This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
To be blunt, I think you’re demonstrating you have no idea what you’re talking about here.
Vietnam is a medium power next to an ambitious major power they fought a war with not that long ago. They have mellowed on their ideology and so relations with the US, a former foe, help them economically and geopolitically to counter China.
Iran is also a medium power, though they do not have a border with a major threat/rival since 2003. Unlike Vietnam, they do have strong ideological foundations that drive their foreign policy to be ant-Israel and anti-US and anti-Sunni, much to the detriment of their economy. If Iran were 50% saner, they would be much more powerful.
North Korea is another example. They have a border with a major protector. They have some strange ideology that boils down to wanting all of Korea, which the US stands in the way of. North Korea could decide to calm down on its territorial ambitions and then the US would have no reason to strongly oppose them.
Vietnam and South Korea seek relations with the US to achieve their goals to counter the threats they face. As does Israel and a host of other countries.
Vietnam and the US let bygones be bygones within living memory of a war that was horrendous in particular for the people of Vietnam.
Iran and North Korea have goals that the US stands in the way of, and so bygones cannot be bygones until their goals change, or those of the US do.
“Iran and North Korea have goals that the US stands in the way of, and so bygones cannot be bygones until their goals change, or those of the US do.”
I agree with this. The US interferes with Iran’s historical place as the dominant Middle East hegemon. Vietnam and the US have mutual interests. Opposing Chinese dominance. Iran and the US have opposite interests since the US backs the Saudis as regional hegemon. So yes I agree if the Iranians just fell inline and realized they had less oil than the Saudis and accepted second rate status in their region then all would be good. This is like saying the US would just play nice if Russia was picking the governments of Canada and Mexico and the Bahamas and wouldn’t be backing military proxies to stress Russian military assets in the region.
Why did US relations with Iran change in 1979?
The Shah was ambitious. He wanted oil money. He didn’t want to be second fiddle to the Saudis.
Also it’s funny you’re going on about Iran’s historical hegemon status as if the Arabs and the Turks don’t have the same damn history (and both bested the Persians after the rise of Islam).
You’re so monomaniacally over focused on oil with apparently zero actual regional awareness to realize that Iran borders two significant powers—Turkey and Pakistan—that do not owe their status to oil wealth. Iran is a large country that ought to have a diversified economy.
If Iran had a competent government and stopped being a pariah state then in would massively outclass Saudi economically and militarily due to a larger population and a better history of education and industry.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link