|
eke out posted:you can recognize that there's an obvious reason that Iran and the DPRK are being incentivized to pursue nuclear weapons (namely, we elected Trump who shattered the historic deal we made, and, more broadly, constant changes in presidential administrations make us an incredibly unreliable partner, since Bush did the same thing with the DPRK) without taking the next step to "wow if only Saddam had nukes too we'd be at peace, actually nukes are good now" Not talking about Saddam, who actually did some aggressive and stupid things over the years. I think there is a case to be made that everything Iran has done over the last 40 years has been a justified response to American aggression, and that aggression will stop the second they get a working nuke and medium range delivery system. Nuke proliferation is still a bad thing, and it would be better for the world if Iran didn't have them, I just hate our media going on about how evil and crazy they are. Of course they want nukes. Its entirety logical and in their self defense interests. WorldsStongestNerd fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Jan 5, 2020 |
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 03:56 |
|
|
oxsnard posted:Yeah, sorry, that post was meant to be tongue in cheek but upon rereading it comes off as literal. I don't wish anyone new to have nukes, but there's sone appeal to the notion that we can stop loving around in the middle east once we have a valid threat to our lovely imperialism Yes as soon as Iran unveils a nuclear weapons we’re going to throw up our hands and go “welp game over pack it in!” and not instead substantially ratchet up tensions to face a new perceived threat. Come on guys. Just because the USSR and that US didn’t nuke each other means doesn’t mean nuclear weapons are a cheat code to step aside from conflict.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
Celexi posted:And most Americans and American Media will be okay with this and hail as a win. It really makes for bad relations when you can get murdered when trying to negotiate peace with an US ally or client. American support for assassinating foreign military officials is going to end up exactly at Trump's approval rating like everything else in this nation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
Celexi posted:I am still trying to process this because this is all too hosed up, Iran goes to Iraq to talk with sunnis or KSA, the US promptly bombs and murders the delegation, this is beyond hosed up. Do we actually know the reason for Soleimani's visit? I may have missed some news exquisite tea posted:American support for assassinating foreign military officials is going to end up exactly at Trump's approval rating like everything else in this nation. Support for "eating rear end" at 62-38, tracking Trump's approval perfectly. e: 69-31 Failed Imagineer fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Jan 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:Yes as soon as Iran unveils a nuclear weapons we’re going to throw up our hands and go “welp game over pack it in!” and not instead substantially ratchet up tensions to face a new perceived threat. Its exactly what it means...It is a cheat code that bypasses direct conflict and results in proxies of non-nuclear allies fighting each other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Do we actually know the reason for Soleimani's visit? I may have missed some news https://twitter.com/janearraf/status/1213823941321592834
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
Remember the Pakistani guy who sold Iran the nuclear secrets, and then the US said it was fine not to prosecute him as he was rich/powerful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
pkay posted:Its exactly what it means...It is a cheat code that bypasses direct conflict and results in proxies of non-nuclear allies fighting each other. Did you really post this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
sheeeeeeeeeeit thanks tho
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:Yes as soon as Iran unveils a nuclear weapons we’re going to throw up our hands and go “welp game over pack it in!” and not instead substantially ratchet up tensions to face a new perceived threat. Like we did with North Korea? Hmm I wonder why we always handle them with kids gloves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
we're not even a week into 2020 yet and it's already bad enough that we can actually use the legal definition of perfidy in conversation (because that's what the thing we/the saudis did here is)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:29
|
|
|
WorldsStongestNerd posted:Like we did with North Korea? Hmm I wonder why we always handle them with kids gloves. I mean, the logistics of millions of starving Koreans might also have something to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:29
|
|
|
I have never seen a convincing argument why the United States, Israel, or whoever deserves to have nuclear weapons, while North Korea, Iran, etc., do not. It always seems to boil down to "we're the good guys and they're the bad guys", and like, who's fought more wars, invaded more countries, committed more atrocities, Iran or the US?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
WorldsStongestNerd posted:Like we did with North Korea? Hmm I wonder why we always handle them with kids gloves. Because China and Russia. N.Korea is protected by being beside China and Russia, neither want the US beside them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
The stupidest loving part of this is that I can totally see Trump knowing that Soleimani was there to mediate, getting told by the military that Soleimani was in their sights, and then deciding it was okay to order the strike because he honestly didn't connect the first thing with the second.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
WorldsStongestNerd posted:Like we did with North Korea? Hmm I wonder why we always handle them with kids gloves. The reverse is also true: once Ukraine reaffirmed its agreement to denuclearize, it became Russia's playground. Nukes are terrible and the world would be better off without them, but in the reality we're stuck with, they're an incredible chip to buy-in on the world stage. They're the only reason anyone pays any attention to Pakistan, for example. The thing with India/Pakistan is terrible for the stability of the world, but it's great for their individual clout with other nations. It sucks, but I don't see how you can claim otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
Theoretically, we have controls in place to prevent an insane person from mashing a giant red "LAUNCH NUKES" button
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
So Trump convinced Iraq to invite Soleimani over to ease tensions, and then assassinated him when he arrived. That is literally a war crime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
Deserves' got nothing to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
The Pussy Boss posted:I have never seen a convincing argument why the United States, Israel, or whoever deserves to have nuclear weapons, while North Korea, Iran, etc., do not. It always seems to boil down to "we're the good guys and they're the bad guys", and like, who's fought more wars, invaded more countries, committed more atrocities, Iran or the US? Almost every statement made in life that revolves around the word "deserves" can be refuted with "says who?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:The stupidest loving part of this is that I can totally see Trump knowing that Soleimani was there to mediate, getting told by the military that Soleimani was in their sights, and then deciding it was okay to order the strike because he honestly didn't connect the first thing with the second. He once threw a tantrum because Hugh Hewitt (who hilariously enough has since torched his reputation by becoming a Trump sycophant) brought up Soleimani and others in a radio interview and Trump called them "gotcha" questions when everyone mocked him for obviously not knowing who any of them were.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Zophar posted:So Trump convinced Iraq to invite Soleimani over to ease tensions, and then assassinated him when he arrived. That is literally a war crime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
The Pussy Boss posted:I have never seen a convincing argument why the United States, Israel, or whoever deserves to have nuclear weapons, while North Korea, Iran, etc., do not. It always seems to boil down to "we're the good guys and they're the bad guys", and like, who's fought more wars, invaded more countries, committed more atrocities, Iran or the US? If the question is who should have nukes, the answer is nobody, and certainly not the rogue states which have them now. If the question is who would want to have nukes, the answer is everybody in a conflict zone without very good nuclear allies because otherwise you just get pushed around by those who do. If the question is who deserves to have nukes, the answer varies but it's definitely not the rogue nation which has already used them twice to kill people while also waging untold amounts of war because of money and religious zealotry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Theoretically, we have controls in place to prevent an insane person from mashing a giant red "LAUNCH NUKES" button Not if that person is the president we don’t.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
The Pussy Boss posted:I have never seen a convincing argument why the United States, Israel, or whoever deserves to have nuclear weapons, while North Korea, Iran, etc., do not. It always seems to boil down to "we're the good guys and they're the bad guys", and like, who's fought more wars, invaded more countries, committed more atrocities, Iran or the US? The argument isn’t that the US deserves to have nuclear weapons, it’s that nuclear weapons are bad and it’s better that there are as few countries that have them as possible - both because they’re objectively bad and it will make it easier to promote nuclear disarmament for the countries that have them. The horse has already escaped the barn, but the solution isn’t to open up all the other stalls and go “might as well let everyone go free!” There are also inherent benefits of the countries having nukes to be well established with a stable political and military infrastructure and funding to support upkeep in terms of keeping nuclear weapons under control (again because we can’t magic wand these weapons away)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:The horse has already escaped the barn, but the solution isn’t to open up all the other stalls and go “might as well let everyone go free!”
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Not if that person is the president we don’t. I don't think Trump could launch a nuke if he wanted to
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
Again, why do you think the hypothetical response to a newly nuclear Iran would be “let’s withdraw“l vs “let’s attack them now because they only have a few nukes and no delivery system to get them to the US” Russia and the US developed weapons and capabilities in close lockstep and we still almost preemptively attacked them
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:I legit hope Iran gets a nuke, and this is coming from someone who was all in on the war in 2003. It makes me feel weird even though I know my past self was a rear end in a top hat I’m the reverse in that I was always against Iraq but see the need for war with Iran. I think it mostly comes down to Hussein being something we installed who was also generally fine being limited to tyranny in his own backyard. Yeah, he’s terrible, but he isn’t threatening a guy next door the way NK does to the South or the way Iran does sponsoring paramilitaries across borders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
WorldsStongestNerd posted:
No there isn't, since much of it involved murdering civilians I'm the region.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:The horse has already escaped the barn, but the solution isn’t to open up all the other stalls and go “might as well let everyone go free!” Nobody has been arguing for that, though. Even among the people who are saying "yeah, Iran probably ought to get armed," the context is that the country would be demonstrably safer from interference from outsiders. Not that it would be a net positive for the world -- because it certainly wouldn't be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:I don't think Trump could launch a nuke if he wanted to Well you keep latching onto that belief if it helps you sleep.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:Again, why do you think the hypothetical response to a newly nuclear Iran would be “let’s either see” vs “let’s attack them now because they only have a few nukes and no delivery system to get them to the US” Because every allied country within range would rightly see this as the US risking that country's population in order to pursue their own goals, doing more damage to the US than a single low quality nuke could ever do
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well you keep latching onto that belief if it helps you sleep. I have no other choice but to do so 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Yeah, he’s terrible, but he isn’t threatening a guy next door the way NK does to the South or the way Iran does sponsoring paramilitaries across borders. We're allied with Saudi Arabia you idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:Again, why do you think the hypothetical response to a newly nuclear Iran would be “let’s withdraw“l vs “let’s attack them now because they only have a few nukes and no delivery system to get them to the US” Its this. Iran wants nuclear weapons largely for geopolitical and diplomatic reasons. MAD doesnt suddenly not work when they acquire one, dont Clancy this up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
Zophar posted:So Trump convinced Iraq to invite Soleimani over to ease tensions, and then assassinated him when he arrived. That is literally a war crime. And from Iraq's perspective they just got double crossed. Sure looks like we never actually wanted them to negotiate but instead lied to get Soleimani in a position where we could assassinate him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:I don't think Trump could launch a nuke if he wanted to
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I’m the reverse in that I was always against Iraq but see the need for war with Iran. I think it mostly comes down to Hussein being something we installed who was also generally fine being limited to tyranny in his own backyard. Yeah, he’s terrible, but he isn’t threatening a guy next door the way NK does to the South or the way Iran does sponsoring paramilitaries across borders. you are a loving moron
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 03:56 |
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:Ah yes North Korea having nuclear weapons sure seems great! Yeah, brown people are too dumb and fanatic to maintain their own nukes or have a command and control structure in place to control them. Only the cultured whites should have nukes, to maintain the balance of peace in the world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:42
|
|
