11–20 of 121 posts
An interesting perspective I see all over X and reddit is calling these people heroes, but only once the rescue happened. The more tame responses simply state that they are happy everyone was rescued and no military was harmed. Why? Those pilots were flying over Iran illegally, presumably to inflict fatal harm on whichever targets.
An interesting perspective I see all over X and reddit is calling these people heroes, but only once the rescue happened. The more tame responses simply state that they are happy everyone was rescued and no military was harmed. Why? Those pilots were flying over Iran illegally, presumably to inflict fatal harm on whichever targets.
Conversely I find it strange how many people seem to want US servicemen to come to harm because it would validate their political views.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's simple "us vs them". I see nothing wrong about it.
[flagged]
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/11/1186949348/us-cluster-munitio...
> and YOLO fires missiles at its neighbours
Perfidy in international waters? Double tap kill strikes on fishing boats?
So far, Pot meet Kettle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> a country that lobs cluster munitions https://www.npr.org/2023/07/11/1186949348/us-cluster-munitio... > and YOLO fires missiles at its neighbours Perfidy in international waters? Double tap kill strikes on fishing boats? So far, Pot meet Kettle.
An interesting perspective I see all over X and reddit is calling these people heroes, but only once the rescue happened. The more tame responses simply state that they are happy everyone was rescued and no military was harmed. Why? Those pilots were flying over Iran illegally, presumably to inflict fatal harm on whichever targets.
Conversely I find it strange how many people seem to want US servicemen to come to harm because it would validate their political views.
That's problematic here, because neither the US nor Iran are strangers to initiating violence. So a further refinement is necessary, based on a principle that I haven't had to fall back on very often: whoever initiates violence during negotiations is the bad guy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conversely I find it strange how many people seem to want US servicemen to come to harm because it would validate their political views.
My political views are pretty simplistic: whoever initiates violence is the bad guy. That's problematic here, because neither the US nor Iran are strangers to initiating violence. So a further refinement is necessary, based on a principle that I haven't had to fall back on very often: whoever initiates violence during negotiations is the bad guy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's simple "us vs them". I see nothing wrong about it.
[flagged]
The US, and the rest of the world, are still waiting to know the answer to the first. Why was this war on a whim needed now? What was so imminent that the ongoing negotiations could not have continued?
The second answer is a definitive no, it's never been except for that one time that ended of WW2 when no one else had nukes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conversely I find it strange how many people seem to want US servicemen to come to harm because it would validate their political views.
My political views are pretty simplistic: whoever initiates violence is the bad guy. That's problematic here, because neither the US nor Iran are strangers to initiating violence. So a further refinement is necessary, based on a principle that I haven't had to fall back on very often: whoever initiates violence during negotiations is the bad guy.