I agree with most of your statements. However, what about war to prevent a bigger disaster ? I think that the war in Iran is right but initiated for all wrong reasons. Actually, a much smaller war or even strong diplomatic measures 20 years ago could prevent it. However, Iran has a strong religious reason for a war against everybody (Sunni Muslims, Christians, Jews). Just think about 10 years from now - how many ballistic missiles they could have and might be nuclear warheads as well. Just think on religious wars in Europe -- if they would have the destruction power of today weapon? Is there any justification for a prevention war that might reduce chances for a much bigger one? I think that currently you provided a Western point of view on history, which assumes some rational thinking and moral foundations. Sorry for a long comment
Thanks for your comment. Not too long at all. Of all the bad players in the Middle East, for many decades, Iran has been the worst. They have supported powerful terrorist organizations (Hamas, Hezbollah) and otherwise fomented death and destruction wherever possible. As you say, they were strongly motiated by hatred against the United States, Israel, and Sunnis. They did harm wherever they could. If that was a casus belli, it should have been declared years ago with clear goals and and an exit strategy, and a due consideration of consequences. Donald Trump apparently acted on impulse with no thought of the consequences, no exit strategy, and no clear or rational objectives. He now has his ample ass in a crack. After costing our country treasure and lives, all he can do is lie about soon reaching "a deal" with Iran.
Sure, the US and Russian involvement in WW !! was justified, though in both cases it would have been justified before the attack-- tho US neutrality was "less worse" than the Hitler-Stalin pact.
Israel's response to the 10/7 attack was justified, but if fighting against colonial powers is also legit, and the weaker has pretty much to use any means necessary, than so is the 10/7 attack. Or, if you prefer, both were are crimes.
Don't forget Afghanistan, 20 years of fighting to overthrow the Taliban and put them back in charge. Only fair since we created the opportunity for their initial takeover during the Cold War. (Yes, the US was mostly backing the Northern Alliance against the Taliban as the legitimate government, when it thought about it, but the NA's primary aid came from, wait for it, Iran.)
What a tangled web we weave / go 'round with circumstance ...
No, I don't think any means are justified when throwing off a colonial power. I excluded terrorism. The Vietnamese were certainly justified in killing French soldiers. Setting off a bomb in the Louvre would not have been.
Wasn't thinking of George specifically, but there was a great deal of terror spread particularly on the frontier by rebels, often in redface, and attacks on civilian royalists. But we'd never call it that.
They were in by any means necessary mode, and of course it it happened before the war as well, and dominated a lot of our "Indian policy."
The whole discourse around terrorism is problematic for a few reasons:
1. it was formulated by some powers to delegitimate the tactics of other, much weaker powers;
1a. Initially, they were nonstate actors, but then we invented the idea of state-sponsors of terrorism (not including the US in Guatemala's decades-long Dirty War), and then terrorist states;
2. those same "stronger powers" often argue that their targeting of civilian populations is ok because it serves a military objective (from bombing Dresden to ruin morale to bombing Hiroshima, to My Lai and others of its ilk, Napalm raids and Agent Orange deforestation), when, obviously, terrorists engage in acts because it serves their military objectives. The civilian costs of those refinery fires in Tehran are bad enough, going after the grid far worse. But we'll claim legitimate military objective and hold our leaders apart from transnational justice for 23d Psalm reasons (22nd for Douay readers).
I agree with most of your statements. However, what about war to prevent a bigger disaster ? I think that the war in Iran is right but initiated for all wrong reasons. Actually, a much smaller war or even strong diplomatic measures 20 years ago could prevent it. However, Iran has a strong religious reason for a war against everybody (Sunni Muslims, Christians, Jews). Just think about 10 years from now - how many ballistic missiles they could have and might be nuclear warheads as well. Just think on religious wars in Europe -- if they would have the destruction power of today weapon? Is there any justification for a prevention war that might reduce chances for a much bigger one? I think that currently you provided a Western point of view on history, which assumes some rational thinking and moral foundations. Sorry for a long comment
Thanks for your comment. Not too long at all. Of all the bad players in the Middle East, for many decades, Iran has been the worst. They have supported powerful terrorist organizations (Hamas, Hezbollah) and otherwise fomented death and destruction wherever possible. As you say, they were strongly motiated by hatred against the United States, Israel, and Sunnis. They did harm wherever they could. If that was a casus belli, it should have been declared years ago with clear goals and and an exit strategy, and a due consideration of consequences. Donald Trump apparently acted on impulse with no thought of the consequences, no exit strategy, and no clear or rational objectives. He now has his ample ass in a crack. After costing our country treasure and lives, all he can do is lie about soon reaching "a deal" with Iran.
Sure, the US and Russian involvement in WW !! was justified, though in both cases it would have been justified before the attack-- tho US neutrality was "less worse" than the Hitler-Stalin pact.
Israel's response to the 10/7 attack was justified, but if fighting against colonial powers is also legit, and the weaker has pretty much to use any means necessary, than so is the 10/7 attack. Or, if you prefer, both were are crimes.
Don't forget Afghanistan, 20 years of fighting to overthrow the Taliban and put them back in charge. Only fair since we created the opportunity for their initial takeover during the Cold War. (Yes, the US was mostly backing the Northern Alliance against the Taliban as the legitimate government, when it thought about it, but the NA's primary aid came from, wait for it, Iran.)
What a tangled web we weave / go 'round with circumstance ...
No, I don't think any means are justified when throwing off a colonial power. I excluded terrorism. The Vietnamese were certainly justified in killing French soldiers. Setting off a bomb in the Louvre would not have been.
So much for the American Revolution. :)
???? George Washington was a terrorist?
Wasn't thinking of George specifically, but there was a great deal of terror spread particularly on the frontier by rebels, often in redface, and attacks on civilian royalists. But we'd never call it that.
I'd call it that and I think Washington would have too.
They were in by any means necessary mode, and of course it it happened before the war as well, and dominated a lot of our "Indian policy."
The whole discourse around terrorism is problematic for a few reasons:
1. it was formulated by some powers to delegitimate the tactics of other, much weaker powers;
1a. Initially, they were nonstate actors, but then we invented the idea of state-sponsors of terrorism (not including the US in Guatemala's decades-long Dirty War), and then terrorist states;
2. those same "stronger powers" often argue that their targeting of civilian populations is ok because it serves a military objective (from bombing Dresden to ruin morale to bombing Hiroshima, to My Lai and others of its ilk, Napalm raids and Agent Orange deforestation), when, obviously, terrorists engage in acts because it serves their military objectives. The civilian costs of those refinery fires in Tehran are bad enough, going after the grid far worse. But we'll claim legitimate military objective and hold our leaders apart from transnational justice for 23d Psalm reasons (22nd for Douay readers).