this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
203 points (99.5% liked)

World News

54706 readers
2103 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

I don't disagree with most of what you said here. My point isn't necessarily about the number of bombs dropped, but rather about the attitude that drives the war. I think there's a very big difference between a war that's started under dishonest pretexts to grift and pillage, and a war that's fueled by revenge and anger caused by a legitimate reason of going to war, like the sinking of this carrier. The difference in attitude will determine the lengths the country is willing to go to achieve its aims, and that matters. If the general public supports the war and is motivated to see results, then that gives the government a lot of options and leeway to carry out things that are new, unprecedented, and extreme.

Think about it like this. The former would be a war like the one in Vietnam or Iraq, but the latter would be like the war against Japan in WWII or against Mexico in the Mexican American war. Japan got burnt down and then nuked, Mexico got half the country annexed. That's a pretty big difference in results when you compare them to wars where the public wasn't really into like Iraq or Vietnam.

The only statement that you said that I disagree with is this one:

Iran has a firm fervent base of support

I don't think this is true at all. The only people who support the regime are those in the regime or who directly benefit from its corruption and tyranny. Historically speaking, when regimes try to rule with violence and fear, it's a pretty strong indicator that they lost all legitimacy with the people and are clinging on to power for dear life. They know the moment they lose power the people will come after them, and I think that's what we're seeing in Iran now.