EPTThe man could get his nuclear Gandhi achievement elsewhere.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5039
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Vivax
21991 Posts
The man could get his nuclear Gandhi achievement elsewhere. | ||
|
Legan
Finland415 Posts
On June 18 2025 18:30 KT_Elwood wrote: "Why doesn't the weak/attacked one just roll over?" Many others think that is what the weak/attacked should do, too, so it is not that surprising, really. Usually, though, it is heavily biased towards their own "team." It would be surprising to hear people say that people should just stop opposing Republicans now that they have an army on the streets. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1537 Posts
On June 19 2025 03:04 Mohdoo wrote: Right now it looks like Khameini is genuinely a jihad dipshit and its not just an act. I had assumed until now it was just the usual religion power bs. But he seems to actually think 72 virgins are waiting for him in jihad heaven. So I find myself in a rare situation where I side with the oligarchs in wanting IRGC fully removed. That whole thing is an act (primarily for his own people). He owns a BMW and is known to read Western literature that hardcore Muslims would call haram. Also, the 72 virgins thing comes from a Sunni Hadith that Shi'ites do not regard as authoritative. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On June 19 2025 04:43 LightSpectra wrote: That whole thing is an act (primarily for his own people). He owns a BMW and is known to read Western literature that hardcore Muslims would call haram. Also, the 72 virgins thing comes from a Sunni Hadith that Shi'ites do not regard as authoritative. I think if it were an act, he would not be defiant in the face of losing Tehran's airspace, with no hopes of ever getting it back. He would be negotiating his own safety. There isn't a path to his government continuing to rule over Iran. According to the IAEA, Iran has enriched over 400kg of uranium to 60% purity, with particles found at 83.7% at Fordow. Enrichment beyond 3.67% serves no peaceful purpose. So perhaps he's just hoping he can make a bomb fast enough? I have no idea. But the fact is Iran has no mechanism of getting their airspace back. That means Israel can just keep zipping around applying more and more pressure until Iran agrees to demilitarize | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21705 Posts
On June 19 2025 04:58 Mohdoo wrote: Negotiate with whom? Iran has offered to negotiate a cease fire, Israel told them to go fuck themselves.I think if it were an act, he would not be defiant in the face of losing Tehran's airspace, with no hopes of ever getting it back. He would be negotiating his own safety. There isn't a path to his government continuing to rule over Iran. According to the IAEA, Iran has enriched over 400kg of uranium to 60% purity, with particles found at 83.7% at Fordow. Enrichment beyond 3.67% serves no peaceful purpose. I think its more likely he's just hoping they manage to get a bomb fast enough. So perhaps he's just hoping he can make a bomb fast enough? I have no idea. But the fact is Iran has no mechanism of getting their airspace back. That means Israel can just keep zipping around applying more and more pressure until Iran agrees to demilitarize These attacks stop when Netanyahu wants them to stop, Iran has no say in the matter. | ||
micronesia
United States24690 Posts
On June 19 2025 04:58 Mohdoo wrote: According to the IAEA, Iran has enriched over 400kg of uranium to 60% purity, with particles found at 83.7% at Fordow. Enrichment beyond 3.67% serves no peaceful purpose. The bolded statement is not true. However, it is suspicious if uranium is enriched to higher percentages without an explanation of what it will be used for and full accountability of how much has been produced. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On June 19 2025 05:02 micronesia wrote: The bolded statement is not true. However, it is suspicious if uranium is enriched to higher percentages without an explanation of what it will be used for and full accountability of how much has been produced. Do you mean research purposes? I'm aware there is plenty of work to be done with higher purity that isn't a bomb, but we have no indications Iran is doing any of those things. And all of those things would require a great deal of facilities and whatnot. So if Iran is locking out the IAEA, and has no signs of any of this other work being done, I feel like its unreasonable to say it might not be for a bomb. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On June 19 2025 05:01 Gorsameth wrote: Negotiate with whom? Iran has offered to negotiate a cease fire, Israel told them to go fuck themselves. These attacks stop when Netanyahu wants them to stop, Iran has no say in the matter. A ceasefire is not an end to their nuclear program. The nuclear program is the critical aspect here. And of course when 1 side has air control of the other side's capital, they are not going to agree to a ceasefire lol. If someone is holding a gun to my head, they are unlikely to agree to my brilliant ceasefire idea. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28674 Posts
On June 19 2025 03:04 Mohdoo wrote: I am anti-war, but not a dweeb. The dweebs are the ones who don't understand every situation that involves the middle east needs to be immediately labeled as Iraq 2.0 or Afghanistan 2.0. The key issue with Iran is preventing them from being at the negotiating table and a jihad version of NK. We can't have actual jihad dipshits at a negotiating table. That's why its ok to just throw their military in the trash and leave a failed state to figure it out. Both Afghanistan and Iraq involved the cringey nation building stuff. We don't need that. Right now it looks like Khameini is genuinely a jihad dipshit and its not just an act. I had assumed until now it was just the usual religion power bs. But he seems to actually think 72 virgins are waiting for him in jihad heaven. So I find myself in a rare situation where I side with the oligarchs in wanting IRGC fully removed. You're hit or miss on your political takes. This is straight up insane and you should reevaluate. The reason why people aren't excited about the prospect of Iran blowing up is that we remember Iraq, which was actually a disaster, not something you want to replicate. I mean, there are valid reasons to want to stop Iran from attaining weapons grade uranium, but much like Iraq, I feel like the proof of actual WMD is a bit lacking. Not as invented as the Iraq situation though, and Israel is significantly more in the right in terms of considering Iran a potential existential threat than the US or UK were regarding Iraq. So - if we're looking at this confict from a 'casus belli' perspective, we're looking at a much more legitimate situation than what we had in Iraq. But that doesn't mean there's any reason to be hopeful about the prospect of a power vacuum in Iran. Saddam was a genocidal dictator who also had invaded a neighbor country- but even in that case, ousting him is generally considered one of the biggest geopolitical disasters since the end of the cold war. Iran has twice the population of Iraq. Destabilizing the country without a plan for the future is certainly not something to celebrate.. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24690 Posts
On June 19 2025 05:05 Mohdoo wrote: Do you mean research purposes? I'm aware there is plenty of work to be done with higher purity that isn't a bomb, but we have no indications Iran is doing any of those things. And all of those things would require a great deal of facilities and whatnot. So if Iran is locking out the IAEA, and has no signs of any of this other work being done, I feel like its unreasonable to say it might not be for a bomb. There are a variety of uses of >3.67% enrichment. Also, why are you choosing a "peaceful purposes" standard instead of a non-explosive purposes standard? But yes, research, medical isotope production, some operating reactor designs (water or non-water designs that use HALEU or LEU >3.67% such as the MH-1A on the Sturgis Barge), and even non-military propulsion (NS Savannah actually used a bit higher than 3.67%) are potential uses. Even non-peaceful applications could be "okay" if they are non-explosive and transparent. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1537 Posts
On June 19 2025 04:58 Mohdoo wrote: I think if it were an act, he would not be defiant in the face of losing Tehran's airspace, with no hopes of ever getting it back. He would be negotiating his own safety. There isn't a path to his government continuing to rule over Iran. According to the IAEA, Iran has enriched over 400kg of uranium to 60% purity, with particles found at 83.7% at Fordow. Enrichment beyond 3.67% serves no peaceful purpose. So perhaps he's just hoping he can make a bomb fast enough? I have no idea. But the fact is Iran has no mechanism of getting their airspace back. That means Israel can just keep zipping around applying more and more pressure until Iran agrees to demilitarize They want a nuke the same reason as North Korea, so they don't get invaded. No religious fanaticism required there. I'm not excited about nuclear proliferation but "Khamenei is itching to drop it on Israel to go to Heaven" is simply wrong. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25468 Posts
On June 19 2025 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: You're hit or miss on your political takes. This is straight up insane and you should reevaluate. The reason why people aren't excited about the prospect of Iran blowing up is that we remember Iraq, which was actually a disaster, not something you want to replicate. I mean, there are valid reasons to want to stop Iran from attaining weapons grade uranium, but much like Iraq, I feel like the proof of actual WMD is a bit lacking. Not as invented as the Iraq situation though, and Israel is significantly more in the right in terms of considering Iran a potential existential threat than the US or UK were regarding Iraq. So - if we're looking at this confict from a 'casus belli' perspective, we're looking at a much more legitimate situation than what we had in Iraq. But that doesn't mean there's any reason to be hopeful about the prospect of a power vacuum in Iran. Saddam was a genocidal dictator who also had invaded a neighbor country- but even in that case, ousting him is generally considered one of the biggest geopolitical disasters since the end of the cold war. Iran has twice the population of Iraq. Destabilizing the country without a plan for the future is certainly not something to celebrate.. Given this admin’s track record, I certainly wouldn’t have been holding my breath, maybe those negotiations could have been successful? We shall of course never know now. I feel that there’s a certain moral clarity and nuts and bolts practicality to Mohdoo’s takes. I tend to either agree, or find them somewhat monstrous but ultimately correct in a kind of grim, observational sense. There are exceptions and I feel this is certainly one. There’s just too many variables and unknowns to apply that kind of framework to. Best case scenario and worst case are about a million miles apart and it’s rather difficult to predict where the chips will fall. It’s certainly no Mohdoo IslandTM anyway in terms of their better proposals. As an aside it’s a gap in my reading, probably should redress it. I was always curious why they didn’t just topple Saddam in the first Gulf War? He’s been gassing people, invading other countries, you’ve crushed his military pretty easily. Seems a great bloody time to do it. Were they worried about well, what we subsequently saw when he was toppled, or some other factors? | ||
|
Vivax
21991 Posts
That‘s how much I can know from the reported. Israel would have good reasons if the news are true because as it is in Ukraine, international aid isn‘t easily possible against an aggressor with icbms. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On June 19 2025 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: You're hit or miss on your political takes. This is straight up insane and you should reevaluate. The reason why people aren't excited about the prospect of Iran blowing up is that we remember Iraq, which was actually a disaster, not something you want to replicate. I mean, there are valid reasons to want to stop Iran from attaining weapons grade uranium, but much like Iraq, I feel like the proof of actual WMD is a bit lacking. Not as invented as the Iraq situation though, and Israel is significantly more in the right in terms of considering Iran a potential existential threat than the US or UK were regarding Iraq. So - if we're looking at this confict from a 'casus belli' perspective, we're looking at a much more legitimate situation than what we had in Iraq. But that doesn't mean there's any reason to be hopeful about the prospect of a power vacuum in Iran. Saddam was a genocidal dictator who also had invaded a neighbor country- but even in that case, ousting him is generally considered one of the biggest geopolitical disasters since the end of the cold war. Iran has twice the population of Iraq. Destabilizing the country without a plan for the future is certainly not something to celebrate.. It sounds like we are operating under different assumptions. Are you assuming the IAEA assessment is inaccurate and/or fabricated? I will let micronesia correct me if I am wrong here: even if we accept there are non-explosive purposes for >4% purity, 60% is way too high for someone to argue in good faith Iran is not pursuing nuclear bombs. Regarding Khameini and his jihad rednecks: I will once again reiterate Germany and Japan both surrendered when their goose was cooked and they are doing just fine today. I think it is VERY worth remembering the right thing for Khameini to do right now is just surrender on the whole nuclear shpeal, allow themselves to be disarmed, and then work on a transition to another government themselves. It is bad faith to pretend this isn't the reasonable and logical answer right now. It is not acceptable for Khameini to pout and force everyone else's hand. He lost Tehran's airspace. Goose is cooked. GG. "Yes but Khameini declined, so now Israel and the US need to just leave" isn't reasonable either. Israel and the US will continue to force the issue in the absence of a common sense, historically used solution. Germany and Japan. Both ok. Iran can just be the same thing. What happens after they refuse is not reasonable to entirely blame on the other side. There's nothing noble about going down with the ship. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11519 Posts
On June 19 2025 05:38 Vivax wrote: Stopping nuclear proliferation should be a no-brainer. I don‘t know if a bunch of nuclear scientists had to die for that but it‘s sort of reasonable to assume the attacking party was sure it would be necessary ? They incur a risk for what they do. That‘s how much I can know from the reported. Israel would have good reasons if the news are true because as it is in Ukraine, international aid isn‘t easily possible against an aggressor with icbms. The core problem with stopping nuclear proliferation is that we gave such good reasons to get nukes to basically everyone. The Ukraine war shows that you are not save without being protected by some sort of nuke, and North Korea shows that if you have a nuke, people are a lot more willing to accept whatever bullshit you are doing. If you are a dictatorship, don't want the US to invade you, or if you are neighbouring a dictatorship and are not in Nato, getting a nuke sounds like a very, very good idea. We could have prevented that. But we didn't. So now getting a nuke is kinda risky, but also basically the only way to have long-term sovereignity. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21705 Posts
On June 19 2025 05:55 Simberto wrote: not only could we have prevented it, 'we' were preventing it before Trump threw away the Iran nuclear deal.The core problem with stopping nuclear proliferation is that we gave such good reasons to get nukes to basically everyone. The Ukraine war shows that you are not save without being protected by some sort of nuke, and North Korea shows that if you have a nuke, people are a lot more willing to accept whatever bullshit you are doing. If you are a dictatorship, don't want the US to invade you, or if you are neighbouring a dictatorship and are not in Nato, getting a nuke sounds like a very, very good idea. We could have prevented that. But we didn't. So now getting a nuke is kinda risky, but also basically the only way to have long-term sovereignity. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28674 Posts
Libya and Iraq are much more relevant examples. In both these situations, people generally recognize that Gadhaffi and Saddam were total cunts, and that life became significantly worse in both countries - with significant terrorist spillover to boot - after they were killed. And I'm not arguing against the destruction of their nuclear capabilities. This part is fair. The insane part is arguing for destroying the government and leaving a failed state / power vacuum in a country with 90 million people and thinking 'yeah that's fine'. | ||
|
Legan
Finland415 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On June 19 2025 06:06 Liquid`Drone wrote: And I'm not arguing against the destruction of their nuclear capabilities. This part is fair. The insane part is arguing for destroying the government and leaving a failed state / power vacuum in a country with 90 million people and thinking 'yeah that's fine'. Maybe it is easier if I just ask: When Iran says "No", what follows? Keep in mind the whole idea is ceasefire and other rubbish only gives them time to achieve their objective. There is urgency and they are saying no. What then? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25468 Posts
On June 19 2025 05:51 Mohdoo wrote: It sounds like we are operating under different assumptions. Are you assuming the IAEA assessment is inaccurate and/or fabricated? I will let micronesia correct me if I am wrong here: even if we accept there are non-explosive purposes for >4% purity, 60% is way too high for someone to argue in good faith Iran is not pursuing nuclear bombs. Regarding Khameini and his jihad rednecks: I will once again reiterate Germany and Japan both surrendered when their goose was cooked and they are doing just fine today. I think it is VERY worth remembering the right thing for Khameini to do right now is just surrender on the whole nuclear shpeal, allow themselves to be disarmed, and then work on a transition to another government themselves. It is bad faith to pretend this isn't the reasonable and logical answer right now. It is not acceptable for Khameini to pout and force everyone else's hand. He lost Tehran's airspace. Goose is cooked. GG. "Yes but Khameini declined, so now Israel and the US need to just leave" isn't reasonable either. Israel and the US will continue to force the issue in the absence of a common sense, historically used solution. Germany and Japan. Both ok. Iran can just be the same thing. What happens after they refuse is not reasonable to entirely blame on the other side. There's nothing noble about going down with the ship. Japan and Germany got pounded into the bloody dust. Perhaps they needed to be, to be receptive as a population to other ways of doing things subsequently. Nothing like ‘we tried the hyper nationalism thing and it brought disaster upon our heads’ as a cautionary lesson. If you just surrender at the first sign of trouble to a foreign power, I’m unsure you see good things on the ground. Any newcomer in governance, it’s highly unlikely they’ll have much legitimacy if it’s a quick transfer at gunpoint. Or you have a giant fucking civil conflict. Hell, a component of the Nazi’s narrative that lead to them seizing power in the first place was that of the ‘November criminals’ who signed the Armistice in World War 1. Folks care about these things, even if it’s not always from a place of rational self interest. It’s irrational to propose things that ignore this factor. Any kind of regime change that is forced by Israel, and the ‘Great Saran’ potentially, has an absolute zero chance of sticking unless accompanied by genuinely crushing violence. ‘Fuck around and find out’ can absolutely tip the scales, but in this context the ‘find out’ part is extremely important. This of course is within the context of some kind of regime change and a less cunty Iran being a goal. | ||
| ||
