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.

[–] Saapas@piefed.zip -2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

The British actively allow the US to use their bases for refuelling and staging attacks.

Right but we were talking about them sending more troops to Middle East, like the title says.

Anyone participating in a war of aggression is doing the opposite of defending themselves.

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?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Saapas@piefed.zip -2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

And those troops will obviously be used to support military activities against Iran.

From the article it sounds like they're there to defend the Gulf allies and Cyprus/Cyprus base.

Calling that defending yourself is the height of idiocy.

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.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Saapas@piefed.zip -1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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 troops defending the Gulf allies and Cyprus. That's all. There's really no need to get snarky about this, friend

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Saapas@piefed.zip -3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

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

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 hours ago

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.