[gspencley]

That's a very fair point.

I think the difference is that Iran has been actively trying to follow through with its threats and this has been demonstrated through its actions towards an American ally over the past year. This gives reason to believe that Iran's threats are both credible and, while a full-scale war between Iran and the USA might not fare well for Iran ... you don't need to demonstrate that you are capable of wiping out a population or winning a war in order to represent a credible threat. If only one of Iran's missiles manage to land in a densely populated area... people die. And that's enough to warrant a response IMO.

[dttze]

> this has been demonstrated through its actions towards an American ally over the past year.

And what about that ally's actions towards Iran? Like assassinating political and military figures inside the country? Which would traditionally be considered an act of war. If anything, Iran has been too passive.

[gspencley]

> And what about that ally's actions towards Iran?

I'm going to share a personal world view. Some may find this controversial or strongly disagree with this world view and that's fine. This is my opinion, not yours.

What gives a nation-state legitimacy is how well adheres to what is, in my personal opinion, the only moral justification for having a government in the first place: the protection of individual rights.

Human beings have two fundamental ways that we can deal with each other: reason/diplomacy or force.

When reason is chosen, life flourishes. People live together peacefully and we create things, start businesses & families and build communities and thrive.

When force is chosen we get war, destruction, poverty, misery and death. We get gangs, thugs and instability.

The need for a government comes from this dichotomy. Government exists, fundamentally, to remove the element of force from civil existence.

My definition of liberty is "An environment in which all interpersonal relations are consensual."

No country, even the freest in the world today, adheres to this principle perfectly. But we can certainly say that some do it better than others. We can even say that some do it a HELL OF A LOT better than others to the point where there is no rational basis for comparison.

Therefore, the question "And what about that ally's actions towards Iran?" places Israel and Iran on equal moral footing.

I reject that wholeheartedly.

On the one hand you have a nation state that is a liberal democracy. It's not perfect, but people can live and pursue their lives there in relative peace and freedom. You can believe what you want to. Live your life as an LGBT+ individual without interference. Start a business. Own property. Have a family and pretty much do what you want with your one and only shot at this life.

On the other hand you have a religious theocracy that murders women for not covering their hair and throws LGBT+ people off of rooftops and executes people just for criticizing the government.

So, what ABOUT Israel's actions towards Iran, exactly?

To point the finger at a free country taking action against a dictatorship is to suggest that that dictatorship has rights.

It doesn't.

The entire basis for a country's right to exist is the recognition and protection of rights. You can't, on the one hand, say "I have the right to exist and to defend myself" while routinely infringing on the rights of your own citizens. You can't violate peoples' rights and then go and hide behind the concept of rights. That concept is based on the mutual recognition, respect and value for reason and diplomacy over force.

[dttze]

> You can't, on the one hand, say "I have the right to exist and to defend myself" while routinely infringing on the rights of your own citizens.

So you think the US doesn't have a right to exist?