Quote (thesnipa @ Mar 5 2026 04:42pm)

In context tho, lets say hypothetically Israel post Oct 7th continued down the pathway of the Abraham accords and even granted Gaza statehood for the return of the hostages, literally just gave it to Gazans. but under the pretext that as a new nation if it attacked Israel it would be at war with Israel. what are the downsides?

zionists would be mad, but left wing people, all muslims, and most moderates would have been happy.

Israel would have set it self us with the Saudi wing of islam and the middle east, while taking away one of the biggest gripes the Iranian wing has. build a 10 mile wide DMZ, focus up on west bank, etc.

of course it would never happened, but its hard to see how restraint gives bad results there.

Quote (thesnipa @ Mar 4 2026 10:53pm)

like israel saying they dont have nukes and wont let inspectors in? like that?

the irony of an israeli saying lying about making nukes is grounds to be invaded is hilarious.

also lol weeks away. WEEKS. so funny.

Quote (ferdia @ 6 Mar 2026 01:00)

I just outlined above how there are very few examples in history of restraint working, and that restraint in and of itself was not the reason why it worked. If Austria (weaker country) had fought against Germany (stronger country), they would still have ultimately survived, noting Germany lost the war (no thanks to Austria), but more Austrians would have died. Hamas carried out a terrorist act against Israel. Gaza is not a country, its en enclave. Gaza in and of itself does not appear viable as a sovereign state. This is not bashing Gaza, its a reflection of reality. The reason why Israel and other small nations can survive and thrive is because they have found a way to make it work for them. Gaza has not found a way to make it work. Bahrain is 29 times smaller then Israel, but it is the home of the US 5th Fleet. Singapore is even small, but it has cultivated a brilliant political and economic base. One of the arguments from the likes of Many_names is that Gaza had the chance to be whatever it wanted to be, but it blew that chance, literally. This is true. Elon Musk had said after Oct 7th that the best thing for Israel would have been to turn the other cheek - similar to how I and others said the best thing for Iran would be to turn the other cheek. But my thinking is somewhat idealist / a dreamer, and not grounded in reality or precedent, noting as I highlighted, passively accepting aggression historically gets you no where. I am not debating the merits of Israel's bombardment of Gaza, or the US bombardment of Iran, I am saying that Gaza, and Iran need to find a better way to get around the problem of Israel and the US respectively. By this I mean terrorist activity will not work.

Quote (ferdia @ Mar 4 2026 10:41pm)

you cannot reason with unreasonable people.

Quote (ferdia @ Mar 5 2026 11:00am)

I just outlined above how there are very few examples in history of restraint working, and that restraint in and of itself was not the reason why it worked. If Austria (weaker country) had fought against Germany (stronger country), they would still have ultimately survived, noting Germany lost the war (no thanks to Austria), but more Austrians would have died. Hamas carried out a terrorist act against Israel. Gaza is not a country, its en enclave. Gaza in and of itself does not appear viable as a sovereign state. This is not bashing Gaza, its a reflection of reality. The reason why Israel and other small nations can survive and thrive is because they have found a way to make it work for them. Gaza has not found a way to make it work. Bahrain is 29 times smaller then Israel, but it is the home of the US 5th Fleet. Singapore is even small, but it has cultivated a brilliant political and economic base. One of the arguments from the likes of Many_names is that Gaza had the chance to be whatever it wanted to be, but it blew that chance, literally. This is true. Elon Musk had said after Oct 7th that the best thing for Israel would have been to turn the other cheek - similar to how I and others said the best thing for Iran would be to turn the other cheek. But my thinking is somewhat idealist / a dreamer, and not grounded in reality or precedent, noting as I highlighted, passively accepting aggression historically gets you nowhere. I am not debating the merits of Israel's bombardment of Gaza, or the US bombardment of Iran, I am saying that Gaza, and Iran need to find a better way to get around the problem of Israel and the US respectively. By this I mean terrorist activity will not work.

Quote (thesnipa @ Mar 5 2026 05:33pm)

Historically responding with disproportionately strong force against aggression hasn't worked out for Israel. maybe it has in the short term, but its been disastrous long term in PR. in 4 years or so american politicians have gone from being required to support israel, to it being split, with being anti israel gaining traction. its all just rhetoric tho until an american politician truly refuses to back an israeli war, which historically has never happened. but its also historically never been in question. interesting times to be sure.

Quote (Shadowoffury @ Mar 5 2026 03:00am)

2015, I addressed this one. It was the one in the video ^gnarjay posted.

He was correct, or slightly exaggerating at best. Iran still had their stockpile of highly enriched uranium in 2015, but in January 2016 they complied with JCPOA and shipped all of their uranium enriched over 3.67% to Russia.

This is where understanding nuclear latency is important. In december 2015 Iran was weeks away from nuclear weapons. In January 2016 they got rid of their stockpile and were therefore suddenly 12 months from nuclear weapons.

2022. This is also true. Iran started stockpiling uranium enriched to 60% again in 2021. In 2022 they had enough for one bomb, now they have enough for ten.

Again, it's important to understand the difference between shortening latency and actually trying to create nuclear weapons. Iran is stopping at 60% enriched uranium. This is one step below weapons grade. They only need 3.67% enriched uranium to run their nuclear reactors. They are enriching to 60% to shorten their latency. They are not(or were not) actually creating nuclear weapons.