211–220 of 565 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Indeed, why would I focus on the guy who started this very war under discussion and multiple other wars over the past year, has openly threatened nuclear attacks, and controls the largest military in world history. The guy who continually posts the US flag over sovereign, notably non-US countries. Must just be TDS, right? I mean, guy hasn't nuked a city yet so what's the big deal right?
What a bizarre statement. And the truth is that the US has been terroristic for decades, assassinating and murdering with impunity, stomping on sovereignty endlessly, with zero intentional law or moral justification on its side. Trump is kind of the ultimate outcome of that sort of behaviour, only he's too stupid to do the normal justification games. It's Americanism in its raw, most grotesque form.
"You completely lose me when you pin proliferation on the US."
The world had a general detente and a rules-based international order, and the only thing that has changed is the position of the US. Now Poland wants nukes. Japan wants nukes. I will not be remotely surprised if Germany, Japan, South Korea or any other nation one day pops up as a new nuclear power. I mean, Canada sure as shit should secretly get nukes, for obvious reasons.
If North Korea sold warheads to Iran, honestly, who would blame them? It's actually comically funny that while attacking Iran for their purported nuclear program, Trump is simultaneously offering a nuclear program to 9/11 Saudi Arabia.
"Even if I were to entertain the Wonderland of the US invading Canada or Greenland"
Wonderland? A number of high ranking US representatives have openly stated such desires. The country is such a lawless immoral idiocracy now that absolutely nothing is off the table.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even Biden and Bush got too involved in the region. There's really not much for us to gain there, because it's not for us. Biden is still #1 on this list https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary?cycle=All&ind...
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ground troops have to invade Iran. Trump can't do that now because of upcoming midterm elections. After the elections, if there is no other way then Trump has to send ground troops in.
Forget Iraq, forget Afghanistan... because This Time It's Different and of course ground troops _have_ to invade Iraq, Saddam has WMD's. And it will finally bring stability to the region. And they _have_ to invade Afghanistan, there is no way to take out bin Laden otherwise. And it will finally bring stability to the region. Casualties will be minimal because the oppressed natives will welcome us as liberators and ou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The Iranian regime killed in a matter of days approximately the same amount of civilians as the IDF killed in Gaza over the course of their entire operation. That’s just the tally from this year, they are also responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths across Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Ukraine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, Iran has a "responsibility" to defend itself. And America's decision to slaughter Iranian schoolchildren was completely optional. It happened only because Israel convinced Trump that there was an easy win available. Americans should be grateful that Iran has shown great restraint in their response.
Iran hasn't shown restraint, their military is just not very capable. But I 100% don't think it was a good idea to attack Iran https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49037704
Earlier quoted context omitted.
installing a brutal puppet dictator to torture and murder civilians counts as what exactly? and protecting them from being tried criminally after theyve been deposed? the US continues to blow up civilian infrastructure, and those WMDs that sadam was supposed to have were american made, for the purposes of using on iranian civilians.
The US didn’t install the shah to torture and murder civilians. It was shahs choice to do so. To blow up civilian target is a choice. I know nuance is unpopular nowadays but I do see a difference between bad decisions with unintended consequences and bad decisions with intended terrible results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who, if anyone, is Iran allowed to retaliate against? The US started this. Amazon is an American company with many governmental and military contracts. Why would it not be a valid target? How many Iranian hospitals, schools, bridges, data centers, etc have been destroyed?
> Who, if anyone, is Iran allowed to retaliate against? The answer here is surrender and disarmament. It's the only outcome that seems compatible with the reintegration of Iran into the world economy, normalization of diplomatic relationships with neighboring countries, and path to development/prosperity for its people.