Yeah but that’s because you’re using logic, reasoning, and commonly understood meanings of words. In Kid Starver’s authoritarian mind none of those things matter.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre.
Absolutely, the idea that “preemptive” strikes are defensive is Orwellian.
Also how does UK know what target they will hit? Will it be a kindergarten killing innocent children? Will it be a refinery constituting chemical warfare on civilians? There is no plausible reason to believe these strikes are purely defensive.
Imagine the number of attacks the world could “morally” do on USA, if preemptive strikes were considered self defense.
How many countries even allies has Trump threatened? Panama, Cuba, Denmark/Greenland, Canada. Are some that I remember for sure. Besides actually attacking Venezuela and now Iran.
All these countries could legally perform strikes against USA by the logic of the current American Government. And then they wonder why so many people hate USA.
Yes but that’s not really what I’m saying. My point is that Starmer has been very clear (in his slimy lizard way) that the UK would be helping America.
How is a bunker buster on a bomber defensive?
Defensive is to scramble planes to shoot down missiles. An attack is not defensive in my book.
Edit: A word.
Yeah but that’s because you’re using logic, reasoning, and commonly understood meanings of words. In Kid Starver’s authoritarian mind none of those things matter.
Absolutely, the idea that “preemptive” strikes are defensive is Orwellian.
Also how does UK know what target they will hit? Will it be a kindergarten killing innocent children? Will it be a refinery constituting chemical warfare on civilians? There is no plausible reason to believe these strikes are purely defensive.
The idea that preemptive strikes are defensive is Roman.
Imagine the number of attacks the world could “morally” do on USA, if preemptive strikes were considered self defense.
How many countries even allies has Trump threatened? Panama, Cuba, Denmark/Greenland, Canada. Are some that I remember for sure. Besides actually attacking Venezuela and now Iran.
All these countries could legally perform strikes against USA by the logic of the current American Government. And then they wonder why so many people hate USA.
IMO defensive would involve them not leaving the USA.
Yes, that’s a good way to define it.
Yeha that’s why “defensive” is in quotes, but the idea is that America is only allowed to use UK bases to bomb Iran’s offensive capabilities.
That’s still going too far IMO. USA had the option to stay out, we should not aid them in their illegal wars.
Yes but that’s not really what I’m saying. My point is that Starmer has been very clear (in his slimy lizard way) that the UK would be helping America.