5 ms·

What exactly are the problem and the solution?

drnick1 6mo ago
Permanently disarming Iran, and creating conditions favorable to the fall of the Islamist terrorist regime that has been bullying the Mideast since 1979.
- ifyoubuildit 6mo ago
  Any guesses on how long that will take, what it will cost, and the odds if it happening at all?
  - drnick1 6mo ago
    No idea, but it's safe to say that Iran has lost most of their navy and air force already. It's harder to tell how many launchers, missiles, and drones Iran has left however, as it is deliberately hiding and conserving munitions for what they expect will be a protracted conflict. The other unknown is how far the U.S., Isreal, and potentially other countries are willing to go. Turning the lights off and literally sending Iran back to the stone age wouldn't be so difficult at this stage, but would probably rule out the possibility of a deal that sees Iran disarm and hand over the enriched uranium.
    - 7sigma 6mo ago
      You're basically advocating for war crimes which the US has already started to do. Iran had already offered to give up the enriched uranium bit that is off the table now. Iran should and will pursue a nuclear weapon in order to protect themselves from American and Israeli imperialism.
    - verzali 6mo ago
      I don't see the difference between the US and Iran given what you are suggesting. How would you treat an Iranian attack on the Golden Gate Bridge? Would you call that a cowardly terror attack?
    - ifyoubuildit 6mo ago
      Yeah, does sending them back to the stone age buy us anything good? 90 million starving migrants with an understandable axe to grind with the US? Or are we just going to kill them all and become the monsters we claim to hate?
    - goatlover 6mo ago
      You realize that Iran will retaliate by attacking their neighbors' power and desalinization plants? Do you want most of the ME to go dark and lacking water? Even Netenyahu has said you can't do regime change without some sort of boots on the ground. Iran is much bigger and more mountainous than Iraq. The IRGC has a couple hundred thousand active personell.
- g8oz 6mo ago
  Who's going to deal with the Zionist terrorist regime that has been bullying the Middle East since 1948? Or the Wahabi regime that sponsored the sort of fanaticism that led to the rise of Al Qaeda? Let's not put a moral spin on America's realpolitik.
- 7sigma 6mo ago
  Maybe read up on the history before 1979. Maybe toppling a democratic regime in 1952 in order to get their oil was not the best move. If you're worried about a state that terrorises the region, best to focus on Israel
QuarterReptile 6mo ago
North Korea was able to get nuclear weapons because we didn't want the carnage of artillery bombardment to Seoul that would have been the retaliation, had we stopped them. Iran was close to achieving that same thing with ballistic missile bombardment of Europe. The problem is that Iran, unlike NK, is run by a fanatical death cult with stated goal of attacking United States and history of running proxy militias in every nearby failed state, in a neighborhood that has no shortage of failed states.
- ifyoubuildit 6mo ago
  > fanatical death cult Why do you believe this? Their recent actions don't seem to back it up.
  - QuarterReptile 6mo ago
    Their idea of "martyrdom" is killing people who disagree with them. Not, "it can be ok to kill people who disagree with you once it reaches the point of war," but, "these people's forebears didn't listen to our god, so we must always hunt them, and also the jews." IF(highest sacrifice in your cult is dying while trying to kill those who disagree with you because of same) THEN (you are in a death cult)
    - C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 6mo ago
      > Their idea of "martyrdom" is killing people who disagree with them. Not, "it can be ok to kill people who disagree with you once it reaches the point of war," but, "these people's forebears didn't listen to our god, so we must always hunt them, and also the jews." You know the one about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence?
      - QuarterReptile 6mo ago
        >You know the one about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence? I will give you the benefit of the doubt on asking for these claims, but you should consider what burden of proof you are asking for: constant political slogans advocating attacks? Or do you need the leader to explicitly state that that's not just a slogan? Forthright statements in their religious texts advocating the same? And would you expect that level of specificity and forthrightness of other comparable claims?

Permanently disarming Iran, and creating conditions favorable to the fall of the Islamist terrorist regime that has been bullying the Mideast since 1979.

ifyoubuildit 6mo ago
Any guesses on how long that will take, what it will cost, and the odds if it happening at all?
- drnick1 6mo ago
  No idea, but it's safe to say that Iran has lost most of their navy and air force already. It's harder to tell how many launchers, missiles, and drones Iran has left however, as it is deliberately hiding and conserving munitions for what they expect will be a protracted conflict. The other unknown is how far the U.S., Isreal, and potentially other countries are willing to go. Turning the lights off and literally sending Iran back to the stone age wouldn't be so difficult at this stage, but would probably rule out the possibility of a deal that sees Iran disarm and hand over the enriched uranium.
  - 7sigma 6mo ago
    You're basically advocating for war crimes which the US has already started to do. Iran had already offered to give up the enriched uranium bit that is off the table now. Iran should and will pursue a nuclear weapon in order to protect themselves from American and Israeli imperialism.
  - verzali 6mo ago
    I don't see the difference between the US and Iran given what you are suggesting. How would you treat an Iranian attack on the Golden Gate Bridge? Would you call that a cowardly terror attack?
  - ifyoubuildit 6mo ago
    Yeah, does sending them back to the stone age buy us anything good? 90 million starving migrants with an understandable axe to grind with the US? Or are we just going to kill them all and become the monsters we claim to hate?
  - goatlover 6mo ago
    You realize that Iran will retaliate by attacking their neighbors' power and desalinization plants? Do you want most of the ME to go dark and lacking water? Even Netenyahu has said you can't do regime change without some sort of boots on the ground. Iran is much bigger and more mountainous than Iraq. The IRGC has a couple hundred thousand active personell.
g8oz 6mo ago
Who's going to deal with the Zionist terrorist regime that has been bullying the Middle East since 1948? Or the Wahabi regime that sponsored the sort of fanaticism that led to the rise of Al Qaeda? Let's not put a moral spin on America's realpolitik.
7sigma 6mo ago
Maybe read up on the history before 1979. Maybe toppling a democratic regime in 1952 in order to get their oil was not the best move. If you're worried about a state that terrorises the region, best to focus on Israel

QuarterReptile 6mo ago

North Korea was able to get nuclear weapons because we didn't want the carnage of artillery bombardment to Seoul that would have been the retaliation, had we stopped them. Iran was close to achieving that same thing with ballistic missile bombardment of Europe. The problem is that Iran, unlike NK, is run by a fanatical death cult with stated goal of attacking United States and history of running proxy militias in every nearby failed state, in a neighborhood that has no shortage of failed states.

ifyoubuildit 6mo ago
> fanatical death cult Why do you believe this? Their recent actions don't seem to back it up.
- QuarterReptile 6mo ago
  Their idea of "martyrdom" is killing people who disagree with them. Not, "it can be ok to kill people who disagree with you once it reaches the point of war," but, "these people's forebears didn't listen to our god, so we must always hunt them, and also the jews." IF(highest sacrifice in your cult is dying while trying to kill those who disagree with you because of same) THEN (you are in a death cult)
  - C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 6mo ago
    > Their idea of "martyrdom" is killing people who disagree with them. Not, "it can be ok to kill people who disagree with you once it reaches the point of war," but, "these people's forebears didn't listen to our god, so we must always hunt them, and also the jews." You know the one about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence?
    - QuarterReptile 6mo ago
      >You know the one about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence? I will give you the benefit of the doubt on asking for these claims, but you should consider what burden of proof you are asking for: constant political slogans advocating attacks? Or do you need the leader to explicitly state that that's not just a slogan? Forthright statements in their religious texts advocating the same? And would you expect that level of specificity and forthrightness of other comparable claims?