3 ms·

Iran is the aggressor here. Iran has been funding and arming multiple proxies to fire missles into Israel for the past 50 years

goatlover 1y ago
Israel isn't the US, but I can understand being confused about that given the US seems to always do what's in Israel's best interest.
- kurtis_reed 1y ago
  The comment was just saying that its parent was incorrect that Israel was the aggressor.
bigolkevin 1y ago
...in response to Israeli acts of terrorism and crimes against humanity...
- kurtis_reed 1y ago
  ...in response to...
  - mrkeen 1y ago
    Turns out you can't just put your country in the middle of other countries without the shit hitting the fan. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-54116567 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-54116567 Not that they keep to themselves either. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-occupation-50-years-of-dispossession/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-o...
nsingh2 1y ago
This conveniently ignores decades of context. The CIA-backed coup that toppled Iran’s elected government, the sweeping sanctions, support for Saddam during a brutal war, assassinations and cyber-attacks on Iran’s nuclear program. Painting Iran as the sole aggressor skips the part where outside powers kept breaking the "rules" they imposed. Also forgetting that Iran's current repressive and theocratic government is itself a direct consequence of US interference.
- 827a 1y ago
  You can let this context paralyze you into feeling that there's no morally right response to any action anyone takes in this complex world. Or, you can just say: what they're doing is wrong, so we're going to stop it. If you don't learn to do the latter, you'll spend the rest of your life beholden to the tyranny of the people who do.
  - bravesoul2 1y ago
    Can the US say that "this is wrong" to their friends too? Nope. It is not about "this is wrong". It is about "this is in the leading classes interests"
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    I think my own thought isn't 'what they're doing is wrong' but 'what they're doing is dangerous'. Thus in my view it kind of doesn't matter whether what they're doing is right or wrong, and the sensible goal is to simply prevent the dangerous stuff without necessarily judging them. Thus limited bombings focused on nuclear enrichment plants, rather than some wider campaign. The problem as I see it is that it may not work, and that nuclear bomb development might be quite easy.
    - 827a 1y ago
      Right right; and Americans have not forgotten how "he has nukes" was very much a reason for starting the post-9/11 forever wars across the rest of the middle east. Of course; no nukes were found. If there's any foreign (or domestic) policy decision the vast majority of Americans agree on, its avoiding putting American boots on the ground in the middle east. 1. No one should have nukes. 2. That probably won't happen in our lifetimes, so the second best world is: No one new should have nukes, and those who do have them should have as few as feasible, and fewer every year. 3. Global superpowers, obviously including the United States but others as well, have the moral authority to police the restriction of nuclear weapons development in other countries. We should work with international agencies, we should start with diplomatic solutions, progress to economic sanctions, then progress to unilateral, targeted, kinetic strikes. Try non-violent means first. Minimize loss of civilian life. 4. There is no distinction, in my mind, between "trying to develop nuclear weapons" and "successfully developing nuclear weapons". There is no distinction, in my mind, between 60% enrichment and 90% enrichment, or whatever. Non-nuclear countries should attempt no stage of development, at all, and if they do, should see their efforts stopped by any means necessary. Very hypothetically: If a non-nuclear nation lays a single brick to build a structure destined to aid in nuclear weapons development, I would support destroying that brick; there is no stage too early to intervene. Obviously this is hypothetical and there are realistic feasibility concerns with that, but when speaking morally/ethically. 5. All of this is true regardless of the governance structure or ally/enemy relationship of the country, but it should be obviously true, in triplicate, for a nation ran by religious extremists, who has a history of funding terrorist groups who attack our ships and allies, spanning decades, who tramples on the human rights of women and minorities in their country... to be frank, we have launched full-scale invasions of countries far better. If Iran wants a shred of my pity, their leadership could start by making any effort to join the 21st century in any way except weapons development. But, they don't. Why anyone defends them for any reason is so far beyond my understanding that I'm convinced half the people in these comments are russian disinfo bots.

goatlover 1y ago

Israel isn't the US, but I can understand being confused about that given the US seems to always do what's in Israel's best interest.

kurtis_reed 1y ago
The comment was just saying that its parent was incorrect that Israel was the aggressor.

bigolkevin 1y ago

...in response to Israeli acts of terrorism and crimes against humanity...

kurtis_reed 1y ago
...in response to...
- mrkeen 1y ago
  Turns out you can't just put your country in the middle of other countries without the shit hitting the fan. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-54116567 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-54116567 Not that they keep to themselves either. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-occupation-50-years-of-dispossession/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-o...

nsingh2 1y ago

This conveniently ignores decades of context. The CIA-backed coup that toppled Iran’s elected government, the sweeping sanctions, support for Saddam during a brutal war, assassinations and cyber-attacks on Iran’s nuclear program. Painting Iran as the sole aggressor skips the part where outside powers kept breaking the "rules" they imposed. Also forgetting that Iran's current repressive and theocratic government is itself a direct consequence of US interference.

827a 1y ago
You can let this context paralyze you into feeling that there's no morally right response to any action anyone takes in this complex world. Or, you can just say: what they're doing is wrong, so we're going to stop it. If you don't learn to do the latter, you'll spend the rest of your life beholden to the tyranny of the people who do.
- bravesoul2 1y ago
  Can the US say that "this is wrong" to their friends too? Nope. It is not about "this is wrong". It is about "this is in the leading classes interests"
- impossiblefork 1y ago
  I think my own thought isn't 'what they're doing is wrong' but 'what they're doing is dangerous'. Thus in my view it kind of doesn't matter whether what they're doing is right or wrong, and the sensible goal is to simply prevent the dangerous stuff without necessarily judging them. Thus limited bombings focused on nuclear enrichment plants, rather than some wider campaign. The problem as I see it is that it may not work, and that nuclear bomb development might be quite easy.
  - 827a 1y ago
    Right right; and Americans have not forgotten how "he has nukes" was very much a reason for starting the post-9/11 forever wars across the rest of the middle east. Of course; no nukes were found. If there's any foreign (or domestic) policy decision the vast majority of Americans agree on, its avoiding putting American boots on the ground in the middle east. 1. No one should have nukes. 2. That probably won't happen in our lifetimes, so the second best world is: No one new should have nukes, and those who do have them should have as few as feasible, and fewer every year. 3. Global superpowers, obviously including the United States but others as well, have the moral authority to police the restriction of nuclear weapons development in other countries. We should work with international agencies, we should start with diplomatic solutions, progress to economic sanctions, then progress to unilateral, targeted, kinetic strikes. Try non-violent means first. Minimize loss of civilian life. 4. There is no distinction, in my mind, between "trying to develop nuclear weapons" and "successfully developing nuclear weapons". There is no distinction, in my mind, between 60% enrichment and 90% enrichment, or whatever. Non-nuclear countries should attempt no stage of development, at all, and if they do, should see their efforts stopped by any means necessary. Very hypothetically: If a non-nuclear nation lays a single brick to build a structure destined to aid in nuclear weapons development, I would support destroying that brick; there is no stage too early to intervene. Obviously this is hypothetical and there are realistic feasibility concerns with that, but when speaking morally/ethically. 5. All of this is true regardless of the governance structure or ally/enemy relationship of the country, but it should be obviously true, in triplicate, for a nation ran by religious extremists, who has a history of funding terrorist groups who attack our ships and allies, spanning decades, who tramples on the human rights of women and minorities in their country... to be frank, we have launched full-scale invasions of countries far better. If Iran wants a shred of my pity, their leadership could start by making any effort to join the 21st century in any way except weapons development. But, they don't. Why anyone defends them for any reason is so far beyond my understanding that I'm convinced half the people in these comments are russian disinfo bots.