Iran does not have a nuclear deterrent. They do not literally have nuclear missiles ready. We would've detected any nuclear tests they had done. And even if they had done a nuclear test, North Korea did a nuclear test a decade ago and they've barely got intermediate range nuclear weapons off the ground.
It would be an excellent excuse for Saudi Arabia to invade. Fortunately, the most likely outcome of that is that both nations are devastated beyond repair.
Nuclear non-proliferation is dead. The burgers have demonstrated to the world that nuclear deterrents are they only thing they respect. Everyone now knows that dearmament is a total meme.
"Brown people", as you so charmingly call them, should be scared. We gave them half a century and far far too much money to get their shit together, and now the Western world isn't going to rescue them from the Chinese organ harvesting farms. . Self-rule has been a disaster for the third-world.
Iran had been more thoroughly inspected than any other nation and there's been no indication that they've ever even been close to building a nuclear weapon. Literally inspectors are present in the whole process, from mining the uranium to its final transport to the reactors. This is the case in no other nation. And none of the uranium has ever been diverted.
The breakout time garbage is so stupid too. That's just the time that it would take to produce weapons grade uranium if Iran chose to abandon the framework and start producing it. They'd still have to figure out how to actually build the bomb and attach it to an icbm. And develop an icbm. And test their nuclear weapons. This would take years to decades. And given the current heavy level of nuclear inspection, we would either be aware that this process was underway, or they would've had to kick the inspectors out, which would be a pretty obvious signal. And we'd detect the nuclear explosion from the tests after this decade long process.
But 'Iran experts' (ie AIPAC zionist war hawk shills) pretend that this term means that Iran would literally have a fully capable icbm in like a week or so. Utterly retarded.
Russia guaranteed they would respect Ukraine's territorial sovereignty if they gave up their nukes. The Boers were guaranteed they wouldn't be genocided if they gave up their nukes. Moral of the story: never give up your nukes.
You guys are missing the best stuff over this tbh.
Over at /r/conspiracy pretty much everything is a false flag, the government is corrupt and awful, unless, of course, when Trump is involved.
All of the Trumptards over at /r/conspiracy go to war in the comments trying to justify how the things they say about everyone else do not apply to Trump.
A) What evidence absolves Iran's potential involvement in the attacks?
B) How would lying about Iran's involvement be evidence that the US committed the attacks rather than it jumping the gun as it always does or otherwise using the opportunity to smear Iran?
B) How would lying about Iran's involvement be evidence that the US committed the attacks, rather than characteristic overeagerness to malign Iran or simple opportunism?
Also, "something flying"? You do realize that Iran (or any number of other regional actors) are capable of launching missiles?
The US said it was a torpedo and then later a mine
Edit: Presumably this is what you're talking about. The fact that an American false flag attack was the first thing that popped into your head when you read this (or an article like it) speaks volumes.
Because the US has never staged false flag attacks to go to war before
"Every other incident", eh? Again, Iran has done this before. This attack is shady as hell, but I'm going to continue watching how things play out instead of latching onto the narrative or counter-narrative like most mediocre people do.
The IRGC has its own agenda separate from the civilian Iranian government. One hypothetical I've read is that an IRGC attack on a Japanesee vessel while Rouhani meets with Abe would send a definitive message to the civilian government that they have little to no control over Iranian foreign policy. Furthermore, the likelihood of an actual U.S. invasion is still very slim. U.S. military reprisal on foreign Iranian assets, however, would play into the IRGC's hands by strengthening domestic popular support.
Then there's the possibility of actors independent of Iran or the U.S. trying to draw either one into a larger conflict that serves said actors' agenda. I'm primarily thinking of a faction from one of the GCC states. Mohammad Bin Salmon and Mohammed Bin Zayed both have their own separate agendas, plenty of capital, and extensive experience ruling Western politicians into serving their ends.
34 comments
1 AutoModerator 2019-06-16
do not comment or vote in linked threads
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 SnapshillBot 2019-06-16
You're oversimplifying a complex situation to the point of adding nothing to the discussion.
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 Seattle_Bussy_Lmao 2019-06-16
Nice
1 2Manadeal2btw 2019-06-16
or when those Covington kids were harassing that elderly tribesman!
1 2Manadeal2btw 2019-06-16
Meh, its never gonna happen. iran has a nuclear deterrent. That's enough to keep Daddy away.
1 watermark002 2019-06-16
Iran does not have a nuclear deterrent. They do not literally have nuclear missiles ready. We would've detected any nuclear tests they had done. And even if they had done a nuclear test, North Korea did a nuclear test a decade ago and they've barely got intermediate range nuclear weapons off the ground.
1 vtesterlwg 2019-06-16
lol
1 snallygaster 2019-06-16
i wish Iran had nukes tbh
1 911roofer 2019-06-16
It would be an excellent excuse for Saudi Arabia to invade. Fortunately, the most likely outcome of that is that both nations are devastated beyond repair.
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2019-06-16
And nothing of value was lost...well, except for all those priceless historical structures. Maybe neutron bombs?
1 MikeStoklasaBackup 2019-06-16
I want Iran destabilized. The ensuing slave-trade will finally give me the chance to buy a Persian gf.
1 snallygaster 2019-06-16
not a bad plan tbh
1 _Suprememe_ 2019-06-16
Nuclear non-proliferation is dead. The burgers have demonstrated to the world that nuclear deterrents are they only thing they respect. Everyone now knows that dearmament is a total meme.
1 yangpede 2019-06-16
No shit, I don't even blame any of these countries for wanting nukes. We just elected a rightoid that put Bolton back in power.
Browns the world over should be afraid of Bolton.
1 911roofer 2019-06-16
"Brown people", as you so charmingly call them, should be scared. We gave them half a century and far far too much money to get their shit together, and now the Western world isn't going to rescue them from the Chinese organ harvesting farms. . Self-rule has been a disaster for the third-world.
1 watermark002 2019-06-16
Iran had been more thoroughly inspected than any other nation and there's been no indication that they've ever even been close to building a nuclear weapon. Literally inspectors are present in the whole process, from mining the uranium to its final transport to the reactors. This is the case in no other nation. And none of the uranium has ever been diverted.
The breakout time garbage is so stupid too. That's just the time that it would take to produce weapons grade uranium if Iran chose to abandon the framework and start producing it. They'd still have to figure out how to actually build the bomb and attach it to an icbm. And develop an icbm. And test their nuclear weapons. This would take years to decades. And given the current heavy level of nuclear inspection, we would either be aware that this process was underway, or they would've had to kick the inspectors out, which would be a pretty obvious signal. And we'd detect the nuclear explosion from the tests after this decade long process.
But 'Iran experts' (ie AIPAC zionist war hawk shills) pretend that this term means that Iran would literally have a fully capable icbm in like a week or so. Utterly retarded.
1 uniqueguy263 2019-06-16
I always knew Putin was American
1 911roofer 2019-06-16
Russia guaranteed they would respect Ukraine's territorial sovereignty if they gave up their nukes. The Boers were guaranteed they wouldn't be genocided if they gave up their nukes. Moral of the story: never give up your nukes.
1 Matues49 2019-06-16
Every time
1 yangpede 2019-06-16
You guys are missing the best stuff over this tbh.
Over at /r/conspiracy pretty much everything is a false flag, the government is corrupt and awful, unless, of course, when Trump is involved.
All of the Trumptards over at /r/conspiracy go to war in the comments trying to justify how the things they say about everyone else do not apply to Trump.
1 allendrio 2019-06-16
I found it pretty hilarious that they blame israel when it was obviously the saudis.
1 watermark002 2019-06-16
America literally attacked Japan and tried to blame it on Iran
Very normal country with only the best of intentions
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-06-16
What evidence exists to implicate the US?
1 Kiru-Kokujin44 2019-06-16
that they lied about iran doing it
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-06-16
A) What evidence absolves Iran's potential involvement in the attacks?
B) How would lying about Iran's involvement be evidence that the US committed the attacks rather than it jumping the gun as it always does or otherwise using the opportunity to smear Iran?
1 Kiru-Kokujin44 2019-06-16
witnesses saying they saw something flying
You're naive
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-06-16
What witnesses? I was hoping for the actual article, not your half-assed recollection.
No, you're just an idiot. When I first read about these attacks, I entertained both narratives. I've yet to see anything supporting either one.
1 Kiru-Kokujin44 2019-06-16
the people on the boat?
The US said it was a torpedo and then later a mine
Because the US has never staged false flag attacks to go to war before
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-06-16
The Trump administration is full of shit and Bolton is chomping at the bit for a casus belli to bomb Iran. What else is new?
And Iran has never attacked oil tankers travelling through the Strait of Oman.
Still haven't seen any evidence from you that this was a false flag carried out by the U.S.
1 Kiru-Kokujin44 2019-06-16
The evidence never comes out on day one, it didn't for Tonkin, Cuba, Iraq etc
But in 20-50 years the documents will be declassified and guess what it will be one like every other incident turns out to be
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-06-16
"Every other incident", eh? Again, Iran has done this before. This attack is shady as hell, but I'm going to continue watching how things play out instead of latching onto the narrative or counter-narrative like most mediocre people do.
1 Kiru-Kokujin44 2019-06-16
I listed a few examples.
I don't trust Iran on most things but them attacking the boats makes no sense here, where as the US stands to gain from a false flag
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-06-16
The IRGC has its own agenda separate from the civilian Iranian government. One hypothetical I've read is that an IRGC attack on a Japanesee vessel while Rouhani meets with Abe would send a definitive message to the civilian government that they have little to no control over Iranian foreign policy. Furthermore, the likelihood of an actual U.S. invasion is still very slim. U.S. military reprisal on foreign Iranian assets, however, would play into the IRGC's hands by strengthening domestic popular support.
Then there's the possibility of actors independent of Iran or the U.S. trying to draw either one into a larger conflict that serves said actors' agenda. I'm primarily thinking of a faction from one of the GCC states. Mohammad Bin Salmon and Mohammed Bin Zayed both have their own separate agendas, plenty of capital, and extensive experience ruling Western politicians into serving their ends.