Iran is certainly an enemy of ours. They do fund terrorists and they have killed Americans by proxy. So permanently reducing their power isn't the worst thing in the world.
I would prefer that it would be impossible for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. I'm not informed enough to understand if their program is actually peaceful or not, but they should just stick to oil.
The Iranian people would likely be better off if the ayatollahs were usurped. I say this because Persians are generally better behaved than Arabs and the country is firmly Shiite, so it might not be an Iraq/Lybia/Egypt situation.
All of this goes out the window if:
- The US commits direct military forces
- the strikes do not permanently degrade Iran's power
The biggest upside is finding out who is actually MAGA and who is MIGA.
It isn't looking good for MAGA, unfortunately. I'm having to follow mostly leftists for updates on the war.
The influencer and pundit classes are wholly owned. We knew this, but it’s still a downer when you see it firsthand. As per usual, there is no explicitly MAGA representation in the halls of power. It’s all just temporary allies of convenience until you run up against their true masters. Whether it’s “based” tech bros demanding their own Indian great replacement or “based” Jews abandoning every principle for Israel, the people in charge do not actually represent or support us. We’re in basically the same boat as we were under the neocons, except way more of our malcontents have deluded themselves into total pacification.
Well, that's what this board has devolved into
You can't be an KiA oldtimer if you believe that being against retarded wars is new to this place. What, do you think it was full of neocons like you?
Way back when, I saw people criticize drone strikes and the destruction of Libya, when I was still stupid enough to support it. I can't say I remember your username.
I'm still not a neocon, you midwit.
The forum got invaded by leftist faggots who do nothing but screech about the jews all day.
Right, you now disown the label while shilling for every neocon war of aggression.
I don't see the killing of terrorists as a bad thing. It doesn't mean I think the US should be involved.
What's a terrorist? The people the previous war you supported put into power in Syria?
Cappy Army is pretty good. He left from Task & Purpose because of the new owners aggressive content mining.
If you want to find the MAGA people, try re-purposing Laura Loomer's blacklist.
https://nitter.poast.org/LauraLoomer/status/1934805420729676262#m
The US has been funding and supporting terrorists for decades. And I'm not just talking about Israel here.
Why? Pakistan has nukes. India has nukes. England and France which are turning into Muslim nations have nukes. Israel a fanatical Jewish supremacist state has nukes. The US which is controlled by a foreign government has nukes. North Korea has nukes.
Criminals prefer their victims not having guns. Same shit.
Like the Iraqi were better off with Saddam or the Afghani without the Taliban?
I mean what the fuck is wrong with simply not getting involved at all? What is the US doing in the Middle East in the first place besides playing Israels attack dog? There is no upside to bombing Iran.
The world isn't a neighborhood and countries aren't people. An unfair balance of arms is the ideal situation. More independent actors with nukes is less ideal.
Obviously the better solution would be to yank Israel's $4.5B allowance until they simmer down. Sadly we don't live in that world. The only red line we have the power to hold - somewhat - is whether the US gets directly involved.
Is it? Why? Because the big fish can bully the small fish without consequences?
Considering the fact that since the end of the second world war the world has been continuously drenched in blood by the bitch fight of two super powers who divided the world between them I'm willing to test the alternative.
Permanently. And then ban AIPAC. And kick out every dual citizen.
Yeah, because it's better to have the ability to bully rather than be bullied.
I can understand that to a point. I think a growing number of people are hoping Iran actually gets a nuke so Israel will pipe down.
If everyone has nukes nobody can bully anyone anymore. And honestly I'd rather be someone who can curb stomp a bully than to be able to bully someone.
As long as everyone is responsible with them. The more non-white countries get their hands on them, the less likely that is.
Regardless, I feel you understand what I'm saying. In an uncertain environment, it's always better to be the stronger party.
Given the fact that only one country has actually used them and considering how unhinged large parts of the US government are... well it is an argument for why everyone should have nukes.
Besides two of the most insane shitholes on earth have nukes and never used them. India and Pakistan. Iran doesn't even come close to those two.
Sure. But you can argue that if everyone had nukes there wouldn't be an uncertain environment anymore.
That is a decent point, but the fact that a state where you can marry your first cousin no problem has made it a few decades without using nukes should not be considered probative of future behavior.
I'm not even going to say I believe you're wrong. I just don't know if I'd take that bet.
Yeah, until a state with a nuclear stockpile fails. Hence why South Africa unilaterally disarmed before apartheid ended.
Here, do you mean unipolarity or bipolarity? There's quite a bit of difference. Most IR would agree with you that bipolarity is more peaceful than multipolarity, but not for unipolarity. You could see that in the unipolar moment.
Nuclear unipolarity hasn't existed since 1949, so yeah.
Oil. Earlier, ideological penetration by communism. Ideological justifications are a cover for Realpolitik, not vice versa. They picked a good location for their country.
Nato fucked up by not making Iraq and Afghanistan ban Islam, even if they would have to install a more blatant puppet government to do it.
And instantly turn the entire population and the rest of the region and the entirety of the Muslim world into dedicated enemies? You didn't think this through.
I was not suggesting allowing the muslims to live.
Feeling edgy today I see. What about the Jews?
We already tried that once. They ended up getting so mad at our puppet government that they revolted and became a weird theocracy-republic hybrid.
We usurped a democratically-elected socialist who was presiding over the Persian-chicks-in-bikinis-on-beaches country everyone dreams about on Twitter. Not exactly the same thing as usurping a burqa regime.
American interference in Iran started before Iranian funding of terrorism and killing of Americans by proxy. Not sure that if you want to end blowback, you should do more of what got you there.
What makes you think that a country would allow you to dictate which of its sovereign rights, guaranteed under the NPT, it may or may not exercise? Stick to oil? Well, you stick to your country.
The Iranian people NOW are generally friendly to Americans and Westerners. No word on how things will be after they've been the victim of a flagrant war of aggression and their family and children have been bombed.
Permanently degrading a country's power is a pipe dream. They tried it in 1919 with Germany and in 1991 with Russia. If you look at its fairly small military spending, the Iran you had was probably the weakest Iran, militarily speaking, that you're going to get.
The biggest upside is finding out who is actually MAGA and who is MIGA.
The only good outcome of this would have been if israel actually had the intel they said they had and were able to unilaterally pull off a coup with precision missile strikes with small collateral damage within a couple of days. I think that ship has already sailed. It seems like they didn't really do much to damage the Iranian leadership structure and the intent was always to drag the USA into war with Iran. I personally figured this israeli ploy was dishonest when bibi invoked 6 million several times when speaking directly to the American public on tv that night. It's all propaganda driven Greater Israel bullshit.
Iran has a very robust constitutional structure. Even in the early days of the mullahcracy, they survived multiple bombings where almost the entire government was taken out.
Iran is nothing but a golem that escaped its master's control. They tried to chain the golem with the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, then it came undone with the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Now they're kvetching for a second attempt to control the golem by sending another golem at it, i.e. the US.
I'm fine with the approach I saw that I couldn't decide if it was fake or not where the US statement was it was Israel's attack and not a US attack. Israel can attack whatever they please, but I want the US to stay out of it. They can buy our military products with their own money, that's all.
I'd really have no issues with "Make Persia Great Again" except the Jews definitely aren't going to, and if the US government got their hands in it the best possible outcome is some shitty money laundering factory for congress.
The only benefit is that Iranian irregular warfare will be reduced.
That's very limited in "good" news. It means that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Israel are going to go on the offensive where Iran gets a gap. So, there's no reduction in violence, just a reduction in who's going to be violent. Expect more interventions in Yemen, Sudan, and Syria.
Also, there might be a benefit to preventing the development of dirty bombs for Iran, but I don't know that they are really that interested in building them.
There are no downsides. One less islamist country KS better for the region nd the world. The land is also rich in natural resources and our allies can help us use them. İt also gurantees the safety of our allies.
It's funny that your autocorrect gives away where you're from, Turk.
Apologies for using Wikipedia, I'm very lazy.