Iran

[McDad]

To attack an enemy, knowing full well they are lunatics into an existential war, knowing what extreme measures they are likely to employ in advance, and then to eliminate complete and total self blame for initiating this process on yourself entirely is a stupid take. It really is man.

We can’t control their crazy, but we at least are trying to control our crazy.

I understand that context of your post. Also, I can appreciate that is was crafted as a specific reply to another poster. I would like to expand on your thoughts and take it in a slightly different direction.

"We can't control their crazy" seems to be the justification for how we approach Iran. And many people, even those who oppose the current "war", agree with the concept that crazy must be neutralized before the crazies do something horrific. On our own soil, we see the rationale applied to the Branch Davidian Cult in Waco, TX during Clinton's presidency. Many people feel that was justified because of the reports of weaponry on their compound. In fact, I would go so far as to say many said that was the smart thing to do because we couldn't risk crazy people doing crazy things with extremely lethal weaponry.

Pivot back toward Iran. If the rationale outlined above is smart, justified, necessary, then certainly it is true for crazy attempting to enrich nuclear material to be nuclear weapon capable. That level of weaponry is on a magnitude exponentially more threatening that anything found at a compound in Texas. Furthermore, that crazy and the threat they pose is in a dangerously close proximity to the liquid which runs the planet. It is easy to see how those who favor military action come to their conclusions.

I am not saying I agree with preemptive action on crazy. In fact, I don't until the suspected threat is actually realized.

 

[Orangeslice13]

yeah that worked so well right next door in Afghanistan...

that MAY work against a first world nation, but even then it takes far more than just turning out the lights. you have to hit ALL of the civilian infrastructure.

we bombed Germany to hades and back, and they didn't surrender fighting on two fronts against the two super powers of the day until they lost Berlin. and that was after literally years of day and night constant bombing. a few precision strikes a day isn't going to cripple Iran to the point of really bringing them to their knees.

Japan surrendered because they had lost most of their navy, and most of their airforce, had lost millions of lives, most of their army was trapped in China, and again we literally had to invent a new form of war (nuclear) to get them to blink.

as awesome as our military is today its no where close to the devastation we unleashed 80 years ago that won us wars. trying to compare the two is like High School football freshman against Veteran NFL players. yeah they are playing the same sport technically, but in all practicality there is nothing similar between the two to draw comparisons.

We didn’t fight to win in Afghanistan that was more “measured response “ nonsense.
Japan surrendered unconditionally as did Germany because they lost and it was devastating.
Again…..is it worth that kind of fight to attack Iran? Because clearly we’re not willing to do what it takes to create unconditional surrender. That’s a really high bar. I don’t think the Iran situation is anywhere near requiring our attention. We should not attack anyone unless the need rises to the level that we’re willing to do whatever is necessary.

Maybe we should stop attacking anyone who doesn’t attack us.

 

[EasternVol]

I understand that context of your post. Also, I can appreciate that is was crafted as a specific reply to another poster. I would like to expand on your thoughts and take it in a slightly different direction.

"We can't control their crazy" seems to be the justification for how we approach Iran. And many people, even those who oppose the current "war", agree with the concept that crazy must be neutralized before the crazies do something horrific. On our own soil, we see the rationale applied to the Branch Davidian Cult in Waco, TX during Clinton's presidency. Many people feel that was justified because of the reports of weaponry on their compound. In fact, I would go so far as to say many said that was the smart thing to do because we couldn't risk crazy people doing crazy things with extremely lethal weaponry.

Pivot back toward Iran. If the rationale outlined above is smart, justified, necessary, then certainly it is true for crazy attempting to enrich nuclear material to be nuclear weapon capable. That level of weaponry is on a magnitude exponentially more threatening that anything found at a compound in Texas. Furthermore, that crazy and the threat they pose is in a dangerously close proximity to the liquid which runs the planet. It is easy to see how those who favor military action come to their conclusions.

I am not saying I agree with preemptive action on crazy. In fact, I don't until the suspected threat is actually realized.

That's a rather revisionist summary of the events at Mt. Carmel. Does it affect the rest of your argument?

 

[n_huffhines]

To attack an enemy, knowing full well they are lunatics into an existential war, knowing what extreme measures they are likely to employ in advance, and then to eliminate complete and total self blame for initiating this process on yourself entirely is a stupid take. It really is man.

We can’t control their crazy, but we at least are trying to control our crazy.

We certainly don't act like they are dangerous terrorists. We certainly don't act like they have sleeper cells in the US

 

[CobbVol]

plenty of shipping goes thru that straight that effects the US. I don't know if you have gone by a gas station since this war started, but we aren't isolated from it here at home.

and as was pointed out under Biden, an increase in global fuel costs is going to raise the cost of global goods.

and assuming Trump is at least interested in this joint venture idea, it would specifically be our mess.

Focusing on oil only, % of consumption through the Strait:

US - 7%
Europe - 25%
China - 50%

 

[Sea Ray]

You should read my post again and read Trump's rather than spamming Leavitt's CYA damage control from a day later. I agree, there's a lot of dumbassery posted here. Leavitt's entire job is to spin, lie and make nonsense rambling into "4D chess" for the base

View attachment 825209

Yes, that came from Iran. Where does Trump say anything about it? I know what Iran is saying. In what you've shown us here there's no comment from Trump. All he's doing here is informing us what he received

You may not like what Caroline Leavitt says but like it or not it is the official word from the White House when she speaks. You can't dismiss it as dumbassery

 

[Orangeslice13]

I understand what you are saying, but what is “winning the war”? What are we trying to accomplish? What is our long term play?

Ours currently?
I don’t think we have one.
I don’t think we had anything close to justification for our attack on Iran.

Winning is unconditional surrender…..which leads to a whole other mess in the aftermath we also want no part of

 

[McDad]

That's a rather revisionist summary of the events at Mt. Carmel. Does it affect the rest of your argument?

You can disagree with the details without issue.

Disagreement with the reality that neutralizing crazy exists as an applied, preemptive strategy is foolhardy.

 

[rikberry31]

So you agree that that point is being ignored? Thank you, the "strawman" claim was a nonsensical one

Talking about a point being ignored. I ask you again when did the U.S. and Israel agree to end attacks on Lebanon? Hezbollah never agreed to stop attacking Israel. Were they supposed let Hezbollah lob rockets into Israel from Southern Lebanon?
Why did Israel attack Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon? That is the question you will not answer.

 

[NashVol11]

Yes, that came from Iran. Where does Trump say anything about it? I know what Iran is saying. In what you've shown us here there's no comment from Trump. All he's doing here is informing us what he received

Again, that is what I said. His post before that about it being a workable basis, and that most points of contention are agreed, came from him, and then he also reposted Iran saying that. Read my post again

You may not like what Caroline Leavitt says but like it or not it is the official word from the White House when she speaks. You can't dismiss it as dumbassery

Lol, you can absolutely dismiss her idiotic spin as dumbassery when we all saw what Trump said himself

 

[Vol8188]

To attack an enemy, knowing full well they are lunatics into an existential war, knowing what extreme measures they are likely to employ in advance, and then to eliminate complete and total self blame for initiating this process on yourself entirely is a stupid take. It really is man.

We can’t control their crazy, but we at least are trying to control our crazy.

Everything you said only supports further action against the Iranian regime. Not less.

Being lunatics who threaten the world, isn’t a valid argument against attacking them.

 

[Vol8188]

If we disagree with almost half of what Iran proposed... That's hardly a starting point.

Most negotiations likely start with significant differences. Would you have preferred the bombing continue? If not what exactly are you upset about? You’re upset about terms we didn’t agree to?

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

SIAP .....

 

[utvolpj]

Ha

Likely cheaper and much more effective than the $250mil from Adelson

 

[Vol8188]

"Starting point" is not what he said, and you even used different wording before so who's intentionally misrepresenting?

Lmfao your argument is that calling something a basis for negations vs a starting point for negations are somehow significantly different?

That’s the type of pathetically stupid, time wasting nonsense that I would expect from you

 

[utvolpj]

SIAP .....

That's simply not true.

 

[hog88]

and somehow they fought a war without that infrastructure...
same opportunity Iran would have after we took theirs out.

you are literally trying to argue that 2000lb JDAMs are the same as nuclear bombs.

The Afgans didn't fight a war, AQ and other foreign fighters supporting the Taliban were the primary combatants who also had safe haven in Pakistan.

I am not arguing anything of the sort, you are severely mistaken and do not understand my point.

 

[rikberry31]

Where do you get that they were the sponsor of most of the terrorism in the world?

Have you been living under a rock? They have been the World's biggest terrorist menace since the 80's. Ever heard of Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Al Qaeda (they are headquartered in Teran). How about the USS Cole. They killed and maimed thousands of our soldiers in Iraq. They have sponsored several plots to kill our President. And much, much more.
Other than that they are practically Eagle Scouts.

 

[hog88]

It’s easier to live under oppression than it is to break free from it

I’d imagine they also don’t want their family slaughtered

Yeah, that's what I cannot wrap my brain around.

 

[hog88]

We? We're British? Or are you not referring to Operation Chastise?

We the allies and we the US were involved.

 

[Sea Ray]

Again, that is what I said. His post before that about it being a workable basis, and that most points of contention are agreed, came from him, and then he also reposted Iran saying that. Read my post again

Lol, you can absolutely dismiss her idiotic spin as dumbassery when we all saw what Trump said himself

Workable basis means nothing. We later heard that it was thrown in the trash. Nothing in it has been agreed to. Nothing

 

[Sudden Impact]

Trump's plan, there is no plan! Madman flying off the seat of his pants with whatever he thinks!
He has no firm grip on the situation nor does he care as long as he does what is best for him.

 

[ButchPlz]

Trump's plan, there is no plan! Madman flying off the seat of his pants with whatever he thinks!
He has no firm grip on the situation nor does he care as long as he does what is best for him.

Entering into a war and shedding blood like this with literally no plan- which you're right, is absolutely clear here- should be an impeachable offense at the very least.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Have you ever read the man's book? Trump will always take the maximalist position to start negotiations. People are shocked and offended and he ends up with more than he would have. He did the same with tariffs, If he wants a 10% tariff on a country he tells them it will be 50% and the get scared and agree to 15% tariff and are overjoyed to pay it. Most of the time when he threatened tariffs he got a deal instead.
If you have ever sold a house you have done the same thing. You want $300,000 so you list it for $350,000 and negotiate down to maybe get $325,000. Not that complicated. Trump takes advantage of knee-jerk outrage and panic and the lefties fall for it everytime. They are Charlie Brown and Trump is Lucy holding the football.

Trump's "success" in real estate has more to do with inheriting hundreds of millions of dollars and decades of compounding interest than negotiation savvy....

 

[Skooter]

They told us they already had 1000 lbs of 60% enriched uranium. They had a massive arsenal of drones and ballistic missiles. They were the sponsor of most of the terrorism in the world. They were holding the ME hostage.
They did not have a nuclear program, they had nuclear material and were bent on rebuilding their enrichment program that was destroyed last year

Are there other needs for uranium? Srs question as I do not know.