Israel strikes Iran

[Thomas_muntzer]

I don't think nuclear proliferation is a good idea either. That is why I supported the JCPOA between the US (and other members of the security council) and Iran. And was horrified when Trump inexplicitly torpedoed the agreement at the beginning of his first term. And also his inexplicable reversal of sanctions on North Korea because he “likes” Kim Jong-un .

All of this follows from those decisions.

Yes, I'm not an Obama fan, but the JCPOA was a robust agreement that effectively prevented Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb. The US withdrawal without any violation of the agreement by Iran gave the ayatollahs the perfect excuse to develop their nuclear program.

Another important point is that Iran is a signatory to the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons), and according to this agreement, a country cannot develop nuclear bombs, but it can enrich uranium to 60%, which is what Iran has been doing, so technically they have not violated the NPT.

[JohnH]

I’m not convinced destroying nuclear-weapon facilities is “violence” either.

I think it’s a good thing to destroy bombs, ammunition stores, weapons depots, and nuclear bombs.

The same logic could be applied to any war target and thus you need nuclear weapons.
An aircraft Carrier is basically more effective than a nuclear weapon in terms of projecting power. At the end of the day, if you justify killing military targets, you are one step away from just war theory. You already are basically claiming just war for a preemptive strike. Sure you likely are unwilling to actually fight, but you are taking a position that violence by implication is only against civilians.

I find the idea that it’s “violent” to get rid of weapons to be an odd one.

[R7ehr]

I’m not convinced destroying nuclear-weapon facilities is “violence” either.

I think it’s a good thing to destroy bombs, ammunition stores, weapons depots, and nuclear bombs.

The same logic could be applied to any war target and thus you need nuclear weapons.
An aircraft Carrier is basically more effective than a nuclear weapon in terms of projecting power. At the end of the day, if you justify killing military targets, you are one step away from just war theory. You already are basically claiming just war for a preemptive strike. Sure you likely are unwilling to actually fight, but you are taking a position that violence by implication is only against civilians.

I find the idea that it’s “violent” to get rid of weapons to be an odd one.

I’d imagine there were guards at those bombed sites who were killed.

[Szdfan]

I think there's a story that Donald Trump is some sort of "peace president," and so when he orders military strikes and afterwards boasts about it, supporters twist things to fit that narrative. Soloist is right - if blowing up military targets isn't violence, nothing is. If attacking another country with "pre-emptive" strikes isn't an act of war, then nothing is.

When even Marjorie Taylor Greene (bless her heart) calls the attack a bait-and-switch, it should say something about how far the mental gymnastics are going to preserve the “peace president” story.



I think one of the depressing things is how predictable this twisting is. Columnist Jamelle Bouie points out that the rationale for bombing Iran echos the rationale behind attacking Iraq and it demonstrates that we haven't really learned anything from that.

(The video is on TikTok, I'm not linking it directly because of light swearing and TikTok links are embedded in this forum)

I gotta be honest — one thing I don’t think I anticipated was people falling for the same [bovine poop] they used to justify the war in Iraq. I just figured everyone knew that was a load of nonsense. But apparently not. And it really is a greatest hits of just absolute [equestrian poop]. Back in 2002, they were warning about Iraqi sleeper cells. Condoleezza Rice went on Meet the Press and said something to the effect of, “We can’t let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud.” There was all this talk about the imminent nature of the WMD threat in Iraq and this constant refrain that diplomacy wouldn’t work — we have to use military force now. People bought it. People believed it. And people are believing it now.

Everything they’re saying about Iran, I’ve seen before. I can’t tell you how many comments I’ve seen on this app and elsewhere that amount to, “We have to kill them over there before they kill us over here.” A lot of you are gullible. I’ll just say that.

It’s not subtle. It’s not hidden. It’s the same script. And some of y'all are twisting reality inside out to keep the narrative.

[Szdfan]

The same logic could be applied to any war target and thus you need nuclear weapons.
An aircraft Carrier is basically more effective than a nuclear weapon in terms of projecting power. At the end of the day, if you justify killing military targets, you are one step away from just war theory. You already are basically claiming just war for a preemptive strike. Sure you likely are unwilling to actually fight, but you are taking a position that violence by implication is only against civilians.

I find the idea that it’s “violent” to get rid of weapons to be an odd one.

I’d imagine there were guards at those bombed sites who were killed.

I find it odd that bombing a site with the most sophisticated weaponry ever created isn't violence to the point that "violence" is put into air quotes.

"Pre-emptive" strikes are akin to beating someone up because they look suspicious, but who hasn't actually attacked anyone. That's not considered self-defense under international law.

[JohnH]

It remains amazing to see people so dedicated to Iran building a nuclear bomb.

[barnhart]

Columnist Jamelle Bouie points out that the rationale for bombing Iran echos the rationale behind attacking Iraq and it demonstrates that we haven't really learned anything from that.

I see VP Vance clarified the difference is that back then we had stupid Presidents.

[ohio jones]

I find the idea that it’s “violent” to get rid of weapons to be an odd one.

Beating swords into plowshares is an act of violence against the sword. Perhaps violence (or coercion, another favorite word) is not always bad. Context matters.

[temporal1]

I’d imagine there were guards at those bombed sites who were killed.

^^i’ve wondered about fatalities. it may never be known.
not civilians. from what little is known, Iran had 60 days to respond/prepare.

i believe Trump when he says he hates killing - no matter side.
This, in itself, is unique. The routine approach relies heavily on “us-them”.

It’s a shame so many refuse to listen to details. Hate is a self-administered poison. It’s really bad.

There are maps of likely U.S. targets. Some surprising, in otherwise remote areas. All those living in or near those areas would wonder if they will be harmed.

June 24 / BPR Cartoons




Time will tell.
i’m not aware of anyone on forum who would have made the decision DJT did wrt striking the nuclear facilities.
He did it.

To repeat, in comparison to SOP U.S. military actions, i find this extraordinary in both limitations and goal.
This impresses me as a far better approach. [The world is quite experienced with (more primitive) methods.]
Scorched earth, slash+burn.

i pray for the best outcome for all.

Many in the international world are impressed and grateful.
It’s a shame about the rank political tribalism that’s been nurtured in the U.S.

[Soloist]

I spent some time digging and actually looked at some Iranian news websites, they hosted memorial event for the defenders who died under the American attack. I don’t remember the exact number, but it was somewhere around 15.