They're probably being threatened by the US behind the scenes.
Iran v US confrontation
- Thread starter 4bars
- Start date
The nice interpretation would be to say that they are holding back, because they want to be the voice of moderation who mediates between the parties. But the truth is probably that nations very rarely call each other out, unless it's about something that very directly and negatively affects themselves.
Highly likely.
Any idea why Macron is speaking up for it?
Either that or they’ve just been invited to attend peace talks
I’d expect the Europeans to be a little bit more vocal considering they’d bear the brunt of the consequences in the event of a war.
The Yanks will probably be fine bombing brown people thousands of miles away, but it’s Europe that will have to contend with the inevitable refugee crisis and increased terror alert. At the very least I’d have expected them to make it clear to the US that they’d go at it alone.
The Yanks will probably be fine bombing brown people thousands of miles away, but it’s Europe that will have to contend with the inevitable refugee crisis and increased terror alert. At the very least I’d have expected them to make it clear to the US that they’d go at it alone.
France has interests to protect especially regarding Total and traditionally we are with the US whether they are at fault or not. So here we are playing both sides, we say to Teheran that we don't want to pick sides and that it's best if everyone stay level headed but at the same time we tell Trump that we understand him. It's an exercise of bamboozlery.
I'm not sure about what WW2 has got to do with this. But the point is simply that it's the generic diplomatic bs, where you have interest to protects on both sides, it tells you nothing about what they are going to actually do behind the scene.Kinda like how France tried to do the bamboozling in WW2- which backfired massively ?
He's also basically said he is prepared to cause destruction to Iranian cultural and heritage sites, which is classed as a War Crime. He really, totally and fully, does not give a feck.
Correct.
After the US and Britain, France are the third most hawkish of the larger Western powers. They proudly supported the US in Syria when Cameron couldn't get the UK parliament to consent.
Too much for even Bojo
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The Iranians had it coming for a long time now, the only two countries still "making trouble" in the region are Lebanon and Iran (after Syria), so the time has come to destabilize those countries. Suleimani was never an innocent person nor the Americans, so it's just coalition between the big players while the people suffer.
Countries like Iran have not developed their approach. Fighting Israel and pro-israel countries these days cannot be won with weapons unless you have the best arsenal and tactics, which Iran does not have. It's about time they get a reality check.
Countries like Iran have not developed their approach. Fighting Israel and pro-israel countries these days cannot be won with weapons unless you have the best arsenal and tactics, which Iran does not have. It's about time they get a reality check.
What I'm getting at is that trying to appease both sides doesn't always end up working out in times of conflict. Eventually choices need to be made that transcend diplomatic pretty words. That's the world we seem to be moving toward again now.
We did a bit more than proudly support, Hollande initiated the all thing by declaring war to isis after the Charlie Hebdo.
Cheers, makes sense, kind of.
So let me get this straight. The US invaded another country under false pretences, toppled the ruling regime, started a war that devastated the land, destabilized the whole region while taking lives of hundreds of thousands of people and turning millions into refugees, not to mention giving rise to the worst terrorist organization in history and now when the democratically elected people of the country tell Yanks to feck off, Trump threatens to bill them for the airbase Americans built there or they won't leave?
What an ungrateful bunch those Iraqis turned out to be.
What an ungrateful bunch those Iraqis turned out to be.
You could always offer to rent those military bases, everyone wins.
Yeah it seems to me what this will do is drive other nations who may have elements that wish to encourage American involvement to make a change - to consider turning to Russia or China instead. Trump and co are now carrying the message that says: American style democracy comes at a price of enslavement to us and our politicians. We own you now. You want to actually be free though and rule yourself again? Nope! What a great message of freedom /s
At least some of our businesses are able to enrich themselves while our tax dollars continue to get swallowed by foreign conflicts. Benefiting the select few is our game.
Last edited:
As of now it is all bravado. I don't think he has the stones to do half of what he says and I doubt congress would allow it anyhow.
To be honest I doubt that Iraq has enough planes its self to justify having the airbase?
So I doubt they would want to rent it
I'm talking about Russia.
The issue is he can order it without congressional authorization. Ultimately, impeachment and removal are the only ways Congress can hold Trump to account and as we all have seen, the GOP will ensure that never happens.
Trump sure succeded in making everyone talk about something else than the impeachment. And I’m sure the millions of Americans who get a hard on just thinking about the US military are almost creaming themselves now that America are at war (or close to it) with another middle eastern country. Not to mention agent bone spurs tweeting out how powerful their military is because of him and how he’s going to spend 2 trillion on it. You can almost hear them climaxing. Because patriotism or something, and because America is the bestest og most powerful and most important nation on earth, and the brownies better remember that.
Come the election, you can be sure that he’ll use this as either he as commander in chief completely destroyed the enemy or that he’s, among other things, the best negotiator in the world who managed to steer Murrica clear of war.
Come the election, you can be sure that he’ll use this as either he as commander in chief completely destroyed the enemy or that he’s, among other things, the best negotiator in the world who managed to steer Murrica clear of war.
would they rent... I mean im sure iran would be happy to offer them to store as many planes, troops and missiles in the area as they want free of charge
He wont even bother to ask. Haven't you been paying attention these days?
The point is to answer Trump point about the airbase bills. Irak pay the bill, Russia rent the airbase, Trump is still upset because Russia took their place.
I sincerely hope so.
He'll tell them via a tweet though.
The immediate reaction is to think 'well they've got what's coming to them' but it's an uncomfortable thought when you consider it's normal peoples lives that will be hit. It isn't like Iran can respond with hits on Pompeo is it
Very few nations can leverage any influence over the US so it's just a case of tutting at them. Trump has rightly calculated the world is his bitch so he can afford to do whatever as political distraction.
That's been the most fecked up thing of the last three years. It doesn't matter whether he can do it or not, the fact that the President said it is more than enough for him to be removed.
Pakistan will not be party to US-Iran conflict, FM Qureshi tells Senate
Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi on Monday briefed the Senate on tensions in the Middle East that arose after the killing of top Iran commander Qasem Soleimani in a US air strike, making it clear that Pakistan will not become party to the regional conflict.
Foreign Minister Qureshi laid before the Senate 11 points which he said reflected why Pakistan is concerned about the US-Iran tensions:
Read the full article here - https://www.dawn.com/news/1526630/p...y-to-us-iran-conflict-fm-qureshi-tells-senate
Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi on Monday briefed the Senate on tensions in the Middle East that arose after the killing of top Iran commander Qasem Soleimani in a US air strike, making it clear that Pakistan will not become party to the regional conflict.
Foreign Minister Qureshi laid before the Senate 11 points which he said reflected why Pakistan is concerned about the US-Iran tensions:
- The incident will further destabilise the region, especially the situation in Iraq and Syria
- The crisis could have a negative impact on the Afghanistan peace process and Pakistan’s efforts in this regard could be undone
- The situation in Yemen could get out of hand and attacks by Houthis on Saudi Arabia could increase
- Hezbollah, which has in the past conducted rocket attacks, could go ahead and strike Israel
- The situation could lead to high-profile assassinations of US personnel in the region
- Route blockades could be enacted leading to breakage in oil supply, which will have a negative impact on the regional and global economy
- The Iran nuclear deal has come under severe pressure with the latest announcements coming out of Iran suggesting Tehran has virtually backed out of the deal that put restrictions on the country’s Uranium enrichment
- The crisis could lead to terrorism rearing its head again in Pakistan
- The developments have raised the chances of further division of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
- The situation has also impacted the Pakistani government's efforts to unite the forum of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation on the human rights violations in India-occupied Kashmir
- India may pounce on the chance to destabilise Pakistan and conduct false-flag operations
Read the full article here - https://www.dawn.com/news/1526630/p...y-to-us-iran-conflict-fm-qureshi-tells-senate
You left out the bit where they’d previously supported the ruling regime.
And supplied them with chemical weapons.
I'd expect nothing less from the weasels elected into power.
And the whole sanctions and intermittent bombing of the 90s.
Actually this year marks 100 years since the Iraqi uprising against the British, during which the British used chemical weapons against Iraqi villages. There’s a century’s worth of criminal Western actions directed against the country.
Now there's something I wasn't taught in school...
I believe it was the first use of such weapons in the Middle East, although there may have been some previous use on the Ottoman fronts during WW1. The British counterinsurgency was mostly conducted from the air and so was largely kept hidden from the general British public at home (there’s an obvious analogy with the use of drones today). I expect we’ll hear more about it over the summer when the centenary dates start hitting.
Somehow I doubt that, sadly.
Vile politician:"We did numerous good things in Iraq, for example we brought them modern chemistry."