G7 leaders: ‘Iran can never have a nuclear weapon’
-
Fair, the whole point of attacking Iran was because of Europe having a diverging stance on Palestine than Israel so we agree on that - but now that Israel has bombed Iran - all of Europe is rallying behind them and the genocide in Gaza has fallen to the wayside.
Obviously I'm not saying that killing civilians (both scientists and casualties caught in the cross-fire on either side) is equivalent to the annihilation of a state. I'm saying that by manufacturing consent for the "war on terror" the G7 is exposing itself as the unfair political partner it has always been which only fuels more resentment on the side of BRICS, which will only further escalate the conflict until another full out war erupts (like what's happening in Ukraine)
So I'm arguing that we should discourage unprovoked attacks by allies of the G7 on the grounds that those are unproductive to peacekeeping.
And if you're claiming that "Everyone's in agreement about the fact that Iran should not have nukes." but "Blowing up nuclear sites and some scientists" is "hardly a war" - then you're either saying BRICS can do the same and should expect no repercussions or you're saying that they should expect repercussions and therefore attacks and escalations against the G7 are justified as well.
I feel we may not be understanding each other so I'll present my argument and you present yours?
My point is: The G7's hypocritical application of international law and use of violence and coercion to maintain dominance is exactly what drives countries to join BRICS as an alternative, making Western actions counterproductive to their own stated goals of democracy, peace and stability - which results in further conflict and loss of life across the globe.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Fair, the whole point of attacking Iran was because of Europe having a diverging stance on Palestine than Israel so we agree on that - but now that Israel has bombed Iran - all of Europe is rallying behind them and the genocide in Gaza has fallen to the wayside.
At no point did Palestine play into Iran nuclear talks. I still don't quite understand why you keep bringing them into this conflict. It's a seperate conflict that has been in the making for a long time now, and I'm almost 99% sure US is strongly behind it (which would explain the spike in weapon deliveries pre-strike) borderline using Israel as a puppet state.
So I'm arguing that we should discourage unprovoked attacks by allies of the G7 on the grounds that those are unproductive to peacekeeping.
Because not doing anything and chilling out when others are making major moves is sure a failproof strategy. Worked well for France in WW2. Not really advocating for these attacks, but you gotta understand that they do have a point. If west does nothing, they will get cornered. No one wants to be cornered. I'd rather be cornered by US than IRGC, you know, but obviously this is going to be a controversial and mixed opinion for obvious reasons, depending on who's reading this.
or you're saying that they should expect repercussions and therefore attacks and escalations against the G7 are justified as well.
Well, no one is stopping you from becoming the next Houthis shooting rockets at our valuables. The god isn't watching. But "expect no repercussions"? Why do you think no one is attacking the big countries? There are always repercussions, this isn't unique to G7 countries. Who tf is going to bully China? Not saying the world order is excellent, but it is what it is, and currently Iran doesn't have the best cards and no one on the other side wants them to have nukes.
My point is: The G7's hypocritical application of international law and use of violence and coercion to maintain dominance is exactly what drives countries to join BRICS as an alternative, making Western actions counterproductive to their own stated goals of democracy, peace and stability - which results in further conflict and loss of life across the globe.
My point is, and I truly believe, if highly religious countries with record amount of human right violations and authoritarism would be the world's hedgemony instead of United States who could get wiped out while idling, there is a very, very high chance my, and likely your life might be so much worse. US for all it's shitty things, is still, in my opinion, a far safer choice for world than the cool trio Russia, North Korea and Iran, so naturally western countries are interested in avoiding such a large future threats
-
My parents are refugees from Iran. They've done us plenty. And now I see Westerners talking like Iran is the saviour of the Middle East and that the regime is a poor victim of Western imperialism. Israel is a terror state but so is Iran. No innocent people should ever be bombed, and every civilian is a victim of greedy old men getting young men murdered for resources or pride - but it does piss me off to continuously see people who don't understand the region whatsoever form strong opinions on it based on Tiktok and Gaza.
And now I see Westerners talking like Iran is the saviour of the Middle East
You need to stop putting words in people's mouths... I have seen nobody here with that view.
There's a thing called "nuance." Rarely, if ever, is anything on the world stage black and white.
So when I say Israel is worse than Iran, and that Iran has done nothing to me as an American, I'm not saying they're "the savior of the middle east." Not even close. Nothing I've said implies that in any way.
-
Fair, the whole point of attacking Iran was because of Europe having a diverging stance on Palestine than Israel so we agree on that - but now that Israel has bombed Iran - all of Europe is rallying behind them and the genocide in Gaza has fallen to the wayside.
Obviously I'm not saying that killing civilians (both scientists and casualties caught in the cross-fire on either side) is equivalent to the annihilation of a state. I'm saying that by manufacturing consent for the "war on terror" the G7 is exposing itself as the unfair political partner it has always been which only fuels more resentment on the side of BRICS, which will only further escalate the conflict until another full out war erupts (like what's happening in Ukraine)
So I'm arguing that we should discourage unprovoked attacks by allies of the G7 on the grounds that those are unproductive to peacekeeping.
And if you're claiming that "Everyone's in agreement about the fact that Iran should not have nukes." but "Blowing up nuclear sites and some scientists" is "hardly a war" - then you're either saying BRICS can do the same and should expect no repercussions or you're saying that they should expect repercussions and therefore attacks and escalations against the G7 are justified as well.
I feel we may not be understanding each other so I'll present my argument and you present yours?
My point is: The G7's hypocritical application of international law and use of violence and coercion to maintain dominance is exactly what drives countries to join BRICS as an alternative, making Western actions counterproductive to their own stated goals of democracy, peace and stability - which results in further conflict and loss of life across the globe.
The whole point of attacking iran from israeli side is to have free reign on oppresing palestinians. For american prespective is all about oil. Europe support is because iran is allied with russia
-
And now I see Westerners talking like Iran is the saviour of the Middle East
You need to stop putting words in people's mouths... I have seen nobody here with that view.
There's a thing called "nuance." Rarely, if ever, is anything on the world stage black and white.
So when I say Israel is worse than Iran, and that Iran has done nothing to me as an American, I'm not saying they're "the savior of the middle east." Not even close. Nothing I've said implies that in any way.
I'm not even talking about you, am I? This idea is literally everywhere I look by Westerners who can't find their own assholes. If calling these twisted points of view out is a problem for you then deal with that.
That they haven't done anything to you is irrelevant. Israel hasn't either. In fact no one has, since America is the global state supreme.
-
Oh wow, I didn't even realize that I said all of that in my short comment
.I said nothing about Iran being a "victim," so please take your strawman elsewhere.
Israel is actively committing genocide, Iran is not. It's that fucking simple.
They're both bad, but one is clearly worse here.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Okay, well there's something called context. When you comment on something within a certain context appearing contradicting, it's reasonable to assume you're contradicting that certain context. My comment was only and completely about Iran not being a victim, when you comment something that appears to want to be contradicting, it would seem you're trying to prove that Iran is in fact a victim.
-
You wrote all that and failed to give me one example of annexation by US. Israel is annexing Palestine. Russia is annexing Ukraine. US didn't annex Afghanistan or other countries. The states/countries live on, sometimes better than before. There is a huge difference.
I honestly believe trump is BS'ing about annexing Canada.
You don't have to annex countries nowadays to make them your colonies. You just let your companies take all the business there, exploiting the resources etc, you install a few military bases to serve your geopolitcal interests, aka war games, and just for show you let them elect your lackeys as local representatives of the empire. The american empire is the largest one in the world currently, even without techincally owning all that land. There is no need to, it's the 21st century. Power is not measured only by land.
-
Fair, the whole point of attacking Iran was because of Europe having a diverging stance on Palestine than Israel so we agree on that - but now that Israel has bombed Iran - all of Europe is rallying behind them and the genocide in Gaza has fallen to the wayside.
At no point did Palestine play into Iran nuclear talks. I still don't quite understand why you keep bringing them into this conflict. It's a seperate conflict that has been in the making for a long time now, and I'm almost 99% sure US is strongly behind it (which would explain the spike in weapon deliveries pre-strike) borderline using Israel as a puppet state.
So I'm arguing that we should discourage unprovoked attacks by allies of the G7 on the grounds that those are unproductive to peacekeeping.
Because not doing anything and chilling out when others are making major moves is sure a failproof strategy. Worked well for France in WW2. Not really advocating for these attacks, but you gotta understand that they do have a point. If west does nothing, they will get cornered. No one wants to be cornered. I'd rather be cornered by US than IRGC, you know, but obviously this is going to be a controversial and mixed opinion for obvious reasons, depending on who's reading this.
or you're saying that they should expect repercussions and therefore attacks and escalations against the G7 are justified as well.
Well, no one is stopping you from becoming the next Houthis shooting rockets at our valuables. The god isn't watching. But "expect no repercussions"? Why do you think no one is attacking the big countries? There are always repercussions, this isn't unique to G7 countries. Who tf is going to bully China? Not saying the world order is excellent, but it is what it is, and currently Iran doesn't have the best cards and no one on the other side wants them to have nukes.
My point is: The G7's hypocritical application of international law and use of violence and coercion to maintain dominance is exactly what drives countries to join BRICS as an alternative, making Western actions counterproductive to their own stated goals of democracy, peace and stability - which results in further conflict and loss of life across the globe.
My point is, and I truly believe, if highly religious countries with record amount of human right violations and authoritarism would be the world's hedgemony instead of United States who could get wiped out while idling, there is a very, very high chance my, and likely your life might be so much worse. US for all it's shitty things, is still, in my opinion, a far safer choice for world than the cool trio Russia, North Korea and Iran, so naturally western countries are interested in avoiding such a large future threats
US for all it's shitty things, is still, in my opinion, a far safer choice for world than the cool trio Russia, North Korea and Iran
As I said: "that's an easy position to hold when you're on the side with all the nukes..."
I'm just trying to warn you that defending such a system only leads to more contradictions, which require more violence to subdue, which in turn creates even more contradictions, which repeats until it collapses under it's own weight.
-
School shooters usually use it as their last resort. Bullying of autistic kids is the main problem. Them finding such an exit is a secondary one.
No, school shooters aren't using it as a last resort. They are physcopaths who feel slighted and can't process emotions.
-
NO ONE should have them. Dumb asses.
Yeah but until countries like the US, Russia, China and the rest give them up, they are the only true guarantee of sovereignty.
-
Religious zealots can't be allowed to have nukes. You have to at least masquerade as a well-adjusted nation while you develop the nukes and slowly massage your zealots into positions of power over a few decades. Those are the rules.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]So you agree that Israel shouldn't have nukes.
-
US for all it's shitty things, is still, in my opinion, a far safer choice for world than the cool trio Russia, North Korea and Iran
As I said: "that's an easy position to hold when you're on the side with all the nukes..."
I'm just trying to warn you that defending such a system only leads to more contradictions, which require more violence to subdue, which in turn creates even more contradictions, which repeats until it collapses under it's own weight.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Beats the alternative?
EDIT: Gotta say, seeing sudden jump in downvotes on all my profile makes me feel good. I'm getting to your nerves, extremists. You know I'm right, and your brigading confirms that for me. The fact that you suddenly spend so much time trying to affect some imaginary points is just.. 1-0.
-
No, school shooters aren't using it as a last resort. They are physcopaths who feel slighted and can't process emotions.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]This is wrong. Psychopaths feel themselves just fine in the society and usually don't become school shooters.
Shooting up bullies is a very crude solution, one that a psychopath usually doesn't need.
In any case most of school shootings I've read about were connected to bullying, and bully lives don't matter. Don't bully, don't get killed.
A psychopath usually plans their murders, so they'll do just fine with a heavy sharp object or a reactive not intended for food getting into food. A psychopath will also be on the convenient side of any socially approved action.
I've recently fully realized that I've met a high quality psychopath once.
-
This is wrong. Psychopaths feel themselves just fine in the society and usually don't become school shooters.
Shooting up bullies is a very crude solution, one that a psychopath usually doesn't need.
In any case most of school shootings I've read about were connected to bullying, and bully lives don't matter. Don't bully, don't get killed.
A psychopath usually plans their murders, so they'll do just fine with a heavy sharp object or a reactive not intended for food getting into food. A psychopath will also be on the convenient side of any socially approved action.
I've recently fully realized that I've met a high quality psychopath once.
Well it's definitely not autistics or a last resort like you claim..
-
Oh no, I didn’t. I gave you examples of the USA doing much worse things. I also replied to your comment about Russias behavior to other countries, of which only 1 they had attacked. How many did America attack?
In any case the USA would have stayed much longer if in their occupation of the Middle East if public pressure, suicide rate of their forces etc.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Tf? How is, for example, doing a genocide in gaza (part of annexation) better than wiping out terrorist groups in Iraq?
-
Well it's definitely not autistics or a last resort like you claim..
In many cases it's both.
