Iran

[hog88]

You can't use that logic because no one would accept it in the reverse. Nobody is justified TODAY to use nukes because you're losing a war with conventional weapons. How would we react if Russia used a nuke against Ukraine because a lengthy ground campaign would cause high casualties? That logic would be unacceptable in other context. But because we're Americans we have to justify our nation's evil acts.

Sorry but those were the two worst individual acts of evil in human history. No other nation has done anything close to that.

Be thankful we did use a couple nukes in 1945. Dropping those two bombs has prevented another one from being used since.

 

[hog88]

You assume such attackers entered illegally and on the Southern border and when Biden was President. What will you say if it happens and they came in while Trump was POTUS? My guess is not much.

Trump would be 100% responsible. But we know that possibility is remote.

 

[K-town Vol Fan]

Fears over Iran’s missing 400kg of uranium

Iran claims to have smuggled almost all of the country’s highly enriched uranium to a secret location before the US launched strikes on its nuclear bases.

www.yahoo.com

So much winning

 

[GroverCleveland]

View attachment 750528

Oh Lord. Trump about to ramp up Nash in the That's Racist! thread with Miga.

Would have been hilarious if you posted something like "nothing but a bunch of Migas over there!"

 

[LouderVol]

Nah. That's way too much of a stretch. I don't think Bibi or Trump either one cares about what the Saudis think in this particular case. They certainly aren't pulling any strings.

lol. they were responsible for 9/11 and we have never even blinked at them. they are pulling our strings for sure. the Israelis just lean into that aspect of influence as well.

The Sauds have long been against the Iranians. those are the two most stable/powerful in the area and have a long rivalry due to it.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Be thankful we did use a couple nukes in 1945. Dropping those two bombs has prevented another one from being used since.

Good point. And a much BIGGER one at that.

 

[NashVol11]

Where’s your comparison to make the judgement.
With Gay rights we compared both sides and both Iran and Gaza are big time moral losers. Now you want to deflect by posting an article about one side without posting the other.
It’s no surprise to anyone that Israel is tired of the **** after propping Gaza up for 15 years just to have them be more dependent on Israel and than they were before. And got attacked for it. So not at all shocking they want to live in safety by removing a threat.

Let’s see your study on the attitude from the other side. I’m betting it’s worse than that of the Israelis

I didn't deflect anything. You claimed Israelis are morally superior and given that there's a report of Israelis espousing genocidal views every few days, I am deeply skeptical they are morally superior to anyone.

And they're the ones in power! If damn near half the population is STILL saying "kill all 5 million people including women and children" then imagine what the percentage would be if they faced actual oppression

 

[volbound1700]

Be thankful we did use a couple nukes in 1945. Dropping those two bombs has prevented another one from being used since.

I have always theorized on another plan that was not brought up at the time. That was to land our army in China and wipe out the Japanese Army in China. The main motivation for the war with Japan was about China. Japan's army in China had mostly still held out and one factor that pushed Japan to surrender, along with the atomic bombs, was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the threat it created for the Japanese Army.

One interesting geopolitical item that would have helped the USA in that situation is that I don't think would have CCP China as a threat today. In fact, there would likely be a North China and South China situation similar to Korea.

I think one of the reasons that this may not have been discussed, and one major factor on why the atomic bombs were dropped, was the growing domestic opposition/frustration with the war.

 

[hog88]

Last I checked Japan didn't drop a nuke on us before we dropped two on them. You can't justify using nuclear weapons in response to conventional weapons by your opponent. If that counted as provocation then Russia could argue they can use nukes against Ukraine because Ukraine used conventional weapons against them.

They sure could use that logic but it would be asinine and Russia would have to suffer the consequences of their stupidity.

 

[tbh]

So would we be justified in dropping a nuke on Iran instead of a lengthy ground war because of how fortified their nation is because of all the mountains?

The landscape has changed in the past ~80 years, but the whole point of possessing nuclear weapons is the assumption by a nation is the assumption (by that nation and others) that conditions could exist that would justify their use.

You can try and twist yourself into a pretzel to justify the fact we dropped 2 nuclear bombs but in no other context would such an action be justified today. The only reason we did it back then is because we could get away with it cause nobody else had nukes. Not because it was somehow morally justified.

Are we talking about 80 years ago, or the present day? Seems like you're having a hard time keeping the two instances separate, and a harder time not viewing history through a modern lens. The geopolitical landscape has changed in the past 80 years (huge surprise there). War itself isn't inherently "moral" at its core. You trying to gyrate your mind into a hypothetical instance where it would be "magically" acceptable to you may be a fun thought exercise but it's only that, an exercise. Would carpet bombing the major industrial cities of Japan have been somehow more morally acceptable, in your opinion... or using pointy sticks to storm the beaches from triremes, perhaps? Using modern (at the time) technology to gain the upper hand in war isn't a new thing.

Nobody is dropping nukes today regardless of how costly a ground war would be against a fortified aggressor because other countries have nukes and might launch theirs in retaliation. It's mutually assured destruction that keeps us from using nukes today. Not because somehow it was magically justified in the 1940s and no other time afterwards. Best believe if Japan had nukes back then we wouldn't have dropped anything for fear of retaliation. We only did it cause we could get away with it as the first mover.

Operative words highlighted in bold. Your take on this is about as sharp as your "even though they outscored us, we really kinda won the game if you think about it" takes over the years. Japan didn't have nukes, that is correct, but the US had that technology, and leveraged it to bring a swifter end to the war with potentially less bloodshed than a conventional campaign. Use of nuclear weapons in a conflict today would likely not achieve either of those objectives.

 

[evillawyer]

3-D chess, b!tches!

 

[volbound1700]

3-D chess, b!tches!

Agree, Trump constantly posting on Twitter (or X now) is not helpful by any measure.

Also it is 4-D Chess now .

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

@Orangeslice13
@NashVol11

Looking for "who is more moral" is fruitless in world politics. We don't align with countries based on morality but based upon our interests.

The Saudis, for example, have a human rights record that would rival the Mongols. Absolutely brutal regime from every angle of human rights.

The Israelis have an abortion law which is among the most liberal in the world, including 3rd trimester abortion being legal and most abortions state funded. Basically, the most defenseless are worthless including the Orthodox view of not even requiring a funeral for a child less than 1 month old.

They are our close allies not because we embrace their culture or morality but because they align with our version of safety for the region and for the world.

Leave morality out of it. Humans are inherently savage, tribal beasts.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

and Saudi Arabia. Don't underestimate how much Saudi Arabia is pushing USA and Israel into these actions. The Houthis were the enemies of the Saudis.

That’s the dirty little secret. The Saudis are loving this, the Jordanians are loving this, the Pakistanis are letting us use their airspace for intelligence gathering, $hit even the Taliban has had combat engagements with the Iranians in the past few years, but poor little Iran is being bullied. Their only friends are the Houthis, Hamas and a bunch of other $hitty terrorist organizations. What a time to be alive.

 

[NashVol11]

@Orangeslice13
@NashVol11

Looking for "who is more moral" is fruitless in world politics. We don't align with countries based on morality but based upon our interests.

The Saudis, for example, have a human rights record that would rival the Mongols. Absolutely brutal regime from every angle of human rights.

The Israelis have an abortion law which is among the most liberal in the world, including 3rd trimester abortion being legal and most abortions state funded. Basically, the most defenseless are worthless including the Orthodox view of not even requiring a funeral for a child less than 1 month old.

They are our close allies not because we embrace their culture or morality but because they align with our version of safety for the region and for the world.

Leave morality out of it. Humans are inherently savage, tribal beasts.

For the most part I agree. Most of the "moral superiority" and "good guys" claims come from the Israel side, because they need that framing to justify questionable actions (and our conversation is about Gaza as much as anything else)

 

[NashVol11]

 

[Tin Man]

Assuming that Iran still has a supply of enriched uranium, even if they lack the ability to create and deliver a nuclear bomb during the present conflict, they could create and deliver a “dirty bomb.” The risks of the continuation of hostilities are very high. In response to the US bombing of their nuclear enrichment facilities, Iran has dismissed the US as a broker for ending hostilities with Israel. Who now can act to keep hostilities from escalating and expanding into other countries?

 

[evillawyer]

I love the central politburo of energy pricing! Definitely not commie like.

 

[McDad]

Assuming that Iran still has a supply of enriched uranium, even if they lack the ability to create and deliver a nuclear bomb during the present conflict, they could create and deliver a “dirty bomb.” The risks of the continuation of hostilities are very high. In response to the US bombing of their nuclear enrichment facilities, Iran has dismissed the US as a broker for ending hostilities with Israel. Who now can act to keep hostilities from escalating and expanding into other countries?

Switzerland. Mauritania. Japan. Sweden. Great Britain. Canada. Monaco. Lichtenstein. Italy. Portugal. Australia. Uruguay.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

For the most part I agree. Most of the "moral superiority" and "good guys" claims come from the Israel side, because they need that framing to justify questionable actions (and our conversation is about Gaza as much as anything else)

Actually, if you were Muslim you'd think the Iranian side had some moral high ground in the fight, I'd bet.

Politics and morality have no business mingling. I don't care if the Saudis chop heads off for blasphemy to Allah, we need them as allies. I don't care if the Israelis have no real problem with late term abortion, we need them allies.

Let God sort them out. I'm busy trying to not get sorted incorrectly myself.

 

[Smokey123]

Then tell us what actually happened if I'm misrepresenting it. Did the UK and US not depose a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 to install the Shah? Did the Shah not have a brutally repressive regime? Did the Islamic Revolution not happen in response to said repressive regime that we supported?

Please tell us what I misrepresented. Obviously I simplified 70+ years of history cause we're on a message board. But that simplification is accurate and didn't misrepresent anything.

Iran has always had a shah long before the coup. The shah would nominate a PM and then the parliament would vote on the approval. Mosaddegh himself was trying to become a dictator, from stopping the votes in 52’ to disbanding the parliament to running the shah out of the country. Even nationalist like Kashani had turned against him because his policies were destroying their economy

so in summary iran was never a democracy, the US never installed a shah and they continued to have new prime ministers after the coup

And btw the reza shah is the one who made Iran “secular”

 

[OrangeTsar]

Yeah we've been told they were weeks away from nukes for like 40 years, and none of it was true. You are taking the wrong lesson from this

Which merely means that the correct actions have been taken to prevent it from happening. Duh.
It’s like when you doctor says if you don’t change your diet, you are weeks away from a heart attack. You follow your doctor’s advice for 40 years and are still alive. But then you make fun of your doctor for being “wrong”

 

[LSU-SIU]

You say it so often........ While nobody else is........... It's almost as if your giddy with the prospect and cheering it on.

Cheering it on? I'm not the nut that wants to fight everyone. I got out of that mess because of this kind of stuff and it wasn't close to being as bad as this.

Its complete entertainment at this point as I have no real power to make insane people sane. Yes, we're way past the black comedy stage.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Iran has always had a shah long before the coup. The shah would nominate a PM and then the parliament would vote on the approval. Mosaddegh himself was trying to become a dictator, from stopping the votes in 52’ to disbanding the parliament to running the shah out of the country. Even nationalist like Kashani had turned against him because his policies were destroying their economy

so in summary iran was never a democracy, the US never installed a shah and they continued to have new prime ministers after the coup

And btw the reza shah is the one who made Iran “secular”

The CIA declassified its role in the establishment of the Shah.

Loading…

www.cia.gov

 

[NashVol11]

Which merely means that the correct actions have been taken to prevent it from happening. Duh.
It’s like when you doctor says if you don’t change your diet, you are weeks away from a heart attack. You follow your doctor’s advice for 40 years and are still alive. But then you make fun of your doctor for being “wrong”

It's adorable that you're this gullible