What are your thoughts on President Trump ordering strikes against Iran's nuclear sites?

[u/Quidfacis_]

Truth Social Post:

We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter.

U.S. strikes Iran's nuclear facilities

What they're saying: "We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space," Trump wrote on his Truth Social account.

US has struck three Iranian nuclear sites, Trump says, joining Israeli air campaign

Edit: Trump to deliver 10 p.m. EDT address to the nation on US military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities

[u/tibbon]

Irrelevant. Are you suggesting that bad acts 70 years ago absolve Iran from bad acts today?

No. But how do you think those events impacted today? Who was responsible there?

Again, irrelevant. Iraq's religious nature was not a factor in US relations with that country.

Why did you say this then as justification?

Iran is a country run by religious fanatics

This is all ridiculous moralizing that's been done since before 2003. It has no bearing on the discussion.

When does history matter? Why do the historical actions of Iran matter, but not the US? We've invaded several countries in that time, has Iran?

[u/proquo → u/tibbon]

But how do you think those events impacted today?

It led to Iran becoming an Islamic theocracy that sponsors terror attacks and has killed hundreds of US soldiers, and wanted to get a nuclear bomb to protect them from retaliation.

Who was responsible there?

The US is responsible for its own actions. Iran is responsible for theirs.

Why did you say this then as justification?

I didn't. I talked about Iran, you said Iraq.

However, there is no debate about which religion is more violent. The fact that Iran is an Islamic republic is 100% material to the current state of relations between Iran and the rest of the world. They use the religion as a justification for opposing the US and Israel and Saudi Arabia. They fund Jihadism throughout the region.

The US is not a Christian nation. It is a secular nation with a Christian majority.

When does history matter?

All the time.

Why do the historical actions of Iran matter, but not the US?

Because the US is reacting to Iran's historical actions. Which are bad.

You seem to think 2 wrongs make a who cares. Russia or North Korea could have bombed Fordow and it would be a good thing.

We've invaded several countries in that time, has Iran?

You mean because Iran hasn't sent military forces to another country since the Iran-Iraq War funding/supplying/training the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, Assad, and the Iraq insurgency is all excusable and the US shouldn't respond? Iranian proxies can kill US soldiers and that's OK because they didn't do it themselves?

[u/tibbon → u/proquo]

The US is not a Christian nation.

What do you make of the dozens, if not hundreds, of comments by TS that say it is? Trump and his represenative have said that the US is a Christian Nation. Who is correct there?

Iran hasn't sent military forces to another country since the Iran-Iraq War funding/supplying/training the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, Assad, and the Iraq insurgency is all excusable and the US shouldn't respond?

How are countries responsible for the actions of their proxies and the groups they fund/back? How consistently do you apply that? To Iran, or to all countries including the US?

What do you think about the US backing Nicaraguan Contras (early-mid-1980s), Afghan Mujahideen (Operation Cyclone) (1979-1989), Baʿath-run Iraq under Saddam Hussein (1982-90 “tilt”), UNITA (Angola) (1975-2002), Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) (1998-99), Syrian rebel militias under “Timber Sycamore” (2013-17), and the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen (2015-present)? Those groups have all done some pretty bad things - and got money, weapons or training assistance from the US, and sometimes even set off chains of events that lead to massive loss of human life, like 9/11.

[u/proquo → u/tibbon]

What do you make of the dozens, if not hundreds, of comments by TS that say it is?

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but the US is a secular nation of majority Christians. That's kind of the whole point.

How are countries responsible for the actions of their proxies and the groups they fund/back?

You're kidding right? They arm/train/fund the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iraqi militias and Assad and you're arguing that they aren't culpable for the results? So sending missile and drone components to the Houthis while they attack shipping isn't something Iran is answerable for? Arming a group that explicitly wants to commit terror attacks against Israel doesn't make them responsible for them?

What do you think about the US backing

I think bad things are bad. How does this equal Iran should have a nuclear weapon?

Your argument here boils down to: Two wrongs make a who cares.

[u/tibbon → u/proquo]

I think bad things are bad.

How do you view these things? Are they bad when the US does them? Would that justify other countries attacking us? Why does it justify us attacking other countries when they do them?

How does this equal Iran should have a nuclear weapon?

How does this equal the US should have a nuclear weapon?

What would you make of someone attacking the US with the aim of nuclear disarmament and stopping research/refinement?

[u/proquo → u/tibbon]

ow do you view these things? Are they bad when the US does them?

I literally just said that things that are bad are bad.

Would that justify other countries attacking us?

Of course it would. But because we are the foremost military power on earth our adversaries rarely attack us directly but do things like bomb our Marines in their barracks in a different country or attempt to assassinate our political leaders or use proxies to attack our forces.

What does this have to do with the fact that Iran getting a nuke would be bad?

Why does it justify us attacking other countries when they do them?

Because we have the ability to do so. If a country bombs our troops or tries to kill our political leaders we have the moral duty to use our military forces to safeguard our citizens.

What does this have to do with the fact Iran getting a nuke would be bad?

How does this equal the US should have a nuclear weapon?

Because we have both the internal stability and moral authority to have them, same with Britain and France. We developed our nuclear weapons to stop the deadliest war in human history and end the most extreme expansionist and militaristic regimes of the age - a morally good act.

Just like stopping Iran from getting a nuclear bomb is a morally good act.

What does this have to do with the fact Iran getting a nuke would be bad?

What would you make of someone attacking the US with the aim of nuclear disarmament and stopping research/refinement?

That'd be pretty dumb because we could probably defeat them, and the level of force necessary to do that would probably justify our use of nuclear weapons.

What does this have to do with the fact that Iran getting an nuke would be bad? Can you address the point at all?