2 ms·

We are not talking about negotiable issues like access to shipping lanes. We are talking about preventing nuclear holocaust. Iran has repeatedly expressed its d

We are not talking about negotiable issues like access to shipping lanes. We are talking about preventing nuclear holocaust. Iran has repeatedly expressed its desire to obliterate another sovereign nation. I believe them. This is the opposite of amoral, it elevates moral imperatives over formalities. “Any means necessary” is not confined to assassinating individuals. We can, in fact, ensure that they are incapable of making nuclear bombs. A country with stone-age technology is not going to be enriching nuclear fuel.

whatshisface 5y ago
>A country with stone-age technology is not going to be enriching nuclear fuel. Iran has about 80M innocent civilians living there. Even if you think of the leadership as holding them hostage (not too far from the truth for many countries...), that's a lot of hostages to sacrifice.
- leephillips 5y ago
  Most of whom would be annihilated if Iran got into a nuclear exchange with Israel or another country. And I said nothing about “sacrificing” the population, just crippling the technology. Stuxnet had, I think, one casualty, but severely set back their nuclear program. You’re making a lot of assumptions, not to mention repeatedly editing your comments. Thanks for offering your opinions, but, for these reasons, I don’t think this conversation is going to be productive.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
boomboomsubban 5y ago
>Iran has repeatedly expressed its desire to obliterate another sovereign nation Do you realize that stating we must use "any means necessary" to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb is expressing the desire to obliterate a sovereign nation? What means are acceptable for preventing your possible aggression? >We can, in fact, ensure that they are incapable of making nuclear bombs. A country with stone-age technology is not going to be enriching nuclear fuel. So you're fine killing however many millions of Iranians to prevent them from having the potential to kill a large number of people.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  I doubt the parent commenter is really all that bloodthirsty, instead they are likely imagining Iran as a country in the abstract sense, without inhabitants.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    Saying such things without imaging how it would affect the inhabitants is bloodthirsty even if unintentional. These kinds of actions have consequences for the population.
- poisonarena 5y ago
  I think parent commenter didn't imply what you are saying he did. He meant surgical strikes on sites and continued assassinations to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.
  - leephillips 5y ago
    Yes. I don’t think a reasonable interpretation of my comment is that I’m in favor of slaughtering the population.
    - checkyoursudo 5y ago
      What exactly do you propose as a reasonable interpretation of "literally any means necessary"? Not literally? Not any?
      - leephillips 5y ago
        Necessary.
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        By "literally any means necessary," including sending them back to stone age technology. Your comments give me no reason to expect you'd shy away from any expenditure of Iranian life.
unity1001 5y ago
If 'expressing desire to obliterate a sovereign nation' is basis for anything, then US should have been sanctioned a few times over. Because it does not only talk about doing such stuff, it does that stuff.

whatshisface 5y ago

>A country with stone-age technology is not going to be enriching nuclear fuel. Iran has about 80M innocent civilians living there. Even if you think of the leadership as holding them hostage (not too far from the truth for many countries...), that's a lot of hostages to sacrifice.

leephillips 5y ago
Most of whom would be annihilated if Iran got into a nuclear exchange with Israel or another country. And I said nothing about “sacrificing” the population, just crippling the technology. Stuxnet had, I think, one casualty, but severely set back their nuclear program. You’re making a lot of assumptions, not to mention repeatedly editing your comments. Thanks for offering your opinions, but, for these reasons, I don’t think this conversation is going to be productive.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

boomboomsubban 5y ago

>Iran has repeatedly expressed its desire to obliterate another sovereign nation Do you realize that stating we must use "any means necessary" to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb is expressing the desire to obliterate a sovereign nation? What means are acceptable for preventing your possible aggression? >We can, in fact, ensure that they are incapable of making nuclear bombs. A country with stone-age technology is not going to be enriching nuclear fuel. So you're fine killing however many millions of Iranians to prevent them from having the potential to kill a large number of people.

whatshisface 5y ago
I doubt the parent commenter is really all that bloodthirsty, instead they are likely imagining Iran as a country in the abstract sense, without inhabitants.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Saying such things without imaging how it would affect the inhabitants is bloodthirsty even if unintentional. These kinds of actions have consequences for the population.
poisonarena 5y ago
I think parent commenter didn't imply what you are saying he did. He meant surgical strikes on sites and continued assassinations to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.
- leephillips 5y ago
  Yes. I don’t think a reasonable interpretation of my comment is that I’m in favor of slaughtering the population.
  - checkyoursudo 5y ago
    What exactly do you propose as a reasonable interpretation of "literally any means necessary"? Not literally? Not any?
    - leephillips 5y ago
      Necessary.
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        By "literally any means necessary," including sending them back to stone age technology. Your comments give me no reason to expect you'd shy away from any expenditure of Iranian life.

unity1001 5y ago

If 'expressing desire to obliterate a sovereign nation' is basis for anything, then US should have been sanctioned a few times over. Because it does not only talk about doing such stuff, it does that stuff.