M573 – Diplomatic Relations with Iran motion Watch

This discussion is closed.
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#41
Report 1 month ago
#41
Mr Speaker,

As shadow foreign secretary, I wholeheartedly support this motion. Iran is a disgusting power with no respect for human rights that is governed in a repulsive theocratic manner based on the principles of a death cult.

The current Islamic regime should be razed to the ground with all efforts focused on reinstating the secular Shah in their place.

DEATH TO KHAMEINI! DEATH TO ISLAMIC REPUBLIC!
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#42
Report 1 month ago
#42
(Original post by Connor27)
Mr Speaker,

As shadow foreign secretary, I wholeheartedly support this motion. Iran is a disgusting power with no respect for human rights that is governed in a repulsive theocratic manner based on the principles of a death cult.

The current Islamic regime should be razed to the ground with all efforts focused on reinstating the secular Shah in their place.

DEATH TO KHAMEINI! DEATH TO ISLAMIC REPUBLIC!
Well ackshually death to America ackshually means that zhey slightly dislike the evil capitalist AmeriKKKan overlords that oppress zhem through cutting zher student grant to take Gender Studies uwu

(that hurt to type)
1
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#43
Report 1 month ago
#43
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Well ackshually death to America ackshually means that zhey slightly dislike the evil capitalist AmeriKKKan overlords that oppress zhem through cutting zher student grant to take Gender Studies uwu

(that hurt to type)
PRSOM.

Unfortunately I think a few members on the government benches unironically support such sentiments based on their embrace of cultural Marxist trans ideology.
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#44
Report 1 month ago
#44
(Original post by Connor27)
DEATH TO KHAMEINI! DEATH TO ISLAMIC REPUBLIC!
That's a bit extreme, no?
1
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#45
Report 1 month ago
#45
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Well ackshually death to America ackshually means that zhey slightly dislike the evil capitalist AmeriKKKan overlords that oppress zhem through cutting zher student grant to take Gender Studies uwu

(that hurt to type)
Was going well until that uwu, at the point of using uwu all respect is lost.
1
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#46
Report 1 month ago
#46
(Original post by igotthatsauce)
Absolutely not. Nay.



I don't disagree with this but 'reducing the threat Iran poses' is vague and you could suggest many things that you believe would reduce the threat Iran poses.



This is where I disagree and I will have to vote against this motion.

Further deployment into those waters will just help increase tensions. And leaving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action doesn't help anybody especially if Iran is still considering to the possibility to return to the deal. This part of the motion is simply saying that we should be a lapdog to the US no matter what, even when were we not consulted before the recent attack on Soleimani.

Clearly the author of this motion does not acknowledge the lives of British troops and citizens in the area as this clearly does not help de-escalate the situation.
You do realise the IMSC is there to uphold maritime law and attempt to prevent Iran from further interference with international shipping in the strait and is not just ourselves and the Americans but also the Aussies, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and for some reason Albania with, IIRC, the Japanese also assisting with efforts but not specifically partaking.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#47
Report 1 month ago
#47
I must say it's quite fun having a little read through and seeing so many people going "no coz Trump", I bet you guys would have advocated neutrality in 1939 if it were Trump declaring war on Germany
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#48
Report 1 month ago
#48
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Part of foreign policy is putting up with the bad to avoid the worse, so there's no way I can support this motion. This new conflict isn't Europe's conflict, and I associate myself with the remarks made by the President of France, the Chancellor of Germany, and the RL UK Prime Minister calling for de-escalation and multilateral dialogue.
Are these the calls that have failed for decades? The sorts of things that lead to treaties Iran cares not about other than to remove sanctions and ignore, the sort of calls that do not stop Iran being a massive state sponsor of terrorism, or breaching maritime law because they can given they happen to border one of the most important waterways in the world. It is a regime that does not stop doing things you don't like just because you ask them nicely, it's a regime that laughs in your face for asking them.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#49
Report 1 month ago
#49
(Original post by Glaz)
I'll withhold my opinion for now and see how the situation plays out in the short term.


However, let's continue playing this situation out.

Let's say that we wait, and let's say Iran develops nukes, nuclear warfare is a real possibility. However, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) means that neither side is going to wage war on the other, and if that won't happen, then what's going to happen. Whatever kind of war there may be, there will always be a threat of nuclear weapons, which invokes MAD.

TL;DR: not gonna happen
MAD relies on rational actors and all relevant parties being protected by nuclear weapons. The second part is why the P5 have nukes (protection from each other), why Israel developed the bomb (protection from Iran), and why India and Pakistan developed it (protection from each other), North Korea is developing because it can, and Iran officially isn't but when it does it will officially be to protect itself from Israel and unofficially to threaten everybody in the region.

The problem in the region is actually both problems with MAD, how rational is Iran, and the fact the only probable target that can protect itself under the doctrine is Israel, unless we really want to start advocating a nuclear arms race, contrary to the NNPT, in one of the most unstable parts of the world just so MAD can apply.

That thing about stability is also a third problem, you do not want anything nuclear, not even power if we're honest, in unstable countries because the potential for things to go wrong is not low, the collapse of the USSR created all sorts of problems until Russia got its act together again and somewhere like the Middle East it isn't far fetched to suggest that people would sell nuclear material to make dirty bombs, and in the case of Iran you could see the regime doing it.

And before you suggest that the other countries in the region would be covered by the US, China, or Russia you forget the first assumption of MAD: rational actors. No rational actor would engage in a nuclear second strike on the behalf of another, alliances would be torn to shreds by a nuclear war because such a second strike would immediately make you a target when you weren't necessarily one before. Perhaps the best example of MAD in action is the Seven Days to the River Rhine plan which, as the name suggests, which was a hypothetical plan developed by the Russians to take control of all of Europe East of the Rhine in a week after a NATO first strike against Poland and Czechoslovakia and if we ignore the questionable assumptions behind it, namely that such a rapid advance would even be possible given you'd be looking at full CBRN, we see lots of nuclear weapons by the Russians, including against neutral Austria for area denial purposes but there are two major exceptions: not a single nuclear strike against France, and not a single nuclear strike against Britain, despite there being so many high value targets in the country.

It tells you a lot about MAD, because we have the capability to retaliate and the French have the capability to retaliate any strike against us would have to be conventional; meanwhile West Germany, Italy, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark were all reliant on somebody else to retaliate on their behalf, something no rational actor would do.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#50
Report 1 month ago
#50
I feel like there's far too much hyperbole in this thread for my soul to deal with
0
SacreBlan
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#51
Report 1 month ago
#51
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
You do realise the IMSC is there to uphold maritime law and attempt to prevent Iran from further interference with international shipping in the strait and is not just ourselves and the Americans but also the Aussies, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and for some reason Albania with, IIRC, the Japanese also assisting with efforts but not specifically partaking.
Yes I do realise that but there's no reason to increase it when army presence there is already high enough to protect shipping. Your motion proposes a further increase in deployment to those waters which I believe is unnecessary and does not equate to de-escalation.
0
SnowMiku
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#52
Report 1 month ago
#52
(Original post by Connor27)
Mr Speaker,

As shadow foreign secretary, I wholeheartedly support this motion. Iran is a disgusting power with no respect for human rights that is governed in a repulsive theocratic manner based on the principles of a death cult.

The current Islamic regime should be razed to the ground with all efforts focused on reinstating the secular Shah in their place.

DEATH TO KHAMEINI! DEATH TO ISLAMIC REPUBLIC!
That's extreme. Too extreme.
There are innocent people in Iran who are just doing what they're ordered. Iran's leaders and extremism is a massive issue but going full out will help nobody.
0
SnowMiku
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#53
Report 1 month ago
#53
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I must say it's quite fun having a little read through and seeing so many people going "no coz Trump", I bet you guys would have advocated neutrality in 1939 if it were Trump declaring war on Germany
Not knowing what laid ahead, many of us would think yes.
In 1939, the USA had a rational leader. Trump isn't rational.
Even if he was still in power, what did the US do? Start the arms race that this issue might escalate to. Condemn Japanese citizens (also innocent, mind you) to cancer and birth defects (+ death)
0
SacreBlan
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#54
Report 1 month ago
#54
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I must say it's quite fun having a little read through and seeing so many people going "no coz Trump", I bet you guys would have advocated neutrality in 1939 if it were Trump declaring war on Germany
But unlike his predecessors, Trump hardly took time to think about the consequences and sequences of events that could follow such action didn't he?
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#55
Report 1 month ago
#55
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Are these the calls that have failed for decades? The sorts of things that lead to treaties Iran cares not about other than to remove sanctions and ignore, the sort of calls that do not stop Iran being a massive state sponsor of terrorism, or breaching maritime law because they can given they happen to border one of the most important waterways in the world. It is a regime that does not stop doing things you don't like just because you ask them nicely, it's a regime that laughs in your face for asking them.
That's precisely the 'bad' I was referring to when talking about the bad being preferable to the worse (a large-scale war in the region or a proxy war between Russia and the US).
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#56
Report 1 month ago
#56
(Original post by igotthatsauce)
Yes I do realise that but there's no reason to increase it when army presence there is already high enough to protect shipping. Your motion proposes a further increase in deployment to those waters which I believe is unnecessary and does not equate to de-escalation.
You think the Army protects shipping? I know of few men who people have claimed can walk on water, fewer still that I can say with confidence can do so, and just as few can I say with confidence are in the army.

One of the most likely retaliation locations will be in the shipping lanes, so naturally the solution is to make it easy for them, right?
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#57
Report 1 month ago
#57
(Original post by SnowMiku)
Not knowing what laid ahead, many of us would think yes.
In 1939, the USA had a rational leader. Trump isn't rational.
Even if he was still in power, what did the US do? Start the arms race that this issue might escalate to. Condemn Japanese citizens (also innocent, mind you) to cancer and birth defects (+ death)
The rationality of FDR and irrationality of Trump is wholly a matter of opinion, to me somebody who takes the attitude that almost any problem can be solved by more government is not rational.

You are once again demonstrating the weakness of your history knowledge. There is one person's signature that you could quite easily argue sparked the Manhattan project: Einstein's, signatory to the Einstein–Szilárd letter which highlighted the power of, at the time merely hypothetical, nuclear weapons and the fact that Germany appeared to be developing such a weapon, recommending US research into a nuclear program of its own. In practice the German program didn't get very far for a number of reasons, but the threat of Germany with such weapons necessitated Allied development of nuclear weapons.

You might also want to look at the Operation Downfall casualty estimates, the anticipated dead had Japan needed invading. Only including US casualties on land and based on casualty rates in the Pacific theatre anticipated casualties after 90 days were over half a million including 134,556 dead and missing. Just on the US side, just on the land, just in the first 3 months fatalities would breach the low end of the nuclear estimate range. On the Japanese side if we model the invasion of Kyushu on the Battle of Okinawa you're looking at about three quarters of a million combatants killed and at least hundreds of thousands, perhaps in excess of a million, civilians. All told you're not unreasonably looking at fatalities an order of magnitude greater than those actually observed.

On the matter of cancers and birth defects, estimated excess cancer deaths sits at about 2000 (less than a day of Operation Olympic) and no statistically significant increase in birth defects. Contrary to popular belief nuclear bombs (especially modern ones, not that fusion is too relevant here) aren't that dirty in that the radiation levels drop rapidly after detonation, and if detonated above a certain altitude there is minimal fallout in the first place.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#58
Report 1 month ago
#58
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
That's precisely the 'bad' I was referring to when talking about the bad being preferable to the worse (a large-scale war in the region or a proxy war between Russia and the US).
Why do people think Russia cares about Iran? Or for that matter why any state actor would support Iran in a war. Let's go through those who may:
Russia - just sells arms to Iran and shares intelligence against ISIS, probably unwilling to run the risk of escalation via proxy war
Afghanistan - don't get on brilliantly with Iran and are a bit busy with their own problems
Iraq - I think they've been smashed by the Americans enough times already to help Iran when their ties aren't exactly that strong
Israel - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, if anybody's nuking Tehran it's Israel
Kuwait - generally aligned against Iran, certainly not going to war for them
Lebanon - not impossible, but very unlikely to want to make themselves a target
Pakistan - views Iran positively, no alliance, almost certainly unwilling to go to war for Iran against America, especially if that meant diverting resources away from Kashmir
Palestine - not in a position to do anything other than launch more rockets at Israel
Qatar - See Kuwait
Saudi Arabia - would love to see Iran sent back to the factory, if anything would back the US
Syria - a bit busy with its own problems
UAE - gets on well with Iran, better than its neighbours, not well enough to go to war with America, especially when they can use the opportunity to settle territorial disputes
Yemen - see Syria
China - not interested in a war
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#59
Report 1 month ago
#59
(Original post by Glaz)
That's a bit extreme, no?
It's satire.
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I must say it's quite fun having a little read through and seeing so many people going "no coz Trump", I bet you guys would have advocated neutrality in 1939 if it were Trump declaring war on Germany
Hitler was an anti-Semitic, pro-abortion, anti-monarchy, vegetarian socialist who supported a single European state and smoking bans.

Any guesses which party he'd join?
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#60
Report 1 month ago
#60
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
anti-Semitic
Not Labour then
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (478)
66.48%
No (241)
33.52%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed