Not The Onion

20687 readers

1650 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

396

Trump administration has still not settled on reasons for going to war with Iran (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) by supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Folks, CALM DOWN, this is still in the workshopping phase ok? First we bomb them, then we workshop WHY we bombed them, do you not understand the plan!?

Democrats, predictably, were apoplectic. “There was no imminent threat to the United States of America by the Iranians,” said Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, who had received classified briefings from Rubio. “There was a threat to Israel. If we equate a threat to Israel as the equivalent of an imminent threat to the United States, then we are in uncharted territory.”

Meanwhile somewhere below decks on the Titanic 11:45 PM (ship's time) on April 14, 1912

Well, if we were to equate the threat of icebergs to an imminent threat to our ship, then we would be in uncharted territory! - a well dressed crew member with an officer's hat calmly explains to a passenger.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] saimen@feddit.org 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Hypothetically, if a world leader were to ask for advice on such a grave matter, the most responsible and ethical response would be to emphasize the following principles:

1. Diplomacy First

Military action should always be a last resort. Exhaust all diplomatic channels, negotiations, and international cooperation to address conflicts and protect national and global security.

2. Humanitarian and Ethical Considerations

Any decision involving military force must weigh the potential human cost—both for civilians and military personnel—and adhere to international laws, including the principles of proportionality and distinction.

3. Legal and International Obligations

The use of force is governed by international law, including the UN Charter, which permits military action only in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. Unilateral military action without just cause or legal basis risks destabilizing regions and violating international norms.

4. Strategic Consequences

Military action can have far-reaching, unintended consequences, including escalation, regional instability, and long-term geopolitical repercussions. A thorough analysis of risks, benefits, and alternatives is essential.

5. Consultation and Consensus

Engage with allies, international organizations, and domestic stakeholders to ensure any action is justified, proportional, and supported by a broad coalition.

6. Focus on Long-Term Solutions

Address root causes of conflict through economic, political, and social means to achieve sustainable peace and security.

7. Transparency and Accountability

Leaders must be accountable to their citizens and the international community, ensuring that any action is transparent, justified, and aligned with democratic values.

In any real-world scenario, such decisions require input from military, intelligence, legal, and humanitarian experts, as well as public and congressional oversight.

Would you like information on historical precedents, international law, or conflict resolution strategies? I’m here to help provide factual, unbiased insights.

[–] saimen@feddit.org 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Hypothetical Conclusion

Even under an "America First" doctrine, bombing Iran would likely be considered only if:

There is undeniable evidence of an imminent, severe threat to the U.S. or its core interests.
All other options (diplomacy, sanctions, covert action) have been exhausted or are deemed ineffective.
The potential benefits outweigh the risks of retaliation, regional chaos, and long-term damage to U.S. interests.

Final Thought: "America First" does not mean acting recklessly—it means prioritizing U.S. security, prosperity, and sovereignty. Military force is a tool, not a strategy, and its use must be calculated to avoid unintended consequences that could ultimately harm America’s standing and safety.

Would you like to explore historical examples (e.g., Iraq, Libya) or alternative strategies for addressing Iran’s actions?

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

"Hey Dario Amode, your stupid AI isn't telling me what I want to hear! I demand you remove the guardrails!"