this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
102 points (84.0% liked)

World News

38262 readers
2006 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The killing of three U.S. troops and wounding of dozens more on Sunday by Iran-backed militants is piling political pressure on President Joe Biden to deal a blow directly against Iran, a move he's been reluctant to do out of fear of igniting a broader war.

Biden's response options could range anywhere from targeting Iranian forces outside to even inside Iran, or opting for a more cautious retaliatory attack solely against the Iran-backed militants responsible, experts say.

American forces in the Middle East have been attacked more than 150 times by Iran-backed forces in Iraq, Syria, Jordan and off the coast of Yemen since the Israel-Hamas war erupted in October.

But until Sunday's attack on a remote outpost known as Tower 22 near Jordan's northeastern border with Syria, the strikes had not killed U.S. troops nor wounded so many. That allowed Biden the political space to mete out U.S. retaliation, inflicting costs on Iran-backed forces without risking a direct war with Tehran.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (15 children)

So 10k (random low number) deaths for 3 US military personel who signed up for such a possibility? Capitalists don't seem to be able to count when their opponent isn't white skinned.

Edit: specifying that I am predicting the deaths if U.S was to bomb iran or some shit.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (14 children)

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the point of a retaliatory military strike. The tit for tat bean counting with human lives isn't even a large part of the calculus ultimately.

Not retaliating is seen as a sign of weakness which would serve to undermine NATO's military stance of absolute first strike authority at anytime for any reason. Allowing Iran to attack US troops without a military response is relinquishing, in some small way, the US backed monopoly on violence. Right, wrong, or indifferent that is simply not something that will be allowed to happen.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 6 months ago (12 children)

Or how to keep global terrorism with a never ending supply of angry young people.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Fueling adversaries is good for the military sector.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago

We could give that whole thing a catchy name, like military industrial complex or something.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)