What's your definition of a liberal in this thread? Anyone who doesn't support war from a person who pledged "No wars"?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Iran Reportedly Warns Apple is Among Potential Targets
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Icy1007
macrumors 65816
I support anything that goes against Trump, yes. 😂
So much for conservative nativist nationalist isolationist farce. It lasted what? Whenever Trump flips on a dime?
Icy1007
macrumors 65816
Exactly. I don’t support Iran nor do I defend them, but the U.S. should not be starting a war with them. They aren’t a threat to us.
IIGS User
macrumors 65816
I'm not happy about the US starting a war with Iran. I'm not falling into the same trap I did during the second Gulf war. The whole phony WMD thing and all that. I'm old and I have a long memory. So I'm skeptical of any use of force internationally.
That being said, two things are on the table.
First. Iran can never ever EVER have nuclear weapons. This regime has been and is dead set on obtaining a nuclear weapon. A nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable. Period. You may disagree with this, but for me this is non negotiable.
Second. Iran repeatedly asserted their ballistic missile program was for purely defensive purposes. This was exposed as (another) lie on Iran's part when they launched two missiles at Diego Garcia approximately 3,800-4,000KM from Iran. Exceeding Iran's "self imposed" 2,000 KM limit.
Now is, Diego Garcia a legitimate target of war? To be honest I would say yes, it is. The US has/can launch strikes on Iran from this base. It's a military instillation from which attacks are being staged. But that's not the point.
The point being, if Iran has missiles or even the technology to build missiles that can reach Diego Garcia, it has the missile technology to reach targets like Rome, Athens, Vienna. Along with potentially Paris and Berlin.
You combine this with the 440Kg of 60% enriched U-235 that Iran has (source IAEA) which can be made weapons grade in a matter of weeks and you have a nation state that is very much potentially nuclear capable with the missile technology to strike major population centers in Europe.
This, again is unacceptable. Iran has the technical capability to produce multiple nuclear weapons. It has the means to deliver those weapons to multiple European targets.
The totality of the circumstances, especially given Iran's behavior on the world stage over the past 40+ years would lead a lot of reasonable people to believe Iran does not have the best of intentions when it comes to it's missile and nuclear programs.
If a nuclear armed Iran with ballistic missiles that can reach European population centers is not acceptable, and Iran will not accept terms that eliminate that threat, what are the options? Either let them have the bomb and the means to use it, or eliminate that threat.
I don't like that the US is bombing another country to hell. War is one thing. Bad. I don't like it. I think it stinks.
But that being said, I see the reason for it. I wish there were better options, but a nuclear armed Iran with said missile technology isn't one of them.
Icy1007
macrumors 65816
You can accuse the IRGC of many things, but lashing out randomly is not one of them. They’ve been preparing for this longer than most of us have been alive.
It’s totally valid to disagree with their targeting choices, but they’ve been quite systematic about targeting American assets throughout the region.
Starting with American military bases and degrading missile defense systems. Now they’re targeting US held assets in the region. It’s clearly a plan designed to make this war as expensive and painful for the global economy as possible.
It’s extremely bad for the global economy of course, but it’s not random. They’re trying to make the economic impact of the war so severe the US gives up. Targeting high-profile American companies with assets in the region makes sense as a next step in that strategy.
I have no clue if it will turn out to be an effective strategy, just describing tactics.
In a sense, how can one blame Iran? The US attacked them while negotiations were happening. This is a war started by US/Israel under bad faith negotiations. While Iran shouldn't be attacking these American companies, the US can't really stand on moral higher ground either. Trump has also threatened to target civilian infrastructures just for the purpose of destroying civilian infrastructure. That's a war crime.
Exactly and yet there are people saying they have the right to have one as a defense like other countries do. Absolutely not. Cause unlike other countries, they'd push that button the second that it is ready. They don't care about MAD because they want to be martyrs. I am speaking about the Iran leadership obviously.
bcortens
macrumors 65816
The thing is, if this is your position then the current war shouldn't appeal to you because it's not going to prevent a nuclear Iran. Unless you actually are willing to do the hard work of going in with lots and lots of boots on the ground to properly unseat the Iranian regime you aren't going to succeed in defanging them. They are going to continue to pursue a nuclear weapon especially in light of this new war. If you really believe this you should be calling for a full-scale invasion to capture and secure all nuclear material and put in place a government that will never pursue a weapon. Otherwise this war only kicks the can down the road a bit.
I mean I guess you could bomb Iran every few years to keep kicking the can down the road but that is likely to just make them angrier and more determined.
surferfb
macrumors 68030
Two things can be true at the same time: 1)Iran is led by a regime that is abhorrent and its leaders are terrorists who murderously repress their own people and 2) starting a war with them was a colossal mistake made by a sundowning 80 year old encouraged on by advisors who have shown time and time and time again that not only do they not know they're really doing, but they're also too high on their own supply to consider the possibility that they might be wrong.
Stopping them from having nuclear weapons is a colossal mistake? You'd rather wait til they finish making one and then ask them nicely to not use it?
surferfb
macrumors 68030
I was told we completely obliterated their capability to obtain a nuclear weapon last year. Were they lying then or lying now?
Experts Agree: Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated
From nuclear regulators to foreign policy experts to members of the intelligence community, every knowledgeable person is in agreement that President
www.whitehouse.gov
They’d been 4 mins away from pushing that button since 2012 according to Netanyahu.
And Con Corleone’s own counter-terrorism chief Joe Kent said Iran is nowhere close to a nuclear weapon.
That comment is what I truly believe. I am not trolling. Just because I have a different opinion than you, doesn't mean I am being belligerent or breaking any rules.
steve62388
macrumors 68040
They weren’t developing nuclear weapons capability until trump ripped up the JCPOA. This was verified multiple times by the IAEA.
antiprotest
macrumors 601
It’s like Saddam Hussein all over again.
>he’s a bad guy. You’re defending him
>him being a bad guy doesn’t mean I believe in overthrowing him which could bring about a bigger disaster.
These people never learn. They will never learn. It all turned out to be a neocon charade. **** this timeline.
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
I wish there was some way to know who was President in 2019 and 11 months of 2020 (when Covid began and the reponses, or not, really mattered).
Yeah you are going with the argument of “its her fault for wearing revealing clothing” I see. That’s a horrendous take. That is an ultra right take. I think anyone reasonable without trying to make some weird narrative stick.. would come to the conclusion that the people attacking the ships are responsible. They are attacking innocents. That is direct unfiltered extreme terrorism. No matter how far you reach and what way you try to twist things to make them fit… the people attacking the boats are the ones causing the prices to go up. That is a fact. No one is forcing their hand to do that. Russia and Iran are in a war. India and Pakistan have had their back and forth. Do you see those states attacking third party boats that are just hauling goods? No? Yeah it is because it is inexcusable and if they did that it would be no one’s fault but their own. There is no reason to do this other than terrorism. No military goal is gained. No one is forcing anyone’s hand. Iran is the sole party responsible for attacking the vessels, period.
bcortens
macrumors 65816
They aren't stopping them from getting a nuclear weapon. Unless they actually put boots on the ground and go in and force proper regime change the IRGC is just going to dig deeper underground for their next steps in enrichment... all this war is going to do is make them more determined.
You know that wasn't actually a treaty, right? The only thing the precious JCPOA accomplished was a loosening of sanctions against those lunatics. If it and the sanctions on them were so good, how come we see ballistic missiles being fired by Iran now?
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
