• Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    So umm, Iran’s leadership won’t stop nuclear weapons development. It can’t stop. Therefore to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, it means that the US has to help remove Iran’s leadership. Now why would this turn out any better than any of the previous times they’ve done this, including in Iran?

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      Their ability to make nukes has been delayed several times in the past, another delaying action is likely better than letting them get nukes.

      • basmati@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 days ago

        Incorrect, not waging war is better than spending another 20 trillion killing civilians.

        • superkret@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          20 days ago

          It’s scary how even during 2 horrible wars, people still can’t accept the simple truth that war is always the worst possible option.

          • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            19 days ago

            war is always the worst possible option

            I’m currently living in a country that was freed from British colonialism via war. I’m damn happy that war happened, I’m damn happy we have our own country.

            • superkret@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              19 days ago

              Sometimes the worst possible option is also the only possible option.

              But disemboweling each other’s working class is never a good way to come to a common decision between countries.