renhogan

Harmful policy and deliberate mass killing are not the same thing.

The War on Drugs has caused real damage, but comparing incarceration and social harm to governments intentionally slaughtering civilians is exactly the kind of false equivalence that makes serious discussions impossible.

You need to understand both of these things are bad. they aren't mutually exclusive.

You have to see the bigger picture in this context though, this is unprecedented. Iran obtaining and securing enriched Uranium and having Nuclear capable missiles will be a threat to the World.

This is bigger than sticking to a morale compass. This is why Humanity is the true plague of this Planet and why there will never be Peace on Earth.

I don't want more people to die, as many others don't. But to just sit back and let Iran become untouchable and thinking everything will continue to be OK is naive.

I don’t think anyone here is celebrating bombing or war. Military action is always a terrible outcome.

The concern many people have is what happens if nothing is done and WHEN Iran eventually acquires nuclear weapons. Once a regime that already sponsors militant groups and represses its own population has nuclear-capable warheads, the ability to prevent escalation becomes far more limited.

At that point, the world isn’t choosing between diplomacy and intervention anymore, it’s choosing between living with a nuclear-armed regime like that or risking a much larger conflict later. That’s the dilemma people are talking about.

You’re putting words in people’s mouths. No one said they’re “fine with” deaths in the U.S. Those are serious issues and they absolutely deserve attention and policy solutions.

The point being made was simply that domestic social problems and state-directed violence or terrorism are different categories under international law. Acknowledging that distinction doesn’t mean someone doesn’t care about both.

Both can be bad at the same time. Recognizing that isn’t controversial.

Those are serious domestic policy failures and they absolutely deserve criticism. But they’re still not the same thing as a government deliberately carrying out mass violence against civilians or supporting armed groups abroad.

Recognizing that distinction isn’t “normalizing” loss of life, it’s acknowledging that different problems require different responses.

You're comparing social crises to state-directed mass killing. Those aren’t equivalent under international law or humanitarian doctrine. The threshold people talk about for intervention is typically genocide, ethnic cleansing, or large-scale state violence against civilians.

Social problems like drug overdoses and gun violence are not the same as a government slaughtering civilians. Conflating the two is a false equivalence.

I didn’t choose the military as my line of work. If I had and was sent somewhere to intervene, I would accept that responsibility.

I support intervention when humanitarian law is being severely violated, but I don’t make the decisions on where those interventions happen.

I chose healthcare instead, and I help Canadians every day.

True. But the IRGc slaughtered 40,000+ innocent civilians from their own Country.

Justifiable interventional response

EDIT: Yes, there are humanitarian and international law violations occurring in many countries. I oppose those as well. However, I’m not the one making decisions about when or where interventions occur, nor am I a commander-in-chief directing military action.

The bottom line is that many people agree the IRGC are a leading global sponsor of terrorism and have committed serious humanitarian crimes against their own people and others. Allowing such a regime to acquire nuclear weapons is something the international community should take seriously. This isn’t Iraq.

If nothing is done and, in ten years, they possess large numbers of nuclear-capable warheads with global reach, people will inevitably ask why the world stood by and allowed it to happen. By that point, the options available to stop them would be far more dangerous and destabilizing than addressing the threat now. Diplomacy has been attempted for decades, IRGC have demonstrated it won't agree to anything preventing acquisition of Nuclear capable weapons.

I suggested to them that I'd rather pay that money and go have a wedding in a much more beautiful place. But they don't want to pay $$ for their wedding. That's why they (and I assume most people) do destination weddings at resorts. If you get 'X' amount of people to book through their agent/resort, then the wedding couple don't have to pay anything for their wedding.

It's incredibly selfish IMO. They offset the costs of throwing a "traditional" wedding (i.e venue in home country, catering etc.) onto their guests by making them pay 4x-5x more to attend their wedding and stay multiple nights at an AI. Basically "were gonna make guests pay $1000's each to attend our wedding so we dont have to pay anything"