6 ms·
Some in the U.S. want peace. I guess no one else gives a shit and is just going to jettison us into a war for millennia.
by drecho 1y ago
Some in the U.S. want peace. I guess no one else gives a shit and is just going to jettison us into a war for millennia.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- avoutos 1y agoPreventing Iran from having a nuke is IMO a good way of preserving peace. The allies tried appeasment and most historians agree that approach was one of the main causes of WWII.
- CamperBob2 1y agoI must've missed the part where Iran invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland.
- kelnos 1y agoI think GP's point was that it's better to act now, before Iran does the equivalent of invading Czechoslovakia or Poland.
- siltcakes 1y agoIsrael has been doing that for almost 80 years and they have nuclear weapons.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- int_19h 1y agoWhat would be the equivalent of Czechoslovakia and Poland and this scenario?
- jjk166 1y agoAh yes, like when we prevented Germany from ever being a problem again with the Treaty of Versailles.
- user3939382 1y agoAppeasement for an imaginary weapons program our own director of national intelligence just said they don’t have. Copy and paste this nonsense argument for Iraq 3 trillion dollars ago.
- avoutos 1y ago[flagged]
- user3939382 1y agoInteresting that you have more intelligence on Iran than our director of national intelligence.
- lwansbrough 1y agoTulsi Gabbard isn’t exactly a high bar.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoShe does have the combined resources of all of the US intelligence services.
- lwansbrough 1y agoI just wouldn’t put much stock into anything she says about anything.
- user3939382 1y agoWhy, because she’s not a DNC loyalist / bloodthirsty chickenhawk?
- runako 1y agoHuge difference here IMHO is that the west has been using this line for 40-50 years. At some point it's not "appeasement" and just "diplomacy between countries with differing values are complicated." Put another way: if you want to call it appeasement, fine, it has worked for a long time. On the other hand, "peace via war" has a terrible track record.
- lwansbrough 1y agoWhat if Iran simply didn’t develop nuclear weapons? Have you considered that option?
- runako 1y agoHas anyone credible said/demonstrated that they have developed nuclear weapons? The US clearly does not believe they have operational nukes, or we would not have bombed them today. The actions undermine the official statements. Put in realpolitik: would it be worth the US spending an Iraq War's expenditure of lives and $3 trillion to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon? Why? What makes this moment the place where the working approach of the last half-century simply cannot work another day?
- lwansbrough 1y agoIf they had already developed them, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion because nobody is going to war with a nuclear armed state. The question is only, did they have the means to, and was there an indication they were? The answer is yes. They were enriching uranium at levels that go beyond anything non-nefarious. Their lead nuclear scientists were going to be meeting with their ballistic missile scientists (according to the dossier.) On would it be worth it: nuclear proliferation is probably the most dangerous existential threat that humanity faces that is completely preventable. Iran is the most destabilizing country in the region and the cascade of nuclear proliferation that would occur if they succeeded would be a nightmare. That is easily worth $3T.
- 1y ago
- barbazoo 1y agoSome people say Iran having a nuke isn’t the threat some think it is. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxxVxtHK2M https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxxVxtHK2M
- Ekaros 1y agoDoesn't seem to have worked in this case. They did not have nukes, they got attacked. How you explain that? How do these good guys protect them against evil guys if not with nukes?
- PeterHolzwarth 1y agoA nuclear armed Iran is a horrible idea. America an many other countries have been countering that for decades. A nuclear armed Iran - and remember that in vast swathes of the middle east, Iran is considered a very dangerous enemy - would lead to the rest of the middle east rapidly pursuing their own nuclear weapons.
- Ekaros 1y agoNuclear proliferation is best way to world peace. Anyone saying else is just pure evil who want to subjugate and genocide other nations. More nukes the better and safer world is.
- HEmanZ 1y agoRight wing propaganda is too strong here. Last night I tried to explain to my MIL that Iran did not do 9/11 (after she claimed this was finally payback for that). She responded that I was wrong because I listen to the liberal media. It was like a cartoon, I felt like a crazy person. she was so convinced that if Iran got nuclear weapons they would immediately use them on US soil. When I pointed out that would be suicide for them, and accomplish absolutely nothing, she said they aren’t rational, they just want to end the world. Her only news source is Fox, so that must be who’s peddling this nonsense. There’s an optimist in me that says, maybe by some small miracle that given enough time in a cold-ish war current Iranian regime will get replaced by something democratic and stable. Probably a pipe dream the way things are going, but not impossible.