You know how we tried to defeat Vietnam militarily and it was a disaster with all sorts of US service members lives lost, their families destroyed and lots of civilians killed? And then we lost anyway? And then after we stopped and, after a while, we started trading peacefully with them? And then how now they are pretty neutral-to-friendly towards us?
The current situation is a failure for the US (it seems to be there was no good plans what to do) but trading peacefully looks like just binging close another disaster - Iranian regime is on a path of creating nuclear weapons and they are going to do use it again Israel. I know Israel is not popular here but I hope you don't want it to be obliterated.
Why do we continue to spread this as if it was objective fact.. Didn’t the US government intelligence agencies themselves find that Iran is not building nukes? Aren’t they submitting to inspections by the IAEA, whereas Israel is not?
They have been on a path to nuclear weapons in two weeks... for 30 years. What's new?
Jokes aside, nukes are not that much of a deterrence these days. The moment you use them you get destroyed yourself. On the other hand, armies of smart drones and bots would win wars the way even ground forces can't. Why would anyone in this day and age invest in nukes is beyond me.
A nuclear armed Iran would be fantastic for global stability. Right now, the only nuclear power in the Middle East is Israel, and they act like it, doing their warmongering and genocidal tendencies and all that.
A nuclear Iran and nuclear Israel would be in a mutually assured destruction stalemate, which would drastically increase Israel's perceived cost of fucking around with their neighbors.
A nuclear Iran would eventually lead to a nuclear middle east, including all the ISIS and Al Qaeda types, which would be extremely dangerous for the whole world. Better not to have any nukes in the whole region. The good thing is that both countries can totally disrupt each other even without nukes. So, I believe, a stable but competitive equilibrium would/will eventually reach on its own, if external forces stop bringing fuel to the fire.
I have worked with many Israelis and Iranians... and I can hardly tell them apart. At least the ones in the US think almost exactly alike. And from my perspective neither are actually very religious.
Preventing a nuclear Middle East is no longer possible. Israel has ~80 nukes, and it was recently announced that the US will be aiding a Saudi Arabian civilian nuclear program.
You’re right, it would be better if there were no nukes on the region but that isn’t possible. That ship has sailed.
It was great to get to live my entire life in a world where nuclear non-proliferation was a goal that a lot amazing people dedicated their lives to doing and with remarkable success but that’s coming to an end.
It's not an evidence but if they do believe the end times prophesy about Imam al-Mahdi they may want to speed-up his arrival by attacking Israel. IMHO people in the west often making a mistake trying to interpret actions of deeply religious people from a secular viewpoint and making an assumption that they must have only or mostly non-religions motives.
> making an assumption that they must have only or mostly non-religions motives
I don't know anything about their motives, I just think we should start with the basic assumption—until proven wrong, of course—that they understand the consequences of their actions.
...and what does the very same prophecy say about the kind of people who accelerate the arrival of the muslims' messiah? Does it say, I don't know... they are good people? Surely it doesn't say those people are literally the enemies of God, does it now?
Better yet, the Viets became communist in name only and actually quite capitalist. Moreover, they don't like the Chinese in the north, their former ally in the war.
Wouldn't it be great if Iran becomes our friend and trade partner in two decades?
It was the fact that Hegseth disbanded the team that used to ensure civilian targets are not hit. He was proud about it, see, ensuring civilians are not hit is woke waste of money. Literally.
Then school gets hit and it is "bad data" as if there was no one responsible for checking the data.
Yeah sure it was bad data, it’s great when you can blame a database or AI for crimes against humanity isn’t it? /s
And in a couple of decades this stuff gets declassified and everyone will say „oh no how atrocious“, but those responsible will most likely be dead by then.
I've got an idea, very creative & unconventional:
You know how we tried to defeat Vietnam militarily and it was a disaster with all sorts of US service members lives lost, their families destroyed and lots of civilians killed? And then we lost anyway? And then after we stopped and, after a while, we started trading peacefully with them? And then how now they are pretty neutral-to-friendly towards us?
We could try that.
The current situation is a failure for the US (it seems to be there was no good plans what to do) but trading peacefully looks like just binging close another disaster - Iranian regime is on a path of creating nuclear weapons and they are going to do use it again Israel. I know Israel is not popular here but I hope you don't want it to be obliterated.
Why do we continue to spread this as if it was objective fact.. Didn’t the US government intelligence agencies themselves find that Iran is not building nukes? Aren’t they submitting to inspections by the IAEA, whereas Israel is not?
They have been on a path to nuclear weapons in two weeks... for 30 years. What's new?
Jokes aside, nukes are not that much of a deterrence these days. The moment you use them you get destroyed yourself. On the other hand, armies of smart drones and bots would win wars the way even ground forces can't. Why would anyone in this day and age invest in nukes is beyond me.
everything you said is complete lie
A nuclear armed Iran would be fantastic for global stability. Right now, the only nuclear power in the Middle East is Israel, and they act like it, doing their warmongering and genocidal tendencies and all that.
A nuclear Iran and nuclear Israel would be in a mutually assured destruction stalemate, which would drastically increase Israel's perceived cost of fucking around with their neighbors.
A nuclear Iran would eventually lead to a nuclear middle east, including all the ISIS and Al Qaeda types, which would be extremely dangerous for the whole world. Better not to have any nukes in the whole region. The good thing is that both countries can totally disrupt each other even without nukes. So, I believe, a stable but competitive equilibrium would/will eventually reach on its own, if external forces stop bringing fuel to the fire.
I have worked with many Israelis and Iranians... and I can hardly tell them apart. At least the ones in the US think almost exactly alike. And from my perspective neither are actually very religious.
Preventing a nuclear Middle East is no longer possible. Israel has ~80 nukes, and it was recently announced that the US will be aiding a Saudi Arabian civilian nuclear program.
You’re right, it would be better if there were no nukes on the region but that isn’t possible. That ship has sailed.
It was great to get to live my entire life in a world where nuclear non-proliferation was a goal that a lot amazing people dedicated their lives to doing and with remarkable success but that’s coming to an end.
> Iranian regime is on a path of creating nuclear weapons and they are going to do use it again Israel
That's a really big claim. I don't think you can just assert that Iran is suicidal without having some sort of evidence to back it up.
It's not an evidence but if they do believe the end times prophesy about Imam al-Mahdi they may want to speed-up his arrival by attacking Israel. IMHO people in the west often making a mistake trying to interpret actions of deeply religious people from a secular viewpoint and making an assumption that they must have only or mostly non-religions motives.
> making an assumption that they must have only or mostly non-religions motives
I don't know anything about their motives, I just think we should start with the basic assumption—until proven wrong, of course—that they understand the consequences of their actions.
Interesting...
...and what does the very same prophecy say about the kind of people who accelerate the arrival of the muslims' messiah? Does it say, I don't know... they are good people? Surely it doesn't say those people are literally the enemies of God, does it now?
Better yet, the Viets became communist in name only and actually quite capitalist. Moreover, they don't like the Chinese in the north, their former ally in the war.
Wouldn't it be great if Iran becomes our friend and trade partner in two decades?
It would be actually be smart and net positive for Americans, if Iran became America's "greatest ally" in the region, instead of the other country.
Pentagon is already using Grok AI to launch missiles at girl's school in Minab that killed 120 school girls and 50 school staff
https://thehill.com/newsletters/technology/5929290-pentagon-...
it is as unconvential as it can be already
The school wasn't Grok, as I understand it it was bad data in Maven.
it wasn't just "bad data", it was data and somebody put that data in the targeting system
these people have names and motivations to do what they did
It was the fact that Hegseth disbanded the team that used to ensure civilian targets are not hit. He was proud about it, see, ensuring civilians are not hit is woke waste of money. Literally.
Then school gets hit and it is "bad data" as if there was no one responsible for checking the data.
Yeah sure it was bad data, it’s great when you can blame a database or AI for crimes against humanity isn’t it? /s
And in a couple of decades this stuff gets declassified and everyone will say „oh no how atrocious“, but those responsible will most likely be dead by then.
https://archive.ph/CJZpp
That’s a fun way to say “war crimes”
It smells desperation. Give up and accept your failure already.
If this is what a pro-life government looks like, Americans only care about “the sanctity of life” when it involves shaming women.