Thats mostly due to lack of ability, not lack of desire. Do you think that if the socioeconomic positions were reversed, the current Iranian regime would have been any better than the US, or Israel?

You can quibble about death toll amounts and functional ability... but that doesn't change desire.

I do believe thinking in "equal to" terms needlessly belittles the death and destruction perpetrated by these tools... but only as much as quantifying them at all. These people are sick, twisted megalomaniacal dickbags who should be brought low. Sadly that only seems to happen at the whims of other sick, twisted megalomaniacal dickbags.

The best we can do is try and wedge ourselves into the cracks to push them all out of power while trying to stave off the opportunists who try and do the same.

And not bicker amongst ourselves about the level of evilness to quantify each by.

[–] Krono@lemmy.today 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Why does desire matter?

I have a desire to kill billionaires. Does that matter? Should I be tried for murder? No, because I'm not actually going to kill anyone.

Putting violent desire on the same moral plane as actual murder victims is a silly thing to do.

Do you think that if the socioeconomic positions were reversed, the current Iranian regime would have been any better than the US, or Israel?

In this hypothetical the details really matter, but in general I think no, the current Iranian regime would not be better.

I think a better hypothetical would be that, if the US never did a coup in Iran and overthrow their democratically elected government, and the socioeconomic positions were reversed, would Iran be better then? I think yes.

[–] Jack@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Putting violent desire on the same moral plane as actual murder victims is a silly thing to do.

Agreed, but what if not stopping the IRGC ends up causing orders-of-magnitude more suffering and deaths? (Tho, is Trump actually unleashing the IRGC because Mojtaba gives them free-er reign than Ali; and causing some Iranians to actually side with their own psychotic countrymen against the attacking foreigners? If yes, then US voters may be more harmful than Iran.)

Would Hamas not be vastly worse than Israel if they had the same military power as Israel?

ISIS?

Shouldn't intent count to prevent access to biological and nuclear weapons?

[–] Krono@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

what if not stopping the IRGC ends up causing orders-of-magnitude more suffering and deaths?

This is the logic of preemptive war, and it is blatantly illegal under the UN charter. This type of logic is very dangerous because it can justify any war without evidence.

Would Hamas not be vastly worse than Israel if they had the same military power as Israel? ISIS?

How could they possibly be worse than Israel, who is invading it's neighbors, starting wars for territory, doing ethnic cleansing, and threatening to drop nukes?

I agree that I do not want to see a Hamas government, and an ISIS government would be horrific, but history shows these type of groups form as a direct result of imperial violence.

Israel funded Hamas and killed it's more moderate competitors. Hamas' early leaders like Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi were scholars and academics, serious people interested in peace. Israel killed them and their families, and their successors, over and over until you end up with a violent, uneducated leader like Yahya Sinwar.

The US acted similarly when we meddled in the Syrian civil war, giving weapons and money to ISIS.

Shouldn't intent count to prevent access to biological and nuclear weapons?

I don't know how this would work at all. How do you measure intent? Does the US have good intent with its nuclear arsenal? Russia? Pakistan?

I think your question has 2 logical conclusions:

There is no possible 'good intent' for nuclear weapons, they are horrible devices made to kill millions of people.
The intent of nuclear programs is not offensive, but defensive. Recent history shows that nuclear powers live in relative peace, whereas non-nuclear powers get invaded and bullied. Look at what happened to Ukraine after they gave up their nukes.

[–] Jack@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

preemptive war

OK - reacting-only would reduce wars of aggression.

How about if 98% of UN members votes for an allied attack against something that almost everyone agrees is psychotic, like ISIS, NK, Eritrea, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, etc.? Does the combination of actions and clear intent not make pre-emptive war and regime change of these seem like the right thing?

Ahmed Yassin

Here I don't agree - I think the 1988 Hamas charter is utterly indefensible.

these type of groups form as a direct result of imperial violence.

Yes, and Israel was formed in response to the Holocaust and pogroms. Hamas is also genocidal, just incompetent - but would be worse. I think both should be boycotted and sanctioned, until Israeli voters stop voting the way they have been (which might not happen until they reject religion and racism), and Gazans overthrow Hamas (which seems more possible than in e.g. NK).

nuclear weapons

not offensive, but defensive

Yeah, allowing Iran to get/create nukes and intercontinental delivery, would reduce the chances of attacks against it like the recent ones by USA and Israel, which would be good for the normal people of Iran in the short and medium term.

When it comes to the people (not the regimes) I think that the Israeli, older Gazan, and USA citizens are the worst because of the way they vote(d); while the Iranians might be the least bad (tho that may just be because they haven't had real elections for so long).

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Why does desire matter?

I have a desire to kill billionaires. Does that matter? Should I be tried for murder? No, because I’m not actually going to kill anyone.

Putting violent desire on the same moral plane as actual murder victims is a silly thing to do.

hey someone gets it