5 ms·

Maybe. Most probably they would have cheated. It is moot either way. There is no such thing as "fair" in geopolitics. I don't see how a sane person thinks Iran

Maybe. Most probably they would have cheated. It is moot either way. There is no such thing as "fair" in geopolitics. I don't see how a sane person thinks Iran getting the bomb is a good development or viable.

throwaway4good 4y ago
I agree in the sense that it comes down to a decision the US has to make on whether to invade Iran or not. Just like with Iraq; wmd’s, weapons inspectors etc. are ultimately just a side show.
- recuter 4y ago
  Nope, unlike Iraq and wmd's you have confirmation from multiple third parties and countries. IAEA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Ag...), France, Germany, UK, all are sounding the alarm.
  - unmole 4y ago
    > confirmation from multiple third parties and countries So, exactly the same as Iraq?
    - recuter 4y ago
      Nope, not remotely the same as Iraq. I like how some whataboutists here are arguing that Iran was treated poorly and therefore "deserves a nuclear weapon" and at the same time that it is all a conspiracy and they aren't developing one - despite overwhelming evidence from none US sources.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- psychphysic 4y ago
  Crazy that many of the same people condemning Russia invading Ukraine for "security". Would want to invade countries on the other side of the globe for "security". Super powers gonna super power and the rest of have to pretend to care.
  - neoromantique 4y ago
    There is a difference between unprovoked act of aggression against non-nuclear country for the sole crime of not wanting to associate with you and a literal theist dictatorship working on nuclear weapons who are open how exactly they plan to utilise them.
    - throwaway4good 4y ago
      Or maybe if you looked at it again, you would find it was actually the same …
      - chii 4y ago
        Only if you use a modernist, relativist truth instead of the objective truth.
    - FpUser 4y ago
      >"who are open how exactly they plan to utilise them" Any sources on how? Have they declared that they will attack another country with nuclear weapons? Or it is simply them suddenly becoming immune from invasions / attacks?
    - jockokralj 4y ago
      It's not "not wanting to associate with you", it's more like: Wanting to join an aggressive unfriendly nuclear-powered military alliance that's been expanding and approaching your borders for the past couple of decades.
      - chii 4y ago
        And look what happens if you don't join that alliance?
epolanski 4y ago
Well, look at all the countries that scrapped their nuclear programs and with that got invaded (Iraq, Libya, Ukraine). And look at those who actually developed nuclear weapons and ensured they have a strong defense deterrent (such as North Korea). You're looking at it with a very north-atlantic centred perspective.
- recuter 4y ago
  > You're looking at it with a very north-atlantic centred perspective. So? You say that like it is a bad thing. I didn't say Iran is completely illogical in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The comparison to North Korea is most apt. I don't want another North Korea situation, one is enough thanks. This one would be worse. Why? Because Saudi Arabia and Egypt and others will then likely decide they have to get nuclear weapons too. I don't care about "fair", I want fewer countries with nuclear weapons not more - for obvious reasons.

throwaway4good 4y ago

I agree in the sense that it comes down to a decision the US has to make on whether to invade Iran or not. Just like with Iraq; wmd’s, weapons inspectors etc. are ultimately just a side show.

recuter 4y ago
Nope, unlike Iraq and wmd's you have confirmation from multiple third parties and countries. IAEA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Ag...), France, Germany, UK, all are sounding the alarm.
- unmole 4y ago
  > confirmation from multiple third parties and countries So, exactly the same as Iraq?
  - recuter 4y ago
    Nope, not remotely the same as Iraq. I like how some whataboutists here are arguing that Iran was treated poorly and therefore "deserves a nuclear weapon" and at the same time that it is all a conspiracy and they aren't developing one - despite overwhelming evidence from none US sources.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
psychphysic 4y ago
Crazy that many of the same people condemning Russia invading Ukraine for "security". Would want to invade countries on the other side of the globe for "security". Super powers gonna super power and the rest of have to pretend to care.
- neoromantique 4y ago
  There is a difference between unprovoked act of aggression against non-nuclear country for the sole crime of not wanting to associate with you and a literal theist dictatorship working on nuclear weapons who are open how exactly they plan to utilise them.
  - throwaway4good 4y ago
    Or maybe if you looked at it again, you would find it was actually the same …
    - chii 4y ago
      Only if you use a modernist, relativist truth instead of the objective truth.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    >"who are open how exactly they plan to utilise them" Any sources on how? Have they declared that they will attack another country with nuclear weapons? Or it is simply them suddenly becoming immune from invasions / attacks?
  - jockokralj 4y ago
    It's not "not wanting to associate with you", it's more like: Wanting to join an aggressive unfriendly nuclear-powered military alliance that's been expanding and approaching your borders for the past couple of decades.
    - chii 4y ago
      And look what happens if you don't join that alliance?

epolanski 4y ago

Well, look at all the countries that scrapped their nuclear programs and with that got invaded (Iraq, Libya, Ukraine). And look at those who actually developed nuclear weapons and ensured they have a strong defense deterrent (such as North Korea). You're looking at it with a very north-atlantic centred perspective.

recuter 4y ago
> You're looking at it with a very north-atlantic centred perspective. So? You say that like it is a bad thing. I didn't say Iran is completely illogical in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The comparison to North Korea is most apt. I don't want another North Korea situation, one is enough thanks. This one would be worse. Why? Because Saudi Arabia and Egypt and others will then likely decide they have to get nuclear weapons too. I don't care about "fair", I want fewer countries with nuclear weapons not more - for obvious reasons.