5 ms·
I think it's the opposite. The human cost of war is part of what keeps the USA from getting into wars more than it already is - no politician wants a second Vie
by fwip 8mo ago
I think it's the opposite. The human cost of war is part of what keeps the USA from getting into wars more than it already is - no politician wants a second Vietnam.
If war is safe to wage, then it just means we'll do it more and kill more people around the globe.
- Fricken 8mo agoThe troops were told they're headed for Armageddon this go round
- XorNot 8mo agoAnd that is entirely the fault of American voters. The government is doing exactly what they said they would.
- malfist 8mo agoSafe for whom?
- fwip 8mo agoSafe for the aggressors, I mean. If war is easy and cheap for us to wage, we will do more of it, and likely make the world a worse place.
- dotancohen 8mo agoYour post reads as if you would rather those aggressors who threaten America to not be disposed of. How is the world a better place with the aggressors than without?
- komali2 8mo agoWe're talking about Americans. What genuine threat did Venezuela or Iran pose to Americans? Corporate interests don't count.
- dotancohen 8mo agoDo you not perceive a threat from a country with nuclear capability that chants "Death to America, Death to Israel" to be a threat to America? Venezuela I don't know about, but Iran was (is) most certainly a threat to America.
- queenkjuul 8mo agoIran has no nuclear weapons and no weapons capable of striking the US
- dotancohen 8mo agoIran has a strong nuclear weapon development program. Negotiations could not halt it - they stall negotiations and continue development. So if they continue development during negotiations, why shouldn't the US continue her own parallel military route? As for delivery, Iran does have missiles capable of launching a nuclear weapon at American assets in the Middle East, or American allies. Or even to just float it over on a ship.
- queenkjuul 8mo agoNegotiations did halt it. Then Trump went back on the deal. There's reports Iran agreed to limit themselves to only medical grade centrifuges as recently as last week. And no, Iran does not have weapons capability to reach the US, period. They fundamentally did not pose an imminent threat to the United States. A threat to American strategic goals is not an imminent threat to the American people.
- dotancohen 8mo agoNegotiations halted Iran's nuclear program for, as per words of the treaty, "10 to 15 years". That was in 2016. If that treaty were not torn up, then Iran would be allowed to unveil their nuclear weapon in January 16, 2026. Yes, two months ago.
- the_af 8mo agoNone of the recently attacked countries posed an imminent threat to the US. In what kind of deranged world are we living that people are fighting against the notion that waging war on another country should be a costly decision!? My, the Overton window has indeed shifted far.
- dotancohen 8mo ago[flagged]
- adrian_b 8mo agoTrump has already claimed that he has destroyed all nuclear capability of Iran at the previous attack done by USA against Iran. Claiming now that this other attack has the same purpose makes certain that USA has lied either at the previous attack or at the current attack. When the government of a country is a proven liar, no allegations about how dangerous another country is are credible. Moreover, just before the attack, during the negotiations between USA and Iran it was said that Iran accepted most of the new American requests regarding their nuclear capabilities, which had the goal to prevent them from making any weapons, but their willingness to make concessions did not help them at all to avoid a surprise attack before the end of the negotiations.
- dotancohen 8mo ago[flagged]
- the_af 8mo agoThat's cherry-picking. The Iranians said things, Trump said some other things, and your comment chooses to selectively believe some things the Iranians said (that their nuclear program wasn't entirely dismantled, in contradiction to Trump's claims) but not others (that they weren't pursuing nuclear weapons and the late Khamenei considered them immoral). It's now believed Israel was planning to kill Khamenei regardless of any nuclear talks, and forced the hand of the US. Iran wasn't a threat to the US.
- fwip 8mo agoYes, I don't believe we should pre-emptively "dispose of" them, as if we were talking about garbage instead of human beings.
- malfist 8mo agoChina threatens us, Russia threatens us, should we bombing them? Canada is threatened by us, demark, Spain, mexico, Cuba have all been threatened by us, should they be bombing us? Your philosophy would see the whole world at war.