Then you’re really dumb (as well as the kind of weasel who slanders others without basis). We didn’t set back their nuke program at all, substantively, and may have increased the chance, long term, of Iran getting nuclear weapons.
Yes. We know. You keep a log, Captain Quirk.
I just want to interject that when Jews hear the word “genocide”, they think “the Nazis searched from Jews, and shot them. And when that became too expensive, they shoved them in chambers and gassed them, with the goal of exterminating every single Jew.”
They didn’t start out that way. At first, they let Jews leave. My uncle used to point out that a lot more German Jews survived than Jews from Austria or Poland because of the change in policy.
So… That’s obviously not what Israel is doing, because if they were, there wouldn’t be any Palestinians left in Palestine.
That being said, i understand that the modern usage of the word “genocide” is broader than that, and includes actions intended to destroy a people or to remove them from their traditional territory. Also called “ethnic cleansing”.
I’m gonna say that Israel is guilty of the second, but not of the first.
But when y’all wonder why Jews are so resistant to using the word “genocide”, that’s one of the reasons.
For the record, while i understand that there are a variety of motives among Israelis, and most are largely motivated by wanting to defend their own traditional territory (and there have been some Jews in Israel for all of recorded history, and there are currently a lot of Israelis whose parents and probably grandparents and grandparents were citizens of the nation of Israel. Israel is the traditional territory of Israelis) there are obviously some who are working towards a “final solution” to the “Palestinian problem”. And the recent actions of the state of Israel towards its neighbors in Gaza and the West Bank have been atrocious, involving the murder of innocents, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and the outright theft of land. (Not to mention the innocents who have been maimed and tortured.)
I think, even if we disagree on the best word to describe that, most of us can agree it’s a terrible thing, and to the extent we have any influence, we should attempt to stop it.
Only nerds try to justify their personal attacks on others with a factual basis! Real men just rely on gut feelings and never, ever back down!
Carry on, Mr. Hegseth…
Also, you don’t have the foggiest idea to what extent the Iranian nuclear program has been affected.
“May have increased the chances” is a thing you’re pulling out of your ass to pretend that you have special insight.
Don’t get me wrong, we’re all very impressed if you do. Else, chalk it up to your overly-confident moral superiority.
Cites:
This stuff isn’t that hard to find. Minor damage, minor setbacks. Unlike you, I strive to backup my claims with factual basis.
And the new war basically handed over an even bigger cudgel to Iran - control over the Strait of Hormuz. That’s much more threatening to the rest of the world than a few nukes.
Oh goody. Here’s where I get to play butthurt iiAndyiiii.
Where did I say they destroyed the ENTIRE Iranian nuclear program?!!
“I think I was pretty damn clear, and it’s awfully hard not to see such a colossal misreading of my post as anything other than deliberate.”
Cite, or it never happened!
Like I said… who could have seen that coming?! /s
It isn’t.
If I misread your intent, I apologize.
Which is causing more harm to the world right now - North Korean nukes, or Iran controlling the Strait?
Accepted. No hard feelings.
I feel like North Korean neighbors would sleep better at night if NK didn’t have nuclear weapons and was not developing a ballistic missile program.
I feel like Iran’s neighbors, given the option, prefer a non-nuclear armed Iran.
I feel like one fewer nuclear armed belligerent authoritative states in the world is better than one more.
YMMV.
That doesn’t answer my question. My overall point remains, and you haven’t really challenged it - we didn’t significantly reduce Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but we did hand over control of the Strait of Hormuz to them, and that control is wreaking havoc on the whole world’s economy, while North Korean nukes are bad but haven’t remotely caused anywhere near the same amount of damage.
I’m not mad about this. I find it quite funny, and I’m just curious…
In your head, is everyone who disagrees with your world view immediately branded as what is essentially a Bond villain henchman?
I mean, you do you, but I don’t think that’s particularly helpful or healthy.
I’m mocking you. I don’t really think you’re nearly as bad, or as dumb, as Pete Hegseth, but you made what I see as a Hegsethian post, seeming to belittle me for having the temerity to try and be careful to only make claims about people that I can back up with cites.
So just a bit of gentle mockery.
It’s the same for @Babale - I miss the old Babs. The old Babs would have laughed at even the possibility that he’d trust and loudly cheer Trump and Hegseth to start and lead a war (even as much as he pretended that it was really grizzled, patriotic flag officers, and not MAGA clowns and yes men, who lead the war). I suspect he’s rather embarrassed about it - evidenced by the fact that he hasn’t posted about the war in several months. So I mock him for it. I think he’ll shake out of it eventually. Not sure how long it will take - but at some point I think the guilt/shame about being so dumb for so long about a war that’s killed thousands of civilians and caused so much harm to so many others (while utterly failing its stated goals) will be stronger than his unwillingness to admit that he, personally, was wrong and (God forbid!) iiandyiiii was right!
You’ve never seen me play chess. 
“…we didn’t significantly reduce Iran’s nuclear capabilities…”
We don’t know that.
“…but we did hand over control of the Strait of Hormuz to them…”
Take that up with the real Mr. Hegseth & Co.
“…North Korean nukes are bad but haven’t remotely caused anywhere near the same amount of damage…”
NK is a different kettle of kimchi.
If NK ever sells nuclear material to an adversary to make a dirty bomb which is detonated in a major city, we’ll be having a very different conversation. Until then, sure, nothing to worry about, right?
(I don’t know why I formatted the response like that… too lazy to fix it).
The evidence supports my assertion, even if we can’t know for certain.
Your “claims” support your assertions. If we had evidence, we would know for certain.
Maybe you could try, just a teensy bit harder, to not make negative assertions about me if you’re not prepared to back them up with cites?
My cites support my assertions. Those cites include reports from US intelligence assessments which I think can fairly be characterized as “evidence”.