We've gone from, "The amazing Islamic Republic of Iran isn't even capable of building deliverable nuclear weapons and they have lots of peaceful reasons to do enrichment to 60%!" to "Yeah OK, they are capable and they are indeed enriching Uranium for their weapons program--hey, look over here! USA and Israel!!!"
It's amazing to see the justification done by some people to attack other sovereign countries. Did not america learn from the fake WMD fiasco with Iraq?
The IAEA estimates that Iran had 440.9 kg of uranium enriched to up to
60% before last year's Israeli-U.S. attacks - enough, if enriched further,
for 10 nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick.
The agency and Western powers believe the bulk of that is still intact.
Washington wants Tehran to give it up.
I seem to have missed the IAEA report on Iraq's 400+ kilos of HEU.
Jm2c but I wonder how people can be surprised that Iran wanted to build a nuclear weapon, especially after the US under Trump's first presidency pulled out the nuclear deal struck under Obama and cornered Iran even more.
Like do people in US realize that countries around the world take notes about what happened to the Libyas and Iraqs and many others (like Colombia recently) and see that the US will attack other countries with impunity.
The US feels threatened by Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs and has the military force to stop them, probably. Diplomatic avenues bore no fruit. Military force is now being used to--hopefully--end the threat definitively.
Yes, of course we are aware of what happened to Ghaddafi. It's very en vogue to point out the game theoretical incentives to develop nuclear weapons.
But seemingly people never bring up South Africa's disarmament. And nobody ever mentions that game theory also incentivizes the US prevent their adversaries from developing nuclear weapons where possible.
Giving up or stopping development of nukes may invite attack. Refusing to stop developing them may also invite attack.
There is a difference however, of faith based on evidence vs. faith based in no evidence. Without getting into too much details here since it is not the avenue, Islamic faith is strictly based on evidence.
The whole world, frankly. The mere concept of "freedom of speech" is a Trojan horse for far-right movements to gain ground amongst the peoples of the world.
We fucked up from the very moment we let agitators spread their poison around without any sort of punishment. Now the rot is widespread enough that they're making their moves.
well, "linux is just the kernel" eyeroll.emoji so no, you don't, but it's easiest to use a distro, and among distros it's easiest not to use an obscure distro so you can use the package managers to install a variety of apps and tools, but the longterm mainstream distros seem to all be infected, even devuan which is barely mainstream. most "alternate" distros seem to be dedicated to even goofier ideas than the old school that i prefer.
i used fedora for the longest time but now they are not only forcing btrfs, but they won't let you partition either.
When you look at it, you do notice how much of what is happening in that region was due to western (particularly British) intervention and colonialism, and continues to this day.
If you look at the history on Wikipedia there have been invasions and the like going back way before the Brits got in there. Eg.
>the clash between the kingdoms of Aksum and Himyar in 525 displayed a higher power struggle between Byzantium and Persia for control of the Red Sea trade. Territorial wars soon became common...
reply