dominance. Long term dominance typically requires some hearts and minds. The British bought off an aristocracy in order to rule Ireland over the long term. The EU did the same thing. Ireland was only too willing to give up control of its currency and borders to the EU in exchange for easy money and favorable trade terms.

Iran has suffered Anglo-American aggression for over 150 years. To suggest anything else is utterly disgusting.

America wasn't even interested in Iran until WWII. To suggest anything else is absurd.

The opposition further increased as the Kurdish and Azzari independence movements (Has been around since the times of the Qajars, totally American made.)

Kurdish independence was backed by the Soviet Union, not the United States. It's doubtful Americans even knew what a Kurd was before 1950.

[anasawad]

@blackjack21

He had a lot of opponents. The Qajar factions, the aristocracy (particularly wealthy land owners who didn't want land reform), the mullahs (who were not happy about equal rights for women), and the communists (who wanted to overthrow his government and make Iran part of the Soviet bloc).

Sure, but it's still oppression what he did.

Their policies retard economic growth, so they more or less have to be more brutal.

Their corruption and foreign adventures more so than regular policies.

Kurdish independence was backed by the Soviet Union, not the United States. It's doubtful Americans even knew what a Kurd was before 1950.

This quote was mine.
And Kurdish independence ambitions began during the late Ottoman era where the agreed with the central committee to wage war on the Alawaites, Armenians, Al-Hadid tribes, and the general Sunni population surrounding them to pacify these groups in exchange for their autonomy.
However, the Turks soon backstabbed them.

The Kurds in Iran under the leadership of the Hashmiri tribe had an agreement with the Safavid empire which was kept in place by the Qajars where they'll secure their side of the borders with the Ottoman Turks inexchange for their Autonomy. (They were semi-Nomadic mountain tribes back then). The same agreement was held with my tribe (The Hazzars) in the northeast where we defended the borders with the Russians.

The deal between us and the Safavids was held to the end even with the Qajars as they were of a sister tribe.
However the Kurdish autonomy came under question by Ahmad Shah, thus birthing the Kurdish independence movement in Iran like with Turkey.

These events pre-date both the US involvement and the Soviet existence to begin with.
The main reason why the Kurds have failed to gain independence in the last century is caused by 2 major factors:
1- The internal political disputes between the various Kurdish tribes and movements, thus their inability to form a cohesive and organized force across their region. The Kurds are now far stronger and make, if so to say, much louder noise primarily because these political disputes have become minor at best.
2- Their early conflicts with the British and the Hashimites, thus preventing them from receiving significant international support as well as weakening them militarily. Obviously this has also changed.

[late]

1) Iraq's military was primarily a Soviet footprint. The US did not make the types of weapons or ammunition that Iraq needed. Maybe they turned a blind eye to arms traffickers. Most of what Iraq needed to fight had to come from the Soviet bloc or Soviet allies. Secondarily, Iraq also had some French fighter planes and missiles. In other words, Iraq got no significant military help from the US aside from intelligence that would have tipped so much as a battle one way or another. Incidentally, I'm more of a realist, so trying to pitch me a moral argument is kind of a waste of time.


2) I pretty much already detailed that for you, but I'm not a communist. So I'm not particularly sympathetic to those polemics.


3) The US really doesn't need oil from the Middle East. We can source any deficit we have from other regions. We're practically energy independent now. In fact, we are one of the few countries that can process heavy sour crude, so we are a net exporter of refined petroleum distillates. That's why there is increasing pressure on European powers to beef up and start taking on more of the responsibility for securing their own energy supply lines.


4)America wasn't even interested in Iran until WWII. To suggest anything else is absurd.

1) We spent several million bucks. That, by itself, is significant. You need BS that is at least vaguely plausible. We supplied them with a lot of intel, which is also significant.

2) You didn't answer the question because you can't answer the question. Because, using your thinking, our independence was unlawfully gained and is something we should forfeit.

3) That's dumb. If the flow of oil gets seriously disrupted we've got a global recession. That's very old news.

4) We became interested when we became an empire. When we shoved a dictator down Iran's throat...

Let's get back to the obvious, shall we? We failed. The people of Iran threw out your dictator and become bitter enemies. The real problem with Realpolitik is that it never stops creating enemies. That conquest and destruction simply creates a whole raft of new problems without really fixing the old ones.

It's nuts.

[Rancid]

@anasawad, what is the media in your part of the world saying about all of this?

[anasawad]

@Rancid
Which part of it?

[Rancid]

@Rancid
Which part of it?

Mass media. The TV news.

[anasawad]

@Rancid
You mean on Suleimani's death?

Outside of the state ran regime media in Iran and Syria, most were between celebrating his death and analyzing what comes next.
Though generally speaking, his death is already old news, so it's not talked about in the same volume as in the first 2-3 days.
There are too many other things to cover basically.



For example, Lebanese media today were mainly covering:
- Roads blocked.
-Protests.
- hand to hand clashes with security forces.
- The attacks on the banks and the central bank.
- The formation of a new government.
- The protests in Iraq and Iran.
- The new classification of Hezbollah as terrorist group by the UK.
-The bombings in Idlib.
- many other minor things with no mention of Suleimani outside of the constant vomit of threats coming from Hezbollah without anything done.