|
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 |
On June 24 2025 05:10 Ze'ev wrote:
I'm actually really progressive on economic issues: Social Democrat? Democratic Socialism? Fuck the rich, in short: but I have no fucking idea what the Left is thinking. Theocratic madmen using genocidal rhetoric? Decades of terrorism and threats of genocide? Thousands of innocents dead across several countries -- hell, armed proxies that helped a dictator kill hundreds of thousands of people-- and uranium enrichment several times whats required for civilian use? Yawn. They're no threat. It makes no fucking sense at all. Of course Iran is a threat, of course they cant be allowed to get nukes: yes the economic and political fall out is a risk and we dont fully know where it will go, but in balance the risk of inaction is clearly far worse. We dont need to occupy Iran. Decimate their military and defensive capabilities, reduce their nuclear program to a madmans daydream and move on. Arm opposition groups if you have to. It may -- very likely -- get quite nasty. The rolling effects of this could see a lot of people dead and instability across the region for a long time. But its better than a nuclear iran.
Also, theres a tendency in humans to accept and normalise the institutional violence of the status quo: like white supremacists referring to the jim crow south as peaceful, when in reality that 'peace and calm' was predicated on both actual violence every day as well as social violence. Before all this the Middle east was 'peaceful' if by peaceful we mean armed theocratic militias holding millions of people in bondage and threatening millions more with genocide and rape, a near constant flow of terrorism and threat, with the rising tide of tension and brinkmanship and potential disaster that accompanies all that "stability".
If you want peace, prepare for war. Sometimes a bad peace is worse than a good war. Take your fucking pick on the aphorism but the underlying point is the same. What we had before was awful and couldnt last-- and so it didnt. We might be in for a hell of a lot of suffering across the middle east but that cost was always going to be paid and is necessary to get us to a place of genuine stability.
Well said. It looks like there are more than 1 of me out there in the world. In general it seems like my perspective on economic issues surrounds me with people who entirely disagree with me on international issues.
|
Yeah same. And because of polarisation you will end up getting called a fascist by left wing friends and a woke lefty by the right, haha.
|
On June 24 2025 05:10 Ze'ev wrote:
I'm actually really progressive on economic issues: Social Democrat? Democratic Socialism? Fuck the rich, in short: but I have no fucking idea what the Left is thinking. Theocratic madmen using genocidal rhetoric? Decades of terrorism and threats of genocide? Thousands of innocents dead across several countries -- hell, armed proxies that helped a dictator kill hundreds of thousands of people-- and uranium enrichment several times whats required for civilian use? Yawn. They're no threat. It makes no fucking sense at all. Of course Iran is a threat, of course they cant be allowed to get nukes: yes the economic and political fall out is a risk and we dont fully know where it will go, but in balance the risk of inaction is clearly far worse. We dont need to occupy Iran. Decimate their military and defensive capabilities, reduce their nuclear program to a madmans daydream and move on. Arm opposition groups if you have to. It may -- very likely -- get quite nasty. The rolling effects of this could see a lot of people dead and instability across the region for a long time. But its better than a nuclear iran.
Also, theres a tendency in humans to accept and normalise the institutional violence of the status quo: like white supremacists referring to the jim crow south as peaceful, when in reality that 'peace and calm' was predicated on both actual violence every day as well as social violence. Before all this the Middle east was 'peaceful' if by peaceful we mean armed theocratic militias holding millions of people in bondage and threatening millions more with genocide and rape, a near constant flow of terrorism and threat, with the rising tide of tension and brinkmanship and potential disaster that accompanies all that "stability".
If you want peace, prepare for war. Sometimes a bad peace is worse than a good war. Take your fucking pick on the aphorism but the underlying point is the same. What we had before was awful and couldnt last-- and so it didnt. We might be in for a hell of a lot of suffering across the middle east but that cost was always going to be paid and is necessary to get us to a place of genuine stability.
Astounding how every single word of this could've been written about Iraq in 2003.
On June 24 2025 05:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 05:10 Ze'ev wrote:
I'm actually really progressive on economic issues: Social Democrat? Democratic Socialism? Fuck the rich, in short: but I have no fucking idea what the Left is thinking. Theocratic madmen using genocidal rhetoric? Decades of terrorism and threats of genocide? Thousands of innocents dead across several countries -- hell, armed proxies that helped a dictator kill hundreds of thousands of people-- and uranium enrichment several times whats required for civilian use? Yawn. They're no threat. It makes no fucking sense at all. Of course Iran is a threat, of course they cant be allowed to get nukes: yes the economic and political fall out is a risk and we dont fully know where it will go, but in balance the risk of inaction is clearly far worse. We dont need to occupy Iran. Decimate their military and defensive capabilities, reduce their nuclear program to a madmans daydream and move on. Arm opposition groups if you have to. It may -- very likely -- get quite nasty. The rolling effects of this could see a lot of people dead and instability across the region for a long time. But its better than a nuclear iran.
Also, theres a tendency in humans to accept and normalise the institutional violence of the status quo: like white supremacists referring to the jim crow south as peaceful, when in reality that 'peace and calm' was predicated on both actual violence every day as well as social violence. Before all this the Middle east was 'peaceful' if by peaceful we mean armed theocratic militias holding millions of people in bondage and threatening millions more with genocide and rape, a near constant flow of terrorism and threat, with the rising tide of tension and brinkmanship and potential disaster that accompanies all that "stability".
If you want peace, prepare for war. Sometimes a bad peace is worse than a good war. Take your fucking pick on the aphorism but the underlying point is the same. What we had before was awful and couldnt last-- and so it didnt. We might be in for a hell of a lot of suffering across the middle east but that cost was always going to be paid and is necessary to get us to a place of genuine stability. Well said. It looks like there are more than 1 of me out there in the world. In general it seems like my perspective on economic issues surrounds me with people who entirely disagree with me on international issues.
Polls show about 16% of Americans agree with war with Iran, so no, you're not alone among the people who got duped by the guy whose tweets about bombing Iran to distract from bad polls are literally still up.
|
When you say war with Iran, is it that you are assuming this isn't the conclusion and there will be boots on the ground or something? The statements by Khameini and Trump seem to indicate there's no need for anything else.
|
Maybe you should try reading some commentary from someone who knows what they're talking about instead of taking Trump's verbal diarrhea at face value. Just a thought.
|
On June 24 2025 05:45 Ze'ev wrote:
Yeah same. And because of polarisation you will end up getting called a fascist by left wing friends and a woke lefty by the right, haha.
I don't fully disagree but you are underselling a civil war in Iran. 14mn people fled their home in Syria. 6,3mn fled abroad. Direct dead from 300k-600k.
Iran has >4x the population of Syria. In a straight transfer that's 56mn displaced, 25mn of them in other countries. 1,2mn-2,4mn direct dead from fighting.
But it wouldn't stop there. Because the region is currently fucked from everything that's happening and there is no way they can absorb 25mn refuges. And EU is done with this shit too, there is no way we are taking more than token refuges. Iran could easily be worse both in absolute numbers and in secondary effect like actual mass starvation.
I don't particularly mind what Israel and the US are doing from a geopolitical standpoint but we can be 100% sure they won't lift a finger when it comes to the humanitarian cost. Iran collapsing into civil war would be an immense disaster and I'm frankly not sure it would be worth the cost compared to them having nukes and the regime staying in place.
Sure, in the best of worlds the regime is toppled and maybe only 10s of thousands up to hundreds of thousands die. But that's a best case scenario and it's really rolling the dice to try for it.
|
United States43673 Posts
On June 24 2025 05:01 Mohdoo wrote:Trump seems to be signaling he's cool walking away at this point. If this is the end of our involvement, I'm extremely pleased with how Trump handled it. Stepping in for a moment to entirely remove any hope Iran ever develops a nuclear weapon, then leaving right after, is ideal. Since optimism is generally proven wrong, I remain concerned something breaks. But hopefully not. Show nested quote +
Iran has officially responded to our Obliteration of their Nuclear Facilities with a very weak response, which we expected, and have very effectively countered. There have been 14 missiles fired — 13 were knocked down, and 1 was “set free,” because it was headed in a nonthreatening direction. I am pleased to report that NO Americans were harmed, and hardly any damage was done. Most importantly, they’ve gotten it all out of their “system,” and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE. I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured. Perhaps Iran can now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
How does this prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon or other kind of WMD such as a dirty bomb? Some bombs were dropped in the vicinity of extremely hardened sites and victory was declared but how do you know that victory was achieved?
|
United States24756 Posts
May I suggest Trump stand in front of a large "Mission Accomplished" sign to reassure you?
|
On June 24 2025 06:10 LightSpectra wrote:
Maybe you should try reading some commentary from someone who knows what they're talking about instead of taking Trump's verbal diarrhea at face value. Just a thought.
I think that is a good idea, and I agree. I am not sure where this defensive tone is coming from, but I was not trying to be rude or sarcastic or something. Sorry if that came across wrong. I am of course happy to read or listen to whatever you're referring to. I understand Israel isn't done with their broader objective of weakening Iran's military capability in any and all ways they can. I'm just saying it doesn't seem like the US is intending to push this any further. But of course I could be wrong.
|
On June 24 2025 06:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 05:01 Mohdoo wrote:Trump seems to be signaling he's cool walking away at this point. If this is the end of our involvement, I'm extremely pleased with how Trump handled it. Stepping in for a moment to entirely remove any hope Iran ever develops a nuclear weapon, then leaving right after, is ideal. Since optimism is generally proven wrong, I remain concerned something breaks. But hopefully not.
Iran has officially responded to our Obliteration of their Nuclear Facilities with a very weak response, which we expected, and have very effectively countered. There have been 14 missiles fired — 13 were knocked down, and 1 was “set free,” because it was headed in a nonthreatening direction. I am pleased to report that NO Americans were harmed, and hardly any damage was done. Most importantly, they’ve gotten it all out of their “system,” and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE. I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured. Perhaps Iran can now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
How does this prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon or other kind of WMD such as a dirty bomb? Some bombs were dropped in the vicinity of extremely hardened sites and victory was declared but how do you know that victory was achieved?
I will let Micronesia correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is the 60% uranium they have is insufficient for making a weapon. And that's assuming Israel didn't take it themselves. And I am also under the impression it is impossible to access Fordow without a great deal of time and effort. So even in a scenario where Fordow remains operational, there is no feasible way to access it. And Israel would of course bomb any small attempt immediately.
Mossad has also likely benefited enormously from over a week of controlling Tehran's airspace. I can't imagine Iran would ever manage to get uranium enrichment back online without Mossad knowing about it.
But again, this is just my understanding, so of course feel free to correct anything I am wrong about.
|
On June 24 2025 06:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 05:01 Mohdoo wrote:Trump seems to be signaling he's cool walking away at this point. If this is the end of our involvement, I'm extremely pleased with how Trump handled it. Stepping in for a moment to entirely remove any hope Iran ever develops a nuclear weapon, then leaving right after, is ideal. Since optimism is generally proven wrong, I remain concerned something breaks. But hopefully not.
Iran has officially responded to our Obliteration of their Nuclear Facilities with a very weak response, which we expected, and have very effectively countered. There have been 14 missiles fired — 13 were knocked down, and 1 was “set free,” because it was headed in a nonthreatening direction. I am pleased to report that NO Americans were harmed, and hardly any damage was done. Most importantly, they’ve gotten it all out of their “system,” and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE. I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured. Perhaps Iran can now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
How does this prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon or other kind of WMD such as a dirty bomb? Some bombs were dropped in the vicinity of extremely hardened sites and victory was declared but how do you know that victory was achieved?
Speaking of this: Vance Hints Uranium Was Moved After Trump Tipped Off Tehran
|
On June 24 2025 06:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 05:01 Mohdoo wrote:Trump seems to be signaling he's cool walking away at this point. If this is the end of our involvement, I'm extremely pleased with how Trump handled it. Stepping in for a moment to entirely remove any hope Iran ever develops a nuclear weapon, then leaving right after, is ideal. Since optimism is generally proven wrong, I remain concerned something breaks. But hopefully not.
Iran has officially responded to our Obliteration of their Nuclear Facilities with a very weak response, which we expected, and have very effectively countered. There have been 14 missiles fired — 13 were knocked down, and 1 was “set free,” because it was headed in a nonthreatening direction. I am pleased to report that NO Americans were harmed, and hardly any damage was done. Most importantly, they’ve gotten it all out of their “system,” and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE. I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured. Perhaps Iran can now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
How does this prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon or other kind of WMD such as a dirty bomb? Some bombs were dropped in the vicinity of extremely hardened sites and victory was declared but how do you know that victory was achieved?
I would think that when(if) Israel declares they are done, that should be fairly safe indication that the nuclear program is completely caput.
|
Israel will be done when Likud is polling better, so it might take awhile, but it has no bearing whatsoever to the state of Iran's nuclear enrichment program.
|
United States43673 Posts
On June 24 2025 06:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 06:14 KwarK wrote:On June 24 2025 05:01 Mohdoo wrote:Trump seems to be signaling he's cool walking away at this point. If this is the end of our involvement, I'm extremely pleased with how Trump handled it. Stepping in for a moment to entirely remove any hope Iran ever develops a nuclear weapon, then leaving right after, is ideal. Since optimism is generally proven wrong, I remain concerned something breaks. But hopefully not.
Iran has officially responded to our Obliteration of their Nuclear Facilities with a very weak response, which we expected, and have very effectively countered. There have been 14 missiles fired — 13 were knocked down, and 1 was “set free,” because it was headed in a nonthreatening direction. I am pleased to report that NO Americans were harmed, and hardly any damage was done. Most importantly, they’ve gotten it all out of their “system,” and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE. I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured. Perhaps Iran can now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
How does this prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon or other kind of WMD such as a dirty bomb? Some bombs were dropped in the vicinity of extremely hardened sites and victory was declared but how do you know that victory was achieved? I will let Micronesia correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is the 60% uranium they have is insufficient for making a weapon. And that's assuming Israel didn't take it themselves. And I am also under the impression it is impossible to access Fordow without a great deal of time and effort. So even in a scenario where Fordow remains operational, there is no feasible way to access it. And Israel would of course bomb any small attempt immediately. Mossad has also likely benefited enormously from over a week of controlling Tehran's airspace. I can't imagine Iran would ever manage to get uranium enrichment back online without Mossad knowing about it. But again, this is just my understanding, so of course feel free to correct anything I am wrong about.
A fission weapon or any weapon? Because I suspect for the purpose of raining uranium on Tel Aviv some pulverized 60% uranium loaded onto a missile will probably work fine.
|
On June 24 2025 06:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 05:45 Ze'ev wrote:
Yeah same. And because of polarisation you will end up getting called a fascist by left wing friends and a woke lefty by the right, haha. I don't fully disagree but you are underselling a civil war in Iran. 14mn people fled their home in Syria. 6,3mn fled abroad. Direct dead from 300k-600k. Iran has >4x the population of Syria. In a straight transfer that's 56mn displaced, 25mn of them in other countries. 1,2mn-2,4mn direct dead from fighting. But it wouldn't stop there. Because the region is currently fucked from everything that's happening and there is no way they can absorb 25mn refuges. And EU is done with this shit too, there is no way we are taking more than token refuges. Iran could easily be worse both in absolute numbers and in secondary effect like actual mass starvation. I don't particularly mind what Israel and the US are doing from a geopolitical standpoint but we can be 100% sure they won't lift a finger when it comes to the humanitarian cost. Iran collapsing into civil war would be an immense disaster and I'm frankly not sure it would be worth the cost compared to them having nukes and the regime staying in place. Sure, in the best of worlds the regime is toppled and maybe only 10s of thousands up to hundreds of thousands die. But that's a best case scenario and it's really rolling the dice to try for it. Its a huge risk for sure. The worst case scenarios are really bad, not just for the middle east, they'd destabilise european and american politics to a great extent as well. My calculus is just based around a Nuclear Iran and also the long term suffering caused by the regime. We cant know if Iran would ever actually get and use Nukes (or, having nukes, how damaging the regime might be without even using them) but I think we can come up with a decently accurate theoretical. Things may get bad (hopefully not, theres reason to think things are already deescalating) but I think its reasonable to think it will massively outstrip what an entrenched and insane theocracy could do with nukes.On June 24 2025 06:03 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 05:10 Ze'ev wrote:
I'm actually really progressive on economic issues: Social Democrat? Democratic Socialism? Fuck the rich, in short: but I have no fucking idea what the Left is thinking. Theocratic madmen using genocidal rhetoric? Decades of terrorism and threats of genocide? Thousands of innocents dead across several countries -- hell, armed proxies that helped a dictator kill hundreds of thousands of people-- and uranium enrichment several times whats required for civilian use? Yawn. They're no threat. It makes no fucking sense at all. Of course Iran is a threat, of course they cant be allowed to get nukes: yes the economic and political fall out is a risk and we dont fully know where it will go, but in balance the risk of inaction is clearly far worse. We dont need to occupy Iran. Decimate their military and defensive capabilities, reduce their nuclear program to a madmans daydream and move on. Arm opposition groups if you have to. It may -- very likely -- get quite nasty. The rolling effects of this could see a lot of people dead and instability across the region for a long time. But its better than a nuclear iran.
Also, theres a tendency in humans to accept and normalise the institutional violence of the status quo: like white supremacists referring to the jim crow south as peaceful, when in reality that 'peace and calm' was predicated on both actual violence every day as well as social violence. Before all this the Middle east was 'peaceful' if by peaceful we mean armed theocratic militias holding millions of people in bondage and threatening millions more with genocide and rape, a near constant flow of terrorism and threat, with the rising tide of tension and brinkmanship and potential disaster that accompanies all that "stability".
If you want peace, prepare for war. Sometimes a bad peace is worse than a good war. Take your fucking pick on the aphorism but the underlying point is the same. What we had before was awful and couldnt last-- and so it didnt. We might be in for a hell of a lot of suffering across the middle east but that cost was always going to be paid and is necessary to get us to a place of genuine stability. Astounding how every single word of this could've been written about Iraq in 2003. Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 05:26 Mohdoo wrote:On June 24 2025 05:10 Ze'ev wrote:
I'm actually really progressive on economic issues: Social Democrat? Democratic Socialism? Fuck the rich, in short: but I have no fucking idea what the Left is thinking. Theocratic madmen using genocidal rhetoric? Decades of terrorism and threats of genocide? Thousands of innocents dead across several countries -- hell, armed proxies that helped a dictator kill hundreds of thousands of people-- and uranium enrichment several times whats required for civilian use? Yawn. They're no threat. It makes no fucking sense at all. Of course Iran is a threat, of course they cant be allowed to get nukes: yes the economic and political fall out is a risk and we dont fully know where it will go, but in balance the risk of inaction is clearly far worse. We dont need to occupy Iran. Decimate their military and defensive capabilities, reduce their nuclear program to a madmans daydream and move on. Arm opposition groups if you have to. It may -- very likely -- get quite nasty. The rolling effects of this could see a lot of people dead and instability across the region for a long time. But its better than a nuclear iran.
Also, theres a tendency in humans to accept and normalise the institutional violence of the status quo: like white supremacists referring to the jim crow south as peaceful, when in reality that 'peace and calm' was predicated on both actual violence every day as well as social violence. Before all this the Middle east was 'peaceful' if by peaceful we mean armed theocratic militias holding millions of people in bondage and threatening millions more with genocide and rape, a near constant flow of terrorism and threat, with the rising tide of tension and brinkmanship and potential disaster that accompanies all that "stability".
If you want peace, prepare for war. Sometimes a bad peace is worse than a good war. Take your fucking pick on the aphorism but the underlying point is the same. What we had before was awful and couldnt last-- and so it didnt. We might be in for a hell of a lot of suffering across the middle east but that cost was always going to be paid and is necessary to get us to a place of genuine stability. Well said. It looks like there are more than 1 of me out there in the world. In general it seems like my perspective on economic issues surrounds me with people who entirely disagree with me on international issues. Polls show about 16% of Americans agree with war with Iran, so no, you're not alone among the people who got duped by the guy whose tweets about bombing Iran to distract from bad polls are literally still up. Dont be so lazy. We can make examples of good and bad interventions all day. You cant just use Iraq as a lazy blanket excuse against intervention for all time anymore than I can use Nazi Germany as a blanket justification for intervention. I could just as easily twist your (lazy, inept) arguments into "amazing how every word of this couldve been used to justify staying out of world war two" but thats bullshit and childish. No ones proposed troops on the ground or nation building. True, Trump has fucked about on Twitter with regime change and I dont support that if it means we are launching an occupying war, but, ultimately there are more than enough differences in this context that a simple minded comparison to Iraq is just that: simple.
edit: just as I type this a ceasefire has been agreed to. We ended a nuclear threat and got away scott free (so far). Not exactly comparable to Iraq.
|
well, see, the funny thing is you can literally just change "Iran" to "Iraq" and it is indistinguishable from what the Bush administration said in 2003, whereas if you replaced it with "Nazi Germany" none of that makes sense anymore, especially since they're the ones who declared war on the USA after their ally attacked us, not the other way around.
On June 24 2025 07:53 Ze'ev wrote:
edit: just as I type this a ceasefire has been agreed to. We ended a nuclear threat and got away scott free (so far). Not exactly comparable to Iraq.
I guess you missed the part where different people from the White House have all said that Iran moved out their uranium and literally nothing has changed since before the bombings. If you're not going to pay attention to the news, do us all a favor and don't vote.
|
On June 24 2025 07:59 LightSpectra wrote:well, see, the funny thing is you can literally just change "Iran" to "Iraq" and it is indistinguishable from what the Bush administration said in 2003, whereas if you replaced it with "Nazi Germany" none of that makes sense anymore, especially since they're the ones who declared war on the USA after their ally attacked us, not the other way around. Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 07:53 Ze'ev wrote:
edit: just as I type this a ceasefire has been agreed to. We ended a nuclear threat and got away scott free (so far). Not exactly comparable to Iraq. I guess you missed the part where different people from the White House have all said that Iran moved out their uranium and literally nothing has changed since before the bombings. If you're not going to pay attention to the news, do us all a favor and don't vote. Theres plenty of differences right out of the gate:
- WMD was unsubstantiated and unclear. We were just 'looking' for weapons as opposed to striking specific targets to ensure they no longer functioned.
- The Iraq war was accompanied by rhetoric about nation building. This is not
- The Iraq war was a ground war. This is a bombing campaign
- The Iraq war was intended (and was) an occupation, this is not.
- Iran has funded proxy terror groups across the middle east with genocidal intent. Iraq had no network
- Irans proxy forces have attacked an american allie. Iraq did not
- Irans proxy forces have threatened international trade and the world economy. Iraq did not.
- Iran is actually highly unstable with a real liberal opposition. Iraq had nothing comparable in terms of civil society.
You really gotta rise above such simplified logic of: hey look a country in the middle east thats being painted as a threat THEYRE THE SAME THING DURRRRR. Sorry, worlds more complicated than that shallow fucking "reasoning".
I guess you missed the part where different people from the White House have all said that Iran moved out their uranium and literally nothing has changed since before the bombings. If you're not going to pay attention to the news, do us all a favor and don't vote. That was contradicted immediately after by others in the WH. Enriched Uranium surviving is a problem but the real issue is the capacity to enrich more and build a bomb with it. Without their nuclear facilities the uranium enrichment program is dead and so is their prospects for a bomb, including and especially the entire notion they can use that as deterrence: they got bombed, did nothing and begged for peace. Being a snippy little bitch is no substitute for actual substantive reasoning little man.
|
Right off your first point is already wrong because U.S. intelligence said Iran wasn't making a nuke. https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/us-intelligence-assessment-irans-nuclear-program-remains-unchanged-rcna213879
If anything they're more likely to start making a nuke now than before. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/19/us/politics/iran-nuclear-weapons-assessment.html "U.S. intelligence officials said Iran was likely to pivot toward producing a nuclear weapon if the U.S. attacked a main uranium enrichment site, or if Israel killed its supreme leader."
Sorry you fell for it again though. We should really start teaching critical thinking skills in schools again.
Edit:
That was contradicted immediately after by others in the WH.
Wow, that sure inspires us in their competence and honesty, huh?
Enriched Uranium surviving is a problem but the real issue is the capacity to enrich more and build a bomb with it. Without their nuclear facilities the uranium enrichment program is dead and so is their prospects for a bomb, including and especially the entire notion they can use that as deterrence: they got bombed, did nothing and begged for peace.
They "begged for peace" because they took no real damage and can actually start making a nuke. Or they can make a dirty bomb instead. They have a lot of options and America's foreign policy is currently being managed by some idiots.
|
On June 24 2025 07:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 06:24 Mohdoo wrote:On June 24 2025 06:14 KwarK wrote:On June 24 2025 05:01 Mohdoo wrote:Trump seems to be signaling he's cool walking away at this point. If this is the end of our involvement, I'm extremely pleased with how Trump handled it. Stepping in for a moment to entirely remove any hope Iran ever develops a nuclear weapon, then leaving right after, is ideal. Since optimism is generally proven wrong, I remain concerned something breaks. But hopefully not.
Iran has officially responded to our Obliteration of their Nuclear Facilities with a very weak response, which we expected, and have very effectively countered. There have been 14 missiles fired — 13 were knocked down, and 1 was “set free,” because it was headed in a nonthreatening direction. I am pleased to report that NO Americans were harmed, and hardly any damage was done. Most importantly, they’ve gotten it all out of their “system,” and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE. I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured. Perhaps Iran can now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
How does this prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon or other kind of WMD such as a dirty bomb? Some bombs were dropped in the vicinity of extremely hardened sites and victory was declared but how do you know that victory was achieved? I will let Micronesia correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is the 60% uranium they have is insufficient for making a weapon. And that's assuming Israel didn't take it themselves. And I am also under the impression it is impossible to access Fordow without a great deal of time and effort. So even in a scenario where Fordow remains operational, there is no feasible way to access it. And Israel would of course bomb any small attempt immediately. Mossad has also likely benefited enormously from over a week of controlling Tehran's airspace. I can't imagine Iran would ever manage to get uranium enrichment back online without Mossad knowing about it. But again, this is just my understanding, so of course feel free to correct anything I am wrong about. A fission weapon or any weapon? Because I suspect for the purpose of raining uranium on Tel Aviv some pulverized 60% uranium loaded onto a missile will probably work fine.
Sorry for my ignorance, but is that what a dirty bomb is?
The thing I think was important was preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. I don't know if 60% uranium can be used for a dirty bomb or something, but if so, I agree that would mean the uranium being unaccounted for would mean the whole thing was a failure. But I have no idea, so I will just defer to micronesia like I normally do.
My impression is enrichment is totally impossible for Iran at this point though. Does that match your understanding? They can try, but the time necessary to get up and running appears to prevent anything from ever actually succeeding. Iran will likely never be able to defend their air space from Israel.
|
Northern Ireland26348 Posts
It may work out OK, we shall see. I’ve a lot of issues, to put it mildly.
Not least is the idea of the US swooping in to potentially cripple a nuclear program, to help out its buddy Israel who almost certainly do have nuclear weapons although pursue a policy of neither confirming or denying that. While Israel is killing shitloads of civilians
At a time where the US is under an administration who almost aggressively dislikes the idea of multilateralism, consensus and bodies that embody those ideals, however weak in their ability to actually do anything practically.
I don’t think you have to be any kind of deranged ideologue to see some pretty obvious issues there.
As I’ll happily concede, things may still work out alright, but is it coming from the kind of solid foundation one would ideally want to see?
If I’m Iran, you’re damn fucking right I want a nuke after this. I can’t see why they would ever go for any kind of non-proliferation deal in the foreseeable future, I mean would you?
Which is fine, so long as you can 100% reliably detect such an effort and squash it in future. But you have also very visibly demonstrated why Iran would benefit from a nuclear deterrent, in glorious Technicolor
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
