TheVat Posted October 3 Posted October 3 15 hours ago, zapatos said: Secretly going after centrifuges worked well when the world would scream if you instead dropped bombs on them. Now that Iran has sent hundreds of missiles at Israel though, she can respond in kind. While the world won't like it, they'll likely accept sending missiles at Iran's nuclear facilities as a reasonable, if harsh, response. I'll admit I don't know enough about these nuclear facilities to know what bombing them would do exactly - my concern is that a powerful explosion where there are large quantities of somewhat enriched uranium could spread radioactive materials over a large area and possibly have radiological effects spread across national borders. If this is something that could happen, then Israel could give themselves some serious pariah status (above and beyond what they already have due to their extreme destruction and killing in Gaza and WB). But again, I don't know how these nuclear facilities are laid out or how fissile material stockpiles are shielded.
MigL Posted October 3 Posted October 3 Again. No condemnation of Iranian actions whatsoever. 1 hour ago, TheVat said: that could happen, then Israel could give themselves some serious pariah status (above and beyond what they already have But already condemnation of what Israel MIGHT do. Thank goodness some of us aren't biased.
TheVat Posted October 3 Posted October 3 (edited) 1 hour ago, MigL said: Again. No condemnation of Iranian actions whatsoever. But already condemnation of what Israel MIGHT do. Thank goodness some of us aren't biased. DISCLAIMER THE FACT THAT A GIVEN POST DOES NOT CONTAIN CONDEMNATIONS FOR EVERY INVOLVED PARTY IN AN INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT DOES NOT MEAN IN ANY WAY THAT THE POSTER EXCUSES ANY SAID PARTY FROM CRITICISM OR CONDEMNATION. IT MEANS RATHER THAT THEY ARE MAKING A SPECIFIC POINT ABOUT A SPECIFIC GROUP AND ARE NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO INSERT LEGAL BOILERPLATE TO COVER EVERY OTHER MORAL ISSUE THAT IS IN PLAY SO THAT MIGL DOESN'T GET HIS PANTIES IN A TWIST. Edited October 3 by TheVat mrgh 3
MigL Posted October 3 Posted October 3 Was that a little too close to home ? Save the capitalized drama; my panties fit just fine. '
StringJunky Posted October 3 Posted October 3 (edited) 4 hours ago, MigL said: Again. No condemnation of Iranian actions whatsoever. But already condemnation of what Israel MIGHT do. Thank goodness some of us aren't biased. But you are biased. You are firmly flying the Israeli flag in your posts. I'm biased because what I see leads me against Israel and US/UK governments actions. Those three are basically pissing in somebody elses pond. Edited October 3 by StringJunky 2
MigL Posted October 4 Posted October 4 (edited) 180 missiles ( not unguided rockets ) is a lot of pissing, is it not ? ( I'm sorry String Junky; I will not let this conversation be one-sided ) Edited October 4 by MigL
Trurl Posted October 4 Posted October 4 I think everybody here is arguing the same thing, that is they don’t like war. I think the pager thing is great that they targeted the leaders and not bomb the entire city. But if they did that to our leaders we would bomb them. I'm going to make a prediction. A prediction the forum won’t like but looking at history is true. If Harris is elected we will become more involved in these wars. Trump will fix it. Israel is our ally but shame on us for turning our head while they kill 40,000 people. Joe Rogan once said on his podcast that they wanted to impeach Trump for something stupid. He said we’d have to impeach G.W. Bush for all his wars. In the Steve Jobs bio they interviewed WOZ. Woz said the company grew but Jobs was ruthless. (Paraphrasing here.) But Woz wonders if it could be done any other way. That is the question we should ask ourselves. We look to live better but we are killing each other. Can’t I live even better. Why are we killing millions of innocent people that have nothing to do with the military threat. I just wanted to add that Israel’s intention is probably not to cause mass casualties. They probably cleared out the Strip to gain the strategic ground. In doing so they stop the enemy’s path into the country. Again they should have ask is there any better way to do this without killing civilians. But this move may have saved lives on both sides by deterring more conflict. This is pure speculation by me. But I want to believe this is the reason for the military operation.
StringJunky Posted October 4 Posted October 4 5 hours ago, MigL said: 180 missiles ( not unguided rockets ) is a lot of pissing, is it not ? ( I'm sorry String Junky; I will not let this conversation be one-sided ) I'm ok with that. I still think you are a good bloke... even though you are misguided. 😛 1
LaurieAG Posted October 4 Posted October 4 On 10/3/2024 at 1:40 PM, zapatos said: Maybe you can open your own thread dedicated to all the ways the world has wronged you over the years. Maybe you should open up a thread about why the US is paranoid about Iran and why it wronged them over the years? How long before operation "Liberate Iran's Oil reserves"?
zapatos Posted October 4 Posted October 4 5 hours ago, LaurieAG said: Maybe you should open up a thread about why the US is paranoid about Iran and why it wronged them over the years? Please try to stay on topic. 1
MigL Posted October 4 Posted October 4 10 hours ago, Trurl said: Trump will fix it. Yeah ... right ! 6 hours ago, StringJunky said: I still think you are a good bloke... even though you are misguided. Likewise. 1
iNow Posted October 4 Posted October 4 13 hours ago, Trurl said: If Harris is elected we will become more involved in these wars. Trump will fix it. Since you seem to put so much faith in your cloudy crystal ball, how about you instead share something more useful than a blinkered uninformed partisan opinion... maybe something like next weeks lottery numbers? Such simplistic answers are for seriously deluded simpletons. Alas, you're hardly alone. Such a shame.
Trurl Posted October 5 Posted October 5 8 hours ago, iNow said: Such simplistic answers are for seriously deluded simpletons. Alas, you're hardly alone. Such a shame. “If you can’t explain it simply you can’t explain it.” Remember the Iraq war with weapons of mass destruction? Obviously the U.S. had a strategic reason to be there. The Senators all voted for it. But they tell the media it’s wmd. Likewise the Israelis want to occupy the land that surrounds them for defense in a larger conflict. Their wmds are freeing the hostages. For Russia they have invaded Ukraine. I don’t know the reasons behind this war. The media hasn’t given the Russia’s view. I say Trump will fix it because he is going to make a deal. We are going to compromise and may lose many resources but the result is peace. Camela would spend trillions on the war machine. We will continue to arm Ukraine for what? So they can be killed slowly. Camela has no plans for peace. Look what the Biden administration did in Afghanistan. -3
iNow Posted October 5 Posted October 5 8 minutes ago, Trurl said: I say Trump will fix it because … because easy lies are easier for you to accept than hard truths
zapatos Posted October 5 Posted October 5 37 minutes ago, Trurl said: Camela has no plans for peace. Look what the Biden administration did in Afghanistan. Do you really not know her name or was that a childish insult? 1
Phi for All Posted October 5 Posted October 5 30 minutes ago, zapatos said: Do you really not know her name or was that a childish insult? Racist insult, that's how I read it. Purposely so.
StringJunky Posted October 5 Posted October 5 4 hours ago, Phi for All said: Racist insult, that's how I read it. Purposely so. No surprise there. He's a MAGA.
Trurl Posted October 5 Posted October 5 Why would spelling her name phonetically be racist? I’m no good with names. I actually voted for Biden last time. If I had my choice I would put both Vice Presidents in office. We don’t get a choice on who runs. But you are looking at Trump the twitter. Look at Trump the policy maker. I think the economy and World relations are the top issues. I don’t think the democrats will offer diplomacy to these wars. Three years of wars and all they offer is weapons. To me this is the most important thing. In the last 3 years are there any indications that the democrats will stop these wars?
MigL Posted October 5 Posted October 5 26 minutes ago, Trurl said: To me this is the most important thing. In the last 3 years are there any indications that the democrats will stop these wars? Diplomacy, and especially compromise, in an unjust war is otherwise known as losing. And I'm not talking about the greater Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as some of my friends have a difference of opinion about what is just. I'm talking about the Russian invasion of Ukraine where D Trump has said he would negotiate peace by letting the Russians keep the territory they've illegally taken, after the Russians have destroyed most of the country. That's great for V Putin; he gains territory and doesn't have to pay reparations for ruining the rest of it. He'll probably try for the rest of it the following year; and then the countries next to the Ukraine. I guess if D Trump was the American President during WW2, he would have negotiated with Hitler to stop the war, by letting him keep all of Europe, to about 30 km from Moscow ( after Op. Barbarossa ). That would have solved everything ???
zapatos Posted October 6 Posted October 6 2 hours ago, Trurl said: Why would spelling her name phonetically be racist? I’m no good with names. You don't even know how to spell her name but think you understand Harris and Trump policies. I was going to take your advice but have decided instead to take the advice of my Magic 8 Ball. 1
Trurl Posted October 6 Posted October 6 (edited) 2 hours ago, MigL said: Diplomacy, and especially compromise, in an unjust war is otherwise known as losing @MigL I don’t like that Russia gaining land that isn’t theirs. But is losing land worse than losing an entire population? And I think the loss would be the least damaging. Why? Didn’t Russia divide Germany. Like North and South Korea. Diplomacy is slow but it is effective. All of these small wars where super powers fund are going to escalate. Edited October 6 by Trurl
zapatos Posted October 6 Posted October 6 15 minutes ago, Trurl said: But is losing land worse than losing an entire population? What is worse is a third party deciding for you that you must make one decision over the other. It is up to Ukraine to decide if they wish to fight. It is not up to you, Trump and Putin.
iNow Posted October 6 Posted October 6 Isn’t it obvious, though? The best way to stop bullying is to force those being bullied to surrender their rights, their lunch money, and just give in to whatever is being demanded of them. Duh. That’s just logic, yo. What hurts my brain is how so many people are so completely aligned with this type of ignorant thinking. 2
StringJunky Posted October 6 Posted October 6 13 minutes ago, iNow said: Isn’t it obvious, though? The best way to stop bullying is to force those being bullied to surrender their rights, their lunch money, and just give in to whatever is being demanded of them. Duh. That’s just logic, yo. What hurts my brain is how so many people are so completely aligned with this type of ignorant thinking. This whole sorry Palestine saga is based on government-approved lies and the political mental gymnastics that go with ignoring the historical facts. Money talks.
MigL Posted October 6 Posted October 6 Think of the 40 million lives that could have been saved in WW2, if only we had let Hitler take all of Europe. What were those people thinking ... 'Sieg Heil", Trurl
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now