"Preempting an attack is still a defensive action."
if that's true, then Osama Bin Laden's attack on the US in Sept 2001, was a defensive action, too. He perceived a threat of an attack, so he lashed out.
You could say the same about Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. The US had stopped selling oil to Japan, and had moved the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Hawaii; obviously they were gearing up for an attack. Japan was just defending itself.
EVERY attack can be rewritten to make it look like a defensive measure. Including the US's preemptive attack on Iraq in 2003. You gotta see through the bullshit.
That's what I keep thinking. The US has shown the capacity to make up phony excuses all about how Iraq had 16,000 chemical warheads, yellowcake and mobile bioweapons labs, and is friends with the real Osama. And then invade and topple. All of it was lies, and most of the lies could have been disproven or at least questioned before the invasion - the info was there (I'm talking to you ABC/CNN/NBC/BBC/The Economist). Didn't matter, the invasion commenced.
OK so Iran sees this, and sees US politicians advocating for war with Iran next. And exaggerating the threat from Iran. What would you do?
Well, Israel really attacked Hezbolla in Lebanon, not the Lebanese army (is there one?). Cuz Israel was sick of terrorist rockets and raids. I think the reason why Israel couldn't make a lot of headway was because it was pretty inhumane to bomb neighborhoods and mow down civilians on world television. That's also the main thing stopping them from acting against their own arab population.
There's a big mismatch between this inhumanity factor, versus the simplistic notion of 'bombing them back to the stone age'. Hawks think in terms of the destruction they want to cause, but when it actually starts happening, just a few hundred or a few thousand deaths seem outrageous.
Compare with 70 years ago, when the bad guys were killing civilians a million at a time, and the good guys were only killing them 100k at a time.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
"Preempting an attack is still a defensive action."
if that's true, then Osama Bin Laden's attack on the US in Sept 2001, was a defensive action, too. He perceived a threat of an attack, so he lashed out.
You could say the same about Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. The US had stopped selling oil to Japan, and had moved the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Hawaii; obviously they were gearing up for an attack. Japan was just defending itself.
EVERY attack can be rewritten to make it look like a defensive measure. Including the US's preemptive attack on Iraq in 2003. You gotta see through the bullshit.
That's what I keep thinking. The US has shown the capacity to make up phony excuses all about how Iraq had 16,000 chemical warheads, yellowcake and mobile bioweapons labs, and is friends with the real Osama. And then invade and topple. All of it was lies, and most of the lies could have been disproven or at least questioned before the invasion - the info was there (I'm talking to you ABC/CNN/NBC/BBC/The Economist). Didn't matter, the invasion commenced.
OK so Iran sees this, and sees US politicians advocating for war with Iran next. And exaggerating the threat from Iran. What would you do?
Well, Israel really attacked Hezbolla in Lebanon, not the Lebanese army (is there one?). Cuz Israel was sick of terrorist rockets and raids. I think the reason why Israel couldn't make a lot of headway was because it was pretty inhumane to bomb neighborhoods and mow down civilians on world television. That's also the main thing stopping them from acting against their own arab population.
There's a big mismatch between this inhumanity factor, versus the simplistic notion of 'bombing them back to the stone age'. Hawks think in terms of the destruction they want to cause, but when it actually starts happening, just a few hundred or a few thousand deaths seem outrageous.
Compare with 70 years ago, when the bad guys were killing civilians a million at a time, and the good guys were only killing them 100k at a time.