37
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
37 points (100.0% liked)
World News
40142 readers
992 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
What would be the spin in what I said? British got dragged into this because of their alliances to Gulf states, their bases in Cyprus etc. It's not like they came there to help the US in this war, even though their actions do help them out.
Anyone defending against Iranian strikes, even when defending themselves, is in effect helping the US out but it's not like they're doing that in order to help out the US.
The British actively allow the US to use their bases for refuelling and staging attacks. These are absolutely actions that directly help the US in the war. Anyone participating in a war of aggression is doing the opposite of defending themselves.
Right but we were talking about them sending more troops to Middle East, like the title says.
I'm talking about the Gulf states too or anyone who would be defending against Iran's strike. By the act of defending yourself you would be helping out the US without your reason for the action being helping out the US, you know?
And those troops will obviously be used to support military activities against Iran. They're not going to just sit there and jerk off. Gulf states are direct participants the same way brits are. They're hosting US bases that are used for striking Iran. Calling that defending yourself is the height of idiocy.
From the article it sounds like they're there to defend the Gulf allies and Cyprus/Cyprus base.
Easy there partner, I'm making the point that anyone even defending yourself against the missile would be helping the US even when it wasn't their intention.
I'll try to explain this to you one final time. These troops are 'defending' military bases which are used to attack Iran. Let me know what part of that you're still struggling with. Bases that are used to attack Iran and countries hosting them are the aggressors.
It's just that your first comment seemed to imply that the troops were going there with the goal of helping the US, when that wasn't the goal but rather an effect from the goal of the troops defending the Gulf allies and Cyprus. That's all. There's really no need to get snarky about this, friend
I mean they are literally helping the US by working at the bases the US is using to attack Iran. You're trying to draw a weird distinction here between them providing support by operating at these bases and actively engaging in attacks. In both cases they are active participants in the war of aggression against Iran.
It's not a weird distinction between a goal (why they're going there) and a (side-)effect (what is something that's happening as a result of it), when someone seems to confuse the two lol
The only one confused here is you. The goal is to enable military operations against Iran. That's why those bases exist in the first place. These troops are part of the war of aggression, and whether they have an offensive role or not is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. To put it in terms you might understand easier, if you're a getaway driver for a bank robbery, you can't use that an excuse to claim that you weren't part of the robbery.
It doesn't look like that's why those troops are being send there right now though. These troops are for the Gulf allies and Cyprus.
You are angry about the British role in the Iran war and I feel you, but I'm just talking about why these troops are going there.
I'm not angry. I'm pointing out the simple fact that the reason those bases are being attacked by Iran is because they're used to wage a war of aggression against Iran. I'm just trying to explain to you why those troops are active participants in this war. I don't know why it's so difficult for you to understand that frankly.
It's just that you're talking about a different thing to me. You're explaining things that weren't under question and don't really relate to what I said. I was solely talking about why these troops were being sent there right now.
I appreciate the enthusiasm but it's just a bit off this topic and more a general discussion about the war.
And I was solely explaining how that makes them part of the war.
Nobody was questioning that though. The discussion was about the reason for their involvement... But doesn't hurt to mention I guess
Their involvement is the same as the one of the getaway driver's involvement in a robbery.
Do you mean the troops they now sent? What would the analogy be in their case?
here's an explanation from a former British diplomat for you https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/keir-starmer-agrees-to-deploy-5000
Pretty funny but not sure what you want me to take away from this. I still don't understand how your analogy fits these new troops being sent there.
You spend all your time nitpicking and rule lawyering and NONE on actually reading. Your posts REEKS of "UMH AKSHUALLY..."
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to upset you. I did read the post but it was just that sort of bizarre but funny stuff. If it made the analogy clear then I honestly missed it.