• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

USA news & politics

Also are these strikes by Israel legal?

Doubtful as they haven't produced any new evidence to back up their much repeated claim that Iran are days away from developing a nuclear weapon. Regime change is a long standing goal of Bibi and Republican hawks. I would change my mind on that if evidence was produced justifying the preemptive strikes.

Part of the problem is that Israel itself secretly developed a nuclear weapon and possesses a nuclear arsenal which creates a security imbalance in the region. I appreciate they need strong deterrents and security guarantees from the likes of America given the threats they face but would they give up their nuclear weapons if they managed to achieve favourable regime change in Iran? I doubt it.
 
Last edited:
Doubtful as they haven't produced any evidence to back up their much repeated claim that Iran are days away from developing a nuclear power weapon. Regime change is a long standing goal of Bibi and Republican hawks.

Part of the problem is that Israel itself secretly developed a nuclear weapon and possesses a nuclear arsenal which creates an imbalance in the region. I appreciate they need strong deterrents and security guarantees from the likes of America given the threats they face but would they give up their nuclear weapons if they managed to achieve favourable regime change in Iran? I doubt it.
Yeah that's something Rory Stewart brought up on a podcast. If this is Israel making a legal preemptive strike then could Iran have technically done the same thing when Israel was making one? After October 7th Iran and Hezbollah stayed largely out of the fight ( at American request) but really if they knew what was coming their way they could have gone all out at Israel and said it was preemptive.

I get Israel is a democratic nation and Iran is a ****** up religious totalitarian **** pit but it's another obvious move away from a rules based international order
 
Yeah that's something Rory Stewart brought up on a podcast. If this is Israel making a legal preemptive strike then could Iran have technically done the same thing when Israel was making one? After October 7th Iran and Hezbollah stayed largely out of the fight ( at American request) but really if they knew what was coming their way they could have gone all out at Israel and said it was preemptive.

I get Israel is a democratic nation and Iran is a ****** up religious totalitarian **** pit but it's another obvious move away from a rules based international order

My understanding was that any country with nuclear weapons including Russia and America typically have to comply with certain rules including disclosing it's policy on no first use/first use etc. I don't know why Israel has been allowed to opt out of this and why pressure hasn't been applied to get them to comply like the other countries.
 
Israel has never stuck me as a rule following type of country. It does what it sees best for itself.
 
My understanding was that any country with nuclear weapons including Russia and America typically have to comply with certain rules including disclosing it's policy on no first use/first use etc. I don't know why Israel has been allowed to opt out of this and why pressure hasn't been applied to get them to comply like the other countries.
Is it because Israel has never admitted to having them? I know they hadn't at one point not sure if they have now
 
.
Is it because Israel has never admitted to having them? I know they hadn't at one point not sure if they have now

That's exactly it but non disclosure of something as major as that just feels wrong especially when India, Pakistan, Russia, SA, USA, UK and France all disclose and comply.
 
Remember what Trump did due to his Obama Derangement Syndrome

1000024035.jpg
 
.


That's exactly it but non disclosure of something as major as that just feels wrong especially when India, Pakistan, Russia, SA, USA, UK and France all disclose and comply.


They sort of admitted to it when in November 2023, government minister Amihai Eliyahu claimed that the use of nuclear weapons was "one of the possibilities" when discussing Israel's options in its ongoing Gaza war, for which he was suspended from the Israeli cabinet.

 
.


That's exactly it but non disclosure of something as major as that just feels wrong especially when India, Pakistan, Russia, SA, USA, UK and France all disclose and comply.
Israel didn't sign the nuclear non proliferation treaty
 
I don't see America missing out on this opportunity to bury the Iranian regime. Apparently the population of Iran is unhappy and close to rebellion (stated on here) but I'm no Iran expert so wouldn't know. If they do get involved would that lead to a quickening of the regimes downfall or would it actually unite Iran? Big questions but on previous form any western interference in the middle east normally results in absolutely unplanned and catastrophic consequences.

Would love the Saudis or Jordan to step in and take charge a bit. Jordan is a close ally of Israel and the Saudis seem to have formed a bit of a relationship with Iran although they are religiously opposite.

Also are these strikes by Israel legal?
Because America has always been so successful at regime change, especially in the middle east

 
It's where the Stuxnet virus originated isn't it? They trashed Irans centrifuges with it.
Yes, although never admitted it officially proved, Student was a collaboration between the US and Israel to specifically target Iranian efforts.

It's mentioned in the link in a previous post https://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/usa-news-politics.50254/post-1235230

And bombing nuclear reactors in Iraq and Syria.

As far as I know Israel has never published any proof of the assertions as to Iran's actual nuclear capability. And it's been reported that the US has different opinions for the Iranian capability.
 
Last edited:
When presented with the question during a hearing of whether US national guard / military should comply with an order to shoot protesters in the legs with lethal firearms, Pete Hegseth dodged the question. Seeing as the answer is a clear as day "no", it is again very telling about the mentality of the Trump administration. They are not opposed to the armed forces using lethal weapons against protesting civilians.

Last time the US military was mobilised against civilians, people were shot and killed.
 
Demonstrating yet again you don't read. The article quite plainly and truthfully says that the VA CAN refuse certain people NOT that they MUST refuse them.

Kelly and others ignore that part and don't deny that these changes have been made.

Again read it properly without coming out with your usual bile.

Except that those who run the organisation say its all BS lol
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Top