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.
I understand you feel differently about this, and I also understand your rationale.
When I use the term “existential threat” I do so with the full knowledge of what that term really means, unlike the domestic enemies of our country (the American Left) who use it to describe anything from men being disallowed in women’s sports to the shuttering of USAID.
I don’t use the term frivolously.
In this context (nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians) I believe it is legitimate use of the term, because if they have nuclear weapons, they are eventually going to use them.
And once that happens, whether it is against us or any other country, that is going to go sideways in unpredictable ways.
I just picked a number of deaths out of a hat, and in my mind, even a small number would have been enough justification for me, but since 1979, they have openly murdered 241 in the bombing of the USMC barracks in Beirut, they killed 19 in the Khobar Towers, and in Iraq alone, Iran has been found to be directly culpable for the deaths of 603 military personnel in Iraq. between 2003 and 2011, and enough proof was provided to convince courts to confirm those Iraq and Afghanistan number. And I didn’t include our eight personnel who died in Operation Eagle Claw or the death of Navy Diver Robert Stethem, murdered and thrown onto the tarmac by Hezbollah.
I also consider all the American men injured and crippled in these various attacks perpetrated by Iran directly via their proxies who didn’t die in those attacks but live on as amputees, paraplegics or quadriplegics as well at the ones who are sentenced to live in a vegetative state for the rest of their lives.
As for Iranians having or not having nuclear weapons, unchecked, they were going to get them, and that is unquestionably true. I may hate their government with a white hot burning passion, but their citizens are not ignorant or dumb. I have known many Iranians, and I have not doubt that they would reach that goal.
I am familiar with the “Just War” concept, and we all want our war to be a “Just War” which is a highly plastic philosophical region that is bent, folded, spindled and mutilated by all humans to suit their needs.
We like to think of WWII as a “Just War”, but even among our allies and ideological companions, we have plenty of people who think we forced Japan into attacking us by embargoing key strategic supplies such as oil and Iron.
And the Nazis had “Gott mit uns” (God is with us) cast on the belt buckles used by the Wehrmacht.
In summary I fully get the source of your stance on this issue, and I fully agree that what one group of people view as a valid reason to take hostile action, another group of people will fully take that valid (in the minds of those who authorized action) rationalization and use that as a tool to validate their own invalid rationale for war.
I think you are absolutely correct and right to be wary of that possibility.
I think where we differ is that you view preemptive action as a Rubicon you won’t justify crossing, and I look at the situation and not only can, but have for many years been supportive of an effort to justify crossing that river and taking preemptive action because the possibility of what can happen with the Iranian leadership in possession of nuclear weaponry is simply too dangerous to ignore.
Sure, other countries have nuclear weapons too, but none of them have been supporting open cold murder all over the world in the same way Iran has since 1979. And very few, if any of those other countries have been making open threats to destroy the USA, Israel, or any other country. Granted, I don’t like Pakistan and India having nuclear weapons, but unlike Iran which threatens to wipe us off the earth every several days, I haven’t heard the government of either India or Pakistan threaten us.
Iran not only DOES openly, vocally, and unashamedly threaten us, but has put its money where its mouth is, and has openly organized and funded the murder of not only Americans but a the citizens of hosts of other countries.
By the way-I do know the debt crisis is solvable in a number of ways, otherwise I would (like so many other Freepers appear to have done) roll over on my back with my legs and arms in the air waiting for the inevitable end.
But I don’t.
Against every fiber of my being, I have had to get myself involved in local politics (something I detest) and have resolved to view our national issues with all the information I can muster to at least take an informed stance on those issues and since 2004 I have faced off on the streets with people I regard as our domestic enemies, something I don’t enjoy either.
I can’t stress enough...I DO understand the root of your reservations and I respect that. We have a Freeper who I have become good friends with, and his various credentials on nearly everything far outpace anything I could offer up to bolster my credibility on nearly anything, and we disagree on as fundamental an issue as the use of nuclear weapons against Imperial Japan in 1945.
But I have to respect his religiously based opposition, and that opposition coming from an accomplished decorated warrior who made a career out of the military after spending a year of his life in military hospitals after being severely wounded in combat, gives me the added impetus to ensure that if I take a stance in support of something highly consequential (such as a preemptive strike against a sovereign foreign nation) that if I am wrong or mistaken, it isn’t because I frivolously took my stance. I may be wrong, but on these issues I try to do enough homework that I won’t easily have the wool pulled over my eyes by unscrupulous persons in power who want to use that support for personal or political gain.
I may be wrong on things, and I reserve the right to accept it when I am wrong and change my mind. For me, I would rather be right than consistent, and being human and older now, I find I am often wrong on a multitude of things and have to find a way to face up to them.