Yet another war, this time with Iran

[Harry Bosch]

IMO, it is logical and sane to think it is a bad idea for any country to have nukes. Especially one run by Trump.

There would be a lot more young people alive in Ukraine today if they had had nukes.

 

[bilby]

IMO, it is logical and sane to think it is a bad idea for any country to have nukes. Especially one run by Trump.

There would be a lot more young people alive in Ukraine today if they had had nukes.

Well, maybe.

But then, if Ukraine had kept her nukes, maybe both Moscow and Kyiv would be smoking radioactive craters today, along with most of the large towns and cities on both countries, and perhaps a few cities outside the former Soviet bloc too.

Putin figured he could beat Ukraine in a few days (a belief that turned out to be spectacularly wrong); Had they had nukes, he might have made the equally poor bet that they wouldn't dare use them, or that he could overrun their siloes and bases before they could be launched.

The only winning move is not to play.

 

[Shadowy Man]

IMO, it is logical and sane to think it is a bad idea for any country to have nukes. Especially one run by Trump.

Stop it. The degree of comparative evil in Trumps government is on a complete different level than that of the authoritarian world (the west is up against)…..

. Learn to read with comprehension and such straw men of yours may stop. My first sentence is the logical equivalent of no country should have nukes.

Your trust in the US Constitution preventing Trump from using nukes is based on pure ignorance. The US president is the commander in chief. Nothing in the Constitution requires military personnel to disobey illegal or crazy orders. Moreover, anyone paying attention would realize that Trump does not necessarily feel constrained by it or any law.

Actually, military personnel ARE required to disobey illegal orders—or face prosecution

So, when will we see prosecutions for those who conducted the strike on the shipwrecked survivors?

 

[crazyfingers]

I would hate to work from Trump. He loves to leave his most senior people out of the loop.

President Trump announced on Tuesday evening that he was pausing the day-old U.S. operation to escort commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz “for a short period of time,” citing what he said was “great progress” toward an agreement with Iran.

His announcement, in a social media post, came only hours after Secretary of State Marco Rubio asserted that the United States had concluded combat operations against Iran and was fully focused on the new mission. Only three commercial ships have managed to make it through the strait since the United States began the operation, dubbed Project Freedom, on Monday.

The president’s sudden U-turn on the escort mission was just his latest over the course of the war, which is now in its third month. When the U.S. Central Command was asked for comment on the change, a spokesman referred questions to the White House.

I would never work form Trump of course but he's fucking nuts.

Iran War Live Updates: Trump Pauses Project Freedom in the Strait of Hormuz

www.nytimes.com

 

[barbos]

I would never work form Trump of course

There is plenty of sociopaths who would.

 

[Tigers!]

IMO, it is logical and sane to think it is a bad idea for any country to have nukes. Especially one run by Trump.

There would be a lot more young people alive in Ukraine today if they had had nukes.

Well, maybe.

But then, if Ukraine had kept her nukes, maybe both Moscow and Kyiv would be smoking radioactive craters today, along with most of the large towns and cities on both countries, and perhaps a few cities outside the former Soviet bloc too.

Putin figured he could beat Ukraine in a few days (a belief that turned out to be spectacularly wrong); Had they had nukes, he might have made the equally poor bet that they wouldn't dare use them, or that he could overrun their siloes and bases before they could be launched.

The only winning move is not to play.

When you say 'not to play' to whom are you referring - Ukraine or Russia?
If threatened with invasion 'not to play' is just a shorter form of 'please come in'.

 

[DrZoidberg]

IMO, it is logical and sane to think it is a bad idea for any country to have nukes. Especially one run by Trump.

Stop it. The degree of comparative evil in Trumps government is on a complete different level than that of the authoritarian world (the west is up against).

While Trump is a cunt. His evil is hamstrung by the US constitution (and thank fucking god(s) for that).

Technically, any barriers to Trump launching a nuke would not be found in the Constitution. Contrarily to your comment, the Constitution broadly supports his launching of nuclear weapons by making him the head of the military.

The constitution of USA creates a culture.

No it didn't. The culture was created through principle and tradition, starting first with President Washington stepping away from power, not seeking a third term, and President Adams conceding to a single term when he lost to Thomas Jefferson.

Fine. You just added more detail.

Trump and MAGA took all of these critical extra-Constitutional traditions and placed them in the shredder.

Yes. Which sucks. Democratic traditions are arguably more important than the constitution (informed by them). Together they shape culture. But it defeats your argument that's its all about just the laws. It's just not. Which makes Trump extra evil.

I'd say Americans are uniquely obsessed about legalism.

The democratic culture of USA is all pervasive and seeps through the entire society. The military aren't blind idiots. They also understands the dangers of shooting nukes. They're also bound by the various international conventions and don't want to be war criminals. While USA often can flout those, people do care about what other people think of them. Being the guy who shot the nuke, against an undeserving oponent, isn't a good legacy.

That has nothing to do with the Constitution, the document you raised. As I noted, the Constitution gives the President absolute control of the military except in cases of war which Congress is required to provide authority and outside of "war", the money to pay for it. Trump can order the launching of a nuclear weapon without Congressional authority. The Constitution allows it. The only roadblocks would be in the chain of command.

Again... soldiers aren't blind tools nor idiots.

This is about feelings.

You're completely wound up on the legalistic technicalities. As if Americans aren't capable of thinking and feeling for themselves.

I already addressed the "feelings" part. You are the person who brought in the legal framework, so why you are whining about that is beyond me.

I'm confused. Wtf are you talking about?

The fact that USA has such a massive big swinging nuclear dick, is why nukes aren't habitually raining in the world.

No, not at all. It is because two opposing sides have an arsenal of nuclear weapons is the reason why they haven't been used. The trouble with Trump is he defies all known political convention. Even the party he is a member of isn't providing any resistance from the Iran military fuck up to tariffs, something the GOP absolutely disdains. In Trump's first term, roadblocks existed to the use of nukes. Nixon was so despondent near the end of his presidency, there were backup then too. Right now, it seems only the military itself might step in the way to a nuclear order.

You live in a fantasy land, as well as being incredibly naive IMHO.

You love to call people anti-Semites and say they are naive, but there is nothing up above that is remotely naive or incorrect. Which is why you needed to not actually address any of it.

No, I hate calling people antisemites. I'd rather people weren't racist. When they are I think it's good to call it out.

I remember Gospel saying I was white knighting when calling out anti-semitism at a time of the greatest global rise of anti-semitism since WW2. I'd say it was more important than ever to call out that racist conspiracy at the time when I did. I don't like racism. I don't like racist conspiracies. I don't like racists patting eachother on the back and denying they're racists. The most dangerous racist is one convinced they're not. Right now it's not a question of sticking up for Jews in particular. It's a slippery slope. Once we're ok with minorities being targetted I think it poisons the culture and makes us go numb to it. I just refuse to let it happen without calling it out. If that makes people here feel uncomfortable... so be it.

Trumps badness doesn't make authoritarian dictators good people

Iran having a nuclear weapon wouldn't be a good thing. Little Trump has done in the last 15 months has impeded that path. Israel assassinated the scientists, not the US. The nuclear weapon sounds more like a red herring because the goal of this entire thing was getting right of the Theocracy, which while successful in reordering it, the US and Israel did not end the Theocracy. So nuclear weapons became a face saving maneuver.

So you think the killed Ayatollah was a good person or what?

Are you even reading what you are quoting? LIke at all? Because nothing in that statement implies your conclusion of what it said. It wasn't even the subject of the statement.

Read the post you were responding to. That was your response. Why was your response relevant? You seem to want to explain away the Ayatollah's badness.

I'd say the theocracy and nukes are linked. It's Iran's theocracy that means they need the nukes. Nukes has become the modern world's leading safety function for dictators to prevent foreign intervention. That's why Iran wants nukes. If Iran wasn't a loony theocracy, hellbent on spreading war and terror, they wouldn't need nukes. If either one goes Iran won't get nukes.

Iran has, through proxy's, been raining rockets on Israel for decades. Now Israel shoot back. And since Israel has previously been so restrained about retaliation the Iranian high command took no precautions nor had meetings in a secret or protected location. That's why Israel could take them all out like this.

 

[barbos]

IMO, it is logical and sane to think it is a bad idea for any country to have nukes. Especially one run by Trump.

There would be a lot more young people alive in Ukraine today if they had had nukes.

What is the problem? just send these young people back to Ukraine from Europe.
And you would not have had this ridiculous discussion (Ukraine never had any nukes) had The west not started this war with Russia in the first place.

 

[bilby]

When you say 'not to play' to whom are you referring

Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy.

 

[Gospel]

I remember Gospel saying I was white knighting when calling out anti-semitism at a time of the greatest global rise of anti-semitism since WW2. I'd say it was more important than ever to call out that racist conspiracy at the time when I did. I don't like racism. I don't like racist conspiracies. I don't like racists patting eachother on the back and denying they're racists. The most dangerous racist is one convinced they're not. Right now it's not a question of sticking up for Jews in particular. It's a slippery slope. Once we're ok with minorities being targetted I think it poisons the culture and makes us go numb to it. I just refuse to let it happen without calling it out. If that makes people here feel uncomfortable... so be it.

Calling something ‘racist’ doesn’t automatically make it so. If you’re going to label something that way, you still have to show how it actually fits that definition, not just assert it. Your claims about me are based on assertion alone. If you’re going to make that claim publicly, I’d appreciate you supporting it with evidence.

 

[Tigers!]

When you say 'not to play' to whom are you referring

Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy.

Oh. You were talking about Ukraine and Russia so i just assumed the phrase was referring to one of those not the movie characters.