• 5 Posts
  • 2.6K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 23rd, 2023

help-circle




  • Well the destruction of Israel would be a net positive, and forcing the world to have less oil is also good for humanity. Is this the optimal outcome for humanity as a whole? No. But assuming the Mad King executes his plan to attack Iran, if the outcome described by the article comes true it’s a net-good. Also consider that Trump will not do anything that is good intentionally, so we just have to look at the silver-lining, and if the destruction of Israel is part of that silver-lining then it’s the best case scenario and unintentionally the best thing Trump has ever done.


  • World war? Nah, no one gives a shit about Iran.

    Hundreds or Thousands in the middle east dead? Just another Monday. The only difference is where these hundreds or thousands are being killed. Today it’s Gaza, if it’s Iran nothing really changes. Destruction of Tel Aviv/Israel would certainly be exceptional, but the world would drastically improve in literally all ways if Israel were destroyed and the US were humbled.

    Of course since I am not the President of the United States I have zero influence in what the mad king does, but the framing of the article doesn’t present much downside, and more importantly isn’t convincing for why the US shouldn’t be attacking Iran.

    Even the framing of the article is presumptuous. “Iran is more prepared then any previous adversary.” More prepared then 1990’s Iraq? The 4th most powerful Army in history being bent over in less than a week? Seriously? That’s a pretty bold claim, and the article fails to support it. In 2003 when Bush and Cheney and Company decided to revisit Iraq, it was only a disaster for the Iraqi people.
    https://dcas.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/app/conflictCasualties/oef/byCategory Believe it or not, if that is the toll of causalities, that is more then acceptable for literally everyone who wants war with Iran and the consequences for the Iranian government and people would be much, MUCH worse.

    If you are against US action in Iran, which you should be, this article isn’t compelling. The litany of losses that the article claims is only if you don’t understand the true purpose of the US foreign policy since the 50’s. The people benefiting from Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, Iraq 1 and 2, emerged enormously wealthy. The presidents in-charge of those initial wars were all reelected. The contemporary Secretary of States all become respected elder statesmen, were board members of NGO’s, lived the rest of their lives in luxury and deference from the existing world-order. A United States “loss” is meaningless. The objective was never subjugation of the enemy nation. And most importantly the US as a country hasn’t lost anything.

    Until Trump, the US was still arguably top of the world. While cracks are becoming apparent, there is still a lot of wealth to be extracted, a lot of grifters that will get paid and most importantly a lot of real projected power that will cause huge amounts of casualties and suffering to whatever nation “the eye of sauron” decides to target. There are litany of reasons to be against the US invading Iran, but Iran isn’t a factor in them.





  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.mltoSelf-Aware Wolves@lemmy.mlmantra
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Hell even if climate change wasn’t a huge exasperating issue, ending capitalism would still be a good thing to do.

    Ending homelessness = Ending Capitalism
    Ending World Hunger = Ending Capitalism
    Ending Arms proliferation = Ending Capitalism
    So many knock-on benefits to ending Capitalism.