There's zero evidence its less possible, including counter evidence it remains possible because we keep being told we have to attack Iran to prevent them from attaining a nuclear weapon.
So apparently, we've yet to do anything to prevent them from doing it.
They killed more than 30,000 of their own people including children and support terrorist regimes in multiple countries that also kill children.
> There's zero evidence its less possible
On the other hand we bombed the nuclear facilities so what increase in nuclear weapons capability do they have that you are thinking about here? If there's something that has changed I'd be curious to read about it or your thoughts since that would change my opinion.
So your argument is its cool that we killed children because they've also killed children? Hell of a take.
The evidence we bombed their nuclear facilities is essentially this administration telling us we bombed their nuclear facilities.
This administration does not have a track record of providing the public with honest assessments of their success.
If we've successfully stopped them from developing a nuclear weapon, which was stated as the point of our preemptive aggression, I'd need a very good reason why we continue to spend billions attacking them.
> So your argument is its cool that we killed children because they've also killed children? Hell of a take.
No my take is we do it by accident and they do it on purpose and at a much larger scale and instead of pearl clutching about the US doing it on accident you should be pearl clutching about Iran doing it. I didn’t bring it up, but anytime someone brings up this whole “US killed kids” I’m happy to remind everyone that Iran is far worse.
> The evidence we bombed their nuclear facilities is essentially this administration telling us we bombed their nuclear facilities.
So? Do you not believe anything anyone says unless you see it for yourself?
> If we've successfully stopped them from developing a nuclear weapon, which was stated as the point of our preemptive aggression, I'd need a very good reason why we continue to spend billions attacking them.
Stopping the development of a nuclear weapon is an important goal but not the only one. We keep defending ourselves because they keep doing things like launching rockets at Kuwait, or shooting at American ships, or supporting those committing genocide or murder in Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and Yemen.
There is a very simple solution. Iran stops funding these groups, stops murdering their own people, stop launching rockets, and stops trying to build nuclear weapons. Once they do that and behave responsibility like just about every other country on the planet there aren’t any problems.
Why is it that they can’t just stop doing these things?
We didn't just do it by "accident". We did it through incompetence. This wasn't the unfortunate result of a necessary attack on a valid target. This was the result of stupidity.
"Hey, we're not as bad a literal terrorist regime!" is not a metric by which I think we should measure our own country.
I'd believe we'd actually accomplished our goal of stopping their nuclear program if this specific administration hadn't told us, before this attack, we had successfully stopped their nuclear program with a previous attack. Once you've lied to me once, my standard of evidence is a great deal higher than "trust us, bro." and this administration has already shown incompetence at judging the effectiveness of their attacks (or shown a willingness to lie to us about it).
The entire problem with this strategy, from day one, was the completely ahistorical belief that we could punish a country into behaving exactly as we want, in a way that specifically aligns with our interests.
Bullying nations has a tendency to harden them against cooperation and negotiation, as we've seen with Iran.
> We didn't just do it by "accident". We did it through incompetence.
Ok and they did theirs with malicious and clear purpose. Yikes!
> This wasn't the unfortunate result of a necessary attack on a valid target. This was the result of stupidity.
No. Iran and their militant proxies know that we don't attack civilian targets on purpose. That's why they set up facilities, military equipment, or hide combatants behind children or in hospitals and such because they know we don't want to kill innocent people. Hamas or Iran will tell you this as part of their doctrine.
So think about it. You've got the US and allies, Hamas, Hezbollah or whatever, Iran, and they're all saying "The US and western allies don't intentionally kill innocent people" and then there's you who is like sitting here complaining about it and now it's just "incompetence". Give me a break.
> "Hey, we're not as bad a literal terrorist regime!" is not a metric by which I think we should measure our own country.
Nobody is using that metric except you. The US admitted the mistake and apologized at a minimum. I believe there was some talk of compensation though I'm not sure where that has landed. Probably tough to do because the Iranian regime would steal any money we gave to the families.
But hey I do agree with you, Iran's government is a terrorist regime.
> Bullying nations has a tendency to harden them against cooperation and negotiation, as we've seen with Iran.
Well sure but they were never cooperating anyway. If they were, they wouldn't have been taking the actions they've been taking. What does cooperation look like? It looks like not murdering tens of thousands of your own people, it looks like not pursuing nuclear weapons, it looks like not funding militant groups who murder innocent people throughout the region, and it looks like not building up gigantic stockpiles of missiles and drones and then launching them at every country around you.
Iran is the only country doing this stuff. Why aren't they cooperating with the rest of the world peacefully?
It was admitted incompetence in target selection, potentially due to misuse of AI, acting on out of date intelligence.
This has been heavily reported on and no counter-story has been proffered.
You introduced a whataboutalism. I pointed out whataboutalisms are ridiculous when it comes to dead children.
The frustrating part of all of this is we had a working agreement with Iran, with numerous mechanisms to ensure compliance, that was torn up because this administration, without any offered evidence, said Iran wasn't in compliance. And this was despite multiple international partners disagreeing and saying they were absolutely complying.
> You introduced a whataboutalism. I pointed out whataboutalisms are ridiculous when it comes to dead children.
Sure, but you should be talking Iran killing people since they killed many more and did so on purpose instead of on accident. You keep using the term incompetence because you have an axe to grind. Actions matter but intentions get a say too.
> You introduced a whataboutalism.
Well I'm certainly not going to, where I see it happen, let people just dance around talking about US "incompetence" and ignoring Iranian purposeful murder as they try to denigrate my country for their own political aims. These people shouldn't be your political football and you should be more focused on Iranian action.
> The frustrating part of all of this is we had a working agreement with Iran
Why do they need a special snowflake agreement else they build nuclear weapons? Weren't they signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty? Should other countries start building nuclear weapons so they can get some sort of concession from the United States? Why does the US have to give these concessions and not the entire world since it's in everyone's interest that we don't have every country on the planet building nuclear fucking bombs and maybe using them? Did we forget we don't want that or something?
At no point have I said Iran is a good country doing good things.
I have no control of, or say, in how Iran operates.
I am a US Citizen who votes in the US and who is concerned with the actions my government takes on my behalf.
If Iran shouldn't "need an agreement" not to build nuclear weapons, what exactly is our current aggression seeking to accomplish? How does it end? How do we know its over?
> At no point have I said Iran is a good country doing good things.
I didn't say you did. I'm just focused on their wrongdoings and I'm not interested in some accident that the US was involved in. We accidentally blew something up? Dang that sucks. Let's talk about how awful Iran is instead and focus on that because that's what matters.
> I have no control of, or say, in how Iran operates.
What does that matter? You also have no control or say of how Israel operates. Therefore you can't criticize them or be concerned with their actions? You also have no say in Ukraine or Russia.
> If Iran shouldn't "need an agreement" not to build nuclear weapons, what exactly is our current aggression seeking to accomplish?
Sorry I'm not following. They shouldn't need an agreement to behave like the rest of the signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, yet they want an agreement special treatment, and still develop nuclear weapons in secret. Partly what our defensive operations are seeking to accomplish is to stop them from building nuclear weapons because... they're trying to build them, aren't honoring the NNPT, are murdering their own people, and murdering other people throughout the Middle East. Like why are you so confused about this? Are you unaware of these activities or something?
How about this, can you walk me through what your understanding of Iranian funded militias in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon is? Just at a high level how do you understand those various situations?
> How does it end? How do we know it's over?
Who knows?
> When there is no longer a single person in Iran?
> We didn't accidentally blow something up. Our military murdered 170 children due to incompetence.
You’re calling it incompetence because you have an axe to grind. The US military simply does not intentionally murder children. Everybody knows that including Iran! That’s why these guys put their military equipment next to civilian infrastructure. Why is that I’m telling you this, the military tells you this, European militaries would tell you this, Iran tells you this, and yet you alone are insistent that it is incompetence and not an accident?
> I am aware of Iran's activities. Everyone is. The regime is murderous, and hostile to our allies in the region.
Good let’s focus the conversation there since that’s what is important.
> And absolutely nothing we are doing, right now, has changed or will change that.
It certainly feels like another 10% of the total effort expended would have made this product viable. And I keep saying that about Microsoft releases. It feel like an enormous effect to get to product release then complete abandonment - no communication, no improvements, no additions, no bugfixes.
Apple will gain more from their own existing ecosystems, all five of them most developers within the Apple ecosystems if they pretty much followed all the rules most of their software will work on day one with very minimum changes, in short, they will be 90% of the way there.
It is a thing to some extent, but there’s also a correlation of companies that do cross-platform for simple apps being cheap on development, and making it work very well on some specific platform isn’t their priority.
What would be REALLY vaulable would be a 141% enlarge mode. Ie since the screens are the same ratio there is no reason that when open it could just display exactly the same except larger. This is a piece of piss to program if they haven’t already put it in accessibility settings. This feature alone would drive certain demographics to this device.
Or, and hear me out, a crash has to occur before an event is logged as a crash. To be clear, I haven’t even read the article yet so I don’t know any of the details, but that’s not a conclusion we can draw without understanding how the data is logged.
Weird how, in our representative republic, one of our major parties has decided a better strategy than listening to the public is to demand money and assistance from companies less those companies be forced to stop doing things the public would rather those companies not do.
I really wish we could experience at least a single year where our representatives worked to cover the needs of citizens in a collaborative, non-partisan manner rather than focusing on corporate interests and political theatre filled with slander and misinformation.
Unfortunately in the USA, most of the house of representative districts are not competitive and an incumbent is more likely to lose in a primary than in the general. Working to do something with the other side seems to be unpopular these days.
It’s career-suicide to do so in nearly all cases. If your constituents disapprove then you can kiss re-election goodbye. If your party disagrees then you can kiss funding goodbye.
That "representative republic" belongs to a handful of ultra-wealthy people. I expect the Founding Fathers, being almost all rich old white men, would have approved. The French know how to actually build a republic, this is their fifth attempt so they're getting pretty good at it. Maybe ask them to help with the next one.
So apparently, we've yet to do anything to prevent them from doing it.
We've just killed children.
reply