6 ms·

I don't know which country you're from, but in most countries, "our troops may get bombed if we join this war" is a very strong public argument against joining

by yongjik 7mo ago

I don't know which country you're from, but in most countries, "our troops may get bombed if we join this war" is a very strong public argument against joining the war. Just look at Trump's latest attempt to enlist his "allies" into sending warships to the Strait of Hormuz, and what a resounding success it was.

DoctorOetker 7mo ago
[flagged]
- yongjik 7mo ago
  So you are embarrassed that your leaders don't want their soldiers to die in a war started by another country without providing any semblance of justification? ...I'm just glad that European politicians take their soldiers' lives more seriously than the court of public opinions. Well, at least some of them. That's the mark of being an adult.
  - DoctorOetker 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - beedeebeedee 7mo ago
      > I think many in the Pentagon are relieved that they were finally able to convince a president of what needed to be done a long time before Like your other comments, this is abjectly false. Our generals and admirals specifically warned against going to war with Iran.
      - DoctorOetker 7mo ago
        I am willing to hear you out on this, but the Pentagon employs a lot of personnel, can you demonstrate that the sentiment you describe was actually representative? Clearly those who do believe in this intervention don't have the same incentive to speak up as those that disagree with it. It is also rather vague to conflate warnings with disagreement: They can believe in the validity of an approach but still have the legal obligation to not just inform the president of the values and benefits of such a mission, but also warn him of any potential negative outcomes. Warning someone about a path of action, is not equivalent to disagreeing with that path of action, it can be their job description to provide such warnings. That said, I would like to read more about what you are referring to, to make sure we are talking about the same things.
        beedeebeedee 7mo ago
        Google is your friend To get you started: https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington/youre-gonna-have-a-fucking-war-mark-milleys-fight-to-stop-trump-from-striking-iran https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington... https://www.axios.com/2026/02/23/iran-strike-trump-gen-dan-caine-vance-rubio https://www.axios.com/2026/02/23/iran-strike-trump-gen-dan-c...
        DoctorOetker 7mo ago
        From your own source: > Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine has been advising President Trump and top officials that a military campaign against Iran could carry significant risks, in particular the possibility of becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict, according to two sources with knowledge of those internal discussions. "that a military campaign against Iran could carry significant risks, " specifically "could carry" Sounds like people doing their job, and informing a president of potential outcomes, precisely what I predicted above. The media always makes things seem more adversarial than what it turns out to be.
        beedeebeedee 7mo ago
        Your comments make it clear that you are a propagandist and maybe even a bot. I assume that you can comprehend English, but are choosing to be obtuse. If that is not the case, and you still cannot understand the warnings, ask Claude or some other AI to help you.
        DoctorOetker 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        donkeybeer 7mo ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47471826 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47471826 Iran doesn't have nukes and had agreed to never build any, they fully complied with all audits. You seem extremely confused, its really strange why you aren't demanding completely bombing and destroying the actual nukes in the only Middle Eastern country that has illegal nukes.
    - urikaduri 7mo ago
      Hah, I'm so used to thinking about these missiles as conventional that I forgot it actually means Iran was building the capability to nuke Europe. Or more accurately - to deter Europe with nukes while they export terrorism globally.
      - donkeybeer 7mo ago
        The only Middle Eastern country that has illegal nukes and doesn't deny the theories that they would nuke the whole world, including innocent countries when they felt "threatened" and they feel threatened by anything and everything, is not Iran.
        urikaduri 7mo ago
        I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't really believe the nonsesne you are writing, and just trolling.
        donkeybeer 7mo ago
        Which part do you think is wrong? Do you believe Israel doesn't have illegal nukes? Or are you thinking Israel hasn't yet clarified or denied the extreme version of the so called Samson policy?
        donkeybeer 7mo ago
        It's not just about Iran, there are videos of some Israeli people bragging about how they throw rocks and fire grenades and rockets at Palestinian settlements, its quite clear that some people including elements of government and military have become quite deranged, which is all the more concerning given their lack of comment clarifying they don't believe in Samson option. Obviously if it was a question like "Do you think Jews control the world and own all the banks?" would be ridiculous question unworthy of an answer, but asking if the Samson option is real or false is a perfectly reasonable question especially given Israeli elements like Pollard are claiming that more extreme version of the option as true. The modern Israeli government has a policy of declaring anything and everything antisemitic, and obviously, the next step after "knowing" something is sufficiently anti semitic is some kind of military action as evidenced by the events of past few years. Iran has always obliged with inspections of its nuclear program. It has never built any nukes. It had agreed to stop refining nuclear materials in negotiations, and then America and Israel backstabbed it and attacked Iran during the negotiations, to also speak nothing of the various times Israeli military action killed negotiators in progress. In light of all this, it is now upon you to tell me which is false and which is "trolling".
- beedeebeedee 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - DoctorOetker 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - beedeebeedee 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      - DoctorOetker 7mo ago
        > Wow, it is clear that you are trolling and acting as a propagandist. Asking a question about how Mahsa Amini died is not trolling or propaganda, its not even a statement, but a question. > You do know that you can be against violence, hatred and bigotry in general, and not just that of your ‘enemies’, right? I know that, but can you please answer the question, it is you who brought up the matter of critical thinkink skills after all.
        beedeebeedee 7mo ago
        > I know that Do you? Your whataboutism and dismissing concerns about this war as being butthurt is the dumbest and most morally bankrupt response anyone can make. I absolutely condemn the Iranian regime for what they have done, but that in no way excuses what the Israeli and US regimes have done. This was an unnecessary, unprovoked, world-destabilizing and ultimately counterproductive war. Please stop
        DoctorOetker 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        donkeybeer 7mo ago
- phs318u 7mo ago
  Maintaining peace is not the same as restoring peace. Perhaps the American executive should have extrapolated the consequences of their actions using a model of the real world and not the fever dream they seem to be in. I am all for the Europeans standing their ground and not letting themselves get dragged into a conflagration not of their desiring nor of their making. Trump and co are finding out that FAFO goes both ways. Much to the cost of all of us, Americans, Iranians, Europeans and the rest of us.
  - DoctorOetker 7mo ago
    When the Nazi regime proliferated, do you think the allies considered it of their own desire or their own making? Should they have prevented themselves from getting dragged into WW2? Or was it good they allowed themselves to get dragged into WW2 and disarm the Nazi regime? Suppose the Allies just moved away and made "lebensraum" for the Nazi regime, would you have called it "standing their ground and not letting themselves get dragged into a conflagration not of their desiring nor of their making" ?? I think most people would understand a different course of action when reading "standing ground"... Of course there are costs that come with peace, and if we postpone those costs for too long, the average expenditure can rise compared to timely intervention.
    - donkeybeer 7mo ago
      WW2 had a clear bad side. This conflict doesn't have any clear good or bad sides. The only expansionist party in any case in this conflict is Israel.
      - DoctorOetker 7mo ago
        I'm explaining why a European holds this position, Iran approaching nuclear weapons capability, approaching ICBM launch capability, approaching re-entry vehicle capability is the "lebensraum" we shouldn't tolerate. Watching from the sidelines disapprovingly, while benefiting in this sense from the US/Israeli mission objectives, and even being "willing to go as far as" effectively posing in a security theater role (since a single shot fired would imply abortion of the mission), wasting tax payer money on symbolic gestures, is what I protested. But it matters little now, European countries are starting to turn around and think a little deeper than the b-hurt mentioned earlier.
- donkeybeer 7mo ago
  Why would wanting to die for a war caused by America and Israel be a "show of strength", that'd instead be a show of being fucking chumps esp after America continually insulted and threatened them. I do think Europe has a potential good role they can commit, and that would be in solving the major nuclear threat in the Middle East: to make public and decommission or transfer in safe keeping all the illegal nukes Israel has.

by yongjik 7mo ago

DoctorOetker 7mo ago

[flagged]

yongjik 7mo ago
So you are embarrassed that your leaders don't want their soldiers to die in a war started by another country without providing any semblance of justification? ...I'm just glad that European politicians take their soldiers' lives more seriously than the court of public opinions. Well, at least some of them. That's the mark of being an adult.
- DoctorOetker 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - beedeebeedee 7mo ago
    > I think many in the Pentagon are relieved that they were finally able to convince a president of what needed to be done a long time before Like your other comments, this is abjectly false. Our generals and admirals specifically warned against going to war with Iran.
    - DoctorOetker 7mo ago
      I am willing to hear you out on this, but the Pentagon employs a lot of personnel, can you demonstrate that the sentiment you describe was actually representative? Clearly those who do believe in this intervention don't have the same incentive to speak up as those that disagree with it. It is also rather vague to conflate warnings with disagreement: They can believe in the validity of an approach but still have the legal obligation to not just inform the president of the values and benefits of such a mission, but also warn him of any potential negative outcomes. Warning someone about a path of action, is not equivalent to disagreeing with that path of action, it can be their job description to provide such warnings. That said, I would like to read more about what you are referring to, to make sure we are talking about the same things.
      - beedeebeedee 7mo ago
        Google is your friend To get you started: https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington/youre-gonna-have-a-fucking-war-mark-milleys-fight-to-stop-trump-from-striking-iran https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington... https://www.axios.com/2026/02/23/iran-strike-trump-gen-dan-caine-vance-rubio https://www.axios.com/2026/02/23/iran-strike-trump-gen-dan-c...
        DoctorOetker 7mo ago
        From your own source: > Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine has been advising President Trump and top officials that a military campaign against Iran could carry significant risks, in particular the possibility of becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict, according to two sources with knowledge of those internal discussions. "that a military campaign against Iran could carry significant risks, " specifically "could carry" Sounds like people doing their job, and informing a president of potential outcomes, precisely what I predicted above. The media always makes things seem more adversarial than what it turns out to be.
        beedeebeedee 7mo ago
        Your comments make it clear that you are a propagandist and maybe even a bot. I assume that you can comprehend English, but are choosing to be obtuse. If that is not the case, and you still cannot understand the warnings, ask Claude or some other AI to help you.
        DoctorOetker 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        donkeybeer 7mo ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47471826 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47471826 Iran doesn't have nukes and had agreed to never build any, they fully complied with all audits. You seem extremely confused, its really strange why you aren't demanding completely bombing and destroying the actual nukes in the only Middle Eastern country that has illegal nukes.
  - urikaduri 7mo ago
    Hah, I'm so used to thinking about these missiles as conventional that I forgot it actually means Iran was building the capability to nuke Europe. Or more accurately - to deter Europe with nukes while they export terrorism globally.
    - donkeybeer 7mo ago
      The only Middle Eastern country that has illegal nukes and doesn't deny the theories that they would nuke the whole world, including innocent countries when they felt "threatened" and they feel threatened by anything and everything, is not Iran.
      - urikaduri 7mo ago
        I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't really believe the nonsesne you are writing, and just trolling.
        donkeybeer 7mo ago
        Which part do you think is wrong? Do you believe Israel doesn't have illegal nukes? Or are you thinking Israel hasn't yet clarified or denied the extreme version of the so called Samson policy?
        donkeybeer 7mo ago
        It's not just about Iran, there are videos of some Israeli people bragging about how they throw rocks and fire grenades and rockets at Palestinian settlements, its quite clear that some people including elements of government and military have become quite deranged, which is all the more concerning given their lack of comment clarifying they don't believe in Samson option. Obviously if it was a question like "Do you think Jews control the world and own all the banks?" would be ridiculous question unworthy of an answer, but asking if the Samson option is real or false is a perfectly reasonable question especially given Israeli elements like Pollard are claiming that more extreme version of the option as true. The modern Israeli government has a policy of declaring anything and everything antisemitic, and obviously, the next step after "knowing" something is sufficiently anti semitic is some kind of military action as evidenced by the events of past few years. Iran has always obliged with inspections of its nuclear program. It has never built any nukes. It had agreed to stop refining nuclear materials in negotiations, and then America and Israel backstabbed it and attacked Iran during the negotiations, to also speak nothing of the various times Israeli military action killed negotiators in progress. In light of all this, it is now upon you to tell me which is false and which is "trolling".
beedeebeedee 7mo ago
[flagged]
- DoctorOetker 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - beedeebeedee 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - DoctorOetker 7mo ago
      > Wow, it is clear that you are trolling and acting as a propagandist. Asking a question about how Mahsa Amini died is not trolling or propaganda, its not even a statement, but a question. > You do know that you can be against violence, hatred and bigotry in general, and not just that of your ‘enemies’, right? I know that, but can you please answer the question, it is you who brought up the matter of critical thinkink skills after all.
      - beedeebeedee 7mo ago
        > I know that Do you? Your whataboutism and dismissing concerns about this war as being butthurt is the dumbest and most morally bankrupt response anyone can make. I absolutely condemn the Iranian regime for what they have done, but that in no way excuses what the Israeli and US regimes have done. This was an unnecessary, unprovoked, world-destabilizing and ultimately counterproductive war. Please stop
        DoctorOetker 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        donkeybeer 7mo ago
phs318u 7mo ago
Maintaining peace is not the same as restoring peace. Perhaps the American executive should have extrapolated the consequences of their actions using a model of the real world and not the fever dream they seem to be in. I am all for the Europeans standing their ground and not letting themselves get dragged into a conflagration not of their desiring nor of their making. Trump and co are finding out that FAFO goes both ways. Much to the cost of all of us, Americans, Iranians, Europeans and the rest of us.
- DoctorOetker 7mo ago
  When the Nazi regime proliferated, do you think the allies considered it of their own desire or their own making? Should they have prevented themselves from getting dragged into WW2? Or was it good they allowed themselves to get dragged into WW2 and disarm the Nazi regime? Suppose the Allies just moved away and made "lebensraum" for the Nazi regime, would you have called it "standing their ground and not letting themselves get dragged into a conflagration not of their desiring nor of their making" ?? I think most people would understand a different course of action when reading "standing ground"... Of course there are costs that come with peace, and if we postpone those costs for too long, the average expenditure can rise compared to timely intervention.
  - donkeybeer 7mo ago
    WW2 had a clear bad side. This conflict doesn't have any clear good or bad sides. The only expansionist party in any case in this conflict is Israel.
    - DoctorOetker 7mo ago
      I'm explaining why a European holds this position, Iran approaching nuclear weapons capability, approaching ICBM launch capability, approaching re-entry vehicle capability is the "lebensraum" we shouldn't tolerate. Watching from the sidelines disapprovingly, while benefiting in this sense from the US/Israeli mission objectives, and even being "willing to go as far as" effectively posing in a security theater role (since a single shot fired would imply abortion of the mission), wasting tax payer money on symbolic gestures, is what I protested. But it matters little now, European countries are starting to turn around and think a little deeper than the b-hurt mentioned earlier.
donkeybeer 7mo ago
Why would wanting to die for a war caused by America and Israel be a "show of strength", that'd instead be a show of being fucking chumps esp after America continually insulted and threatened them. I do think Europe has a potential good role they can commit, and that would be in solving the major nuclear threat in the Middle East: to make public and decommission or transfer in safe keeping all the illegal nukes Israel has.