Does America not understand it has nukes?

[Twentyfirst]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Native Americans were constantly trying to exterminate neighboring tribes, often successfully. Those in the south did the same, and if you weren't careful, they'd dig your heart out and eat it.

That's what they would like you to think. In colonization you must make the other side look worse than you to justify the extermination 

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Before the Americans, Europeans hunted slaves in Africa. Well, more than hunting them, they bought them from Arabs and other tribes, who sold them to their enemies instead of eating them because it was more profitable.

Nobody was eating slaves bro

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

In Asia, there were samurai who weren't pacifists. In India, there was a terrible caste system. And in central Europe, Vlad the Impaler was doing his thing, the Cossacks were having their parties, and Genghis Khan was destroying cities and killing all their inhabitants, the dogs and the cats too, until nothing was left alive except insects.

Genghis Khan is one warlord. Versus the past 20 American presidents and all the bullshit that came out of Europe after the "enlightenment"

India had to fight for their freedoms it wasn't given to them by kindness and they didn't get back all that was stolen from them. I am pretty sure they would have been better off

I doubt Ghenghis Khan was saying he was a leader of the free world and his purpose was to bring human rights to all. It's the madness of America that makes it a special kind of monster 

[Breakingthewall]

13 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

doubt Ghenghis Khan was saying he was a leader of the free world and his purpose was to bring human rights to all. It's the madness of America that makes it a special kind of monster

7 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

 

No one doubts that the American empire is opportunistic, false, and predatory, but the English were worse, the French even worse, and so on down to the earliest civilizations. There's a trend toward improvement. From the Assyrians to Donald, there has been a tendency toward more justice. Is there hypocrisy? Absolutely tons of it. But everything indicates that the future world order will tend toward justice.

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

No one doubts that the American empire is opportunistic, false, and predatory, but the English were worse, the French even worse, and so on down to the earliest civilizations. There's a trend toward improvement. From the Assyrians to Donald, there has been a tendency toward more justice. Is there hypocrisy? Absolutely tons of it. But everything indicates that the future world order will tend toward justice.

Precisely, it's something people miss.

The reason why people are hypocritical is because they exist in an environment of higher standards. Ghenghis Khan wasn't hypocritical because he didn't have to be, nobody cared about human rights back then.

 

But from what I understand, it was actually the case that many imperial leaders, including the Assyrians, justified their desire for world domination through the idea that they would bring prosperity and true justice to all of mankind. That seems to be a feature of imperial thinking in general.

[LordFall]

On 6/20/2025 at 6:32 AM, GroovyGuru said:

The average American feels threatened by the middle powers you mentioned having nuclear weapons because they are stupid, ignorant, and uninformed. They think that because that is the slop they've been fed by the media they consume. 

Now as for people in government, policy makers, lobbyists, propagandists, people in media, and anyone else who is fear mongering about Iran actually using nukes against the US, they are well aware this is a load of shit. They just rely on the "Iran having nuclear weapons is a threat to civilization" angle to sell regime change to the public. At the end of the day, an Iran with nukes is a threat to Israel and the US not in the sense that they would actually use them, but because it will make things harder for those countries to dominate the region and realize their long-term strategic ambitions.

You think being worried about violent authoritarian regimes having access to nuclear weapons is foolish? 

How exactly do you think that Iran having them would help the region? That's a similar argument to gun rights in the US. I would rather nobody have guns than every random guy having the right to hold a gun in his house and going up to shoot people when he's upset or himself when depressed.