[rdm_blackhole]

It's not about the feasibility itself, it's about the precedent that was set. Can you look in the eye someone and forbid them from doing something that you just did? It makes zero sense.

> no casualties

40 people died

> Moreover these countries already hate US, so shouldn’t they logically hate the US actions as well?

It doesn't matter if they hate the US or not. That is not the point. The point is that it makes this sort of actions completely legitimate.

[innagadadavida]

> actions completely legitimate So if I'm a dictoator in Africa who hates US and the west, I'd first think oh that evil empire already did that so I can also do it too? Why would they even care what US does? This makes no sense.

[toomanyrichies]

> Can you look in the eye someone and forbid them from doing something that you just did? It makes zero sense.

It sounds like you're assuming the goal is moral coherence. It isn't; Trump and MAGA have always been completely philosophically untethered. The goal here is demonstrating that Trump is exempt from the rules he enforces on others. The more obviously hypocritical it is, the clearer the message: "We're strong enough that we don't need to be consistent." It's posturing and dominance signaling, nothing more.

[__turbobrew__]

> Can you look in the eye someone and forbid them from doing something that you just did? It makes zero sense.

American exceptionalism, not a new concept