News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.9K     0 

T3G said:
You don't have to sympathize with anyone, just the scores of innocent civilians who will be slaughtered by hateful old fucks who stir conflict.

As a man, it makes me sad that the world would probably be a better place without a lot of men.
Click to expand...

Nobody wants war. But if war is inevitable, better to fight early and end it quick. Appeasement and can kicking also have costs. A bit of what we're seeing right now.

And let's be honest, there's no American President who would simply accept this version of Iran announcing a nuclear capability, on his/her watch. They might not have done it on Bibi's timeline, to be sure. But they would have done it. A nuke armed Islamic Republic would be an absolute escalation nightmare for the Middle East with several other players running off to get nukes.
 
...on a more serious note, I don't believe jurisdictions should be bombed because we don't like them. I don't like the United States currently...but I have no intention in advocating for bombing them. Not sure Iran is any different here.

I do believe positive change needs to come from within. And bombing that only sets that back...especially by entities that have their own demonstrative embracings of hate and fascism, IMO.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
...on a more serious note, I don't believe jurisdictions should be bombed because we don't like them. I don't like the United States currently...but I have no intention in advocating for bombing them. Not sure Iran is any different here.

I do believe positive change needs to come from within. And bombing that only sets that back...especially by entities that have their own demonstrative embracings of hate and fascism, IMO.
Click to expand...

That would have worked so well back in 1939.

AoD
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
...on a more serious note, I don't believe jurisdictions should be bombed because we don't like them. I don't like the United States currently...but I have no intention in advocating for bombing them. Not sure Iran is any different here.

I do believe positive change needs to come from within. And bombing that only sets that back...especially by entities that have their own demonstrative embracings of hate and fascism, IMO.
Click to expand...

The US isn't bombing Iran because "they don't like them". It's bombing Iran to make sure their ruling regime doesn't have access to nuclear weapons.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
That would have worked so well back in 1939.

AoD
Click to expand...

There's a lot of folks today (and specifically in this thread) who would be in this camp in the 30s and 40s:

Save-our-Sons.jpg


FRsXWVHXIAACzZT.jpg


170626-Protest%20sign-Noentanglements.jpg.jpg
 
I actually think it's right that people are perpetually skeptical of the need for war. It ensures we avoid the worst of it.

But we should also be weary of becoming averse to war at any cost, that we allow grave or even existential threats. Especially from cults who see death as an achievement.
 
And finally, I'm not sure why folks are trying to convince me why bombing Iran is a good idea. I already found it repulsive and no one has yet made any demonstrative and compelling argument to the contrary. So my views will not budge on this...

...I suspect there are many reasons as to why peeps want to see this through. Some fairly legit others...not so, so. But in the mostly likely conclusion it will not end well for anyone. As I also think we should far more worried what the US is doing than some country over there. But you guys believe what you want to believe. I think I have said enough for now.
 
It's true that no American president would accept a nuclear-armed Iran. The only one to actually take any positive steps to address that was Obama, who negotiated the deal that would have kept Iran nuke-free. Then Trump withdrew, bringing us to where we are now.

The last negotiations relied on the force of threat in the background. They won't have that in the next negotiations. Maybe this was the one time that American military action was finally the last resort, but I'm skeptical.
 
kEiThZ said:
The US isn't bombing Iran because "they don't like them". It's bombing Iran to make sure their ruling regime doesn't have access to nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
I don't know if that's quite the truth. I think it's been quite well established that Iran hasn't ever gotten truly close to having a nuke, and were more than willing to forgo the idea when offered actual diplomacy under the Obama administration.

I think — like with Cuba — the US harbours resentment towards a country it failed to turn. There are plenty of terrible countries out there, but few have gotten as much attention as Iran.

Add to that the hardcore christian right's — many of whom are now in seats of power — belief that Jesus will of course come to earth and start the rapture if only we turn the Middle East into the world's largest Murano bowl. Oh, and that BFF Bibi really really wanted this pony.
 
kEiThZ said:
I sent that meme around earlier today.

And in the world where truth is stranger than fiction, turns out this is closer to reality, to with Iran simply launching a performative strike and giving an off-ramp to Trump. Funny how that works.
Click to expand...

It's a bit too easy - and the semi-enriched U is still floating around.

AoD
 
evandyk said:
It's true that no American president would accept a nuclear-armed Iran. The only one to actually take any positive steps to address that was Obama, who negotiated the deal that would have kept Iran nuke-free. Then Trump withdrew, bringing us to where we are now.

The last negotiations relied on the force of threat in the background. They won't have that in the next negotiations. Maybe this was the one time that American military action was finally the last resort, but I'm skeptical.
Click to expand...

The Obama deal was certainly not to keep Iran "nuke free". It basically was a deal to let them build the entire enterprise short of constructing warheads. It was can kicking. And was always designed to get to where we are today.

I don't even think Obama was wrong to do that. He was facing two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where Iranian proxies could substantially ramp up the pressure. He had to cut a deal. Even if it wasn't great.

Trump 2.0 is not hampered by any such consideration now that there isn't a six figure occupation army presenting a giant target, next door to Iran.

I do think Harris would eventually have pulled the trigger too. Especially given the recent context, of how much Iran ramped up enrichment and started violating the NPT. She probably wouldn't have done it on Bibi's timeline though. Maybe a bit down the road.
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
It's a bit too easy - and the semi-enriched U is still floating around.

AoD
Click to expand...

There's a bit of it. But weaponization is not easy. And even harder to do without being detected. So even with whatever they got out, it will be difficult to reconstitute. They'll try. But if there's so much as another whisper, more bombs will arrive on scene.

I think we'll see some kind of grand bargain here where they prioritize regime survival over immediate nuclear ambitions.

I personally hope the Iranian people cast away this horrible regime. But I would agree that it's not the job of outsiders to make that happen. And I'm torn on whether Israel's current campaign helps or hurts their pro-democracy movement.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top