Israel’s defense minister warned Saturday that “Tehran will burn” if Iran continues firing missiles, as the two countries traded blows a day after Israel launched a blistering surprise attack on Iranian nuclear and military sites, killing several top generals.
Israel’s military said the strikes also killed nine senior scientists and experts involved in Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s U.N. ambassador said 78 people were killed and more than 320 wounded.
Iran retaliated by launching waves of drones and ballistic missiles at Israel, where explosions lit the night skies over Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and shook buildings. The Israeli military urged civilians, already rattled by 20 months of war in Gaza sparked by Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, to head to shelter for hours. Health officials said three people were killed and dozens wounded.
The USs actions in world war two are an odd thing to bring up in this context. It was a radically different set of circumstances, 80 years ago, and none of the people involved are alive anymore.
It’s entirely irrelevant.
May as well point out that the US was the driver for the creation of those watchdog groups and is a leading force in nuclear disarmament. It’s just as relevant to if Iran has a nuclear weapons program or Israels justification for attacking.
Iranian opposition to US strategic interests in the region giving the US a strong motivation to let anything that makes them weaker happen is a perfectly good thing to mention.
irrelevant? I’d say unnecessary and yet game changing.
What does that even mean? How is what a nation did generations ago relevant to two different nations in a totally different scenario?
do you not realize there are people still alive today who were when the US nuked two cities?
No, what I don’t understand is what relevance that has to this situation. The US using nukes on Japan 80 years ago doesn’t make Iran making nukes justified. It doesn’t validate Iran not having nukes. It neither strengthens nor weakens Israeli claims of an Iranian weapons program, and it doesn’t make a preemptive strike to purportedly disable them just or unjust.
It seems like you’re arguing that the US nuked Japan and therefore Iran, a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, is allowed to have nukes. Israel is falsely characterizing their civilian energy program, and we know this because of their backing by the US.
It’s just a non-sequitor, particularly when there’s relevant reasons why US involvement complicated matters. .
It is not that it makes them justified, you seem to think I support what the US did. No. I say that the US has no right to pretend to worry about and therefore control other nations when the US has a documented history of using them.
If anything, the world could be “within its rights” to “preemptively strike” the US!
“Look, I know I used meth and got thoroughly addicted and it completely ruined my life and it has taken years to get to a place where I’m able to have a semblance of a life, but I can’t tell anyone else not to use meth! That would be hypocritical of me, since I did! No, no one has any right to ever share what they’ve learned through experience.”
This is the hypothetical situation you’re arguing for.
also if an adult wants to do meth no other adult has a “right” to stop them.
The US is NOT the world police. Sheesh. get uncle sam’s boot out of your mouth.
Yeah. because that’s how the world works. Let me sum up my point like this:
US, Israel, UK - all genocidal colonialist projects who have nothing good for the world and should not exist as nations. And in the current “geist”.
The rest of the world - also genocidal colonist projects who should not exist as nations.
Yes, I understand what you’re saying, it’s not a complicated position.
Your position is that national reputation matters more than anything else. And most pointedly, the national reputation of your allies matters more than any other argument.
What I’m saying is, is that the actions the US, or any other nation, took before the people currently running things were even born have no bearing on current events. Nations aren’t people, and they don’t possess a national character that you can use to try to predict their behavior or judge them.
Would the world be justified in concluding that it’s only a matter of time before Germany does some more genocide? Before Japan unleashes atrocities across Asia?
If you’re getting down to it, the US can’t control other nations, beyond stick and carrot means. And the US has the same right to try to keep Iran from getting nukes as Iran does in trying to get them. Because again, nations aren’t people. They don’t have rights, they have capabilities.
And all of that’s irrelevant! Because the question is, is Israel justified in attacking Iran? The perception of hypocrisy in US foreign policy isn’t relevant to that question.
and re your last- exactly. Israel is the true problem here. The US backing it is another thread for sure. :)
deleted by creator