That really depends on whether you think that Iran were working to get nuclear capability. To me, it's obvious that they were. Why wouldn't they want parity with their regional enemy?
There is also the continual threat to our interests abroad and the promotion of terrorism at home.
There is no denial that once a nation obtains nuclear weapons no one will feck with them.
If Iran had nuclear weapons, none of this would have happened.....So of course, we and the neighbour's cat know that they want them.....If I were them I'd want them too.
Israel wanted them......and they stole the technology from the US to get them.
Kennedy was angry about it and wanted to probe whether they had nukes.....didn't live long enough to do it.....And Johnson was about as pro Israel as you get.
Funny how it all works out isn't it.
Bit like how Kent who just resigned from chief of counter intelligence said that the investigations in the attempts on Trump's life were shut down before lines of inquiry had been investigated.
The implications here are extremely troubling.....and conclusions can be drawn.....along with Trump's tendency of saying 'yes' to Israel.
I don't buy this stuff about looking good at home or distracting from the Epstein thing. This was the culmination of a strategy that has been in works for years.
Must be another happy coincidence......keeps happening.
Unknowable but I'm cynical.
In WW1 and 2, America were compelled to change their isolationist stance to get involved in conflict. That convinced them to become proactive rather than reactive. We had the war on communism and now its about China and the Islamist threat.
WW1 and two were conventional wars until the end......We can't afford world wars, neither economically nor in human terms.
The effects would send us all back to the stone age.....Well, 99.9 percent of those who aren't living in elitist bunkers designed for the purpose....which exist for the very richest.
However much you prefer pacificism, history has shown us that doing nothing is sometimes the worst choice, at least in the shorter term. The long term is not for us to worry about. We will be dead.
Pacificism? So if I don't support actually starting wars I'm a pacifist?
History has not shown that, WW2 is an example of the opposite in fact because Hitler had exactly this reasoning. If he hadn't viewed communism as an existential threat to Germany the war would have never have widened.
If you support starting wars on potential threats then you also have to recognise that this will be the excuse for states starting wars with us.
It's a spiral down to mutual destruction.
As far as putting my son in a war. I would never encourage him to join the army but in a major war, he would be drafted. I wouldn't get a choice.
But your position encourages war, hence you're indirectly helping it happen.
I believe this is the metric people should use to support a war or not........It's why I'm definitely not a pacifist because I believe in wars if the threat is existential......Hell, didn't I just support military action if the Strait isn't open to free use?
That's because the threat to world recession isn't 'potential', it's real.
However, I don't support starting wars of choice based upon 'what might happen'.
Iran's terms before the war started were much more reasonable than what is now on the table.
Good people now have to die if we were to return to that........I view that as both counter productive and not in our interests......Economically if this isn't sorted we have a world recession.
All based upon, 'what if'?
Not for me.
England
