That is not at all how I read his posts. He’s saying there’s a safer way to de-nuclearize Iran - and he’s right.
Pot, meet kettle.
If this attack was a failure, and Iran keeps its expertise, material, and most equipment, than all we’ve done is speed up their nuclear program, since they’ll know that the only guarantee of avoiding more attacks would be to get those damn nukes.
There WAS and Trump ended that. That is on Trump. He’s a colossal piece of shit for that and many other reasons.
But we have to take the world as we find it today and not the one we wish was here.
So if this attack failed, are you in favor of boots on the ground invasion of Iran to change their leadership? Or nuking Iran? Because if this attack didn’t destroy everything, then probably no conventional air attack could.
A perfect example of a double-standard that requires some serious critical thought as to why that double-standard exists – and no, contrary to what you might think, I’m not just blaming Israel. This also about the US desire to be energy-dominant. North Korea is energy poor. They can be a monumental shit-disturber for sure, which could be a problem for us over time, but we we’re more concerned with the MENA because that’s where the energy is.
China. North Korea is like a bratty little kid who bites and kicks you in the shins, but you can’t give him the spanking he so richly merits because of his huge and protective older brother.
On the surface, Trump was negotiating JCPOA 2.0; in reality, he wasn’t. He was stalling so that Israel could set up a sneak attack.
However, all indications are that Iran was negotiating in (mostly) good faith, not because they are saints but because they realized that they didn’t have good alternatives. The one sticking point was that Iran wanted to be able to enrich uranium, but they were willing to agree to do so at civilian grade and have inspections. While they were negotiating, we were aiding and abetting Israel in a kind of ruse.
Now? I don’t see any way Iran gives up nuclear ambitions. I mean, not unless we just carpet-bomb the country and massacre its population, but that’s not something Russia and China or other regional powers are going to sit back and watch with popcorn in hand.
That’s part of it, but the real reason is the rewards don’t outweigh the risks. North Korea is resource-poor, so the gains are small. But even with just conventional ordnance, North Korea could inflict massive damage on Japan and Korea - that was true in 2005 and it’s especially true 20 years later, now that they have nukes.
I think you just won the thread.
…but they would have had the capacity to use the very same equipment to enrich to weapon grade uranium at any moment.
- Why the fuck should Israel or anyone else accept that deal unless absolutely necessary?
- didn’t Israel just demonstrate that it was not, in fact, absolutely necessary?
Because we were too scared of China. But honestly, we probably should have found a way to pressure China to stop North Korea, or done it ourselves.
Agreed.
…let’s see.
I condemn genocidal rhetoric no matter who says it, be it Hamas, be it Palestinian Islamic Jihad, be it Hezbollah, be it Khamenie’s official Twitter acount, be it United States Congressman Randy Fine who said on Twitter (on seperate occasions) “Gaza must be destroyed.” “There is no suffering good enough for these animals. May the streets of Gaza overflow with blood.” “Kill. Them. All.” or the time in response to a photo of a dead child killed in Gaza and asked how he could sleep at night responded “Quite well actually! Thanks for the pic!”
I condemn the actions taken by Hamas on October the 7th. They were an atrocity and a war crime. The International Criminal Court were absolutely correct to issue a warrant for Mr Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri for " for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes committed on the territory of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine from at least 7 October 2023."
Israel had a right to defend itself.
But what Israel are doing to Gaza and what they are doing to Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank is not “self-defence.”
And the difference between “genocidal rhetoric” and “genocidal intent” is a fine one: but an important one.
Because Randy Fine is a blustering buffoon. But he’s just talking shit.
The genocide convention defines genocide as "as any of five “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.”
Bolding mine.
Intent normally isn’t an easy thing to prove. It’s not as if the party committing a genocide would actually put it in writing saying “we are committing a genocide.”
Except in this case Israeli leadership just “tweeted it out.” The statements that were made in the legal documentation that I cited were all made in the early months of the war, all in 2023. Much worse has been said since then.
And the statements of genocidal intent match up with what is happening on the ground. The ongoing siege. The targeting of the healthcare system. The systematic destruction of cultural artifacts, schools, universities, homes, churches and mosques, the looting, the humiliation, the disappearances, the torture chambers, the concentration zones, the talk of “voluntary” migration.
This is disingenuous framing and I’ll tell you why.
Firstly: if a country like Israel that is currently committing a genocide as WELL as an ongoing occupation and ethnic cleansing, that has launched “pre-emptive” strikes to many of their neighbours, seized land in one of them, AND they have nukes…wouldn’t you consider getting nukes as well to defend yourself? If Israel has the right to get nuclear weapons, then why wouldn’t Iran?
Secondly: from a statement from the IAEA:
I don’t think Iran should get nukes. But I have significantly more faith in the process that has so far kept Iran from getting nukes than I do in the country that has bypassed that process completely and is lying about having them.
What I don’t understand here is why you are treating Israel as the good faith actor in this situation. You’ve been shown how many times Netanyahu & co have lied about Iran being just “years” or “months” away from developing the bomb. Yet now all of a sudden it is an imminent threat?
And thirdly: Israeli leadership, in particular the current regime, have been caught in multiple lies almost every single day for the last couple of years. They lied about gold and money being hidden under the hospitals in Lebanon. They lied about murdering those 15 Gazan paramedics. They’ve lied about the siege. They lied about the “command and control bunker” allegedly hidden under Al-Shifa.
They lied about the killing of Hind Rajab. If you haven’t heard of her, she was the 6-year-old sole-survivor of an attack by IDF soldiers that killed 6 members of her family. She pleaded over the phone to be rescued. Two paramedics were dispatched. Then they lost contact with both Hind and the paramedics.
It took two weeks before rescue teams were allowed into the area where they found Hind dead along with the paramedics.
Why are you taking the word of a regime that lies so often that it’s almost pathological? There are international organisations like the IAEA that are set up precisely for this purpose.
It occurred to me in all the talk about Israel committing genocide is that I don’t recall once you condemning the deliberate targeting of healthcare workers, journalist and aid workers by the IDF, the setting up of concentration zones and expelling 80% of Palestinians from their own land in Gaza, the clear and obvious genocidal rhetoric from Israeli leadership, the siege of nearly all foodstuffs, medical equipment and supplies, fuel, feminine hygiene products, and tents.
Just yesterday, Nasser Hospital launched yet another plea for Israel to “allow in premature formula milk and all other types of formula into Gaza.” Dr. Ahmad al-Farra, head of pediatrics and obstetrics at Nasser Medical Complex said “The situation is very critical,” he said, as every infant in the neonatal ICU is now fully dependent on this specific type of milk, which is nearly depleted."
Israel can afford to send multiple bombs and missiles every single day to Iran. It can set up a covert operation that murdered multiple Iranian scientists and their families in their sleep. But they can’t afford to send a few truckloads of baby formula into Gaza every so often? If they are so “scared” that Hamas would hijack the truck (they wouldn’t) then they can drive the damn trucks in themselves. Gaza isn’t very big.
I condemn any group seeking the destruction of Israel, and I especially condemn any that actually attempt to commit genocide.
But that’s the difference between me and you. I think that a genocide funded and abetted by the United States of America, both Republicans AND Democrats, is something we shouldn’t turn a blind eye too. It needs to be addressed urgently.
I don’t live in America. So I’m not paying for it.
But you are.
And you should be ashamed.
Again, Iran agreed to inspections, which would have detected the break-out capability. Russia also offered to take any enriched uranium that Iran had. Is it airtight? Probably not, but practically speaking, it’s what works.
I completely understand the concern Israel has regarding proxies and how a nuclear-tipped Iran acts as a kind of backstop to that end, but the JCPOA was working and it would have been even more successful given how Israel essentially neutralized Hezbollah and Hamas.
I think all that Israel has done now is stiffened Iran’s resolve, and from what we can tell, Iran still has enriched uranium.
I recall the Falklands War. Relatively low casualties, no real dirty stuff like summary executions or overkill, negligible civilian casualties. And then, a military dictatorship who’d hoped for a public relations coup were overthrown by the population they’d oppressed. But how often does that occur?
I think we were more scared of North Korea and what they would do to Japan, South Korea, and the US military installations in the region. We still are, which is why we do our best to ignore the North Koreans.
Oddly enough (even though I could easily be wrong), I think that their having a minimal nuclear capability reassures the North Korean leadership. Ideology aside they can’t be blind to how dysfunctional their country is; but nukes are insurance that their regime can’t be allowed to completely implode. North Korea’s nukes force the rest of the world to treat them seriously. They would otherwise be comparable to Venezuela or Zimbabwe.
They had serious conventional means, too, but nukes and ICBMs means that the United States has to be extra cautious. Over time, as the nuke threat grows, NK can bully their way to softening sanctions, which is what they really want.
The only time the B-2 (or B-21) is intended to be used without first suppressing air defenses is when we (or our allies) don’t really have time to suppress the opposing air defenses first. The only situation where that’s likely to occur is when we’re in a general nuclear exchange. I personally hope that never happens. A B-52 could have delivered the MOP, but it would have been less sure of success than the B-2.
Heh, it’s almost completely different from either Iraq war. Both of those had months of building up troops in the region for invasion, and a bunch of willing allies allowing us to stage troops and equipment on their borders. I don’t see either of those happening in this case. If this leads to a bigger conflict than it already has, it will be a very slow build up.