reply on: Medvedev: Countries Ready To Supply Iran With Nukes \ stacker news ~Politics_And

pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism OP 8h \ parent \ on: Medvedev: Countries Ready To Supply Iran With Nukes Politics_And_Law

I cant help thinking perhaps this wouldn't have happened had the western (Isreal's) propaganda machine had been more honest about Iran's nuclear capabilities.

The words will continue sound to me like a carefully chose taunt, not sure if it is true or false, only that we can count on Medvedev trying to play 5D chess - not sure how good he is at that. But yes, if you're already found guilty of something without doing it and feeling the consequences, you might as well do it and actually be guilty. Then at least you'll also have the "pleasures" you're being punished for, not just the punishment.

That said, let's not pretend that the Iranian regime is proliferating peace and prosperity for the whole universe. They may have decided to develop the arms many years ago. We don't know when, and we'll probably never know the truth, simply because of the endless lies. This is why the enemy of the commoner isn't a particular state, it's all states.

if the Cold War era taught us anything, it is that M.A.D. is arguably the strongest incentive for global peace.

Is this what global peace looks like though? Growing up (in a nuclear armed country) during the Cold War, I've always felt that deterrence only worked on the homelands of nuclearly armed countries, and that the reason it worked was because the war hawks had non-nuclear playgrounds - Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, to name a few, to lay waste to lives on. If there would have been total multilateral assured destruction, then the pessimist in me expects there to be actual nuclear wars and M.A.D. be damned. As long as people willfully subject themselves to leaders with war powers, there will be wars.

I also wonder if every regime would be capable of the restraint needed for not using their nuclear arms. I don't want to find out, tbh.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @unschooled 4h

if you're already found guilty of something without doing it and feeling the consequences, you might as well do it and actually be guilty.

I haven't yet seen any proof that they are "found guilty" of weaponizing their nuclear potential. Only that the US politicians can't seem to get their story straight about it. But if we should take Netanyahu at his word, then they should have had a weaponized nuclear arsenal 30 years ago, right?

I wouldn't claim it was a peaceful time, but I don't think by any stretch of the imagination it's hard to picture the carnage that would have ensued if for a moment the US or Russia hadn't believed their enemy blown them to smithereens.

My understanding is that, among those wars you listed, Iraq is a similar case, in that we were expected to believe that this was necessary in the name of "peace" in the M.E. to stop them from developing their nuclear capabilities. The isreali-american axis is very good at coercing once thriving nations into the peaceful third world. In fact, it demonstrates perfectly the lack of restraint you mentioned.

I know plenty of Americans as I do Iranians, and what I see from both is a rally around governments they were once very critical of. Nasty business, war.

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism OP 4h

I haven't seen any proof either and I don't think we ever will: "there is no evidence because we successfully destroyed everything"... or something like that.

Iraq is a similar case

I meant the Iraq/Iran war of the 80's which was still during (the tail end of) the Cold War, as that was the near-decade-long theatre of destruction for a couple million lives.

But yeah, the US invasion under Bush Jr. was supposedly a lie - although I saw a comment here on SN this morning that refutes that and claims that it was all legit. Who knows... When there's an appearance that it's acceptable for leadership to lie to the people, then it doesn't really matter what the truth is. It just matters whether one gets to profit off the leadership in sufficient means to survive the next leadership. This is probably why they all love shitcoins.

I know plenty of Americans as I do Iranians, and what I see from both is a rally around governments they were once very critical of. Nasty business, war.

Yeah, add some nationalism to flavor it off and we'll never see the end of retards dancing in the streets at the demise of what their lords and masters told them was the enemy - also on both sides. The greater the massacre, the greater the party. Humanity really is a sad species.