This is a dumb meme because the whole argument is that if Iran gets nukes then we won’t be able to attack them.
However I do think it’s funny how many of the justifications for the unprovoked attacks on Iran sound exactly like Russian justifications if you just switch a couple names around:
Iran having nukes is a threat to the US security/Ukraine joining NATO (which would allow them to station nukes there) is a threat to Russian security
Iran’s government is full of radical Islamists/Ukraine’s government is full of Banderite Nazis
Iran is firing ordinance off at civilian targets in Israel, as part of their aim to exterminate Jews/Ukraine is firing ordinance off at civilian targets in Donbass, as part of their aim to exterminate Russians.
It’s very silly how all these arguments are accepted as “obvious” and reasonable when it’s our side, but flip the picture and it suddenly it becomes just as “obvious” that those lines of reasoning are not valid. At no point is either Iran or Russia’s perspective seriously considered because they’re the bad guys and we’re the good guys, whether and to what extent those reasons are valid simply flips depending on who’s using them.
You chose this level of discourse, don’t complain about the bed you made.
You’re still perfectly welcome to engage in an intelligent way, as I have, but if you start going, “Uh uh, you’re wrong bc reasons, no you don’t get to know what those reasons are but they totally exist” then I’m gonna bring it down to your level.
I just humored the other guy (or your alt) since it was somewhat civil.
And I can’t go around correcting everyone’s or your many wrong statements, I would be here all day.
The weather is good and I’ll be in the garden with some cocktails.
Sigh, OK the first one: “Iran having nukes is a threat to the US security/Ukraine joining NATO (which would allow them to station nukes there) is a threat to Russian security”
1 Iran doesn’t have nukes nor is it rying to, so that’s anxcuse.
It is in no way comparable to NATO (which actually has nukes and is agressive) stationing them close to Moscow with no time to react.
That is a red line acknowledged and stated many times both by Russia and the US who were fully aware they wouldn’t take it.
Well, kudos where is due for giving one of your opinions!
Helps everyone better understand where you’re coming from. Your point that it is an unfair comparison would have more weight IF the position of Iran not working towards nuclear weapons is correct.
(As NATO does have nuclear options, Ukraine joining NATO would be akin to arming Ukraine with nuclear weapons)
In any case this is not the opinion held by the current proponents in the conflict, whether rightly or wrongly, so I believe Objection is entitled to their opinion.
1 Iran doesn’t have nukes nor is it rying to, so that’s anxcuse.
It is in no way comparable to NATO (which actually has nukes and is agressive) stationing them close to Moscow with no time to react.
That is a red line acknowledged and stated many times both by Russia and the US who were fully aware they wouldn’t take it.
Wait, your objection is that the comparison is too unfavorable to Russia? That’s the opposite of what I thought your problem was, which was that you were pro-war in Iran and anti-Russia, and took exception to the comparison based on that. This misunderstanding could have been avoided if you had, in any way, actually stated your positions from the start instead of acting like a dick for no reason. It also makes your, “everybody already knows why you’re wrong” statement even more ridiculous, considering that we’re having this conversation on .world.
My point is not to argue that these lines of argument are inherently valid or invalid, but to point out the contradiction of people who support US intervention in both Ukraine and Iran categorically accepting these lines in one case and categorically rejecting them in the other. You’ll note that I said:
It’s very silly how all these arguments are accepted as “obvious” and reasonable when it’s our side, but flip the picture and it suddenly it becomes just as “obvious” that those lines of reasoning are not valid. At no point is either Iran or Russia’s perspective seriously considered
Ideally, both perspectives should be considered and the lines of argument should be examined for validity on a case by case basis. However, if someone blindly accepts/rejects them in one case, refusing to even consider the other side’s perspective, then they’re being hypocritical if they don’t do the same in the other.
Again, you completely misinterpreted me and, because you decided to be a dick about it, only now do I have a chance to explain myself.
This is a dumb meme because the whole argument is that if Iran gets nukes then we won’t be able to attack them.
However I do think it’s funny how many of the justifications for the unprovoked attacks on Iran sound exactly like Russian justifications if you just switch a couple names around:
Iran having nukes is a threat to the US security/Ukraine joining NATO (which would allow them to station nukes there) is a threat to Russian security
Iran’s government is full of radical Islamists/Ukraine’s government is full of Banderite Nazis
Iran is firing ordinance off at civilian targets in Israel, as part of their aim to exterminate Jews/Ukraine is firing ordinance off at civilian targets in Donbass, as part of their aim to exterminate Russians.
It’s very silly how all these arguments are accepted as “obvious” and reasonable when it’s our side, but flip the picture and it suddenly it becomes just as “obvious” that those lines of reasoning are not valid. At no point is either Iran or Russia’s perspective seriously considered because they’re the bad guys and we’re the good guys, whether and to what extent those reasons are valid simply flips depending on who’s using them.
Propaganda is a hell of a drug.
I’m confused why people are downvoting you
I assume because the people I’m criticizing don’t have any other response, that’s generally what downvotes mean.
Yeah but Ukraine was aggressive.
Russia is making it into a neutral neighbour akin Canada.
BS comparison.
Everything you mention is wrong
I present to you Bloomcole, Lemmy’s stupidest user. Give them a hand!
Yeah that’s about the level of argument I’ve come to expect from y’all: “Nuh uh.”
I can refute every lie but why waste time, people probably know.
Are you sure it’s you who can refute all my points, or is it your girlfriend who goes to another school but is totally real guys, trust me, who can?
o my such a mature comment
You chose this level of discourse, don’t complain about the bed you made.
You’re still perfectly welcome to engage in an intelligent way, as I have, but if you start going, “Uh uh, you’re wrong bc reasons, no you don’t get to know what those reasons are but they totally exist” then I’m gonna bring it down to your level.
I just humored the other guy (or your alt) since it was somewhat civil.
And I can’t go around correcting everyone’s or your many wrong statements, I would be here all day.
The weather is good and I’ll be in the garden with some cocktails.
You can’t correct anyone lol, maybe lay off the cocktails and do some reading
That’s not my alt. I was civil too, your dickishness was completely uncalled for.
You’ve got nothing and you know it
Can we settle for one? Should easily take less time to post than your last two baity comments ;)
Sigh, OK the first one: “Iran having nukes is a threat to the US security/Ukraine joining NATO (which would allow them to station nukes there) is a threat to Russian security”
1 Iran doesn’t have nukes nor is it rying to, so that’s anxcuse.
It is in no way comparable to NATO (which actually has nukes and is agressive) stationing them close to Moscow with no time to react.
That is a red line acknowledged and stated many times both by Russia and the US who were fully aware they wouldn’t take it.
Well, kudos where is due for giving one of your opinions! Helps everyone better understand where you’re coming from. Your point that it is an unfair comparison would have more weight IF the position of Iran not working towards nuclear weapons is correct. (As NATO does have nuclear options, Ukraine joining NATO would be akin to arming Ukraine with nuclear weapons)
In any case this is not the opinion held by the current proponents in the conflict, whether rightly or wrongly, so I believe Objection is entitled to their opinion.
Lmao so you reply to someone else but not to me.
Wait, your objection is that the comparison is too unfavorable to Russia? That’s the opposite of what I thought your problem was, which was that you were pro-war in Iran and anti-Russia, and took exception to the comparison based on that. This misunderstanding could have been avoided if you had, in any way, actually stated your positions from the start instead of acting like a dick for no reason. It also makes your, “everybody already knows why you’re wrong” statement even more ridiculous, considering that we’re having this conversation on .world.
My point is not to argue that these lines of argument are inherently valid or invalid, but to point out the contradiction of people who support US intervention in both Ukraine and Iran categorically accepting these lines in one case and categorically rejecting them in the other. You’ll note that I said:
Ideally, both perspectives should be considered and the lines of argument should be examined for validity on a case by case basis. However, if someone blindly accepts/rejects them in one case, refusing to even consider the other side’s perspective, then they’re being hypocritical if they don’t do the same in the other.
Again, you completely misinterpreted me and, because you decided to be a dick about it, only now do I have a chance to explain myself.