War, what is it good for?

[Jamiet99uk]

Western military interventions against Saddam and against Gaddafi managed to depose those leaders, but at the cost of tens of thousands of civilian casualties and the destruction of vast amounts of civilian infrastructure which might take decades to replace.

In my opinion, the dictatorships were better. I would always choose electricity and clean running water over being able to buy liberal newspapers, IF I COULD ONLY CHOOSE ONE OR THE OTHER.

This is an opportunity cost that Bush, Clinton, Biden, Trump, etc have never had to consider. Fuck them and stop for a fucking second to thing about the actual day-to-day experiences of the people whose countries you are blowing up, you selfish fucking cunts.

[Jamiet99uk]

Asking for a ceasefire in Gaza is not enough, just so we are clear. Not when there have been 77 years of occupation, ethnic cleansing, forced removal, murder and apartheid. And not when Israeli distortion is dependent on hiding the truth of this history.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Western military interventions against Saddam and against Gaddafi managed to depose those leaders, but at the cost of tens of thousands of civilian casualties and the destruction of vast amounts of civilian infrastructure which might take decades to replace.

In my opinion, the dictatorships were better. I would always choose electricity and clean running water over being able to buy liberal newspapers, IF I COULD ONLY CHOOSE ONE OR THE OTHER.

This is an opportunity cost that Bush, Clinton, Biden, Trump, etc have never had to consider. Fuck them and stop for a fucking second to thing about the actual day-to-day experiences of the people whose countries you are blowing up, you selfish fucking cunts.

The US-Iraq war was wrongheaded, in large part, because there were no WMDs. Had Iraq actually been mere weeks away from a nuclear weapon we would probably all feel differently about that conflict.

If Israel's case for the war was merely "Sharia law is bad" or "you can't be gay in Iran" then this conflict wouldn't make much sense at all. But no one is saying this, so I'm not sure why we're debating it.

This conflict is pretty clearly aimed at squashing an independently-verified nuclear threat. That could be done most expediently by destroying the nuclear infrastructure (the current approach). If that fails, the nuclear risk as perceived by Israel would also potentially be lowered by something like regime change (but that's a very uncertain approach).

That doesn't mean Israel is right to have preemptively started the war in the way it has, nor that it is justified in any action it takes just because there is a nuclear risk on the other side. There's still plenty of space for earnest disagreement about the very risky path Bibi has taken us down.

Echoing the "you don't understand how normies feel" critique you rightly put on Western leaders (and pressumably others in this convo), it is probably worth having at least a shred of strategic empathy in this case. You would certainly not tolerate very much nuclear risk against the UK if it were preventable, and you would not wish for the destruction of your own country even if you believed it had done something as evil as genocide (which in fact it has).

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Iran's evilness is not that it opposes liberal newspapers. Its proxy violence has ruined several countries and countless lives over the decades. It's almost funny to be calling Clinton and Israeli leaders war criminals without copping to Iran's own outrageous behaviour. I don't think we should go around just deposing anyone who acts badly, for the humanitarian reasons you rightly prioritized. But you shouldn't be shocked that many people won't just immediately view Iran as the good guy in this fight.

[Jamiet99uk]

The US-Iraq war was wrongheaded, in large part, because there were no WMDs. Had Iraq actually been mere weeks away from a nuclear weapon we would probably all feel differently about that conflict.

This is irrelevant because the UK / USA had no reasonable evidence that Iraq did have such weapons, and the war was not justified.

If Israel's case for the war was merely "Sharia law is bad" or "you can't be gay in Iran" then this conflict wouldn't make much sense at all. But no one is saying this, so I'm not sure why we're debating it.

We are not debating homosexuality, I think you are the first person to mention it in this thread, so I am not sure why you did.

This conflict is pretty clearly aimed at squashing an independently-verified nuclear threat. That could be done most expediently by destroying the nuclear infrastructure (the current approach). If that fails, the nuclear risk as perceived by Israel would also potentially be lowered by something like regime change (but that's a very uncertain approach).

That doesn't mean Israel is right to have preemptively started the war in the way it has, nor that it is justified in any action it takes just because there is a nuclear risk on the other side. There's still plenty of space for earnest disagreement about the very risky path Bibi has taken us down.

The conflict is 100% illegitimate. You need to look away from Israeli and US propaganda and admit that. If you can't, you aren't worth speaking to. Israel is an illegitimate aggressor with no legality behind its actions. Otherwise, why can't India nuke Pakistan? Why can't the UK nuke Paris? Why shouldn't Mexico invade Texas and California?

Israel has no fucking right to do any of this, and you absolutely know it!!

Echoing the "you don't understand how normies feel" critique you rightly put on Western leaders (and pressumably others in this convo), it is probably worth having at least a shred of strategic empathy in this case. You would certainly not tolerate very much nuclear risk against the UK if it were preventable, and you would not wish for the destruction of your own country even if you believed it had done something as evil as genocide (which in fact it has).

Allow me to repeat myself.

ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS SHOULD BE DISARMED.

NO COUNTRY WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS HAS ANY RIGHT TO PROTEST OTHER COUNTRIES HAVING THEM

MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION IS FUCKING STUPID.

I DO NOT WANT TO PAY A SINGLE PENNY IN TAXES TOWARDS NUCLEAR WEAPONS. GET THE FUCK RID OF EVERY SINGLE ONE.

[Jamiet99uk]

Iran's evilness is not that it opposes liberal newspapers. Its proxy violence has ruined several countries and countless lives over the decades. It's almost funny to be calling Clinton and Israeli leaders war criminals without copping to Iran's own outrageous behaviour. I don't think we should go around just deposing anyone who acts badly, for the humanitarian reasons you rightly prioritized. But you shouldn't be shocked that many people won't just immediately view Iran as the good guy in this fight.

Jesus fucking Christ what is wrong with you?

I am not cheering for Iran.

But am advocating for INTERNATIONAL LAW and for PEACE which you have totally apparently forgotten are even concepts to discuss.

[Jamiet99uk]

Trump and Netanyahu would be proud that you have lost your cognitive faculties and are able to spout such utter hogwash on their behalf. Shame on you.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Lol Jamie I get being against this but you have to cop to at least some of the facts at hand.

Iran *is* developing nukes. It threatens to nuke Israel all the time. Unlike all current nuclear powers, it can be stopped from doing so by either negotiation or military intervention.

If only one of India or Pakistan had nukes, the nuclear armed one would surely risk conflict in order to prevent the other from getting them. That time has passed and it's a risk the whole world has to live with.

Your desire for a nuclear free world does nothing to resolve the problems we currently face.

[Jamiet99uk]

Lol Jamie I get being against this but you have to cop to at least some of the facts at hand.

Iran *is* developing nukes. It threatens to nuke Israel all the time. Unlike all current nuclear powers, it can be stopped from doing so by either negotiation or military intervention.

Isn't Iran's stance based on Israel's constant aggression, since the 1940s?

Why shouldn't the focus be on preventing Israel from continuing to have nukes?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Lol Jamie I get being against this but you have to cop to at least some of the facts at hand.

Iran *is* developing nukes. It threatens to nuke Israel all the time. Unlike all current nuclear powers, it can be stopped from doing so by either negotiation or military intervention.

Isn't Iran's stance based on Israel's constant aggression, since the 1940s?

Why shouldn't the focus be on preventing Israel from continuing to have nukes?

You can't de-nuke a nuke-having government. The moral arguments here are beside the point.

[Jamiet99uk]

Lol Jamie I get being against this but you have to cop to at least some of the facts at hand.

Iran *is* developing nukes. It threatens to nuke Israel all the time. Unlike all current nuclear powers, it can be stopped from doing so by either negotiation or military intervention.

Isn't Iran's stance based on Israel's constant aggression, since the 1940s?

Why shouldn't the focus be on preventing Israel from continuing to have nukes?

You can't de-nuke a nuke-having government. The moral arguments here are beside the point.

But surely that argument incentivises Iran to complete its programme to develop viable nukes as soon as possible?

You see how stupid your position is?

[Jamiet99uk]

Esquire Bert:

"Everyone who fucks my mom is entitled to come over every weekend and fuck her again."

"If anyone lusts after my mom, I will kill them".

Nonsense.

[Jamiet99uk]

The argument that once a nation obtains nukes it has a moral right to do as it pleases, but any nation without nukes is forbidden from thinking about it, IS FUCKING STUPID.

[Jamiet99uk]

And if you don't care about the morality of the argument, I don't care what you have to fucking say.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Esquire Bert:

"Everyone who fucks my mom is entitled to come over every weekend and fuck her again."

"If anyone lusts after my mom, I will kill them".

Nonsense.

You're really grasping for any misunderstanding that lets you keep a childishly simple view of the conflict.

The analogy you made doesn't work in the slightest.

Go ahead and try to take Israel's nukes away lol. You need some other analogy that captures the irreversible nature of WMDs.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

If you want to have a shitfit about how the world is unfair I guess I'm just not interested in that convo. Yup, it'd be better if there were no nukes. Iran getting nukes it didn't have previously seems like a step in the wrong direction.

[Jamiet99uk]

You are arguing for the following concept of international rules of engagement:

1. If you've got nuclear weapons, everyone has to do exactly what you demand.
2. If you've got nuclear weapons, you can kill anyone else who thinks about getting them.
3. If you don't have nuclear weapons, we can kill you if we suspect you might want them.

Don't you see the moral problem?

[Jamiet99uk]

Go ahead and try to take Israel's nukes away lol. You need some other analogy that captures the irreversible nature of WMDs.

If I was UK Prime Minister that would be one of my main foreign policy goals.

I would also dismantle the UKs nukes as a matter of urgency.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

You are arguing for the following concept of international rules of engagement:

1. If you've got nuclear weapons, everyone has to do exactly what you demand.
2. If you've got nuclear weapons, you can kill anyone else who thinks about getting them.
3. If you don't have nuclear weapons, we can kill you if we suspect you might want them.

Don't you see the moral problem?

I agree on the moral problem. That's a big part of why it would be bad if Iran were to get the bomb.

[Jamiet99uk]

And to be clear, I would dismantle rhe UKs nukes irrespective of the stance of other countries, because reducing the amount of nuclear weapons on earth is to humanity's net benefit.

It's the same as unilaterally removing trade barriers if you believe in free trade...