-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Monitoring the situation in Iran
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
winjer
Gold Member
You might want to consider that most of the population in the USA are Europeans. English, Germans, Italians, Spanish, Irish, French, even Russians, etc.
That is why Americans are also so good at war. It's like a second Europe. Sometimes we even get together, to make war around the world. We just rather it was not in our home again.
That is how deep the trauma of the 2 World War runs in the European psyche.
Still, under an existential threat, you can bet that the vast majority would pick up weapons to defend their families and friends.
I can give you an example. During the July Crisis of 1914, the one that originated the Great War, the socialist parties (not communist) and worker unions in France and Germany stated publicly that if there was to be a war, the workers would not fight, would not make weapons, would not run the trains.
This was not a vain threat. Even he Generals started to consider "options" to deal with this possibility.
But when Russia declared war on Germany, and their armies mobilized and then advanced into Germany, everyone, including the socialists and unions publicly claimed that defending the country, the home, their families were more important.
And when Germany declared war on France, the same happened there.
The reality is that talk is cheap, but when push comes to shove, the people will rise to the occasion.
Last edited:
Cyberpunkd
Member
Please don't, you are not. I like to think that people that ended in America were simply kicked out of Europe.
winjer
Gold Member
Please don't, you are not. I like to think that people that ended in America were simply kicked out of Europe.
They weren't kicked out. The vast majority were normal people just looking for a better life.
One could argue that Australia would fit that description better. But even then, only the first colonies were made of convicted criminals, sent to work in mines.
But most people who emigrated to Australia after, were just normal people looking for an opportunity.
Last edited:
Dr Cowley
Member
"This heres middle ages Europe boy! We dont take kindly to christianity in these here parts! Go on, git!"
Chittagong
Gold Member
You're thinking of Austria
Cyberpunkd
Member
Australia you mean?
RJMacready73
Simps for Amouranth
What the fuck are the British doing, we should be wiping our hands at helping that Orange cunt out after his appalling remarks about NATO's involvement in Afghanistan
Donald mac Ronald
Member
The Iranians hold 2 British hostages. It's about the time the British stopped being pussies and taking action.
The UK quietly gave Iran 200 million to get one hostage back a few years ago
I agree, time to cut them out of 5 eyes and move on without them.
winjer
Gold Member
FFS, the UK is being ran by idiots.
We should never pay out to terrorist. That will only incentivize more and more attacks and kidnaps.
AJUMP23
Parody of actual AJUMP23
Previous admin unfroze their accounts. You could see Iran celebrating over the arrangement.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
UK is trying to be important. Probably will be like in 1945 where the capitulation act had a french signature and one of nazi commanders said something like "oh! and french are here too!".
I guess this weekend something interesting might happen. When the markets close, the launch sites open.
To be fair I would like both France and UK not being involved in the iranian situation too due to the mess related to Mosaddegh, Shah, the first ayatollah Khomeini being both french and british governments fault (together with a weak Carter administration and commies). Granted it was a Cold War mess. But oh well.
Last edited:
ContrarianAsshole
Neo Member
It wouldn't have been anywhere near that bad if the US didn't screw up Iraq and Afganistan, and it would have been easy to not screw all that up, where it not for the rot that was brewing underneath US society finally bursting out for everyone to see. Would have been easy to just leave the Baath party in charge of Iraq, with some mandated reforms, and there wouldn't have been a 7+ year long insurgency. Would have been easy to realize that invading a tribal country of hostile semi-civilized people who hate your guts wouldn't have helped with Osama's capture. All those things would have been easy to figure out, unfortunately the US government does not serve it's constituents, it serves capital, and in this instance capital demands low intensity, long lasting wars to feed defense contractors for years and years.
Last edited:
Senua
Member
Or...allies?
Doesn't matter to them anymore, 20 years in Afghanistan, fighting in Helmand province, it was all worthless because Trump has belittled it so they must as well.
Senua
Member
It's a shame to see.
Bojji
Gold Member
All NATO countries are US vassal states according to some people here...
Well it's not surprising seeing how Danes and Canadians were involved and how he is treating their lands or how WW2 was rewritten to only be about Americans ignoring the Brits in the UK and North Africa continually fighting until they showed up.
I hope every nation on the planet collectively decides not to ever think about helping any American from now on.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
MisterFalcon
Member
Why? Apparently non-US armies contribute nothing so them not being there won't make any difference. Apart from not getting hit by friendly fire from US jets.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Ok. Stay retarded for the sake of.
HRK69
Gold Member
Do you even understand how absurd this is?
Lets say an American tourist in my country gets T-boned in a car crash, bleeding out, unconscious. Do we roll up with the ambulance, check their passport first and drive away if it's U.S.?
Because that's the literal endpoint of 'never help any American'
Would they less than 20 years after being helped call the helper a coward and claim they were fine all along?
Last edited:
Works for me. Then when something happens to your citizens/interests outside your borders you will realize that you have ZERO capacity to project military power. Good luck.
HRK69
Gold Member
Sometimes yeah, aid gets forgotten or spun later. Politics is messy.
But that doesn't make 'never help any American' any less ridiculous.
Kenneth Haight
Gold Member
Dumb take, the president is making throwaway comments and they are dangerous and hurtful to those that served or family members did. Grossly offensive for sure.
But painting a brush on an entire nation because of this is peak retard.
Braag
Member
Someone showed me some incredibly disturbing footage of dozens of dead bodies of very young men and women in the streets of Iran as soldiers walk past them and shoot any stragglers in the head.
Deep down I hope it's fake, but it didn't look like it.
I know a Kurdish guy here who survived the 2022 protests in Iran after Mahsa Amini's death. He saw his brother get shot and die next to him and he has a bullet wound in his leg which he got as the protesters scattered. His family apparently got targeted by the Iranian regime since they got recognized and they had to flee the country.
I truly cannot understand how anyone can at any level support this sick regime. It's gotten to the point where most Iranians are hoping for Trump to bomb the fuck out of the mullahs.
Deep down I hope it's fake, but it didn't look like it.
I know a Kurdish guy here who survived the 2022 protests in Iran after Mahsa Amini's death. He saw his brother get shot and die next to him and he has a bullet wound in his leg which he got as the protesters scattered. His family apparently got targeted by the Iranian regime since they got recognized and they had to flee the country.
I truly cannot understand how anyone can at any level support this sick regime. It's gotten to the point where most Iranians are hoping for Trump to bomb the fuck out of the mullahs.
calico
Member
The British government will try to maintain good relations with the nation it has heavily relied upon for its continued existence for the last 80+ years, at least so long as the likely cost to be incurred is relatively light. This is not surprising, and is the default position of every British government.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Well for UK, the weaker europe has always been beneficial so the beef between USA and EU is better for UK.
StabbyStabStabStabStab
Member
There will be degrees of disentaglement from the US by everyone, UK included. It will be a slow process for sure, however its kind of inevitable now the sun on the relationship in its current form has seemingly set. I mean I can see already people here binning off amazon, FB, anything American really - tokenism for sure, but its just the start of a dawning realisation that over-reliance on a 'big brother' is profoundly unwise. That's not to say there won't be a realtionship, the end goal will just be to maintain one at arms length.
Last edited:
We do live in an age of disinformation and AI footage, sadly, yet I'd be willing to believe the gist of those videos at the very least. This is one of those cases where even an isolated exaggeration or outright lie wouldn't detract from the reality of the horrors that have been described by multiple sources.
Incidentally...while we have been talking about current Iran, it's interesting to look back at the context for the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The Rest is History just started releasing a series on the topic.
A couple of nitpícks here and there, of course, but these guys do a decent job at setting the stage for what happened back then. Useful for those who want an introduction to the subject.
RJMacready73
Simps for Amouranth
Why in the holy of fucks are we as in the collective west being led by an absolute fucking moonbeam, did you lot hear you commander and chief up on stage at Davos?? It was beyond embarrassing, the guys a fucking simpleton and Mr I stopped 18wars is about to drag youse into another one in the middle east of all places... Americans
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
I'll say it again: Trump is the strongest argument for NATO countries to build up their own capacity in order to become less reliant on the US. If they succeed it means a stronger West which is good for all of us.
winjer
Gold Member
Sorry, but the best argument for EU countries to re-invest in their armies is Putin. Ever since the invasion of Ukraine, EU countries have increased military spending by a significant margin.
Trump is just an idiot, that has little idea about who is friend or foe.
The USA has spent the last century building a group of allies, often at great cost in terms of money and soldiers. And Trump is now throwing it all away because some idiot in his office likes to watch Russia Today.
Last edited:
Warspite
Member
In Europe we are led by champagne socialist's and they have spent 30 years trying to disarm Europe, for European countries to build up would involve them having to admit they were wrong and reversing policy they have spent their life's championing. Starmer will be the last to do it.
Remember the talk of the soft power days
Tams
Member
You're essentially taking the the Iranian theocracy's side there just because you don't like Trump.
Typical of the amoral left, particularly in the UK.
With that you can fuck off.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
Agreed that Putin should have been the best argument. That was true as far back as 2014 at least. And yet Europe has not sufficiently built up its power.
I'd much rather live in a world in which leaders acted rationally and with the long term best interests of their country's in mind, don't get me wrong. UK and the EU have been asleep at the wheel for far too long. Trump is hopefully the wake-up call that finally gets answered.
Last edited:
winjer
Gold Member
One does not "wake up" your allies by stabbing them in the back.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
When those stories would come out the US pays so much, and in some instances pays for everything while the other countries sit back it's crazy.
If you think of it, the US should actually pay the least. The US is surrounded by oceans and Canada/Mexico are friendly neighbours who arent hostile. The US is far away from any hotbeds and nobody is going to risk trying to invade the US with boatloads of soldiers and jet fighters crossing the atlantic and pacific.
So you'd think all those euro countries who are closer to hostile countries would be the ones ponying up as a big block of Euro countries. It's the EU isnt it? Any even stupider, dont some Euro countries take a neutral stance when it comes to conflict? So shit hits the fan and they publicly say they arent getting involved. So basically, everyone else has to handle it. lol
Yet, the US is always expected to lead the charge as global protectors. Or when there's some charitable event, I'm sure the US is always expected to show up and dole out free goods and money.
The US is basically seen as the grumpy rich uncle or grandpa. Not often seen. Often badmouthed behind his back. But when it comes to Xmas gifts or someone needing help to buy a house, everyone beelines to him for help.
So as long as the grift and endless wallet keeps pumping out money, he's worth sticking around in doses.
Last edited:
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
You're right, this shouldn't be happening. The free world is currently led by a clown. And I'm hoping governments learn from this, or it'll get worse.
BlueAlpaca
Member
Why do NATO allies have to get stronger? Russia after four years still can't conquer Ukraine, I doubt they'll try to expand further, all the while Europe buys Russian gas. And of course Europe is already being invaded by muslims and they don't care - they actually support it by trying to cover up the mass rapes and killings, arresting anyone who complains, and continuing to allow foreigners in. All this talk of strength and independance just seems like anti-Americanism and easy posturing.
After the soviet union fell there were massive cuts to the military and 'capital' couldn't do anything. This is just your false ideology speaking. The reason the US spent so much time in those countries was because they believed in stupid leftist ideas like universalism. If they understood the nature of the world, how different humans and races and cultures are, they would've figured it out without spending so much blood and treasure.
After the soviet union fell there were massive cuts to the military and 'capital' couldn't do anything. This is just your false ideology speaking. The reason the US spent so much time in those countries was because they believed in stupid leftist ideas like universalism. If they understood the nature of the world, how different humans and races and cultures are, they would've figured it out without spending so much blood and treasure.
Last edited:
winjer
Gold Member
No one imposed the role of "policeman of the world" to the USA. It was a choice made by the USA.
And it was one that benefited the USA a lot for many decades.
It allowed US companies to sell their products all around the world, without hinderance. It allowed the USA to decided who could trade with who.
It allowed the USA to export security, for which it would get paid in oil, or political weight, or economic benefits.
It allowed the USA to control countries and ideologies they didn't agree with.
And by having it's military umbrella covering it's allies, the USA made sure that Europe, Japan or other allies would not invest in their militaries and threaten the USA's hegemony.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
What are you even rambling on about? Do you understand what NATO's "defense spending" is? It's not money given to NATO. That's your own domestic spending
Bojji
Gold Member
You act as if US was forced into "world police" role. US wanted to do it and it benefited USA the most. Thanks to what USA established post WW2 (when Europe was in ruins) - now it's the most powerful and influential country.
And USA after WW2 was mostly engaged in Asian wars and conflicts that benefited them (ME), I don't know about any instance when USA military helped European part of NATO to defend itself.
Ai take on this:
Last edited:
That's right. NATO was created to serve the foreign policy goals of the United States and its Cold War priorities in Europe, rather than the other way around. It was always meant to supplement U.S. defense strategy. After the fall of the Soviet Union, it briefly lost relevance, but Russia's moment of democracy was so fleeting that the organization suddenly became important again and this has remained the case until now. We can see Putin's Russia doesn't care about any other types of security guarantees as their invasion of Ukraine has shown the world, but he clearly doesn't want to risk directly fighting NATO yet. Which is why he's the one who would win the most if the organization ever falls apart.
There's been a change in the public perception of NATO, mostly due to current U.S. domestic politics, but the historical record is clear. Rather than the U.S. being "taken advantage of", it was the exact opposite. Same with the Marshall Plan. It was quite favorable to the interests of the U.S. Europe was also benefitting, true, but they weren't in charge. People like Truman and Eisenhower would be shaking their heads if they were alive and listening to the recent rambling speeches from U.S. leaders. They might well appreciate seeing European countries spending more on their own defense, which makes sense, but not the rest of this mess.
Going back to Iran and connecting this to the gist of the topic...you could make the argument that having such a framework for a defensive alliance might be useful in times like these if, say, the regime retaliated against U.S. forces in the region or elsewhere in the world. They wouldn't necessarily trigger it if their reactions were strictly limited and purely defensive, but anything beyond that would be fair game. Granted, it might not come to that.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked