9507
Photoshop 101 📷How it must feel to be a Syrian(i.redd.it)
submitted 6 months, 3 weeks ago by LordLokovirgin a-10 vs the Chad Super Tucano to /r/NonCredibleDefense (408.6k)
since 6 months, 3 weeks ago
39 of 39
Tip Reveddit Real-Time can notify you when your content is removed.
your account history
Tip Check if your account has any removed comments.
view my removed comments you are viewing a single comment's thread.
view all comments
I want them both to lose so bad, is that so wrong
Hot take. Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons.
Israel is protecting regional status quo, as only nuclear power in the region, if Iran would get nuclear missiles, it would mess a lot the balance of power in the Middile East, besdies whatever you like it or not, Israel is democracy, Iran is a regime, and you cannot be sure what they will do with them.
You may not like this information, but Israeli commanders earned their rank, are educated, unlike Iranian ones, with got their position not as much because of education in the field and experience, as much as because of political reasons, i would not want any Iranian commander to have nukes behind their back.
I expect some "look on Gaza" comment soon, i'm not pro-Israeli gov. of the current - i also dont like civilian casualties - however i would say that i do understand Israeli military and how it works - i did "study" the region and mainly Israel long before the war - and what's happening in Gaza does not mean the commanders are bad, nor Iranian, however there is a huge difference between the military education, and responsibility.
Yeah, if Iran gets nuclear weapon, then Saudi Arabia is going to push for getting nuclear weapons and the genie is out of the bottle. It's not a stable region, and extremists having easier access to weapons of nuclear weapon is a really bad idea.
Also the civilian casualties in Gaza could have been much, much worse if Israel wasn't trying to minimize casualties. Sure, civilians die, but it could have been much worse.
This is such an complex issue, and i love when i can talk about it and explain. Like said, i'm not pro-israeli nor pro-palestine, i try to stay out of it, neutral, and observe - and bring facts in to the topic. (probably because i had a thing or two with Red Cross)
Civilian casualties:
In short, Hamas uses civilians as human shield, and does not often wear military unifroms, with makes them on ground impossible (life or death) situation, while Israeli blockade of humanitarian aid, and aitstrikes on hospital and refugee camps are unjustified, they do have other options.
It should be mentioned that their recent airstrike on the base under a hospital was surprisingly clean, despite the complicated nature of the location. Blew up the entrances and suffocated them, then cleaned up the rubble a week later. That could have been so much worse.
But yeah, when neither side really cares about the civilians, even if Israel is trying to minimize the direct casualties, it ain't going to be pretty for the people in Gaza.
As for blockading humanitarian aid, I can sort of see Israels perspective when aid that was sent in the past simply reached Hamas, and not the civilians to the degree it should have. Just sending in help to feed and aid Hamas is a problem.
It definitely does, however starving out Hamas is an impossible option, humanitarian aid will get to Hamas, they can literally come for it, and then again, there is no way humanitrian workers can know.
However starving is not an option, due to the massive concentration of population an an Gaza Strip area. Blocking however humanitarian aid is just about the stupidest thing i've seen an Israeli gov. do, and i bet that some people in military had to get drunk that day haha.
This is such a simple logic, Hamas is a terrorist organisation, they dont care about Gazans, so if you stop humanitarian aid, Hamas will start stealing it from the civilians, by force, with will casue only more civilians to die, by the time civlians will have "no food" Hamas will have it for long time, way longer then Israel likely thinks, and only thing with will result in end of the last blockade was civilians dying of starving, yet having next to no impact on hamas, because guess who had that food. Also, guess what a civilan will do, when they will guess or know, that hamas has food? .. They will join them, they are fighting and can die, but have food, so humanitarian blockade can lead in to "boosting" (very small) numbers of hamas.
Sure, people can say also "hamas is bad, without them there would be no war, no blockade" but people are missing totally the key point when they think this, first of all we saw this all over and again in history, that this does not work in almost all cases. Second, they can think that, yes, they might hate Hamas, but that does not matter, as currenly without humanitarian aid they need to focus on what they have RIGHT NOW, not on how it happen, they can think of that later, now, they will just want to survive - with might lead to joining hamas, stealing food, etc. and will also hate Israel for the blockade, so- In Gaza, the blockade of humanitarian aid will not lead to defeat of hamas, and will mainly hurt the civilians, hamas will get their hands on food and water one way or another, it's like trying to starve out a medival garrison of a fortress - but the garrison only cares about them, and steals the food from civilians, even if all civilians would die, they would still stand, and hold, if the besieging army would allow food in to the fortress, the eqvasion will be the same, just less civilians dead - these civlians can then hate the Hamas for casuing this, etc. etc.
I'm not a military expert.. but.. i know a thing or two about it, and i love when i can explain this kind of stuff haha
Only problem is that even Hamas have fall there will be party replaced them either worse or they still have armed forces but not attacking Israel instead focus on their security
Well, Israel should look to Cambodia as an example of de-radicalizing a country while global and local opinion is turned against you.
If both parties act in good faith, there will be one less bloodline conflict in the world, and we will be all the better for it.
Palestinian resistance made their entire way of war around exploiting the rules and customs of war in their favour as much as possible, while effectively not being bound by them themselves. The Soviet training really sunk in, huh.
Meanwhile Russia does the same by virtue of having nukes and NATO being deathly afraid of any kinetic action against them.
Saudi has been making that push for years already
Not really to the extent they would if Iran has nuclear weapons. Then they would suddenly hire nuclear physicists from the west and pay a shit ton of money for them to go there, start acquire centrifuges on a large scale etc.
Currently they're building up a civilian nuclear program, doing it slowly and opening up possibilities for the future.
IIRC their current nuclear policy is "lease nukes from Pakistan", but Iran gets nukes they'll probably upgrade it to "buy nukes from Pakistan". Pakistan could definitely use the money these days.
Well, as much as Israel limits direct loss of life, they don't really care what happens after.
The direct death toll is pretty low compared to the amount of civil destruction. But there's effectively no day after plan, no resheltering. The whole motif operandi is "bomb now, care never".
I mean, so was 1933 Germany. Sure they technically still have some checks and balances built into the system, but I wouldn’t be so sure that it would function at 100% optimality with a bunch of far-right warmongering zealots preying upon the nationalistic and expansionist undercurrents of the society. Ideally, I would not trust a state in that condition with nukes, on the other hand, I also recognize that logic automatically discounts half of today’s nuke holders as credible trustworthy agents—at the same time Israel having nukes is the only reason why we don’t have back-to-back conventional warfare in the Levant nowadays a la the 60s-70s
But iran is germany in 1940
More like German 1933 where German accused fund some armed group in Czechoslovakia
Iran is a random post-Rashidun Caliphate splinter state from Temu
That aside, me preferring Israel not have nukes = me preferring Iran have nukes?
Maybe during January and February of 1933, but by March 1933 the Enabling Act of 1933 was signed and the Weimar Republic was basically dead.
By March 1933 the Reichstag was basically my zoned out coworker approving my PRS with "+1 LGTM", while the gov were sending people to Dachau
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933#
Israel has been making enormous power grabs, especially after December. And there's little sign it will stop any time soon.
Iran is definitely the worse party in this instance. Israel ain't perfect, far from it, but holy shit is the current regime in Iran so much worse.
But a bruised and more cautious Israel would be great for regional stability
a bruised Israel is entirely how we got into this mess. Stop raising Israeli paranoia
They genuinely believe that if they don't have complete overwhelming domination, then theyre on the verge of a massive mass casualty attack. And thats when things start going downhill.
Yeah, I wonder why they think that; Looks at October 7th 🤔
No one is wishing. Iran get the better of this here.
Israel is the only nuclear power that reserves the right to first-strike non-nuclear targets with nukes.
I also don't want Iran getting nukes, but the idea that Iran would go on the offense with them is silly. Having nukes would deter the current situation.
They legit have a count down in the middle of tehran to what they claim is the end of israel, and you think they will do nothing?
Ah yes, a country where they frequently chant "death to Israel and death to America", not exactly the country I expect not to do stupid shit like using their nuclear weapons.
Maybe not the current leader, but what if someone more extreme takes power?
"The country that has been loudly exclaiming their intention to wipe out Israel should have weapons capable of wiping out Israel. I'm pretty sure they won't use them the first chance they get."
That is true, France only nukes you as a warning by their doctrine
We almost reached that point of no return in 2022 and now Dibu Martinez gets a dedicated nuclear sub monitoring him for life
It wouldn't deter Iran from using proxies to attack Israel though, unless Israel gets proxies of their own like PMJ, Arab and Balochi separatists, the Taliban, and Sunni militias in Iraq.
Doesn't Israel not officially acknowledge that they have nukes? Do they actually have an official nuclear policy?
Yes, it is wrong. Thinking conflicts is a zero sum game is wrong. What is wrong is rewarding war, however; it's hard to define existential threats and trying to cause the least amount of casualties.
Saudi Arabia and Israel were on the path of normalizing relations and being peacefully coexistence. That doesn't help Iran's leader's so they fund Hamas, Hezbollah, etc to provoke Israel.
Anyways, I saved humanity with this comment.
,,Anyways, I saved humanity with this comment."
Put that in your flair, do it, do it! haha (nice one)
Both side losing is by definition not zero sum though, it's negative sum.
I would argue a Israel this is severely mauled in the present conflict woul be much more keen on making peace with its less hostile neighbours. Iran isn't ever going to come out in a good shape anyway
Regime change for both sides would be preferable
now you're talking
I don't want Iran to have nukes.
Primarily because they're one of the few regimes insane enough to use them if they had them.
my fear is that they will give it to their proxy, they already give ballistic missiles to the Houthis
yes i dont if you read my previous comment but i would like for them to lose