Tensions in the Middle East

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Nothing weird about it. I was commenting on Iran. There are also many other bad things in this world. Did you expect me to write a post that would hold ALL countries in the world accountable for ALL bad things they did?

No, just the ones you continually defend around here. The point was, you are justifying Israel attacking another country for breaching international agreements they signed, but seem to take issue with even the mere mention of treaty breaches by Israel. So if it's OK for Israel to bomb Iran for breaching a treaties, is it not OK for Iran to bomb Israel for breaching other treaties and international agreements? You know, the ones about not shooting children in the head. Because even in war, as you claim anything seems to go, these agreements apply. And since evidence, a trial, anything like that doesn't seem to be required in your mind, what Iran is doing is logically justified to you.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

Not in isolation. When combined with actual military action, they can be. I also don't think Israel has some obligation to sit back, while a nation that says they are going to destroy you repeatedly develops weapons to destroy them.

Well, military action is actual provocation for military action. So effectively you’re saying no, a speaking event isn’t what anyone would consider a valid provocation for military action.

By thinking about this instead of just jumping in, we’ve walked back from “Israel couldn’t act until now” to “Israel couldn’t make these exact kinds of strikes without all of the actions they’ve taken up until this point” and “Israel was provoked” to “There was no direct provocation for this event but Israel just was obliged not to attack Iran.”

I hope this journey has answered your initial question and concerns. And I’m genuinely glad you’ve walked back the position that speech should be met with bombings, because that’s psychotic.

Originally Posted by Pointman

But... Doesn't this defeat the main pro-Iran talking point? The argument was that Israel and USA have been saying for decades that Iran is close to build a nuke but it never happened. So those claims were allegedly lies?

In the light of the above, could it be that Iran was indeed somewhat close to it and it only never happened because of intense attempts by Israel and USA to slow them down?

You spread a lot of misinformation and propaganda but it’s pretty rare you actually just lay how you come up with it. While it’s fascinating to see how the sausage is made, and I’m happy to admit that yes, you could in theory defeat any talking point of you just take a series of facts and make up whatever conclusion fits your narrative, I think maybe I’ll just stick to the facts.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Well, military action is actual provocation for military action. So effectively you’re saying no, a speaking event isn’t what anyone would consider a valid provocation for military action.

By thinking about this instead of just jumping in, we’ve walked back from “Israel couldn’t act until now” to “Israel couldn’t make these exact kinds of strikes without all of the actions they’ve taken up until this point” and “Israel was provoked” to “There was no direct provocation for this event but Israel just was obliged not to attack Iran.”

I hope this journey has answered your initial question and concerns. And I’m genuinely glad you’ve walked back the position that speech should be met with bombings, because that’s psychotic.

Well no...there are most certainly instances where speech should be met with action. For example, if someone says, I'm going to attack you right now. You have a right to take action to stop that attack. You don't have to sit there and just take it.

Also, I most certainly never said that Iran's congress on holocaust denial was the only provocation. It was one of several mentioned.

Here's a question, how many missiles and bombs, either made or previously possessed by Iran, have struck Israel over the last 20 years?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Pointman

No. The treaty was an answer to the questions:

Why Israel is allowed to have nukes and Iran is not?
Why USA and Israel decide who can have nukes and who can not?

There's a simple and clear answer to that.

Yeah but the NPT Treaty doesnt answer that question.

Israel is absolutely not allowed to have nukes under the Treaty. But they haven't signed it.

Also, there is no mechanism in the treaty that allows a country to bomb another for allegedly producing nukes.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I suspect defend themselves from Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

Ok, and how does this current action do that?

Not just theories either, but reality.

It hasn't protected them so far. Iran is lobbing missiles at them. Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas now have great locker-room material to recruit another generation of extremists, it will probably entrench the Iranian regime when it could be argued, it was as close to as weak as it has been since Iraq-Iran war.

What are we going to do? Bomb Iran's infrastructure to dust, and set back that nation for another 30-40 years, like Afghanistan and Iraq? fostering greater discontent?

Not going t lie, it didnt really work out great for us in both those wars.

[KelVarnsen]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Ok, and how does this current action do that?

Not just theories either, but reality.

It hasn't protected them so far. Iran is lobbing missiles at them. Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas now have great locker-room material to recruit another generation of extremists, it will probably entrench the Iranian regime when it could be argued, it was as close to as weak as it has been since Iraq-Iran war.

What are we going to do? Bomb Iran's infrastructure to dust, and set back that nation for another 30-40 years, like Afghanistan and Iraq? fostering greater discontent?

Not going t lie, it didnt really work out great for us in both those wars.

3rd times the charm?

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

No, just the ones you continually defend around here. The point was, you are justifying Israel attacking another country for breaching international agreements they signed, but seem to take issue with even the mere mention of treaty breaches by Israel. So if it's OK for Israel to bomb Iran for breaching a treaties, is it not OK for Iran to bomb Israel for breaching other treaties and international agreements? You know, the ones about not shooting children in the head. Because even in war, as you claim anything seems to go, these agreements apply. And since evidence, a trial, anything like that doesn't seem to be required in your mind, what Iran is doing is logically justified to you.

I have never justified this attack on Iran by breach of treaty.

The treaty explains who can and who can not have nukes. Two types of counties can have nukes:

1. Those, who had them before signing treaty (like USA, Russia..)

2. Those, who have never signed treaty (India, Pakistan, Israel)

Everybody else, including Iran, is not allowed to have nukes, because they voluntary agreed on that in return to get peaceful nuclear energy. This is international law on the matter.

This should not be taken as if breach of treaty alone justifies the attack.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Ok, and how does this current action do that?

Not just theories either, but reality.

It hasn't protected them so far. Iran is lobbing missiles at them. Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas now have great locker-room material to recruit another generation of extremists, it will probably entrench the Iranian regime when it could be argued, it was as close to as weak as it has been since Iraq-Iran war.

What are we going to do? Bomb Iran's infrastructure to dust, and set back that nation for another 30-40 years, like Afghanistan and Iraq? fostering greater discontent?

Not going t lie, it didnt really work out great for us in both those wars.

I guess striking targets in Iran where weapons are manufactured would help protect Israel.

What do you recommend Israel do in this situation?

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Ok, and how does this current action do that?

Not just theories either, but reality.

It hasn't protected them so far. Iran is lobbing missiles at them. Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas now have great locker-room material to recruit another generation of extremists, it will probably entrench the Iranian regime when it could be argued, it was as close to as weak as it has been since Iraq-Iran war.

What are we going to do? Bomb Iran's infrastructure to dust, and set back that nation for another 30-40 years, like Afghanistan and Iraq? fostering greater discontent?

Not going t lie, it didnt really work out great for us in both those wars.

Things are much calmer in Israel now, with missiles flying over my head, then they were 3 years ago, when they were not.

In Gaza we had Hamas, massive terrorist organization with many rockets. They could strike at any time and occasionally did. They hated Israel before October 7th every bit as much, as they do now, but they were much stronger.

In the north, where I live, we had Hezbollah. Widely considered the strongest non-state army in the world and stronger, than the army of Lebanon, they had hundreds of rockets pointed at Haifa. They never launched, but we knew they were there. They hated us very much and posed an imminent danger. Now they are much degraded.

In Syria we had pro-Iranian regime, which is now toppled. In Yemen we had Housithis, who are now bombed out.

In Iran we had people working in nuclear bomb, who have suffered significant setbacks.

Security situation in Israel is miles better than what it was. It's not even comparable. Unless Iran would turn the table on this war, which is possible, Israel will come out in much much better situation than he was when it started.

[Beninho]

ynet in Israel reporting:

Talks with senior European officials failed to bring Iran closer to agreeing to concessions in its nuclear program that it needs to accept in order to stop the fighting. This was reported by the Wall Street Journal. Britain and France joined the Trump administration in demanding that Iran stop enriching uranium, which increased pressure on Tehran to agree to terms it has already rejected. Arab and European sources said that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi continued to insist on the right to enrich uranium and that Tehran would not return to negotiations with the US while attacks continue. "Iran is ready to consider diplomacy after the attacks stop and the aggressor takes responsibility," he said.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Things are much calmer in Israel now, with missiles flying over my head, then they were 3 years ago, when they were not.

In Gaza we had Hamas, massive terrorist organization with many rockets. They could strike at any time and occasionally did. They hated Israel before October 7th every bit as much, as they do now, but they were much stronger.

In the north, where I live, we had Hezbollah. Widely considered the strongest non-state army in the world and stronger, than the army of Lebanon, they had hundreds of rockets pointed at Haifa. They never launched, but we knew they were there. They hated us very much and posed an imminent danger. Now they are much degraded.

In Syria we had pro-Iranian regime, which is now toppled. In Yemen we had Housithis, who are now bombed out.

In Iran we had people working in nuclear bomb, who have suffered significant setbacks.

Security situation in Israel is miles better than what it was. It's not even comparable. Unless Iran would turn the table on this war, which is possible, Israel will come out in much much better situation than he was when it started.

Well as long as you feel safe, the tens of thousands of dead children were worth it.

####ing psychopath.

[WinnipegFan]

Lots of chatter from people with little skin in the game. Thought I’d update that all of our extended family, as of today, have made it out of Tehran. Including all the young kids and our elderly. Would love it if all the big boys in this stupid game would just meet each other at the bike rack and have it out. Kind of like that opening scene in Troy but no proxies. Just old a$$holes making stupid ####ing decisions each given a bat and say go for it dickheads. I’d pay for that pay per view, much like that Tyson fight that occurred recently. Then leave the good people to get on with their lives.