Boomer6

Cambridge Dictionary: a reason or reason why you support or oppose an idea or suggestion, or the process of explaining these reasons. I proposed an analogy, you questioned if it was the right analogy, I supported my claims and idea. Perhaps we can dispense with the pedantry. A country not being a regional neighbor and thus not being a threat hasn't been a factor to national defense since the inception of steam powered ships, much less the ICBM. Our national defense is threatened by a Iran who exports terrorism and has vowed to "slay the great satan" which is apparently US. I'd wager the number of Americans that could pick out Czechoslovakia in 1938 is less than the percentage of Americans that can identify Iran today. I don't recall polling the populace on their geography skills being a consideration for national defense. Incorrect. The phrase "accepted standards" being key to the Cambridge definition of immmoral. Countries that directly support terrorism fall below this threshold. Countries that directly support genocide fall into the evil category. American isn't financing genocide. The US does not finance genocide. Not since the Indians at least... I'm not a Trump apologist and don't agree with the quotes you're referencing. However, 47 years of Iran showing it believes it's own evil ideology and is willing to directly support attempted genocide is not a solid comparison here. Iran has proven it's inflammatory rhetoric isn't rhetorical at all. I didn't say morality matters in war. I referenced it in relation to a country that finances the attempted genocide of the Jewish people and yearns for the opportunity to use nuclear weapons against civilian targets. Incorrect. Iran attaining a nuclear weapon is a direct threat to our national security. I support the prevention of Iran attaining a nuclear weapon. Putting aside the presumption that there is "no one" that thinks US or Israel is an underdog, who says it matters who is perceived as an underdog and who isn't? Who is the "we" in that statement? Also, what do you think qualifies as a "rational decision" from the point of view of Iranian leadership? History is full of examples, especially in the case of the United States, where governments have applied a westernized world view to evaluate the concept of rationality to the government of a non-western nation, usually with disastrous results. A radical Islamist cult doesn't view national survival the same as we do. We don't negotiate with terrorists? Les Grossman might agree, but I doubt the rest of the world does. It depends on the situation. I'll grant there are definitely many levels between action and inaction. If I were to rephrase I'd say the actions that we've taken in the last 47 years have been impotent at best and counter productive at worst. We have yet to attempt to excise the tumor that is the Iranian leadership, until now. When you find someone or Anyone that made this statement, let us know. This analogy is a house of cards balanced on one simple questions: How would starting a war that political advisors warned would be very unpopular (especially considering Trump's platform during the election), successfully distract from a failing economy? If the country has a cold why start battling a wasp nest to take your mind off of it (this is an analogy I like)? Even if Iranian nuclear material is seized and their program destroyed, this is going to be a very politically unpopular war. Despite being blatantly obvious, I feel obliged to mention that unlike the Soviets, US constituents don't need the country to collapse to force a change of leadership. Oh, I'm very open to the idea that our internal politics are ff'ed and were long before this war occurred. Our economy was taken out of our own hands as soon as our leaders bought into the lie that was globalization. Disproportionate and indiscriminate responses is at best a misrepresentation of facts and at worst a blatant lie. I'd wager that to "them" or more correctly the Israel government, that terrorist attacks by islamic radicals were not seen as a clash of civilizations, but rather an existential threat. A threat they'd been dealing with not since Munich but since Isaac and Ishmael. Ironically enough, the Abraham Accords disprove your assertion that they have no interest in peace or conciliation. To support their strategy they've use the instruments of power as outlined in the ADSC reading guide? Are you more or less surprised than this: I'm more concerned we're Sparta to China's Athens.

I could only play 6-9 seconds of that retard talking. It's like Tucker Carlson and RuPaul had a love child.

Didn't realize we were arguing analogies... I'll restate it another way to not cause confusion. Europe didn't take heed of Germany's actions and allowed a violent, immoral, cult centered regime to gain substantial military strength which resulted in millions of lives lost, all because they were afraid of starting another war. The war that eventually occurred could have been prevented with earlier action. Iranian leadership is immoral, cult centered (at the very least they adhere to a radical view of Islam), and has gained substantial military strength, just not a nuclear weapon as of yet. Oh yeah, and both regimes actively worked toward the slaughter of the Jewish people. Cambridge Dictionary: Not following accepted standards of morally right behavior or thought. Hopefully you agree that a regime that is directly responsible for terrorist attacks including Oct 7th is immoral, unless you're a Khamenei follower. You'll have to ask the Iranian leadership, oh wait the majority of the ones in power have all been smoked. Are they less likely to continue building a nuke so they can destroy Israel per their stated claim? It depends if we kill enough of their leaders who actually thinks its their destiny to do so. Destroying all their toys will help as well. No. None. The premise of the question itself is invalid. The odds for Israel invading Iran would be better than 1 million to 1 if Iranian leaders hadn't funded terrorists to rape and torture Jews for the last 47 years and in general work towards the mass genocide of their population. It also doesn't help when their leaders say things like this ad nauseum: Major General Hossein Salami declared that the destruction of Israel was no longer just a dream, but an "achievable goal". He added that the regime had obtained "the capacity to destroy the impostor Zionist regime." More healthy. Reference the above points regarding the continued neutering of their radical leaders. Additionally, the alternative here to the current action, would be inaction. Which is what we've been doing for the last 47 years. Unless your assessment is the cultist, immoral, and evil leaders of the regime will wake up one day with a nuclear capability and suddenly decide they don't really believe it's their destiny to destroy Israel or launch a nuke at the US. Iran with a handful of nukes. The US Congress and the President still work at the pleasure of their constituents. If you disagree with the rule of law, then by all means exercise your rights. When my parents were younger they didn't fear that the Legislative Branch was ceding too much power to the Executive Branch. They feared a nuclear war from a country that, compared to the Iranian regime, was ran by some very level headed individuals. More dangerous. You mean do I fear politicians that act like politicians? No. Unless they allow Iran to acquire nukes. Then I'll just do my best to fire them, i.e. VOTE. Also, your "Final Question" was 2 questions...

The US and the allies didn't think risking WWII was worth it when Hitler created the Luftwaffe and started conscription again in 1935, both of which violated the Treaty of Versailles. Neville Chamberlain and the French rolled over and let Germany take the Sudetenland in 1938 to avoid WWII, much good that did. The world still turns when immorale/evil governments attain great power and weaponry... until I doesn't. 6 million dead Jews alone can attest to that. I want us to have a viable strategy against Iran with acheivable objectives just like everyone else. If objective #1 is Iran can't have a nuke, and we have to send in a ground force/start a major regional war to confiscate their uranium, so be it. Better now then after they've built a nuke and are making demands the US and Israel won't meet.

arg you're asking a legitimate question to a dude who 95% of the time engages in nothing other than partisan reddit level quips. In general he's just not someone who engages in good faith discussions, although these days thats become par for the course on base ops regardless of affiliation

I think Ratner is just butthurt someone wrote a post longer than his...

Speaking of hot garbage fires...

I'm not very optimistic either. However, I do think slowly releasing funds, or as ClearedHot_AI states, "leverage" after conditions are met and continue to be met, is very different than dumping off pallets of hundreds. If we're gonna do that let's just pay them in pennies, released from high altitude. We're discontuing them anyways...

I made a comment about giving Iran money last time in relation to our letting them sell their sanctiined oil this time. I'm still against both of those actions At face value, I'm completely against allowing them access to $20 billion in frozen assets. However, if they agree to allow the IAEA come in and remove all of their nuclear material, and oversee the dismantling of their nuclear program, I think there's a case to be made for allowing them access to some or all of these funds. The release of funds wouldn't start until those actions occurred, and would be spread out over a period of say 10 years upon continued IAEA inspection access and "good behavior". I unfortunately doubt this will happen.

slc when the waitress asks if he wants the senior discount

I wonder how many cases of Zyn and monster you can fit in that Sea Choad 🤔

I have zero SA on maritime law, so IDK if a ghost ship is legally treated the same as a chinese flagged oil tanker, or an Iranian flagged tanker etc. I'm more curious how we'd handle a tanker with oil purchased by China attempting to pass through the strait. We lifted sanctions for a month, chances are some countries bought oil that hasn't left port yet. If a tanker has legally purchased Chinese oil, do we have good options for dealing with that? I'm shocked you didn't point out how I assumed the gender of the aforementioned chinamen.

Sorry to interrupt the political sword fighting, if only we had a thread for that 🤔, but does anyone have a thought on how Iran will run this blockade? I highly doubt China would put personnel on an Iranian oil tanker bound for China... However, if they told us they were doing so, what's the move? I'm sure we could disable the ship, but then what? Are we going to storm the ship and take those chinamen prisoner? Even if they don't put Chicoms on an oil tanker, what's the worst that can happen from an Iranian perspective? They run the blockade, we disable/commandeer said vessel, and then what, just sell the oil and pocket the cash? I'm not sure that's a great look for us. Thoughts that don't revolve around a monkey shit fight over Trump would be surprising yet welcomed.

From the Article linked below: "The license allowed Iran to sell its sanctioned oil to help finance its war against the United States and its allies. And Iran was profiting handsomely off its sales, selling its oil for a premium of several dollars above the price of Brent crude, the international benchmark." Unless the article is completely false, it appears Iran has not been blocked from receiving funds for the sale of previously sanctioned oil that was stuck at sea. Why Trump is Threatening to Blockade a Strait that Iran is already Blockading

If BaseOps used AI to moderate posts I'm convinced this thread would drive the AI to become self-aware and destroy mankind.