5 ms·

Exactly. I don't understand why everybody in the US seems to just accept that there needs to be a war against Iran. How is the US endangered by Iran? These str

by jwr 7y ago

Exactly. I don't understand why everybody in the US seems to just accept that there needs to be a war against Iran. How is the US endangered by Iran? These strikes were on oil production facilities of the Saudi kingdom, which is known for beheading people, murdering journalists, and supporting the 9/11 attacks. The US is one of the top oil producers and has its own oil, as well as strategic reserves. Why does everyone accept that the US has to "retaliate" or wage war against Iran? Why is Iran even being named at this point? I think it is sad that we are allowing this to happen. Instead of making sure we don't completely destroy our planet and go extinct, we accept our politicians' war-drumming as a fact of life.

atlasunshrugged 7y ago
I don't think "everybody" in the US thinks there needs to be a war with Iran, in fact I would expect (based on listening to Podcasts such as Pod Save the World which is produced by some former Obama admin folks) that even much of the establishment is against it. I do have to say, I would have thought the rhetoric we're seeing would have cooled down now that Bolton is out. My conspiracy theory is that it's a false flag op, I'm guessing Saudi, Israel, and a few other players would love a diminished Iran so they can fill the power vacuum in the ME (or just feel more secure from not having a large power near them) and having America come in with a wrecking ball is a great way to accomplish their strategic objectives without getting their hands dirty. And many of those lobbies (Netanyahu, MBS, etc.) have strong voices in the current admin
- jwr 7y ago
  > I don't think "everybody" in the US thinks there needs to be a war with Iran I used the word "accept". The media is all about war and there is no public outcry, not even a strong dissenting voice. The discussions are mostly about when and how, not about why. It seems inevitable and obvious that a war is what must happen. This is what I find bizarre.
dr_dshiv 7y ago
Helpful to point out to Americans that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost 2.4 trillion. Also helpful to point out that's approximately 100 times the cost of the Apollo program.
bayesian_horse 7y ago
Trump killed the Iran deal. Iran has to get out of their sanctions somehow, so they have to start their nuclear program again. And before they finish their first bomb, or immediately after the first successful test, Israel has to attack them. And if the US doesn't want Iran to crush Israel (Iran probably wouldn't win, but they can devastate Israel), the US (and others) have to help Israel. Trump had a choice, the rest of the path to war is almost inevitable.
- cf141q5325 7y ago
  Israel has to do nothing of the sort, they have more then enough submarines carrying nuclear weapons to scare off any first strike. Its the sole reason why Germany sold them at a highly subsidized price in the first place. Neither does the US have to support yet another war of aggression. The only thing nuclear weapons for Iran would change is that they wont be the victim of yet another illegal "intervention" in the region. Northkorea showed that rather clearly. Looking at the despots, warcriminals and aggressors in the region who openly talk about annihilating Iran, not forgetting the attrocities of the Irak Iran war, its a rather reasonable idea. Lets please not sugarcoat or justify warcrimes and remember that a lot of the people at Nurnberg were there for starting a war of aggression.
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    In reality there is a large international consensus that Iran must not get nukes, and that such weapons would be an existential threat to Israel. The Israelis definitely see it that way, and it's hard to blame them. The question of who is the aggressor is pretty muddled because Iran has threatened to annihilate Israel and is attacking all sorts country's assets, territory or people all the time anyway. Deterrence is a nice idea. When the opponent is rational, and the weapons in question are not likely to depopulate the region. The Mullahs in Iran can not be counted on to be rational actors. They also can't be counted on to keep in power. I'd have much preferred the old solution of delaying their nuclear breakout, all the while their prosperity and development reaches a point where the Mullahs lose their power.
    - 7y ago

by jwr 7y ago

atlasunshrugged 7y ago

I don't think "everybody" in the US thinks there needs to be a war with Iran, in fact I would expect (based on listening to Podcasts such as Pod Save the World which is produced by some former Obama admin folks) that even much of the establishment is against it. I do have to say, I would have thought the rhetoric we're seeing would have cooled down now that Bolton is out. My conspiracy theory is that it's a false flag op, I'm guessing Saudi, Israel, and a few other players would love a diminished Iran so they can fill the power vacuum in the ME (or just feel more secure from not having a large power near them) and having America come in with a wrecking ball is a great way to accomplish their strategic objectives without getting their hands dirty. And many of those lobbies (Netanyahu, MBS, etc.) have strong voices in the current admin

jwr 7y ago
> I don't think "everybody" in the US thinks there needs to be a war with Iran I used the word "accept". The media is all about war and there is no public outcry, not even a strong dissenting voice. The discussions are mostly about when and how, not about why. It seems inevitable and obvious that a war is what must happen. This is what I find bizarre.

dr_dshiv 7y ago

Helpful to point out to Americans that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost 2.4 trillion. Also helpful to point out that's approximately 100 times the cost of the Apollo program.

bayesian_horse 7y ago

Trump killed the Iran deal. Iran has to get out of their sanctions somehow, so they have to start their nuclear program again. And before they finish their first bomb, or immediately after the first successful test, Israel has to attack them. And if the US doesn't want Iran to crush Israel (Iran probably wouldn't win, but they can devastate Israel), the US (and others) have to help Israel. Trump had a choice, the rest of the path to war is almost inevitable.

cf141q5325 7y ago
Israel has to do nothing of the sort, they have more then enough submarines carrying nuclear weapons to scare off any first strike. Its the sole reason why Germany sold them at a highly subsidized price in the first place. Neither does the US have to support yet another war of aggression. The only thing nuclear weapons for Iran would change is that they wont be the victim of yet another illegal "intervention" in the region. Northkorea showed that rather clearly. Looking at the despots, warcriminals and aggressors in the region who openly talk about annihilating Iran, not forgetting the attrocities of the Irak Iran war, its a rather reasonable idea. Lets please not sugarcoat or justify warcrimes and remember that a lot of the people at Nurnberg were there for starting a war of aggression.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  In reality there is a large international consensus that Iran must not get nukes, and that such weapons would be an existential threat to Israel. The Israelis definitely see it that way, and it's hard to blame them. The question of who is the aggressor is pretty muddled because Iran has threatened to annihilate Israel and is attacking all sorts country's assets, territory or people all the time anyway. Deterrence is a nice idea. When the opponent is rational, and the weapons in question are not likely to depopulate the region. The Mullahs in Iran can not be counted on to be rational actors. They also can't be counted on to keep in power. I'd have much preferred the old solution of delaying their nuclear breakout, all the while their prosperity and development reaches a point where the Mullahs lose their power.
  - 7y ago