The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

That's an interesting accusation. Let's see if there's any evidence for it.

Do you believe Iran to be a terrorist state? Do you believe it to be run by Islamists? Just FYI, most of the free world believe so and there's plenty of evidence for it. Or is that a position you don't subscribe because they share with you a common enemy?

---

1) Probably

2) Yes

But neither of those should be justifications for pre-emptively attacking nuclear facilities or starting a war.

---

This is where we disagree. I am unwilling to rely on the goodwill and reasoning abilities of a terrorist state run by Islamist zealots to behave with a cache of nuclear weapons. And I think doing so would be extremely foolish.

---

They have agreed to not pursue nuclear weapons but refuse to give up their nuclear energy program.

---

As I said, you and I disagree on the goodwill and reasoning abilities of a terrorist Islamist state. I don't trust them to not pursue nuclear weapons, whereas you take them at their word.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

---

You don't, which is why Iran would essentially be giving up its nuclear program altogether. It's essentially what Trump demanded, and why he pulled out of the deal authored by Obama. Are you actually saying Trump was wrong?

---

It is what Israel has demanded.

Trump is still trying to decide if fighting WW3 on behalf of Israel is in America's best interest.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

---

You don't, which is why Iran would essentially be giving up its nuclear program altogether. It's essentially what Trump demanded, and why he pulled out of the deal authored by Obama. Are you actually saying Trump was wrong?

---

It is what Israel has demanded.

Trump is still trying to decide if fighting WW3 on behalf of Israel is in America's best interest.

---

No, it is what Trump demanded, unless of course you subscribe to the theory he is a mere puppet of the evil Israel, which is probably the case, since you nuts believe Israel is responsible for the world's ills:

Like UAE and many other countries, Iran can run their plants without the capability to enrich uranium...

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

---

You don't, which is why Iran would essentially be giving up its nuclear program altogether. It's essentially what Trump demanded, and why he pulled out of the deal authored by Obama. Are you actually saying Trump was wrong?

---

It is what Israel has demanded.

Trump is still trying to decide if fighting WW3 on behalf of Israel is in America's best interest.

---

Trump made that choice long ago.

If anyone is going to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities it's going to be Israel.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

---

That's the wrong question. The real question is why would a country that is among the largest oil producers in the world with among the largest oil reserves in the world NEED NUCLEAR POWER?

(BTW - I vote "no" for war with Iran)

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

---

You don't, which is why Iran would essentially be giving up its nuclear program altogether. It's essentially what Trump demanded, and why he pulled out of the deal authored by Obama. Are you actually saying Trump was wrong?

---

It's not only wrong, but absurd. Trump has no right to demand such a thing.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

---

You don't, which is why Iran would essentially be giving up its nuclear program altogether. It's essentially what Trump demanded, and why he pulled out of the deal authored by Obama. Are you actually saying Trump was wrong?

---

It's not only wrong, but absurd. Trump has no right to demand such a thing.

---

What's wrong is for Iran to be a pariah state that sends terrorists out into the world to wreak havoc. What's wrong is for Iran to be a country that spreads Islamic terror throughout the ME. They've forfeited their ability to unfettered access to nuclear technology.

Another example of your moral bankruptcy and misplaced priorities. You have no shame.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

---

You don't, which is why Iran would essentially be giving up its nuclear program altogether. It's essentially what Trump demanded, and why he pulled out of the deal authored by Obama. Are you actually saying Trump was wrong?

---

It's not only wrong, but absurd. Trump has no right to demand such a thing.

---

Good grief.....might makes right in foreign affairs.

Always has, always will.

Play word games, stand on your little platform.

But Isreal cant afford to. Their lives are at risk.

If they decide Iran's bomb development puts Israel in danger.

The Jews will bomb the **** out of Iran.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

---

You don't, which is why Iran would essentially be giving up its nuclear program altogether. It's essentially what Trump demanded, and why he pulled out of the deal authored by Obama. Are you actually saying Trump was wrong?

---

It's not only wrong, but absurd. Trump has no right to demand such a thing.

---

Good grief.....might makes right in foreign affairs.

Always has, always will.

Play word games, stand on your little platform.

But Isreal cant afford to. Their lives are at risk.

If they decide Iran's bomb development puts Israel in danger.

The Jews will bomb the **** out of Iran.

---

Sam has always had a soft spot for despots and terrorist states.

See Russia. See Iran.

The West is ALWAYS the bad guy in his book.

See the U.S. See Israel.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

---

You don't, which is why Iran would essentially be giving up its nuclear program altogether. It's essentially what Trump demanded, and why he pulled out of the deal authored by Obama. Are you actually saying Trump was wrong?

---

It's not only wrong, but absurd. Trump has no right to demand such a thing.

---

What's wrong is for Iran to be a pariah state that sends terrorists out into the world to wreak havoc. What's wrong is for Iran to be a country that spreads Islamic terror throughout the ME. They've forfeited their ability to unfettered access to nuclear technology.

Another example of your moral bankruptcy and misplaced priorities. You have no shame.

---

I've been explaining this for years, and you still don't get it. The US and Iran are parties to a treaty called the NPT. We've expressly recognized Iran's right to a civilian nuclear program and pledged to support it, in exchange for which they've agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. When Trump demands that they give up nuclear energy, he's effectively renouncing the treaty and signaling to Iran that they might as well ignore anything we say.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

---

You don't, which is why Iran would essentially be giving up its nuclear program altogether. It's essentially what Trump demanded, and why he pulled out of the deal authored by Obama. Are you actually saying Trump was wrong?

---

It's not only wrong, but absurd. Trump has no right to demand such a thing.

---

I agree, but point out that asking for the legal logic of Trump demands is like the complaints about the un-scientific plot twists in Walking Dead Season 5...

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

---

You don't, which is why Iran would essentially be giving up its nuclear program altogether. It's essentially what Trump demanded, and why he pulled out of the deal authored by Obama. Are you actually saying Trump was wrong?

---

It's not only wrong, but absurd. Trump has no right to demand such a thing.

---

What's wrong is for Iran to be a pariah state that sends terrorists out into the world to wreak havoc. What's wrong is for Iran to be a country that spreads Islamic terror throughout the ME. They've forfeited their ability to unfettered access to nuclear technology.

Another example of your moral bankruptcy and misplaced priorities. You have no shame.

---

I've been explaining this for years, and you still don't get it. The US and Iran are parties to a treaty called the NPT. We've expressly recognized Iran's right to a civilian nuclear program and pledged to support it, in exchange for which they've agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. When Trump demands that they give up nuclear energy, he's effectively renouncing the treaty and signaling to Iran that they might as well ignore anything we say.

---

I've been explaining this for years, and you still don't get it. When Iran consistently and continually violated the NPT, refusing to let the IAEA inspectors access to their facilities and hiding work they were performing, that's called under the law a prior material breach of the agreement. When a party flaunts and violates the terms of your agreement, then the law generally recognizes that the aggrieved party is no longer bound by same.

Iran's Repeated Violations of NPT

This is pretty simple, yet for some reason, a lawyer still doesn't get it.

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

---

You don't, which is why Iran would essentially be giving up its nuclear program altogether. It's essentially what Trump demanded, and why he pulled out of the deal authored by Obama. Are you actually saying Trump was wrong?

---

It's not only wrong, but absurd. Trump has no right to demand such a thing.

---

What's wrong is for Iran to be a pariah state that sends terrorists out into the world to wreak havoc. What's wrong is for Iran to be a country that spreads Islamic terror throughout the ME. They've forfeited their ability to unfettered access to nuclear technology.

Another example of your moral bankruptcy and misplaced priorities. You have no shame.

---

I've been explaining this for years, and you still don't get it. The US and Iran are parties to a treaty called the NPT. We've expressly recognized Iran's right to a civilian nuclear program and pledged to support it, in exchange for which they've agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. When Trump demands that they give up nuclear energy, he's effectively renouncing the treaty and signaling to Iran that they might as well ignore anything we say.

---

I've been explaining this for years, and you still don't get it. When Iran consistently and continually violated the NPT, refusing to let the IAEA inspectors access to their facilities and hiding work they were performing, that's called under the law a prior material breach of the agreement. When a party flaunts and violates the terms of your agreement, then the law generally recognizes that the aggrieved party is no longer bound by same.

This is pretty simple, yet for some reason, a lawyer still doesn't get it.

---

Iran was in technical compliance according to inspectors when Trump abrogated the agreement in his first term. Iran has seen themselves as the aggrieved party and that any negotiation with US/Trump is simply a show pony.
I do not disagree with Iran being a rogue state and deserving of treatment as such. Building a bomb is a very known process and a country with the will and the resources can build one, with or without help from Western experts. It may be the case that we have been engaged in a long delaying effort against Iran's development which will finally be successful. If Israel could wipe out their nuclear development in one bombing or 5, they would have already done so. If they could push development back another 5-10 years they would try that. Nuclear sites hardened against destruction would require boots on the ground to destroy. Aside from a special forces suicide mission, the only solutions to destroying a hardened site is a land war with Iran and/or the first strike nuclear option. Who is the international pariah then?

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

---

You don't, which is why Iran would essentially be giving up its nuclear program altogether. It's essentially what Trump demanded, and why he pulled out of the deal authored by Obama. Are you actually saying Trump was wrong?

---

It's not only wrong, but absurd. Trump has no right to demand such a thing.

---

What's wrong is for Iran to be a pariah state that sends terrorists out into the world to wreak havoc. What's wrong is for Iran to be a country that spreads Islamic terror throughout the ME. They've forfeited their ability to unfettered access to nuclear technology.

Another example of your moral bankruptcy and misplaced priorities. You have no shame.

---

I've been explaining this for years, and you still don't get it. The US and Iran are parties to a treaty called the NPT. We've expressly recognized Iran's right to a civilian nuclear program and pledged to support it, in exchange for which they've agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. When Trump demands that they give up nuclear energy, he's effectively renouncing the treaty and signaling to Iran that they might as well ignore anything we say.

---

I've been explaining this for years, and you still don't get it. When Iran consistently and continually violated the NPT, refusing to let the IAEA inspectors access to their facilities and hiding work they were performing, that's called under the law a prior material breach of the agreement. When a party flaunts and violates the terms of your agreement, then the law generally recognizes that the aggrieved party is no longer bound by same.

Iran's Repeated Violations of NPT

This is pretty simple, yet for some reason, a lawyer still doesn't get it.

---

Cause he doesn't want to get it.

Ignores unpleasant facts.....especially when they inhibit his pontificating.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

---

You don't, which is why Iran would essentially be giving up its nuclear program altogether. It's essentially what Trump demanded, and why he pulled out of the deal authored by Obama. Are you actually saying Trump was wrong?

---

It's not only wrong, but absurd. Trump has no right to demand such a thing.

---

What's wrong is for Iran to be a pariah state that sends terrorists out into the world to wreak havoc. What's wrong is for Iran to be a country that spreads Islamic terror throughout the ME. They've forfeited their ability to unfettered access to nuclear technology.

Another example of your moral bankruptcy and misplaced priorities. You have no shame.

---

I've been explaining this for years, and you still don't get it. The US and Iran are parties to a treaty called the NPT. We've expressly recognized Iran's right to a civilian nuclear program and pledged to support it, in exchange for which they've agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. When Trump demands that they give up nuclear energy, he's effectively renouncing the treaty and signaling to Iran that they might as well ignore anything we say.

---

I've been explaining this for years, and you still don't get it. When Iran consistently and continually violated the NPT, refusing to let the IAEA inspectors access to their facilities and hiding work they were performing, that's called under the law a prior material breach of the agreement. When a party flaunts and violates the terms of your agreement, then the law generally recognizes that the aggrieved party is no longer bound by same.

Iran's Repeated Violations of NPT

This is pretty simple, yet for some reason, a lawyer still doesn't get it.

---

Your article is well out of date. What it describes, with varying degrees of accuracy, are issues that were in play prior to the JCPOA. Obama saw that abandoning the treaty would have been counter-productive. Instead he negotiated an agreement, only to see it arbitrarily jettisoned by Trump.

Leaving all that aside, though, let's assume for a moment that you're right and there is no negotiated solution to be had. In that case we would have the same right to attack Iran that we have to attack any other country with a civilian nuclear program, i.e. none whatsoever.

What we need is a technological advance on missile defense - I do FULLY support Trump's Golden Dome. That would be change the calculus considerably for everyone.

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

OsoCoreyell said:

---

What we need is a technological advance on missile defense - I do FULLY support Trump's Golden Dome. That would be change the calculus considerably for everyone.

---

Suspect the cost will be prohibitive.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

---

You don't, which is why Iran would essentially be giving up its nuclear program altogether. It's essentially what Trump demanded, and why he pulled out of the deal authored by Obama. Are you actually saying Trump was wrong?

---

It's not only wrong, but absurd. Trump has no right to demand such a thing.

---

What's wrong is for Iran to be a pariah state that sends terrorists out into the world to wreak havoc. What's wrong is for Iran to be a country that spreads Islamic terror throughout the ME. They've forfeited their ability to unfettered access to nuclear technology.

Another example of your moral bankruptcy and misplaced priorities. You have no shame.

---

I've been explaining this for years, and you still don't get it. The US and Iran are parties to a treaty called the NPT. We've expressly recognized Iran's right to a civilian nuclear program and pledged to support it, in exchange for which they've agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. When Trump demands that they give up nuclear energy, he's effectively renouncing the treaty and signaling to Iran that they might as well ignore anything we say.

---

I've been explaining this for years, and you still don't get it. When Iran consistently and continually violated the NPT, refusing to let the IAEA inspectors access to their facilities and hiding work they were performing, that's called under the law a prior material breach of the agreement. When a party flaunts and violates the terms of your agreement, then the law generally recognizes that the aggrieved party is no longer bound by same.

Iran's Repeated Violations of NPT

This is pretty simple, yet for some reason, a lawyer still doesn't get it.

---

Your article is well out of date. What it describes, with varying degrees of accuracy, are issues that were in play prior to the JCPOA. Obama saw that abandoning the treaty would have been counter-productive. Instead he negotiated an agreement, only to see it arbitrarily jettisoned by Trump.

Leaving all that aside, though, let's assume for a moment that you're right and there is no negotiated solution to be had. In that case we would have the same right to attack Iran that we have to attack any other country with a civilian nuclear program, i.e. none whatsoever.

---

I'm not defending Trump's actions. You brought up the NPT and I'm simply responding to why that's irrelevant at this point given Iran's well documented violations of same.

As for Iran, we'd have no less right to respond to the terrorist state involved in a proxy war with the U.S. than Russia had for invading Ukraine. But your double standard on that point is not a surprise.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.

As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.

Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?

KaiBear said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

What we need is a technological advance on missile defense - I do FULLY support Trump's Golden Dome. That would be change the calculus considerably for everyone.

---

Suspect the cost will be prohibitive.

---

I just want to be the ones that design and deploy it before anyone else does. China with a working Golden Dome defense system will be the largest threat the world has ever seen.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

---

You don't, which is why Iran would essentially be giving up its nuclear program altogether. It's essentially what Trump demanded, and why he pulled out of the deal authored by Obama. Are you actually saying Trump was wrong?

---

It's not only wrong, but absurd. Trump has no right to demand such a thing.

---

What's wrong is for Iran to be a pariah state that sends terrorists out into the world to wreak havoc. What's wrong is for Iran to be a country that spreads Islamic terror throughout the ME. They've forfeited their ability to unfettered access to nuclear technology.

Another example of your moral bankruptcy and misplaced priorities. You have no shame.

---

I've been explaining this for years, and you still don't get it. The US and Iran are parties to a treaty called the NPT. We've expressly recognized Iran's right to a civilian nuclear program and pledged to support it, in exchange for which they've agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. When Trump demands that they give up nuclear energy, he's effectively renouncing the treaty and signaling to Iran that they might as well ignore anything we say.

---

I've been explaining this for years, and you still don't get it. When Iran consistently and continually violated the NPT, refusing to let the IAEA inspectors access to their facilities and hiding work they were performing, that's called under the law a prior material breach of the agreement. When a party flaunts and violates the terms of your agreement, then the law generally recognizes that the aggrieved party is no longer bound by same.

Iran's Repeated Violations of NPT

This is pretty simple, yet for some reason, a lawyer still doesn't get it.

---

Your article is well out of date. What it describes, with varying degrees of accuracy, are issues that were in play prior to the JCPOA. Obama saw that abandoning the treaty would have been counter-productive. Instead he negotiated an agreement, only to see it arbitrarily jettisoned by Trump.

Leaving all that aside, though, let's assume for a moment that you're right and there is no negotiated solution to be had. In that case we would have the same right to attack Iran that we have to attack any other country with a civilian nuclear program, i.e. none whatsoever.

---

I'm not defending Trump's actions. You brought up the NPT and I'm simply responding to why that's irrelevant at this point given Iran's well documented violations of same.

As for Iran, we'd have no less right to respond to the terrorist state involved in a proxy war with the U.S. than Russia had for invading Ukraine. But your double standard on that point is not a surprise.

---

If the NPT were irrelevant, we wouldn't be so concerned about keeping Iran a party to it. Those who are really interested in non-proliferation know that's the best way. They know inspections work. But they're not the ones you're paying attention to. The same warmongers who sold you the Iraq fiasco are pushing the same old propaganda, and you're buying it all over again. They never wanted a nuclear deal. They don't care about containing Iran's nuclear program. They care about one thing only, and that's regime change.

The choice between a ground war and a nuclear-armed Iran is a false dilemma. Our real choice is between diplomacy and another military ****show that will gain us nothing in the long run but another drawn-out defeat and a new nuclear enemy.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.

As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.

Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?

---

You're bringing up conflicts from more than 250 years ago to try and claim that we are in danger of getting nuked by the UK in the future? Really??? My God, man.

It's post like these that scare the **** out of me. Some of you conservative wingnuts are bat **** crazy.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

The newer generations end up just as radical as the older ones. Iran and Islam are built to make sure it happens that way. Sure, under economic duress or some extreme regime action (death of someone or policy) you'll get some public discord from time to time, but it eventually falls back in line.

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.

As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.

Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?

---

You're bringing up conflicts from more than 250 years ago to try and claim that we are in danger of getting nuked by the UK in the future? Really??? My God, man.

It's post like these that scare the **** out of me. Some of you conservative wingnuts are bat **** crazy.

---

You claimed the UK had no history of exporting terrorism around the world. If you are that careless with your own words it is no wonder you are so cavalier about American lives and think throwing some misiles around will fix the problem.

Again, if missile strikes would fix the problem then why did Obama, Trump and Biden fail to order the strikes? You are running away from the most important question because you know the answer is that missile strikes will not stop Iran or else the strikes would have already happened.

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

The newer generations end up just as radical as the older ones. Iran and Islam are built to make sure it happens that way. Sure, under economic duress or some extreme regime action (death of someone or policy) you'll get some public discord from time to time, but it eventually falls back in line.

---

Then the only rational conclusion is a clash of civilizations to end it once and for all?

Perhaps the worst thing Clinton did was condition the American public and politicians to the idea that we could engage in military conflicts with no boots on the ground. The Serbians had to be stopped, but Americans now seem to sincerely believe we can just handle everything from the air. We cannot. Decisive victory entails boots on the ground, regime change where possible (Marshall plan/Japan) or salting the earth, if no other course is possible. America has not had the political will for that type of engagement since Vietnam.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.

As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.

Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?

---

Stuxnet has been by far the most successful inhibitor of the Iranian nuclear program thus far. That and the execution of scientists by the Mossad. Maybe an AI driven meltdown in the future?

And the UK has a 7% Islamic population, with less than that having citizen voting rights. It will take a minute before they have their finger on the trigger so to say.