uncle bernard

And yet, you guys keep listening to them.

Why would Iran nuke Israel? They know they would immediately get hit with nukes from all the Western countries who own them, including the remnants of Israel, who have a well-known deterrent strategy called the Samson Option, according to which they fire off all their nukes if a country has invaded them and/or destroyed a part of the country (for the Christians on here who I assume don't read their Bibles, Samson killed thousands of Philistines by pulling the temple down on them, killing himself in the process). There's a reason why Iran has not invaded Israel or attacked the US. They know they cannot win that conflict. They use indirect strategies, like putting pressure on Israel through proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas. It's quite similar to our own approach to Iran. We've wanted regime change for 40 years, but we know we cannot successfully invade Iran without unprecedented American casualties. So we work around the edges with our own sanctions and proxies to put pressure on the Iranian regime, hoping it will collapse in on itself. Israel wants to drag us into a war because they have very little to lose. They know that Iran can't "win," at least decisively in a way that gives them more power. They also know that nobody can possibly go into Iran and take control without massive, massive casualties, which the IDF cannot sustain. That's why they want the US to get involved. Israel sees American soldiers as cannon fodder. They want us to do their dirty work.

1) I didn't say that 2) I would never say that because NO COUNTRY has the right to own nukes, you lunatic.

For all you guys terrified of a nuclear Iran, you guys know this is Trump's fault, right? The Iran Nuclear Deal was one of the only truly successful things to come out of Obama's presidency, and Trump scrapped it purely out of spite. Now he's desperately trying to renegotiate a new one. We wouldn't be here if your guy didn't screw everything up (like he always does).

To deter US invasion on behalf of Israel. That's why Israel has been doing this song and dance for 30 years. They know that if Iran ever gets a nuke, any sort of US invasion is off the table.

Probably because Israel's government has been advocating war against Iran for 40 years.

Yes, they do. The Likud charter clearly states, Israel must have dominion over the land "from the river to the sea." I've been told that's genocidal language.

Israel has threatened war with Iran the entire time too. And the Iran Nuclear Program stuff is just propaganda. There really isn't any evidence Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons. And even if they did, they'd be justified because Israel *already has nukes pointed at Tehran.* If we were serious about preventing nuclear Iran, then we would make the Israeli's denuclearize. You can't extoll the value of nuclear weapons as a deterrent and then turn around and condemn a country *who has been threatened consistently by major nuclear powers over the last several decades* for wanting their own deterrent nukes. I can guarantee you these strikes don't happen if Iran actually had nukes. You guys just pretend this stuff happens out of nowhere and Israel is the unluckiest country in the world. They *made* their enemies. They stole land. They expelled people. They killed people. They've bombed and assassinated citizens in almost every regional country. This is a conflict with two very willing sides. The Arabs don't want peace. Israel doesn't want peace. They've never wanted peace. They want the land because they think God gave it to them. As they've said many times, they view the Arabs as "Amalek" and God has commanded them to wipe them out.

And Israel has continued to attack Iran during that time as well. Who started it this time? Israel. That's not debatable, so you're trying to muddy the waters by going back to 1948 (and falling flat on your face). Even Israel acknowledges that they started it. They're justifying it by saying it's "preemptive," which they don't have any actual evidence of. Apparently, Iran's been "days away" from nuclear weapons for about the last 15 years. Thankfully, they seem to be quite the procrastinators.

A foreign country just assassinated one of their top officials on their own soil (and killed dozens of civilians, including children, the process). Anyway, Netanyahu called the Palestinians "Amalek," who God commands the Israelites to genocide in the bible. So you can save it with "classy."

Is Iran on that list?

I think that's possibly true, but what reason does Iran have to believe that? Netanyahu said we were involved. We said we weren't, but are very clear we're backing Israel even after they supposedly disobeyed our wishes, so what is Iran supposed to believe?

This was in response to another Israeli assassination of an IRGC general. So, Israel still struck first.

"defend ourselves" My guy, we struck first. They're the ones defending themselves! It's not totally clear yet how much approval Israel had on this strike. Based on the Rubio statement and Trump asking them to wait until after the negotiations with Iran, my guess is Netanyahu went ahead on his own. The plan there is crystal clear: force our hand into joining the war he's wanted for decades. What's also clear is that Israel is no longer "defending itself." They are now bombing half the region. They have expansionist aspirations, and say that out loud. We'll see if Trump has more strength than Biden on this. Biden let Netanyahu completely hijack his presidency. Will Trump do the same?

Stay safe. My prayers are with you.

That's not a class topic. That's something that would be discussed in an Ethics of War class or something like that, and yes it's appropriate to discuss. All sorts of taboo topics are discussed in Ethics classes (that's kind of the whole point of the class). I was in a class where an ROTC student made a pro-drone warfare presentation where the core of his argument is that non-American lives do not have the same value as American lives, and therefore we shouldn't worry about killing civilians in war. In debate classes, one of the most common techniques is to make someone defend the opposing view. For example, an anti-abortion person has to argue why abortion should be legal. That doesn't mean they have to actually believe it. But it makes them thoroughly examine both sides of the argument, which in turn makes them more equipped to argue for their actual beliefs because they fully understand the other side's position and how to argue against it.

If you DM me, I will look at the requirements and admit I was wrong publicly on here.

Sure, but that's not what's happening. You're extrapolating 1 anecdote that we don't even know is true and claiming it's representative of normal college experiences. And you've also confirmed here that what I said earlier is true. You're not mad about "indoctrination." You're mad that students aren't being indoctrinated with your ideas. You don't understand what education is. You don't understand academic freedom. You want the world to cater to your beliefs because you are entitled.

He knows this, but it doesn't fit the agenda he's trying to push.

knowing things is wokeness!

Right. When you go to College, you are trusting the experts who run that College to decide what the proper curriculum is. Your consumer choice is where/whether you attend, not what you have to take when you get there. This is a great example of entitlement culture. You don't get to demand the world cater to your every desire. You keep acting like being required to take a class *about* something means you have to believe or endorse everything that's said in that class. That's just stupid. You think it's indoctrination because you've been indoctrinated to believe that everything that even talks about gender, race, etc...is inherently evil. What you're actually mad about is that the colleges *aren't indoctrinating* students with *your beliefs.*

None of those are even remotely "hypothetical" DEI topics lol I might as well propose some "hypothetical" Conservative topics while we're at it: Should we liquidate the poor? Are you a bad person if you're not wealthy? Are immigrants human?

Where the F are you getting these? I think you've lost your mind if you think any of those topics compare to "DEI" ideas. You can't even define DEI. It's an umbrella term you use for any sort of social value you don't like.