They killed one our troops? Salt the Earth and burn their fucking huts to the ground.
I'm all for disproportionate responses to violence.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Biden's doing in 3 years what Trump couldn't do in 4: start a war with Iran that the military industrial complex has been salivating for
“Every message you see talks about the fear of escalation from the administration,” said a former senior military official who has closely followed developments in the region. “We have managed to deter ourselves here.”
The funny thing is that here Biden's clear and very reasonable desire not to start a war appears to be working against him. Iran is willing to antagonize the USA in order to gain regional influence because it knows that the USA is not looking for a fight, but of course it's not really possible to deliberately elect a leader who convincingly appears to be warlike without actually being so.
Another problem is that Iran may not actually have the ability to order its proxies to stop. The groups it supports appear to genuinely believe in their stated goals; Iran has organized, trained, and armed them in order to expand its influence but they're not actually fighting for Iran. It has some degree of control over them but they have the motivation and the means to keep fighting even if their support is cut off.
Yes and no. A policy of overwhelming force is more effective if your metric is a binary peace/no peace. However, when it fails, it fails catastrophically, and you find yourself in a war that you do not think was anywhere near worth starting.
Both the US and Iran are being very restrained at the moment, and no one wins if that changes to both sides going all out. In fact, from what I can tell, both sides are being dragged into this conflict against their will.
Plus, the US has other concerns. There is still a war going on in Ukraine, where, as far as I can tell, US support is much more vital to US security interests. And there is the evergreen spectre of a war in Taiwan that the US needs to maintain posture on.
Not stopping Israel and sending them more aid will cause escalation.
The US have 0 reason to have a base there considering they fake reasons to be in Iraq in the first place.
These are mental gemnastics to start a war. If you don't want a war then they should leave.
If you don’t want a war then they should leave.
Events outside the borders of the USA will still affect the USA, and there's no amount of influence the USA can cede to Iran that will satisfy them. Containment is necessary and less difficult now than it would be later. It would have been even less difficult before the USA squandered so much of its power and influence in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that fact doesn't mean that the correct future policy regarding the region should be a very passive one.
That's been the argument for 45 years. "Gotta have bases over there. Gotta make sure we can manipulate these countries, don't want them doing something we don't like."
What has it gotten us? Are we in a better position now? Are the people who live there in a better position?
Are we in a better position now?
Better than if countries in middle east were blowing up whatever they wanted? Absolutely.
Kuwait exists as a country because the west is in the Middle East. Global markets depend on the waterways around the middle east being clear and oil from the middle east pumping.
So we can claim one tiny country 34 years ago as a victory. Meanwhile, the rest of the middle east has turned into a disaster compared to what it was in the 60s. That's all due to American/western meddling for the last half century. These countries are in a position of "blowing up whatever they want" because of the US.
Creating problems, thn kinda sorta halfway fixing them is not a sustainable strategy.
As an Iranian person if the government says look what the USA doing to your brothers and family in Iraq, Syria, Palestine. Look at what they do to Palestinians in west bank with continuous colonization and in Gaza suppotred by the USA. This will definitely lead to more radicalized people who want them out.
Now if the USA left the region. What the Iranian will say to their people? Lets fight USA ? They will be asking why we need to fight them ? In fact most likely they will be overthrowing the current government and end up in a new revolution.
I am not sure what you mean by your last sentence. Iraq after Sadam has more Iranian influence thay before. And Afghanistan might also have more influence from Iran than before.
Regarding Iraq, definitely more Iranian influence after the US attacked, regarding Afghanistan, it’s more Pakistan I feel and even they don’t control them.
Finally, before this whole mess, there were some overtures to pulling out the troops out of the region and apparently proper talks had begun