re: I support the war. Am I wrong?

I don't disagree with anything you said, except that I have a bit of a more positive outlook.

I have a more positive outlook because while everything you stated is "bad", they're not all necessarily bad for US. An Iran that remains shitty can still be a whole lot better and beneficial for us.

When has the government ever told you the truth in regards to why we are going to war?

Is it possible? Sure

I personally dont believe thats the reason were attacking Iran.
I think the 2 main reasons were attacking is because of Israel wanting to dethrone Iran for their own safety. The other is because of minerals. Which is why most wars happen.

No, a bad Iran is VERY shitty for us. A bad Iran is unstable and will be unable to keep the Straits free from pirates and militants. A bad Iran will be VERY expensive to occupy. Any disruptions to the Strait are a massive global economic crisis. The longer those disruptions continue, the worse it will get. We’re talking reducing global energy output by over 20% for who knows how long.

The only positive solution requires a good Iran as fast as possible.

quote:

---

In order to believe your bullet points, you would have to trust the sources in which you've obtained your information; i.e. the mainstream media.

---

Agreed. That's why I clearly stated that I'm willing to accept those things as truth. They seem rational and very believable to me based on decades of seeing it all play out...especially recent events. Others don't seem to believe those things, else they could never hold the opinions they hold. I'm curious why some don't believe those things.

To be fair, I am only 53. I don't pretend to remember all the details of what happened in 1979 or what the general attitude of the country was. I was too young to care.

quote:

---

Still not a threat to the U.S.

---

The lack of ability to drop a bomb on American soil by no means relegates Iran to not being a threat to the US. It can be argued the economic and national security threat they do pose is just as bad a dropping a bomb on our soil.

quote:

---

Who owns and controls Gemini and why do you think they want you to believe their information?

---

Jeez, pal. They don’t make up the sources or the information they put out there.

Want to be taken seriously? Dispute the claims made by all those organizations instead of…whatever this is.

quote:

---

The lack of ability to drop a bomb on American soil by no means relegates Iran to not being a threat to the US. It can be argued the economic and national security threat they do pose is just as bad a dropping a bomb on our soil.

---

The economic threat to EUROPE, not us. And no, it’s not worse than dropping a bomb on American citizens.

quote:

---

When has the government ever told you the truth in regards to why we are going to war?

Is it possible? Sure

I personally dont believe thats the reason were attacking Iran.
I think the 2 main reasons were attacking is because of Israel wanting to dethrone Iran for their own safety. The other is because of minerals. Which is why most wars happen.

---

I think I was pretty clear that govt messaging regarding war is rarely, if ever, the whole truth. It's often lies, in fact.

And okay. While I'd not have stated them the way you did, I believe your beliefs are likely valid, at least to some extent.

quote:

---

Others don't seem to believe those things, else they could never hold the opinions they hold. I'm curious why some don't believe those things.

---

I can't speak for others, but my opinion is very involved and dates back to the 1970s and involves Nixon's completion of taking us off the gold standard.

IMO, this was done to stuff the pockets of the elite through endless printing of dollars. With no limits of gold backing, dollars could now be printed at will, further lining the "certain" pockets.

At the same time, there needed some sort of backing of the dollar to give it value. It was no coincidence (IMO) that at the same time, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia made the deal to flood the market with oil, with one stipulation. It had to be bought and sold in U.S. dollars (i.e. the Petro Dollar).

That worked out beautifully at first, until countries like Iran, Iraq, Yemen, North Korea, Venezuela, Libya, and a couple others decided to break away from that and use other currencies. This ploy began to grow and threaten the dollar.

When both Russia and China began taking part, the US government became desperate to put an end to it.

Coincidentally (or not) 9/11 happened and the US government had its excuse to invade those countries for the purpose of regime change. This is why (IMO) we spent 20-plus years over there, and continues today with the invasion of Venezuela and now Iran. To get those countries back in line with dealing oil in dollars (as well as gaining natural resources).

So, IMO, all this talk about terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, etc. is all propaganda to get the American people behind these invasions.

quote:

---

While I'm supportive of the war I have no choice but to accept the narrative that they were "two weeks away from a bomb" but I've been hearing that for what feels like forever. When coupled with the "obliterated" talking point after last year's bombings it gives me pause to be totally honest. It's like having flashbacks to WMDs like you mentioned. But what choice do I have? The fact is we're there and bombing the hell out of them and the rationale used for it isn't going to change. I could go conspiratorial and say Israel is running the show but there's no point in doing that.

---

I hate the "two weeks" talking point as well. I am in the nuclear industry, but not on the fuel side. I am far from expert on the enrichment process, but I know more than the average person. The two weeks talking point comes from the belief that once you get to 60% enrichment, it takes approximately two weeks to get to 90%. I have no idea if that's true or not. But whether it's two weeks or two months, it's a relatively short time to 90%.

I also believe that Iran has the know how to enrich uranium. I know that a centrifuge is relatively small and seems not very difficult to either purchase, or build. I believe they'd get more of them soon.

The "obliterated" part is confusing you because some people want you to be confused. Personally, I believe we did obliterate their centrifuges (or the vast majority of them) and the facilities they were operating in. But I think it's highly plausible that the already enriched uranium they had (60%) may not have been destroyed. Someone destroying your tools doesn't necessarily destroy the things you've already built with them.