3 ms·

The argument goes that, given the general disposition of Iran towards the US, its allies, and basically anyone who's not a Shiite Muslim, it wasn't a choice bet

by Ajedi32 5mo ago

The argument goes that, given the general disposition of Iran towards the US, its allies, and basically anyone who's not a Shiite Muslim, it wasn't a choice between war with Iran or no war with Iran. It was a choice between war with Iran now, or war with a stronger, possibly nuclear-armed Iran at some unspecified point in the future. Personally I disagree war was inevitable; time can change a lot of things and it doesn't seem like there was any imminent threat, but I also don't see why you would find it so hard to believe others might disagree with that assessment.

amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
Preemptives strikes against anybody who might be a threat sometime in the future seem like a really bad idea.
- Ajedi32 5mo ago
  Certainly "might be a threat" is way too uncertain to act on. But if they're actively threatening "death to [your country]", sponsoring terrorist attacks on their neighbors, regularly shooting ballistic missiles at your allies, and quietly working on nukes in the background? That's a different matter. Again, not saying I agree with a preemptive strike in this case, but it's pretty easy to understand why others might think it necessary even if the short-term economic consequences of that are unpleasant.
watwut 5mo ago
Regularly scheduled reminder that if nuclear was the worry, Iran was actually abiding to existing agreements. In the USA Iran history, USA is consistent agressor and agreements breaker. There was no imminent threat and per international law, that war is illegal. And even worst, situation where Iran does not have those anti-nuclear agreements was created by the very same people who started the war. And even worst, they shown themselves ao untrustworthy, that no one can trust their future promisses. The only rational expectation Iran can have is that USA lies in negotiations and dont keep word. And attacks at will regardless of whether Iran keeps word or negotiates. And note that it does not matter one bit that Iran has psychopatic goverment on its own right. Whatever irational paranoia they had was now validated.
- Ajedi32 5mo ago
  Regularly shooting ballistic missiles at allied nations isn't an imminent threat? And I don't see how "existing agreements" make a difference if those existing agreements allow them to build nukes. If Iran stopped building nukes and stopped threatening their neighbors the US would have no reason to intervene. (Other the usual reason of Iran's human rights abuses of course, but historically the US generally lets those slide as long as the country isn't threatening to impose those abuses on its neighbors.)

by Ajedi32 5mo ago

amanaplanacanal 5mo ago

Preemptives strikes against anybody who might be a threat sometime in the future seem like a really bad idea.

Ajedi32 5mo ago
Certainly "might be a threat" is way too uncertain to act on. But if they're actively threatening "death to [your country]", sponsoring terrorist attacks on their neighbors, regularly shooting ballistic missiles at your allies, and quietly working on nukes in the background? That's a different matter. Again, not saying I agree with a preemptive strike in this case, but it's pretty easy to understand why others might think it necessary even if the short-term economic consequences of that are unpleasant.

watwut 5mo ago

Regularly scheduled reminder that if nuclear was the worry, Iran was actually abiding to existing agreements. In the USA Iran history, USA is consistent agressor and agreements breaker. There was no imminent threat and per international law, that war is illegal. And even worst, situation where Iran does not have those anti-nuclear agreements was created by the very same people who started the war. And even worst, they shown themselves ao untrustworthy, that no one can trust their future promisses. The only rational expectation Iran can have is that USA lies in negotiations and dont keep word. And attacks at will regardless of whether Iran keeps word or negotiates. And note that it does not matter one bit that Iran has psychopatic goverment on its own right. Whatever irational paranoia they had was now validated.

Ajedi32 5mo ago
Regularly shooting ballistic missiles at allied nations isn't an imminent threat? And I don't see how "existing agreements" make a difference if those existing agreements allow them to build nukes. If Iran stopped building nukes and stopped threatening their neighbors the US would have no reason to intervene. (Other the usual reason of Iran's human rights abuses of course, but historically the US generally lets those slide as long as the country isn't threatening to impose those abuses on its neighbors.)