

preemptive war
OK - reacting-only would reduce wars of aggression.
How about if 98% of UN members votes for an allied attack against something that almost everyone agrees is psychotic, like ISIS, NK, Eritrea, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, etc.? Does the combination of actions and clear intent not make pre-emptive war and regime change of these seem like the right thing?
Ahmed Yassin
Here I don’t agree - I think the 1988 Hamas charter is utterly indefensible.
these type of groups form as a direct result of imperial violence.
Yes, and Israel was formed in response to the Holocaust and pogroms. Hamas is also genocidal, just incompetent - but would be worse. I think both should be boycotted and sanctioned, until Israeli voters stop voting the way they have been (which might not happen until they reject religion and racism), and Gazans overthrow Hamas (which seems more possible than in e.g. NK).
nuclear weapons
not offensive, but defensive
Yeah, allowing Iran to get/create nukes and intercontinental delivery, would reduce the chances of attacks against it like the recent ones by USA and Israel, which would be good for the normal people of Iran in the short and medium term.
When it comes to the people (not the regimes) I think that the Israeli, older Gazan, and USA citizens are the worst because of the way they vote(d); while the Iranians might be the least bad (tho that may just be because they haven’t had real elections for so long).



CERN: CMS weighs the Higgs boson using flashes of light 125.14 ± 0.15 GeV.
Testing the heaviest quark’s interaction with light