patrick.net

Satoshi_Nakamoto says

This doesn't make much sense. We were successful in starving the horrible evil nazi racist South Africans into giving up their nukes, why won't we be successful with the great, smart, chess-playing, cuddly Iranians?

LOL.

I just got redpilled on Nelson Mandela. I thought he was imprisoned for organizing an anti-apartheid labor strike or something. He was assassinating rivals and 'informers' for the Communists, most of whom were Black! I literally grew up and reached middle age thinking he was in prison for a peaceful protest or some shit. Just goes to show the power of the Media Narrative.

Satoshi_Nakamoto says

This doesn't make much sense. We were successful in persuading the horrible evil nazi racist South Africans to give up their nukes, why won't be successful with the great, smart, chess-playing, cuddly Iranians?

Does SA seem similar to Iran to you?
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/north-korea-south-africa/539265/

SA gave up their nukes, because the perceived threat (Soviet Union) collapsed. If you want to follow that model, you could make the US collapse, and then let Russia convince Iran and NK to give up nukes. Or, you could just get D Trump to threaten Iran and NK with hell-fire the likes that no one's seen before. He's very scary, and that might work (j/k).

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Does SA seem similar to Iran to you?

No, they turned out much less evil. In fact, I would be perfectly OK with them keeping the bomb. Iran, on the other hand, doesn't even hide the intentions to destroy another country.

The "sanctions, boycotts and divestments don't work" crowd pissing against the wind. These things work when cranked to a proper degree. The best evidence is the nuclear-free, apartheid-free SA. And yes, the dead USSR.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

SA gave up their nukes, because the perceived threat (Soviet Union) collapsed.

The man himself doesn't list the collapse of USSR as the main reason, only as one of the three:

Friedman: You’ve mentioned a few different motivations: One, your own feelings; two, the security environment changing; and three, the desire to end South Africa’s international isolation and make the transition from apartheid. Is there a way to rank those?

De Klerk: It was a combination of everything, but I can add to that that I wanted to end the isolation even before we finalized agreements through the constitutional negotiations.

The big part in USSR's collapse, BTW, were sanctions imposed on the Soviet fucks by Ronald Reagan. Despite the whining of French and Germans who wanted to continue trading with the regime. It's a fucking Deja Vu all over again.

De Klerk listed Russia's operations in Africa as the main reason for building the bomb. Ergo, without that event, it probably wouldn't have been given up, even if De Klerk wanted to.

Sanctions didn't work with NK. They have a bomb now. They are not going to give it up. They are coming to the negotiating Table with a big stick to defend themselves.

Satoshi_Nakamoto says

The big part in USSR's collapse, BTW, were sanctions imposed on the Soviet fucks by Ronald Reagan

I thought it was because communism sucks and capitalism is great. In all seriousness, I'm not against sanctions. I just think that they are only useful if a carrot or stick choice is presented, and the carrot option is better than the stick. The only Carrot we have heard about D Trump using is the one he dips in playmates and porn stars (in exchange for fat cash of course). If the stick is better (for the leaders) than the carrot, then you get NK.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

De Klerk listed Russia's operations in Africa as the main reason for building the bomb. Ergo, without that event, it probably wouldn't have been given up, even if De Klerk wanted to.

He said it was a mix of USSR being gone and the international pressure applied to SA. The quote is quite clear and leaves nothing to imagination.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

I thought it was because communism sucks and capitalism is great. In all seriousness, I'm not against sanctions. I just think that they are only useful if a carrot or stick choice is presented, and the carrot option is better than the stick. The only Carrot we have heard about D Trump using is the one he dips in playmates and porn stars (in exchange for fat cash of course). If the stick is better (for the leaders) than the carrot, then you get NK.

The carrot option is better, but when it does not work you resort to the stick. We kept presenting carrot after carrot to no avail. Trump picks up the stick and we start getting immediate results from NK.

Goodbye, Frederica Mog! The EU "Foreign Minister" and Big League Iran Deal defender will not seek another term.

https://twitter.com/HeshmatAlavi/status/1036706015914405890

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Goodbye, Frederica Mog! The EU "Foreign Minister" and Big League Iran Deal defender will not seek another term.

Geert Wilders should get that post.