Do you not perceive a threat from a country with nuclear capability that chants "Death to America, Death to Israel" to be a threat to America? Venezuela I don't know about, but Iran was (is) most certainly a threat to America.
If it's moral to strike at a country with nuclear capability that talks constantly about your country's destruction, then it's no less acceptable for Iran to strike the US than the other way around.
You can't condemn one and condone the other on that basis.
Iran has both reason and were developing capability to destroy a significant part of American national security. America absolutely must prevent that at any cost.
You could argue about how the rhetoric between the states got so bad that they each threatened each other's destruction. But the fact is that they got there.
Iran has a strong nuclear weapon development program. Negotiations could not halt it - they stall negotiations and continue development. So if they continue development during negotiations, why shouldn't the US continue her own parallel military route?
As for delivery, Iran does have missiles capable of launching a nuclear weapon at American assets in the Middle East, or American allies. Or even to just float it over on a ship.
Negotiations did halt it. Then Trump went back on the deal.
There's reports Iran agreed to limit themselves to only medical grade centrifuges as recently as last week.
And no, Iran does not have weapons capability to reach the US, period.
They fundamentally did not pose an imminent threat to the United States. A threat to American strategic goals is not an imminent threat to the American people.
Negotiations halted Iran's nuclear program for, as per words of the treaty, "10 to 15 years". That was in 2016. If that treaty were not torn up, then Iran would be allowed to unveil their nuclear weapon in January 16, 2026. Yes, two months ago.
Is your claim that the deal was not preventing Iran from developing a nuke? Then why does the existence of the agreement matter either way?
Are you saying Iran would magically produce a nuke the very day the deal expired? Then why don't they have one today?
How does ending the agreement make it harder for Iran to get a nuke? How does "tearing it up" prevent anything that the agreement itself wasn't preventing?
I'm not familiar enough with Korean culture to know if suicide-for-ideology is culturally acceptable and expected. In Islamic ideology that is the highest honour.
I think the funniest part is the fact that all the western countries are even afraid to recognize Taiwan's independence. It's a much better argument to say Korea or Japan are ruled by the US (and Korea and Japan absolutely hate one another!).
Does the US have influence in Taiwan? Certainly! But if that meant Taiwan was the US's puppet then Taiwan would simultaneously be China's puppet. Schrödinger's Vassal
I thought that both the government in Beijing and the government in Taipei both claim that all of China is united, and that they are the legitimate government of that united entity.
You're arguing semantics. The west refuses to recognize Taiwan as the legitimate government of China and refuses to recognize it as an independent country.
Whatever they claim, the west (and most of the world) due to Chinese leverage/power refuses to recognize.
Taiwan meets all the criteria for being a state. It controls land, population, it has a military, it has a government, currency, passports etc. etc. It's a de-facto country/state.
So you think North and South Korea are the same country? If not, which is the rightful country and which is the rebel? They both claim the same territory and that the other is illegitimate.
Do you think India and Pakistan are the same country? Or at least parts? There's a lot of disputed territories there.
Or do you believe Palestine is independent from Israel? They sure claim independence and Israel claims it's theirs.
Or what about the USA? The British sure thought it was theirs for a long time. Should France not have gotten involved in all of that?
> So you think North and South Korea are the same country? If not, which is the rightful country and which is the rebel? They both claim the same territory and that the other is illegitimate.
I know not enough about the conflict to declare which side is more justified.
> Do you think India and Pakistan are the same country? Or at least parts? There's a lot of disputed territories there.
Again, I know too little about the conflict.
> Or do you believe Palestine is independent from Israel? They sure claim independence and Israel claims it's theirs.
The Arab citizens of the holy land did not declare a state when the former ruling party (the Brits) left, the Jews did declare a state. The Arabs even rejected the UN partition plan and decided that the fate of the area would be determined by war instead. Which they lost, and though they had some territory after the war they _still_ did not declare a state on that land. Only 15 years later did they form a government and an identity, and yet still did not declare a state. Only after the Israelis conquered the lands in yet another war, and then almost thirty years after that, did they declare a state with provisional borders. And they have rejected every final borders proposition made to them since. And during that entire time, they have been murdering civilians, both Jews and those who support peace with the Jews.
So yes, clearly in Area A the Palestinians have limited sovereignty - limited only because they consistently refuse all attempts to provide them more sovereignty.
> Or what about the USA? The British sure thought it was theirs for a long time. Should France not have gotten involved in all of that?
Perhaps the French should not have gotten involved. I can imagine an alternate history where the British rule over the North American continent. The great result of the American Revolution wasn't the independent United States. The great result of the American Revolution was the implementation of a government based upon secular values and equality for all before the law. And even with the tools in place to implement that government, it still took almost two hundred years to enshrine those values into society.
And now, a mere two generations later, people have forgotten how hard the Americans worked to build that society and they are willing - active even - to discard it because of the few remaining minor deviations from perfection.
Taiwan buys military equipment and operates it's own military very much like it is independent of China and views Chinese troops in it's territory as a threat.
You seem to have trouble reading. Here's a map that shows countries that recognize Taiwan's independence[0]. That's a lot of gray...
> Taiwan themselves still claim to be the Republic of China and not separate from the rest of China.
You seem very confused... but I get it, it is confusing
Mainland China's current government is called the "People's Republic of China" (PRC)[1]
Taiwan calls itself the "Republic of China" (RoC)[2]
The difference of one word is very important. It's easy to miss, which is why Taiwan even changed its passport[3]... over a decade ago.
But also... they issue different passports. They have different governments. Really, this is not hard to understand that Taiwan considers themselves independent and the PRC considers the RoC a bunch of rebels. And... what do rebels typically do?
You will finally google this claim you've been repeating without evidence, and realize there's no supporting evidence for this claim. I guarantee it, because there is no evidence for this claim.
The Republic of China has not amended its constitution to eliminate its claim to all of China. You may be referring to the views of the current ruling party on what Taiwan should be, but constitutionally, it still claims everything.
Honestly it doesn't even matter if true or false, their logic is flawed. We could just swap China/Taiwan for the Koreas and it would still be dumb. Clearly they have independent governing bodies even though they both claim the other is an illegitimate ruling party.
The patent is either trolling or delusional. Best to waste no more time
> Taiwan does not consider Taiwan and mainland China to be separate countries.
This is false. Both the government of Taiwan, and the people here, obviously consider the two countries separate, and neither have made any overtures challenging the sovereignty of the CPC in nearly fifty years. Not to mention the fact that the last government to do so has been overthrown in the 90s (the overthrow of the KMT settler colonial dictatorship).
You will now vaguely refer to the ROC constitution, but I'll preempt that by saying the constitution makes no claims to PRC territory, full stop. And the constitutional reforms in the 90s explicitly recognize PRC sovereignty over its territory - because Taiwanese people aren't the KMT and want nothing to do with the KMT's now 8 decade old fight.
> I'm not sure what the invasion would be, a country invading itself?
I know exactly what it would be: tens of thousands of PLA dead at the order of Xi in service of his old man's ego, and economic disaster for both countries, followed up by the most riotously uncontrolled occupied territory in the PRC. Taiwanese people in living memory bled to overthrow a military dictatorship, you think they won't fight to do so again?
There's a distinction between countries and governments. Both sides officially consider themselves to be China, the country, but under different, competing governments. They're the product of a civil war inside China, after all.
The current ruling party of Taiwan would like to change that, but they haven't done so for the obvious reason that the PRC would not accept it (and most Taiwanese people prefer to just leave things as they are).
> Both sides officially consider themselves to be China
There is no "China, the country." "China" just means, essentially, "Empire." It's like a country claiming to be Europe, or maybe better, The Roman Empire. Many States may try to make claims for the title to support their legitimacy and heavenly mandate to rule, but that doesn't make it true.
> They're the product of a civil war inside China, after all.
Only one side of that conflict still exists. The other was overthrown by the people of Taiwan in the 90s. Descendants of those overthrown maintain government positions under that party name, but it's essentially a different government, given that it's a multi party democracy now, not a single party military dictatorship.
> The current ruling party of Taiwan would like to change that, but they haven't done so for the obvious reason that the PRC would not accept it (and most Taiwanese people prefer to just leave things as they are).
This is mostly true, with caveats: Most people in Taiwan prefer independence, but don't want to declare it to trigger a war, so therefore they only prefer status quo because it involves independence without war. If they could get it, most Taiwanese would prefer declared independence with no threat of war, but pragmatism rules out.
I'm also not sure I agree the DPP is necessarily pro-overt independence, just the current president tends to use more aggressive language than normal.
There was a civil war inside China, with the rulers of both competing sides claiming the entire country as their own for decades after the shooting ended. Inside Taiwanese politics, there has been a shift relatively recently (in the last 20 years), but it would be a major shift if that were actually implemented as official policy.
> Many States may try to make claims for the title to support their legitimacy and heavenly mandate to rule, but that doesn't make it true.
We live in a post-WWII world of national sovereignty and inviolable borders (or at least we did until very recently). That's what China rests on for its claims, legally speaking.
No, you're right, and I distinctly remember the conspiracy theorists and counter culture thinkers immediately circling around "this is going to be used to restrict our freedom." And of course they were absolutely right.
I also remember it was the worse possible cultural faux paux to indicate you thought invading foreign nations wasn't a good response to 9/11. I mean go look at the votes for invasion of Iraq, damn near 2/3 of both the house and Senate in favor. Every radio blaring patriotic songs, every school doing patriotic projects, every brown kid living in hell.
I agree. I live in Brazil and even though tariffs and interventions weren't directed at us, they influence the economy and political decisions. Also, Venezuela is right next to us, so instabilities there do tend to affect the whole region.
I think this mindset might be unique to western "atomic families." I have friends that would talk similarly about this kind of responsibility to cousins or non "genetically related" people in their village.
I think what they mean is that "responsibility to society" has been co-opted by capitalists such that even our own children are a resource we're expected to raise to further contribute to endless growth and someone else's profit margins.
None of us are really contributing to each other when we work, or the commons, since that's all been purchased and is being rented back to us.
Lines on a map are just that. Globally we're doing fine. And anyway, constant growth can't continue forever, it's probably a good thing if we stabilize or even shrink a bit.
Voters don't lose elections, campaigns do. Harris failed, and this kind of "turning around of the blame" thing that Dems try to do is one of the reasons why they don't win elections: they never learn.
The reality is that Trump voters were (are?) dumb as rocks and tricked by simple populist messaging. There was nothing harris could've done short of succumbing to populism herself, and cloaking her campaign in dishonesty, fear, and simpleton reasoning.
Maybe she shouldve done that, but you can see why she didn't.
Then, there's no hope for America. Why bother running a candidate? Waste of money that could be spent on local elections.
The reality is, Kamala could have won that election. Quite easily as well:
1. Don't send bill Clinton to Dearborn to lecture people on how it's ok to bomb Palestine actually
2. Don't try to pivot right on immigration, instead turn hard left: argue for citizenship for all undocumented immigrants with no criminal history
3. Ignore all culture war issues, focus on affordability and nothing else. Promise to raise taxes for the rich, end subsidies for oil and gas companies, and stop sending billions to Israel and other American imperialist vassals
Ever since the ICE stuff I've been desperate to find a way to not pay my taxes - even if it means donating 2, 3x, hell 4x my tax bill to somewhere else. Obviously it's basically impossible to do this (especially if your income is all self employment income) outside of just spending every penny you earn on something that could be viably considered a business expense. So I'm wondering if I should just straight up stop working until I can relinquish my USA citizenship.
Spend down my savings and assets till I have almost nothing to exit tax, exit, and then start working again.
I don't want to fund the bombing of strangers I have no quarrel with.
If you're willing to go through all this trouble, why not just become politically active? Don't underestimate what a motivated individual can do. All these public figures (or institutions) swaying the country back and forth are only people too.
I was politically active in the USA, in the only way I believe can make any meaningful change: direct action, mutual aid.
The American political system is captured by two neoliberal (one now post liberal, fascist) parties, and you have to sell your soul to "accomplish" anything, only to watch it yet ratcheted away by your own party, or obliterated by the fascists.
You're a good person and I feel similarly. We live under the Fourth Reich.
I do not think ceasing work is the right move, but definitely get involved politically and don't equivocate when you condemn our elected "representatives".
It might also soothe your soul to be in the company of like-minded individuals. A Quaker prayer is a sure place to find many.
This is a laudable position, and I don't say this to discourage you or others from taking this action, but taxation does not effectively constrain US military spending, as long as the USD remains globally desirable and the US retains the ability to print more of them.
What genuine threat did Venezuela or Iran pose to Americans? Corporate interests don't count.
reply