Quote:

---

1) If you can point me to some examples of the UK engaging in terrorism in the last, say, 100 years that is tantamount to what Iran is doing on a daily basis (and against our interests), I am willing to reconsider your moral equivalency.

---

We're getting into basic history. Let's start with the easy ones:

• The black and tans
• Cork
• Bloody Sunday
• The murder triangle (make sure to pull that thread and get to both civilian bombings)
• Dresden (which we were a part of and led for practical reasons)
• Jallianwalla
• Ventersburg
• All eight years in Kenya (my favorite speculation is that Obama removed Churchill's bust from the Oval Office because his Kenyan father would have almost certainly passed on a hatred of the Brits down to BHO)

That should be enough to get you started. If you sense a focus on theTroubles, well, I have already admitted in another thread that I am Catholic, so you can probably put two and two together. You should at least consider that there are tens of millions, and possibly hundreds of millions, of people around the world that for good reason do not particularly differentiate between the actions of Iran and the UK's history everywhere from N./Ireland to Kenya to the Indian subcontinent to Malaysia and many other places.

Quote:

---

3) The irony of the rational/reasonable debate is that it appears you believe the exact same thing as I do. You made very clear that you don't believe Iran will be rational/reasonable, but advocate for "the UN, EU and KSA tak[ing] the lead on Iran with passive support from us (EU and KSA each have far more to lose with Iranian nukes, IMHO)." Well, if you advocate for the UN, EU and KSA continuing to negotiate with Iran, it suggests you believe that Iran does indeed have the ability to be rational/reasonable based on the definitions you've proffered. So, which is it?

---

No, it is not the same exact thing as you believe. You have this very nasty habit of imagining words and meaning that are not there. "Let them take the lead" only means "let them take the lead." Nowhere did I advocate or oppose that group negotiating with Iran.

The UN, EU and KSA are more than free to waste their precious time and resources on the fool's errand of negotiating with Iran, if that is what they want to do. If they want to go to war, let them go to war. If they want to become allies with Iran, well, gulp, but so be it, they have their own sovereignty. I do not care what they do and we can provide passive support to the extent it is beneficial to American interests. Let them take the lead only means let them take the lead [with no guidance or guardrails from the USA]. There is nothing to support your further inferences in my words other than your desire to make a misconceived point.

From a practical perspective, it would be much better for us if those entities played the foil to Iran's militant leadership--it might make them targets instead of us. We would get the bonus of not being the slowest guy running away from the bear. Put the target on their backs as they are the ones who have greater risk.

Quote:

---

4) Sam has been wrong on a lot more things than simply COVID, when it comes to civil liberties. COVID and Trump have seemed to break him. Are you Catholic as well?

---

Yes, I am.

Quote:

---

5) With regard to nation building, I would submit you have difficulty making cogent arguments, as opposed to me having an issue with abstract thought. Here is what you previously said in response to my contention we should not be engaging in nation building in Afghanistan:

[...]

Any reasonable person who read this would believe you were voicing support for nation building in Afghanistan. Hell, even ATL, the poster you very much "respect," took your comments to mean as such. Yet, now you allege that isn't what you were saying? Mmmm kay. Speaking of moving the goalposts, that certainly seems to be what you're doing here.

---

A reasonable person also would have read the next two paragraphs in which I refer to the "halls of power" and "how things work". They would also note that I've said about half a dozen times that the answer is to salt the earth (polite speak for all out war to the bitter end) and that I have repeatedly said I have no appetite for nation building and long engagements in the Middle East. You read into my words what you did because you wanted to make a point.

Quote:

---

1) Not sure what question you believe me to be avoiding. I am happy to answer any question you pose. If it includes a premise I don't agree with - i.e. your false dilemma between a ground war and nukes - that does not mean I have not answered your question. But fire away.

---

A key expression of human intelligence and abstract thought is the ability to hold opposing viewpoints in your mind and consider them. Focusing instead on the premise which you reject is, well, less than enlightened thinking or, even worse, ideological. Which brings us to the crux of the issue....

Quote:

---

Depends on the circumstances and variables, but I would definitely advocate for putting the requisite defense funding and manpower into a workable missile defense shield that could counter Iranian nukes. That's likely going to be the only way to ensure American cities are not hit by an Iranian nuke. I likely would not advocate for a ground war with Iran, regardless.

---

Charlie Munger, may he rest in peace, was fond of saying that if you measure something you are going to get more of it, so you better think about what you are measuring.

If the commitment to preventing Iran from achieving nuclear armament is only to the extent that it can be done remotely or from the sky, then the key issue is not Iran's nuclear armament. The key issue (measurement) from the western perspective is whether we can prevent it remotely or from the sky. From Iranian perspective the key issue (measurement) is whether they can place/isolate their nuclear development beyond the reach of the limits of our commitment.* Obviously, this just devolves into a silly game where the real questions are (a) whether Iran can get a supply U-235 and U-239 to eventually decay into Pu-239 (remember, no known domestic supply in Iran of U-235 and U-239) and (b) whether Iran can get far enough underground and electronically isolate their facilities sufficiently to be beyond the limits of our commitment.

If one is truly ideologically committed to preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons it seems downright childish and silly that this amounts to underground facilities and logistics. If you really believe that Iran should not have nukes are you really going to allow them to win just because they built deep enough underground and they electronically/digitally isolated their facilities? Is that what tens of millions of lives come down to?

I hold our leaders throughout the west in very low esteem, but even they are not that unserious. No, I think they are truly committed to preventing Iran from having nukes all the way up to and through ground war. I know this sounds inconceivable but we went into Iraq ostensibly due to the never-located WMDs. So I am not some crazy kook here given we are about 20 years removed from chasing Iraq's alleged WMDs.

Quote:

---

I used to like Carlson, but I now consider him an absolute nutjob and pariah, and don't trust a thing he says, as the man is an admitted liar and agitator who stirs up condescension for clicks. However, if what Carlson is saying is true (and I say that with the caveat that there is zero evidence of his statements), then yes, I would be concerned. But I trust that Trump, given his past conduct, is smart enough not to involve us in another extended ground war and nation building exercise.

---

The Israeli media gave you strong circumstantial confirmation of Carlson's reporting. Of course, since you posted and before I replied the AP reported that America is ordering nonessential embassy personnel out of Middle East. Trump also said this today:

Quote:

---

"They can't have a nuclear weapon. Very simple, they can't have a nuclear weapon."

---

Always take what he says with an entire salt tablet, but that sounds like a man prepared to do whatever it takes to stop Iran from getting a nuke. It is so obvious where this is all heading. I pray I am wrong, but it is not looking good.

*I do not know if you have ever been 1000 feet underground in a military/industrial context, but it really is incredible and gives one a great appreciation for just how much human activity can occur down there by solving what are for the most part engineering problems (especially if you are working below or around bedrock for stabilization).

Mothra said:

---

Depends on the circumstances and variables, but I would definitely advocate for putting the requisite defense funding and manpower into a workable missile defense shield that could counter Iranian nukes. That's likely going to be the only way to ensure American cities are not hit by an Iranian nuke. I likely would not advocate for a ground war with Iran, regardless.

---

This is probably where most Americans stand. What "circumstances and variables" means in practice is that you don't really have the stomach for a ground war but you can't say for sure what you'll advocate until you know who's calling the shots and whether they have a (D) or an (R) next to their name.

This is a dangerous and unwise position. It's how we keep getting into these quagmires, but in this case we're not dealing with a third-rate power like Afghanistan.

The most likely way we go to war with Iran is that Israel starts it. All indications at the moment are that Netanyahu is prepared to do so but Trump has misgivings. What Trump needs to hear unequivocally is that we don't want and won't accept the US being dragged in.

Mothra said:

---

B. Tucker Carlson believes that influential people are lobbying Trump for regime change in Iran as we speak. We now have reports out of Israel that Netanyahu is agitating for action against Iran while Trump is trying to cool things down. Are you not worried in the least about what is going on here?

I used to like Carlson, but I now consider him an absolute nutjob and pariah, and don't trust a thing he says, as the man is an admitted liar and agitator who stirs up condescension for clicks. However, if what Carlson is saying is true (and I say that with the caveat that there is zero evidence of his statements), then yes, I would be concerned. But I trust that Trump, given his past conduct, is smart enough not to involve us in another extended ground war and nation building exercise.

---

Translation: I used to like Tucker, but then he started telling to truth about Israel and I couldnt stand the idea of the gentiles being informed about how they are being royally ****ed over by their "greatest ally"

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

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.

---

Far from being cavalier with my words, I assumed you were a reasonable person operating in good faith, and understood what I meant by that term. Apparently not. I suppose under your overly broad definition of terrorism, the US is the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world. Amiright?

As for the missile strikes, you're making lots of unwarranted assumptions. There are plenty of motivations for not striking Iran, including the idea that the US could bring them back to the table through sanctions and incentives. I actually agree with Sam that the best way to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons is diplomacy. I would employ missile strikes only as a last resort. And I don't think at any point we've reached that stage. I suspect our past and current president feel the same.

But if the choice is between doing nothing, as you suggest, or trying to prevent them from nuking another country, I take my chances on a precision strike.

---

So it is my fault that you are making factually incorrect statements and we need to read deeper meaning into what you are saying? Sure, we'll all just read your mind for your intended meaning instead of you actually typing out what you mean. Give me a break. Just own your own carelessness. And FYI, it was 50 years ago that the British Army was running roughshod in Northern Ireland during the troubles.

Re: "last resort" I find your approach to be unrealistic and immature. You don't strike as a last resort. The problem isn't the physical capability. That can always be rebuilt and improved on. You strike to prevent the development of technical expertise and experience. That is the actual hard part. As long as the Iranians are taking good notes and backing up their files, then your last resort missile strike is only delaying the inevitable until they build their facilities deep enough and far enough underground in a secure enough place that we can't reach.

Recall, we have military installations designed to withstand nuclear strikes because of how deep they are buried underground. Do you think Iran is not capable of doing the same? Do you think we have some magic bunker buster bomb that can do a job a nuclear strike cannot? Do you think Iran cannot just build back deeper and further isolated? The scary thing is not the physical capacity but the technical expertise. And if you're going to strike, you do it to prevent technical expertise. Otherwise, all you are doing is kicking the can down the road.

I don't think that the missile proponents have actually thought of the technical feasibility of their desired plan of action.

Re: failure to launch strikes during the past 16 years. Your explanations are already violating your key assumption: that Iran is not rational. Your explanation for failing to strike their facilites is that perhaps Obama, Trump and Biden were hoping to get Iran to engage like a rational actor by coming to the negotiating table? Sam can assume that Iran will behave rationally (perhaps he's right or weong), but your whole schtick is that Iran is not rational so they cannot get a bomb. Who is hoping and crossing their fingers now?

Look, I just want people to be honest. Ideological commitment to preventing Iran from getting nukes almost certainly ends with American boys and girls in country on the ground for years and years. I'm not willing to go there.

---

Buddy, you've made the argument that we need to be concerned about a longtime ally having nukes because of things that happened 250 plus years, and now you want to argue semantics? Cut the bull***** It was a ridiculous position on its face, which you're a smart guy and should well know.

The position that Iran having nukes is inevitable ignores what Israel has been able to do with far less than bunker busting bombs (though they seem to have some pretty good ones if their recent strikes are any indication). Intelligence reports state that it significantly set back the program. As Atl alluded to, those clandestine operations have been pretty effective.

No, like you, I don't trust Iran to act rational with a nuke. Does that mean we don't exhaust all diplomatic efforts before we decide on a military strike? Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand.

Ironically, like Sam, I simply don't accept your false dilemma between a ground war and a nuclear armed Iran. I'm also not so incredibly naive as to believe we can fortify our country from a nuclear attack. I'm just not willing to throw up my hands and give up as you are.

---

You said you would only worry when the UK had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world, I pointed out they have a centuries long-history of terrorism and included an example from less than 50 years ago (Her Majesty's Army's actions in Northern Ireland). Disappointing that you are incapable of owning your oversight, but so be it.

More important is the substance of your positions: You simultaneously seem to take the positions that:

A. "I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything."

B. "Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand."

A is part of your position that we must do all that is possible to stop Iran from getting a nuke because they are not rational.

B is your position that we can negotiate with them because they can be rational ("incentivized").

A and B are facially irreconcilable, unless you have some magic way of understanding them to be rational but also conclude that they are not rational. Please reconcile for the best of us.

Additionally, please stop lying. I have already said in this thread that Iran is not going to be rational with a nuke, yet you keep accusing me of believing otherwise. How much clearer could I be?

When I first got started professionally a dear mentor hammered home the following lesson with regard to portfolio composition: "when you are long commodities, you are short human ingenuity. Be very careful betting against humanity." I'm going to borrow from him here. To believe that we can permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes is to be short human ingenuity. Throughout all of history humans have shown new and clever ways for getting around prohibitions of all kind. Humanity is sort of undefeated in that regard. The Romans, of course, eventually found the only solution I am aware of to this problem: they salted the earth after complete military victory over their adversaries when the Romans concluded their vanquished enemies were incapable of living peacefully with Rome.

So let me try it this way: Assume that everything else has failed. Iran proves to be on the cusp of or has attained a dozen or so nuclear bombs. The only way to stop them is through a ground war that will necessarily entail hundreds of thousands of troops in theater for decades to come as you try to rebuild the country ala the Marshall plan or Japan. It will be much nastier than W. Bush's Iraq engagement. Are you ready to go there politically? Are you ready to send your sons and daughters to the middle East in those circumstances?

---

1) [......]

So, what's the plan, big guy?

---

Let's dance.

A. X. Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Y. "As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world then you might have a point."

Does the UK have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world or not? It is a straightforward question.

Quote:

---

I will reiterate the more pertinent point which you've failed to address: when you have to go back centuries to make the case that a longtime ally who we've fought alongside in ever major world war should be disarmed, you might consider that your position is completely and totally ridiculous.

---

B. You seem to not understand (or at least ignore) second- and third-order effects. JD Vance made the provocative joke last summer just days before being nominated as VP by Trump that the UK already is the the first Islamist nuclear power because of Labour.* The joke contains a strand of truth which makes it impactful. A member of the House of Lords caused a row over there about a year ago by claiming that the UK would become Islamist through the power of the womb. For about 10 to 15 years demographers have believed that the UK will be majority Muslim somewhere between 2050 and 2080 (UK Islam is heavily inline with the variety of Pakistani Islamists beliefs). The Labour party is CURRENTLY extremely responsive to its Muslim constituency because of the UK's first past the post parliamentary system already makes voting Muslims an important bloc to Labour (see today's raging debate about the banning of Halal practices in the slaughter of animals). That constituency will be a more important bloc by the year until they become an outright majority. Dismiss the trends there at your own risk.

In the early 1980s, once the Afrikaners saw the writing on the wall, they sort of voluntarily chose to get rid of their nukes and shut down their program (BDS heavily influenced the Afrikaners, so I hesitate to call it a purely voluntary disarmament). I think SA is a relevant example to the UK. If the UK is really heading toward an Islamist-majority population in the next 25 to 50 years (according to demographers) and if Islamists must never be allowed to get nukes (according to you) and if we have the precedent of a disarmament by SA, do you really think this is "completely and totally ridiculous"? At bare minimum, UK demographic trends are a contingency that must be game-theorized out by any prudent world power: so tell me, what is your war game plan there if Islamists do achieve outright political control in the UK? I know, I know, they are an ally, I'm sure that will ensure their future Islamist overlords are restrained. But just game-theory this out for me and keep this all in the abstract. What do you do if and when Islamists achieve outright political control in the UK?

C. You said: "I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything." You are now also suggesting that they can be rational before attaining a nuke. Responding to incentives as *one* understands them to be is the very textbook definition of rational behavior in economics. Psychology has similar principles. When you suggest that Iran can be incentivized, you are implicitly taking the position that they are rational. Which stands in direct contrast to your position that you have "never known Islamists to be reasonable". So which is it: Are Islamists capable of behaving reasonably or not? Yes, having nukes will change the equation, but your unequivocal statement was that these are people incapable of being reasonable *even before* they have attained nukes. I find your positions to be idiosyncratic and irreconcilable and you really have not tried to harmonize your positions.

D. I have offered a plan and solution: Fortress America or ground war. I do not support the latter, but it is the obvious solution if we are going to play offense. I do not believe we can permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes (short of a ground invasion/nation building) and I do not believe they will step back from pursuing nukes. I do not favor a ground invasion. So that leaves Fortress America.

My bigger issue is that this posturing of "Iran must not be allowed to have a nuke" is clearly setting the predicate for an eventual ground war. Tucker Carlson believes at minimum that influential people are agitating for war/regime change with Iran as we speak. Does that not in the least make you question what may be happening here?

I'll repeat my question to you and make it simpler: Assume that everything else has failed. Iran proves to be on the cusp of or has attained a half dozen or so nuclear bombs. You have ideologically committed yourself to the idea that Iran cannot be allowed to have nukes. Now what do you do?

Quote:

---

You were wrong on Afghanistan and remain wrong on Afghanistan. The issue there was the never ending occupation, not the decision to strike. We had no cogent exit strategy. But there's no question that we pretty much destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and eventually got bin Laden. We should have struck and gotten out instead of engaging in nation building.

---

I respect Sam a lot, especially on civil liberties where he is very thoughtful, though I disagree with him on much. He does not need my help. But the above Monday morning quarterbacking from you shows that you are way too cavalier and lack deliberate thought about this topic.

***THE*** defining military/strategic lesson of the 20th Century was that the Treaty of Versailles punishing Germany economically and diplomatically was a major blunder and important contributor that led to WWII. Failure to economically and diplomatically redevelop Germany after World War One was a massive mistake that allowed something far more evil and sinister to rise in Germany in the form of nationalist socialism/fascism.

Hence, post-WWII, you have the Marshall Plan in Europe and MacArthur in Japan doing everything possible to reindustrialize and integrate into the west both Europe and Japan. The post-WWII redevelopment was such a massive American success that the playbook at both Defense and State demands nation building after the overthrow of a government. The idea that we could have ever simply deposed of the Taliban, gotten OBL and then left Afghanistan (or Iraq after getting SH) is just inconceivable within the halls of power in this country. Our military and diplomatic officials would all be in consensus in their advice to POTUS that the overthrow of the Taliban and SH each required nation building on our part or we would run this risk of something more evil replacing the deposed government.

No PTOUS would stake his legacy on the risk of repeating the mistakes from the end of World War One. Even if a POTUS had the guts to go in a different direction, it would break the brains of all senior level officials at Defense and State and there would be constant second guessing and leaks to the media if an Executive pursued the plan of action you retrospectively propose. It just does not work the way that you want. You may want to rethink the inputs in your internal model as you consider the posture we are taking with Iran.

*I like Vance a lot, but his joke was in the same realm of VP Harris and Sec. Blinken's comments about NATO expansion--just a really bad idea to put your foot in your mouth like that.

---

You can't nation build those who are antithetical to the nation you're trying to build. That is unless you're willing to get your hands incredibly dirty, which sullies the credibility of your efforts.

---

It is obviously true that you cannot nation build in the middle East, but that is not going to stop DoD and Department of State from trying. Does not matter what you or I think. What matters is what those in power think. I have been saying that to do it properly would require us to basically salt the Earth, but there is no political will for that in the USA. And since we are not willing to do that, this whole exercise is really a predicate to a disaster.

---

We don't need Iranian nation building, The Israelis have the will to do what's necessary, we just won't let them. And it doesn't require all the way to salt. I've said it multiple times, everyone says they'd like Israel to handle their own problems, until Israel starts handling their problems. Gaza is the latest example.

Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

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.

---

Far from being cavalier with my words, I assumed you were a reasonable person operating in good faith, and understood what I meant by that term. Apparently not. I suppose under your overly broad definition of terrorism, the US is the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world. Amiright?

As for the missile strikes, you're making lots of unwarranted assumptions. There are plenty of motivations for not striking Iran, including the idea that the US could bring them back to the table through sanctions and incentives. I actually agree with Sam that the best way to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons is diplomacy. I would employ missile strikes only as a last resort. And I don't think at any point we've reached that stage. I suspect our past and current president feel the same.

But if the choice is between doing nothing, as you suggest, or trying to prevent them from nuking another country, I take my chances on a precision strike.

---

So it is my fault that you are making factually incorrect statements and we need to read deeper meaning into what you are saying? Sure, we'll all just read your mind for your intended meaning instead of you actually typing out what you mean. Give me a break. Just own your own carelessness. And FYI, it was 50 years ago that the British Army was running roughshod in Northern Ireland during the troubles.

Re: "last resort" I find your approach to be unrealistic and immature. You don't strike as a last resort. The problem isn't the physical capability. That can always be rebuilt and improved on. You strike to prevent the development of technical expertise and experience. That is the actual hard part. As long as the Iranians are taking good notes and backing up their files, then your last resort missile strike is only delaying the inevitable until they build their facilities deep enough and far enough underground in a secure enough place that we can't reach.

Recall, we have military installations designed to withstand nuclear strikes because of how deep they are buried underground. Do you think Iran is not capable of doing the same? Do you think we have some magic bunker buster bomb that can do a job a nuclear strike cannot? Do you think Iran cannot just build back deeper and further isolated? The scary thing is not the physical capacity but the technical expertise. And if you're going to strike, you do it to prevent technical expertise. Otherwise, all you are doing is kicking the can down the road.

I don't think that the missile proponents have actually thought of the technical feasibility of their desired plan of action.

Re: failure to launch strikes during the past 16 years. Your explanations are already violating your key assumption: that Iran is not rational. Your explanation for failing to strike their facilites is that perhaps Obama, Trump and Biden were hoping to get Iran to engage like a rational actor by coming to the negotiating table? Sam can assume that Iran will behave rationally (perhaps he's right or weong), but your whole schtick is that Iran is not rational so they cannot get a bomb. Who is hoping and crossing their fingers now?

Look, I just want people to be honest. Ideological commitment to preventing Iran from getting nukes almost certainly ends with American boys and girls in country on the ground for years and years. I'm not willing to go there.

---

Buddy, you've made the argument that we need to be concerned about a longtime ally having nukes because of things that happened 250 plus years, and now you want to argue semantics? Cut the bull***** It was a ridiculous position on its face, which you're a smart guy and should well know.

The position that Iran having nukes is inevitable ignores what Israel has been able to do with far less than bunker busting bombs (though they seem to have some pretty good ones if their recent strikes are any indication). Intelligence reports state that it significantly set back the program. As Atl alluded to, those clandestine operations have been pretty effective.

No, like you, I don't trust Iran to act rational with a nuke. Does that mean we don't exhaust all diplomatic efforts before we decide on a military strike? Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand.

Ironically, like Sam, I simply don't accept your false dilemma between a ground war and a nuclear armed Iran. I'm also not so incredibly naive as to believe we can fortify our country from a nuclear attack. I'm just not willing to throw up my hands and give up as you are.

---

You said you would only worry when the UK had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world, I pointed out they have a centuries long-history of terrorism and included an example from less than 50 years ago (Her Majesty's Army's actions in Northern Ireland). Disappointing that you are incapable of owning your oversight, but so be it.

More important is the substance of your positions: You simultaneously seem to take the positions that:

A. "I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything."

B. "Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand."

A is part of your position that we must do all that is possible to stop Iran from getting a nuke because they are not rational.

B is your position that we can negotiate with them because they can be rational ("incentivized").

A and B are facially irreconcilable, unless you have some magic way of understanding them to be rational but also conclude that they are not rational. Please reconcile for the best of us.

Additionally, please stop lying. I have already said in this thread that Iran is not going to be rational with a nuke, yet you keep accusing me of believing otherwise. How much clearer could I be?

When I first got started professionally a dear mentor hammered home the following lesson with regard to portfolio composition: "when you are long commodities, you are short human ingenuity. Be very careful betting against humanity." I'm going to borrow from him here. To believe that we can permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes is to be short human ingenuity. Throughout all of history humans have shown new and clever ways for getting around prohibitions of all kind. Humanity is sort of undefeated in that regard. The Romans, of course, eventually found the only solution I am aware of to this problem: they salted the earth after complete military victory over their adversaries when the Romans concluded their vanquished enemies were incapable of living peacefully with Rome.

So let me try it this way: Assume that everything else has failed. Iran proves to be on the cusp of or has attained a dozen or so nuclear bombs. The only way to stop them is through a ground war that will necessarily entail hundreds of thousands of troops in theater for decades to come as you try to rebuild the country ala the Marshall plan or Japan. It will be much nastier than W. Bush's Iraq engagement. Are you ready to go there politically? Are you ready to send your sons and daughters to the middle East in those circumstances?

---

1) [......]

So, what's the plan, big guy?

---

Let's dance.

A. X. Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Y. "As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world then you might have a point."

Does the UK have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world or not? It is a straightforward question.

Quote:

---

I will reiterate the more pertinent point which you've failed to address: when you have to go back centuries to make the case that a longtime ally who we've fought alongside in ever major world war should be disarmed, you might consider that your position is completely and totally ridiculous.

---

B. You seem to not understand (or at least ignore) second- and third-order effects. JD Vance made the provocative joke last summer just days before being nominated as VP by Trump that the UK already is the the first Islamist nuclear power because of Labour.* The joke contains a strand of truth which makes it impactful. A member of the House of Lords caused a row over there about a year ago by claiming that the UK would become Islamist through the power of the womb. For about 10 to 15 years demographers have believed that the UK will be majority Muslim somewhere between 2050 and 2080 (UK Islam is heavily inline with the variety of Pakistani Islamists beliefs). The Labour party is CURRENTLY extremely responsive to its Muslim constituency because of the UK's first past the post parliamentary system already makes voting Muslims an important bloc to Labour (see today's raging debate about the banning of Halal practices in the slaughter of animals). That constituency will be a more important bloc by the year until they become an outright majority. Dismiss the trends there at your own risk.

In the early 1980s, once the Afrikaners saw the writing on the wall, they sort of voluntarily chose to get rid of their nukes and shut down their program (BDS heavily influenced the Afrikaners, so I hesitate to call it a purely voluntary disarmament). I think SA is a relevant example to the UK. If the UK is really heading toward an Islamist-majority population in the next 25 to 50 years (according to demographers) and if Islamists must never be allowed to get nukes (according to you) and if we have the precedent of a disarmament by SA, do you really think this is "completely and totally ridiculous"? At bare minimum, UK demographic trends are a contingency that must be game-theorized out by any prudent world power: so tell me, what is your war game plan there if Islamists do achieve outright political control in the UK? I know, I know, they are an ally, I'm sure that will ensure their future Islamist overlords are restrained. But just game-theory this out for me and keep this all in the abstract. What do you do if and when Islamists achieve outright political control in the UK?

C. You said: "I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything." You are now also suggesting that they can be rational before attaining a nuke. Responding to incentives as *one* understands them to be is the very textbook definition of rational behavior in economics. Psychology has similar principles. When you suggest that Iran can be incentivized, you are implicitly taking the position that they are rational. Which stands in direct contrast to your position that you have "never known Islamists to be reasonable". So which is it: Are Islamists capable of behaving reasonably or not? Yes, having nukes will change the equation, but your unequivocal statement was that these are people incapable of being reasonable *even before* they have attained nukes. I find your positions to be idiosyncratic and irreconcilable and you really have not tried to harmonize your positions.

D. I have offered a plan and solution: Fortress America or ground war. I do not support the latter, but it is the obvious solution if we are going to play offense. I do not believe we can permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes (short of a ground invasion/nation building) and I do not believe they will step back from pursuing nukes. I do not favor a ground invasion. So that leaves Fortress America.

My bigger issue is that this posturing of "Iran must not be allowed to have a nuke" is clearly setting the predicate for an eventual ground war. Tucker Carlson believes at minimum that influential people are agitating for war/regime change with Iran as we speak. Does that not in the least make you question what may be happening here?

I'll repeat my question to you and make it simpler: Assume that everything else has failed. Iran proves to be on the cusp of or has attained a half dozen or so nuclear bombs. You have ideologically committed yourself to the idea that Iran cannot be allowed to have nukes. Now what do you do?

Quote:

---

You were wrong on Afghanistan and remain wrong on Afghanistan. The issue there was the never ending occupation, not the decision to strike. We had no cogent exit strategy. But there's no question that we pretty much destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and eventually got bin Laden. We should have struck and gotten out instead of engaging in nation building.

---

I respect Sam a lot, especially on civil liberties where he is very thoughtful, though I disagree with him on much. He does not need my help. But the above Monday morning quarterbacking from you shows that you are way too cavalier and lack deliberate thought about this topic.

***THE*** defining military/strategic lesson of the 20th Century was that the Treaty of Versailles punishing Germany economically and diplomatically was a major blunder and important contributor that led to WWII. Failure to economically and diplomatically redevelop Germany after World War One was a massive mistake that allowed something far more evil and sinister to rise in Germany in the form of nationalist socialism/fascism.

Hence, post-WWII, you have the Marshall Plan in Europe and MacArthur in Japan doing everything possible to reindustrialize and integrate into the west both Europe and Japan. The post-WWII redevelopment was such a massive American success that the playbook at both Defense and State demands nation building after the overthrow of a government. The idea that we could have ever simply deposed of the Taliban, gotten OBL and then left Afghanistan (or Iraq after getting SH) is just inconceivable within the halls of power in this country. Our military and diplomatic officials would all be in consensus in their advice to POTUS that the overthrow of the Taliban and SH each required nation building on our part or we would run this risk of something more evil replacing the deposed government.

No PTOUS would stake his legacy on the risk of repeating the mistakes from the end of World War One. Even if a POTUS had the guts to go in a different direction, it would break the brains of all senior level officials at Defense and State and there would be constant second guessing and leaks to the media if an Executive pursued the plan of action you retrospectively propose. It just does not work the way that you want. You may want to rethink the inputs in your internal model as you consider the posture we are taking with Iran.

*I like Vance a lot, but his joke was in the same realm of VP Harris and Sec. Blinken's comments about NATO expansion--just a really bad idea to put your foot in your mouth like that.

---

You can't nation build those who are antithetical to the nation you're trying to build. That is unless you're willing to get your hands incredibly dirty, which sullies the credibility of your efforts.

---

It is obviously true that you cannot nation build in the middle East, but that is not going to stop DoD and Department of State from trying. Does not matter what you or I think. What matters is what those in power think. I have been saying that to do it properly would require us to basically salt the Earth, but there is no political will for that in the USA. And since we are not willing to do that, this whole exercise is really a predicate to a disaster.

---

We don't need Iranian nation building, The Israelis have the will to do what's necessary, we just won't let them. And it doesn't require all the way to salt. I've said it multiple times, everyone says they'd like Israel to handle their own problems, until Israel starts handling their problems. Gaza is the latest example.

---

Isrrael very obviously cannot do it on its own or Bibi wouldn't be sitting around waiting for Uncle Sam's go ahead. The real issue, I suspect, is that for all their solid tech advancements, key Israeli defense systems still depend on American military hardware. In particular, they make heavy use of American advanced early warning radar. That system is extremely powerful and if I recall correctly it can pick up something the size of a softball in flight in Iran.

Obama sort of f-ed with the Israelis when he was pissed at Bibi and added American operational control of the early warning radars when previously IDF personnel were permitted to operate. I am sure it has reverted by now. It was petty of Obama and sort of meaningless, but it got the message across that we could take our toys back if we want to.

The dangerous game that Bibi is playing here is that he tries to start a major war with Iran, America doesn't come along for the ride, and a pissed off Trump recalls our hardware on loan to them and cancels munitions sales to the IDF (we are by far the largest munitions supplier to Israel). I don't know who else would sell munitions s to Israel right now. That would be the worst possible outcome for Israel.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.

---

They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.

And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

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.

---

Far from being cavalier with my words, I assumed you were a reasonable person operating in good faith, and understood what I meant by that term. Apparently not. I suppose under your overly broad definition of terrorism, the US is the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world. Amiright?

As for the missile strikes, you're making lots of unwarranted assumptions. There are plenty of motivations for not striking Iran, including the idea that the US could bring them back to the table through sanctions and incentives. I actually agree with Sam that the best way to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons is diplomacy. I would employ missile strikes only as a last resort. And I don't think at any point we've reached that stage. I suspect our past and current president feel the same.

But if the choice is between doing nothing, as you suggest, or trying to prevent them from nuking another country, I take my chances on a precision strike.

---

So it is my fault that you are making factually incorrect statements and we need to read deeper meaning into what you are saying? Sure, we'll all just read your mind for your intended meaning instead of you actually typing out what you mean. Give me a break. Just own your own carelessness. And FYI, it was 50 years ago that the British Army was running roughshod in Northern Ireland during the troubles.

Re: "last resort" I find your approach to be unrealistic and immature. You don't strike as a last resort. The problem isn't the physical capability. That can always be rebuilt and improved on. You strike to prevent the development of technical expertise and experience. That is the actual hard part. As long as the Iranians are taking good notes and backing up their files, then your last resort missile strike is only delaying the inevitable until they build their facilities deep enough and far enough underground in a secure enough place that we can't reach.

Recall, we have military installations designed to withstand nuclear strikes because of how deep they are buried underground. Do you think Iran is not capable of doing the same? Do you think we have some magic bunker buster bomb that can do a job a nuclear strike cannot? Do you think Iran cannot just build back deeper and further isolated? The scary thing is not the physical capacity but the technical expertise. And if you're going to strike, you do it to prevent technical expertise. Otherwise, all you are doing is kicking the can down the road.

I don't think that the missile proponents have actually thought of the technical feasibility of their desired plan of action.

Re: failure to launch strikes during the past 16 years. Your explanations are already violating your key assumption: that Iran is not rational. Your explanation for failing to strike their facilites is that perhaps Obama, Trump and Biden were hoping to get Iran to engage like a rational actor by coming to the negotiating table? Sam can assume that Iran will behave rationally (perhaps he's right or weong), but your whole schtick is that Iran is not rational so they cannot get a bomb. Who is hoping and crossing their fingers now?

Look, I just want people to be honest. Ideological commitment to preventing Iran from getting nukes almost certainly ends with American boys and girls in country on the ground for years and years. I'm not willing to go there.

---

Buddy, you've made the argument that we need to be concerned about a longtime ally having nukes because of things that happened 250 plus years, and now you want to argue semantics? Cut the bull***** It was a ridiculous position on its face, which you're a smart guy and should well know.

The position that Iran having nukes is inevitable ignores what Israel has been able to do with far less than bunker busting bombs (though they seem to have some pretty good ones if their recent strikes are any indication). Intelligence reports state that it significantly set back the program. As Atl alluded to, those clandestine operations have been pretty effective.

No, like you, I don't trust Iran to act rational with a nuke. Does that mean we don't exhaust all diplomatic efforts before we decide on a military strike? Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand.

Ironically, like Sam, I simply don't accept your false dilemma between a ground war and a nuclear armed Iran. I'm also not so incredibly naive as to believe we can fortify our country from a nuclear attack. I'm just not willing to throw up my hands and give up as you are.

---

You said you would only worry when the UK had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world, I pointed out they have a centuries long-history of terrorism and included an example from less than 50 years ago (Her Majesty's Army's actions in Northern Ireland). Disappointing that you are incapable of owning your oversight, but so be it.

More important is the substance of your positions: You simultaneously seem to take the positions that:

A. "I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything."

B. "Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand."

A is part of your position that we must do all that is possible to stop Iran from getting a nuke because they are not rational.

B is your position that we can negotiate with them because they can be rational ("incentivized").

A and B are facially irreconcilable, unless you have some magic way of understanding them to be rational but also conclude that they are not rational. Please reconcile for the best of us.

Additionally, please stop lying. I have already said in this thread that Iran is not going to be rational with a nuke, yet you keep accusing me of believing otherwise. How much clearer could I be?

When I first got started professionally a dear mentor hammered home the following lesson with regard to portfolio composition: "when you are long commodities, you are short human ingenuity. Be very careful betting against humanity." I'm going to borrow from him here. To believe that we can permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes is to be short human ingenuity. Throughout all of history humans have shown new and clever ways for getting around prohibitions of all kind. Humanity is sort of undefeated in that regard. The Romans, of course, eventually found the only solution I am aware of to this problem: they salted the earth after complete military victory over their adversaries when the Romans concluded their vanquished enemies were incapable of living peacefully with Rome.

So let me try it this way: Assume that everything else has failed. Iran proves to be on the cusp of or has attained a dozen or so nuclear bombs. The only way to stop them is through a ground war that will necessarily entail hundreds of thousands of troops in theater for decades to come as you try to rebuild the country ala the Marshall plan or Japan. It will be much nastier than W. Bush's Iraq engagement. Are you ready to go there politically? Are you ready to send your sons and daughters to the middle East in those circumstances?

---

1) [......]

So, what's the plan, big guy?

---

Let's dance.

A. X. Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Y. "As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world then you might have a point."

Does the UK have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world or not? It is a straightforward question.

Quote:

---

I will reiterate the more pertinent point which you've failed to address: when you have to go back centuries to make the case that a longtime ally who we've fought alongside in ever major world war should be disarmed, you might consider that your position is completely and totally ridiculous.

---

B. You seem to not understand (or at least ignore) second- and third-order effects. JD Vance made the provocative joke last summer just days before being nominated as VP by Trump that the UK already is the the first Islamist nuclear power because of Labour.* The joke contains a strand of truth which makes it impactful. A member of the House of Lords caused a row over there about a year ago by claiming that the UK would become Islamist through the power of the womb. For about 10 to 15 years demographers have believed that the UK will be majority Muslim somewhere between 2050 and 2080 (UK Islam is heavily inline with the variety of Pakistani Islamists beliefs). The Labour party is CURRENTLY extremely responsive to its Muslim constituency because of the UK's first past the post parliamentary system already makes voting Muslims an important bloc to Labour (see today's raging debate about the banning of Halal practices in the slaughter of animals). That constituency will be a more important bloc by the year until they become an outright majority. Dismiss the trends there at your own risk.

In the early 1980s, once the Afrikaners saw the writing on the wall, they sort of voluntarily chose to get rid of their nukes and shut down their program (BDS heavily influenced the Afrikaners, so I hesitate to call it a purely voluntary disarmament). I think SA is a relevant example to the UK. If the UK is really heading toward an Islamist-majority population in the next 25 to 50 years (according to demographers) and if Islamists must never be allowed to get nukes (according to you) and if we have the precedent of a disarmament by SA, do you really think this is "completely and totally ridiculous"? At bare minimum, UK demographic trends are a contingency that must be game-theorized out by any prudent world power: so tell me, what is your war game plan there if Islamists do achieve outright political control in the UK? I know, I know, they are an ally, I'm sure that will ensure their future Islamist overlords are restrained. But just game-theory this out for me and keep this all in the abstract. What do you do if and when Islamists achieve outright political control in the UK?

C. You said: "I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything." You are now also suggesting that they can be rational before attaining a nuke. Responding to incentives as *one* understands them to be is the very textbook definition of rational behavior in economics. Psychology has similar principles. When you suggest that Iran can be incentivized, you are implicitly taking the position that they are rational. Which stands in direct contrast to your position that you have "never known Islamists to be reasonable". So which is it: Are Islamists capable of behaving reasonably or not? Yes, having nukes will change the equation, but your unequivocal statement was that these are people incapable of being reasonable *even before* they have attained nukes. I find your positions to be idiosyncratic and irreconcilable and you really have not tried to harmonize your positions.

D. I have offered a plan and solution: Fortress America or ground war. I do not support the latter, but it is the obvious solution if we are going to play offense. I do not believe we can permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes (short of a ground invasion/nation building) and I do not believe they will step back from pursuing nukes. I do not favor a ground invasion. So that leaves Fortress America.

My bigger issue is that this posturing of "Iran must not be allowed to have a nuke" is clearly setting the predicate for an eventual ground war. Tucker Carlson believes at minimum that influential people are agitating for war/regime change with Iran as we speak. Does that not in the least make you question what may be happening here?

I'll repeat my question to you and make it simpler: Assume that everything else has failed. Iran proves to be on the cusp of or has attained a half dozen or so nuclear bombs. You have ideologically committed yourself to the idea that Iran cannot be allowed to have nukes. Now what do you do?

Quote:

---

You were wrong on Afghanistan and remain wrong on Afghanistan. The issue there was the never ending occupation, not the decision to strike. We had no cogent exit strategy. But there's no question that we pretty much destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and eventually got bin Laden. We should have struck and gotten out instead of engaging in nation building.

---

I respect Sam a lot, especially on civil liberties where he is very thoughtful, though I disagree with him on much. He does not need my help. But the above Monday morning quarterbacking from you shows that you are way too cavalier and lack deliberate thought about this topic.

***THE*** defining military/strategic lesson of the 20th Century was that the Treaty of Versailles punishing Germany economically and diplomatically was a major blunder and important contributor that led to WWII. Failure to economically and diplomatically redevelop Germany after World War One was a massive mistake that allowed something far more evil and sinister to rise in Germany in the form of nationalist socialism/fascism.

Hence, post-WWII, you have the Marshall Plan in Europe and MacArthur in Japan doing everything possible to reindustrialize and integrate into the west both Europe and Japan. The post-WWII redevelopment was such a massive American success that the playbook at both Defense and State demands nation building after the overthrow of a government. The idea that we could have ever simply deposed of the Taliban, gotten OBL and then left Afghanistan (or Iraq after getting SH) is just inconceivable within the halls of power in this country. Our military and diplomatic officials would all be in consensus in their advice to POTUS that the overthrow of the Taliban and SH each required nation building on our part or we would run this risk of something more evil replacing the deposed government.

No PTOUS would stake his legacy on the risk of repeating the mistakes from the end of World War One. Even if a POTUS had the guts to go in a different direction, it would break the brains of all senior level officials at Defense and State and there would be constant second guessing and leaks to the media if an Executive pursued the plan of action you retrospectively propose. It just does not work the way that you want. You may want to rethink the inputs in your internal model as you consider the posture we are taking with Iran.

*I like Vance a lot, but his joke was in the same realm of VP Harris and Sec. Blinken's comments about NATO expansion--just a really bad idea to put your foot in your mouth like that.

---

You can't nation build those who are antithetical to the nation you're trying to build. That is unless you're willing to get your hands incredibly dirty, which sullies the credibility of your efforts.

---

It is obviously true that you cannot nation build in the middle East, but that is not going to stop DoD and Department of State from trying. Does not matter what you or I think. What matters is what those in power think. I have been saying that to do it properly would require us to basically salt the Earth, but there is no political will for that in the USA. And since we are not willing to do that, this whole exercise is really a predicate to a disaster.

---

We don't need Iranian nation building, The Israelis have the will to do what's necessary, we just won't let them. And it doesn't require all the way to salt. I've said it multiple times, everyone says they'd like Israel to handle their own problems, until Israel starts handling their problems. Gaza is the latest example.

---

Isrrael very obviously cannot do it on its own or Bibi wouldn't be sitting around waiting for Uncle Sam's go ahead. The real issue, I suspect, is that for all their solid tech advancements, key Israeli defense systems still depend on American military hardware. In particular, they make heavy use of American advanced early warning radar. That system is extremely powerful and if I recall correctly it can pick up something the size of a softball in flight in Iran.

Obama sort of f-ed with the Israelis when he was pissed at Bibi and added American operational control of the early warning radars when previously IDF personnel were permitted to operate. I am sure it has reverted by now. It was petty of Obama and sort of meaningless, but it got the message across that we could take our toys back if we want to.

The dangerous game that Bibi is playing here is that he tries to start a major war with Iran, America doesn't come along for the ride, and a pissed off Trump recalls our hardware on loan to them and cancels munitions sales to the IDF (we are by far the largest munitions supplier to Israel). I don't know who else would sell munitions s to Israel right now. That would be the worst possible outcome for Israel.

---

See above. And why would we stop selling them munitions? Iranian partners would not stop selling to them. This is proving the point. Iran is allowed to act with impunity, while the U.S. and West force the strategic calculus for Israel. That is despite everyone seeing and knowing there's an elephant in the room.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

B. Tucker Carlson believes that influential people are lobbying Trump for regime change in Iran as we speak. We now have reports out of Israel that Netanyahu is agitating for action against Iran while Trump is trying to cool things down. Are you not worried in the least about what is going on here?

I used to like Carlson, but I now consider him an absolute nutjob and pariah, and don't trust a thing he says, as the man is an admitted liar and agitator who stirs up condescension for clicks. However, if what Carlson is saying is true (and I say that with the caveat that there is zero evidence of his statements), then yes, I would be concerned. But I trust that Trump, given his past conduct, is smart enough not to involve us in another extended ground war and nation building exercise.

---

Translation: I used to like Tucker, but then he started telling to truth about Israel and I couldnt stand the idea of the gentiles being informed about how they are being royally ****ed over by their "greatest ally"

---

I realize that for anti-semites such as yourself, it always about the Jews. But my respect for Carlson began to plumet when his defense team admitted under oath that much of what he says is mere fiction, designed to garner ratings. He became a purveyor of fringe conspiracy theories, and of course has repeated Russian propaganda continuously on his show for the last 3 years. I think the disgraceful interview with Putin, where he was essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV, is what finally did it for me. And of course, having the "historian" who essentially defended Nazi Germany several months ago was also not a good look.

I am admittedly unfamiliar with much of what he's said since he left Fox, so you're going to be a lot more familiar with his statements about Israel than I am. I am sure you hang on every word.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.

---

And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.

---

Nor will you.

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

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.

---

Far from being cavalier with my words, I assumed you were a reasonable person operating in good faith, and understood what I meant by that term. Apparently not. I suppose under your overly broad definition of terrorism, the US is the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world. Amiright?

As for the missile strikes, you're making lots of unwarranted assumptions. There are plenty of motivations for not striking Iran, including the idea that the US could bring them back to the table through sanctions and incentives. I actually agree with Sam that the best way to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons is diplomacy. I would employ missile strikes only as a last resort. And I don't think at any point we've reached that stage. I suspect our past and current president feel the same.

But if the choice is between doing nothing, as you suggest, or trying to prevent them from nuking another country, I take my chances on a precision strike.

---

So it is my fault that you are making factually incorrect statements and we need to read deeper meaning into what you are saying? Sure, we'll all just read your mind for your intended meaning instead of you actually typing out what you mean. Give me a break. Just own your own carelessness. And FYI, it was 50 years ago that the British Army was running roughshod in Northern Ireland during the troubles.

Re: "last resort" I find your approach to be unrealistic and immature. You don't strike as a last resort. The problem isn't the physical capability. That can always be rebuilt and improved on. You strike to prevent the development of technical expertise and experience. That is the actual hard part. As long as the Iranians are taking good notes and backing up their files, then your last resort missile strike is only delaying the inevitable until they build their facilities deep enough and far enough underground in a secure enough place that we can't reach.

Recall, we have military installations designed to withstand nuclear strikes because of how deep they are buried underground. Do you think Iran is not capable of doing the same? Do you think we have some magic bunker buster bomb that can do a job a nuclear strike cannot? Do you think Iran cannot just build back deeper and further isolated? The scary thing is not the physical capacity but the technical expertise. And if you're going to strike, you do it to prevent technical expertise. Otherwise, all you are doing is kicking the can down the road.

I don't think that the missile proponents have actually thought of the technical feasibility of their desired plan of action.

Re: failure to launch strikes during the past 16 years. Your explanations are already violating your key assumption: that Iran is not rational. Your explanation for failing to strike their facilites is that perhaps Obama, Trump and Biden were hoping to get Iran to engage like a rational actor by coming to the negotiating table? Sam can assume that Iran will behave rationally (perhaps he's right or weong), but your whole schtick is that Iran is not rational so they cannot get a bomb. Who is hoping and crossing their fingers now?

Look, I just want people to be honest. Ideological commitment to preventing Iran from getting nukes almost certainly ends with American boys and girls in country on the ground for years and years. I'm not willing to go there.

---

Buddy, you've made the argument that we need to be concerned about a longtime ally having nukes because of things that happened 250 plus years, and now you want to argue semantics? Cut the bull***** It was a ridiculous position on its face, which you're a smart guy and should well know.

The position that Iran having nukes is inevitable ignores what Israel has been able to do with far less than bunker busting bombs (though they seem to have some pretty good ones if their recent strikes are any indication). Intelligence reports state that it significantly set back the program. As Atl alluded to, those clandestine operations have been pretty effective.

No, like you, I don't trust Iran to act rational with a nuke. Does that mean we don't exhaust all diplomatic efforts before we decide on a military strike? Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand.

Ironically, like Sam, I simply don't accept your false dilemma between a ground war and a nuclear armed Iran. I'm also not so incredibly naive as to believe we can fortify our country from a nuclear attack. I'm just not willing to throw up my hands and give up as you are.

---

You said you would only worry when the UK had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world, I pointed out they have a centuries long-history of terrorism and included an example from less than 50 years ago (Her Majesty's Army's actions in Northern Ireland). Disappointing that you are incapable of owning your oversight, but so be it.

More important is the substance of your positions: You simultaneously seem to take the positions that:

A. "I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything."

B. "Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand."

A is part of your position that we must do all that is possible to stop Iran from getting a nuke because they are not rational.

B is your position that we can negotiate with them because they can be rational ("incentivized").

A and B are facially irreconcilable, unless you have some magic way of understanding them to be rational but also conclude that they are not rational. Please reconcile for the best of us.

Additionally, please stop lying. I have already said in this thread that Iran is not going to be rational with a nuke, yet you keep accusing me of believing otherwise. How much clearer could I be?

When I first got started professionally a dear mentor hammered home the following lesson with regard to portfolio composition: "when you are long commodities, you are short human ingenuity. Be very careful betting against humanity." I'm going to borrow from him here. To believe that we can permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes is to be short human ingenuity. Throughout all of history humans have shown new and clever ways for getting around prohibitions of all kind. Humanity is sort of undefeated in that regard. The Romans, of course, eventually found the only solution I am aware of to this problem: they salted the earth after complete military victory over their adversaries when the Romans concluded their vanquished enemies were incapable of living peacefully with Rome.

So let me try it this way: Assume that everything else has failed. Iran proves to be on the cusp of or has attained a dozen or so nuclear bombs. The only way to stop them is through a ground war that will necessarily entail hundreds of thousands of troops in theater for decades to come as you try to rebuild the country ala the Marshall plan or Japan. It will be much nastier than W. Bush's Iraq engagement. Are you ready to go there politically? Are you ready to send your sons and daughters to the middle East in those circumstances?

---

1) [......]

So, what's the plan, big guy?

---

Let's dance.

A. X. Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Y. "As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world then you might have a point."

Does the UK have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world or not? It is a straightforward question.

Quote:

---

I will reiterate the more pertinent point which you've failed to address: when you have to go back centuries to make the case that a longtime ally who we've fought alongside in ever major world war should be disarmed, you might consider that your position is completely and totally ridiculous.

---

B. You seem to not understand (or at least ignore) second- and third-order effects. JD Vance made the provocative joke last summer just days before being nominated as VP by Trump that the UK already is the the first Islamist nuclear power because of Labour.* The joke contains a strand of truth which makes it impactful. A member of the House of Lords caused a row over there about a year ago by claiming that the UK would become Islamist through the power of the womb. For about 10 to 15 years demographers have believed that the UK will be majority Muslim somewhere between 2050 and 2080 (UK Islam is heavily inline with the variety of Pakistani Islamists beliefs). The Labour party is CURRENTLY extremely responsive to its Muslim constituency because of the UK's first past the post parliamentary system already makes voting Muslims an important bloc to Labour (see today's raging debate about the banning of Halal practices in the slaughter of animals). That constituency will be a more important bloc by the year until they become an outright majority. Dismiss the trends there at your own risk.

In the early 1980s, once the Afrikaners saw the writing on the wall, they sort of voluntarily chose to get rid of their nukes and shut down their program (BDS heavily influenced the Afrikaners, so I hesitate to call it a purely voluntary disarmament). I think SA is a relevant example to the UK. If the UK is really heading toward an Islamist-majority population in the next 25 to 50 years (according to demographers) and if Islamists must never be allowed to get nukes (according to you) and if we have the precedent of a disarmament by SA, do you really think this is "completely and totally ridiculous"? At bare minimum, UK demographic trends are a contingency that must be game-theorized out by any prudent world power: so tell me, what is your war game plan there if Islamists do achieve outright political control in the UK? I know, I know, they are an ally, I'm sure that will ensure their future Islamist overlords are restrained. But just game-theory this out for me and keep this all in the abstract. What do you do if and when Islamists achieve outright political control in the UK?

C. You said: "I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything." You are now also suggesting that they can be rational before attaining a nuke. Responding to incentives as *one* understands them to be is the very textbook definition of rational behavior in economics. Psychology has similar principles. When you suggest that Iran can be incentivized, you are implicitly taking the position that they are rational. Which stands in direct contrast to your position that you have "never known Islamists to be reasonable". So which is it: Are Islamists capable of behaving reasonably or not? Yes, having nukes will change the equation, but your unequivocal statement was that these are people incapable of being reasonable *even before* they have attained nukes. I find your positions to be idiosyncratic and irreconcilable and you really have not tried to harmonize your positions.

D. I have offered a plan and solution: Fortress America or ground war. I do not support the latter, but it is the obvious solution if we are going to play offense. I do not believe we can permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes (short of a ground invasion/nation building) and I do not believe they will step back from pursuing nukes. I do not favor a ground invasion. So that leaves Fortress America.

My bigger issue is that this posturing of "Iran must not be allowed to have a nuke" is clearly setting the predicate for an eventual ground war. Tucker Carlson believes at minimum that influential people are agitating for war/regime change with Iran as we speak. Does that not in the least make you question what may be happening here?

I'll repeat my question to you and make it simpler: Assume that everything else has failed. Iran proves to be on the cusp of or has attained a half dozen or so nuclear bombs. You have ideologically committed yourself to the idea that Iran cannot be allowed to have nukes. Now what do you do?

Quote:

---

You were wrong on Afghanistan and remain wrong on Afghanistan. The issue there was the never ending occupation, not the decision to strike. We had no cogent exit strategy. But there's no question that we pretty much destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and eventually got bin Laden. We should have struck and gotten out instead of engaging in nation building.

---

I respect Sam a lot, especially on civil liberties where he is very thoughtful, though I disagree with him on much. He does not need my help. But the above Monday morning quarterbacking from you shows that you are way too cavalier and lack deliberate thought about this topic.

***THE*** defining military/strategic lesson of the 20th Century was that the Treaty of Versailles punishing Germany economically and diplomatically was a major blunder and important contributor that led to WWII. Failure to economically and diplomatically redevelop Germany after World War One was a massive mistake that allowed something far more evil and sinister to rise in Germany in the form of nationalist socialism/fascism.

Hence, post-WWII, you have the Marshall Plan in Europe and MacArthur in Japan doing everything possible to reindustrialize and integrate into the west both Europe and Japan. The post-WWII redevelopment was such a massive American success that the playbook at both Defense and State demands nation building after the overthrow of a government. The idea that we could have ever simply deposed of the Taliban, gotten OBL and then left Afghanistan (or Iraq after getting SH) is just inconceivable within the halls of power in this country. Our military and diplomatic officials would all be in consensus in their advice to POTUS that the overthrow of the Taliban and SH each required nation building on our part or we would run this risk of something more evil replacing the deposed government.

No PTOUS would stake his legacy on the risk of repeating the mistakes from the end of World War One. Even if a POTUS had the guts to go in a different direction, it would break the brains of all senior level officials at Defense and State and there would be constant second guessing and leaks to the media if an Executive pursued the plan of action you retrospectively propose. It just does not work the way that you want. You may want to rethink the inputs in your internal model as you consider the posture we are taking with Iran.

*I like Vance a lot, but his joke was in the same realm of VP Harris and Sec. Blinken's comments about NATO expansion--just a really bad idea to put your foot in your mouth like that.

---

You can't nation build those who are antithetical to the nation you're trying to build. That is unless you're willing to get your hands incredibly dirty, which sullies the credibility of your efforts.

---

It is obviously true that you cannot nation build in the middle East, but that is not going to stop DoD and Department of State from trying. Does not matter what you or I think. What matters is what those in power think. I have been saying that to do it properly would require us to basically salt the Earth, but there is no political will for that in the USA. And since we are not willing to do that, this whole exercise is really a predicate to a disaster.

---

We don't need Iranian nation building, The Israelis have the will to do what's necessary, we just won't let them. And it doesn't require all the way to salt. I've said it multiple times, everyone says they'd like Israel to handle their own problems, until Israel starts handling their problems. Gaza is the latest example.

---

Isrrael very obviously cannot do it on its own or Bibi wouldn't be sitting around waiting for Uncle Sam's go ahead. The real issue, I suspect, is that for all their solid tech advancements, key Israeli defense systems still depend on American military hardware. In particular, they make heavy use of American advanced early warning radar. That system is extremely powerful and if I recall correctly it can pick up something the size of a softball in flight in Iran.

Obama sort of f-ed with the Israelis when he was pissed at Bibi and added American operational control of the early warning radars when previously IDF personnel were permitted to operate. I am sure it has reverted by now. It was petty of Obama and sort of meaningless, but it got the message across that we could take our toys back if we want to.

The dangerous game that Bibi is playing here is that he tries to start a major war with Iran, America doesn't come along for the ride, and a pissed off Trump recalls our hardware on loan to them and cancels munitions sales to the IDF (we are by far the largest munitions supplier to Israel). I don't know who else would sell munitions s to Israel right now. That would be the worst possible outcome for Israel.

---

See above. And why would we stop selling them munitions? Iranian partners would not stop selling to them. This is proving the point. Iran is allowed to act with impunity, while the U.S. and West force the strategic calculus for Israel. That is despite everyone seeing and knowing there's an elephant in the room.

---

The Israelis have the will to do what is necessary, but not the capacity. Ultimately, we have to underwrite their actions through arms sales and our implicit guarantee of Israel's security. We would stop selling munitions to Israel in a scenario where we determined it was no longer in our strategic interests to sell them munitions. I am an isolationist and I am not interested in proxy fights or responding to what Iran's partners are doing as some kind of justification for what the USA must or should do. Frankly,, that kind of thinking has led to much of what has been wrong with the world in the post-WWII era.

We are 6% of the world's population and 20% of the world's GDP (and declining quickly). We obviously cannot continue to be the underwriter of other people's security and need to be far more strategic about the use of our resources.

Please tell me if you see things differently: Any hope of American disentanglement from the Middle East requires US disentanglement from Israel (and energy independence).

I don’t know anyone that even thinks about Iran.

Americans don’t want to bomb Iran because the secular government of Israel says that Iran is on the verge of developing a nuclear bomb any day now.

We’ve been told that for the past 20 years.

The same story.

Everyone I know…

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) June 12, 2025

Props to Marge on this one.

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

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.

---

Far from being cavalier with my words, I assumed you were a reasonable person operating in good faith, and understood what I meant by that term. Apparently not. I suppose under your overly broad definition of terrorism, the US is the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world. Amiright?

As for the missile strikes, you're making lots of unwarranted assumptions. There are plenty of motivations for not striking Iran, including the idea that the US could bring them back to the table through sanctions and incentives. I actually agree with Sam that the best way to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons is diplomacy. I would employ missile strikes only as a last resort. And I don't think at any point we've reached that stage. I suspect our past and current president feel the same.

But if the choice is between doing nothing, as you suggest, or trying to prevent them from nuking another country, I take my chances on a precision strike.

---

So it is my fault that you are making factually incorrect statements and we need to read deeper meaning into what you are saying? Sure, we'll all just read your mind for your intended meaning instead of you actually typing out what you mean. Give me a break. Just own your own carelessness. And FYI, it was 50 years ago that the British Army was running roughshod in Northern Ireland during the troubles.

Re: "last resort" I find your approach to be unrealistic and immature. You don't strike as a last resort. The problem isn't the physical capability. That can always be rebuilt and improved on. You strike to prevent the development of technical expertise and experience. That is the actual hard part. As long as the Iranians are taking good notes and backing up their files, then your last resort missile strike is only delaying the inevitable until they build their facilities deep enough and far enough underground in a secure enough place that we can't reach.

Recall, we have military installations designed to withstand nuclear strikes because of how deep they are buried underground. Do you think Iran is not capable of doing the same? Do you think we have some magic bunker buster bomb that can do a job a nuclear strike cannot? Do you think Iran cannot just build back deeper and further isolated? The scary thing is not the physical capacity but the technical expertise. And if you're going to strike, you do it to prevent technical expertise. Otherwise, all you are doing is kicking the can down the road.

I don't think that the missile proponents have actually thought of the technical feasibility of their desired plan of action.

Re: failure to launch strikes during the past 16 years. Your explanations are already violating your key assumption: that Iran is not rational. Your explanation for failing to strike their facilites is that perhaps Obama, Trump and Biden were hoping to get Iran to engage like a rational actor by coming to the negotiating table? Sam can assume that Iran will behave rationally (perhaps he's right or weong), but your whole schtick is that Iran is not rational so they cannot get a bomb. Who is hoping and crossing their fingers now?

Look, I just want people to be honest. Ideological commitment to preventing Iran from getting nukes almost certainly ends with American boys and girls in country on the ground for years and years. I'm not willing to go there.

---

Buddy, you've made the argument that we need to be concerned about a longtime ally having nukes because of things that happened 250 plus years, and now you want to argue semantics? Cut the bull***** It was a ridiculous position on its face, which you're a smart guy and should well know.

The position that Iran having nukes is inevitable ignores what Israel has been able to do with far less than bunker busting bombs (though they seem to have some pretty good ones if their recent strikes are any indication). Intelligence reports state that it significantly set back the program. As Atl alluded to, those clandestine operations have been pretty effective.

No, like you, I don't trust Iran to act rational with a nuke. Does that mean we don't exhaust all diplomatic efforts before we decide on a military strike? Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand.

Ironically, like Sam, I simply don't accept your false dilemma between a ground war and a nuclear armed Iran. I'm also not so incredibly naive as to believe we can fortify our country from a nuclear attack. I'm just not willing to throw up my hands and give up as you are.

---

You said you would only worry when the UK had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world, I pointed out they have a centuries long-history of terrorism and included an example from less than 50 years ago (Her Majesty's Army's actions in Northern Ireland). Disappointing that you are incapable of owning your oversight, but so be it.

More important is the substance of your positions: You simultaneously seem to take the positions that:

A. "I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything."

B. "Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand."

A is part of your position that we must do all that is possible to stop Iran from getting a nuke because they are not rational.

B is your position that we can negotiate with them because they can be rational ("incentivized").

A and B are facially irreconcilable, unless you have some magic way of understanding them to be rational but also conclude that they are not rational. Please reconcile for the best of us.

Additionally, please stop lying. I have already said in this thread that Iran is not going to be rational with a nuke, yet you keep accusing me of believing otherwise. How much clearer could I be?

When I first got started professionally a dear mentor hammered home the following lesson with regard to portfolio composition: "when you are long commodities, you are short human ingenuity. Be very careful betting against humanity." I'm going to borrow from him here. To believe that we can permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes is to be short human ingenuity. Throughout all of history humans have shown new and clever ways for getting around prohibitions of all kind. Humanity is sort of undefeated in that regard. The Romans, of course, eventually found the only solution I am aware of to this problem: they salted the earth after complete military victory over their adversaries when the Romans concluded their vanquished enemies were incapable of living peacefully with Rome.

So let me try it this way: Assume that everything else has failed. Iran proves to be on the cusp of or has attained a dozen or so nuclear bombs. The only way to stop them is through a ground war that will necessarily entail hundreds of thousands of troops in theater for decades to come as you try to rebuild the country ala the Marshall plan or Japan. It will be much nastier than W. Bush's Iraq engagement. Are you ready to go there politically? Are you ready to send your sons and daughters to the middle East in those circumstances?

---

1) [......]

So, what's the plan, big guy?

---

Let's dance.

A. X. Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Y. "As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world then you might have a point."

Does the UK have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world or not? It is a straightforward question.

Quote:

---

I will reiterate the more pertinent point which you've failed to address: when you have to go back centuries to make the case that a longtime ally who we've fought alongside in ever major world war should be disarmed, you might consider that your position is completely and totally ridiculous.

---

B. You seem to not understand (or at least ignore) second- and third-order effects. JD Vance made the provocative joke last summer just days before being nominated as VP by Trump that the UK already is the the first Islamist nuclear power because of Labour.* The joke contains a strand of truth which makes it impactful. A member of the House of Lords caused a row over there about a year ago by claiming that the UK would become Islamist through the power of the womb. For about 10 to 15 years demographers have believed that the UK will be majority Muslim somewhere between 2050 and 2080 (UK Islam is heavily inline with the variety of Pakistani Islamists beliefs). The Labour party is CURRENTLY extremely responsive to its Muslim constituency because of the UK's first past the post parliamentary system already makes voting Muslims an important bloc to Labour (see today's raging debate about the banning of Halal practices in the slaughter of animals). That constituency will be a more important bloc by the year until they become an outright majority. Dismiss the trends there at your own risk.

In the early 1980s, once the Afrikaners saw the writing on the wall, they sort of voluntarily chose to get rid of their nukes and shut down their program (BDS heavily influenced the Afrikaners, so I hesitate to call it a purely voluntary disarmament). I think SA is a relevant example to the UK. If the UK is really heading toward an Islamist-majority population in the next 25 to 50 years (according to demographers) and if Islamists must never be allowed to get nukes (according to you) and if we have the precedent of a disarmament by SA, do you really think this is "completely and totally ridiculous"? At bare minimum, UK demographic trends are a contingency that must be game-theorized out by any prudent world power: so tell me, what is your war game plan there if Islamists do achieve outright political control in the UK? I know, I know, they are an ally, I'm sure that will ensure their future Islamist overlords are restrained. But just game-theory this out for me and keep this all in the abstract. What do you do if and when Islamists achieve outright political control in the UK?

C. You said: "I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything." You are now also suggesting that they can be rational before attaining a nuke. Responding to incentives as *one* understands them to be is the very textbook definition of rational behavior in economics. Psychology has similar principles. When you suggest that Iran can be incentivized, you are implicitly taking the position that they are rational. Which stands in direct contrast to your position that you have "never known Islamists to be reasonable". So which is it: Are Islamists capable of behaving reasonably or not? Yes, having nukes will change the equation, but your unequivocal statement was that these are people incapable of being reasonable *even before* they have attained nukes. I find your positions to be idiosyncratic and irreconcilable and you really have not tried to harmonize your positions.

D. I have offered a plan and solution: Fortress America or ground war. I do not support the latter, but it is the obvious solution if we are going to play offense. I do not believe we can permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes (short of a ground invasion/nation building) and I do not believe they will step back from pursuing nukes. I do not favor a ground invasion. So that leaves Fortress America.

My bigger issue is that this posturing of "Iran must not be allowed to have a nuke" is clearly setting the predicate for an eventual ground war. Tucker Carlson believes at minimum that influential people are agitating for war/regime change with Iran as we speak. Does that not in the least make you question what may be happening here?

I'll repeat my question to you and make it simpler: Assume that everything else has failed. Iran proves to be on the cusp of or has attained a half dozen or so nuclear bombs. You have ideologically committed yourself to the idea that Iran cannot be allowed to have nukes. Now what do you do?

Quote:

---

You were wrong on Afghanistan and remain wrong on Afghanistan. The issue there was the never ending occupation, not the decision to strike. We had no cogent exit strategy. But there's no question that we pretty much destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and eventually got bin Laden. We should have struck and gotten out instead of engaging in nation building.

---

I respect Sam a lot, especially on civil liberties where he is very thoughtful, though I disagree with him on much. He does not need my help. But the above Monday morning quarterbacking from you shows that you are way too cavalier and lack deliberate thought about this topic.

***THE*** defining military/strategic lesson of the 20th Century was that the Treaty of Versailles punishing Germany economically and diplomatically was a major blunder and important contributor that led to WWII. Failure to economically and diplomatically redevelop Germany after World War One was a massive mistake that allowed something far more evil and sinister to rise in Germany in the form of nationalist socialism/fascism.

Hence, post-WWII, you have the Marshall Plan in Europe and MacArthur in Japan doing everything possible to reindustrialize and integrate into the west both Europe and Japan. The post-WWII redevelopment was such a massive American success that the playbook at both Defense and State demands nation building after the overthrow of a government. The idea that we could have ever simply deposed of the Taliban, gotten OBL and then left Afghanistan (or Iraq after getting SH) is just inconceivable within the halls of power in this country. Our military and diplomatic officials would all be in consensus in their advice to POTUS that the overthrow of the Taliban and SH each required nation building on our part or we would run this risk of something more evil replacing the deposed government.

No PTOUS would stake his legacy on the risk of repeating the mistakes from the end of World War One. Even if a POTUS had the guts to go in a different direction, it would break the brains of all senior level officials at Defense and State and there would be constant second guessing and leaks to the media if an Executive pursued the plan of action you retrospectively propose. It just does not work the way that you want. You may want to rethink the inputs in your internal model as you consider the posture we are taking with Iran.

*I like Vance a lot, but his joke was in the same realm of VP Harris and Sec. Blinken's comments about NATO expansion--just a really bad idea to put your foot in your mouth like that.

---

You can't nation build those who are antithetical to the nation you're trying to build. That is unless you're willing to get your hands incredibly dirty, which sullies the credibility of your efforts.

---

It is obviously true that you cannot nation build in the middle East, but that is not going to stop DoD and Department of State from trying. Does not matter what you or I think. What matters is what those in power think. I have been saying that to do it properly would require us to basically salt the Earth, but there is no political will for that in the USA. And since we are not willing to do that, this whole exercise is really a predicate to a disaster.

---

We don't need Iranian nation building, The Israelis have the will to do what's necessary, we just won't let them. And it doesn't require all the way to salt. I've said it multiple times, everyone says they'd like Israel to handle their own problems, until Israel starts handling their problems. Gaza is the latest example.

---

Isrrael very obviously cannot do it on its own or Bibi wouldn't be sitting around waiting for Uncle Sam's go ahead. The real issue, I suspect, is that for all their solid tech advancements, key Israeli defense systems still depend on American military hardware. In particular, they make heavy use of American advanced early warning radar. That system is extremely powerful and if I recall correctly it can pick up something the size of a softball in flight in Iran.

Obama sort of f-ed with the Israelis when he was pissed at Bibi and added American operational control of the early warning radars when previously IDF personnel were permitted to operate. I am sure it has reverted by now. It was petty of Obama and sort of meaningless, but it got the message across that we could take our toys back if we want to.

The dangerous game that Bibi is playing here is that he tries to start a major war with Iran, America doesn't come along for the ride, and a pissed off Trump recalls our hardware on loan to them and cancels munitions sales to the IDF (we are by far the largest munitions supplier to Israel). I don't know who else would sell munitions s to Israel right now. That would be the worst possible outcome for Israel.

---

See above. And why would we stop selling them munitions? Iranian partners would not stop selling to them. This is proving the point. Iran is allowed to act with impunity, while the U.S. and West force the strategic calculus for Israel. That is despite everyone seeing and knowing there's an elephant in the room.

---

Indeed. It is ever the double-standard for some people when it comes to Israel. The mere mention of the name causes otherwise smart posters to lose the capacity for rational thought.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Quote:

---

1) If you can point me to some examples of the UK engaging in terrorism in the last, say, 100 years that is tantamount to what Iran is doing on a daily basis (and against our interests), I am willing to reconsider your moral equivalency.

---

We're getting into basic history. Let's start with the easy ones:

• The black and tans
• Cork
• Bloody Sunday
• The murder triangle (make sure to pull that thread and get to both civilian bombings)
• Dresden (which we were a part of and led for practical reasons)
• Jallianwalla
• Ventersburg
• All eight years in Kenya (my favorite speculation is that Obama removed Churchill's bust from the Oval Office because his Kenyan father would have almost certainly passed on a hatred of the Brits down to BHO)

That should be enough to get you started. If you sense a focus on theTroubles, well, I have already admitted in another thread that I am Catholic, so you can probably put two and two together. You should at least consider that there are tens of millions, and possibly hundreds of millions, of people around the world that for good reason do not particularly differentiate between the actions of Iran and the UK's history everywhere from N./Ireland to Kenya to the Indian subcontinent to Malaysia and many other places.

Quote:

---

3) The irony of the rational/reasonable debate is that it appears you believe the exact same thing as I do. You made very clear that you don't believe Iran will be rational/reasonable, but advocate for "the UN, EU and KSA tak[ing] the lead on Iran with passive support from us (EU and KSA each have far more to lose with Iranian nukes, IMHO)." Well, if you advocate for the UN, EU and KSA continuing to negotiate with Iran, it suggests you believe that Iran does indeed have the ability to be rational/reasonable based on the definitions you've proffered. So, which is it?

---

No, it is not the same exact thing as you believe. You have this very nasty habit of imagining words and meaning that are not there. "Let them take the lead" only means "let them take the lead." Nowhere did I advocate or oppose that group negotiating with Iran.

The UN, EU and KSA are more than free to waste their precious time and resources on the fool's errand of negotiating with Iran, if that is what they want to do. If they want to go to war, let them go to war. If they want to become allies with Iran, well, gulp, but so be it, they have their own sovereignty. I do not care what they do and we can provide passive support to the extent it is beneficial to American interests. Let them take the lead only means let them take the lead [with no guidance or guardrails from the USA]. There is nothing to support your further inferences in my words other than your desire to make a misconceived point.

From a practical perspective, it would be much better for us if those entities played the foil to Iran's militant leadership--it might make them targets instead of us. We would get the bonus of not being the slowest guy running away from the bear. Put the target on their backs as they are the ones who have greater risk.

Quote:

---

4) Sam has been wrong on a lot more things than simply COVID, when it comes to civil liberties. COVID and Trump have seemed to break him. Are you Catholic as well?

---

Yes, I am.

Quote:

---

5) With regard to nation building, I would submit you have difficulty making cogent arguments, as opposed to me having an issue with abstract thought. Here is what you previously said in response to my contention we should not be engaging in nation building in Afghanistan:

[...]

Any reasonable person who read this would believe you were voicing support for nation building in Afghanistan. Hell, even ATL, the poster you very much "respect," took your comments to mean as such. Yet, now you allege that isn't what you were saying? Mmmm kay. Speaking of moving the goalposts, that certainly seems to be what you're doing here.

---

A reasonable person also would have read the next two paragraphs in which I refer to the "halls of power" and "how things work". They would also note that I've said about half a dozen times that the answer is to salt the earth (polite speak for all out war to the bitter end) and that I have repeatedly said I have no appetite for nation building and long engagements in the Middle East. You read into my words what you did because you wanted to make a point.

Quote:

---

1) Not sure what question you believe me to be avoiding. I am happy to answer any question you pose. If it includes a premise I don't agree with - i.e. your false dilemma between a ground war and nukes - that does not mean I have not answered your question. But fire away.

---

A key expression of human intelligence and abstract thought is the ability to hold opposing viewpoints in your mind and consider them. Focusing instead on the premise which you reject is, well, less than enlightened thinking or, even worse, ideological. Which brings us to the crux of the issue....

Quote:

---

Depends on the circumstances and variables, but I would definitely advocate for putting the requisite defense funding and manpower into a workable missile defense shield that could counter Iranian nukes. That's likely going to be the only way to ensure American cities are not hit by an Iranian nuke. I likely would not advocate for a ground war with Iran, regardless.

---

Charlie Munger, may he rest in peace, was fond of saying that if you measure something you are going to get more of it, so you better think about what you are measuring.

If the commitment to preventing Iran from achieving nuclear armament is only to the extent that it can be done remotely or from the sky, then the key issue is not Iran's nuclear armament. The key issue (measurement) from the western perspective is whether we can prevent it remotely or from the sky. From Iranian perspective the key issue (measurement) is whether they can place/isolate their nuclear development beyond the reach of the limits of our commitment.* Obviously, this just devolves into a silly game where the real questions are (a) whether Iran can get a supply U-235 and U-239 to eventually decay into Pu-239 (remember, no known domestic supply in Iran of U-235 and U-239) and (b) whether Iran can get far enough underground and electronically isolate their facilities sufficiently to be beyond the limits of our commitment.

If one is truly ideologically committed to preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons it seems downright childish and silly that this amounts to underground facilities and logistics. If you really believe that Iran should not have nukes are you really going to allow them to win just because they built deep enough underground and they electronically/digitally isolated their facilities? Is that what tens of millions of lives come down to?

I hold our leaders throughout the west in very low esteem, but even they are not that unserious. No, I think they are truly committed to preventing Iran from having nukes all the way up to and through ground war. I know this sounds inconceivable but we went into Iraq ostensibly due to the never-located WMDs. So I am not some crazy kook here given we are about 20 years removed from chasing Iraq's alleged WMDs.

Quote:

---

I used to like Carlson, but I now consider him an absolute nutjob and pariah, and don't trust a thing he says, as the man is an admitted liar and agitator who stirs up condescension for clicks. However, if what Carlson is saying is true (and I say that with the caveat that there is zero evidence of his statements), then yes, I would be concerned. But I trust that Trump, given his past conduct, is smart enough not to involve us in another extended ground war and nation building exercise.

---

The Israeli media gave you strong circumstantial confirmation of Carlson's reporting. Of course, since you posted and before I replied the AP reported that America is ordering nonessential embassy personnel out of Middle East. Trump also said this today:

Quote:

---

"They can't have a nuclear weapon. Very simple, they can't have a nuclear weapon."

---

Always take what he says with an entire salt tablet, but that sounds like a man prepared to do whatever it takes to stop Iran from getting a nuke. It is so obvious where this is all heading. I pray I am wrong, but it is not looking good.

*I do not know if you have ever been 1000 feet underground in a military/industrial context, but it really is incredible and gives one a great appreciation for just how much human activity can occur down there by solving what are for the most part engineering problems (especially if you are working below or around bedrock for stabilization).

---

1) UK terrorism - agree many of the events you listed are terrible, and also agree with you that some might fit within the textbook definition of terrorism (though I am not sure Dresden or the murder triangle fall within that definition). But I also note that all but 3 of these events happened more than 100 years ago. Bloody Sunday was the most recent at more than 50 years ago. Dresden was 1945, and occurred during WWII as the Allies were trying to bomb Germany into submission (which, for the record, Germany had of course also done to the UK).

So, per my question, you've identified 3 events in the past 100 years. Respectfully, I think it would be difficult for any reasonable person to equate that with the Islamic terrorism that Iran engages in on a daily basis.

3) Reasonable/rational - Ah, so your plan for dealing with Iran is to let "the UN, EU and KSA take the lead on Iran with passive support from us," despite the fact that you have no idea what that means, think negotiations are a complete waste of time and are cool with them going to war with Iran. And you're not saying that means negotiations, despite the fact that is all the UN and EU are doing with Iran.

LOL. Man, that sounds like a well-thought out, clearly-defined plan.

4) What I figured.

5) Did ATL - you know the poster you greatly respect - wish to make a point as well, or did perhaps you not clearly convey what you meant (or, perhaps, more accurately, move the goalposts)?

Your responses to my answers:

1) There is an objection that has long been used at trial by lawyers called "assuming facts not in evidence." It is used to challenge questions that rely on facts that haven't been properly presented or accepted as true. That is what your question was, as it assumed a false dilemma - that a ground war would be necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes. You've failed to make the case for that position, and that is why I object your premise.

While there may be some committed to a ground war with Iran, I certainly don't believe Trump falls within that category. I also don't believe most of Europe's leaders falls within that category.

But let's be honest, your plan for dealing with Iran is less than clear, and depends on technology not yet perfected. The idea that we should throw up our hands when it comes to them trying to obtain a nuke I think to most reasonable people would sound foolish, but you sound somewhat committed to that position (the caveat being you think the UN and EU should do something with our passive support, you just don't know what).

I don't want war with Iran but I'm gonna love watching it on YouTube. Israel can't deal with a full response so they are going to go balls to the wall.

bomb bomb bomb ...........

- el KKM

.... bomb bomb Iran.



{ sipping coffee }

{ eating donuts }

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

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.

---

Far from being cavalier with my words, I assumed you were a reasonable person operating in good faith, and understood what I meant by that term. Apparently not. I suppose under your overly broad definition of terrorism, the US is the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world. Amiright?

As for the missile strikes, you're making lots of unwarranted assumptions. There are plenty of motivations for not striking Iran, including the idea that the US could bring them back to the table through sanctions and incentives. I actually agree with Sam that the best way to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons is diplomacy. I would employ missile strikes only as a last resort. And I don't think at any point we've reached that stage. I suspect our past and current president feel the same.

But if the choice is between doing nothing, as you suggest, or trying to prevent them from nuking another country, I take my chances on a precision strike.

---

So it is my fault that you are making factually incorrect statements and we need to read deeper meaning into what you are saying? Sure, we'll all just read your mind for your intended meaning instead of you actually typing out what you mean. Give me a break. Just own your own carelessness. And FYI, it was 50 years ago that the British Army was running roughshod in Northern Ireland during the troubles.

Re: "last resort" I find your approach to be unrealistic and immature. You don't strike as a last resort. The problem isn't the physical capability. That can always be rebuilt and improved on. You strike to prevent the development of technical expertise and experience. That is the actual hard part. As long as the Iranians are taking good notes and backing up their files, then your last resort missile strike is only delaying the inevitable until they build their facilities deep enough and far enough underground in a secure enough place that we can't reach.

Recall, we have military installations designed to withstand nuclear strikes because of how deep they are buried underground. Do you think Iran is not capable of doing the same? Do you think we have some magic bunker buster bomb that can do a job a nuclear strike cannot? Do you think Iran cannot just build back deeper and further isolated? The scary thing is not the physical capacity but the technical expertise. And if you're going to strike, you do it to prevent technical expertise. Otherwise, all you are doing is kicking the can down the road.

I don't think that the missile proponents have actually thought of the technical feasibility of their desired plan of action.

Re: failure to launch strikes during the past 16 years. Your explanations are already violating your key assumption: that Iran is not rational. Your explanation for failing to strike their facilites is that perhaps Obama, Trump and Biden were hoping to get Iran to engage like a rational actor by coming to the negotiating table? Sam can assume that Iran will behave rationally (perhaps he's right or weong), but your whole schtick is that Iran is not rational so they cannot get a bomb. Who is hoping and crossing their fingers now?

Look, I just want people to be honest. Ideological commitment to preventing Iran from getting nukes almost certainly ends with American boys and girls in country on the ground for years and years. I'm not willing to go there.

---

Buddy, you've made the argument that we need to be concerned about a longtime ally having nukes because of things that happened 250 plus years, and now you want to argue semantics? Cut the bull***** It was a ridiculous position on its face, which you're a smart guy and should well know.

The position that Iran having nukes is inevitable ignores what Israel has been able to do with far less than bunker busting bombs (though they seem to have some pretty good ones if their recent strikes are any indication). Intelligence reports state that it significantly set back the program. As Atl alluded to, those clandestine operations have been pretty effective.

No, like you, I don't trust Iran to act rational with a nuke. Does that mean we don't exhaust all diplomatic efforts before we decide on a military strike? Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand.

Ironically, like Sam, I simply don't accept your false dilemma between a ground war and a nuclear armed Iran. I'm also not so incredibly naive as to believe we can fortify our country from a nuclear attack. I'm just not willing to throw up my hands and give up as you are.

---

You said you would only worry when the UK had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world, I pointed out they have a centuries long-history of terrorism and included an example from less than 50 years ago (Her Majesty's Army's actions in Northern Ireland). Disappointing that you are incapable of owning your oversight, but so be it.

More important is the substance of your positions: You simultaneously seem to take the positions that:

A. "I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything."

B. "Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand."

A is part of your position that we must do all that is possible to stop Iran from getting a nuke because they are not rational.

B is your position that we can negotiate with them because they can be rational ("incentivized").

A and B are facially irreconcilable, unless you have some magic way of understanding them to be rational but also conclude that they are not rational. Please reconcile for the best of us.

Additionally, please stop lying. I have already said in this thread that Iran is not going to be rational with a nuke, yet you keep accusing me of believing otherwise. How much clearer could I be?

When I first got started professionally a dear mentor hammered home the following lesson with regard to portfolio composition: "when you are long commodities, you are short human ingenuity. Be very careful betting against humanity." I'm going to borrow from him here. To believe that we can permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes is to be short human ingenuity. Throughout all of history humans have shown new and clever ways for getting around prohibitions of all kind. Humanity is sort of undefeated in that regard. The Romans, of course, eventually found the only solution I am aware of to this problem: they salted the earth after complete military victory over their adversaries when the Romans concluded their vanquished enemies were incapable of living peacefully with Rome.

So let me try it this way: Assume that everything else has failed. Iran proves to be on the cusp of or has attained a dozen or so nuclear bombs. The only way to stop them is through a ground war that will necessarily entail hundreds of thousands of troops in theater for decades to come as you try to rebuild the country ala the Marshall plan or Japan. It will be much nastier than W. Bush's Iraq engagement. Are you ready to go there politically? Are you ready to send your sons and daughters to the middle East in those circumstances?

---

1) [......]

So, what's the plan, big guy?

---

Let's dance.

A. X. Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Y. "As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world then you might have a point."

Does the UK have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world or not? It is a straightforward question.

Quote:

---

I will reiterate the more pertinent point which you've failed to address: when you have to go back centuries to make the case that a longtime ally who we've fought alongside in ever major world war should be disarmed, you might consider that your position is completely and totally ridiculous.

---

B. You seem to not understand (or at least ignore) second- and third-order effects. JD Vance made the provocative joke last summer just days before being nominated as VP by Trump that the UK already is the the first Islamist nuclear power because of Labour.* The joke contains a strand of truth which makes it impactful. A member of the House of Lords caused a row over there about a year ago by claiming that the UK would become Islamist through the power of the womb. For about 10 to 15 years demographers have believed that the UK will be majority Muslim somewhere between 2050 and 2080 (UK Islam is heavily inline with the variety of Pakistani Islamists beliefs). The Labour party is CURRENTLY extremely responsive to its Muslim constituency because of the UK's first past the post parliamentary system already makes voting Muslims an important bloc to Labour (see today's raging debate about the banning of Halal practices in the slaughter of animals). That constituency will be a more important bloc by the year until they become an outright majority. Dismiss the trends there at your own risk.

In the early 1980s, once the Afrikaners saw the writing on the wall, they sort of voluntarily chose to get rid of their nukes and shut down their program (BDS heavily influenced the Afrikaners, so I hesitate to call it a purely voluntary disarmament). I think SA is a relevant example to the UK. If the UK is really heading toward an Islamist-majority population in the next 25 to 50 years (according to demographers) and if Islamists must never be allowed to get nukes (according to you) and if we have the precedent of a disarmament by SA, do you really think this is "completely and totally ridiculous"? At bare minimum, UK demographic trends are a contingency that must be game-theorized out by any prudent world power: so tell me, what is your war game plan there if Islamists do achieve outright political control in the UK? I know, I know, they are an ally, I'm sure that will ensure their future Islamist overlords are restrained. But just game-theory this out for me and keep this all in the abstract. What do you do if and when Islamists achieve outright political control in the UK?

C. You said: "I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything." You are now also suggesting that they can be rational before attaining a nuke. Responding to incentives as *one* understands them to be is the very textbook definition of rational behavior in economics. Psychology has similar principles. When you suggest that Iran can be incentivized, you are implicitly taking the position that they are rational. Which stands in direct contrast to your position that you have "never known Islamists to be reasonable". So which is it: Are Islamists capable of behaving reasonably or not? Yes, having nukes will change the equation, but your unequivocal statement was that these are people incapable of being reasonable *even before* they have attained nukes. I find your positions to be idiosyncratic and irreconcilable and you really have not tried to harmonize your positions.

D. I have offered a plan and solution: Fortress America or ground war. I do not support the latter, but it is the obvious solution if we are going to play offense. I do not believe we can permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes (short of a ground invasion/nation building) and I do not believe they will step back from pursuing nukes. I do not favor a ground invasion. So that leaves Fortress America.

My bigger issue is that this posturing of "Iran must not be allowed to have a nuke" is clearly setting the predicate for an eventual ground war. Tucker Carlson believes at minimum that influential people are agitating for war/regime change with Iran as we speak. Does that not in the least make you question what may be happening here?

I'll repeat my question to you and make it simpler: Assume that everything else has failed. Iran proves to be on the cusp of or has attained a half dozen or so nuclear bombs. You have ideologically committed yourself to the idea that Iran cannot be allowed to have nukes. Now what do you do?

Quote:

---

You were wrong on Afghanistan and remain wrong on Afghanistan. The issue there was the never ending occupation, not the decision to strike. We had no cogent exit strategy. But there's no question that we pretty much destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and eventually got bin Laden. We should have struck and gotten out instead of engaging in nation building.

---

I respect Sam a lot, especially on civil liberties where he is very thoughtful, though I disagree with him on much. He does not need my help. But the above Monday morning quarterbacking from you shows that you are way too cavalier and lack deliberate thought about this topic.

***THE*** defining military/strategic lesson of the 20th Century was that the Treaty of Versailles punishing Germany economically and diplomatically was a major blunder and important contributor that led to WWII. Failure to economically and diplomatically redevelop Germany after World War One was a massive mistake that allowed something far more evil and sinister to rise in Germany in the form of nationalist socialism/fascism.

Hence, post-WWII, you have the Marshall Plan in Europe and MacArthur in Japan doing everything possible to reindustrialize and integrate into the west both Europe and Japan. The post-WWII redevelopment was such a massive American success that the playbook at both Defense and State demands nation building after the overthrow of a government. The idea that we could have ever simply deposed of the Taliban, gotten OBL and then left Afghanistan (or Iraq after getting SH) is just inconceivable within the halls of power in this country. Our military and diplomatic officials would all be in consensus in their advice to POTUS that the overthrow of the Taliban and SH each required nation building on our part or we would run this risk of something more evil replacing the deposed government.

No PTOUS would stake his legacy on the risk of repeating the mistakes from the end of World War One. Even if a POTUS had the guts to go in a different direction, it would break the brains of all senior level officials at Defense and State and there would be constant second guessing and leaks to the media if an Executive pursued the plan of action you retrospectively propose. It just does not work the way that you want. You may want to rethink the inputs in your internal model as you consider the posture we are taking with Iran.

*I like Vance a lot, but his joke was in the same realm of VP Harris and Sec. Blinken's comments about NATO expansion--just a really bad idea to put your foot in your mouth like that.

---

You can't nation build those who are antithetical to the nation you're trying to build. That is unless you're willing to get your hands incredibly dirty, which sullies the credibility of your efforts.

---

It is obviously true that you cannot nation build in the middle East, but that is not going to stop DoD and Department of State from trying. Does not matter what you or I think. What matters is what those in power think. I have been saying that to do it properly would require us to basically salt the Earth, but there is no political will for that in the USA. And since we are not willing to do that, this whole exercise is really a predicate to a disaster.

---

We don't need Iranian nation building, The Israelis have the will to do what's necessary, we just won't let them. And it doesn't require all the way to salt. I've said it multiple times, everyone says they'd like Israel to handle their own problems, until Israel starts handling their problems. Gaza is the latest example.

---

Isrrael very obviously cannot do it on its own or Bibi wouldn't be sitting around waiting for Uncle Sam's go ahead. The real issue, I suspect, is that for all their solid tech advancements, key Israeli defense systems still depend on American military hardware. In particular, they make heavy use of American advanced early warning radar. That system is extremely powerful and if I recall correctly it can pick up something the size of a softball in flight in Iran.

Obama sort of f-ed with the Israelis when he was pissed at Bibi and added American operational control of the early warning radars when previously IDF personnel were permitted to operate. I am sure it has reverted by now. It was petty of Obama and sort of meaningless, but it got the message across that we could take our toys back if we want to.

The dangerous game that Bibi is playing here is that he tries to start a major war with Iran, America doesn't come along for the ride, and a pissed off Trump recalls our hardware on loan to them and cancels munitions sales to the IDF (we are by far the largest munitions supplier to Israel). I don't know who else would sell munitions s to Israel right now. That would be the worst possible outcome for Israel.

---

See above. And why would we stop selling them munitions? Iranian partners would not stop selling to them. This is proving the point. Iran is allowed to act with impunity, while the U.S. and West force the strategic calculus for Israel. That is despite everyone seeing and knowing there's an elephant in the room.

---

The Israelis have the will to do what is necessary, but not the capacity. Ultimately, we have to underwrite their actions through arms sales and our implicit guarantee of Israel's security. We would stop selling munitions to Israel in a scenario where we determined it was no longer in our strategic interests to sell them munitions. I am an isolationist and I am not interested in proxy fights or responding to what Iran's partners are doing as some kind of justification for what the USA must or should do. Frankly,, that kind of thinking has led to much of what has been wrong with the world in the post-WWII era.

We are 6% of the world's population and 20% of the world's GDP (and declining quickly). We obviously cannot continue to be the underwriter of other people's security and need to be far more strategic about the use of our resources.

Please tell me if you see things differently: Any hope of American disentanglement from the Middle East requires US disentanglement from Israel (and energy independence).

---

Great points

With rise of China and the decline of the USA as the stand alone manufacturing great power....the USA in the future will have hard choices about what its actual security concerns are.

And what regions and areas it must focus on.

It can't keep underwriting the security of other rich 1st world nations on its own forever.

These nations will have to at least start sharing some of the GDP-Financial burden going forward.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

B. Tucker Carlson believes that influential people are lobbying Trump for regime change in Iran as we speak. We now have reports out of Israel that Netanyahu is agitating for action against Iran while Trump is trying to cool things down. Are you not worried in the least about what is going on here?

I used to like Carlson, but I now consider him an absolute nutjob and pariah, and don't trust a thing he says, as the man is an admitted liar and agitator who stirs up condescension for clicks. However, if what Carlson is saying is true (and I say that with the caveat that there is zero evidence of his statements), then yes, I would be concerned. But I trust that Trump, given his past conduct, is smart enough not to involve us in another extended ground war and nation building exercise.

---

Translation: I used to like Tucker, but then he started telling to truth about Israel and I couldnt stand the idea of the gentiles being informed about how they are being royally ****ed over by their "greatest ally"

---

I realize that for anti-semites such as yourself, it always about the Jews. But my respect for Carlson began to plumet when his defense team admitted under oath that much of what he says is mere fiction, designed to garner ratings. He became a purveyor of fringe conspiracy theories, and of course has repeated Russian propaganda continuously on his show for the last 3 years. I think the disgraceful interview with Putin, where he was essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV, is what finally did it for me. And of course, having the "historian" who essentially defended Nazi Germany several months ago was also not a good look.

I am admittedly unfamiliar with much of what he's said since he left Fox, so you're going to be a lot more familiar with his statements about Israel than I am. I am sure you hang on every word.

---

Yes. I try to get information from multiple sources instead of blindly believing whatever the IDF tells me is the truth. Reading your posts is funny because it is always word for word what an IDF spokesmen would say. Even down to your anemic ad hominins.

"essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV".... stay classy Mothra

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

B. Tucker Carlson believes that influential people are lobbying Trump for regime change in Iran as we speak. We now have reports out of Israel that Netanyahu is agitating for action against Iran while Trump is trying to cool things down. Are you not worried in the least about what is going on here?

I used to like Carlson, but I now consider him an absolute nutjob and pariah, and don't trust a thing he says, as the man is an admitted liar and agitator who stirs up condescension for clicks. However, if what Carlson is saying is true (and I say that with the caveat that there is zero evidence of his statements), then yes, I would be concerned. But I trust that Trump, given his past conduct, is smart enough not to involve us in another extended ground war and nation building exercise.

---

Translation: I used to like Tucker, but then he started telling to truth about Israel and I couldnt stand the idea of the gentiles being informed about how they are being royally ****ed over by their "greatest ally"

---

I realize that for anti-semites such as yourself, it always about the Jews. But my respect for Carlson began to plumet when his defense team admitted under oath that much of what he says is mere fiction, designed to garner ratings. He became a purveyor of fringe conspiracy theories, and of course has repeated Russian propaganda continuously on his show for the last 3 years. I think the disgraceful interview with Putin, where he was essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV, is what finally did it for me. And of course, having the "historian" who essentially defended Nazi Germany several months ago was also not a good look.

I am admittedly unfamiliar with much of what he's said since he left Fox, so you're going to be a lot more familiar with his statements about Israel than I am. I am sure you hang on every word.

---

"Hitler never wanted war with Britain.

He never wanted a World War."

— Pat Buchanan (Senior Advisor to President Ronald Reagan) pic.twitter.com/Zk4KYcHyJx

— History Uncensored (@PastUncensored) April 20, 2025

I watched that episode with "Martyr Made" and the guy was right on all his points. It seems like Pat Buchanan, who I consider one of the smartest men alive, agrees with him as well

Pat shouldve been our president and our country wouldve been much better off today had he been.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

B. Tucker Carlson believes that influential people are lobbying Trump for regime change in Iran as we speak. We now have reports out of Israel that Netanyahu is agitating for action against Iran while Trump is trying to cool things down. Are you not worried in the least about what is going on here?

I used to like Carlson, but I now consider him an absolute nutjob and pariah, and don't trust a thing he says, as the man is an admitted liar and agitator who stirs up condescension for clicks. However, if what Carlson is saying is true (and I say that with the caveat that there is zero evidence of his statements), then yes, I would be concerned. But I trust that Trump, given his past conduct, is smart enough not to involve us in another extended ground war and nation building exercise.

---

Translation: I used to like Tucker, but then he started telling to truth about Israel and I couldnt stand the idea of the gentiles being informed about how they are being royally ****ed over by their "greatest ally"

---

I realize that for anti-semites such as yourself, it always about the Jews. But my respect for Carlson began to plumet when his defense team admitted under oath that much of what he says is mere fiction, designed to garner ratings. He became a purveyor of fringe conspiracy theories, and of course has repeated Russian propaganda continuously on his show for the last 3 years. I think the disgraceful interview with Putin, where he was essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV, is what finally did it for me. And of course, having the "historian" who essentially defended Nazi Germany several months ago was also not a good look.

I am admittedly unfamiliar with much of what he's said since he left Fox, so you're going to be a lot more familiar with his statements about Israel than I am. I am sure you hang on every word.

---

Yes. I try to get information from multiple sources instead of blindly believing whatever the IDF tells me is the truth. Reading your posts is funny because it is always word for word what an IDF spokesmen would say. Even down to your anemic ad hominins.

"essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV".... stay classy Mothra

---

It's funny that all news sources you disagree with are essentially IDF mouthpieces, but I guess that goes part in parcel with what I said above - for anti-semites, it's always about the Jews. All ills in the world can be traced to them. And you have an especially bad case.

A Jew-hater calling out others lack of class is amusingly ironic. It had its intended effect.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

B. Tucker Carlson believes that influential people are lobbying Trump for regime change in Iran as we speak. We now have reports out of Israel that Netanyahu is agitating for action against Iran while Trump is trying to cool things down. Are you not worried in the least about what is going on here?

I used to like Carlson, but I now consider him an absolute nutjob and pariah, and don't trust a thing he says, as the man is an admitted liar and agitator who stirs up condescension for clicks. However, if what Carlson is saying is true (and I say that with the caveat that there is zero evidence of his statements), then yes, I would be concerned. But I trust that Trump, given his past conduct, is smart enough not to involve us in another extended ground war and nation building exercise.

---

Translation: I used to like Tucker, but then he started telling to truth about Israel and I couldnt stand the idea of the gentiles being informed about how they are being royally ****ed over by their "greatest ally"

---

I realize that for anti-semites such as yourself, it always about the Jews. But my respect for Carlson began to plumet when his defense team admitted under oath that much of what he says is mere fiction, designed to garner ratings. He became a purveyor of fringe conspiracy theories, and of course has repeated Russian propaganda continuously on his show for the last 3 years. I think the disgraceful interview with Putin, where he was essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV, is what finally did it for me. And of course, having the "historian" who essentially defended Nazi Germany several months ago was also not a good look.

I am admittedly unfamiliar with much of what he's said since he left Fox, so you're going to be a lot more familiar with his statements about Israel than I am. I am sure you hang on every word.

---

Yes. I try to get information from multiple sources instead of blindly believing whatever the IDF tells me is the truth. Reading your posts is funny because it is always word for word what an IDF spokesmen would say. Even down to your anemic ad hominins.

"essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV".... stay classy Mothra

---

It's funny that all news sources you disagree with are essentially IDF mouthpieces, but I guess that goes part in parcel with what I said above - for anti-semites, it's always about the Jews. All ills in the world can be traced to them. And you have an especially bad case.

A Jew-hater calling out others lack of class is amusingly ironic. It had its intended effect.

---

And you are anti-white.

You wouldnt so cavalierly call me a facist and a racist if I wasnt white.

But I also accept its the white man's burden to have to deal with idiots like you holding us to a double standard.

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

B. Tucker Carlson believes that influential people are lobbying Trump for regime change in Iran as we speak. We now have reports out of Israel that Netanyahu is agitating for action against Iran while Trump is trying to cool things down. Are you not worried in the least about what is going on here?

I used to like Carlson, but I now consider him an absolute nutjob and pariah, and don't trust a thing he says, as the man is an admitted liar and agitator who stirs up condescension for clicks. However, if what Carlson is saying is true (and I say that with the caveat that there is zero evidence of his statements), then yes, I would be concerned. But I trust that Trump, given his past conduct, is smart enough not to involve us in another extended ground war and nation building exercise.

---

Translation: I used to like Tucker, but then he started telling to truth about Israel and I couldnt stand the idea of the gentiles being informed about how they are being royally ****ed over by their "greatest ally"

---

I realize that for anti-semites such as yourself, it always about the Jews. But my respect for Carlson began to plumet when his defense team admitted under oath that much of what he says is mere fiction, designed to garner ratings. He became a purveyor of fringe conspiracy theories, and of course has repeated Russian propaganda continuously on his show for the last 3 years. I think the disgraceful interview with Putin, where he was essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV, is what finally did it for me. And of course, having the "historian" who essentially defended Nazi Germany several months ago was also not a good look.

I am admittedly unfamiliar with much of what he's said since he left Fox, so you're going to be a lot more familiar with his statements about Israel than I am. I am sure you hang on every word.

---

"Hitler never wanted war with Britain.

He never wanted a World War."

— Pat Buchanan (Senior Advisor to President Ronald Reagan) pic.twitter.com/Zk4KYcHyJx

— History Uncensored (@PastUncensored) April 20, 2025

I watched that episode with "Martyr Made" and the guy was right on all his points. It seems like Pat Buchanan, who I consider one of the smartest men alive agrees with him as well

Pat shouldve been our president and our country wouldve been much better off today had he been.

---

I like Pat, but that book was hot garbage. Roundly criticized by those across the political spectrum - including many conservatives - for failing to cite sources for his positions, and engaging in a lot of half-truths.

There was no black or white, right or wrong here. There usually never is in history. But the idea that Churchill was responsible for WWII is debunked hogwash.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

B. Tucker Carlson believes that influential people are lobbying Trump for regime change in Iran as we speak. We now have reports out of Israel that Netanyahu is agitating for action against Iran while Trump is trying to cool things down. Are you not worried in the least about what is going on here?

I used to like Carlson, but I now consider him an absolute nutjob and pariah, and don't trust a thing he says, as the man is an admitted liar and agitator who stirs up condescension for clicks. However, if what Carlson is saying is true (and I say that with the caveat that there is zero evidence of his statements), then yes, I would be concerned. But I trust that Trump, given his past conduct, is smart enough not to involve us in another extended ground war and nation building exercise.

---

Translation: I used to like Tucker, but then he started telling to truth about Israel and I couldnt stand the idea of the gentiles being informed about how they are being royally ****ed over by their "greatest ally"

---

I realize that for anti-semites such as yourself, it always about the Jews. But my respect for Carlson began to plumet when his defense team admitted under oath that much of what he says is mere fiction, designed to garner ratings. He became a purveyor of fringe conspiracy theories, and of course has repeated Russian propaganda continuously on his show for the last 3 years. I think the disgraceful interview with Putin, where he was essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV, is what finally did it for me. And of course, having the "historian" who essentially defended Nazi Germany several months ago was also not a good look.

I am admittedly unfamiliar with much of what he's said since he left Fox, so you're going to be a lot more familiar with his statements about Israel than I am. I am sure you hang on every word.

---

Yes. I try to get information from multiple sources instead of blindly believing whatever the IDF tells me is the truth. Reading your posts is funny because it is always word for word what an IDF spokesmen would say. Even down to your anemic ad hominins.

"essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV".... stay classy Mothra

---

It's funny that all news sources you disagree with are essentially IDF mouthpieces, but I guess that goes part in parcel with what I said above - for anti-semites, it's always about the Jews. All ills in the world can be traced to them. And you have an especially bad case.

A Jew-hater calling out others lack of class is amusingly ironic. It had its intended effect.

---

And you are anti-white.

You wouldnt so cavalierly call me a facist and a racist if I wasnt white.

But I also accept its the white man's burden to have to deal with idiots like you holding us to a double standard.

---

I am anti-white?

LOL. You are a hoot. Everything always about race.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

B. Tucker Carlson believes that influential people are lobbying Trump for regime change in Iran as we speak. We now have reports out of Israel that Netanyahu is agitating for action against Iran while Trump is trying to cool things down. Are you not worried in the least about what is going on here?

I used to like Carlson, but I now consider him an absolute nutjob and pariah, and don't trust a thing he says, as the man is an admitted liar and agitator who stirs up condescension for clicks. However, if what Carlson is saying is true (and I say that with the caveat that there is zero evidence of his statements), then yes, I would be concerned. But I trust that Trump, given his past conduct, is smart enough not to involve us in another extended ground war and nation building exercise.

---

Translation: I used to like Tucker, but then he started telling to truth about Israel and I couldnt stand the idea of the gentiles being informed about how they are being royally ****ed over by their "greatest ally"

---

I realize that for anti-semites such as yourself, it always about the Jews. But my respect for Carlson began to plumet when his defense team admitted under oath that much of what he says is mere fiction, designed to garner ratings. He became a purveyor of fringe conspiracy theories, and of course has repeated Russian propaganda continuously on his show for the last 3 years. I think the disgraceful interview with Putin, where he was essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV, is what finally did it for me. And of course, having the "historian" who essentially defended Nazi Germany several months ago was also not a good look.

I am admittedly unfamiliar with much of what he's said since he left Fox, so you're going to be a lot more familiar with his statements about Israel than I am. I am sure you hang on every word.

---

Yes. I try to get information from multiple sources instead of blindly believing whatever the IDF tells me is the truth. Reading your posts is funny because it is always word for word what an IDF spokesmen would say. Even down to your anemic ad hominins.

"essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV".... stay classy Mothra

---

It's funny that all news sources you disagree with are essentially IDF mouthpieces, but I guess that goes part in parcel with what I said above - for anti-semites, it's always about the Jews. All ills in the world can be traced to them. And you have an especially bad case.

A Jew-hater calling out others lack of class is amusingly ironic. It had its intended effect.

---

And you are anti-white.

You wouldnt so cavalierly call me a facist and a racist if I wasnt white.

But I also accept its the white man's burden to have to deal with idiots like you holding us to a double standard.

---

I am anti-white?

LOL. You are a hoot. Everything always about race.

---

Says the guy who accuses others of anti-semitism with every other breath...

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.

---

They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.

And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.

---

Air superiority is indeed questionable after last year's developments, especially the aborted stealth fighter mission in October. The cost to Israel would be devastating if not existential. And in any case, while they might set Iran's nuclear program back, there's no way to eliminate it from the air.

Putin's analogue in your comparison would be Netanyahu, not Trump, so I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

B. Tucker Carlson believes that influential people are lobbying Trump for regime change in Iran as we speak. We now have reports out of Israel that Netanyahu is agitating for action against Iran while Trump is trying to cool things down. Are you not worried in the least about what is going on here?

I used to like Carlson, but I now consider him an absolute nutjob and pariah, and don't trust a thing he says, as the man is an admitted liar and agitator who stirs up condescension for clicks. However, if what Carlson is saying is true (and I say that with the caveat that there is zero evidence of his statements), then yes, I would be concerned. But I trust that Trump, given his past conduct, is smart enough not to involve us in another extended ground war and nation building exercise.

---

Translation: I used to like Tucker, but then he started telling to truth about Israel and I couldnt stand the idea of the gentiles being informed about how they are being royally ****ed over by their "greatest ally"

---

I realize that for anti-semites such as yourself, it always about the Jews. But my respect for Carlson began to plumet when his defense team admitted under oath that much of what he says is mere fiction, designed to garner ratings. He became a purveyor of fringe conspiracy theories, and of course has repeated Russian propaganda continuously on his show for the last 3 years. I think the disgraceful interview with Putin, where he was essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV, is what finally did it for me. And of course, having the "historian" who essentially defended Nazi Germany several months ago was also not a good look.

I am admittedly unfamiliar with much of what he's said since he left Fox, so you're going to be a lot more familiar with his statements about Israel than I am. I am sure you hang on every word.

---

Yes. I try to get information from multiple sources instead of blindly believing whatever the IDF tells me is the truth. Reading your posts is funny because it is always word for word what an IDF spokesmen would say. Even down to your anemic ad hominins.

"essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV".... stay classy Mothra

---

It's funny that all news sources you disagree with are essentially IDF mouthpieces, but I guess that goes part in parcel with what I said above - for anti-semites, it's always about the Jews. All ills in the world can be traced to them. And you have an especially bad case.

A Jew-hater calling out others lack of class is amusingly ironic. It had its intended effect.

---

And you are anti-white.

You wouldnt so cavalierly call me a facist and a racist if I wasnt white.

But I also accept its the white man's burden to have to deal with idiots like you holding us to a double standard.

---

I am anti-white?

LOL. You are a hoot. Everything always about race.

---

Says the guy who accuses others of anti-semitism with every other breath...

---

No, just you. If the shoe fits...

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

B. Tucker Carlson believes that influential people are lobbying Trump for regime change in Iran as we speak. We now have reports out of Israel that Netanyahu is agitating for action against Iran while Trump is trying to cool things down. Are you not worried in the least about what is going on here?

I used to like Carlson, but I now consider him an absolute nutjob and pariah, and don't trust a thing he says, as the man is an admitted liar and agitator who stirs up condescension for clicks. However, if what Carlson is saying is true (and I say that with the caveat that there is zero evidence of his statements), then yes, I would be concerned. But I trust that Trump, given his past conduct, is smart enough not to involve us in another extended ground war and nation building exercise.

---

Translation: I used to like Tucker, but then he started telling to truth about Israel and I couldnt stand the idea of the gentiles being informed about how they are being royally ****ed over by their "greatest ally"

---

I realize that for anti-semites such as yourself, it always about the Jews. But my respect for Carlson began to plumet when his defense team admitted under oath that much of what he says is mere fiction, designed to garner ratings. He became a purveyor of fringe conspiracy theories, and of course has repeated Russian propaganda continuously on his show for the last 3 years. I think the disgraceful interview with Putin, where he was essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV, is what finally did it for me. And of course, having the "historian" who essentially defended Nazi Germany several months ago was also not a good look.

I am admittedly unfamiliar with much of what he's said since he left Fox, so you're going to be a lot more familiar with his statements about Israel than I am. I am sure you hang on every word.

---

"Hitler never wanted war with Britain.

He never wanted a World War."

— Pat Buchanan (Senior Advisor to President Ronald Reagan) pic.twitter.com/Zk4KYcHyJx

— History Uncensored (@PastUncensored) April 20, 2025

I watched that episode with "Martyr Made" and the guy was right on all his points. It seems like Pat Buchanan, who I consider one of the smartest men alive agrees with him as well

Pat shouldve been our president and our country wouldve been much better off today had he been.

---

I like Pat, but that book was hot garbage. Roundly criticized by those across the political spectrum - including many conservatives - for failing to cite sources for his positions, and engaging in a lot of half-truths.

There was no black or white, right or wrong here. There usually never is in history. But the idea that Churchill was responsible for WWII is debunked hogwash.

---

I think there is sufficient evidence that Churchill was having his personal debts settled by bankers who wanted the war. Also, Roosevelt wanted the war to get us out of the great depression. There is no doubt in my mind that WW1 and 2 were bankers wars and the bankers funded both sides. JP Morgan bankrolled the nazis too.

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

B. Tucker Carlson believes that influential people are lobbying Trump for regime change in Iran as we speak. We now have reports out of Israel that Netanyahu is agitating for action against Iran while Trump is trying to cool things down. Are you not worried in the least about what is going on here?

I used to like Carlson, but I now consider him an absolute nutjob and pariah, and don't trust a thing he says, as the man is an admitted liar and agitator who stirs up condescension for clicks. However, if what Carlson is saying is true (and I say that with the caveat that there is zero evidence of his statements), then yes, I would be concerned. But I trust that Trump, given his past conduct, is smart enough not to involve us in another extended ground war and nation building exercise.

---

Translation: I used to like Tucker, but then he started telling to truth about Israel and I couldnt stand the idea of the gentiles being informed about how they are being royally ****ed over by their "greatest ally"

---

I realize that for anti-semites such as yourself, it always about the Jews. But my respect for Carlson began to plumet when his defense team admitted under oath that much of what he says is mere fiction, designed to garner ratings. He became a purveyor of fringe conspiracy theories, and of course has repeated Russian propaganda continuously on his show for the last 3 years. I think the disgraceful interview with Putin, where he was essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV, is what finally did it for me. And of course, having the "historian" who essentially defended Nazi Germany several months ago was also not a good look.

I am admittedly unfamiliar with much of what he's said since he left Fox, so you're going to be a lot more familiar with his statements about Israel than I am. I am sure you hang on every word.

---

"Hitler never wanted war with Britain.

He never wanted a World War."

— Pat Buchanan (Senior Advisor to President Ronald Reagan) pic.twitter.com/Zk4KYcHyJx

— History Uncensored (@PastUncensored) April 20, 2025

I watched that episode with "Martyr Made" and the guy was right on all his points. It seems like Pat Buchanan, who I consider one of the smartest men alive agrees with him as well

Pat shouldve been our president and our country wouldve been much better off today had he been.

---

I like Pat, but that book was hot garbage. Roundly criticized by those across the political spectrum - including many conservatives - for failing to cite sources for his positions, and engaging in a lot of half-truths.

There was no black or white, right or wrong here. There usually never is in history. But the idea that Churchill was responsible for WWII is debunked hogwash.

---

I think there is sufficient evidence that Churchill was having his personal debts settled by bankers who wanted the war. Also, Roosevelt wanted the war to get us out of the great depression. There is no doubt in my mind that WW1 and 2 were bankers wars and the bankers funded both sides. JP Morgan bankrolled the nazis too.

---

Perhaps, but the idea that Hitler was going to be satisfied by these meager appeasements simply doesn't bear any semblance to reality. Even when Europe tried to appease Hitler, he kept demanding more. Hard to negotiate with someone like that.

Hitler's thirst for power was too great, IMO. It would have eventually led to a conflict, regardless. And of course, he would have continued to eradicate and exterminate German Jews inside within the confines of his country. Man was evil.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.

---

They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.

And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.

---

You cannot be serious....

Israel would already be a brief footnote in history is not for the massive financial welfare they have received from the American tax payer.

Hell we even made the Arabs filthy rich so they would be nice to Israel.

Netanyahu sucked us into the Iraq war when Israeli intelligence told the worst Republican President in history, Bush Jr, that Sadaam had WMDs.

They are currently ethnically cleansing Gaza and have killed over a hundred thousand while congress, who Israel has bought and paid with our own stolen tax dollars, is busy passing condemnations of anti-semitism.

Israel has never been restrained. Quite the opposite, they have been pampered and coddled despite their many insults and betrayals of the American people.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

B. Tucker Carlson believes that influential people are lobbying Trump for regime change in Iran as we speak. We now have reports out of Israel that Netanyahu is agitating for action against Iran while Trump is trying to cool things down. Are you not worried in the least about what is going on here?

I used to like Carlson, but I now consider him an absolute nutjob and pariah, and don't trust a thing he says, as the man is an admitted liar and agitator who stirs up condescension for clicks. However, if what Carlson is saying is true (and I say that with the caveat that there is zero evidence of his statements), then yes, I would be concerned. But I trust that Trump, given his past conduct, is smart enough not to involve us in another extended ground war and nation building exercise.

---

Translation: I used to like Tucker, but then he started telling to truth about Israel and I couldnt stand the idea of the gentiles being informed about how they are being royally ****ed over by their "greatest ally"

---

I realize that for anti-semites such as yourself, it always about the Jews. But my respect for Carlson began to plumet when his defense team admitted under oath that much of what he says is mere fiction, designed to garner ratings. He became a purveyor of fringe conspiracy theories, and of course has repeated Russian propaganda continuously on his show for the last 3 years. I think the disgraceful interview with Putin, where he was essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV, is what finally did it for me. And of course, having the "historian" who essentially defended Nazi Germany several months ago was also not a good look.

I am admittedly unfamiliar with much of what he's said since he left Fox, so you're going to be a lot more familiar with his statements about Israel than I am. I am sure you hang on every word.

---

Yes. I try to get information from multiple sources instead of blindly believing whatever the IDF tells me is the truth. Reading your posts is funny because it is always word for word what an IDF spokesmen would say. Even down to your anemic ad hominins.

"essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV".... stay classy Mothra

---

It's funny that all news sources you disagree with are essentially IDF mouthpieces, but I guess that goes part in parcel with what I said above - for anti-semites, it's always about the Jews. All ills in the world can be traced to them. And you have an especially bad case.

A Jew-hater calling out others lack of class is amusingly ironic. It had its intended effect.

---

And you are anti-white.

You wouldnt so cavalierly call me a facist and a racist if I wasnt white.

But I also accept its the white man's burden to have to deal with idiots like you holding us to a double standard.

---

I am anti-white?

LOL. You are a hoot. Everything always about race.

---

Says the guy who accuses others of anti-semitism with every other breath...

---

No, just you. If the shoe fits...

---

Are you Jewish or a Christian Zionist?

Just curious...

Mothra said:

---

Even when America tried to appease Israel, they kept demanding more. Hard to negotiate with something like that.

Israel's thirst for power was too great, IMO. It would have eventually led to a conflict, regardless. And of course, they would have continued to eradicate and exterminate Palestinians inside within the confines of their country. Israel was evil.

---

I know... I know... I'm an anti-semite for pointing out the glaringly obvious parallels...

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

B. Tucker Carlson believes that influential people are lobbying Trump for regime change in Iran as we speak. We now have reports out of Israel that Netanyahu is agitating for action against Iran while Trump is trying to cool things down. Are you not worried in the least about what is going on here?

I used to like Carlson, but I now consider him an absolute nutjob and pariah, and don't trust a thing he says, as the man is an admitted liar and agitator who stirs up condescension for clicks. However, if what Carlson is saying is true (and I say that with the caveat that there is zero evidence of his statements), then yes, I would be concerned. But I trust that Trump, given his past conduct, is smart enough not to involve us in another extended ground war and nation building exercise.

---

Translation: I used to like Tucker, but then he started telling to truth about Israel and I couldnt stand the idea of the gentiles being informed about how they are being royally ****ed over by their "greatest ally"

---

I realize that for anti-semites such as yourself, it always about the Jews. But my respect for Carlson began to plumet when his defense team admitted under oath that much of what he says is mere fiction, designed to garner ratings. He became a purveyor of fringe conspiracy theories, and of course has repeated Russian propaganda continuously on his show for the last 3 years. I think the disgraceful interview with Putin, where he was essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV, is what finally did it for me. And of course, having the "historian" who essentially defended Nazi Germany several months ago was also not a good look.

I am admittedly unfamiliar with much of what he's said since he left Fox, so you're going to be a lot more familiar with his statements about Israel than I am. I am sure you hang on every word.

---

Yes. I try to get information from multiple sources instead of blindly believing whatever the IDF tells me is the truth. Reading your posts is funny because it is always word for word what an IDF spokesmen would say. Even down to your anemic ad hominins.

"essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV".... stay classy Mothra

---

It's funny that all news sources you disagree with are essentially IDF mouthpieces, but I guess that goes part in parcel with what I said above - for anti-semites, it's always about the Jews. All ills in the world can be traced to them. And you have an especially bad case.

A Jew-hater calling out others lack of class is amusingly ironic. It had its intended effect.

---

And you are anti-white.

You wouldnt so cavalierly call me a facist and a racist if I wasnt white.

But I also accept its the white man's burden to have to deal with idiots like you holding us to a double standard.

---

I am anti-white?

LOL. You are a hoot. Everything always about race.

---

Says the guy who accuses others of anti-semitism with every other breath...

---

No, just you. If the shoe fits...

---

Are you Jewish or a Christian Zionist?

Just curious...

---

Neither.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Even when America tried to appease Israel, they kept demanding more. Hard to negotiate with something like that.

Israel's thirst for power was too great, IMO. It would have eventually led to a conflict, regardless. And of course, they would have continued to eradicate and exterminate Palestinians inside within the confines of their country. Israel was evil.

---

I know... I know... I'm an anti-semite for pointing out the glaringly obvious parallels...

---

LOL. Again, all about the Jews. You are true to form.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

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.

---

Far from being cavalier with my words, I assumed you were a reasonable person operating in good faith, and understood what I meant by that term. Apparently not. I suppose under your overly broad definition of terrorism, the US is the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world. Amiright?

As for the missile strikes, you're making lots of unwarranted assumptions. There are plenty of motivations for not striking Iran, including the idea that the US could bring them back to the table through sanctions and incentives. I actually agree with Sam that the best way to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons is diplomacy. I would employ missile strikes only as a last resort. And I don't think at any point we've reached that stage. I suspect our past and current president feel the same.

But if the choice is between doing nothing, as you suggest, or trying to prevent them from nuking another country, I take my chances on a precision strike.

---

So it is my fault that you are making factually incorrect statements and we need to read deeper meaning into what you are saying? Sure, we'll all just read your mind for your intended meaning instead of you actually typing out what you mean. Give me a break. Just own your own carelessness. And FYI, it was 50 years ago that the British Army was running roughshod in Northern Ireland during the troubles.

Re: "last resort" I find your approach to be unrealistic and immature. You don't strike as a last resort. The problem isn't the physical capability. That can always be rebuilt and improved on. You strike to prevent the development of technical expertise and experience. That is the actual hard part. As long as the Iranians are taking good notes and backing up their files, then your last resort missile strike is only delaying the inevitable until they build their facilities deep enough and far enough underground in a secure enough place that we can't reach.

Recall, we have military installations designed to withstand nuclear strikes because of how deep they are buried underground. Do you think Iran is not capable of doing the same? Do you think we have some magic bunker buster bomb that can do a job a nuclear strike cannot? Do you think Iran cannot just build back deeper and further isolated? The scary thing is not the physical capacity but the technical expertise. And if you're going to strike, you do it to prevent technical expertise. Otherwise, all you are doing is kicking the can down the road.

I don't think that the missile proponents have actually thought of the technical feasibility of their desired plan of action.

Re: failure to launch strikes during the past 16 years. Your explanations are already violating your key assumption: that Iran is not rational. Your explanation for failing to strike their facilites is that perhaps Obama, Trump and Biden were hoping to get Iran to engage like a rational actor by coming to the negotiating table? Sam can assume that Iran will behave rationally (perhaps he's right or weong), but your whole schtick is that Iran is not rational so they cannot get a bomb. Who is hoping and crossing their fingers now?

Look, I just want people to be honest. Ideological commitment to preventing Iran from getting nukes almost certainly ends with American boys and girls in country on the ground for years and years. I'm not willing to go there.

---

Buddy, you've made the argument that we need to be concerned about a longtime ally having nukes because of things that happened 250 plus years, and now you want to argue semantics? Cut the bull***** It was a ridiculous position on its face, which you're a smart guy and should well know.

The position that Iran having nukes is inevitable ignores what Israel has been able to do with far less than bunker busting bombs (though they seem to have some pretty good ones if their recent strikes are any indication). Intelligence reports state that it significantly set back the program. As Atl alluded to, those clandestine operations have been pretty effective.

No, like you, I don't trust Iran to act rational with a nuke. Does that mean we don't exhaust all diplomatic efforts before we decide on a military strike? Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand.

Ironically, like Sam, I simply don't accept your false dilemma between a ground war and a nuclear armed Iran. I'm also not so incredibly naive as to believe we can fortify our country from a nuclear attack. I'm just not willing to throw up my hands and give up as you are.

---

You said you would only worry when the UK had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world, I pointed out they have a centuries long-history of terrorism and included an example from less than 50 years ago (Her Majesty's Army's actions in Northern Ireland). Disappointing that you are incapable of owning your oversight, but so be it.

More important is the substance of your positions: You simultaneously seem to take the positions that:

A. "I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything."

B. "Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand."

A is part of your position that we must do all that is possible to stop Iran from getting a nuke because they are not rational.

B is your position that we can negotiate with them because they can be rational ("incentivized").

A and B are facially irreconcilable, unless you have some magic way of understanding them to be rational but also conclude that they are not rational. Please reconcile for the best of us.

Additionally, please stop lying. I have already said in this thread that Iran is not going to be rational with a nuke, yet you keep accusing me of believing otherwise. How much clearer could I be?

When I first got started professionally a dear mentor hammered home the following lesson with regard to portfolio composition: "when you are long commodities, you are short human ingenuity. Be very careful betting against humanity." I'm going to borrow from him here. To believe that we can permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes is to be short human ingenuity. Throughout all of history humans have shown new and clever ways for getting around prohibitions of all kind. Humanity is sort of undefeated in that regard. The Romans, of course, eventually found the only solution I am aware of to this problem: they salted the earth after complete military victory over their adversaries when the Romans concluded their vanquished enemies were incapable of living peacefully with Rome.

So let me try it this way: Assume that everything else has failed. Iran proves to be on the cusp of or has attained a dozen or so nuclear bombs. The only way to stop them is through a ground war that will necessarily entail hundreds of thousands of troops in theater for decades to come as you try to rebuild the country ala the Marshall plan or Japan. It will be much nastier than W. Bush's Iraq engagement. Are you ready to go there politically? Are you ready to send your sons and daughters to the middle East in those circumstances?

---

1) [......]

So, what's the plan, big guy?

---

Let's dance.

A. X. Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Y. "As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world then you might have a point."

Does the UK have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world or not? It is a straightforward question.

Quote:

---

I will reiterate the more pertinent point which you've failed to address: when you have to go back centuries to make the case that a longtime ally who we've fought alongside in ever major world war should be disarmed, you might consider that your position is completely and totally ridiculous.

---

B. You seem to not understand (or at least ignore) second- and third-order effects. JD Vance made the provocative joke last summer just days before being nominated as VP by Trump that the UK already is the the first Islamist nuclear power because of Labour.* The joke contains a strand of truth which makes it impactful. A member of the House of Lords caused a row over there about a year ago by claiming that the UK would become Islamist through the power of the womb. For about 10 to 15 years demographers have believed that the UK will be majority Muslim somewhere between 2050 and 2080 (UK Islam is heavily inline with the variety of Pakistani Islamists beliefs). The Labour party is CURRENTLY extremely responsive to its Muslim constituency because of the UK's first past the post parliamentary system already makes voting Muslims an important bloc to Labour (see today's raging debate about the banning of Halal practices in the slaughter of animals). That constituency will be a more important bloc by the year until they become an outright majority. Dismiss the trends there at your own risk.

In the early 1980s, once the Afrikaners saw the writing on the wall, they sort of voluntarily chose to get rid of their nukes and shut down their program (BDS heavily influenced the Afrikaners, so I hesitate to call it a purely voluntary disarmament). I think SA is a relevant example to the UK. If the UK is really heading toward an Islamist-majority population in the next 25 to 50 years (according to demographers) and if Islamists must never be allowed to get nukes (according to you) and if we have the precedent of a disarmament by SA, do you really think this is "completely and totally ridiculous"? At bare minimum, UK demographic trends are a contingency that must be game-theorized out by any prudent world power: so tell me, what is your war game plan there if Islamists do achieve outright political control in the UK? I know, I know, they are an ally, I'm sure that will ensure their future Islamist overlords are restrained. But just game-theory this out for me and keep this all in the abstract. What do you do if and when Islamists achieve outright political control in the UK?

C. You said: "I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything." You are now also suggesting that they can be rational before attaining a nuke. Responding to incentives as *one* understands them to be is the very textbook definition of rational behavior in economics. Psychology has similar principles. When you suggest that Iran can be incentivized, you are implicitly taking the position that they are rational. Which stands in direct contrast to your position that you have "never known Islamists to be reasonable". So which is it: Are Islamists capable of behaving reasonably or not? Yes, having nukes will change the equation, but your unequivocal statement was that these are people incapable of being reasonable *even before* they have attained nukes. I find your positions to be idiosyncratic and irreconcilable and you really have not tried to harmonize your positions.

D. I have offered a plan and solution: Fortress America or ground war. I do not support the latter, but it is the obvious solution if we are going to play offense. I do not believe we can permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes (short of a ground invasion/nation building) and I do not believe they will step back from pursuing nukes. I do not favor a ground invasion. So that leaves Fortress America.

My bigger issue is that this posturing of "Iran must not be allowed to have a nuke" is clearly setting the predicate for an eventual ground war. Tucker Carlson believes at minimum that influential people are agitating for war/regime change with Iran as we speak. Does that not in the least make you question what may be happening here?

I'll repeat my question to you and make it simpler: Assume that everything else has failed. Iran proves to be on the cusp of or has attained a half dozen or so nuclear bombs. You have ideologically committed yourself to the idea that Iran cannot be allowed to have nukes. Now what do you do?

Quote:

---

You were wrong on Afghanistan and remain wrong on Afghanistan. The issue there was the never ending occupation, not the decision to strike. We had no cogent exit strategy. But there's no question that we pretty much destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and eventually got bin Laden. We should have struck and gotten out instead of engaging in nation building.

---

I respect Sam a lot, especially on civil liberties where he is very thoughtful, though I disagree with him on much. He does not need my help. But the above Monday morning quarterbacking from you shows that you are way too cavalier and lack deliberate thought about this topic.

***THE*** defining military/strategic lesson of the 20th Century was that the Treaty of Versailles punishing Germany economically and diplomatically was a major blunder and important contributor that led to WWII. Failure to economically and diplomatically redevelop Germany after World War One was a massive mistake that allowed something far more evil and sinister to rise in Germany in the form of nationalist socialism/fascism.

Hence, post-WWII, you have the Marshall Plan in Europe and MacArthur in Japan doing everything possible to reindustrialize and integrate into the west both Europe and Japan. The post-WWII redevelopment was such a massive American success that the playbook at both Defense and State demands nation building after the overthrow of a government. The idea that we could have ever simply deposed of the Taliban, gotten OBL and then left Afghanistan (or Iraq after getting SH) is just inconceivable within the halls of power in this country. Our military and diplomatic officials would all be in consensus in their advice to POTUS that the overthrow of the Taliban and SH each required nation building on our part or we would run this risk of something more evil replacing the deposed government.

No PTOUS would stake his legacy on the risk of repeating the mistakes from the end of World War One. Even if a POTUS had the guts to go in a different direction, it would break the brains of all senior level officials at Defense and State and there would be constant second guessing and leaks to the media if an Executive pursued the plan of action you retrospectively propose. It just does not work the way that you want. You may want to rethink the inputs in your internal model as you consider the posture we are taking with Iran.

*I like Vance a lot, but his joke was in the same realm of VP Harris and Sec. Blinken's comments about NATO expansion--just a really bad idea to put your foot in your mouth like that.

---

You can't nation build those who are antithetical to the nation you're trying to build. That is unless you're willing to get your hands incredibly dirty, which sullies the credibility of your efforts.

---

It is obviously true that you cannot nation build in the middle East, but that is not going to stop DoD and Department of State from trying. Does not matter what you or I think. What matters is what those in power think. I have been saying that to do it properly would require us to basically salt the Earth, but there is no political will for that in the USA. And since we are not willing to do that, this whole exercise is really a predicate to a disaster.

---

We don't need Iranian nation building, The Israelis have the will to do what's necessary, we just won't let them. And it doesn't require all the way to salt. I've said it multiple times, everyone says they'd like Israel to handle their own problems, until Israel starts handling their problems. Gaza is the latest example.

---

Isrrael very obviously cannot do it on its own or Bibi wouldn't be sitting around waiting for Uncle Sam's go ahead. The real issue, I suspect, is that for all their solid tech advancements, key Israeli defense systems still depend on American military hardware. In particular, they make heavy use of American advanced early warning radar. That system is extremely powerful and if I recall correctly it can pick up something the size of a softball in flight in Iran.

Obama sort of f-ed with the Israelis when he was pissed at Bibi and added American operational control of the early warning radars when previously IDF personnel were permitted to operate. I am sure it has reverted by now. It was petty of Obama and sort of meaningless, but it got the message across that we could take our toys back if we want to.

The dangerous game that Bibi is playing here is that he tries to start a major war with Iran, America doesn't come along for the ride, and a pissed off Trump recalls our hardware on loan to them and cancels munitions sales to the IDF (we are by far the largest munitions supplier to Israel). I don't know who else would sell munitions s to Israel right now. That would be the worst possible outcome for Israel.

---

See above. And why would we stop selling them munitions? Iranian partners would not stop selling to them. This is proving the point. Iran is allowed to act with impunity, while the U.S. and West force the strategic calculus for Israel. That is despite everyone seeing and knowing there's an elephant in the room.

---

The Israelis have the will to do what is necessary, but not the capacity. Ultimately, we have to underwrite their actions through arms sales and our implicit guarantee of Israel's security. We would stop selling munitions to Israel in a scenario where we determined it was no longer in our strategic interests to sell them munitions. I am an isolationist and I am not interested in proxy fights or responding to what Iran's partners are doing as some kind of justification for what the USA must or should do. Frankly,, that kind of thinking has led to much of what has been wrong with the world in the post-WWII era.

We are 6% of the world's population and 20% of the world's GDP (and declining quickly). We obviously cannot continue to be the underwriter of other people's security and need to be far more strategic about the use of our resources.

Please tell me if you see things differently: Any hope of American disentanglement from the Middle East requires US disentanglement from Israel (and energy independence).

---

I would say our entanglements in the Middle East revolve around the strategic interests of energy and trade much more than Israel. Which means there will never be a complete untangling. I'd also say the defense industry produces lots of domestic jobs, and Israel is an entity that can afford to pay. I'm not arguing for give aways.

But if you're an isolationist there's probably little I could offer as an agreeable solution, other than to tell you that if you're concerned about the Islamization of Europe (a soft invasion as some have called it), a nuclear armed Iran could possibly guarantee Islamism will never fade from the geopolitical landscape. Combined with their demographic advantages, it could potentially produce some of the nightmarish scenarios you've referred to around the UK.

As the world gets smaller while weaponry and tech more advanced and dangerous, the ideological reckoning takes on the specter of imminence. Today I wouldn't classify a major conflict between Iran and Israel as "small", but it's certainly "smallish" comparatively speaking were both nations nuclear armed, or compared to a broader global vs regional conflict of the future. Especially if we're limiting it to air and missile warfare mostly.

I don't know that there are any good and realistic answers that don't require conflict to bring about a change. If history is any guide, Egypt and Israel had to go to war multiple times before they eventually settled. We may have to test that with these two. Both parties seem willing to take a run at it.

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.

---

They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.

And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.

---

You cannot be serious....

Israel would already be a brief footnote in history is not for the massive financial welfare they have received from the American tax payer.

Hell we even made the Arabs filthy rich so they would be nice to Israel.

Netanyahu sucked us into the Iraq war when Israeli intelligence told the worst Republican President in history, Bush Jr, that Sadaam had WMDs.

They are currently ethnically cleansing Gaza and have killed over a hundred thousand while congress, who Israel has bought and paid with our own stolen tax dollars, is busy passing condemnations of anti-semitism.

Israel has never been restrained. Quite the opposite, they have been pampered and coddled despite their many insults and betrayals of the American people.

---

You have a warped historical and current event understanding. The Arabs are filthy rich because they have fossil fuel resources which we and the world want and need.