7 ms·

So if I go and work for Iran's missile program it's fair game then right? Best guarantor of peace is their large stockpile of weapons too.

chii 2y ago
it's not fair game if you're working for a nation that openly calls for the destruction of your own. The name for it is treason.
- adrianN 2y ago
  Maybe the commenter you’re replying to is from Iran.
- jmprspret 2y ago
  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.
  - anon291 2y ago
    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.
- boffinAudio 2y ago
  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...
  - anon291 2y ago
    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.
    - text0404 2y ago
      if i come to your house and hold a gun to your head and your option is death or slavery, is that really a "bargain"?
    - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
      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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework 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] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...
    - boffinAudio 2y ago
      >we love the Iranian people and culture. Total nonsense. The USA's criminal sanctions regime has only hurt the Iranian people, not its theocracy.
  - tiahura 2y ago
- markovs_gun 2y ago
  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.
  - jmprspret 2y ago
    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.
- archagon 2y ago
  Call me crazy, but I consider it treason against humanity to develop any weapons of death.
  - HFguy 2y ago
    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"?
BobbyJo 2y ago
If you think Iran is better government to serve, with respect to your values, by all means.
- jmprspret 2y ago
  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?
  - BobbyJo 2y ago
    > But why would a country have to be "better" or "worse"? You are an individual and can only do one thing at a time. You can choose what you do with coin flips if you want, but I try to judge things. > Why consider anything else besides stockpiling weapons, after all it's the key to peace, right? It is necessary, but not sufficient. Other things are also necessary.
  - anon291 2y ago
    Because every action, including ones that are otherwise good, have a larger context in which we have to judge them?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - Onavo 2y ago
    > 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.
    - BobbyJo 2y ago
      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.
anon291 2y ago
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.
TiredOfLife 2y ago
>So if I go and work for Iran's missile program it's fair game then right? If you think that beating women for not wearing a hat is something good then yes.
Sammi 2y ago
From Iran's perspective: yes exactly. 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.

chii 2y ago

it's not fair game if you're working for a nation that openly calls for the destruction of your own. The name for it is treason.

adrianN 2y ago
Maybe the commenter you’re replying to is from Iran.
jmprspret 2y ago
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.
- anon291 2y ago
  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.
boffinAudio 2y ago
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...
- anon291 2y ago
  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.
  - text0404 2y ago
    if i come to your house and hold a gun to your head and your option is death or slavery, is that really a "bargain"?
  - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
    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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework 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] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...
  - boffinAudio 2y ago
    >we love the Iranian people and culture. Total nonsense. The USA's criminal sanctions regime has only hurt the Iranian people, not its theocracy.
- tiahura 2y ago
markovs_gun 2y ago
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.
- jmprspret 2y ago
  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.
archagon 2y ago
Call me crazy, but I consider it treason against humanity to develop any weapons of death.
- HFguy 2y ago
  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"?

BobbyJo 2y ago

If you think Iran is better government to serve, with respect to your values, by all means.

jmprspret 2y ago
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?
- BobbyJo 2y ago
  > But why would a country have to be "better" or "worse"? You are an individual and can only do one thing at a time. You can choose what you do with coin flips if you want, but I try to judge things. > Why consider anything else besides stockpiling weapons, after all it's the key to peace, right? It is necessary, but not sufficient. Other things are also necessary.
- anon291 2y ago
  Because every action, including ones that are otherwise good, have a larger context in which we have to judge them?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- Onavo 2y ago
  > 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.
  - BobbyJo 2y ago
    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.

anon291 2y ago

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.

TiredOfLife 2y ago

>So if I go and work for Iran's missile program it's fair game then right? If you think that beating women for not wearing a hat is something good then yes.

Sammi 2y ago

From Iran's perspective: yes exactly. 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.