5 ms·

Preventing 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 mai

Preventing 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 ago
I must've missed the part where Iran invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland.
- kelnos 1y ago
  I think GP's point was that it's better to act now, before Iran does the equivalent of invading Czechoslovakia or Poland.
  - siltcakes 1y ago
    Israel has been doing that for almost 80 years and they have nuclear weapons.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - int_19h 1y ago
    What would be the equivalent of Czechoslovakia and Poland and this scenario?
  - jjk166 1y ago
    Ah yes, like when we prevented Germany from ever being a problem again with the Treaty of Versailles.
user3939382 1y ago
Appeasement 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 ago
    Interesting that you have more intelligence on Iran than our director of national intelligence.
    - lwansbrough 1y ago
      Tulsi Gabbard isn’t exactly a high bar.
      - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
        She does have the combined resources of all of the US intelligence services.
        lwansbrough 1y ago
        I just wouldn’t put much stock into anything she says about anything.
        user3939382 1y ago
        Why, because she’s not a DNC loyalist / bloodthirsty chickenhawk?
runako 1y ago
Huge 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 ago
  What if Iran simply didn’t develop nuclear weapons? Have you considered that option?
  - runako 1y ago
    Has 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 ago
      If 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 ago
Some 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 ago
Doesn'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?

Preventing 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 ago

I must've missed the part where Iran invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland.

kelnos 1y ago
I think GP's point was that it's better to act now, before Iran does the equivalent of invading Czechoslovakia or Poland.
- siltcakes 1y ago
  Israel has been doing that for almost 80 years and they have nuclear weapons.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- int_19h 1y ago
  What would be the equivalent of Czechoslovakia and Poland and this scenario?
- jjk166 1y ago
  Ah yes, like when we prevented Germany from ever being a problem again with the Treaty of Versailles.

user3939382 1y ago

Appeasement 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 ago
  Interesting that you have more intelligence on Iran than our director of national intelligence.
  - lwansbrough 1y ago
    Tulsi Gabbard isn’t exactly a high bar.
    - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      She does have the combined resources of all of the US intelligence services.
      - lwansbrough 1y ago
        I just wouldn’t put much stock into anything she says about anything.
        user3939382 1y ago
        Why, because she’s not a DNC loyalist / bloodthirsty chickenhawk?

runako 1y ago

Huge 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 ago
What if Iran simply didn’t develop nuclear weapons? Have you considered that option?
- runako 1y ago
  Has 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 ago
    If 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 ago

Some 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 ago

Doesn'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?