4 ms·
Safe 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.
by fwip 8mo ago
Safe 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.
- fwip 8mo agoNo, they would be allowed to resume working on a nuclear weapon program, if a further treaty was not reached.
- queenkjuul 8mo agoWell now you're not making any sense. Is your claim that the deal was not preventing Iran from developing a nuke? Then why does the existence of the agreement matter either way? Are you saying Iran would magically produce a nuke the very day the deal expired? Then why don't they have one today? How does ending the agreement make it harder for Iran to get a nuke? How does "tearing it up" prevent anything that the agreement itself wasn't preventing?
- Planktonne 8mo agoIf it's moral to strike at a country with nuclear capability that talks constantly about your country's destruction, then it's no less acceptable for Iran to strike the US than the other way around. You can't condemn one and condone the other on that basis.
- dotancohen 8mo agoYou are 100% correct. That is exactly my point. Iran has both reason and were developing capability to destroy a significant part of American national security. America absolutely must prevent that at any cost. You could argue about how the rhetoric between the states got so bad that they each threatened each other's destruction. But the fact is that they got there.
- curt15 8mo agoNorth Korea engages in no less saber-rattling. Why is the US not attacking Kim Jong Un?
- dotancohen 8mo agoI'm not familiar enough with Korean culture to know if suicide-for-ideology is culturally acceptable and expected. In Islamic ideology that is the highest honour.
- komali2 8mo agoAh, so in the end, your reasoning for attacking Iran is racism. That is very boring, caveman logic.
- dotancohen 8mo agoNo, my reasoning is culture. I do not live in the United States, I don't base my worldview on race. There exists a culture for which it is an honour to kill Jews. Pretending that this culture does not exist is racism. Disregarding the differences in values of other cultures is the most disgusting form of racism - pretending that one's own culture is dominant or universal.
- komali2 8mo agoTreating culture as uniformly distributed and absolute is racism. Your racism is blinding you to truths, leading you to illogical conclusions like the idea that it's possible to make an accurate assessment of military threat based on "culture." Hence why I called it caveman logic - you're literally defining your level of fear of another group of humans based on how different you (erroneously) perceive them to be. You seem quite concerned with the plight of the Palestinians so I'll use that as an example: Jewish people experienced the worst, most widescale crime against humans ever committed, and then a few decades later, a subset of Jewish people turned around and began doing the same (at a smaller, less industrialized scale). This demonstrates the perfect universality and programmability of a human, which includes "human culture." Any human culture can be molded to justify any existent human action. To pretend otherwise is to engage in ethnocentrism - what you accused me off, the presumption that there's something special about your culture that prevents atrocities happening under it. The second that makes your argument racist rather than logical (if you refuse to budge on the word "racist," swap in "prejudice" - the fallacies are the same either way) is the homogeneous angle you're applying. This should be an obviously fallacious statement: "Christianity is a violent culture that supports violence against Jewish people, discrimination against gay people, and school shootings." Why is it fallacious, though? I know lots of christians that have done all of the above, proudly tying it back to their religion. You see my point, right? You would, presumably, never walk into a room of white people and assume they all share identical values - do it in America, half probably are tearing their hair out in frustration at the values of the other half. Yet you do it to Islam / Arabs / Muslims, because, frankly, you are racist against Muslim people. An argument that depends on making a blanket statement about a group of people fails for many reasons: categorization (how do you accurately and scientifically select who falls into this grouping and who doesn't?), resolution (how do you account for outliers within this grouping, and how do you determine who might be an outlier?), absolutism (how do you account for the fact that people change?), and due to above, how could you justify making any decisions based on a prejudiced framing? Racist arguments are completely dependant on fallacy. With a rigid application of rational reasoning, they fall apart. They're illogical.
- curt15 8mo agoIran with nukes can't hold a candle to the threat posed by the USSR. Your logic would have turned the Cold War into a shooting war.
- gzread 8mo agoWhat about Red Scare interests? Venezuela traded with Cuba.
- 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.