politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
So were they going for nukes or not? Because your first comment seemed to claim they weren't interested in nukes, but now you seem to claim they were justified in going for nukes this whole time.
(For the audience, Iran has been interested in nukes since at least the 90s, but has been prevented from getting one by lots of outside actors.)
Yes, they have been seeking nukes since at lease the 90s, probably earlier, as around the 70s America on behalf of Britain orchestrated a coup and dismantled the countries progress, all so Britain could continue fucking Iran out of its oil and the profit they need to develop.
As far as the present goes;
I don't know whether they were going for nukes specifically, or instead were developing civilian energy projects that produce/use the same if not very similar products; and that stockpile enabled them to pursue both.
Honestly I didn't care. While I generally don't think ANYONE should have nukes, the US and Russia keep proving over and over again that that is the only deterrent you can actually rely on; so I can totally understand various nations drive to ensure they actually get some peace. If Iran feels they want/need nukes to keep themselves safe; well power to em, unfortunately they are correct.
Leave them the fuck alone. Stop providing them with more and more reason to fucking despise the west and it's allies; continually proving they HAVE to fight back to continue to exist. Continuing to attack isn't turning them away from nukes, it's hardening their resolve and proving further why nukes are necessary. Why do you think they felt it necessary to build a facility 200m under a damn mountain??
Afraid they're going to use their nukes offensively? Then stop giving them reasons to. Actually show some progress towards world peace instead of of just bombing everyone that has a slightly different world view.
"Death to America" does not constitute a slightly different world view. They are perfectly reasonable in their pursuit of nukes, and we're perfectly reasonable in stopping them. When someone repeatedly says "we want to drop a nuke on people" you believe them and do what it takes to stop them.
Why are they saying 'death to America'?
Because America won't leave them alone. America started this shit, and continues to retaliate over and over for it's own fuck ups comming back to bite it.
Obviously Iran is going to hate them and say things like 'Death to America' when America just wont stop giving them reasons to.
Maybe if America can demonstrate proper restraint and just leave the country to it's own afairs, truly show themselves to NOT be an enemy of Iran, perhaps even an ally given sufficient time to heal; Iran will no longer feel the need to defend themselves against an immanent threat, whether real or perceived.
Bombing them sends the opposite message.
So.... Yes, but we still can't allow them to have the ability to take out an entire city in one strike. Sucks, I know, but there are lines.
The rest of the world says the same about America.
'Terrorist' isn't a way of life, it's the perspective of those against you.
I would happily give up all our nukes if everyone else agreed to do so as well.
As nice as that would be, the unfortunate reality is that's just not a realistic solution. You can't put the cat back in the bag, so to speak.
The technology is already known; If everyone agreed to disarm, each party would just be even more worried about nations potentially ignoring that agreement and their now lack of defense against it.
The biggest reason I'm not all that concerned about Iran having nukes is the fact that so many nations are already nuclear armed. The use of nuclear weapons is so hated globally that they can only really be used in defence. If any individual nation chose to use their nukes offensively, the inevitable response from everyone else would mean the decision is suicide.
If Iran acquired nukes, then used them on say, Israel; America at the very least would turn Iran into a nuclear wasteland. I'm sure there are other nations that would join in, even if just on principle.
So, I agree with everything you said, I'm just not as confident as I would like to be that Iran would stay their own hand. I agree that it's an idiotic idea, actually using a nuke, which is part of why even North Korea hasn't used theirs, but I'm just not that confident Iran could resist the temptation once they've got it. Making Israel disappear is high on their priority list, even if it's a stupid idea.
I'm not dedicated to the preservation of Israel or anything, but part of preserving the taboo against nukes means making sure that we never actually have to retaliate after a strike. Like you said, the cat is out of the bag as far as owning nukes goes, we don't want to end up in a situation where we have to say "okay, WWII and then that time Israel disappeared but we're serious, no more nukes?"
I know it's much easier said than done; but I just wish the world as a whole would put more effort into diplomatic relations instead of just bombing eachother into 'compliance'.
We don't all have to like each other and work together; but if we could stop burning each others houses down, that'd be great.
Hopefully that's not an unpopular opinion...