Destroying Gaza itself is not the goal. It's destroying the people that's the goal. So that other people can occupy that land. And that is being accomplished with old, new, weapons, and with the "weapon" of withholding aid as well.
No one is attacking Iran. Because they have weapons to defend themselves with. This is because attackers like weak targets. They don't like attacking someone who can defend themselves.
Russia would not have attacked Ukraine if Ukraine could defend themselves.
China will not attack Taiwan if they think Taiwan can defend themselves.
But why would a country have to be "better" or "worse"? Why consider anything else besides stockpiling weapons, after all it's the key to peace, right?
> But why would a country have to be "better" or "worse"? Why consider anything else besides stockpiling weapons, after all it's the key to peace, right?
It doesn't. Realist game theory ignores issues like morality. Unfortunately this forum is primarily liberal, in both the classical sense and the international relations sense, so you are going to be heavily down voted for questioning the status quo.
I don't think they are questioning the status quo tho. They are essentially asking "why be motivated by anything at all". Inevitably, you work in support of an economy, and therefore a nation, so at some point you have to choose which.
Maybe I'm from Iran. Maybe not. Maybe I'm from a country that Iran doesn't call for the destruction of. It's hypothetical. Let's say hypothetically, I'm not committing treason, I'm just building missiles for Iran - helping to guarantee peace by stockpiling weapons! It's for peace, after all.
If you're from Iran, and support the current regime, and want peace in Iran and the status quo, then getting nuclear weapons is basically a guarantee of that.
I believe what he is saying is that if a large stockpile of weapons is the best guarantor of peace, then it shouldn't matter who has it. It's an attempt to paint the argument as absurd by showing an extreme case.
Thank you! However I do disagree with one point you've made here; I do not consider my case an "extreme" case. It's just antithetical to the US' vision. Which is kind of my point.
Iran could say the exact same thing about why they would be stockpiling weapons. And we (west) call bullshit. I'm calling bullshit on both.
There are literally zero nations currently involved in hostilities which don't want to destroy each other. You may not like it, but the USA has called for Irans' destruction a hundred times.
Its treasonous to the human race to continue to call for the destruction of sovereign nations who don't align 100% with the purposes of ones own nation...
The United States has called for an end to the theocracy, but we love the Iranian people and culture. More realistically, we probably would be happy to tolerate the theocracy if they simply normalized relations and deferred to America. America's a very easy nation to get along with. You do what we say and you will be made very rich and have peace. It's a pretty straightforwards bargain.
It seems that Iran is an exception to such US conviviality. See, the US under the Obama administration, the EU Russia, China and others signed a deal with Iran to alleviate sanctions in return for an end to Iran's nuclear program.
The Iran nuclear deal framework was a preliminary framework agreement reached in 2015 between the Islamic Republic of Iran and a group of world powers: the P5+1 (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China—plus Germany) and the European Union.
Then the US, under the Trump administration, withdrew from the deal:
The United States withdrew from the pact in 2018 and new sanctions were imposed under the policy of "maximum pressure". The sanctions applied to all countries and companies doing trade or business with Iran and cut it off from the international financial system, rendering the nuclear deal's economic provisions null.[12]
But how practical is this? If the next village over is planning on attacking your village. Is creating a weapon for defense still "treason against humanity"?
No, because Iran and America don't engage the world with the same peaceful demeanor. Again, it's objectively true that Pax Americana has brought about a heretofore unheard of level of world peace. The entire world is mostly at peace. War, where it exists, is controlled (and frankly, every war today can be ended at America's behest).
But, realistically, if you were to work for Iran's weapons program, while you wouldn't change any of the outcomes, you also wouldn't necessarily be making things worse. The US still has way more firepower and is actively working to acquire more.
It's just familiarity. I use Firefox on macOS and I always think the fonts look fuzzy on Chrome when I'm occasionally forced to use it. I spent a few weeks on Arc (Chrome-based) earlier this year, got used to the fonts, and then they looked a bit weird when I came back to Firefox.
I'm surprised Mac users are noticing a difference though, I find the difference basically vanishes on really high res displays (like my QHD-ish panel on my Framework 13).
Interesting, font rendering is the number one thing that makes me hate Electron apps (I have so much more reasons to hate Chrome).
It’s to the point that I just can’t use, say, VS Code on a monitor that is not Hi-DPI.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that the font doesn’t look better. Maybe it’s aesthetically more pleasing but to me, it’s just harder to read.
I have multiple eye issues that may not help and which make me more demanding but since I don’t have this issue with OS rendered fonts, I consider this to be an issue.
Xanax is a benzodiazepine. You get "high" when taking just barely more than instructed. It's addictive. It's abused frequently. I've abused it before. It feels nice.
I would be surprised if you asked your GP "I have mental breakdowns now and then, I'd like some Xanax", and they just handed it out to you. Then again, I don't live in the US, so maybe the doctors there do just dish it out.
It may not be just that. I sometimes end up using the light weight to improve readability, especially on light background, plus in some cases regular is more like semi-bold.
While it doesn't show you any thread context, for media tweets like the video one linked if you paste the URL into a site like https://savetwitter.net/en it will spit out the video file to watch as well as telling you the text of that tweet (although, testing it with that tweet on my phone just now I had to select the title and paste it elsewhere to see as the page truncated the visible amount to fit phone width).
Do neighborhoods still have 'deli's in Australia? Like, little 'sells everything' shops? I was there in the 70s'/early 80's, and always found it great that, in the suburbs, you might often wander around and find a 'deli'.
20c of candy in a bag, a copy of some obscure comic book for another 85c, a pack of fags for Mum, some extra milk-duds and choco-babies, and bobs your uncle!
I'm way out of my depth here, but I think this comparison to the birds of paradise feathers makes the most sense in terms of me visualising what Nxylon would look like with a thin metallic coating
