Trump lying to justify his reasons to bomb Iran.

[Pommer]

Are you serious? The DPRK having nukes is terrible but China does have a measure of control over them.

Uh huh, too bad Vlad is so busy bungling the war in Ukraine, the Russians could be Iran’s China?

Iran, on the other hand, is a terrorist nation that is hell bent on destroying Israel and the US.

I see, the only nations that should be “allowed” to have nuclear weapons are those that will never use them, (again, in the US’s case). Charming.

They are too stupid and radicalized to have any kind of restraint on that kind of power.

I try not to believe my own side’s rhetoric “too much”; Iran has been in the nation-state business a while now and I’m optimistic that they’ll be able to parse out what would be expected of a nation that successfully developed having nuclear weapons in its arsenal.
It might be wise to not confuse Iran’s current leadership with the same leadership with nuclear weapons.

They WILL use the nuclear bomb the first chance they get.

Well, we can all thank GW Bush for showing the world that if you claim to have WMD you had better have WMD.
Having a nuke is having a shield; using a nuke throws that shield away,

 

[rjs330]

Even if Iran wasn't trying to get a nuke, they will certainly try to get one now.

I don't think that Iran can be defeated just by throwing bombs at them, though. So a land invasion is neccessary now.

They were working to get one. Iran absolutely can be defeated from creating a nuclear bomb without a ground invasion. A land invasion is not necessary. Not in the traditional sense. Will they use some men on the ground to get into Forda or whatever? Maybe.

I don't have any idea. What kind of small tactics will be used, but there will be no ground invasion.

 

[rjs330]

I see, the only nations that should be “allowed” to have nuclear weapons are those that will never use them, (again, in the US’s case). Charming.

Yes we should absolutely let anyone have one who wants one regardless of who it is. I mean murderous evil terrorist fanatical regimes who support dying in a hail of death and fiee so they can be with Allah and all those virgins would never launch one. They have shown themselves to be completely rational.

 

[Hentenza]

Uh huh, too bad Vlad is so busy bungling the war in Ukraine, the Russians could be Iran’s China?


I see, the only nations that should be “allowed” to have nuclear weapons are those that will never use them, (again, in the US’s case). Charming.




I try not to believe my own side’s rhetoric “too much”; Iran has been in the nation-state business a while now and I’m optimistic that they’ll be able to parse out what would be expected of a nation that successfully developed having nuclear weapons in its arsenal.
It might be wise to not confuse Iran’s current leadership with the same leadership with nuclear weapons.



Well, we can all thank GW Bush for showing the world that if you claim to have WMD you had better have WMD.
Having a nuke is having a shield; using a nuke throws that shield away,

Brother, I am not an alarmist but I am a realist. Keeping a treaty or even their word is not Iran’s strength. We are going to have to agree to disagree here.

 

[Pommer]

Brother, I am not an alarmist but I am a realist. Keeping a treaty or even their word is not Iran’s strength. We are going to have to agree to disagree here.

What nation was it that unilaterally backed out of the JCPOA?
The “blame” should lie with them.

 

[Hentenza]

What nation was it that unilaterally backed out of the JCPOA?
The “blame” should lie with them.

Backing out of the treaty was inevitable. Iran started violating the terms of the treaty almost immediately. The blame falls on them.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT


Folks, we need to cool it with reports. This is in the Statement of Purpose:
​

Trolling​

Trolling is intentionally disrupting a thread by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the clear intention of provoking other members into an emotional response. Please do not troll. Calling another member a "troll" would be a violation of the flaming rule (calling them a derogatory name).​

An example of this would be posting #fakenews and not adding commentary.​

​

The key thing here is "not adding commentary".
When we added the part about Fake News, we had an issue with members just posting "FAKE NEWS!" or "#Fake news" or " Fake News" and then not writing anything else at all. Sometimes it was the response to every post in a thread they disagreed with.
If there is commentary, it is not violating the Statement of Purpose.

If the phrase is used, it would be wise to provide reasons that it is not true.
​

 

[Fantine]

I sensed that Trump would want to get out of the G7, as he does out of most meetings where he is not the center of attention. PM Carney put it in an isolated part of Alberta, far from news outlets. He changed the ground rules of the meetings, allowing for more individual meetings and fewer workshops, purportedly as a way to "manage" Trump.

And so I think he might be bringing up bombing Iran just to get attention. He might also know that Netanyahu, who is under indictment, is pulling out all the stops to stay in office so that he doesn't go to jail. And while Trump has some protection due to the unwise Supreme Court immunity decision of 2024, there are so many lawsuits testing the limits (and trying to establish some desperately needed ones) that he is bound to see lots of his illegal acts invalidated.

So does this have anything to do with Iran? Maybe? He just had his birthday parade, and 20,000 people showed up---while 250 times as many people (5 million) protested across the nation. No fair. Then he goes to a remote area of Canada to a conference to find that they have changed the rules to diminish his attempts to dominate. No fair. So what can he do except make some outrageous threats and show Iran who's the boss.

 

[bèlla]

Even if Iran wasn't trying to get a nuke, they will certainly try to get one now.

Russia has already agreed to store the excess uranium on their behalf. And they have a 15 year project that will result in nuclear facilities as well. It was announced a few days ago.

I don't think that Iran can be defeated just by throwing bombs at them, though. So a land invasion is neccessary now.

They’re significantly stronger than the government admits and most commentators have said the same. They also cited previous skirmishes that ‘could supposedly be won by air’ that were miscalculated.

Israel cannot defeat Iran without America‘s involvement. We shouldn’t assume we’ll be the only factors at play. This could spiral very fast now that the bombs are hitting financial assets for other nations.

If a ground offensive occurs do you think we’ll win?

~bella

 

[wing2000]

Russia has already agreed to store the excess uranium on their behalf. And they have a 15 year project that will result in nuclear facilities as well. It was announced a few days ago.

That's okay. Putin will surely consult with Trump on nuclear matters involving Iran. After all, Putin only speaks with Trump, or at least that's what Trump claimed on Monday at the G7.

 

[SimplyMe]

Backing out of the treaty was inevitable. Iran started violating the terms of the treaty almost immediately. The blame falls on them.

No, they didn't. "Violation" of the treaty only occurred after Trump backed out of it; Trump backed out in May, 2018 and Iran only violated the treaty in July, 2019.

 

[Nithavela]

If a ground offensive occurs do you think we’ll win?

Win as in militarily defeat the opposing army and oust the current leaders? Probably.

Win as in achieve lasting, desireable results? Much less likely.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Iran has a right to defend itself.

 

[Vambram]

Iran has a right to defend itself.

Yes, they do. However, does Iran have the right to build up the military of Hezbollah and Hamas? Does Iran have the right to have nuclear warheads when Iran is one of the leading state sponsors of savage terrorism?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Yes, they do. However, does Iran have the right to build up the military of Hezbollah and Hamas?

No.

Does Iran have the right to have nuclear warheads when Iran is one of the leading state sponsors of savage terrorism?

Eh.. this one’s a little trickier.

Some would say Israel is sponsoring terrorism against the Palestinian people right now. Some people also say the US sponsors terrorism and war around the globe and being the only country that has actually used nuclear weapons, that we don’t really have the moral high ground to tell others they can’t develop their own.

Do I want Iran to have a nuke? No, of course not but I don’t fear them having their hands on a weapon anymore than I fear Russia or North Korea or China or any other country that has a nuclear arsenal.

 

[bèlla]

Win as in militarily defeat the opposing army and oust the current leaders? Probably.

Win as in achieve lasting, desireable results? Much less likely.

I don’t believe we’re invincible. It’s like watching a climatic rise that ends in disgrace. We’re nearing the end of our empire economically and another will come to the fore. No one rules forever and there’s historical precedents that prove this.

~bella

 

[bèlla]

Yes, they do. However, does Iran have the right to build up the military of Hezbollah and Hamas? Does Iran have the right to have nuclear warheads when Iran is one of the leading state sponsors of savage terrorism?

Does Israel have the right to police the region and bomb another country without provocation? Should Americans be required to defend them when they take on a foe they can’t defeat without our involvement?

Iran isn’t innocent by any stretch but America’s crimes are worse. That’s frequently forgotten when we’re taking the moral ground. And don’t get me started on the spiritual note. If anyone’s deserving of judgment it‘s the U.S.

~bella

 

[The Lone Ranger]

I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you. Those words weren't written for a terrorist filled government like that in Iran.

 

[trophy33]

because if they had one they would have used it already to blow up Israel.

Proof? Even now Iran says they act in self-defense and if Israel will stop attacking, they will also stop defending themselves.

So why would they use a nuclear bomb (if they were even able to deliver it to Israel) and end basically the existence of the current Iran's regime that way? It is clear that such act would force the international community to take radical measures.

 

[trophy33]

I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you. Those words weren't written for a terrorist filled government like that in Iran.

Why are not the USA in a better shape, then? Politically, economically, socially, health-wise, infrastructure... worse off than the most of the developed world.

And who supports the current state of Israel more than the USA?