Applies to Lemmy too.
this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2026
170 points (89.7% liked)
Political Memes
11222 readers
3180 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Inaction itself is a course of action, but I would argue that continuing negotiations with Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation would have been a positive action to take under a sane administration.
You mean the deal that was in place, was working fine but torn up by Trump 1.0 simply because "it was an Obama deal" and a certain orange racist can't cope with anything a black man may have been involved in.
Yeah. Like I said, under a sane administration.
The US had an agreement with Iran that was working. Trump 1.0 unilaterally pulled out of it. Biden then put ridiculous conditions on Iran to reinstate it. I'd argue that the US has lost all legitimacy in negotiations with Iran.
If the US really cared about nuclear proliferation, it would start by reducing its own nuclear arsenal. It would pressure Israel to denuclearize. It would deescalate with China so they'd have less incentive to increase their nuclear stockpile.
Anyway, saying inaction is a course of action is rhetorical nonsense. There are an infinite number of things that any person or entity could choose to do. Not doing them isn't an "action". For example, I didn't take an "action" last week by not getting cosmetic surgery, or by not going to Aruba, or by not becoming a real estate agent.
The point of preventing nuclear proliferation is, by definition, to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states precisely because of how difficult it is to convince a country to denuclearize.
So a country going from 50 nukes to 100 isn't proliferation?
Putting key words in bold in your comment doesn't prove your point.
Anyway, recent history tells anyone who's paying attention that if the US has you on their shit list, te last thing you should do is give up your weapons programs. Contrast Iraq and Libya with North Korea, for instance.
The US is not a force for peace or progress, regardless of who is in charge here. Dems are better than Reps at masking our Imperial ambitions, but either way we make things worse. We should stop meddling in foreign affairs and fix our problems at home.
Literally, it is not.
Apparently it didn't emphasis them enough, considering you still failed to understand.
Yes, I'm sure that if Iraq had only kept producing chemical weapons the 2003 invasion would never have happened, and if only Gadaffi had kept his 40-year-failure going another ten years, then his people definitely wouldn't have rose up against him, and there would be no way that any country could use air power against im!
That you think North Korea is a positive example in this situation is fucking telling.
I was unaware of the technical definition. Point conceded.
What does it tell you, exactly? I didn't praise North Korea. I used them as an example of a country the US would love to wipe out but can't easily because they have leverage, including nuclear weapons.
And as for Iraq and Libya, both countries had been pursing nuclear weapons. Libya gave up their program. Iraq attacked Kuwait before finishing theirs. It didn't turn out well for either of them.
Regardless, my point this whole time has been that the US doesn't need to be involved in every place in the world. To the extent that some of these places are threats to its people, that's because we have been antagonizing them for decades.
And to the extent that some of these places lack freedom and democracy, we should try getting those concepts right in our own country before exporting them.
But you and I both know that's not why the US does what it does. Its all about hegemony and ensuring Western capital's unhindered access to markets.
EDIT: Removed some unnecessary snark