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

World News

38506 readers
2693 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] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You need to solve the underlying conflicts?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That is one hypothesis. While it sounds reasonable, we don't actually know if it would work. We also have no clue how to solve the underlying conflicts. (Other than simplistic things like turning the entire middle east to glass - killing many innocent people in the process).

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

we don’t actually know if it would work.

We could try, because we know that the alternatives don't work for sure.

We also have no clue how to solve the underlying conflicts.

I would say that the bigger problem is that people in power don't actually want to solve the conflicts at all.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Try which? I've seen many ideas, we cannot try them all. Some of the ideas have been tried as well, but the proposers don't have enough history to know that or the results. Most of them will take decades to implement. This isn't an easy problem.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Try no to kill thousands of civilians in response.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Do you also include civilians who are killed by someone else if we don't take action? While "we" can do better about killing civilians, whoever "we" is, there is a "someone else" who will kill civilians as well - maybe a different group of civilians, but they will themselves do some killing.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

I'm talking about disproportional response to terrorism - I thought it was pretty clear.