Exactly. Everyone in that region sucks ass, but we’re only going to war on behalf of one of them. It’s completely rational that we focus on that relationship is the greatest immediate problem.
We don't need to stop Iran from being Iran until they throw missiles at us. We DO need to stop them from getting nukes, because we would be required to stop Iran from being Iran, permanently, because they would use them. And that would cost a lot more than simply denying them nuclear capacity with a few targeted bombs.
An ounce of prevention saves a pound of cure. If they and Israel start shooting at eachother conventionally, we don't need to do anything.
We're defenseless against those missiles, and Israel turned into a crybaby the second they started to land.
IF Iran was 1/10th the country we've been told they would have used them in an aggressive manner, not just after they've been attacked. Since they've shown they're not willing to start shit for no reason - where does this "we DO need to stop them" come from?
Again, even if they did have them - they're still no threat to the US. That is simply a fact, further backed up by Iran's own actions in not starting shit.
The same can not be said about Israel, right? Again, IF the logic against Iran was correct, it is infinitely more correct in regards to Israel, thankfully for all, there is no logic in the notion.
Non nuclear missiles are an extremely minor threat to the US. We aren't weak or tiny like Israel, and we outmass Iran's conventional firepower by orders of magnitude.
Nukes are several orders of magnitude more threatening than conventional missiles, and don't even need to strike a target directly to do crippling damage to our power infrastructure. Most people haven't realized because of very good cover jobs, but our power infrastructure has been demonstrated to be very vulnerable.
Nuclear proliferation shouldn't be tolerated from a national security standpoint. Especially to hostile nations. If Iran shot a missile at us, they'd do negligible damage and quickly be bombed into the stone age. If they snuck a nuke through the southern border or sent one up to go off in the upper atmosphere, they could cause tens of thousands of dead, and severely damage our electrical grid or our satellite network.
So are Iranian nukes, or really any weapon as long as the US stays out of the region which they have no reason to be in, other than to protect the nation that has attacked as of now 3 or 4 unprovoked directly... but here we are, right?
It isn't how big or bad they are - even the H.S missiles brought Israel down to their knees, but Iran refused to use them until attacked. Re-read that paragraph again if you're not hearing what I am saying.
The claim that Iran can't have this weapon as they'll use it - has been proven false. Why don't you see that simple logic?
Iranians have been the much more adult group in the room in the M.E over the last little while.
Not that how you charactorise them is untrue, its just that Israel has been SOOO much worse - and that is the elephant in the room.
Yes, Iran is horrible, mean, vile and looking for world domination.
But...
Israel is horrible, mean, vile and has been using the worlds super power clearing the way for world domination.
Americans can't stop Iran from being Iran, but we can stop Israel from using us like its barbarian shocktroops.
Exactly. Everyone in that region sucks ass, but we’re only going to war on behalf of one of them. It’s completely rational that we focus on that relationship is the greatest immediate problem.
We don't need to stop Iran from being Iran until they throw missiles at us. We DO need to stop them from getting nukes, because we would be required to stop Iran from being Iran, permanently, because they would use them. And that would cost a lot more than simply denying them nuclear capacity with a few targeted bombs.
An ounce of prevention saves a pound of cure. If they and Israel start shooting at eachother conventionally, we don't need to do anything.
We're defenseless against those missiles, and Israel turned into a crybaby the second they started to land.
IF Iran was 1/10th the country we've been told they would have used them in an aggressive manner, not just after they've been attacked. Since they've shown they're not willing to start shit for no reason - where does this "we DO need to stop them" come from?
Again, even if they did have them - they're still no threat to the US. That is simply a fact, further backed up by Iran's own actions in not starting shit.
The same can not be said about Israel, right? Again, IF the logic against Iran was correct, it is infinitely more correct in regards to Israel, thankfully for all, there is no logic in the notion.
Non nuclear missiles are an extremely minor threat to the US. We aren't weak or tiny like Israel, and we outmass Iran's conventional firepower by orders of magnitude.
Nukes are several orders of magnitude more threatening than conventional missiles, and don't even need to strike a target directly to do crippling damage to our power infrastructure. Most people haven't realized because of very good cover jobs, but our power infrastructure has been demonstrated to be very vulnerable.
Nuclear proliferation shouldn't be tolerated from a national security standpoint. Especially to hostile nations. If Iran shot a missile at us, they'd do negligible damage and quickly be bombed into the stone age. If they snuck a nuke through the southern border or sent one up to go off in the upper atmosphere, they could cause tens of thousands of dead, and severely damage our electrical grid or our satellite network.
So are Iranian nukes, or really any weapon as long as the US stays out of the region which they have no reason to be in, other than to protect the nation that has attacked as of now 3 or 4 unprovoked directly... but here we are, right?
It isn't how big or bad they are - even the H.S missiles brought Israel down to their knees, but Iran refused to use them until attacked. Re-read that paragraph again if you're not hearing what I am saying.
The claim that Iran can't have this weapon as they'll use it - has been proven false. Why don't you see that simple logic?