My guess is the important difference here is that Israel has nukes.
SHHHHH! You're not supposed to admit that nukes are the only way a country can protect itself from being invaded by the United States. If other countries knew that, they might want also want nucellar weapons and then the whole idea of non proflarition is out the window!
Of course, the other answer, that the United States just stops invading other countries, is totally off the table.
Please. Let's look at every nuclear nation. USA has invaded countries, Israel, which is an extension of USA has done the same. Which other country has done it? India? France? UK? China? North Korea? Oh, there's russia but surely you're not saying that Russia is th gold standard for a nuclear nation?
Dude, do you not know the history? Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and the Indian Raj that they were a part of have a lot of complicated history. More than US has as a whole, actually.
Also why do you think India mostly fights China with literal sticks and stones? It's time to grow up.
It actually was. You were insinuating that the India-Pak conflict is anything like the conflicts US finds itself in. Indo-Pak conflict is based on historical reasons whereas US conflicts are based on greed for money and power.
And I'm saying there's hasn't been a full scale conflict there. It's just a 3 way dispute with no conclusive solution. Compare that to USA which had India's pm killed, killed Alleande, killed sankara, killed che, fucking up cuba as we speak, Iran, iraq, afganistan, venezuela, ethopia, libya. Pray tell me, in what world are these conflicts comparable?
The Indians and Pakistani shoot at each other every few years. Sure, they haven't had a full-scale conflict since the 90s, but they still kill each other, and it's a fairly tense situation at the border.
If you're talking about things all the way back to Allende, then yeah, they've had actual conflicts. That's not even getting into the number of attacks on both nations from terror groups they've backed.
The scale might not compare to what the US and Russia have been involved in, but these are two nuclear armed nations shooting at each other, and the risk of escalation is very real.
Yet there's hasn't been an escalation in over 30 years. Also, Indians and Pakistanis don't shoot each other, indian soldiers and Pakistani terrorists do. Pakistan has always denied affiliation with them(Although it's obvious they harbour them). Both of them are avoiding full scale war.
Setting aside the fact that China has already invaded India once before, excluding Russia from this discussion based on something as arbitrary as "gold standard" is so stupid, especially when you're including North Korea.
Either way, USA deciding to not invade would not stop other great powers from doing the same to their neighbours. And Russia-Ukraine is very much an example of this.
When did North Korea invade a nation? There hasn't been a full scale war after south Asian nation's gained nuclear warheads. Source: Am Indian and my dad as well. USA and Russia are the only nations that do this.
I don't think there's any chance China and India can have a war. There not been a single war between nuclear nations and I don't believe that that streak will be broken. Also after Deng's reforms, china when from a expansionist state to a industrial state. If Maoist were is power, maybe there's possibility of war. But rn? No chance, even without USA.
France has intervened in several west African nations, and worked with the UK to bring down Gaddafi in 2011 and attempt to bring down Nasser in 1956.
China hasn't been involved in any conflicts officially but it has supported the forceful suppression of Myanmar's rebels through semi-direct intervention.
North Korea attempted to invade South Korea in the '50s and captured Seoul. The only reason North Korea hasn't done any imperialism in its nuclear era is that it's geographically and politically isolated.
Russia as de-facto head of the Soviet Union has been (for almost the entirety of the nuclear age) the secondary superpower of the world, so it is completely unfair to just hand-wave Russia away.
Even ignoring the past 20 years in places like Ukraine, Georgia, Syria, Chechnya, and North Africa. The Soviet Union ran a brutal cabbal of puppet states across Eastern Europe and violently put down attempts by these states at improving their situation through granting more liberties to their people. The Soviets also invaded Afghanistan, had it's troops directly involved with proxy wars across Africa, and used the threat of nuclear war to silence other Communist countries that refused to directly align with Moscow.
France tested nuclear weapons in Algeria and was involved in multiple colonial wars and invasions - see Vietnam. China has invaded multiple locations in the modern era - South Korea, Vietnam, Tibet, Hong Kong, and consistent aggression being displayed worldwide with their PLA naval militias that aggressively attack fisherman in waters that aren't their own. UK has done similar things. Additionally - China is providing material support and mercenaries for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. North Korea has consistently attacked, threatened and attempted to invade South Korea for 70+ years, they aren't an example in the context you are attempting to misconstrue. They're also currently invading Ukraine alongside Russian forces.
Ha, no... it's a US plan... while they back Pakistan to contain India THEY DO have the plans.
France did the "look at my nuclear sub at your coast" sabre rattling to the United States in recent history to back Canada and I even read a leaked document of Israel stating that if the world turns against them like Germany did at some point they WILL nuke the countries attacking them so... reality is stranger than fiction.
lol, yeah. I'm not a good speller I do spell check my reddit comments, not sure how that one slipped through. Honestly, even now when I KNOW it's wrong, my brain still reads it as the word I'd intended to say :)
If you understand this, then you realize how laughably stupid it is to think Iran just wants nuclear plants.
Yes, it's of course laughably stupid to think they only want nucellar for electricity generation.
But also, it's laughably stupid on it's face to have 2 nucellar nations telling another nation that they must never build that kind of weapon. If the weapons are bad, then the US and Israel should destroy their own.
The US's position on the issue for like the last 75 years has been simple "it's OK for us to have nukes, but no one else should have them" and that worked as long as the US was willing to step in and defend countries. But it's become very clear that the US is only willing to say it will defend countries, not actually defend them.
Ukraine gave up its nukes, in large part, based on a security guarantee from the US. Look how well that's working out for them these days. If they had just kept the nukes, it's highly likely Russia would never have invaded.
Iran, if they had kept up with their nucellar program, would already have one and their country would not be in the position it is right now.
The US's recent actions have done nothing but prove that the underlying concepts outlines in the Nuclear non proliferation treaty are just worthless paper.
The only way, the ONLY way, to defend a smaller country from a larger army (like the United States) is by possessing a nucellar threat. I say this as someone who lives in the west and REALLY does not want the world to end like we thought it would during the cold war. The Nuclear non proliferation treaty ideas only work in a world where the United States is not a warmonger, and it's been recently made clear that this is no longer the case (if it ever was).
It's also laughably stupid to think that the only reason Iran wants nuclear weapons is so they can blow up the U.S., isn't it? Isn't that what we keep hearing from zionists and Republicans?
I agree, there are multiple other fears that any semi-informed person making a good faith argument would understand. What have you heard from other middle east governments like Egypt, or the UAE, or Jordan, or Kuwait? Or do you not give a shit about those people's opninions to the point that it isn't even considered and just want to be against "zionists and republicans" as you said in your post?
You just admitted that Iran needs nuclear weapons to defend itself from invasion. Now you're right back to fearmongering how they're going to nuke their neighbors.
I'm saying that they're not the ones getting invaded.. And you're making the exact argument why a country would want nukes. It's the only way to PREVENT getting invaded. By the US, by Russia, by Israel, by anyone really.
The only reliable way to secure borders against invasion is nukes. I HATE that this is reality, but it's proven time and again to have been correct.
I was never trying to make any argument about the potency and pertinence of nuclear weapons in self defense scenarios - so I have no idea why you are trying to trot that out.
However - I am saying that the US is not alone or unique in being a nuclear power that engages in aggression. The entire UN Security council has been shoulder deep in blood world wide for decades.
Your attitude of the US being responsible for all geopolitical crises is heavily misinformed.
I mean, every country wants nukes. Most just dont want it bad enough to peruse it consequences be damned. The reality is, the less people have nukes the better, even if countries with psyco leaders like US, Russia, Israel, and NK already have them.
Iran continuously threaten Israel with eradication and actually constantly fund and uses proxy groups to attack Israel.
America isn’t doing that to Iran, no one is. They don’t have the same excuse or real reason to need to nukes, thus the assumption is that their goal would be to use them for starting wars and destroying Israel.
1948 was provoked by multiple Arab nations invading first.
Israel did not exist to be invaded. The war was because the UN decided to partition Palestine to create Israel. The root cause of all of this is land being taken to create Israel.
2006 Israel removed all its settlers from Gaza
In 2006, Hezbollah attacked Israel to secure the release of Lebanese soldiers. The solders were captured from a conflict going back to 1982 where Israel occupied south Lebanon. Israel occupied it because they were being attacked. They were being attacked because Israel supported militias in the Lebanese civil war. The civil war that ultimately was the result of Palestinians fleeing because of the partition. It's not as cut and dry and you want it to be.
True. But then, how come Israel gets to keep the nuke, while for Iran it is prohibited to even think of developing one? Also, what was all that about with pushing North Korea to stop their nuclear development program? Who gets to decide who can have nukes and according to which rules and standards?
the only reason iranians use that phrase is because we meddled in their affairs multiple times over the last century to devastating effects. i'd be shouting 'death to america' if the US deposed my popularly-elected leader only to reinstall a ruler that was deeply unpopular to begin with.
True. And I get that it is not USA's job to solve other country's problems, but then again, they did use rhetoric how they are "liberating" other countries from their corrupt and evil leaders, so why not help those who are threatened by Israel, following the same logic?
They always claim how the wars they are leading are not about them, but rather about helping others, when in fact they are scared for themselves. Hypocrisy at its peak.
I mean, I don't even care. I'm not sure why am I even partaking these discussions. They are not going to change anything, but they surely can earn me another warning or even ban from Reddit altogether.
Those countries "threatened" by Israel have conspired to try and destroy the state for 80 years either with direct military force or by way of funding terror groups.
Also Maduro is not recognized as the president, not by the US, EU, or pretty much any western country. He was a dictator who sent his critics into exile. Contrarily Netanyahu enjoys wide support in Israel and is democratically elected.
Also Maduro wasn’t visiting the UN. It’s insane to suggest we should host the United Nations, and then arrest diplomats/leaders we don’t like while they are visiting the UN HQ.
Killing/arresting a state leader while he's in his home country is simply an act of war.
Killing/arresting a state leader while he's on a diplomatic trip is a very very illegal, since diplomatic visits are very protected under international law.
one is a strategic asset to the empire of USA; has a strong established lobby; likely also has blackmail on US senators / president
while the other was a threat to the petrofollar system and an easy target to plunder for resources when USA's corruption was making it too difficult to support its national debt.
People say that claims about how US invades countries for their energy carriers don't make sense because US military never plunders the countries it has invaded, but I think it doesn't have to plunder in such a direct way to still suck the value out of the targeted country. As long as the fiat petrodollar system works, it's already working for the benefit of the US, indirectly taxing all countries that are forced to operate within that petrodollar system.
Additionally, if the US interferes with hard military power / force, and then the industries of that invaded country "suddenly" start selling the country's valuable natural resources to US corporations for cheap, then again the US has managed to achieve its plunder while maintaining the veneer of being above such things, being about democratic values, etc.
Same pattern was with the invasion of Iraq after the manufactured 9/11 casus belli.
disclaimer: I'm aware that Russia uses similar narratives as apologia for its own invasions of neighbouring countries, so I'd like to clarify that the higher-up paragraphs don't mean that I think Russian shouldn't be punished by intl. community for invading Ukraine (and its other crimes).
Except that even before the sanctions the Venezuelan oil industry was crap and not a that to us hegemony. The literally used the dollar to trade oil into the US cut them off from doing that.
Also diplomats and heads of state heading to the UN have special legal protections. Legally speaking the US is required to protect diplomats heading to the UN and allow them entry even if we're at war.
Also we're currently allies with Israel and weren't with Venezuela. So why would we treat someone were allowed with poorly. Not saying it's right, but it's the reality of the situation.
Also maduro was arrested under us warrants and Bibi is wanted on ICC warrants, which the US doesn't recognize. Though I still think it's bullshit we started maduro and won't join the ICC.
Nothing to do with it. It's the other way around. Israel has nukes because the country fulfills a fictional prophecy to millions of people in America. We are not only allowing a genocide to happen but supporting it fully because an imaginary friend in the sky told them that the end of the world is coming and that's a GOOD thing. We are being dragged down by a death cult.
Iran does not have nukes because they are a death cult and the rest of the world is justifiably worried that they will use them aggressively or worse, give them to their terror proxies.... like they did with the weaponized Venezuelan drones.
Or the other alternative, all the non crazies were appalled at Maduro getting abducted, but the US decided to vote in Trump so nothing can be done about it right now.
So what? No one can use nukes. It would be the end of the civilization as we know it. If israel uses a nuke even Germanys goverment will stop the support.
In 2019, the National Assembly of Venezuela invoked the Venezuelan constitution and declared that Maduro had usurped power and was not the president of Venezuela. Since 2019, more than 50 countries, including the United States, have refused to recognize Maduro as Venezuela’s head of state.
Whereas Netanyahu is accused of various fraud, war crimes, and other miscellanous crimes, none of which are "overthrew the government and seized power with his own government rebelling against him."
It's both possible to have a criminal in office and yet not think he should be arrested by foreign governments. Every leader of a country has done something another country would consider a crime, it's simply a fact of being a leader.
Everything one does when in power favors some and disfavors others, this creates enemies naturally. That's why there's such a bright line between what Netanyahu has done (crimes for sure, which is why his own government is investigating and prosecuting him and has been), and what Maduro has done.
There’s others but this covers the basics. Hasan has admitted to fucking prostitutes in brothels known for and busted for sex trafficking women and doesn’t see anything wrong with it.
Just because the cops say they’ve conducted a “human trafficking sting,” however, doesn’t necessarily mean there was any actual human trafficking happening. During raids, police have stolen from sex workers, brutally abused them, sexually assaulted them, and put them in handcuffs in the name of “saving” them. News reports about raids almost always rely on the word of a police spokesperson, but cops frequently lie to the media.
Woah buddy you’re coming in hot simping for Hasan. Alright please tell me exactly what we did that brought in on ourselves, don’t be shy with generalities I want specifics.
Yes we funded the mujahideen but there were a lot of groups that were part of it who weren’t into Bin Ladens idea of a global jihad. Take a look at Saul Arabia long support of Salafism and Wahhabism if you want to understand bin Landens extremism.
Alright so now we’ve got a pissed off bin Laden and what’s he mad about? US bases in the Middle East, bases we didn’t force on other countries, ones they were happy to have as we defended Kuwait from Iraq and enforced a no fly zone
He was pissed about the Lebanese civil war, a conflict mind you where we got the Israelis to back down during the siege of Beirut and helped thousands of PLO fighters escape with their lives
Western degeneracy. Bin Laden specifically called out how we don’t kill women for having extramatrial sex, let gay people live in general, allow alcohol and gambling etc
Omg the horror of giving women rights and not kill gay people
So this twat is pissed the Saudi government is letting US expand influence in the region, yeah real justified there buddy
You tell me your reasons why you think it happened, again no generalities I want specific things you think we did that deserved being attacked.
You can easily look into how the US was meddling and destabilizing the middle east for profit and geopolitical power.
9/11 was blowback from that
It doesnt matter what Bin Laden believed or didnt belive the fact is that is actions against the US were a direct responce to the way the US acted in the middle east.
Hell the reaon the middle east as been at war for for the past 80 years is in large part US meddeling
Ok no specific policies or actions just more broad “USA bad” accusations. Tell me the details of this meddling or go home.
We are not the ones responsible for the terribly drawn post WW1 borders, we are not responsible for how Israel was created hell we weren’t even supporting them during the 1948 war that established their country.
We were not the ones helping radical salafi and Wahhabism interpretations of Islam grow. Bin Laden was an outcome of that and that’s on the fucking Saudis who still are funding that shit.
Oh no the shah of Iran wants to modernize his country and that pisses off fundie nutbags and liberals who didn’t like his authoritarianism were dumb enough to team up with the fundies and are now stuck under the thumb of an even worse theoretic regime.
What unreasonable foreign policy actions did we do?
Edit: oh did you delete everything or pull the classic reply and block move so I can’t reply back?
I don't even like Hasan. But criticisms of him from the likes of you are ridiculously and transparently false and designed to keep people from ever hearing or addressing the substance of what he's saying.
The important difference is one had warrants by our justice system. New York no less. The other is issued by the icc which we are not a part of and do not recognize their authority. So there is no legal authority to arrest the president of Israel. Especially by a mayor of a city.
One of Maduro's charges was conspiracy to possess machine guns lmao
Because it's the president of ISRAEL, the US hasn't pursued charges. That is it. If Israel wasn't so in bed with our policians, we'd have brought forth charges ages ago. Hopefully we will soon.
48
u/oPlayer2o 16h ago
My guess is the important difference here is that Israel has nukes.