Why is this article written like an op-ed, despite being Reuters?
I am not even necessarily disagreeing with it (I lean very anti-Iran and slightly geopolitically neoconservative) but the tone is not at all neutral and makes no mention of the possible downsides of troops staying in Iraq after decades.
I don't support the Iran War but I do support global US hegemony because I believe the other two possible candidates, China and Russia, would be worse. And I think retaliation against Iran for their massacre of protesters was morally warranted, even if that was only a pretext for the war by Trump rather than an actual moral consideration, and even if moral merit alone does not justify major intervention or war.
"Slightly geopolitically neoconservative" is the short way to describe that.
US did not retaliated against Iran for massacre of protesters. One of US (multiple) plans was to just change the head, keep regime as is and rule Iran Venezuela style - where torturers got promoted. In fact, US leadership openly and proudly does not care about killed or injured civilians.
US leadership openly and proudly praises authoritarians and dictators around the world. What are you on about in here.
meowface · · focus · HN ↗
I am not even necessarily disagreeing with it (I lean very anti-Iran and slightly geopolitically neoconservative) but the tone is not at all neutral and makes no mention of the possible downsides of troops staying in Iraq after decades.
latexr · · focus · HN ↗
We have too many labels. That’s not good for a species which hates others based on different labels.
Edit: I should’ve expressed that this was a general thought triggered by the comment but it’s not a direct criticism of the person making it.
meowface · · focus · HN ↗
"Slightly geopolitically neoconservative" is the short way to describe that.
watwut · · focus · HN ↗
US leadership openly and proudly praises authoritarians and dictators around the world. What are you on about in here.
meowface · · focus · HN ↗