I actually prefer less dictatorial anti-western anti-human-rights regimes to have nukes.
Discussion
Well, nobody gives a fuck what you would like and I did not ask. Shill for the war machine elsewhere
Why not have a respectful dialogue? Maybe I’m right, maybe you’re right, maybe none of us. But I don’t think this behavior is productive. Good faith dialogue is our most productive strategy for improving ourselves and the world
Because I am sick and tired of people justifying war, making excuses for Israel and acting like Iran, who has never threatened the US, is somehow the problem. The US and Israel (aws well as a few from the EU) are the root of every single problem in the world today. Not Iran. Not China. Not Russia. Not Muslims. Not immigrants. But the nations who attack other nations without cause ie THE WEST.
Can you explain how the western societies and philosophy is somehow behind all of the problems in the world?
Nope. Go away
Why not? Aren’t you able to explain your position? Dialogue is how we further our knowledge here in the west.
Ok, maybe that the US has been in endless wars for decades, maybe because Israel just attacked Iran for no reason or that Israel has been committing genocide for almost two years straight, or maybe all the economic war being waged against everyone with the dollar as global reserve, or maybe centuries of western colonialism. Coups in South America. The coup in Ukraine in 2016. Shall I continue?
Oh yea, the 'covid' war was US made too.
You say Iran ‘never threatened the US’ - except for ‘Death to America’ being their official chant, funding proxy attacks, and developing nuclear weapons. But let’s look at who’s really oppressing people: Iran killed Mahsa Amini for showing her hair. Russia imprisons people for holding blank signs. China runs concentration camps for Uyghurs.
Meanwhile, refugees flee TO Europe and America, not to Tehran or Moscow. Dissidents seek asylum in London, not Beijing. And here you are, freely criticizing the West on a Western platform - something that would get you arrested in the very countries you’re defending. See the irony?
oh no, scary words. Obviously they must be attacked. Seriously, please leave me alone. I am sick of you fucking blood thirsty war mongerers.
You posted a political opinion publicly but can’t handle respectful counterpoints? This is exactly the difference - in the West, we value dialogue as a path to enlightenment. In Iran, Russia, or China, this conversation wouldn’t even be allowed. None of us have all the answers, which is why free societies encourage debate and humility. Maybe try using that freedom instead of shutting down when challenged?
I think that if human rights are your thing, Israel's probably off the list as well.
One has flaws. The other has public executions. If you think those are equivalent, you’ve lost the plot.
It's odd - I didn't say anything about equivalency and I'm not sure which particular plot you mean.
My point was that the Israeli government is violating human rights all over the place - "flaws" really doesn't cover it - so if that's your measure we probably shouldn't let them have nuclear capabilities.
The only appropriate response
It takes remarkable intellectual dwarfness to not understand that kill counts don’t determine morality (America killed more in WW2) and that fighting genocidal fanatics who embed among civilians while preserving democratic values is infinitely more complex than terrorism. Missing this basic asymmetry means you’re intellectually unequipped for this discussion.
You keep responding to arguments that I am not making. I never said anything about kill counts. Either you're arguing with someone else or you're in the habit of using straw men.
By almost any measure, what Israel is doing in Gaza (and has been doing in Gaza) is a violation of human rights.
That's all I'm saying.
And by your logic, that means they should not be allowed to have nuclear capabilities.
Fair enough - let’s explore this. What’s your framework for determining human rights violations in asymmetric warfare? I’m genuinely curious how you think any democracy should respond to terrorists who use human shields as strategy.
Framework: brutal and unnecessary killing of civilians (using bombs that will kill everyone in an apartment building - or hospital - instead of the focused strikes that they seem to be capable of; snipers targeting children).
I think we probably think of the asymmetry quite differently. I see an occupied territory with virtually no control over its resources: money, imports, exports, food, water, electricity. Asymmetry indeed.
Re using civilians as shields - I think you meant the Palestinians, but the use of civilians as shields by Israeli forces seemed to be a practice for entering buildings. IDF claims not to be doing it any more.
A democracy that has control over a population that has no say in its future or resources or pretty much anything - not sure that democracy is quite the word in this case.
Which is not to say that I think Israel's position is easy. It's not. I think it's in an almost impossible position - one that it has steadily made worse, especially recently, but still ...
What would you do in their shoes?
I've thought about this a lot and actually don't have any good answers, especially at this point. The things that I think might work at an individual level - mediation, compromise - are nearly impossible at the level of government (I think this is true for Palestinians as well, actually). I do think that some kind of peace - uneasy but stable - might have been possible at various points. The current administration in Israel seems as bloodthirsty and bent on genocide as they usually accuse Palestinians of being, and seem to not understand their role in the hatred they have inspired.
I think I agree with that perspective. At least to some extent. I don’t think the world genocide is suitable here, but it’s truly heartbreaking and sad. I hope the Israeli leaders have vision that will enable peace and harmony somehow. Don’t know if it’s plausible.
what about you?