Merged Israel Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

jt512 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Steve said:
So who, exactly, puts any credence on Trump "promises"? He sure doesn't.
Click to expand...
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.
 
angrysoba said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
angrysoba said:
Trump is clearly worried that dropping the MOAB and failing will mean being in a new hot war with no endgame.
Click to expand...
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.
 
angrysoba said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Islamic war by proxy and Russia invading its neighbors is within "the rules". Maybe its time they changed.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Olmstead said:
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.
Click to expand...
The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Iran is suffering consequences; therefore it must have broken somebody's rules.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
theprestige said:
The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Iran is suffering consequences; therefore it must have broken somebody's rules.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Violating treaty obligations is Case Number One for tearing up the treaty and going to the mattresses.
 
angrysoba said:
Russia invading its neighbours is NOT within the rules.
Click to expand...
Ukraine is hardly the first.
angrysoba said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ukraine's bravery and ingenuity is by far the main reason why Russia has paid a heavy price. The sanctions are porous to the point of comedy. Dont sell to Russia, but its fine to sell equipment to someone you know will. Im disappointed in the world by our reaction to a democracy being invaded by an autocracy. I can count on one hand the number of people I know irl who give two ◊◊◊◊◊.
 
The US spend years looking for WMDs in Iraq.
No amount of bombing can ensure that the Iranian nuclear program has been set back to zero - that would require massive on the ground verification.

And, btw, a nuke would do less damage to a harden target than the big bunker buster would.
 
Last edited:
The most annoying thing about the current situation is how much sense Tucker Carlson is making when squeezing Cruz or other on the US role in the war.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
There is an important difference, though. Saddam's WMDs did not exist. Iran's nuclear programme does.
Click to expand...
no difference. The US went in assuming there were, as would they do in Iran.
Iran claims that it has spread out its nuclear assets all other the country, so there is no way to verify its complete destruction.

Let's keep in mind that the best intelligence in the world says that the only component Iran has for a nuke is slightly enriched uranium - no warhead prototypes, no testing facilities, to assembly lines. Just some radioactive material and centrifuges.
So pretty much everything and nothing can be part of the nuke program - and it all can be replaced within a year if Russia/China/Pakistan/North Korea decided to assist.
and it would be legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The goal of removing the offensive nuclear capability of Iran has always been a red herring for the actual goal of destroying a rival power to Israel.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
no difference.
Iran claims that it has spread out its nuclear assets all other the country, so there is no way to verify its complete destruction.

Let's keep in mind that the best intelligence in the world says that the only component Iran has for a nuke is slightly enriched uranium - no warhead prototypes, no testing facilities, to assembly lines. Just some radioactive material and centrifuges.
So pretty much everything and nothing can be part of the nuke program - and it all can be replaced within a year if Russia/China/Pakistan/North Korea decided to assist.
and it would be legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The goal of removing the offensive nuclear capability of Iran has always been a red herring for the actual goal of destroying a rival power to Israel.
Click to expand...

There is a very important difference between looking for something that doesn't exist, and looking for something that does.
As for your conspiracy theory in the last sentence, cast your mind back. Which was the last country to go to war with Iran, and was that country a friend of Israel?
 
Cosmic Yak said:
There is a very important difference between looking for something that doesn't exist, and looking for something that does.
As for your conspiracy theory in the last sentence, cast your mind back. Which was the last country to go to war with Iran, and was that country a friend of Israel?
Click to expand...
For the sake of argument, let's say that Israel, with or without the help of the US, destroys Iranian facilities to a degree that it is satisfied that the entire nuclear program has been set back to zero.*

How long would it take a now highly motivated Iran to get back to this exact level of nuclear development?
What should Israel do if it does reconstitute the program?


*

will never happen - Israel for decades has lied about Iran's nuclear ambitions and program, as did Netanyahu after starting the latest war. As far as Israel is concerned, Iran will always be about to have nukes.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
For the sake of argument, let's say that Israel, with or without the help of the US, destroys Iranian facilities to a degree that it is satisfied that the entire nuclear program has been set back to zero.*

How long would it take a now highly motivated Iran to get back to this exact level of nuclear development?
What should Israel do if it does reconstitute the program?


*

will never happen - Israel for decades has lied about Iran's nuclear ambitions and program, as did Netanyahu after starting the latest war. As far as Israel is concerned, Iran will always be about to have nukes.
Click to expand...
I'm not running off on another wild goose chase until you acknowledge the comparison with Saddam's purported WMDs was inapt.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The most annoying thing about the current situation is how much sense Tucker Carlson is making when squeezing Cruz or other on the US role in the war.
Click to expand...
Very confusing time. Which of these two shameless propagandists to believe?

Similarly, the Trump administration have given completely contradictory announcements on the existence of an Iranian nuclear bomb: Gabbard says there isn't one and Trump says there is, or will be very shortly. I am not inclined to believe either of them.
 
you could believe the IAEA which for over 2 decades certified that Iran is operating within the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treating and only now, one time, decided to enrich a small amount material to the level that would not have a purely civilian use - which Iran acknowledged it did as a bargaining chip for a new nuclear deal. Both the levels of enrichment and the amounts fall far below of what would be necessary even for a testing device.
Meanwhile, Israeli leadership has claimed that Iran is basically ready to deploy a nuke without presenting any evidence for decades.

If one side always lies and the other has been telling the truth in a neutrally tested manner, it should not be hard to decide who to believe.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
I'm not running off on another wild goose chase until you acknowledge the comparison with Saddam's purported WMDs was inapt.
Click to expand...
Indeed, Netanyahu was a rather aggressive Iraq hawk back in the early 2000s. “There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking, is working, is advancing towards to the development of nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu said in 2002 testimony to Congress. “Once Saddam has nuclear weapons, the terror network will have nuclear weapons,”
Click to expand...
www.vox.com

Benjamin Netanyahu’s not-so-prescient 2002 message to Congress about Iraq

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...
www.vox.com www.vox.com

therealnews.com

Netanyahu's Long History of Lying About Fake 'WMDs' in Iran and Iraq

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has a long history of falsely claiming Iran and Iran are hiding nuclear weapons, from 1990 to 2018 - Ben Norton reports
therealnews.com therealnews.com

no difference to Iraq: it didn't have nukes or was developing them, and neither does Iran.

why do you keep on believing what Netanyahu says, given that you claim to be opposed to him?
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
www.vox.com

Benjamin Netanyahu’s not-so-prescient 2002 message to Congress about Iraq

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...
www.vox.com www.vox.com

therealnews.com

Netanyahu's Long History of Lying About Fake 'WMDs' in Iran and Iraq

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has a long history of falsely claiming Iran and Iran are hiding nuclear weapons, from 1990 to 2018 - Ben Norton reports
therealnews.com therealnews.com

no difference to Iraq: it didn't have nukes or was developing them, and neither does Iran.

why do you keep on believing what Netanyahu says, given that you claim to be opposed to him?
Click to expand...
Obvious strawman. None of those links, nor those claims, have ever featured in my posts.
Do you accept that there is a difference between looking for something that doesn't exist, and something that does? Yes or no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom