Trump, Netanyahu and Khamenei – three angry old men who could get us all killed | Simon Tisdall
www.theguardian.com
Whether inept, driven by survival or corrupt, they are unfit to lead their countries, let alone make decisions that imperil the whole world, says Guardian foreign affairs commentator Simon Tisdall

This was not inevitable. This is a war Israel chose. It could have been prevented. Diplomatic talks were ongoing when the bombers took off for Iran. Israel’s continuing, illegal, unjustified airstrikes are unlikely to achieve their stated aim – permanently ending Tehran’s presumed efforts to build nuclear weapons – and may accelerate it. They must stop now. Likewise, Iran must halt its retaliation immediately and drop its escalatory threats to attack US and UK bases.

This conflict is not limited, as was the case last year, to tit-for-tat exchanges and “precision strikes” on a narrow range of military targets. It’s reached a wholly different level. Potentially nothing is off the table. Civilians are being killed on both sides. Leaders are targets. The rhetoric is out of control. With Israel fighting on several fronts, and Iran’s battered regime backed against a wall, the Middle East is closer than ever to a disastrous conflagration.

Reasons can always be found to go to war. The roots of major conflicts often reach back decades – and this is true of the Israel-Iran vendetta, which dates to the 1979 Islamic revolution. The so-called “shadow war” between the two intensified in recent years. Yet all-out conflict had been avoided, until now. So who is principally to blame for this sudden, unprecedented explosion?

Answer: three angry old men whose behaviour raises serious doubts about their judgment, common sense, motives and even their sanity.

  • Andy@slrpnk.net
    English
    15·
    3 days ago

    This article is fine, but kind of superfluous.

    We get it. Everyone can see this. If you don’t have actionable advice or some additional insight, you’re really just reporting that water is wet.

      • Andy@slrpnk.net
        English
        1·
        2 days ago

        That’s a fun song (but also obviously silly and wrong).

          • Andy@slrpnk.net
            English
            1·
            12 hours ago

            This is silly.

            First, I don’t know why you’re using the past tense. I don’t call water “wetted” I call it “wet”. And while I wouldn’t call fire “burned”, I would call it “burning”.

            But here’s the thing: you’re welcome to have your idiosyncratic opinion on this. The fact that you seem to want me to argue my side when I feel perfectly comfortable letting you have a subjective opinion most people consider ridiculous says to me that (A) you know which one of us holds the broadly agreed upon position and (B) this isn’t about resolving a dispute. It’s just online debate for sport.

            Enjoy believing a hotdog is a sandwich. Sleep well in your claims that cereal is a soup. I’m not going to explain to you why water is wet because it’s a waste of my time.

    • Zorque@lemmy.worldEnglish
      15·
      3 days ago

      Unfortunately not everyone is aware that water is wet. And often there are groups who try and convince people otherwise.

      I agree that more ideas need to be put into action that can actually accomplish change for the better, but that requires that people be informed first.

        • Andy@slrpnk.net
          English
          1·
          2 days ago

          Most scientists define wetness as a liquid’s ability to maintain contact with a solid surface, meaning that water itself is not wet, but can make other sensation.

          But if you define wet as ‘made of liquid or moisture’, as some do, then water and all other liquids can be considered wet.

          So… by a highly common definition it is wet. That’s not much of a debate.

          There are plenty of words that mean different things in scientific contexts that are different from common use. It’s like saying “the sky is blue” is a false statement. Yes, there are contexts where the sky isn’t blue. At night. On other planets. Perhaps earlier periods in our planet’s history. But are we in those contexts right now? And is my meaning ambiguous?

          There are a lot of times where language is unclear, and we must work to bridge communication barriers. But to insist on debating things when no genuine confusion is present is just an a bizarre antisocial practice.