Yeah. I'm spinning out. I recognize that.
But am I wrong?
Iran is not my friend. Iran is not my enemy.
They're not suddenly two weeks away from The Bomb (fuck you, Tulsi, by the way). They're not an Existential Threat, and certainly not to America.
There was no reason to bomb Iran. We bombed Iran because...Israel did a "defensive first strike" against them, so now we're in it too.
Fuck off.
Question: Do you believe in the 2nd Amendment? If so, why?
Question 2: Is Iran developing a nuclear weapon and, if so, how far off from it are they? Are they viable in, say, two weeks....? If they are, who could they attack in two weeks...America? Can Iran attack America with a nuclear weapon in two weeks?
If not, this is just more WMD nonsense.
For the record, although plenty here hate you, I don't think you're to the level of some of the other people people beating the war drums. We disagree, and I don't always respect your arguments, but I think we can get along. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. I can live with that.
Back to my core question....what has changed recently, that has necessitated such a strong strike on a foreign entity, from the US? And, unless you have a really strong case, how is it not just more WMD-style propaganda for pushing regime change?
Make the case. Why do we have to strike Iran? Why do we have to do it now? Does Iran basically have the nuke? Why haven't they previously? Why haven't they completely the project and used it?
Israel, our greatest ally, is the only nuclear power in the region.
Again, go ahead, make the argument. I am open to it. I always am. But you certainly haven't made that case so far.
Q1: Hey, don't get me wrong, I support nuclear proliferation! Countries that insist on being independent, sovereign, countries that boarder larger states require nuclear weapons. Israel is a good example. Korea, Taiwan, Finland, Poland, Estonia, Switzerland, Portugal, Rhodesia, Panama... it would be reasonable for these countries to want nuclear weapons. The issue is geo-strategic. If my enemy has a weapon that can deter me, then why would I let him get it? If Poland, Estonia, or Finland were trying to get a nuke, Russia would have to invade to stop them. If it were Taiwan or South Korea, China would have to invade. When Cuba did, the US nearly started WW3 to make it stop. Whether you like it or not, the logic is sound. If I am big and can beat you up, and you reach for a gun, I have to stop you.
Now, because I hate Communists, and I support America, I sure do like Taiwan getting one, but I don't want Cuba getting one because I'm an evil biased bigot. How dare I, but I don't consider it hypocrisy to drop nukes on Hiroshima but not Chicago.
I wouldn't care if Iran got a nuke if it weren't obvious that they were constantly starting shit. I'm not saying they are the leader of international terrorism, but they are damn sure the leader of irregular warfare. They actually surpassed Cuba with that. I don't want us involved in Sand-Mordor anymore when we can be an oil exporter, and develop Alberta's oil for extra cushion, or Britain's North Sea oil reserves. Fuck all of them. But I'm not gonna cry that Iran is playing the maximalist version of FAFO. FFS, we can build more nuclear power plants, we're leading the way to fusion power! Can we please fuck off from this shithole that no one needs, and is about to fucking collapse?
Q2: I don't know. I haven't seen any evidence to confirm to me that they are two weeks away, or whatever. Israel just saying it doesn't make it true, and they've lied before. I don't believe Iran either. I don't know that Tulsi was wrong. She hasn't made any recent statements, and I don't know if the intel genuinely changed. It's simply out of my hands. I can't really stop what's going on here. I'm not saying that this is my argument. I'm saying it's the American government's argument. And you're right, they've haven't convinced anyone with evidence here. I'm not saying it's a convincing argument, just that this is their argument, well founded or not.
France is a far better ally. I think I made a list where they were 30th at best. I think they beat out Portugal, but not Italy.
Israel is a bit different. No other Arab country has faced the level of aggression that Israel did for so long. That's why it stole our nuclear secrets (and France's nuclear secrets) (((much ally. very friend))). The Arab world has come to terms with Israel's nuclear capability and seems clear that they are not going to use nukes... mostly because Arab armies keep fucking losing in conventional wars anyway. As such, no arms race materialized. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are fully aware that Israel has nukes, and it doesn't bother them because they know they have a legitimate peace with Israel. Iran is much more of a wild card, and doesn't get along with the other Muslim countries either. The other Muslim countries seem to think that Iran really might just use it, not just on Israel, but possibly on them.
In fairness, Iraq did have WMD's. Specifically chemicological weapons. We sold it to them. Rumsfeld specifically
It’s almost like it was a bad idea to carve out an explicitly Jewish country in the middle of hundreds of millions of culturally incompatible Muslims. You yourself know that they are barbaric violent retards. Doesn’t it make perfect sense that Israel is under constant attack in that region of the world? How else would this play out?
If Israel were not there to be a lightning rod for the inbred aggression of half a billion Muslims, then they would simply be making endless war against each other. And that would be great as far as America is concerned. We don’t need to be involved. Instead, we have a tiny “ally” drawing constant fire from the area, and we are compelled - one way or another - to defend them and/or make war on their behalf.
Israel truly is the tiny girlfriend with a big mouth talking nonstop shit at the bar until her big boyfriend America is forced to step up and fight. Except in this case, the bar is a fight club for savage retards who harbor pathological hatred towards tiny mouthy girls.
The greatest running disconnect is this insane idea that regime change will somehow make Israel safe. It isn’t a handful of antisemitic leaders ruthlessly forcing their people into unwanted conflicts with the Jews. The entire population of the region, hundreds of millions of Muslims, are hostile towards all non-Muslims including Jews. The “evil regimes” are a direct representation of the middle eastern peoples, and the latter are not magically solved when you eliminate the former.
So what’s the real lasting solution? You’re never going to “defeat” everyone who lives in the Middle East. You can’t “beat” 1.5 billion Muslims where they live. Every evil regime will be quickly replaced by another. The only real lasting solution is to move the Jews the fuck out of that area. Then you create a unified western firewall against Islam.
Right now, we have an isolated forward base triggering constant war but no firewall. We’re building mosques and importing millions of invaders while spending trillions on useless foreign wars to defend one selfish, sociopathic “colony”. It’s a retarded strategy.
Yeah, if that girlfriend is Rhonda Rousey. World-class level of dangerous, but also a bit cocky.
It won't. Best case scenario is that it creates a Civil War and Israels new biggest threat is Turkey.
I admit, this is the funniest way you've come up with "a final solution to the jewish question". Perchance we should send them to Mozambique? Zey vill need to step in to ze shoverz first...
No, the only real solution is to leave the whole area alone because it's not our problem and we can import oil from the UK and Canada. Frankly, the Israelis will be fine defending themselves. If they want to be stupid and bite off more than they can chew, they can suffer the consequences for it.
As the Sikhs showed, you just have to keep hitting the Muslims on the nose every time they invade you. They won't stop, so you just stay armed, guard your borders, and get used to it.
That's because it's not a colony, and we should stop treating it as such.