This is a legitimate critique. Historically US intervention in that region has not gone well. However you're missing some important points that could make it ultimately the correct move (I'm not saying it definitely does, just that it seems likely):
- We really don't want Iran to have nukes, I think that goes without saying, and it's hard to argue that this conflict hasn't set back that program.
- It's likely that taking out Iran's ability to manufacture drones and missiles will result in a net saving of lives REGARDLESS of the outcome of this conflict. Certainly that's the case if you factor nukes in.
- Removing the boot from the neck of the resistance even temporarily could make the difference between ineffective protests and a true revolution, and I think that's what we all have to be hoping for.

Not a Trumptard, and the best rebuttal is something about the timing being right on this, we won't get another chance to topple an evil regime and that's worth consideration at least.

It may have still been ultimately misguided but any real opportunity to get rid of those awful clerics can't be taken lightly.

If you think the one chance we had to offer women in that region a chance at real freedom was not worth taking? You may simply lack humanity.

Issues with renewables offerings really has to hit this administration where it hurts.

There's just no way Cubans can view US as the good guys if this works.

Don't worry, guys. They've got lots of great engineers working on it.

It sounds like you're saying you think Hamas and the Ayotallah are better than Israel and America? In that case I would like you to go live there and find out and report back what you've learned.

Ok so you find it disturbing but not surprising that they elected a jihadist organization to leadership roles. That's really all I was asking for.

You're aware that Hamas was democratically elected, right? By the way I'm not saying that civilians deserve to be killed in strikes, just that one thing has to do with the other.

So one side isn't worse than the other? The people saying "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" and putting out hits on cartoonists and making women wear bags aren't worse than the ones who aren't doing those things?

I'm pretty sure they do though. They love to refuse payouts over insider trading, and I imagine the same is true for this.

Which is kind of problematic to me. Imagine a bookie refusing to payout for a bet on a fight because it was fixed? I wouldn't ever use that bookie again.

I mean, who knows what they believe in their hearts, but I'm pretty sure they all identify as Muslim, since it's a death sentence not to.

But do you at least think it would *be nice* if Iran and Gaza had non-jihadist leadership? I think that's the part that's missing from these rational discussions, the part where one side admits that Hamas and the Ayotallah are really the bad guys, and where the other side admits that it would be nice if Israel was a little more surgical with their strikes.

Is he even still alive in some form?

People get away with worse in the US. The Epstein list? Breonna Taylor? The time Kyle Rittenhouse shot protesters and became a hero to the right?

Exactly a few hours? Ok, let me set my alarm clock. Is that exactly a few hours from when you sent it? Or exactly a few hours from when I read it?

Your grid isn't struggling to meet daytime production though. If it was, you'd get better rates.