America Doesn't Have The Moral Justification To Enter Into the Israel/Iran War!

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Anyone who defends Chamberlain at Munich is an idiot.

 

[Nostra]

We live in the ONLY COUNTRY that has ever used a nuke. We don't have the moral standing to stop anyone else from having one until we destroy all of ours.

Using the nukes saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, which is why you hate it.

 

[Nostra]

But it was not a stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Who said they had that?

 

[JoeB131]

We have not had an atomic bomb for 80 years explode this coming August.

Any of you who say "so what" are derelicts of humanity, you have nothing to offer.

Iran must give up its efforts and surrender its materials, or we all are in mortal peril.

Actually, we've been setting them off in tests all the way up to 1992.

We lived with Russia having the bomb. We lived with China having the Bomb. We lived with North Korea having the bomb. We even live with the Zionist Entity having a bomb.

We can live with an Iranian bomb.

 

[JoeB131]

Anyone who defends Chamberlain at Munich is an idiot.

Or a Historian.

Okay, so what would you have had Chamberlain do? Go to war? The UK wasn't ready for a war at that point.

The problem wasn't what Chamberlain did at Munich; it was everything he did after, writing the Polish Colonels a blank check they couldn't cash. Alienating Mussolini and Japan, who were probably still persuadable on diplomacy before the war broke out. Refusing to engage with Stalin because the Commies were scary.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Actually, we've been setting them off in tests all the way up to 1992.

We lived with Russia having the bomb. We lived with China having the Bomb. We lived with North Korea having the bomb. We even live with the Zionist Entity having a bomb.

We can live with an Iranian bomb.

You are an example of how poor our educational system is in Chicago.

As crazy as Kim is, he has no reason to use an atomic.

The mullahs do and will. And if you don't realize that, you are Chicago's star pupil.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Or a Historian.

Okay, so what would you have had Chamberlain do? Go to war? The UK wasn't ready for a war at that point.

The problem wasn't what Chamberlain did at Munich; it was everything he did after, writing the Polish Colonels a blank check they couldn't cash. Alienating Mussolini and Japan, who were probably still persuadable on diplomacy before the war broke out. Refusing to engage with Stalin because the Commies were scary.

An extremely deficient historian.

 

[tahuyaman]

Our own intelligence agencies say they aren't. So does the IAEA

Many others disagree.

 

[AZrailwhale]

But it was not a stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Weapons of Mass Destruction are not limited to Nuclear Weapons. Chemical and Bacteriological Weapons fall into that category as well. Some consider large Fuel Air Explosive weapons to be WMD as well as they are nearly as destructive as tactical nukes.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Um, no, Chamberlain recognized reality in Munich. Germany had Czechoslovakia surrounded on three sides, the Slovaks wanted no part of the Czech, and the country had a lot of Hungarians and Germans who didn't want to support the government.

He had no store to give away. The problem is he was blamed for what inevitably happened, that the myth of "Czechoslovakia" exploded.



Or- Chamberlain and France were more worried about Stalin than Hitler. Hitler was just killing Jews. Stalin was killing rich people. Got to have your priorities here.



Oh, no, not the scary theocrats? They are threatening the religious apartheid state that we support so Jesus can come back!!!



Again, no one expected a border dispute with Poland to erupt into a six year global conflict.
No one expected a squabble over a dead arch-duke to erupt into a four years global conflict.




Anecdotes aren't evidence.

Chamberlain was also playing for time. France and the UK were not ready for a war and needed to stall Germany until at least 1941. Chamberlain failed because Hitler wasn't logical, he needed to until 1941 to be ready for war as well.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And now it's threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz.

That makes it our moral justification. Lol.

Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz for about as long as it takes our carrier strike group to destroy any missile systems that the Israelis have left alone.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They don't have to be a "match", Twinkie.

All they have to do is sink a tanker or two, or even damage one, and the price of oil will shoot through the roof.

Know how deep the Persian Gulf is? Submarines would be like shooting fish in a barrel there. That's just another thing you are ignorant about.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Chamberlain was also playing for time. France and the UK were not ready for a war and needed to stall Germany until at least 1941. Chamberlain failed because Hitler wasn't logical, he needed to until 1941 to be ready for war as well.

Chamberlain's infamous statement was in 1938. The year 1941 wasn't even close as the war started on September 1, 1939.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Weapons of Mass Destruction are not limited to Nuclear Weapons. Chemical and Bacteriological Weapons fall into that category as well. Some consider large Fuel Air Explosive weapons to be WMD as well as they are nearly as destructive as tactical nukes.

Yes, I get that. I was the NBC NCOIC for the battalion. As bad as chem and bacteriological weapons can be, it is the atomics that scare everybody silly. Rightfully so.

So what is to do if Iran won't back down?

 

[tahuyaman]

But it was not a stockpile of nuclear weapons.

One thing Hussein did have though was a very elaborate propaganda machine which even convinced his highest military leader that he had nuclear weapons at his disposal.

When the defeat of his forced was imminent, he went to Hussein and requested the use of nuclear weapons. That’s when he found out that was not an option. The top Iraqi publicly testified to this.

 

[tahuyaman]

Yes, I get that. I was the NBC NCOIC for the battalion. As bad as chem and bacteriological weapons can be, it is the atomics that scare everybody silly. Rightfully so.

So what is to do if Iran won't back down?

If the U.S. deploys these 30,000 lb bunker busters. There would other targets destroyed. Iran would be forced to back down. How could they continue?

Have you seen the naval forces basically enveloping Iran.

 

[tahuyaman]

Who said they had that?

No one.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

If the U.S. deploys these 30,000 lb bunker busters. There would other targets destroyed. Iran would be forced to back down. How could they continue?

Have you seen the naval forces basically enveloping Iran.

Oh, I agree, Bunker Buster Iran would be my argument. Far fewer lives at risk than other scenarios.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Chamberlain's infamous statement was in 1938. The year 1941 wasn't even close as the war started on September 1, 1939.

Correct. Neither side was prepared for war in 1939.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yes, I get that. I was the NBC NCOIC for the battalion. As bad as chem and bacteriological weapons can be, it is the atomics that scare everybody silly. Rightfully so.

So what is to do if Iran won't back down?

Only ignorant people. Knowledgeable people are far more worried about persistent nerve agents and biological agents. Destroy the fuel plants, keep targeting economic targets until the people rebel and overthrow the Mullahs.