CanucksCorner.com Forums

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2026 10:40 am

Tciso wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2026 9:01 am

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2026 1:20 pm I'd hate to be the Democrats, especially in 2 years if they gain the presidency. They always seem to get the shit end of the stick to clean up the Republicans' mess. If we're being fair, they owe Iran a ton of reparations for their unprovoked attack.

Um, seriously? Iran has been exporting jihad to the USA and the world since 1978. They have never stopped provoking. I guess we see geo politics differently, 5th.

Not disagreeing that they are a state sponsor of terrorism, but it's an incredibly disproportionate response. And thus self-defeating. Overall a massive backwards step.

What would you consider to be a proportionate response?

Bomb the jihad out of them. That's how we changed the mindset of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

While the average person in Western society might not believe we are at war with them, their Theocracy is at war with us. They have been all along.

Tciso wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2026 12:38 pm Bomb the jihad out of them. That's how we changed the mindset of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

While the average person in Western society might not believe we are at war with them, their Theocracy is at war with us. They have been all along.

I know what you would consider a proportional response. I want to know what 5th thinks.

Wow, you guys actually think bombing the fuck out of Iran is going to make the IRGC lose control. Just up Trump's 10,000 targets to 20,000. No! 30,000! Insane!

Bombing fanatics only creates more fanatics. Just ask the Jews

Mëds wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2026 3:14 pm

Tciso wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2026 12:38 pm Bomb the jihad out of them. That's how we changed the mindset of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

While the average person in Western society might not believe we are at war with them, their Theocracy is at war with us. They have been all along.

I know what you would consider a proportional response. I want to know what 5th thinks.

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2026 4:40 pm Wow, you guys actually think bombing the fuck out of Iran is going to make the IRGC lose control. Just up Trump's 10,000 targets to 20,000. No! 30,000! Insane!

Who is the "you guys"?

So far just Tciso has said that. I just wanted to hear what you thought should happen, not just criticism of what did happen.

There's no solutions Mëds. Trump has painted the US into a corner.

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2026 12:11 pm There's no solutions Mëds. Trump has painted the US into a corner.

Apologies, that wasn't clear.

What do you think SHOULD HAVE happened. If the response was disproportionate, what would have been proportionate?

It's not about having the right level of military response. A proportionate response isn't the solution, but at least it's just another in a long line of tit for tat and isn't going to close off diplomacy as an option. For example the killing of Soleimani probably falls within that circle of proportionality, though it probably tested the limits.

Ideally they should have returned to the JCPOA, or something similar, along with sanctions, banking restrictions, etc. It's not a perfect solution and Iran may have ended up with a nuke in 5, 10, 20 years anyways, but it's a "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" approach that may have led to other options or possibly delay things long enough for regime change to take place organically.

It would be nearly impossible to invade Iran and force regime change. It's too mountainous and would be another Afghanistan.

So push the problem down the road for the next generation to deal with?

You have a theocracy where the guys in charge believe they get an eternal reward that is proportional to the number of infidels that they send to the afterlife. Under what circumstances is it OK to allow them to exist if they are brazenly pursuing the means of producing their own WMD?

If Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, there is not a threat in the universe that someone could make that would keep them from using it. The only responses at that point would be conciliatory.

Some like to point out that Russia and China (the big bad evils) also possess nuclear arms and that they haven't used them.....but those folks often fail to recognize that the only thing preventing that is mutually assured destruction. The jihadist theocracy does not fear that at all, in fact, the true believer welcomes it.

If there's a reward scale and the Iranian theocracy is trying to maximise their virgin count using WMDs, then yeah, we need to fuck those people up.

If they're just regular martyr-obsessed freakos then I don't believe they are actually motivated to die for Allah.

What's the threshold to qualify for being nuked?

If we consider that 70,000 Japanese were killed immediatly in Hiroshima, then the 74,618 Palastenians who have been killed in the Gaza Strip since 2023 would put Israel on the list of countries to be nuked...

Maybe the 38,000 children, women and elderly killed in Gaza alone would be enough to put them on the list...

Should war crimes and genocide make you qualify for the list?

Does Russia qualify, having killed over 150,000 in its illegal war against Ukraine?

And what about N Korea who the world said couldn't have a nuclear bomb until Trump came along and became best buddies with its dictator, now they are said to have at least 60 nuclear warheads with some saying they have the ability to hit N America...

Or what's going on in Sudan and other African countries?

If we are going to nuke one bad actor, why not all of them?

And then you have the US, the enabler and financeer of most of it, not to mention whose leaders and inner circles have personally gained riches from it...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion ... f-comments

Of your examples listed, Rik, which of those are a theocracy that actually funds attacks on civilian populations?

I’m not talking about civilian casualties in an officially declared war. I’m talking about a strategy that specifically targets civilians.

Mëds wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2026 8:48 am Of your examples listed, Rik, which of those are a theocracy that actually funds attacks on civilian populations?

I’m not talking about civilian casualties in an officially declared war. I’m talking about a strategy that specifically targets civilians.

We can start with the Americans bombing and killing school kids in Iran and work our way backwards...

I've been to Auschwitz and as hard as that was to understand, I found the Hiroshima Peace Memorial harder to visit because of the way they displayed the typical day that the Japanese families woke up to and walked us thru the moments leading up to and after the bomb was dropped...

Hard to think that some so casually throw around thoughts of nuking a country...