U.S. Has Attacked Iran's Nuclear Facilities
U.S. Has Attacked Iran's Nuclear Facilities

U.S. Has Attacked Iran’s Nuclear Facilities (Updated)

U.S. Has Attacked Iran's Nuclear Facilities
U.S. Has Attacked Iran’s Nuclear Facilities (Updated)
You're viewing a single thread.
Yeah sure. Kamala would never support Israel. Y'all are so braindead lol.
I'm not an American so what I see maybe different than what you see. But you know you would be lying if you say US would just allow iran to bomb tel aviv and sit watching. Both sides may not be same but both of em are held by balls by Israel.
None of that is about intervening in the war. Do better.
You might actually be slow. You are the one that's being irrelevant. Anyways you made up your mind. I can't change it. Like it or not Israel is your president. Kiss their boots like you have been doing for the last century
I have to say, the one good part of Trump in office is at least you lot aren't lecturing people on why invading Iran is good, actually!
"BOTH SIDES!" say both the MAGAs and leftists in unison.
Yeah, you're right. I'm sure the Democrats would not have supported Israel in Iran, same as how they didn't support Israel in Yemen, or in Lebanon, or in Gaza, or in Syria, or in...
If Kamala had won, I (trans latina) would not have had to flee the US. But they're both the exact same amirite? (I'm honestly a little grateful for that. The US is trash. I'm never moving back)
Edit: my point is that people are literally fleeing the US because it's a sinking ship. Under Kamala, immigration and tourism wouldn't have changed much
"I would be alright".
...Here's a thought exercise for you: The year is 2028, Trump is running for a third term, and the Dem ticket is... IDK, Newsom/Buttigieg or whatever, and the big thinkers of the DNC have come up with a foolproof plan to steal away MAGA voters: they will agree with exterminating trans people, but! BUT! will firmly, and I mean FIRMLY stand behind gay marriage. And you're trying to explain that both of those choices are unacceptable to you, and in response are met with an avalanche of mockery because "sure, yeah, one side wants gay marriage banned, but they’re both the exact same amirite?"
Seriously, though, best of luck. Not to assume stuff about your situation, but getting out sooner rather than later sounds like a good move.
You're doing the leftist reductive thing so complex issues become a simplistic "it's all the system, man..."
This doesn't make you look as clever as you think it does. It'll eventually turn you into a conspiracy nut where everything is because of "them". Please make an effort to stay on topic.
Oh, it's not the "system, man", it's you. As in, you, @SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca, personally. You are the exact person I'm thinking about when I say this, and it's frankly amazing you decided to throw your hat in ring here, while simultaneously defending attacks on Iran elsewhere.
Do you deny that Iran is committing genocide. Then you're the genocide denialist!
Or maybe we shouldn't weaponize the word genocide and discuss serious issues like adults instead of playing word games?
We're reading wikipedia now?
Here's some nice light reading on wikipedia for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
Yeah pretty much. Which is a little disturbing because with the waters so muddied, it makes it difficult to know when these things are really happening.
It's already a problem when you say a country is fascist because the reply is often "well people call everything fascist now." And they aren't wrong.
Soon it will be "people call everything a genocide now." The power of these words are getting diluted by attention seekers. It's becoming a word that no longer grabs attention anymore.
Obama fixed things by making a treaty with Iran, and got the Nobel Peace Prize (though not in that order which was a bit weird, but whatever)
I don't understand how anyone could be so blatant about their own mental gymnastics.
Are you not aware of the treaty? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action
Or are you not aware that Obama won the Noble Peace Prize?
Or maybe you just don't have a sense of humour so you think a joke about Obama getting the Nobel Prize before doing the treaty is "mental gymnastics"?
Ah, sorry a lot of folks here are getting a bit wacky with apologia, and I could see them actually putting forward the nobel peace price as an argument for Obama not being a war criminal, so I did take it a bit too seriously. Poe's law I guess. My apologies!
That said, he is a war criminal though, and I feel like you're cherry picking little bits out of all the presidencies to confirm your point.
Here's an example in the other direction, maybe it'll help you see how unconvincing an argument you're making:
You'll note that I omitted Bush. He was really bad. Like, Hitler bad. Not a redeeming quality about him.
At any rate the point is that every single president since Eisenhower, every single one, no exceptions, has been a war criminal, and pretending that any one of them was pro peace is a joke.
Man, you Americans really do think everything is some foreigner's fault?
The fact that you think the constant whining and blamecasting at nobody in particular constitutes a callout speaks volumes. And the fact that your first resort on being challenged is a barrage of insults speaks even more. Someone more intellectually minded might even use it as a jumping off point for some introspection, or see the parallel with US politics in general and foreign policy in particular - but, of course, that would risk recognizing the nose and rainbow hair as the reflection in the window pane that they are.
Honk-honk, Buttons. Honk-honk.