Anonymous #1 6w

🎵Thank you USA, stopping genocide, helping small kosovar, stopping the wrong fight🎵😩😩🇺🇸

3

Anonymous OP 6w

The statue of Bill Clinton in Kosovo was the peak of the post war order.

2

Anonymous #2 6w

that was based off a lie 2003 is the beginning of the downfall

1

Anonymous #2 6w

When did we bomb Iran, are you talking about like this month?

1

Anonymous #1 6w

Yes

1

Anonymous OP 6w

My point is that we also let Israel refuse to allow anyone to inspect their WMDs. Insane double standards

1

Anonymous #2 6w

they got us by the balls with that aipac money and Mossad blackmail 😕

2

Anonymous #2 6w

Well Iran like actually had WMDs, like that’s not crazy CIA shit they’re enriching uranium.

1

Anonymous #1 6w

The CIA said in March that they didn’t have WMDs yet 😬 we decided to believe the man who has been saying “Iran is on the verge of having nuclear weapons” for 30 years instead

3

Anonymous #2 6w

And then we may not have even set them back that much 💀

1

Anonymous #2 6w

The UN organization responsible for nuclear energy literally said they’re enriching uranium. Like you can feel how you want about it, and I know we lied in 2003, but it’s an objective fact that Iran has a nuclear program.

1

Anonymous #2 6w

russian spy Tulsi Gabbard said the same thing too and Trump just went “nah bomb em anyways”🤡

2

Anonymous #2 6w

So did we not set back their non existent program or do you acknowledge that they have one?

1

Anonymous #1 6w

We knew they had resumed enriching uranium after Trump scrapped Obama’s Iran deal but weren’t very close to a weapon yet. They were ready to come back to the table and stop it again. Instead Israel killed their chief negotiator in an airstrike. So there was no need to bomb them at all. If the Iran deal was renegotiated they would have stopped.

2

Anonymous #1 6w

There’s a difference between enriching uranium and actually having weapons-grade uranium that’s ready to be used. I’m saying that I don’t buy that they were on the verge of having weapons ready to go. They were absolutely enriching uranium for the purposes of making a weapon, but you need to get to a certain purity level and make a significant amount

1

Anonymous OP 6w

There wasn’t a bomb yet, and I agree it is trumps fault. But you don’t enrich uranium to that level for any purpose except a bomb. There isn’t a bomb today, but there is a nuclear program aiming at developing the ability to build one.

1

Anonymous #1 6w

When I say “we may have not set them back that much”, I mean that their progress towards one may not have been delayed significantly enough to justify the risk of that operation. And if it’s not set back enough, we just further justified their case for having nuclear weapons in the first place, so I’m sure they’ll focus on it more now

1

Anonymous #2 6w

But I thought you said they didn’t even have a WMD program like Iraq in 2003.

1

Anonymous #1 6w

In both cases we alleged that they had WMDs themselves, IIRC. Not just a program to develop them

1

Anonymous #2 6w

It was not alleged that Iran had the bomb, just that they had a program to develop one. Which I think we can both agree they do have a nuclear weapons program, although it isn’t yet at a point to make a bomb.

1

Anonymous #1 6w

Ah ok, my bad then. Not exactly the same as Iraq but it does feel similar. The double standards are still there though. We didn’t bomb Israel, we didn’t bomb India (although idk if we knew until they tested one), and we didn’t bomb Pakistan (idk whether we knew until they tested one)

1

Anonymous #2 6w

The crazy thing is I believe we should have bombed Israel, and India, and Pakistan, and North Korea to stop the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The world can only be damaged with more countries getting the bomb.

1

Anonymous #2 6w

Iraq did have a nuclear program but it was basically destroyed by Israel in the 80s. They did have chemical weapons though and used them on their own people after the gulf war so it wasn’t completely insane to think they still had them.

3

Anonymous #1 6w

Yeahhhh idk, I’d prefer something like stuxnet where we had some plausible deniability. But idk how much that would help avoid escalating a conflict

1

Anonymous #2 6w

I mean it is in American and global interests to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Every additional country that gets it increases the chance one is used. I think bombing every developing program into submission is in the greater good.

1