| |
| ▲ | the_af 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | None 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 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, it is prudent to destroy the nuclear capability of a country that chants "Death to America" before they become an imminent threat. Had the US waited until Iran were an eminent threat and then suffered a nuclear blast in one of her harbours, they would have nothing but "I told you so" to comfort them. Don't let your repulsion of war blind you to the fact that other cultures with different values don't have the same repulsion as you. | | |
| ▲ | sumeno 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Bombing schools will certainly teach them not to chant "Death to America" Can't imagine why they would be anti-American | |
| ▲ | 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | malfist 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Perhaps Trump shouldn't have ripped up the treaty Obama achieved with Iran. The one where we could pop in unannounced at any time to inspect facilities to make sure there's no nuclear bomb making capabilities. | | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | The 2016 treaty that Trump ripped up allowed for Iran to become nuclear capable in "10 to 15 years". Do you know when then means Iran can have a nuclear weapon? The only people who could claim that Obama's treaty had a positive effect were those who either see 10 years as an extraordinary long time and no longer their worry, or those who wish to see a serious threat to the American way of life. |
| |
| ▲ | adrian_b 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Trump 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 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Iranians claim that the previous attack did not completely eliminate their research efforts and that they are continuing on. Anyone who values the American way of life should most certainly ensure that Iran does not achieve nuclear capability. | | |
| ▲ | the_af 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | That'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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | cess11 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If iranian politics would have allowed nuclear weapons they'd have them already. They could also have accepted gifts from some of their more friendly international relations. Which it is well known that it hasn't been the case since the revolution, where the republic inherited the nuclear program the US pushed the king to pursue. The shia leaders consider such weapons immoral, and hence it seems like the main aim for the aggressors is to remove obstacles in Iran and rush them into getting nukes. It also has the side effect of increasing proliferation in Europe, with several states now moving towards extending or developing nuclear weapons. This rhetoric about them getting nukes is a deception, it's for people who know little to nothing about Iran that are constrained to a rather racist world view. The animosity towards Iran mainly has to do with them having tried to move away from a monarchical type of government towards a more democratic, unlike US and israeli allies in the region, who are mostly kingdoms and extremely autocratic. |
|
| |
| ▲ | komali2 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We're talking about Americans. What genuine threat did Venezuela or Iran pose to Americans? Corporate interests don't count. | | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Do 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. | | |
| ▲ | curt15 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Iran 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. | |
| ▲ | Peritract 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If 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 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | You 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 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | North Korea engages in no less saber-rattling. Why is the US not attacking Kim Jong Un? | | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'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. |
| |
| ▲ | queenkjuul 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Iran has no nuclear weapons and no weapons capable of striking the US | | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Iran 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 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Negotiations 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 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Negotiations 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, they would be allowed to resume working on a nuclear weapon program, if a further treaty was not reached. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | gzread 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What about Red Scare interests? Venezuela traded with Cuba. |
| |
| ▲ | fwip 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, I don't believe we should pre-emptively "dispose of" them, as if we were talking about garbage instead of human beings. |
|
