Tehran “is the principal source of regional instability and terror,” declare G7 leaders in a joint statement.

The leaders of the G7 countries on Monday issued a joint statement saying Iran should not have nuclear weapons and affirming Israel’s right to defend itself.

“Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror. We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon,” declared the statement, issued by the leaders of the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan, along with the EU.

They pledged to “remain vigilant to the implications for international energy markets and stand ready to coordinate, including with like-minded partners, to safeguard market stability.”

  • REDACTED@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    But then we’re back to “would world be safer with every crazy person having nukes?”

    Some are ready to watch the world burn

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        The nations that decide that bombing anyone in the Middle East is lawful when they are doing it.

        Also the nations that decide that Kosovo has to be independent, but this is not a precedent for anyone else.

        Arabs and Turks ethnically cleansing Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians, Yazidis, Armenians is fine. But a few Slavic peoples murdering each other because of religion warrant an exceptional intervention. But Mustafa Kemal is a good guy.

        Russians are to blame for their government’s actions and have to be banned from payment systems and visiting EU countries. But Russians who work in the government and their family members can live in EU countries half the time and more. That’s justified by “killing Russia’s economy for the war”, except Russia’s war is not funded by taxes from citizens paying and accepting payments for shit with MC and Visa. Russia’s war is funded by oil and gas trade. Or by “punishing Russians and making them change the regime”, which is very funny, because the people actually part of the regime are not “punished” this way, they are also the exact group that should be “punished” for good effect, and we the rest kinda see that and don’t have huge sympathies to the narratives of people doing such stuff.

        Also about Russia - those nations would decide that Putin’s and Yeltsin’s regimes are nice and legitimate and democratic when they were limited to destroying Russia itself. Again, now every Russian is retroactively to blame for those years as well, except those they were dealing with.

        And it’s the same everywhere, if there’s an authoritarian regime - then just like with businesses, it’s sort of a profitable endeavor. And the process making it profitable happens in the western countries. It’s one system in which their elites have that cozy spot of hypocritically accusing everyone other than themselves of the processes they create. A continuation of the colonial system, too continuous and similar to even use the “neo” prefix.

        That they are mostly democracies is not real republicanism, at least not in the last 20 years. It’s a sign of luxury - look, we can afford such magnificent Colosseum shows that our populace is well controlled even under pretense of democracy. The countries higher in that hierarchy play democracy more, the countries lower in it - less.

        Say, Iran’s regime is unfortunate, but calling it less democratic than UK would be preposterous. It has more crime and corruption, true. But maybe the fact that Iran’s appearance of democracy is above what it’s “allowed” is not a smaller reason for the violence against it, than any fears of it attaining a nuke.

        … I’d rather listen to what DPRK, IRI, PRC, even Turkey’s leadership have to say on what’s civilized and what’s not. Everyone is better than NATO&EU. Russia’s … eh, I’ve met some people too close to that, they stink too much, quite westernized one can say.

      • REDACTED@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Lmao Hamas would have launched them at Israel and we would be seeing world war 3 with nukes. The fact that you think Hamas would be more responsible with WMDs than US, which hasn’t used them since Japan, is bizzare

        • nomoreidiotz@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Hamas is only in power because the Fatah agreed to give up armed struggle in exchange for self determination. They didn’t get self determination. They had colonies, settler attacks, area C and a wall around gaza.

          • REDACTED@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            3 days ago

            Your comment does not argue against my point, but suddenly starts talking about something unrelated. Fine, to entertain your randomity, imagine Fatah has nukes. Would you believe they’d excercise no-first-strike policy, or would live by their promise to destroy Israel?

          • REDACTED@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            3 days ago

            And if roles were reversed, how many countries do you think they’d have invaded? Basically US with sharia law.

            • nomoreidiotz@lemmy.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Aaaah sure. I bet you’re German or something are you not?

              The genocidal trolls cannot deny the attrocities anymore (everybody knows) so they can only push the idea that the genocidees would be genociders if they had the chance. It was only a pre-emptive genocide if you will, wasn’t it?

              “It was self defense”

        • nomoreidiotz@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Shut the fuck up you piece of shit.

          If hamas had nuclear bombs the Israelis would have threated them better. But according to the genocide apologists history started in October 23 didn’t it?

            • nomoreidiotz@lemmy.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Hamas would have no reason to use bombs if Palestinians weren’t getting colonized and killed for the last 80 years you goddamn idiot.

              Israel have nukes and never signed the non proliferation threaty. Either the west give them the Iran threatment or they have zero legitimacy in telling who gets bombs and who’s not.

            • nomoreidiotz@lemmy.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              threated*

              Anyway stfu you’re an idiot if you think only the current genociders in charge deserve to get nukes.

              Give then to everybody or destroy them. You don’t get to keep it