If the US Congress moved to stop Trump from escalating conflict in Iran, should the bombing of enrichment sites be considered less of an act of war than bombing reactors?
They’re being a bit ridiculous to be honest—it’s clear you were just clarifying–but people here are (rightfully) a bit short-tempered with people who split hairs about such things. Usually those who do are trying to undermine the main point. But in this case, that doesn’t seem like it was your intent.
There’s a difference between killing a general and bombing 3 nuclear reactors
This was the comment you corrected in regards to concerns about a potential world war. If you believe bombing nuclear sites is less of an escalation than bombing nuclear reactors, that’s fine, but focusing on the inaccuracy didn’t respond to the original concern and intended point - that killing a general is different from targeting three nuclear sites.
If the comment was corrected to read
There’s a difference between killing a general and bombing 3 nuclear enrichment sites
Would their original point be any different?
That’s why I described your response as splitting hairs. Instead of engaging with their point, you corrected a detail that didn’t significantly change their concern about escalation of an international conflict.
Okay, I have a hypothetical question for you:
If the US Congress moved to stop Trump from escalating conflict in Iran, should the bombing of enrichment sites be considered less of an act of war than bombing reactors?
deleted by creator
The US bombed a sovereign nation, does that not constitute an act of war, regardless of the target?
deleted by creator
They’re being a bit ridiculous to be honest—it’s clear you were just clarifying–but people here are (rightfully) a bit short-tempered with people who split hairs about such things. Usually those who do are trying to undermine the main point. But in this case, that doesn’t seem like it was your intent.
This was the comment you corrected in regards to concerns about a potential world war. If you believe bombing nuclear sites is less of an escalation than bombing nuclear reactors, that’s fine, but focusing on the inaccuracy didn’t respond to the original concern and intended point - that killing a general is different from targeting three nuclear sites.
If the comment was corrected to read
Would their original point be any different?
That’s why I described your response as splitting hairs. Instead of engaging with their point, you corrected a detail that didn’t significantly change their concern about escalation of an international conflict.
deleted by creator