4 ms·
Who is "them"? Definitely not the people. "safety" for whom? Definitely not the people. They starve.
by baxtr 8mo ago
Who is "them"? Definitely not the people.
"safety" for whom? Definitely not the people. They starve.
- samrus 8mo agoThe people arent being pppressed by the bomb, but by their leaders. The odea that the US would liberate all peoples from tyranical rulers is naive. The US routinely installs and supports tyrants who allign with their geopolitical goals. Pol pot, pahlavi, pinochet, marcos, suharto, seko, the banana republics. Nukes didnt enable those guys, the US did
- lenkite 8mo ago> "safety" for whom? Definitely not the people. They starve. Better to have privation than to get bombed and massacred in large numbers.
- throwaway421334 8mo agoWas it better for jews to starve in concentration camps rather than to get bombed by the allies? If not, what's different this time?
- lenkite 8mo agoMy bad - I didn't know Iran was starving Jews to death in concentration camps. Can you point me to a source ?
- Cyph0n 8mo agoThey love to project the past crimes of the West onto the East as a justification for their current crimes.
- throwaway421334 8mo agoIf bombing Germany was a crime, then call me the world's greatest war crime supporter.
- qup 8mo agoThis is a comment sub-thread about DPRK
- nkrisc 8mo agoSafety for whomever controls the nukes, whether autocratic (Iran) or democratic (Ukraine). Russia would not have attacked Ukraine if they still had their nuclear weapons and Iran wouldn’t be under attack now if they had them too. I’m not saying whether it’s goods or bad that any or specific countries have nuclear weapons, that’s beside the point. The point is that this attack sends the signal that the only way to guarantee your safety is to have them.