US Strikes Iran

[kalm]

Correction. Israel is perfectly fine living in peace with their neighbors while entirely destroying GAZA after perpetrating an apartheid for decades against the Palestinians.

Not very neighborly.

Pssssst, wake up hop head.

Israel didn't attack anyone last Oct. Game over, thanks for playing

1). This didn’t start last October
2). Israel has exceeded any justifiable response to Hamas picking the fight. And they have perpetrated war crimes against civilian populations.
3). Hop head? I haven’t had a beer in 5 years.

[Bobcat]

Pssssst, wake up hop head.

Israel didn't attack anyone last Oct. Game over, thanks for playing

1). This didn’t start last October
2). Israel has exceeded any justifiable response to Hamas picking the fight. And they have perpetrated war crimes against civilian populations.
3). Hop head? I haven’t had a beer in 5 years.

War

If you want to win there are no rules. Use everything at your disposal to eliminate the threat.

Anything less is just more bullshit death you would agree with and cheer

[UNI88]

I’m a fan the Geneva Convention and being a civilized human being when possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

I’m a fan the Geneva Convention and being a civilized human being when possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Weirdo.

[Caribbean Hen]

Pssssst, wake up hop head.

Israel didn't attack anyone last Oct. Game over, thanks for playing

1). This didn’t start last October
2). Israel has exceeded any justifiable response to Hamas picking the fight. And they have perpetrated war crimes against civilian populations.
3). Hop head? I haven’t had a beer in 5 years.

Says the guy that’s got no skin in the game

[UNI88]

1). This didn’t start last October
2). Israel has exceeded any justifiable response to Hamas picking the fight. And they have perpetrated war crimes against civilian populations.
3). Hop head? I haven’t had a beer in 5 years.

Says the guy that’s got no skin in the game

Does the US?

Why should we help Israel but not Ukraine? Can you reasonably explain the differences and not respond with some trite bullshit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

1). This didn’t start last October
2). Israel has exceeded any justifiable response to Hamas picking the fight. And they have perpetrated war crimes against civilian populations.
3). Hop head? I haven’t had a beer in 5 years.

Says the guy that’s got no skin in the game

Cop out. We fund Israel’s war machine. Every peace loving human on earth has an interest in this. We’re members of a world community.

[Caribbean Hen]

Says the guy that’s got no skin in the game

Cop out. We fund Israel’s war machine. Every peace loving human on earth has an interest in this. We’re members of a world community.

We fund Medicare and snap cards and you don’t care about those

You have no idea what the fair response is

[kalm]

Cop out. We fund Israel’s war machine. Every peace loving human on earth has an interest in this. We’re members of a world community.

We fund Medicare and snap cards and you don’t care about those

You have no idea what the fair response is

Huh? What do you mean I don’t care?

[UNI88]

So you admit that agents in tactical gear aren’t undercover.

You don’t like my comparisons because they hit too close to home and expose MAQA yahoo hypocrisy.

Why should ICE/DHS be allowed to protect their overt agents from possible retribution but a reporter/news purveyor can’t protect their sources from possible retribution? Explain your logic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1. Lol you‘re defending a source if real committing a crime. (the release of highly classified info).
2. There‘s no way to substantiate an ‘unnamed‘ source. It could be legit, or could be a reporter just embellishing, spinning, omitting, or outright lying/making shit up.

If you want people to find a source credible, put a name behind it.

It’s protected under the first amendment and is just as important to our freedoms as the right to bear arms.

But you be you and keep showing that you only selectively care about the US Constitution and the freedoms and protections it gives us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bobcat]

I’m a fan the Geneva Convention and being a civilized human being when possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then don't get into a war if you want to play nice.

[Bobcat]

Says the guy that’s got no skin in the game

Does the US?

Why should we help Israel but not Ukraine? Can you reasonably explain the differences and not respond with some trite bullshit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We shouldn't help either of them, Israel is more than capable of taking care of themselves. Neither one is our problem

[houndawg]

Seems like Iran and NK are naturals trade partners, enriched uranium for missiles.


Iran will not stop until they have nukes because its existensial - like what happened to Libya and Ukraine when they gave up theirs.

Libya and Ukraine aren't good examples. In Libya, it was a backwards country with a singular, military strongman, that was holding that country together. His demise through age is what ultimately caused that country to stumble as they did. Ukraine, on the other hand, had a large predator nation on their border who did and still does threaten their existence. Neither of those is like Iran. Iran is a pretty advanced country in terms of education, technology, etc. And they don't have anyone on their borders that really threaten their existence. The Arab nations are pretty racist and don't like the Persians, but no one there would actually attack Iran. And even with Israel not on their borders, Israel doesn't threaten Iran's existence. Israel has had nukes for almost 50 years now, and they've never deployed them. For all of Israel's faults, at least most of the time they resort to military or subversive force is when they deal with countries and entities that have publicly stated their desire to destroy the entire nation of Israel and to rid the Middle East of all Jews. And as we've seen with the Abraham Accords, Israel is perfectly fine living in peace with their neighbors if it's reciprocal. Nothing about Iran and getting nuclear weapons is existential, unless the existential part is being able to destroy other countries. If that's the case, find a different existential need that doesn't need nukes.

Qadaffi gave up his nukes and he's dead. Ukraine gave up theirs and got invaded.Those are good examples of why it pays to have a nuclear sabre to rattle- give me some counter-examples of countries that surrendered their nukes and lived happily ever after.

And Iran had a 20 year war with its next door neighbor but of course that could never happen again...

[GannonFan]

Libya and Ukraine aren't good examples. In Libya, it was a backwards country with a singular, military strongman, that was holding that country together. His demise through age is what ultimately caused that country to stumble as they did. Ukraine, on the other hand, had a large predator nation on their border who did and still does threaten their existence. Neither of those is like Iran. Iran is a pretty advanced country in terms of education, technology, etc. And they don't have anyone on their borders that really threaten their existence. The Arab nations are pretty racist and don't like the Persians, but no one there would actually attack Iran. And even with Israel not on their borders, Israel doesn't threaten Iran's existence. Israel has had nukes for almost 50 years now, and they've never deployed them. For all of Israel's faults, at least most of the time they resort to military or subversive force is when they deal with countries and entities that have publicly stated their desire to destroy the entire nation of Israel and to rid the Middle East of all Jews. And as we've seen with the Abraham Accords, Israel is perfectly fine living in peace with their neighbors if it's reciprocal. Nothing about Iran and getting nuclear weapons is existential, unless the existential part is being able to destroy other countries. If that's the case, find a different existential need that doesn't need nukes.

Qadaffi gave up his nukes and he's dead. Ukraine gave up theirs and got invaded.Those are good examples of why it pays to have a nuclear sabre to rattle- give me some counter-examples of countries that surrendered their nukes and lived happily ever after.

And Iran had a 20 year war with its next door neighbor but of course that could never happen again...

Gaddafi and Libya never had nuclear weapons. Wanting to have them is vastly different than actually having them. Gaddafi died because he was a strongman and authoritarian ruler and eventually there was enough opposition to him in his country that he was overthrown. Of course, Obama's penchant for extrajudicial drone strikes certainly aided in that endeavor, but in the end, nuclear weapons, or the lack thereof, had absolutely nothing to do with Gaddafi's downfall.

The Iraq/Iran war was as much of a Cold War phenomenon than anything else. Soviets pumped money and weapons into Iran and Iraq was basking in backing from the US. And in the end, absolutely nothing came of it. And it was 8 years not 20.

By your argument, every country should have nuclear weapons so they can use them as a form of deterrence from war. That's 195 nuclear countries you're advocating. That's sheer lunacy. The last time nuclear weapons were used in the world was 1945, but by your unthought out approach we'd probably have a few nuclear exchanges every few years. Nuclear non-proliferation means that it's very unlikely that anyone uses them - indeed, we're 80 years now since they were last used. Seems to be working. No one invaded Libya because they didn't have nuclear weapons, the leadership there fell apart because they brutalized their own population and the population rose up. As for Ukraine, again, living next to a tyrant-run former superpower like Russia was their biggest issue - heck, you could argue that Russia would've went in sooner had they thought they could grab any nukes Ukraine was still holding onto.

[Caribbean Hen]

Libya and Ukraine aren't good examples. In Libya, it was a backwards country with a singular, military strongman, that was holding that country together. His demise through age is what ultimately caused that country to stumble as they did. Ukraine, on the other hand, had a large predator nation on their border who did and still does threaten their existence. Neither of those is like Iran. Iran is a pretty advanced country in terms of education, technology, etc. And they don't have anyone on their borders that really threaten their existence. The Arab nations are pretty racist and don't like the Persians, but no one there would actually attack Iran. And even with Israel not on their borders, Israel doesn't threaten Iran's existence. Israel has had nukes for almost 50 years now, and they've never deployed them. For all of Israel's faults, at least most of the time they resort to military or subversive force is when they deal with countries and entities that have publicly stated their desire to destroy the entire nation of Israel and to rid the Middle East of all Jews. And as we've seen with the Abraham Accords, Israel is perfectly fine living in peace with their neighbors if it's reciprocal. Nothing about Iran and getting nuclear weapons is existential, unless the existential part is being able to destroy other countries. If that's the case, find a different existential need that doesn't need nukes.

Qadaffi gave up his nukes and he's dead. Ukraine gave up theirs and got invaded.Those are good examples of why it pays to have a nuclear sabre to rattle- give me some counter-examples of countries that surrendered their nukes and lived happily ever after.

And Iran had a 20 year war with its next door neighbor but of course that could never happen again...

How is Racheal still on the air

[houndawg]

Qadaffi gave up his nukes and he's dead. Ukraine gave up theirs and got invaded.Those are good examples of why it pays to have a nuclear sabre to rattle- give me some counter-examples of countries that surrendered their nukes and lived happily ever after.

And Iran had a 20 year war with its next door neighbor but of course that could never happen again...

Gaddafi and Libya never had nuclear weapons. Wanting to have them is vastly different than actually having them. Gaddafi died because he was a strongman and authoritarian ruler and eventually there was enough opposition to him in his country that he was overthrown. Of course, Obama's penchant for extrajudicial drone strikes certainly aided in that endeavor, but in the end, nuclear weapons, or the lack thereof, had absolutely nothing to do with Gaddafi's downfall.

The Iraq/Iran war was as much of a Cold War phenomenon than anything else. Soviets pumped money and weapons into Iran and Iraq was basking in backing from the US. And in the end, absolutely nothing came of it. And it was 8 years not 20.

By your argument, every country should have nuclear weapons so they can use them as a form of deterrence from war.That's 195 nuclear countries you're advocating. That's sheer lunacy. The last time nuclear weapons were used in the world was 1945, but by your unthought out approach we'd probably have a few nuclear exchanges every few years. Nuclear non-proliferation means that it's very unlikely that anyone uses them - indeed, we're 80 years now since they were last used. Seems to be working. No one invaded Libya because they didn't have nuclear weapons, the leadership there fell apart because they brutalized their own population and the population rose up. As for Ukraine, again, living next to a tyrant-run former superpower like Russia was their biggest issue - heck, you could argue that Russia would've went in sooner had they thought they could grab any nukes Ukraine was still holding onto.

....yeah, you could, but nobody would take you seriously. A much stronger argument would be that if Ukraine had kept their nukes Russia wouldn't be there today and that if Kazakhstan and Belarus had kept theirs neither would be Russian puppets today. Of course they didn't have the resources to maintain older Soviet technology nearing the end of its lifetime; thats a straw man to my premise but it does underscore the fact that many who can afford the cost of a nuclear arsenal and the expense of maintaining it choose to do so and Trump's craven behavior with respect to our allies is also proof that they were correct to do so as a hedge against our opponents divide and conquer strategy.

If your nation has nuclear weapons it has a much smaller chance of being fucked with by a neighbor.

[GannonFan]

Gaddafi and Libya never had nuclear weapons. Wanting to have them is vastly different than actually having them. Gaddafi died because he was a strongman and authoritarian ruler and eventually there was enough opposition to him in his country that he was overthrown. Of course, Obama's penchant for extrajudicial drone strikes certainly aided in that endeavor, but in the end, nuclear weapons, or the lack thereof, had absolutely nothing to do with Gaddafi's downfall.

The Iraq/Iran war was as much of a Cold War phenomenon than anything else. Soviets pumped money and weapons into Iran and Iraq was basking in backing from the US. And in the end, absolutely nothing came of it. And it was 8 years not 20.

By your argument, every country should have nuclear weapons so they can use them as a form of deterrence from war.That's 195 nuclear countries you're advocating. That's sheer lunacy. The last time nuclear weapons were used in the world was 1945, but by your unthought out approach we'd probably have a few nuclear exchanges every few years. Nuclear non-proliferation means that it's very unlikely that anyone uses them - indeed, we're 80 years now since they were last used. Seems to be working. No one invaded Libya because they didn't have nuclear weapons, the leadership there fell apart because they brutalized their own population and the population rose up. As for Ukraine, again, living next to a tyrant-run former superpower like Russia was their biggest issue - heck, you could argue that Russia would've went in sooner had they thought they could grab any nukes Ukraine was still holding onto.

....yeah, you could, but nobody would take you seriously. A much stronger argument would be that if Ukraine had kept their nukes Russia wouldn't be there today and that if Kazakhstan and Belarus had kept theirs neither would be Russian puppets today. Of course they didn't have the resources to maintain older Soviet technology nearing the end of its lifetime; thats a straw man to my premise but it does underscore the fact that many who can afford the cost of a nuclear arsenal and the expense of maintaining it choose to do so and Trump's craven behavior with respect to our allies is also proof that they were correct to do so as a hedge against our opponents divide and conquer strategy.

If your nation has nuclear weapons it has a much smaller chance of being fucked with by a neighbor.

And yet, despite this, people keep trying to F with Israel, so your nuclear deterrence argument doesn't hold up on reflection. And if it doesn't hold up with even this small sample size, it just validated the lunacy of your idea that every country should have nukes. At least with the small group of nations today having nukes, no one has used one since 1945. I'd prefer to keep it that way.

[houndawg]

....yeah, you could, but nobody would take you seriously. A much stronger argument would be that if Ukraine had kept their nukes Russia wouldn't be there today and that if Kazakhstan and Belarus had kept theirs neither would be Russian puppets today. Of course they didn't have the resources to maintain older Soviet technology nearing the end of its lifetime; thats a straw man to my premise but it does underscore the fact that many who can afford the cost of a nuclear arsenal and the expense of maintaining it choose to do so and Trump's craven behavior with respect to our allies is also proof that they were correct to do so as a hedge against our opponents divide and conquer strategy.

If your nation has nuclear weapons it has a much smaller chance of being fucked with by a neighbor.

And yet, despite this, people keep trying to F with Israel, so your nuclear deterrence argument doesn't hold up on reflection. And if it doesn't hold up with even this small sample size, it just validated the lunacy of your idea that every country should have nukes. At least with the small group of nations today having nukes, no one has used one since 1945. I'd prefer to keep it that way.

...your words, not mine, slippery boy. Describing an existing reality in no way means I support everybody having nukes. My preference would be that nobody has them and the point you keep ignoring is that small countries with nukes aren't going to give them up because the big countries witth nukes can't be trusted to keep their word. Especially now our word as a nation means nothing on the world stage and once people get used to working around us they won't be coming back. For all practical purposes China is the world's leader now - our descending line may not have crossed their ascending one yet but the deal has done been did. Now get back to work McFry! Lazy dog round-eye!

[GannonFan]

And yet, despite this, people keep trying to F with Israel, so your nuclear deterrence argument doesn't hold up on reflection. And if it doesn't hold up with even this small sample size, it just validated the lunacy of your idea that every country should have nukes. At least with the small group of nations today having nukes, no one has used one since 1945. I'd prefer to keep it that way.

...your words, not mine, slippery boy. Describing an existing reality in no way means I support everybody having nukes. My preference would be that nobody has them and the point you keep ignoring is that small countries with nukes aren't going to give them up because the big countries witth nukes can't be trusted to keep their word. Especially now our word as a nation means nothing on the world stage and once people get used to working around us they won't be coming back. For all practical purposes China is the world's leader now - our descending line may not have crossed their ascending one yet but the deal has done been did. Now get back to work McFry! Lazy dog round-eye!

Other than Russia, what large country with nukes has used the leverage of nukes to accomplish anything? And you never made the point that small countries with nukes (of which there are none) won't give them up so it was pretty easy for me to ignore a point you never made. As for our word, please, you have to be ignoring more than a century of US history to think that we only recently became difficult to trust on the world stage, or that we're really any different from anyone else on the world stage. China as a world leader? How? Manufacturing has been fleeing China for a good decade now and will continue to do so - you talk about the US not being trusted, but you must have missed the memo on China's prolific larceny of intellectual property. Since they aren't the low cost producer anymore, there's even less reason to build there. And, couple that with the demographic bomb that is China's future over the next 50 years as their population is cut in half and China has a lot more to worry about than fulfilling your unsubstantiated world leader declaration. And I can do all of this admonishing while still working.

[BDKJMU]

Pssssst, wake up hop head.

Israel didn't attack anyone last Oct. Game over, thanks for playing

1). This didn’t start last October
2). Israel has exceeded any justifiable response to Hamas picking the fight. And they have perpetrated war crimes against civilian populations.
3). Hop head? I haven’t had a beer in 5 years.

The Palestians elected Hamas
The Germans elected the NAZIS

Japan did a sneak attack on the US
Palestine did a sneak attack on Israel.

The allies LEVELED virtually every major German and Japanese city. Threw in a couple A bombs to boot. Killed a couple million civilians while at it. Gee the libs weren’t posting a bunch of pics of all the dead Krout and Jap civilians while calling the allies war criminals. Allies didn’t stop until German and Japan surrendered unconditionally. The Israelis are no more war criminals for leveling Gaza than the allies were for leveling Germany amd Japan. Israel is completely justified in turning all of Gaza into one Giant parking lot. They shouldn‘t stop until Hamas surrenders unconditionally.

[Caribbean Hen]

1). This didn’t start last October
2). Israel has exceeded any justifiable response to Hamas picking the fight. And they have perpetrated war crimes against civilian populations.
3). Hop head? I haven’t had a beer in 5 years.

The Palestians elected Hamas
The Germans elected the NAZIS

Japan did a sneak attack on the US
Palestine did a sneak attack on Israel.

The allies LEVELED virtually every major German and Japanese city. Threw in a couple A bombs to boot. Killed a couple million civilians while at it. Gee the libs weren’t posting a bunch of pics of all the dead Krout and Jap civilians while calling the allies war criminals. Allies didn’t stop until German and Japan surrendered unconditionally. The Israelis are no more war criminals for leveling Gaza than the allies were for leveling Germany amd Japan. Israel is completely justified in turning all of Gaza into one Giant parking lot. They shouldn‘t stop until Hamas surrenders unconditionally.

Exactly

But people like Klam are not fans of winning and actually WW2 was the last conflict we were “allowed” to win

[houndawg]

...your words, not mine, slippery boy. Describing an existing reality in no way means I support everybody having nukes. My preference would be that nobody has them and the point you keep ignoring is that small countries with nukes aren't going to give them up because the big countries witth nukes can't be trusted to keep their word. Especially now our word as a nation means nothing on the world stage and once people get used to working around us they won't be coming back. For all practical purposes China is the world's leader now - our descending line may not have crossed their ascending one yet but the deal has done been did. Now get back to work McFry! Lazy dog round-eye!

Other than Russia, what large country with nukes has used the leverage of nukes to accomplish anything? And you never made the point that small countries with nukes (of which there are none) won't give them up so it was pretty easy for me to ignore a point you never made. As for our word, please, you have to be ignoring more than a century of US history to think that we only recently became difficult to trust on the world stage, or that we're really any different from anyone else on the world stage. China as a world leader? How? Manufacturing has been fleeing China for a good decade now and will continue to do so - you talk about the US not being trusted, but you must have missed the memo on China's prolific larceny of intellectual property. Since they aren't the low cost producer anymore, there's even less reason to build there. And, couple that with the demographic bomb that is China's future over the next 50 years as their population is cut in half and China has a lot more to worry about than fulfilling your unsubstantiated world leader declaration. And I can do all of this admonishing while still working.

North Korea. Israel.

default.

[UNI88]

Trump Got This One Right

The brute fact is that Trump, more than any other president, Republican or Democrat, has taken decisive action against one of the two most dangerous nuclear programs in the world (the other being North Korea’s). The Iranian government has for a generation not only spewed hatred at the United States and Israel, and at the West generally, but committed and abetted terrorism throughout the Middle East and as far as Europe and Latin America. Every day, its drones deliver death to Ukrainian cities. The Iranian government is a deeply hostile regime that has brought misery to many.

A nuclear-armed Iran might very well have used a nuclear weapon against Israel, which is, as one former Iranian president repeatedly declared, “a one-bomb country.” Because Israel might well have attempted to forestall such a blow with a preemptive nuclear strike of its own, the question is more likely when an Iranian bomb would have triggered the use of nuclear weapons, not whether it would have done so. But even without that apocalyptic possibility, a nuclear-armed Iran would have its own umbrella of deterrence to continue the terror and subversion with which it has persecuted its neighbors. There is no reason to think the regime has any desire to moderate those tendencies.

This article/opinion piece should be dismissed without consideration and we have the receipts ...

And yet another to a LONG list of hoaxes peddled by the Atlantic.

Its a definite nothing burger. I don't even believe the guy from the Atlantic, 99.999999% chance hes lying

The Atlantic. Holy shit.

The Atlantic. Fuck you lazy bitch.

Or trump is a blind squirrel that finds a nut occasionally.

[kalm]

Trump Got This One Right

The brute fact is that Trump, more than any other president, Republican or Democrat, has taken decisive action against one of the two most dangerous nuclear programs in the world (the other being North Korea’s). The Iranian government has for a generation not only spewed hatred at the United States and Israel, and at the West generally, but committed and abetted terrorism throughout the Middle East and as far as Europe and Latin America. Every day, its drones deliver death to Ukrainian cities. The Iranian government is a deeply hostile regime that has brought misery to many.

A nuclear-armed Iran might very well have used a nuclear weapon against Israel, which is, as one former Iranian president repeatedly declared, “a one-bomb country.” Because Israel might well have attempted to forestall such a blow with a preemptive nuclear strike of its own, the question is more likely when an Iranian bomb would have triggered the use of nuclear weapons, not whether it would have done so. But even without that apocalyptic possibility, a nuclear-armed Iran would have its own umbrella of deterrence to continue the terror and subversion with which it has persecuted its neighbors. There is no reason to think the regime has any desire to moderate those tendencies.

This article/opinion piece should be dismissed without consideration and we have the receipts ...

And yet another to a LONG list of hoaxes peddled by the Atlantic.

Its a definite nothing burger. I don't even believe the guy from the Atlantic, 99.999999% chance hes lying

The Atlantic. Holy shit.

The Atlantic. Fuck you lazy bitch.

Or trump is a blind squirrel that finds a nut occasionally.

What adds to this is that the Atlantic is a centrist publication. Many on the left can’t stand it either.

[BDKJMU]

Trump Got This One Right

This article/opinion piece should be dismissed without consideration and we have the receipts ...

Or trump is a blind squirrel that finds a nut occasionally.

What adds to this is that the Atlantic is a centrist publication. Many on the left can’t stand it either.

Lol the Atlantic is a leftist rag. Them giving kudos to Trump this one time is because:
-Trump’s right
-They can say, “See, we’re not always anti-Trump. See this article on the Iran bombing.”
They are just anti-Trump 99% of the time. This is the 1%..