Nothing will ever be good enough for you, Mikie. — BitconnectCarlos

A good example, folks. This is what defenders of genocide eventually resort to.

Don’t like genocide? Must be my very high standards. Or antisemitism.

Israel started this war, not Iran. — ssu

Imagine you have a homicidal and fanatical enemy in your region that is building a mighty weapon. The world has tried to persuade your enemy to stop, but to no avail. As a last resort, if you were to attack your enemy's designs, would it truly be you starting the war? Or was it your fanatical enemy who ceaselessly worked towards designing a devastating weapon?

If an enemy is amassing troops on your border and surrounding your camp, must you sit there like sitting ducks?

Yet you might ask yourself: are you already in WW3?

No, but the situation could escalate.

To take the step and use nuclear weapons, even small tactical ones, is huge. — ssu

Do you have any doubt that we've had national leaders in the past 100 years who would have used a nuclear warhead had they had one at their disposal? Hitler, for one. We've had fanatical world leaders with zero humanitarian concern. Has humanity fundamentally changed since then? We're talking about our fathers and grandfathers here.

You can call human history many things, but "rational" is not one.

I hope the Iranians endure and do not sign any treaties with Israel or USA.

I am not saying this because I like ayatollahs or I hate my Jewish and American neighbors. I am saying this because every time there is a war, I see western "democracies" becoming more suppressive towards their own citizens, killing dissent and showing total disregard towards public opinion.

Although the majority of Americans and the overwhelming majority of Europeans are against any kind of unconditional support towards Israel, we see the western governments disregarding public opinion, firing rubber bullets to protesters, arresting people, discriminating against students, and so on. This kind of suppression --combined with manipulation, social/cultural divisions and all kinds of surveillance-- has turned western democracies into circuses, where millions of citizens either have lost faith in democratic institutions or have started becoming suspicious of everyone around them.

I don't know in what kind of societies we are living nowadays. When people are controlled all the time and are told that the only accepted types of protest are those which are approved by the two major parties, then they have definitely lost the democratic ethos. They may think that they are free, but most probably they are constantly manipulated.

Under these circumstances, what scares me the most is not what will happen to Israelis or Iranians (I see their misfortunes only in TV). What scares me is what is going to happen to us when we are not heard and we are constantly manipulated and surveilled by state apparatuses, which through foreign wars seem to test and improve all their suppressive/murdering capabilities day by day. If I am right in this opinion, then I am afraid that this alliance with Israel is causing more harm to western societies than to the Muslim world; because it is not based on moral values and it constantly asks for the erosion of trust in US/EU institutions and US/EU foreign policy.

If the Iranian regime will sign quickly a treaty with Trump or Israel, this regime will definitely sign it own death. From the first day that there will be no more hostilities, the Iranians will ask themselves why their regime brought these misfortunes to them --and most probably will start killing each-other. But if the Iranian regime endures, then with the passing of the time I see more and more Iranians being united by the resistance towards Israel.

With regard now to our Western World, if these foreign wars keep being "successful", and USA and Israel seem invincible, the same thing will happen with the groups of interest and the suppressing forces within the western "democracies". These groups and actors will become more convinced about their strength and resolution; we, the people, will become more and more weak in confronting their agendas and suppressive/murdering capabilities.

I repeat that I do not support ayatollahs, but I do believe that these foreign wars will undo the Western World, before they undo anyone else: since they ask for a constant disregard and manipulation of public opinion and democratic ethos, whereas they are making Europe lose its social/cultural homogeneity (through constant waves of millions and millions of refugees). Many people in western countries are afraid of ayatollahs having nuclear weapons, but Israel has already those weapons and Israel is not less religious than Iran (it just has less taboos towards women and sex, but it has so many other taboos which make Israel a religious country as well). We cannot ask Iran to comply with standards that apply only to Muslim countries, but not to Israel or USA. It is their right to defend themselves and attain the strongest weapons, before they become Iraq, Syria, or Libya. If the Iranian regime achieves this (not collapsing and not accepting treaties that are imposed only on Muslim countries) it will make a big favor to itself and to Americans and Europeans. The only way that we can have our democracies back is through stopping these interest groups, and especially Israel, telling us what we have to do and how we are supposed to behave. I am in favor of US and EU support towards Israel, but this support has to be conditional. If the Iranian regime collapses in the forthcoming weeks (which is a big probability), I don't see how the USA will get rid of its lobbies and of all those actors which favor suppression, manipulation and surveillance for all.

Imagine you have a homicidal and fanatical enemy in your region that is building a mighty weapon. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't have to imagine that.

I'm Finn and living next to Russia. My summer place is literally less than 10 km from the border of Russia.

As a last resort, if you were to attack your enemy's designs, would it truly be you starting the war? Or was it your fanatical enemy who ceaselessly worked towards designing a devastating weapon? — BitconnectCarlos

No matter how much you say about the logic and soundness of a pre-emptive attack, it still is an attack and there's no question about who is the attacker. Besides, some say an attack is the best defense. Just take it as a fact, admit it to yourself and don't be such a hypocrite.

No, but the situation could escalate. — BitconnectCarlos

Let's hope that Trump then doesn't escalate and sticks to his current position then.

Do you have any doubt that we've had national leaders in the past 100 years who would have used a nuclear warhead had they had one at their disposal? Hitler, for one. We've had fanatical world leaders with zero humanitarian concern. Has humanity fundamentally changed since then? We're talking about our fathers and grandfathers here. — BitconnectCarlos

So you accuse president Truman to be a fanatic leader with zero humanitarian concern? That's a new one from you, @BitconnectCarlos.

Don't forget Fidel Castro and the tactical nukes that were already stationed in Cuba. Not having any intel about tactical nukes would have made it a bit hard for the Marines, if they've had landed on some beaches in Cuba. Talk about an extremely warm welcome.



Actually here the real question is: how mad do you think that general Curtis LeMay was? Or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who wanted to strike and invade Cuba? Were they mad? Here's from the real tapes between general Curtis LeMay and President Kennedy discussing the attack on Cuba. (The following short video, 1 min 25 second, seems to be only viewed on Youtube, but it's really worth watching)



So LeMay's answer is that the Russian's won't do anything and won't make a reprisal. What's behind this? The simple conclusion is perhaps that a) Cuba isn't Soviet Union and b) the US will have an advantage at that time in a nuclear war between the two powers. Yes, Few bomber bases and few cities might be wiped off the map, but that's it. Something that LeMay seems to be an OK price.

EXCOMM considered the effect on the strategic balance of power, both political and military. The Joint Chiefs of Staff believed that the missiles would seriously alter the military balance, but McNamara disagreed. An extra 40, he reasoned, would make little difference to the overall strategic balance. The US already had approximately 5,000 strategic warheads, but the Soviet Union had only 300. McNamara concluded that the Soviets having 340 would not therefore substantially alter the strategic balance.

In fact in 1961 Soviet Union had then only seven operational intercontinental missiles while the US estimated there to be 20 to 40. And the US had on the other hand 177 intercontinental missiles. The rest were shorter range missiles and free fall bombs that bombers had to carry. Hence Curtiss LeMay and other generals opted to have that war. Twenty years later in the 1980's it was totally different. Let's remember that even now Russia has more nuclear weapons than the US. We just forget this very big difference.

For Bibi to attack Iran now has the similar logic. Hit Iran while you still can. Because it won't get better. Since Trump is in Washington, since Hezbollah has been dramatically weakened and since the war in Gaza is winding down, why not then now hit Iran?

The only downside of this is that it leads to quite similar thinking that the German high command had prior to World War 1 about the Russian Empire: better have the war now before Russia becomes too strong. This thinking means that you simply won't have peace.

And what do you know, we have that Israeli-Iranian war we talked about for decades.

Imagine you have a homicidal and fanatical enemy in your region — BitconnectCarlos

We don’t have to imagine. It’s called Israel — and they already have nuclear weapons. Unfortunately.

If the Iranian regime will sign quickly a treaty with Trump or Israel, this regime will definitely sign it own death. From the first day that there will be no more hostilities, the Iranians will ask themselves why their regime brought these misfortunes to them --and most probably will start killing each-other. But if the Iranian regime endures, then with the passing of the time I see more and more Iranians being united by the resistance towards Israel. — Eros1982

After they have been bombed by foreign state, why would Iranians start killing each other?

Or will they say that they endured most that arch enemy could through at them and they survived with bringing the Jews so much losses that they had to stop and thus this generation has been as victorious as the previous ones were defending Iran from the attack from Iraq?

And then they will do a "lessons learned" from this, look where their weaknesses were and prepare for the next time Israel attacks them?

That could easily happen too, you know. So I don't agree with you, but that's my opinion. We'll see what happens.

As a leftist, your ideology has more blood on its hands than Israel could ever dream of. So it's not about bloodshed for you, but about who sheds it.

your ideology has more blood on its hands — BitconnectCarlos

:rofl:

I can hear Sean Hannity now: Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin. You know, “leftists.”

I think the ideology you’re looking for, beyond Abrahamic religions, is capitalism. But whatever — you do you.

All you do is focus on the violence of some and ignore it from others. :yawn:

I focus on the violence that my country has a direct hand in.

That’s been explained to you countless times. But please do go on with your tired list of genocide deflections.

:yawn:

For anyone keeping count:

When we kill innocent people, intentions are good and it’s always because terrorists are around.

When they do it, it’s because they’re animals.

If one criticizes the genocide of our team, they’re:

- ignoring the violence in xyz.
- holding standards that are too high
- antisemites
- really responsible for more deaths somehow…something about ideology
- ignoring WW2

It’s encouraging that polls show lack of support for this bullshit, and it’s getting so strong — and the lobby is so frightened — that they have to suppress protests and demonstrations. A healthy sign. This latest aggression from Israel will only cement such attitudes.

Hopefully Iran won't enlargen the conflict by closing the straight of Hormuz. This would put oil prices skyrocketing and force Trump to go to a full war with Iran. Somehow I think they aren't going to be so reckless, if the US stays out of attacking Iran itself. If Trump would join the party, then it's another matter. — ssu

Do you think it's possible for Israel to do something with the strait and pin the blame on the Iranians somehow? It seems they'd have an interest in doing a covert operation to get the US involved. Similar to what happened with Ukraine and the Nord Stream pipeline.

It is said that the regime has already so many woes to worry about. A quick defeat/retreat from Israel will add to the miseries of a big proud nation (that is overwhelmed from a nation ten times smaller). It may serve as the Falklands War example in Argentina (where it is said that their defeat from UK brought the collapse of the Argentina regime).

I don't know what is the best for the Iranian people, but for the western world I think the best outcome would be to get ourselves free from Israel and all those groups which enable Israel and suppress all of us for the sake of Israel. If this country and its enablers keep defeating other countries, their authority will become even more difficult to defy.

So much power is corrupting Israel and the US, in the same way as a jack pot might totally change me as a person. Since Israel, US and other countries have created all this big apparatus of suppressing, manipulating, surveilling, and murdering people, none can be sure that one day they might change subjects; instead of Palestinians, Iranians or Venezuelans this suppressive apparatus may turn against ordinary Americans or Europeans.

Do you think it's possible for Israel to do something with the strait and pin the blame on the Iranians somehow? — Mr Bee

I don't think so. There's no need for an escalation like the Israeli attack on USS Liberty.

Israel’s military claimed on Tuesday that it had killed Maj. Gen. Ali Shadmani, describing him as Iran’s most senior military commander, as the most intense military conflict between the two countries entered its fifth day.

Iran did not immediately comment on Israel’s claim. Maj. Gen Shadmani. He was only appointed to the role on Friday, when Israel killed his predecessor in widespread attacks against Iran’s military on the first day of the war.

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a statement on Friday saying that he had named General Shadmani to command the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, the most important economic arm of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. — New York Times

No matter how much you say about the logic and soundness of a pre-emptive attack, it still is an attack and there's no question about who is the attacker. Besides, some say an attack is the best defense. Just take it as a fact, admit it to yourself and don't be such a hypocrite. — ssu

Ok, just as the man who attacks a man reaching for his gun is also the attacker. Technically right.

If a man comes at you with a gun, is the only justified time to respond after the bullet has been fired? Even while the bullet is in the air, there's technically no damage done. Guess we need to wait until after it strikes.

A policeman with a knife is an entirely different matter from Jack the Ripper with a knife.

So you accuse president Truman to be a fanatic leader with zero humanitarian concern? That's a new one from you, BitconnectCarlos. — ssu

We can talk about Truman, but I'm not entirely sure how it's relevant to the current discussion about whether Iran should be nuclear. I'll say for the record, though: What Truman did was very questionable, and if there is a God, he will likely need to answer for what transpired.

Regardless of Truman's actions 80 years ago, I still don't want a nuclear Iran. I don't think anyone wants a nuclear Iran. The question is how far we're willing to go to stop it. Maybe if it were 5 years ago, we could have approached things in a more measured manner, but intel showed that Iran was very close to going nuclear.

The only downside of this is that it leads to quite similar thinking that the German high command had prior to World War 1 about the Russian Empire: better have the war now before Russia becomes too strong. This thinking means that you simply won't have peace. — ssu

The problem isn't that another nation is stronger than Israel. The problem is that the nation expresses genocidal intentions towards Israel and was on the verge of going nuclear. Israel is okay with other countries being stronger than it.

Your writing about the Cuban missile crisis is engaging, but it's a different scenario than what Israel ought to do now. The actors are different, the tech is different, and the time is different. But yes, history proved Kennedy right in his decision to "quarantine"/blockade Cuba and negotiate with the USSR. IIRC the US surrounded that island with ships. Not an easy task with Iran.

I focus on the violence that my country has a direct hand in. — Mikie

I'm not interested in an approach/worldview that hyperfixates on the violence of one group and ignores that of another.

If a man comes at you with a gun, is the only justified time to respond after the bullet has been fired? Even while the bullet is in the air, there's technically no damage done. Guess we need to wait until after it strikes. — BitconnectCarlos

No. As I said, if you shoot a man that didn't shoot you, you simply need a lot explaining to do to the judge, because you will be the one that shot. And at some times, it will, even under law, be legitimate. But naturally there are quite a high bar for this.

When Israel has a nuclear deterrent, those countries who see Israel as a threat to themselves will try to get a nuclear deterrent. But you simply assume that they aren't seeking a balance, their own deterrence, but their motive is simply to destroy Israel, even if this put their own people and country to the peril of the many nukes that Israel has.

What Truman did was very questionable, and if there is a God, he will likely need to answer for what transpired. — BitconnectCarlos

We never can know how many Americans (and Japanese) would have died if Operation Downfall would have been initiated. And naturally we forget the huge importance of the Soviet attack in Manchuria for the Japanese to admit to surrender.

The problem isn't that another nation is stronger than Israel. The problem is that the nation expresses genocidal intentions towards Israel and was on the verge of going nuclear. Israel is okay with other countries being stronger than it. — BitconnectCarlos

How about the Arabs? It would be interesting how Israel would react if the Saudi's would get a nuclear deterrent. What if the Egypt would also get a nuclear deterrent? Israel does have a peace agreement with Egypt (which it doesn't have with the Saudis).

It is said that the regime has already so many woes to worry about. A quick defeat/retreat from Israel will add to the miseries of a big proud nation (that is overwhelmed from a nation ten times smaller). It may serve as the Falklands War example in Argentina (where it is said that their defeat from UK brought the collapse of the Argentina regime). — Eros1982

Argentina claimed the Malvinas, invaded it and then fought for them with the Argentinian forces finally surrendering to the British. That's a defeat, no matter how you look at it.



If Israel attacks by air strikes Iran and then stops them let's say after two weeks, that's a different issue. If Israel (or the US) would take Quesm and Kharg islands, then it would be far more serious and the loss would be more evident. Yet I have trouble envisioning the IDF taking and occupying Tehran. And this is the real problem here: attacking Iran is problematic, because a land war would be very, very difficult.

So much power is corrupting Israel and the US, in the same way as a jack pot might totally change me as a person. — Eros1982

One thing is totally evident, the Netanyahu administration has become a war cabinet which sees war as a natural instrument to solve it's problems. War is a normal state for Israel.

The problem isn't that another nation is stronger than Israel. The problem is that the nation expresses genocidal intentions towards Israel and was on the verge of going nuclea — BitconnectCarlos

I doubt that's the cause of the present war. It's that Iran funded Hamas. This is a continuation of the invasion of Gaza, back to it's source. At least they told the residents of Tehran to evacuate. That was the right thing to do.

With Gaza, they failed to make a humanitarian corridor in a timely fashion. That was a terrible crime.

I don't think so. There's no need for an escalation like the Israeli attack on USS Liberty. — ssu

Yeah based on the news of the past few hours it seems like the US is gonna be involved anyways unless Trump changes his mind again.

ignores that of another. — BitconnectCarlos

Nope. :yawn:

Just stick to defending genocide because it’s your favorite Jewish government. Don’t bother with shallow attempts at characterizing other “worldviews.”

What is the point with debating a supporter of a paranoid, ethno-supremacist, racist, genocide enabling state?

Is it worth pointing out trivial facts? Or should we entertain supporters of a country which has utterly overwhelming global condemnation, quite often isolated with the US in the UN.

Of course, you do you.

Israel may laugh soon. Blowback will come and it will be brutal.

And the genocide keeps going on with bullets and rockets paid by US taxpayers:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/17/dozens-killed-in-gaza-waiting-for-food-trucks-says-health-ministry

I know that Trump is complicit in withdrawing US from the Obama nuclear treaty with Iran.

But, let's say that Kamala was today the POTUS, would the Democrats change anything in their approach to this conflict?

I heard Israel has been making preparations for this war for nine months. Did the previous administration collaborate on this war also?

Yet I have trouble envisioning the IDF taking and occupying Tehran. And this is the real problem here: attacking Iran is problematic, because a land war would be very, very difficult. — ssu

I had those thoughts too and was, foolishly, optimistic on the Iran's options. After listening to some very respected American professors, this is what I came up with: the Iranian regime lost this war on last Friday.

I am saying this because Israel has never lost a war. If Israel isn't capable to win, the USA will win that war for the Israelis. So, Israelis know very well what they do and when they attack.

People are saying that Israel would never use nuclear weapons, but they forget that Israel is ruled by some lunatics who make Khamenei and Ahmedinejad look like angels. These lunatics of Israel see the world as a big zoo, where the humans (Israelis) can play and hunter with animals (all non-Jews). The same lunatics seem very capable of blackmailing all US presidents (after Reagan and Carter).

The failed G7 Summit last night made me realize what is going on at this moment. As there are hopefuls about Iran's options, Israel most probably is blackmailing US about its nuclear capabilities, i.e. everyone in Washington DC is told either Americans win this war for Israel, or Israel wins this war with nukes. At the same time Trump is blackmailing UK, France & EU on Ukraine. If these countries boycott Israel (as Spain and Ireland are suggesting), US will boycott Ukraine.

Netanyahu may be destroying Israeli and Western institutions, but he definitely won this war on Friday --when Trump gave him the green light to attack.

Iran is wasting its rockets on Israel. The regime would do better if it wins time, while spreading chaos in the region surrounding Israel (Lebanon, Syria and Iraq). If Iran chose this path, a US invasion or Israeli nukes would not make sense.

I hope Israel loses this war (cause we are losing the whole Western World every time that we fight for Israel... we are suppressed, manipulated, surveilled, etc., by these pro-Israel groups all the time), but I don't see that happening. In the future, this war may put Israel and US to more troubles, but the Iranian regime is set to lose its grip on power for the moment being.

What is the point with debating a supporter of a paranoid, ethno-supremacist, racist, genocide enabling state? — Manuel

He gets the absolute minimal effort or time from me. Yeah, might as well talk to a brick wall— but it’s really in case others are reading.

But, let's say that Kamala was today the POTUS, would the Democrats change anything in their approach to this conflict? — Eros1982

Democrat or Republican, the Israel lobby gets what it wants. It’s quite predictable. Anyone hoping Trump would be different was probably kidding themselves.

Anyone hoping Trump would be different was probably kidding themselves. — Mikie

I am one of those fools. I would never vote GOP, but I am picky with democrats... So I thought in November let these war-lovers lose this year, thinking that Trump would be better. Now I see he got things much worse by undoing Obama's policies in the Middle East.

Well at least you see it now. That’s admirable.

Yeah I don’t think Trump will be any different. Quite contrary to propaganda, Israel is the terrorist state in the region, and not only threatens to destroy others, they go and do it. They also claim they don’t want to see nuclear weapons in the hands of other nations in the region, yet they themselves have nuclear weapons.

And none of it would be possible without the US. Since Israel is seen as a stabilizing force in the region for our interests, historically with the oil supply, and they have such a powerful lobby, I think the likely outcome is the destruction of much of Iran — but much like the failure to eradicate Hamas, they’ll never eradicate the Iranian “threat.” This will only increase solidarity domestically and animosity towards Israel. Such a stupid move for the country.

But at least Netanyahu stays out of jail a while longer.

Nope. — Mikie

How else am I supposed to interpret I focus on the violence that my country has a direct hand in.