US goes to war with Iran

[TheTexan]

That bill isn't law yet but if they pass it its gonna be interesting to see what happens.

Popcorn.gif

 

[Madison320]

My guess is the next phase of this war will be about Iran not allowing inspectors in.

 

[acptulsa]

My guess is the next phase of this war will be about Iran not allowing inspectors in.

And yet, nobody can blame them. They complied up to now, and what did it get them?

China and Russia are having a field day with this folly.

 

[Madison320]

And yet, nobody can blame them. They complied up to now, and what did it get them?

China and Russia are having a field day with this folly.

We've incentivized Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon as quickly as possible. My guess is they're going to try to maintain a low profile while they work on it covertly.

 

[acptulsa]

We've incentivized Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon as quickly as possible. My guess is they're going to try to maintain a low profile while they work on it covertly.

And no doubt the head sociopaths in charge will use that fact to pursue their real goal -- their own central bank in Iran, with the power to print the New Fake Rial.

Come on, bro. Yeah we shoulda left 'em alone, bro. But it is what it is, bro. Ya gotta help us get 'em off us, bro. You just gotta.

Come die for a nutty yahoo.

 

[TheTexan]

We've incentivized Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon as quickly as possible.

To some degree, sure. The US has given Iran a hard time. But to be fair, the most severe actions and sanctions against Iran have typically been directly related to Iran's nuclear program. We've taken actions/sanctions against Iran for other stuff as well, but their nuclear program has been the source of the primary issues.

If they had simply given up their nuclear weapon ambitions as they were expected to, life would be a hell of a lot easier for Iran right now. Would their life be perfect? No, but nobody's life is - we're all under the umbrella of one hegemony or another.

I don't see how anyone can make the claim that Iran could feel existentially threated by not having nukes. The reason they feel existentially threatened is because they're pursuing nukes to begin with.

My guess is they're going to try to maintain a low profile while they work on it covertly.

They've pretty much openly admitted that's the plan. Which isn't very covert. I don't have a link but there's quotes from their officials in articles about how their parliament is planning on denying access to IAEA, and they pretty much openly admit they plan to use that as a window to develop their nuclear capability. (They apparently don't know what "covert" means.)

 

[unknown]

 

[acptulsa]

 

[acptulsa]

 

[unknown]

She summed it up pretty well.

 

[Madison320]

I don't see how anyone can make the claim that Iran could feel existentially threated by not having nukes.

Are you serious?

 

[TheTexan]

Are you serious?

Yea. Tell me exactly what we've done to them that is so existentially threatening, that wasn't related to their nuclear program.

 

[acptulsa]

Yea. Tell me exactly what we've done to them that is so existentially threatening, that wasn't related to their nuclear program.

We gave Israel trillions of dollars worth of weapons.

 

[TheTexan]

We gave Israel trillions of dollars worth of weapons.

And if Iran hadn't been pursuing a nuclear program, a) would we have given Israel so many weapons?, and b) would Israel have had the same amount of geopolitical cover to use those weapons against Iran?

The answer to both those questions is no.

 

[Madison320]

Yea. Tell me exactly what we've done to them that is so existentially threatening, that wasn't related to their nuclear program.

Besides invading all of Iran's neighboring countries? Let me think ...

 

[TheTexan]

Besides invading all of Iran's neighboring countries? Let me think ...

We're actually only 3 out of 7 on that count.

And the solution isn't to give them all nuclear weapons.

 

[unknown]

She didn't even pause and Piers let her go.

 

[unknown]

We're actually only 3 out of 7 on that count.

And the solution isn't to give them all nuclear weapons.

Think of it as a global Second Amendment for sovereign nations.

Every nation should have nukes and the means to deliver them.

 

[nikcers]

Think of it as a global Second Amendment for sovereign nations.

Every nation should have nukes and the means to deliver them.

The second amendment works well at "preventing" a tyrannical government.

We don't have a world government though and I don't advocate for one but if I did other countries would have to have free speech and a 2nd amendment.

They don't have any check against their government's power.

 

[TheTexan]

Think of it as a global Second Amendment for sovereign nations.

Every nation should have nukes and the means to deliver them.

What you're suggesting would invariably and inevitably lead to the global destruction of mankind.

We're already at severe risk of nuclear global annihilation. We should be scaling down, not scaling up.

There are no ethical uses for a nuclear weapon, even as a deterrent. A deterrent implies you intend to use it in retaliation, which is itself unethical considering the nature of the weapon and the unlimited potential for collateral damage.