To think the US was right to bomb Iran? What am I missing?

[Lastu]

I am no fan of Trump. I’m very much left wing.

But am I missing something here? Why has everyone become such huge supporters of Iran? The world is a safer place as a result of removing their capability to develop nuclear weapons? Why is everyone carrying on like Iran is a victim and they were truly just trying to implement peaceful nuclear capabilities? Has everyone lost the plot?

And yet some posters who are in the U.K. are keen.

We would be at risk despite the support on here.

I bet some posters on here think it's discustin that isis are <allegedly> no more. Give them their own state fgs, everyone else has one why couldn't they? It's not fair!

Keen on what? I keep seeing posts from you saying posters on Mn are anti-western and pro-Iran. Which posters do you mean?

Not liking what Israel is doing in Gaza and thinking it was a bad idea for Trump to bomb Iran is not anti-Western or pro-Iran.

Do you just scroll past posts to mine?

Read the last half an hour, I’ve quoted some go back to those.

They’d probably hand over the nukes if they had the choice. It’s only fair.

Yes maybe Greta could be sent to deliver one to Khamenei and they could have a group hug afterwards with hamas and hezbollah. That would be lovely and the right thing to do. Have kneecap there providing some entertainment.

I have been reading since last night.

I have not seen one poster say they are pro-Iran or anti-Western. I have seen some discussion about whether there is cherry picking over who is "allowed" to have nuclear weapons and who isn't.

It is telling that you won't specify which posters you mean.

Please identify the posters that think it is 'discustin' (sic) that Isis are no more and that they don't have their own state.

’telling’ no I’ve noticed you like to get threads recapped as they’re happening.

Just scroll back, you can see who I’ve quoted can’t you?

Clearly you can draw a direct comparison between nukes and handing out sweets at a birthday party. It’s only fair if everyone gets sweets, just like it’s only fair if everyone gets nukes!
Even if one kid in the room turns in to a murderous lunatic after having sweets and goes on a killing rampage, he should still definitely be allowed the sweets.

I’ve noticed you like to get threads recapped as they’re happening

What do you mean @easternstandard ?

If you want to see what I’m referring to scroll back..

I’m not quoting again it slows the thread down. I’m not doing it twice.

Just look at past posts this morning it’s easy.

@EasternStandard I'm struggling to see posts you have quoted where those posters are pro-Iran or anti-Western. I've seen ones where you have drawn your own (erroneous) conclusion from what people have posted

@crumblingschoolslook for posts asking why can’t Iran have nuclear weapons as others do. Can you see those?

And the one talking about Islamophobia as a reason not to let Iran have them.

Well I will take a minute of my time to do so. No evidence of this poster being anti-West or pro-Iran, despite your insinuations. No wonder you prefer not to quote.

That is a total misrepresentation of what that poster said. See screenshot I just posted.

@crumblingschoolsthis is good to counter it’s only fair stuff some are posting and others can’t see.

'I have seen some discussion about whether there is cherry picking over who is "allowed" to have nuclear weapons and who isn't.'

'Cherry picking'. They are a murderous, death cult regime who have said repeatedly that they want to annihilate Israel. They support terrorism so if it is 'cherry picking' to say supporters of terrorism shouldnt have nukes well so be it. Seems an over simplistic term tbh.

But how have these strikes a) made it easier to track Iran’s nuclear capability, and b) increased the likelihood of a leadership change in Iran? Given the complexity of the situation, I’d appreciate any evidence or analysis that supports these outcomes.

You do realise Netanyahu has been claiming Iran is “weeks away” from a bomb for nearly two decades—claims that have been repeatedly contradicted by both the IAEA and U.S. intelligence. And you do realise it was Israel that initiated the most recent strikes—targeting safeguarded nuclear facilities that were under international inspection?

To suggest this is purely one-sided—Israel defending, Iran attacking—is simply not supported by the facts.

The idea that one side is purely defensive and the other purely genocidal flattens the complexity of the conflict. Both governments have made destructive choices. Neither escalation nor dehumanisation brings us any closer to peace or lasting security—for Israelis, Iranians, or anyone in the region. Do you feel these recent strikes have a) made it easier to track Iran’s nuclear capability, and b) increased the likelihood of a leadership change in Iran?

Well of course it is better for all of us if Iran has no nukes, but we would all be better off if various other regimes didn't. Iran is not the only lunatic state out there.

This is a different question to the ‘it’s not fair’ stuff which is madness.

I think you’re forgetting c) what is Iran capable of in a few years if no action is taken

@Gloriia Israel are doing a pretty good job at saying they want to wipe out Gaza, and they have nuclear weapons. Not sure I like the idea of Netanyahu having power over the red button, any more than I am with current Iranian regime.

Well get supporting CND or whatever it called nowadays then, let's go for a bit of global disarming.

In the short term I'm happy for a state sponsor of terrorism to have their nuke capability stopped. Bit like we can't wipe out all suicide bombers or terrorists but that doesn't stop security services from doing everything they can to stop attacks.

They have not said they want to 'wipe out gaza'. They want to get rid of hamas a terrorist regime and let's not forget they want to get the hostages back. You seriously think Netanyahu would nuke gaza which is adjacent to Israel?!