flandish

By many metrics and anecdotal evidence it already is.

Why not? The claims made by G7 members as to why are admissions - heck, one of the members has used nuclear weapons on civilians, and they’re still allowed to have them.

If anyone can, everyone can.

And shareholders gotta profit.

There has never been a decade in the entire history of the US in which it has not been at war. Come to think of it, there are probably like 10 years total, over 250, where there was not direct military action. I think. Have not recently checked the spreadsheet I keep.

also if an adult wants to do meth no other adult has a “right” to stop them.

The US is NOT the world police. Sheesh. get uncle sam’s boot out of your mouth.

Yeah. because that’s how the world works. Let me sum up my point like this:

US, Israel, UK - all genocidal colonialist projects who have nothing good for the world and should not exist as nations. And in the current “geist”.

The rest of the world - also genocidal colonist projects who should not exist as nations.

and re your last- exactly. Israel is the true problem here. The US backing it is another thread for sure. :)

deleted by creator

where did I say one was not bad? I simply said differences. One signed a nonpro agreement. one is doing a genocide.

All nations are bad. They should not exist.

None have the right to “stop” another from progression in a promised fashion by “preemptively” striking.

And just to close the convo, yes, fuck Israel.

It is not that it makes them justified, you seem to think I support what the US did. No. I say that the US has no right to pretend to worry about and therefore control other nations when the US has a documented history of using them.

If anything, the world could be “within its rights” to “preemptively strike” the US!

do you not realize there are people still alive today who were when the US nuked two cities?

How does that describe duty in the form of obligation?

I’m saying that one nation has no “right” to stop the internal actions of another, especially a nation who is committing genocide at this very moment.

irrelevant? I’d say unnecessary and yet game changing.

Why do you mention “duty”? there is no obligation. I simply mean that they are a state capable of deciding their own path.

same in all directions, really.

A) There is no second source verifiable proof it’s for weapons. Only “super secret promises of proof” by the same people that printed claims hamas has bunkers under hospitals.

B) They should have weapons. After all, Israel does.

C) There have been no indications of testing, something verifiable and easily seen, something necessary to make weapons.

Iran should if they so desire have weapons too. After all, the US and Israel do. Two nations who are doing crimes live in front of our eyes.

For the record, pun intended, “confidential report” means “no evidence.” Remember the Gulf of Tonkin?

There is no such thing as a preemptive strike when Israel has no articulated reason to believe Iran was going to harm them. Iran, by rights written in that silly UN, has the RIGHT to strike back defending itself.

Israel wants a larger war because that gaslights the greater nations into conflict, destroys more working class people, and brings about greater profit for Israel’s owners.

All nations are bad. Do not get that wrong.

But Israel, not even truly a nation, is a fucking terrorist organization.

And that means they cannot have nuclear energy?

were you speaking about Iran or the US? It’s hard to tell.