This is not exactly a nuanced view of the conflict, and in either case, the fact that you don't like that someone on the other side of the world is chanting death to America doesn't give you a bonus card for a free attack.
Seriously, it's like people, when deciding whether to launch a war or not, are not thinking "how will the other side react and will this conflict benefit me" but instead they are only thinking "does this nation deserve to get hit".
Well, news flash, your moral outrage does not translate into you not suffering more than your opponent during a conflict. It's a completely separate issue, and a personal issue between you and your priest or rabbi. When it comes to starting wars, you have to look at military capabilities and long term outcomes, not "does this nation deserve to be attacked".
This is not exactly a nuanced view either and claiming that someone needs to discuss a personal issue with their clergy doesn't reduce the temperature or elevate the discourse.
This was not "a free attack". The goal was and is preventing the world's leading terror organization from acquiring nuclear weapons, especially when they already have the missiles to carry them. It's just a bad situation and the decisions are difficult. Even now, the IRGC continues attacking their erstwhile allies. Those would likely be nukes if they'd had them.
> This is the first administration in a long time with the cohones to do something about it.
Containment worked WAY WAY better than "doing something about it" and surrendering the strait to them. They "solved it" by aerosolizing asbestos everywhere and still have no cleanup plan. Sometimes containment works much better, which is why intelligent foreign policy worked the problem from that angle.
Wasn't victory declared 1 year ago and also a number of months ago?
> Containment worked WAY WAY better than "doing something about it" and surrendering the strait to them.
We haven't surrendered anything to them. It's an open secret that the U.S. has been moving oil out of the Strait all along. Of course, all the IRGC does is attack civilian ships because it is unable to do anything against the U.S. Navy, and knows it would face immense pain if it directly attacked American military vessels. Last time the IRGC tried, it lost half a dozen oil tankers that were sitting ducks in the Strait. The only language these people understand is violence. An MoU was signed this summer, but the IRGC had a point to make and resumed attacks shortly after.
And containment hasn't worked well at all. Iran has been building underground facilities for more than two decades. It is very clear that they want to be a nuclear power, and we can't let that happen. The moment you grant Iran any kind of ceasefire or sanction relief, that money goes straight into funding weapons and terrorism.
Do you know why Iranians were chanting "Death To America"? Because we toppled their democratically elected government in 1953 and installed a brutal dictator so that we could continue to pillage their oil.(1) When the mullahs finally toppled that dictator in 1979 they had reason to be angry with us. This is especially true because almost immediately afterwards, in the 1980s, we used our proxy Saddam Hussein to launch a war against Iran, in which over a million Iranians were killed. During this time we provided Hussein with the means to make both chemical weapons and biological weapons (2), which Iraq used extensively against Iran. I suspect if another country did the same to us, we'd be chanting "Death to XYZ" too.
Perhaps. If we had just chanted slogans instead of launching an unprovoked surprise attack that killed hundreds of their leaders along with thousands of civilians it would be fair play.
This is not exactly a nuanced view of the conflict, and in either case, the fact that you don't like that someone on the other side of the world is chanting death to America doesn't give you a bonus card for a free attack.
Seriously, it's like people, when deciding whether to launch a war or not, are not thinking "how will the other side react and will this conflict benefit me" but instead they are only thinking "does this nation deserve to get hit".
Well, news flash, your moral outrage does not translate into you not suffering more than your opponent during a conflict. It's a completely separate issue, and a personal issue between you and your priest or rabbi. When it comes to starting wars, you have to look at military capabilities and long term outcomes, not "does this nation deserve to be attacked".
This is not exactly a nuanced view either and claiming that someone needs to discuss a personal issue with their clergy doesn't reduce the temperature or elevate the discourse.
This was not "a free attack". The goal was and is preventing the world's leading terror organization from acquiring nuclear weapons, especially when they already have the missiles to carry them. It's just a bad situation and the decisions are difficult. Even now, the IRGC continues attacking their erstwhile allies. Those would likely be nukes if they'd had them.
> You can't have a bunch of deranged mullahs threaten the entire region and world with missiles or nukes.
Can and do. It's called the United States of America.
> This is the first administration in a long time with the cohones to do something about it.
Containment worked WAY WAY better than "doing something about it" and surrendering the strait to them. They "solved it" by aerosolizing asbestos everywhere and still have no cleanup plan. Sometimes containment works much better, which is why intelligent foreign policy worked the problem from that angle.
Wasn't victory declared 1 year ago and also a number of months ago?
> Containment worked WAY WAY better than "doing something about it" and surrendering the strait to them.
We haven't surrendered anything to them. It's an open secret that the U.S. has been moving oil out of the Strait all along. Of course, all the IRGC does is attack civilian ships because it is unable to do anything against the U.S. Navy, and knows it would face immense pain if it directly attacked American military vessels. Last time the IRGC tried, it lost half a dozen oil tankers that were sitting ducks in the Strait. The only language these people understand is violence. An MoU was signed this summer, but the IRGC had a point to make and resumed attacks shortly after.
And containment hasn't worked well at all. Iran has been building underground facilities for more than two decades. It is very clear that they want to be a nuclear power, and we can't let that happen. The moment you grant Iran any kind of ceasefire or sanction relief, that money goes straight into funding weapons and terrorism.
I think you accidentally swapped "the U.S." and "Iran" in your comment.
You mean the same people who were told to keep the hostages until after Reagan got elected?
The same people who bought weapons sold by the Reagan administration to fund the Sandistas?
That’s some revisionist history you’ve got there.
Do you know why Iranians were chanting "Death To America"? Because we toppled their democratically elected government in 1953 and installed a brutal dictator so that we could continue to pillage their oil.(1) When the mullahs finally toppled that dictator in 1979 they had reason to be angry with us. This is especially true because almost immediately afterwards, in the 1980s, we used our proxy Saddam Hussein to launch a war against Iran, in which over a million Iranians were killed. During this time we provided Hussein with the means to make both chemical weapons and biological weapons (2), which Iraq used extensively against Iran. I suspect if another country did the same to us, we'd be chanting "Death to XYZ" too.
(1)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
(2)https://irp.fas.org/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html
We're chanting "Death to Iran" - isn't turnabout fair play?
Perhaps. If we had just chanted slogans instead of launching an unprovoked surprise attack that killed hundreds of their leaders along with thousands of civilians it would be fair play.