Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Israel launches attack on Iran | US bombs Iran nuke sites

ZZLPHeels said:
They've had terrorists all around the world. Including on US soil. Doesn't matter.

Could they attack us? Sure. Could they kill a dozen people, or dozens of people? Sure. But we've had that exact same threat for nearly 30 years now.
Click to expand...
But now they have a reason to carry it out dumbass.
 
dukeman92 said:
Without dropping bombs.
Click to expand...
Yup, and we likely finally reached the point where the bombs were necessary. Almost no casualties were caused by the strikes unless Iran was stupid enough to leave people in those facilities after we telegraphed our impending moves. This is essentially like complaining about a home run at Oracle Park because you are worried that it might hit a fish when it plops into the ocean.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Yes, I am 100% confident the Chinese government is going to sit by here. Iran isn't even the top 5 of countries that China imports oil from. And we didn't target Iran's oil fields. We very specifically targeted their nuclear facilities. This isn't World War III. This isn't even the GWOT.
Click to expand...
So if China was dropping bombs and forcing regime change in a country that supplies 15% of our crude oil, do you think we would "sit by"? Remind me again what the first gulf war was about....why did we care about Kuwait?

For reference, Kuwait supplied 10-12% of our crude prior to the invasion by Iraq.
 
wmheel1287 said:
So if China was dropping bombs and forcing regime change in a country that supplies 15% of our crude oil, do you think we would "sit by"? Remind me again what the first gulf war was about....why did we care about Kuwait?
Click to expand...
Yes, 100% I do. Did we target Iran's oil exports? Was there a super secret airstrike that only you know about and nobody else does? China isn't going to initiate World War III because we blew up a nuclear bunker. They aren't dumb and they aren't reactionary.
 
The wildest (well, maybe not) part of this entire situation is that Iran is acting more like a rational state than the U.S. We broke the nuclear deal. We escalated. We bombed their territory. And now we’re shocked and scared they might retaliate.

Iran is acting exactly how a cornered, sanctioned, and encircled nation would act: cautiously, but with resolve. The only irrational part here is believing we can keep poking them without expecting consequences.

If you’re sitting in Tehran right now, what’s the rational takeaway? We honored the nuclear deal. We endured sanctions. We absorbed assassinations. And now we’re being bombed anyway. The only logical move left is to build a deterrent. Because clearly, nothing else protects you.

The U.S. has once again escalated in the name of preventing proliferation, but all it’s done is make proliferation the only rational choice.

Every time the U.S. escalates militarily with Iran, it strengthens the regime’s most repressive elements. Bombs don’t weaken hardliners, they empower them. They prove the West is hostile, untrustworthy, and bent on domination. Liberals claim to care about democracy abroad, but they never seem to ask what their actions do to the democratic forces inside the countries we target.
 
Paine said:
The wildest (well, maybe not) part of this entire situation is that Iran is acting more like a rational state than the U.S. We broke the nuclear deal. We escalated. We bombed their territory. And now we’re shocked and scared they might retaliate.

Iran is acting exactly how a cornered, sanctioned, and encircled nation would act: cautiously, but with resolve. The only irrational part here is believing we can keep poking them without expecting consequences.

If you’re sitting in Tehran right now, what’s the rational takeaway? We honored the nuclear deal. We endured sanctions. We absorbed assassinations. And now we’re being bombed anyway. The only logical move left is to build a deterrent. Because clearly, nothing else protects you.

The U.S. has once again escalated in the name of preventing proliferation, but all it’s done is make proliferation the only rational choice.
Click to expand...
Iran is largely responsible for being in this predicament. Without 10/7, which was carried out by their proxy, none of this happens. Israel's actions since 10/7 have taken out Iran's allies and Iran's remaining proxies and have put Iran in a position where they will have a hard time responding meaningfully. They are reaping what they have sewn.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Yes, 100% I do. Did we target Iran's oil exports? Was there a super secret airstrike that only you know about and nobody else does? China isn't going to initiate World War III because we blew up a nuclear bunker. They aren't dumb and they aren't reactionary.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter that we didn't target the oil. The oil is the weapon you so blithely ignore when you say Iran is powerless. Kuwait was "powerless" too....yet they were able to garner the allied forces of the world because the flow of oil was endangered.

If the flow of that oil to China gets disrupted, we are the cause. In that case, they will absolutely hit us in many ways that will hurt....militarily and economically.
 
Let's revisit the recent past, in a letter to Obama, before it become Orwellian thoughtcrime:
~~~


August 8, 2015

The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

As scientists and engineers with understanding of the physics and technology of
nuclear power and of nuclear weapons, we congratulate you and your team on the
successful completion of the negotiations in Vienna. We consider that the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) the United States and its partners negotiated
with Iran will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can
serve as a guidepost for future non-‐proliferation agreements.

This is an innovative agreement, with much more stringent constraints than any
previously negotiated non-‐proliferation framework. It limits the level of enrichment
of the uranium that Iran can produce, the amount of enriched uranium it can
stockpile, and the number and kinds of centrifuges it can develop and operate. The
agreement bans reconversion and reprocessing of reactor fuel, it requires Iran to
redesign its Arak research reactor to produce far less plutonium than the original
design, and specifies that spent fuel must be shipped out of the country without the
plutonium being separated and before any significant quantity can be accumulated.
A key result of these restrictions is that it would take Iran many months to enrich
uranium for a weapon. We contrast this with the situation before the interim
agreement was negotiated in Lausanne: at that time Iran had accumulated enough
20 percent enriched uranium that the required additional enrichment time for
weapons use was only a few weeks.

The JCPOA also provides for innovative approaches to verification, including
monitoring of uranium mining, milling, and conversion to hexafluoride. Centrifuge
manufacturing and R&D will be monitored as well. For 15 years the Natanz facility
will be the only location where uranium enrichment is allowed to take place and it
will be outfitted with real-‐time monitoring to assure rapid notice of any violation.
The authority is provided for real-‐time monitoring of spent fuel as well.

Concerns about clandestine activities in Iran are greatly mitigated by the dispute
resolution mechanism built into the agreement. The 24-‐day cap on any delay to
access is unprecedented, and will allow effective challenge inspection for the
suspected activities of greatest concern: clandestine enrichment, construction of
reprocessing or reconversion facilities, and implosion tests using uranium. The
approach to resolving “Possible Military Dimensions” is innovative as well: the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) must be satisfied that it is fully

informed about any previous activities, in order to guide its future verification plans,
but Iran need not be publicly shamed. This agreement, also for the first time,
explicitly bans nuclear weapons R&D, rather than only their manufacture as
specified in the text of the Non-‐Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Some have expressed concern that the deal will free Iran to develop nuclear
weapons without constraint after ten years. In contrast we find that the deal
includes important long-‐term verification procedures that last until 2040, and
others that last indefinitely under the NPT and its Additional Protocol. On the other
hand, we do believe that it would be valuable to strengthen these durable
international institutions. We recommend that your team work with the IAEA to
gain agreement to implement some of the key innovations included in the JCPOA
into existing safeguards agreements. This will reduce the proliferation risks
associated with national fuel cycle facilities worldwide. Thus in the future, when
Iran is treated the same as all non-‐nuclear weapons states with nuclear energy
programs, all such programs will be more stringently constrained and verified.
As you have stated, this deal does not take any options off the table for you or any
future president. Indeed it will make it much easier for you or a future president to
know if and when Iran heads for a bomb, and the detection of a significant violation
of this agreement will provide strong, internationally supported justification for
intervention.

In conclusion, we congratulate you and your team on negotiating a technically
sound, stringent and innovative deal that will provide the necessary assurance in
the coming decade and more that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, and
provides a basis for further initiatives to raise the barriers to nuclear proliferation
in the Middle East and around the globe.

Sincerely,

Richard L. Garwin, IBM Fellow Emeritus

Robert J. Goldston, Princeton University

R. Scott Kemp, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Rush Holt, American Association for the Advancement of Science

Frank von Hippel, Princeton University

John F. Ahearne
Director, Ethics Program at Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society

Philip W. Anderson
Professor Emeritus, Princeton University

Christopher Chyba
Princeton University

Leon N. Cooper
Brown University

Pierce S. Corden
Former Director, Office of International Security Negotiations, Bureau of Arms Control: Department of State

John M. Cornwall
Professor of Physics and Astronomy, UCLA

Sidney D. Drell
Stanford University

Freeman Dyson
Professor Emeritus, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University

Harold A. Feiveson
Princeton University

Michael E. Fisher
Professor Emeritus, Cornell University and University of Maryland

Howard Georgi
Harvard University

Sheldon L. Glashow
Boston University

Lisbeth Gronlund
Union of Concerned Scientists

David Gross
Professor of Theoretical Physics, Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, UCSB

Sigfried S. Hecker
Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University

Martin E. Hellman
Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University

Ernest Henley
University of Washington

Gregory Loew
Emeritus Deputy Director and Professor, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory

C. Kumar N. Patel
Professor Emeritus of Experimental Condensed Matter, UCLA

Burton Richter
Stanford University

Myriam Sarachik
City College of New York, CUNY

Roy F. Schwitters
The University of Texas at Austin

Frank Wilczek
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

David Wright
Union of Concerned Scientists
 
wmheel1287 said:
It doesn't matter that we didn't target the oil. The oil is the weapon you so blithely ignore when you say Iran is powerless. Kuwait was "powerless" too....yet they were able to garner the allied forces of the world because the flow of oil was endangered.

If the flow of that oil to China gets disrupted, we are the cause. In that case, they will absolutely hit us in many ways that will hurt....militarily and economically.
Click to expand...
If an asteroid hits the earth, we'll all die. If Jennifer Anniston goes back in time and comes to my house 20 years younger, I'm going to have an affair. You are concerned about things that are not going to happen. Stop fear-mongering. Get yourself together.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Yup, and we likely finally reached the point where the bombs were necessary. Almost no casualties were caused by the strikes unless Iran was stupid enough to leave people in those facilities after we telegraphed our impending moves. This is essentially like complaining about a home run at Oracle Park because you are worried that it might hit a fish when it plops into the ocean.
Click to expand...
We didn’t reach the point where bombs were necessary…not even close. We only reached a point where Israel wanted us to use our bombs and troops. There would have been no need if Israel didn’t go rogue and decided to escalate things with Iran. They were not close to getting nuclear weapons. There was time to work on a peaceful resolution. Israel is the root cause of this shit and they’re the ones commanding us on what to do. It’s just like how they tricked us into the war with Iraq.

Netanyahu knows Iran wasn’t close to getting a bomb, even when he was using his ACME bomb chart. He’s wanted to topple the regime there for 30 years and has been trying to dupe us into helping him eliminate that threat. Our government officials put Israel above US citizens and it’s disgusting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top