DoodleBob, I agree with much of the dynamic you described (so I my post is not a criticism of that, per se) but I don’t agree that using the strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities is the best example of that.
Many people I know have been personally consistent over the years in my stance against allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weaponry even if I haven’t been advocating taking action against them at every point in the last 45 years.
That is because of the nature of those types of actions, which don’t lend themselves to snap-rendered plans, can too easily go sideways. If the US had to take 15 years to plan this and wait for the right time to take action, I would have been onboard with that.
If anything, I have expended a great deal of mental time and effort to shed my Cold War mentality and accept that the United States can no longer play the role of the “World’s Policeman” (and that is inclusive of the fact that there were times since WWII we played that role when we shouldn’t have, and there are times we played that role poorly.)
But I had to change my stance on that. As someone who grew up in a military family during the height of the Cold War and served myself as well during that same time frame, that was not an easy thing for me to do.
But the greatest threat to our country at this time is our looming financial insolvency. And all the issues of the day, Open Borders, Military Readiness, Inflation, Infrastructure degradation, Wokeness, Education, Industry, all of them hinge on our financial solvency. If we become financially insolvent, this country will disintegrate.
Obviously, spending money to address various things such as illegal immigration and military readiness will have financial benefits (not paying for services for illegals and deterring foreign aggression via enhanced readiness) so we can’t just ignore them on a back burner, but everything must be viewed through that prism of national debt.
So, in altering my own stance on, based on our debt crisis, we cannot get involved in things that we otherwise might have in the past since WWII, right or wrong. In this example, Ukraine falls into that category.
And in that light, while everything else must go on on the back burner (relatively speaking) even temporarily to address the issues that will, if unchecked, result in our insolvency, I have never regarded the issue of Iran with nuclear weapons as one of those we can put on the “back burner”.
Too many people use the term “existential threat” to describe various things, but the vast majority of them (MOST especially, Leftists) have no idea what that means. A country that possesses nuclear weaponry and says publicly and often (AS GOVERNMENT POLICY) that it will destroy you, that raises money to assassinate your President, and is and has been and continues to be directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of American citizens...THAT is an “existential threat”.
And I didn’t need rationale like “the govt of Iran is atrocious, 444 days, $100bn of banknotes”, etc. to define it as a threat that needed to be addressed, IOW, an “existential threat”.
The point that I make is that while you are correct that there are (in my opinion) provocateurs on this (and other websites) website, there are many people who are not simply reacting to influencing actions, but have long held and deeply felt opinions on various issues, and I don’t believe Iranian nuclear weaponry should be included in that.
In the end, I view being right as far more important than being consistent, most especially in cases like Iranian nuclear weaponry.
As always, thank you and, as always, solid.
Not to be too jocular out of the gate, but if I hear “existential threat” one more time I’ll puke. That ranks up there with “game changer” and “broke the internet” and “decimated.” Grow up kids.
But I digress..
The crux of our disagreement is whether or not it is “acceptable” to attack….
“A country that possesses nuclear weaponry and says publicly and often (AS GOVERNMENT POLICY) that it will destroy you, that raises money to assassinate your President, and is and has been and continues to be directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of American citizens”
A few things before addressing the matter directly:
-I know there are hundreds of Americans whose deaths are attributed to Iran - https://www.foxnews.com/world/irans-forever-war-against-us-regime-has-targeted-killed-americans-worldwide. Where are the thousands? Honestly, I’m not being flip - I really want to know if I’m missing something.
-on possessing nuclear weaponry….I don’t believe Iran had ‘em. Yes, they were close, but no cigar.
All that said, to pursue the truth, I’ll agree that Iran is responsible for hundreds of Americans’ deaths and was, at least, close to being a nuclear country.
My stance is that it is immoral to initiate aggression. Self-defense is ALWAYS permissible. But bombing a country that isn’t at war with us? No. I’m guided here by St. Thomas Aquinas. https://battlezone.my/thomas-aquinas-and-just-war/. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm Your mileage may vary.
Once you open the door to initiating aggression for one, very bad nation, then there is very little to stop some warmonger from hitting many countries. To wit: the heinous list of Iran’s sins also apply, in part, to Pakistan, North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. By extension, if it’s ok to bomb Iran, we can bomb them.
Now, I’m not too daft…an airstrike here or there today could avoid a massive problem tomorrow. And out of all the nations I listed, NK and Iran probably can’t fight back equally. And they are both run by despotic rulers. It’s alluring.
I just can’t get comfortable with being a little sinful. And I get that you’re not a warmonger. And thank you for protecting my right to sound off.
Parenthetically, the debt problem is solvable - https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3944410/posts.
Thanks for listening.