this wasn’t the only course of action available for the USA
This presumes the USA needed to take any action at all.
The average American citizen does not benefit from US hegemony. Neither do the citizens of the countries we “liberate”.
The US government clearly doesn’t care about freedom or human rights. Look at how it currently treats its own citizens. Look at how its treated marginalized people on its territory, including minority citizens, for its entire existence. Look at all its authoritarian allies. Heck, its favorite West Asian partner is an Apartheid state.
We Americans need to stop buying the propaganda we’ve been fed that we are somehow duty bound to be the world’s police force. That only serves the boogereaters bourgeoisie.
This presumes the USA needed to take any action at all.
THIS. 1000x this.
Recent events and events over the past few years indicated that the Iranian people were likely on the path of regime change anyways. Certainly not bloodlessly, but at least it would have followed the self-determination of the Iranian people. Now we just get to have another puppet government propped up by the US for oil.
Inaction itself is a course of action, but I would argue that continuing negotiations with Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation would have been a positive action to take under a sane administration.
You mean the deal that was in place, was working fine but torn up by Trump 1.0 simply because “it was an Obama deal” and a certain orange racist can’t cope with anything a black man may have been involved in.
The US had an agreement with Iran that was working. Trump 1.0 unilaterally pulled out of it. Biden then put ridiculous conditions on Iran to reinstate it. I’d argue that the US has lost all legitimacy in negotiations with Iran.
If the US really cared about nuclear proliferation, it would start by reducing its own nuclear arsenal. It would pressure Israel to denuclearize. It would deescalate with China so they’d have less incentive to increase their nuclear stockpile.
Anyway, saying inaction is a course of action is rhetorical nonsense. There are an infinite number of things that any person or entity could choose to do. Not doing them isn’t an “action”. For example, I didn’t take an “action” last week by not getting cosmetic surgery, or by not going to Aruba, or by not becoming a real estate agent.
If the US really cared about nuclear proliferation, it would start by reducing its own nuclear arsenal. It would pressure Israel to denuclearize. It would deescalate with China so they’d have less incentive to increase their nuclear stockpile.
The point of preventing nuclear proliferation is, by definition, to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states precisely because of how difficult it is to convince a country to denuclearize.
So a country going from 50 nukes to 100 isn’t proliferation?
Putting key words in bold in your comment doesn’t prove your point.
Anyway, recent history tells anyone who’s paying attention that if the US has you on their shit list, te last thing you should do is give up your weapons programs. Contrast Iraq and Libya with North Korea, for instance.
The US is not a force for peace or progress, regardless of who is in charge here. Dems are better than Reps at masking our Imperial ambitions, but either way we make things worse. We should stop meddling in foreign affairs and fix our problems at home.
So a country going from 50 nukes to 100 isn’t proliferation?
Literally, it is not.
Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries, particularly those not recognized as nuclear-weapon states by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT. Nuclear proliferation occurs through the spread of fissile material, and the technology and capabilities needed to produce it and to design and manufacture nuclear weapons. In a modern context, it also includes the spread of nuclear weapons to non-state actors. Proliferation has been opposed by many nations with and without nuclear weapons, as governments fear that more countries with nuclear weapons will increase the possibility of nuclear warfare (including the so-called countervalue targeting of civilians), de-stabilize international relations, or infringe upon the principle of state sovereignty.
Putting key words in bold in your comment doesn’t prove your point.
Apparently it didn’t emphasis them enough, considering you still failed to understand.
Anyway, recent history tells anyone who’s paying attention that if the US has you on their shit list, te last thing you should do is give up your weapons programs. Contrast Iraq and Libya with North Korea, for instance.
Yes, I’m sure that if Iraq had only kept producing chemical weapons the 2003 invasion would never have happened, and if only Gadaffi had kept his 40-year-failure going another ten years, then his people definitely wouldn’t have rose up against him, and there would be no way that any country could use air power against im!
That you think North Korea is a positive example in this situation is fucking telling.
I was unaware of the technical definition. Point conceded.
That you think North Korea is a positive example in this situation is fucking telling.
What does it tell you, exactly? I didn’t praise North Korea. I used them as an example of a country the US would love to wipe out but can’t easily because they have leverage, including nuclear weapons.
And as for Iraq and Libya, both countries had been pursing nuclear weapons. Libya gave up their program. Iraq attacked Kuwait before finishing theirs. It didn’t turn out well for either of them.
Regardless, my point this whole time has been that the US doesn’t need to be involved in every place in the world. To the extent that some of these places are threats to its people, that’s because we have been antagonizing them for decades.
And to the extent that some of these places lack freedom and democracy, we should try getting those concepts right in our own country before exporting them.
But you and I both know that’s not why the US does what it does. Its all about hegemony and ensuring Western capital’s unhindered access to markets.
This presumes the USA needed to take any action at all.
The average American citizen does not benefit from US hegemony. Neither do the citizens of the countries we “liberate”.
The US government clearly doesn’t care about freedom or human rights. Look at how it currently treats its own citizens. Look at how its treated marginalized people on its territory, including minority citizens, for its entire existence. Look at all its authoritarian allies. Heck, its favorite West Asian partner is an Apartheid state.
We Americans need to stop buying the propaganda we’ve been fed that we are somehow duty bound to be the world’s police force. That only serves the
boogereatersbourgeoisie.THIS. 1000x this.
Recent events and events over the past few years indicated that the Iranian people were likely on the path of regime change anyways. Certainly not bloodlessly, but at least it would have followed the self-determination of the Iranian people. Now we just get to have another puppet government propped up by the US for oil.
Inaction itself is a course of action, but I would argue that continuing negotiations with Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation would have been a positive action to take under a sane administration.
You mean the deal that was in place, was working fine but torn up by Trump 1.0 simply because “it was an Obama deal” and a certain orange racist can’t cope with anything a black man may have been involved in.
Yeah. Like I said, under a sane administration.
The US had an agreement with Iran that was working. Trump 1.0 unilaterally pulled out of it. Biden then put ridiculous conditions on Iran to reinstate it. I’d argue that the US has lost all legitimacy in negotiations with Iran.
If the US really cared about nuclear proliferation, it would start by reducing its own nuclear arsenal. It would pressure Israel to denuclearize. It would deescalate with China so they’d have less incentive to increase their nuclear stockpile.
Anyway, saying inaction is a course of action is rhetorical nonsense. There are an infinite number of things that any person or entity could choose to do. Not doing them isn’t an “action”. For example, I didn’t take an “action” last week by not getting cosmetic surgery, or by not going to Aruba, or by not becoming a real estate agent.
The point of preventing nuclear proliferation is, by definition, to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states precisely because of how difficult it is to convince a country to denuclearize.
So a country going from 50 nukes to 100 isn’t proliferation?
Putting key words in bold in your comment doesn’t prove your point.
Anyway, recent history tells anyone who’s paying attention that if the US has you on their shit list, te last thing you should do is give up your weapons programs. Contrast Iraq and Libya with North Korea, for instance.
The US is not a force for peace or progress, regardless of who is in charge here. Dems are better than Reps at masking our Imperial ambitions, but either way we make things worse. We should stop meddling in foreign affairs and fix our problems at home.
Literally, it is not.
Apparently it didn’t emphasis them enough, considering you still failed to understand.
Yes, I’m sure that if Iraq had only kept producing chemical weapons the 2003 invasion would never have happened, and if only Gadaffi had kept his 40-year-failure going another ten years, then his people definitely wouldn’t have rose up against him, and there would be no way that any country could use air power against im!
That you think North Korea is a positive example in this situation is fucking telling.
I was unaware of the technical definition. Point conceded.
What does it tell you, exactly? I didn’t praise North Korea. I used them as an example of a country the US would love to wipe out but can’t easily because they have leverage, including nuclear weapons.
And as for Iraq and Libya, both countries had been pursing nuclear weapons. Libya gave up their program. Iraq attacked Kuwait before finishing theirs. It didn’t turn out well for either of them.
Regardless, my point this whole time has been that the US doesn’t need to be involved in every place in the world. To the extent that some of these places are threats to its people, that’s because we have been antagonizing them for decades.
And to the extent that some of these places lack freedom and democracy, we should try getting those concepts right in our own country before exporting them.
But you and I both know that’s not why the US does what it does. Its all about hegemony and ensuring Western capital’s unhindered access to markets.
EDIT: Removed some unnecessary snark
I appreciate that, unironically.
I don’t disagree, man. As I said even in my second comment, inaction is very often the preferable course, or negotiation.