Pooter

Another airline guy checking in here and honestly the only thing that makes an overnight suck is if it’s too short. I hate getting into a cool vibrant city getting put up in the airport hotel. Time for my 6900th shitty hotel burger and fries.. After staying in pretty much every major city in the country multiple times I can confidently say they’re all great. They all also have their rough parts. Use common sense and avoid the rough parts. If you can’t find a way to have a good time on an overnight in LA or SF with some of the best food and bar scenes in the country idk if you can be helped. It’s not that scary guys avoid skid row and the tenderloin and enjoy the rest of these massive awesome diverse cities. On the subject of bodily functions I’ve seen more bachelorette puke on the sidewalks of broadway, 6th, and bourbon than I have human shits in all liberal cities combined. By a factor of ten. Go have a good time and stop letting Fox News convince you these places are scary

We are all tracking October 7th = Bad But also, using AI to target low level Hamas dudes when they return to their residence based on cell data and then leveling the whole apartment complex is bad, disproportionate, and yes probably feels a lot like terrorism to the other people who lived in that building and weren’t combatants, if they survive at all. October 7th was horrible but it doesn’t give Israel a blank check to do whatever it wants for all time. I think there was significant sympathy and support for Israel immediately afterward. But we are going on 3 years since the attack, and they’ve leveled Gaza and killed tens of thousands of children. People are, rightly, starting to have an issue with it. It’s not anti-semitism to criticize IDF tactics or specific wartime policies of the Israeli government. Israel critics didn’t just start randomly multiplying in 2024/25. It is directly correlated to how egregious this war has become and the attempts to dismiss any substantive criticism of it as bigotry.

Never said it was. Genocide is a specific word with a specific meaning and I don’t think it’s applicable here. The hyperbole the far left uses on this topic very often torpedoes rational debate. But I think we are having a rational debate and we can both agree that something can be bad, even deeply immoral, without being a genocide. My point was simply that all the child deaths in Gaza aren’t 100% on Hamas because they built tunnels or launched rockets or had meetings in hospital basements. Someone still has to drop the bombs. And Israel was using AI to deliberately target family residences, never mind the rest of the people living in those buildings. That is not only not OK, I would argue It’s a form of terrorism, akin what Hamas does. If Iran was tracking IDF soldiers cell phones and TBM striking their neighborhood once they got home from work we would rightly call that terrorism. Inconvenient details like this really cloud the good guys versus bad guys narrative.

Or it could be this: Edit: Not directly related to Gaza but also in 2024, Israel remotely detonated thousands of pagers/walkie talkies which I will admit was a badass logistical and tradecraft achievement. But when you remotely blow up thousands of PED’d with no possible way of knowing where they all are/who’s around at the time the side effect is obvious. They maimed dozens of children and killed a few, and hurt/killed dozens of unrelated adults as well. I think this pretty well sums up the IDF’s level of collateral damage concern. But zooming out back to the Iran conflict I think this discussion has kinda circled back on itself. Some here like myself are trying to evaluate the actions of the US/Israel/Iran/Hamas from a neutral observer perspective to try to figure out what’s actually going on and if any of this is a good idea. Others view it as a pure good guys vs bad guys dynamic. Everything the US/Israel do is a justified response to past transgressions by the bad guys. Everything Iran/Hamas do happened in a vacuum with no historical context or justification, because they’re the bad guys and that’s just how they are. There’s not much that can be said to bridge the gap between these two viewpoints, but I have no doubt we will keep trying.

“Iran can’t have a nuke.” My issue with this stance is that it’s nothing more than a tagline. It’s not a plan, it’s an item on a wishlist. If the totally clear and not changing goal from the beginning has always been to deny Iran a nuke now and forever.. I have a few questions. First, since I guess we already established diplomacy isn’t going to work.. JCPOA sucked, was going to expire, Iran just does what they want anyway.. and since the regime always will try for a nuke and will try to reconstitute the nuke capacity they do have.. HOW do we prevent them from getting a nuke? From where I sit it would take two things: Send in a massive ground force for weeks to excavate and take the nuke material they do have Full, actual regime change or dismantlement. Not a fake regime change like the one we’re claiming we did where all the relatives and buddies of the dead guys take over and just keep doing the same thing. The next obvious question is: do we have the capability to do that? Probably yes but at a huge cost and we’d need to commit far more to the war than what is currently, including deploying a large portion of the army. The next obvious question is: do we have the political will to do it? Which I think the answer is indubitably: no. My last question is if this was always the clear goal, why wasn’t the operation pitched to the American people that way originally? Why did we go through the midnight hammer “totally obliterated” charade knowing full well bulldozers exist and reconstitution efforts would start immediately? Why was epic fury pitched as an absolutely no boots on the ground op when we knew full well eventually we’d need to go in and take the “dust?” Why is Hegseth claiming “our military objectives are complete” when the main thing this war is apparently about is still unfinished? Why are we now on the doorstep of a boots on the ground regime change war despite every neocon in existence calling skeptics “panakins” and assuring us for the last year that it wouldn’t happen? Like I warned months or maybe even a year ago in this very thread: escalations happen insidiously. No one sets out to have a years long boots on the ground regime change boondoggle and it isn’t always readily apparent when you’re walking down the path toward being in one. But here we are with no end in sight, making grand claims about what we can and cannot allow a very well armed country of 90 million people to do. If you guys think I’m missing a door #3 option I’d love to hear it.

Because allowing the enemy access open source BDA gives them more information about what capabilities we now lack or what could still be brought to bear against them

With Iran and terrorism in general I always find it’s a chicken/egg scenario of circular logic. -Why do the they hate us? -Because of our bases and meddling in the region -Why do we have bases and meddle in the region? -Because there’s people there who hate us This is part of the reason I reject the good vs bad over-simplification. There are countries and groups in that region that have very legitimate and understandable beef with us and Israel. Not saying I like them or want them to win but if I put myself in their shoes I’d probably feel the same way they do. If they “hated us for our freedom” and secular liberal western values, like the tired old saying goes, they’d be attacking Denmark and Sweden just as much as they try to attack us. But they don’t do that, because Denmark and Sweden aren’t the world empire constantly dicking around in their back yard. My ultimate motivation is what’s good for the United States and our people which is why I’m fundamentally against most of these offensive war-of-choice interventions. When we go into the Middle East without a coherent plan, without goals aligned with our allies, without international support, and without an exit strategy we end up harming ourselves more than helping ourselves. We make more enemies than we kill, we create more new problems than we solve, and we harden populations and cultures against us for the long run. And this is all before even accounting for the loss of our own service members, civilian death tolls, and the monetary cost measured in trillions across the various decades terror wars. The only way any of this ever gets any support from the public is by invoking some grand existential threat.. “Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.” Well that’s cool, because they weren’t making one and not too long ago when real adults were doing the diplomacy we actually had an agreement with nuke enrichment limits that Iran was adhering to. That’s what ‘good guys’ do: intelligently apply leverage from previous sanctions to get the deal you want without firing a shot.

Sorry I’m referring to the nuclear proliferation treaty. Not a treaty between us and Iran per se, just something both of us have signed onto. https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/weapons-mass-destruction/nuclear-weapons/treaty-non-proliferation-nuclear-weapons It outlines limits and international goals to limit nuke proliferation, but also the rights of nations regarding their civilian programs. When the JCPOA was in effect my understanding is that it was kind of a stricter layer on top of the NPT in exchange for sanctions relief, but as soon as it was tossed out, the NPT became the prevailing law again.

I know sourced arguments are a rarity and have very limited effect around here, but here goes nothing. It is a fact that they were in compliance for the duration of and slightly after Trump tore up the deal. https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-06-08/iaea-report-confirms-irans-compliance-jcpoa Here’s a report from our own congress on the JCPOA: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R40094#_Toc205812494 “Until July 2019, all official reports and statements from the United Nations, European Union, the IAEA, and the non-U.S. participating governments indicated that Iran had fulfilled its JCPOA and related Resolution 2231 requirements.” And another one CIPAssessing The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Iran Dea...The JCPOA must be properly understood as working before we can attempt to understand why the Trump administration left the deal.“The record shows that Iran complied with the terms of the JCPOA.”

Disagree. The treaty we signed says they have a right to produce their own. Us offering to sell it to them cheap is still a form of leverage we hold where it could be cut off at any moment. It is completely understandable a country wouldn’t agree to that. Except they have agreed to compromises before. Like the one we had and then tore up. Or the negotiations we were in with them right before we used those negotiations as a cover for a surprise attack (twice) Maybe my writing wasn’t clear, I didn’t think you were. That’s a standard I believe should be a thing. On the debate about Israeli nukes and good guys vs. bad guys we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I think it’s naive to view ourselves as the perennial good guys. WRT Iran we’ve even tampered with their government in the past motivated mainly to stop nationalization of oil. We’ve armed, then betrayed, then armed again opposing nations and militant groups all over the Middle East to *theoretically* advance our interests for decades, all with virtually zero regard for moral or even strategic consistency. I’m not even impugning intentions.. mostly it’s the results I have an issue with. We start things because we think we can pull it off and then when it inevitably blows up in our face, we go “whoops, that sucks” and GTFO

Well under the JCPOA we had a regular inspection regimen, Iranian enrichment limited to ~3%, and up until Trump tossed it in 2018, the IAEA said Iran was operating within the bounds of the agreement. Part of my frustration with this war (and broader Iran strategy in general) is we keep blowing up the status quo, getting into a much worse situation, and then going “gee it sure would be nice to get back to the status quo we just had.” But the whole reason I brought up the civilian program in Iran is because Israel says it’s a no go for them. This is a big problem for two reasons. 1) it’s pretty unsat that Israel has secret nukes, didn’t sign the NPT, and now is trying to dictate the terms of another country’s nuclear program. We wouldn’t tolerate that behavior from literally anyone else. 2) the bigger problem is the “no enrichment” Israel wants so badly is a total poison pill for Iran as far as making a deal. So yet again, we have our intransigent welfare baby country dictating the terms of the war we’re fighting on their behalf. Not great. And It’s becoming increasingly evident Trump (to his credit) wants to find a way out of this thing while Israel seems to want anything but. Bibi knows he absolutely has the ability to stir the pot whenever he wants to bait an Iranian response, and then by default we’re dragged back into hostilities. No one said they’re deserving of nukes. I just don’t think Israel has the right to lecture anyone about nukes, and by extension we don’t either because we’re BFFs with a state that has them in secret and won’t sign the non-proliferation treaty. That’s not a tortured view of morality. That’s an objective standard. The standard is: nuclear proliferation is bad no matter if it’s Israel or Iran who does it. Maybe it’s naive of me but I try to look for objective standards like this to define my political stances. Sometimes it requires zooming out and looking at our actions from an international frame of reference. And yes, sometimes that does lead to some pretty uncomfy conclusions. Like: not every conflict is as simple as good vs evil, and sometimes we might not even be the good guys. And none of that is to say I hate my country or I’m rooting for failure or I think we’re always in the wrong. I just want us to do things that aren’t insanely dumb, and if we can sometimes throw in the added benefit of it not being morally backwards or hypocritical, that would be cool too.

Just to reattack on this, yes we all agree Iran having a nuke is a thing we don’t want. Is it something I’m willing to go to WW3 over? No, not particularly. North Korea got a nuke and the world kept turning. Pakistan and India have nukes pointed at each other as next door neighbors. Russia, and China have nukes. The world kept spinning. Iran is a pariah yes but their regime is also interested in self preservation, so I don’t think they just magically go suicidal the second they get a nuke. They want it as a deterrent just like everyone else. The other interesting question is whether people think Iran has a right to a civilian nuclear program. I think yes mainly because the NPT we are signatories on grants that right to all countries. Civilian development is bounded by IAEA limits which Iran has violated before, so their hands aren’t clean here either. You don’t build facilities under a mountain to make medical isotopes. Or maybe you do if you think some assholes are gonna keep trying to bomb you. Regardless, they’ve broken the rules and the one serious effort to rein them in (the JCPOA) which was working by the way.. is now in the shredder. But most interestingly, civilian development in Iran is a bright red line for Israel. This is particularly rich because Israel aren’t signatories on the NPT and are well known to have unacknowledged nuclear weapons.

Call me crazy but idk what domestic gun rights of US citizens has to do with military development going on in a country on the other side of the world. (Also for the umpteenth time, our intel community assessed they weren’t making a nuke) A better quote of the day might be: Imagine being the only country who has ever used nukes, allied with a country who has secret nukes, and thinking you’re in a position to lecture anyone else about nukes

This seems very very pedantic but sure I’ll use your terms in the spirit of friendly debate. I have googled it and traffic through the strait has been reduced by 95% plus. In any other context a 95% degradation of something would be considered kaput. Your car’s gas tank is 95% empty.. that’s empty. Your home air conditioning is pumping out 5% of the cold air it normally does.. your AC is broke. Your son only mows 5% of the yard.. hey buddy you didn’t mow the yard like I told you to. To the rest of your comment I noticed you used the word “nebulous” a lot. And I actually think it’s a perfect description of what’s going on. Maybe the reason we can’t agree on basic facts isn’t a problem of either of us but it’s because the war goals have been so nebulous no one is even sure what the desired end state is supposed to be. We have Trump proclaiming the war is over a few days back and then Bibi goes on the news and says the work isn’t done and we still have to get the nuclear material, more missile sites etc… And since our support for Israel is clearly limitless I’ll defer to the guy who I think is actually calling the shots (Bibi) and will assume this thing is far from over

Fair enough. Would also like to respectfully request that goes in both directions and when people who disagree with this war post things they don’t get called TDS deranged libtards without people addressing any of the points. I know I get heated sometimes but it’s genuinely hard to have a serious conversation when we’re quibbling about whether the strait is open or not