US goes to war with Iran

[TheTexan]

.

Hey, “we” have to dictate to others what they may or may not have, and what they may or may not do because “we” believe in “liberty” and self-determination (that last is a necessary part of the principle of secession).

Plus, “we’re” just unbelievably arrogant.

Okay well if your neighbor was stockpiling large amounts of TNT right next to your home, and storing it in a way that you knew was dangerous and would eventually result in your family's accidental death,

Would you "dictate to others" to demand they resolve the situation, and if they refuse to do so, would you resolve the situation for them?

 

[acptulsa]

Closed the straits of Hormuz.

Doesn't sound like they think they're whipped.

 

[Madison320]

Okay well if your neighbor was stockpiling large amounts of TNT right next to your home, and storing it in a way that you knew was dangerous and would eventually result in your family's accidental death,

Would you "dictate to others" to demand they resolve the situation, and if they refuse to do so, would you resolve the situation for them?

A much more accurate analogy would be you were stockpiling large amounts of TNT in a way that you knew was dangerous and would eventually result in your family's and your neighbor's accidental death. Then you find out your neighbor is doing the same so you "resolve the situation". And then of course there's a good chance while you're "resolving the situation" you blow you and your neighbors to smithereens.

 

[TheTexan]

A much more accurate analogy would be you were stockpiling large amounts of TNT in a way that you knew was dangerous and would eventually result in your family's and your neighbor's accidental death. Then you find out your neighbor is doing the same so you "resolve the situation". And then of course there's a good chance while you're "resolving the situation" you blow you and your neighbors to smithereens.

That's accurate but either way it's still good to resolve at least one of the situations.

 

[Madison320]

That's accurate but either way it's still good to resolve at least one of the situations.

As long as you assume the cost of getting rid of your neighbor's TNT is 0. Wars tend to be expensive.

 

[TheTexan]

As long as you assume the cost of getting rid of your neighbor's TNT is 0. Wars tend to be expensive.

Action and inaction in this analogy both have costly consequences.

Just depends on which consequence you prefer.

 

[vita3]

Vague observation, Iranian wrestlers have a lot of fight

 

[Madison320]

Nukes don't kill people. People kill people. So far the United States is the only country in the world to every use a nuclear weapon in an attack. If guns should only be kept out of the hands of people who misuse them than maybe the U.S. is the only country who should not be allowed to have nukes.

I'm conflicted on the nuclear question. On the one hand you can make the argument that the existence of nukes is a violation of our right, on the other hand it basically requires one world government to enforce not having nukes.

Either way I don't see how stopping Iran from getting a couple of nukes does much. It barely makes a dent in the number of nukes in the world, it's obviously being selectively enforced to put it mildly, and we're fucking bankrupt already.

 

[unknown]

 

[jmdrake]

If we survive to 2028, either Thomas Massie or Rand Paul MUST run for president for the sake of the country! Even if they don't win their ideas need to be part of the debate.

 

[unknown]

 

[Madison320]

Action and inaction in this analogy both have costly consequences.

Just depends on which consequence you prefer.

Except action (preventing the bomb) is a known cost. The consequences of inaction are unknown.

It's the same argument they made for supporting Ukraine. If we don't attack Russia now it's going to cost more in the long run because Russia is going to blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile we knowingly we spent hundreds of billions and killed hundreds of thousands up front for some theoretical future savings.

 

[unknown]

 

[jmdrake]

Except action (preventing the bomb) is a known cost. The consequences of inaction are unknown.

It's the same argument they made for supporting Ukraine. If we don't attack Russia now it's going to cost more in the long run because Russia is going to blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile we knowingly we spent hundreds of billions and killed hundreds of thousands up front for some theoretical future savings.

Yeah. It's funny how consistency in foreign policy is such a difficulty. It shouldn't be.

 

[unknown]

 

[TheTexan]

Except action (preventing the bomb) is a known cost. The consequences of inaction are unknown.

I'd rather pay a small cost now than an extremely large cost later.

It's the same argument they made for supporting Ukraine. If we don't attack Russia now it's going to cost more in the long run because Russia is going to blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile we knowingly we spent hundreds of billions and killed hundreds of thousands up front for some theoretical future savings.

Attacking Russia is more likely to cause global nuclear destruction than to prevent it.

Pretty big difference.

 

[acptulsa]

I'd rather pay a small cost now than an extremely large cost later.

You're a complete sucker for one highly suspect sales pitch.

Wanna buy a bridge?

 

[unknown]

 

[TheTexan]

You're a complete sucker for one highly suspect sales pitch.

Wanna buy a bridge?

Iran wasn't fulfilling it's IAEA obligations and that is something that should be taken seriously.

What is "suspect" about that sales pitch?

 

[69360]

Closed the straits of Hormuz.

Doesn't sound like they think they're whipped.

Iran gets the Houthis to do it for them.

It's not the huge deal it used to be for the US. We can be a net exporter if we want to be. Yes global prices will go up. Yes prices in the US will go up, but not as much as they would have in the past and there will not be shortages here.