Ed Israel/US Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

[angrysoba]

And yet, surprisingly, Iraq has turned out okay.

And Iran wouldn't have the problem of a neighboring state sponsor of terror trying to disrupt the recovery process.

There you go kids, just looking for the the kind of success we had in Iraq.

 

[theprestige]

There you go kids, just looking for the the kind of success we had in Iraq.

Would you rather another Syria? Another Yemen?

 

[Hercules56]

Would you rather another Syria? Another Yemen?

There is no massive rebellion waiting to take over Iran, like in Syria.

 

[angrysoba]

It would be the end of the taboo against using nuclear weapons. We have the MOP precisely so as to have a conventional alternative to the tactical nuke. Fordo is exactly the type of target that the weapon was designed for. It is time to deploy it.

Why? Trump was elected on the promise of not creating new wars. It's not America's war, so why not stay out of it?

 

[angrysoba]

Would you rather another Syria? Another Yemen?

Who is to say that those are the only options?

The situation in Syria largely came about because of the creation of ISIS which came about as a result of the Iraq War.

 

[Steve]

Why? Trump was elected on the promise of not creating new wars. It's not America's war, so why not stay out of it?

So who, exactly, puts any credence on Trump "promises"? He sure doesn't.

 

[angrysoba]

So who, exactly, puts any credence on Trump "promises"? He sure doesn't.

I'm starting to wonder if anything Trump says is trustworthy.

That said, just because Trump's word is worthless, it doesn't mean people shouldn't point out when he is lying and the people who voted for him are foolish dupes.

 

[theprestige]

Who is to say that those are the only options?

The situation in Syria largely came about because of the creation of ISIS which came about as a result of the Iraq War.

The best part about that was that ISIS was largely a small time player, fixated on carving out a local caliphate. Sure, they dabbled in international terrorism, but mostly they just wanted to destabilize their neighborhood enough to set up their own clubhouse, with the Islamic equivalent of blackjack and hookers. And eminently more smack-down-able if they ever got too uppity. Waaay more manageable than Baathist Iraq.

 

[lobosrul5]

I'm starting to wonder if anything Trump says is trustworthy.

That said, just because Trump's word is worthless, it doesn't mean people shouldn't point out when he is lying and the people who voted for him are foolish dupes.

Starting to?1

 

[angrysoba]

Trump is clearly worried that dropping the MOAB and failing will mean being in a new hot war with no endgame. Or more probably he is just worried about looking stupid, but that SHOULD be the concern.
If the MOAB fails, then there will be a lot more open discussion of tactical nukes.
This is what complete erosion of the rules-based system ends up with.
Yes, they were norms, often violated, but Trumpianism means dispensing with them altogether.

 

[Ziggurat]

Trump is clearly worried that dropping the MOAB and failing will mean being in a new hot war with no endgame.

You need to brush up on your munitions. The MOAB is not an appropriate bomb for the targets under consideration. The MOP is. Despite similar names, these are actually very different bombs.

 

[theprestige]

Trump is clearly worried that dropping the MOAB and failing will mean being in a new hot war with no endgame. Or more probably he is just worried about looking stupid, but that SHOULD be the concern.
If the MOAB fails, then there will be a lot more open discussion of tactical nukes.
This is what complete erosion of the rules-based system ends up with.
Yes, they were norms, often violated, but Trumpianism means dispensing with them altogether.

There is no rules based system. If there were, Moscow wouldn't be in Ukraine right now. Iran wouldn't be sponsoring terror and pursuing nuclear weapons right now.

 

[theprestige]

Anyway, I'm sure we can all agree that Iran's ability to make progress in nuclear weapons development should be destroyed, if we can arrange it.

 

[lobosrul5]

There is no rules based system. If there were, Moscow wouldn't be in Ukraine right now. Iran wouldn't be sponsoring terror and pursuing nuclear weapons right now.

Islamic war by proxy and Russia invading its neighbors is within "the rules". Maybe its time they changed.

 

[theprestige]

Islamic war by proxy and Russia invading its neighbors is within "the rules". Maybe its time they changed.

Russia invading Ukraine was explicitly against the rules.

So hell yeah it's time the rules were changed. Or rather, we acknowledged the one and only rule of conflict between sovereign states: Molon Labe.

 

[Olmstead]

I thought the point of rules is that there are consequences for breaking them. I don't know, I haven't been paying attention to whether any sanctions were a direct result of such breaches.

 

[theprestige]

I thought the point of rules is that there are consequences for breaking them. I don't know, I haven't been paying attention to whether any sanctions were a direct result of such breaches.

The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Iran is suffering consequences; therefore it must have broken somebody's rules.

 

[angrysoba]

There is no rules based system. If there were, Moscow wouldn't be in Ukraine right now. Iran wouldn't be sponsoring terror and pursuing nuclear weapons right now.

It's exactly because there is a rules-based system that Moscow is paying a heavy price for breaking the rules.

Why do you think people even bother drawing up treaties and contracts and memoranda with terms and conditions if they never mean anything at all?

Now obviously the fact that rules exist doesn't mean there can be no violations of them. In fact, the violations presuppose their existence.

 

[angrysoba]

The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Iran is suffering consequences; therefore it must have broken somebody's rules.

This is a schoolboy logical fallacy: affirming the consequent. You should have been tipped off when you even used the word "consequences" when committing the fallacy.

Now, you could indeed argue that Iran is in violation of its treaty obligations, but that again speaks to the foolishness of tearing up the treaties that they were supposed to be bound to in the first place.

 

[angrysoba]

Islamic war by proxy and Russia invading its neighbors is within "the rules". Maybe its time they changed.

Russia invading its neighbours is NOT within the rules.