Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Israel launches attack on Iran | US bombs Iran nuke sites

Huh? said:
To be clear, I don't advocate boots on the ground under any scenario. If you take out Fordow, you've crippled their nuclear capability for a decade. You likely will achieve that without an invasion force.

I don't think regime change should be an objective - we have had little to no success to date in that region.
Click to expand...

What if there is more than one site?
What if Iran escalates?

Adam Smith isn’t as confident as you are that this can be done without troops. And Smith is the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
 
RaiGuy said:
You leave out all the history before Oct 7 and before Hamas even existed. I’m tired of repeating the same things. You make it seem like Israel is always the victim but you don’t mention the illegal occupation, blockade, or apartheid system. You think that Palestinians want to wipe out Israel because they hate Jews, and that’s not true. You fail to bring up the Palestinians that were killed in 2023 prior to Oct 7th. You fail to bring up the Palestinians that were killed by snipers in Gaza as they peacefully protested in the years prior to 2023. I could go on and on, but it won’t matter because you are going to ignore all those facts and keep pushing the narrative that Israel is always the victim.
Click to expand...
1. I never said that "Palestinians want to wipe out Israel because they hate jews...."
2. I did acknowledge israel had its own issues and that they weren't free from fault. Comprehension is important
3. I didn't leave out the history before Oct 7 because the PA in WB and Hamas coming to power over Fatah in 2007 is what put the palestinians in the middle. That was a key point in my previous post.
4. I'm not ignoring anything. My student from WB said a friend of hers was shot after an argument with a group of israeli soldiers at a checkpoint that they have to pass through to leave the WB and enter israel. The soldiers threw a knife down beside her friend as their way of establishing justification. I'm not oblivious to that. I'm not justifying it nor trying to make light of it. You are talking about micro issues and I'm talking about macro / national issues.
 
dukeman92 said:
What if there is more than one site?
What if Iran escalates?

Adam Smith isn’t as confident as you are that this can be done without troops. And Smith is the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
Click to expand...
I'd be hard pressed to put boots on the ground. Seems we have that with israeli boots. IF a few BB won't do the job then we should provide all the defense needed to help defend israel but the offensive should be their people. Hell, they have 75% of the middle east hoping they succeed. Not likely get ever get a more favorable time from a PR pov.
 
Callatoroy said:
1. I never said that "Palestinians want to wipe out Israel because they hate jews...."
2. I did acknowledge israel had its own issues and that they weren't free from fault. Comprehension is important
3. I didn't leave out the history before Oct 7 because the PA in WB and Hamas coming to power over Fatah in 2007 is what put the palestinians in the middle. That was a key point in my previous post.
4. I'm not ignoring anything. My student from WB said a friend of hers was shot after an argument with a group of israeli soldiers at a checkpoint that they have to pass through to leave the WB and enter israel. The soldiers threw a knife down beside her friend as their way of establishing justification. I'm not oblivious to that. I'm not justifying it nor trying to make light of it. You are talking about micro issues and I'm talking about macro / national issues.
Click to expand...
How are the issues that affect Palestinians on a daily basis a “micro” issue? What distinguishes micro and macro in your eyes? I would say an occupation, blockade, and apartheid laws are pretty macro.
 
RaiGuy said:
How are the issues that affect Palestinians on a daily basis a “micro” issue? What distinguishes micro and macro in your eyes? I would say an occupation, blockade, and apartheid laws are pretty macro.
Click to expand...
They are in a certain context. Compared to existential issues they aren't. Hamas / iran are the weakest they have been in decades. Now is the time for palestinians to break away from hamas and work with israel to root out hamas and show a willingness to live peacefully. Before you go nuts over that, I understand the difficulty that presents, but if my people are getting blown up because someone who was supposed to be my advocate, but as it turns out has been using me politically and as a human shield, i'm getting out of the way and letting them get what they deserve. I'm saying palestinians could be helping themselves as unsavory as you may find it. Beats getting blown up.
 
Callatoroy said:
They are in a certain context. Compared to existential issues they aren't. Hamas / iran are the weakest they have been in decades. Now is the time for palestinians to break away from hamas and work with israel to root out hamas and show a willingness to live peacefully. Before you go nuts over that, I understand the difficulty that presents, but if my people are getting blown up because someone who was supposed to be my advocate, but as it turns out has been using me politically and as a human shield, i'm getting out of the way and letting them get what they deserve. I'm saying palestinians could be helping themselves as unsavory as you may find it. Beats getting blown up.
Click to expand...
Kinda sounds like how other cult members don't seem to be able to quit their dear leader or cult in spite of verifiable evidence they are being used. Hell if you and your ilk would hold your dear leader to the same standard you want for Palestinians we can save the country.
 
Callatoroy said:
They are in a certain context. Compared to existential issues they aren't. Hamas / iran are the weakest they have been in decades. Now is the time for palestinians to break away from hamas and work with israel to root out hamas and show a willingness to live peacefully. Before you go nuts over that, I understand the difficulty that presents, but if my people are getting blown up because someone who was supposed to be my advocate, but as it turns out has been using me politically and as a human shield, i'm getting out of the way and letting them get what they deserve. I'm saying palestinians could be helping themselves as unsavory as you may find it. Beats getting blown up.
Click to expand...
What about the West Bank? What’s the excuse there? There’s no Hamas. Also, what about Netanyahu funding Hamas and blocking elections from happening?
Even if you get rid of Hamas (which Israel does not have a plan for), another group will form if the status quo doesn’t change.
 
I said it earlier, but Israel is highly capable of defending itself without direct US military help. Thanks in large part to us, as well as their own efforts, Israel is easily one of the most heavily-armed small nations on the planet. In one sense the entire country is simply a vast armed camp. It's also widely believed that Israel already has nuclear weapons in its arsenal. There is no reason or need for us to risk the lives of American military personnel to defend a nation that is already fully capable of doing so by itself, imo.
 
Callatoroy said:
Compared to existential issues they aren't.
Click to expand...

Does it qualify as an "existential issue" to have your farm, house, and personal property taken from you, and be forced into a ghetto surrounded by naval blockades, concrete walls and tanks, and given water, electricity, sanitation, education, and job opportunities on ration?
 
nycfan said:
IMG_7518.jpeg
Click to expand...
The relevant question is what percentage of MAGA are isolationists who are unwilling to change their view on the matter?

A lot of them were just echoing Trump’s position and will change their mind as soon as Trump does.

Or does that question even matter since Trump can’t be reelected?
 
dukeman92 said:
What if there is more than one site?
What if Iran escalates?

Adam Smith isn’t as confident as you are that this can be done without troops. And Smith is the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
Click to expand...

Identification of nuclear processing facilities is one area where our signals intelligence is particularly strong. The other two identified sites apparently have been neutralized.

Fordow has been a central issue for US policy in the Middle East for 15 years. It is difficult to overstate how eliminating that plant changes the policy landscape in that region.

A reason to strike now is that Iran's ability to escalate is quite limited in the short term. It will most likely escalate in the long term, but I would prefer that escalation to occur without the specter of nuclear weapons.

If we don't achieve the objective with bombing, then we haven't achieved the objective and we are in the same situation w.r.t. Fordow as we were before. There is no current sentiment for putting troops into Iran, and I doubt that Trump will permit mission creep to occur on that issue.
 
There is also an emerging, larger US policy issue here regarding nuclear proliferation.

Our retreat from our implied defense commitments in 1994 for Ukraine has dramatically reduced chances for success in nuclear proliferation diplomacy. throughout the world. Ukraine willingly gave up its nuclear capability in exchange for an implied commitment, and we are not living up to our end of the deal.

In diplomacy's place, we and other powers are going to have to work through the next decade to devise another means of retarding proliferation. One possible outcome is that we will have to renounce regime change in general as a foreign policy objective, with a carve-out for regimes that try to develop a nuclear weapons capability. We will have to do that in concert with NATO, China and maybe even Russia. That is a difficult road to navigate.
 
Huh? said:
Identification of nuclear processing facilities is one area where our signals intelligence is particularly strong. The other two identified sites apparently have been neutralized.

Fordow has been a central issue for US policy in the Middle East for 15 years. It is difficult to overstate how eliminating that plant changes the policy landscape in that region.

A reason to strike now is that Iran's ability to escalate is quite limited in the short term. It will most likely escalate in the long term, but I would prefer that escalation to occur without the specter of nuclear weapons.

If we don't achieve the objective with bombing, then we haven't achieved the objective and we are in the same situation w.r.t. Fordow as we were before. There is no current sentiment for putting troops into Iran, and I doubt that Trump will permit mission creep to occur on that issue.
Click to expand...

Soooo you realize that Iran may escalate, but you're cool if it's delayed and ultimely... boots on the ground(?)... also you realize there are other sites but you're confident they're destroyed(?)... , Again, the trepidation isn't coming from me. Adam Smith is FAR less confident than you, and he has access to information that you and I don't.

If we bomb them and do not destroy Fordow we absolutely are NOT in the same situation... Now we've bombed them, they still have a nuclear facility and they're pissed off at us...

I have yet to see a credible argument for our involvement in this shit show.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top