Excellence is Big Brother.

All foreign policy is about money, resources and power. Only really gullible persons think otherwise.

#BoomersCantMeme

that part is 100% true, only a gullible fool would deny that.

that being said, of course iran is a shitty theocracy with major human rights issues and an oppressive leadership, but similar points could be made about russia and turkey for example, much worse things could be said about saudi-arabia, and they are best buddies with america...

do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons?

no. as a matter of fact, i don't want ANYONE to have them.
but i understand why they would want them, especially considering america's meddling with middle eastern affairs, their past relationship, and how many countries that had them were targets of american aggression. i also understand that the iran deal effectively halted their nuclear weapons program - until trump unilaterally pulled america out of it, despite the fact it achieved much more than international negotiators even could have hoped for prior to crafting it...

This post was edited by fender on May 15 2019 12:02pm

i dont understand why Iran would want nukes to thwart aggression. they aren't NK. they aren't on a penninsula with few entrances with an existing wall of missiles pointed out in every direction. developing nukes for them is setting up to get Sadaam'd out of control of the country.

If anything they aren't worried about the US, but rather the Saudis, but they also dont have nukes. i just dont get how a nuke prevents them from being meddled with, seems like the opposite is true.

i agree that the deal did get them to halt, even though i leave room for them actually still developing behind closed doors. but pre-deal they didn't have permission to make weapons, post-deal they only had to delay then they could make weapons. i think the deal was good compared to war, and it was bad compared to a deal that prevents them from making weapons forever with no caveats.

how many countries that had nukes were the targets of us military aggression / had their governments overthrown by america, compared to how many countries that didn't? please remind me...

btw, it is pretty obvious to everyone that you don't need to have ANY actual wmds to get 'saddam'd'...

This post was edited by fender on May 15 2019 12:14pm

None?

the USA and USSR fought satellite wars, but i dont think their nuclear arsenals specifically was the reason. it was more of a rivalry where everything from their ideology to regional allies played into the cold war.

Hitler was on his way there, but i don't think we knew that til after WW2, especially since people were shocked by the power of the first few successful tests, even those who designed it.

NK has been the target of the most peaceful campaign they could ever hope for. they wanted to be isolated and autonomous. Self reliance and cultural superiority is a large motivator in Juche.

Iraq, kinda. WMD's was assumed by the public to be nukes. and it was ofc a ruse by the GWB administration. but even gas weapons could have been devastating and Sadaam used them against the Kurds. i'm still not pro-Iraq war.

are you saying "i can see why they'd want them........even though they could never use them.....and would get invaded for having them.....but could get invaded even without them"?

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 15 2019 12:21pm