President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Omaha 680]

Good luck bro

Embedded Tweet

Young people are dumb. Iranian government "NOW sees the US as the enemy"? Bro they have thought that since 1979. These people's fascination with the backcountry of extremely dangerous places is nuts. I know it must be exhilarating in a way and probably has a certain social media cache if you are too online, but forgive me if I don't consider biking through Iran or hiking the Darien gap as high on my vacation bucket list.

[beefytee]

Young people are dumb. Iranian government "NOW sees the US as the enemy"? Bro they have thought that since 1979. These people's fascination with the backcountry of extremely dangerous places is nuts. I know it must be exhilarating in a way and probably has a certain social media cache if you are too online, but forgive me if I don't consider biking through Iran or hiking the Darien gap as high on my vacation bucket list.

I love that he is concerned about evading police but is posting on social media for the world to see.
He obviously really, really feels the danger.

[Moliere]

Trump is an idiot and I have hated Huckabee since 2007. But if Israel bleeds Iran dry of their ballistic missile supply and eliminates most of their launchers, I would have no problem with the USAF dropping a couple MOPs on Fordo to effectively end any leverage the current Iranian regime has internationally. Trump says a lot of stupid stuff and Israel isn't always responsible but what is happening to Iran right now could bring huge benefits. All their neighbors seem to be fine with this action and they have been abandoned by global actors who many feared would try to intervene.

Also comparisons to nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan are silly. Trump is a lot of things, but a nation-builder itching to put boots on the ground in foreign wars is not one of them (he just wants to put the military in our own cities )

I agree with this. I like that Trump tried diplomacy first and it wasn’t his decision to have Israel start the conflict, but he now has an excuse to drop some bunker busters on the Iranian nuclear facilities. Hopefully that’s all he does and I suspect it will be since he won’t want a foreign war started under his term.

[Northwestcoug]

Guys, guys. We've seen this movie before. Are we sure we want to trust an intelligence community that has been wildly wrong about the weapons capability of insular countries, again?

We've let Israel bomb with impunity before. They're going to do what they want with the green light they have. But does the US really need to get materially involved?

[Omaha 680]

Guys, guys. We've seen this movie before. Are we sure we want to trust an intelligence community that has been wildly wrong about the weapons capability of insular countries, again?

We've let Israel bomb with impunity before. They're going to do what they want with the green light they have. But does the US really need to get materially involved?

No we haven't. You're conflating dissimilar situations. The IAEA is generally a non-confrontational friend to Iran who wants to cut deals and they also are saying Iran was making the breakout move toward operational nuclear bombs. If you want to do your best Jon Stewart impersonation by throwing up your hands and saying "every intelligence agency and UN watchdog in the world is wrong again because Iraq" then you sound like an FBI-hating Trumper. We need to be able to independently look at evidence dispassionately as adults.

I'm consistent. If there is a clear path to victory for our allies against our global adversaries, then we should consider doing more than just selling/giving them weapons. This is why I support a harder line against Russia and more weapons support to Ukraine to push Russia to the table. To me it's clearer cut with Iran because the risks that exist with escalation with Russia just aren't there with Iran. But in both cases it is in America's and the world's interest to consider more participation. But from my perspective when Trump is involved, both MAGA and Trump opponents have a hard time with that concept of consistency.

[Omaha 680]

Also I'll add the "Iran has been weeks away from Nuclear weapons for decades" trope is so lazy. It completely ignores Stuxnet, assassinations, and other covert operations that dealt major setbacks to the program and bought Israel time. They made the decision after Oct 7 that just buying time was no longer an option. Israel were going to cut off all Iran's tentacles that buying time had allowed to be entrenched around them and then take the first opportunity to cut off the head of the snake if the snake didn't give up its stated genocidal goals. I do not blame them one bit for this strategy.

[Northwestcoug]

No we haven't. You're conflating dissimilar situations. The IAEA is generally a non-confrontational friend to Iran who wants to cut deals and they also are saying Iran was making the breakout move toward operational nuclear bombs. If you want to do your best Jon Stewart impersonation by throwing up your hands and saying "every intelligence agency and UN watchdog in the world is wrong again because Iraq" then you sound like an FBI-hating Trumper. We need to be able to independently look at evidence dispassionately as adults.

Here is the most recent IAEA's statement on Iran. Needless to say, they are not all gung ho for bunker busters:

This development is deeply concerning. I have repeatedly stated that nuclear facilities must never be attacked, regardless of the context or circumstances, as it could harm both people and the environment. Such attacks have serious implications for nuclear safety, security and safeguards, as well as regional and international peace and security.

In this regard, the IAEA recalls the numerous General Conference resolutions on the topic of military attacks against nuclear facilities, in particular, GC(XXIX)/RES/444 and GC(XXXIV)/RES/533, which provide, inter alia, that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency”.

Furthermore, the IAEA has consistently underlined that “armed attacks on nuclear facilities could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked”, as was stated in GC(XXXIV)/RES/533.

As Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and consistent with the objectives of the IAEA under the IAEA Statute, I call on all parties to exercise maximum restraint to avoid further escalation. I reiterate that any military action that jeopardizes the safety and security of nuclear facilities risks grave consequences for the people of Iran, the region, and beyond.

[Omaha 680]

Here is the most recent IAEA's statement on Iran. Needless to say, they are not all gung ho for bunker busters:

This is your response? That the IAEA didn't want an attack? Also water is wet and Iran hates Jews. I thought we were talking about intelligence assessments from various parties not preferred strategies. Go back in time a couple weeks and read the IAEA's quarterly report and assessment of Iranian enrichment activities and its trajectory.

Two things can be and probably are true at once: The IAEA agreed Iran appeared to be really nearing the point of a sprint to operational nuclear weapons and the IAEA still wouldn't agree that an attack is the best solution.

[Northwestcoug]

This is your response? That the IAEA didn't want an attack? Also water is wet and Iran hates Jews. I thought we were talking about intelligence assessments from various parties not preferred strategies. Go back in time a couple weeks and read the IAEA's quarterly report and assessment of Iranian enrichment activities and its trajectory.

Two things can be and probably are true at once: The IAEA agreed Iran appeared to be really nearing the point of a sprint to operational nuclear weapons and the IAEA still wouldn't agree that an attack is the best solution.

Look if we're going to trust the IAEA wrt Iran we should also take into account their warnings about attacking nuclear facilities.

But also, yes we should continue to have a healthy dose of skepticism about any intelligence body's findings. I think somewhere along the way you interpreted my misgivings about bombing Iran as based just on that skepticism and a Jon Stewart clip, and not other realities. Skepticism does indeed drive most of my unease, as well it should when we're discussing war. We simply don't have a great track record on this. There is a better track record with diplomacy, despite the numerous setbacks it's had with Iran. This time around, is there really sufficient evidence that compels the US to attack Iran?

[Omaha 680]

Look if we're going to trust the IAEA wrt Iran we should also take into account their warnings about attacking nuclear facilities.

But also, yes we should continue to have a healthy dose of skepticism about any intelligence body's findings. I think somewhere along the way you interpreted my misgivings about bombing Iran as based just on that skepticism and a Jon Stewart clip, and not other realities. Skepticism does indeed drive most of my unease, as well it should when we're discussing war. We simply don't have a great track record on this. There is a better track record with diplomacy, despite the numerous setbacks it's had with Iran. This time around, is there really sufficient evidence that compels the US to attack Iran?

Sure take into account the IAEA position yes. But everyone has their motivations and parameters under which they operate. The IAEA will never recommend an attack as the best alternative. It's not in their universe of thought and that's actually good and ok.

I'm assuming by "our track record" you are referring to the US. This is why looking at that track record is not the only metric here. We need to assess the current situation and weigh the evidence. The current situation is not "should we attack Iran". Iran and Israel are already at war and the US invading Iran is not on the table. I do agree we need some clarity on what the ask would be but if the ask in 3 weeks is "USA, Iran has 10% of their ballistic missile stockpile remaining and a handful of launchers. Please overfly Iran with one B-2 and drop 2 MOPs on Fordo", my position is we should strongly consider it. What is the current situation, what is our confidence in the intelligence, what are the risks, what are the benefits? I think we need to be coldly analytic in these questions. And honestly given the current state of play (actual hot war between Israel and Iran), the intelligence about how close Iran was to a bomb is less important (not unimportant).

Lastly, it's easy to sit in Utah or Canada and wring our hands at how uneasy we are. Iran has stated they want to destroy Israel for nearly 50 years and have spent 20 years saying they will build a bomb and use it on Israel if given the opportunity. They funded and green lit October 7. The onus is on Iran to demonstrate they don't actually mean what they have been saying for 50 years. If Israel decided they can no longer take a chance then I am fine with that. We just have to determine given that decision by Israel that has alrady been made, what is in our and the world's best interest for the US to do going forward?

[falafel]

Embedded Tweet

Doesn't make him wrong.

[falafel]

Trump is an idiot and I have hated Huckabee since 2007. But if Israel bleeds Iran dry of their ballistic missile supply and eliminates most of their launchers, I would have no problem with the USAF dropping a couple MOPs on Fordo to effectively end any leverage the current Iranian regime has internationally. Trump says a lot of stupid stuff and Israel isn't always responsible but what is happening to Iran right now could bring huge benefits. All their neighbors seem to be fine with this action and they have been abandoned by global actors who many feared would try to intervene.

Also comparisons to nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan are silly. Trump is a lot of things, but a nation-builder itching to put boots on the ground in foreign wars is not one of them (he just wants to put the military in our own cities )

Well, unless there is an opportunity to develop Tehran as Terump.

[falafel]

Depends on the province you are in. I have heard they're more friendly in Alberta and Saskatchewan. they are more conservative there. I have heard there are secession talks, so that they can do more drilling for oil and stuff.

The Mormons in Alberta and the [space holder] in Saskatchewan can join the ol' U.S. of A.!

[falafel]

Guys, guys. We've seen this movie before. Are we sure we want to trust an intelligence community that has been wildly wrong about the weapons capability of insular countries, again?

We've let Israel bomb with impunity before. They're going to do what they want with the green light they have. But does the US really need to get materially involved?

Shut up you hockey-loving Canuck!!

[Northwestcoug]

Depends on the province you are in. I have heard they're more friendly in Alberta and Saskatchewan. they are more conservative there. I have heard there are secession talks, so that they can do more drilling for oil and stuff.

there is a shortage of docs everywhere in Canada. They love US docs. B.C. has started an ad campaign directed to PNW healthcare workers to lure them up here.

I would have to be terrible to get deported. I bet I could even remain in Quebec with my essentially non existent French skills.