12 ms·
> It's not like Iran asked our permission before they launched their nuclear program You do realize the U.S. helped launch Iran's nuclear program, right? http
by Alex3917 12y ago
> It's not like Iran asked our permission before they launched their nuclear program
You do realize the U.S. helped launch Iran's nuclear program, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran
- yeahyeah 12y agoWell if it's on the US then they should have stopped when we asked nicely, right?
- FeeTinesAMady 12y agoNot right. If the US was peaceful, there wouldn't be much of an argument for developing nuclear weapons, but the US is the most aggressive nation in the world, and nuclear weapons are the only thing that give them pause. The actions of the US since the end of World War II - invading other nations at will, interfering in their internal affairs, starting secret wars - give legitimacy to nations who want to develop nuclear weapons for their own defense. Nuclear weapons bring safety from you.
- allemagne 12y agoAs far as superpowers in history go, the United States post WWII is downright benevolent. The other contenders in recent memory being: the Soviet Union, the British Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the French Empire, the Italian Empire, Austria-Hungary, and so on and so forth. Once the United States starts claiming pieces of South America and Arabia as their sovereign territory you can start shouting about Iran's self defense. The United States is far from perfect, and all the criticisms you leveled are completely true. But be honest about the situation. The only thing that Iran's government is protecting by developing nuclear weapons is their own corrupt regime and their influence in the middle east.
- spopejoy 12y agoAs far as superpowers in history go, the United States post WWII is downright benevolent I'm not sure the citizens of Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, D.R., Honduras, Panama, the Philippines, Vietnam, or any of the other sovereign nations the US has invaded, would agree with this statement.
- leroy_masochist 12y agoSorry, please remind me of when the US invaded Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, or Chile? Our involvement in Vietnam was in fact, at the time, conducted with the full cooperation of a sovereign country, the Republic of South Vietnam. To be fair, US forces definitely did violate the sovereignty of Laos and Cambodia during that conflict. I believe I understand your general point here, but can we at least get basic facts right when we have these discussions?
- spopejoy 12y agoThanks for asking! Argentina: 1890. Chile: 1891, plus direct support for the 1973 coup. Sorry about Paraguay and Brazil, US merely engineered and directly advised murderous corrupt dictatorships. Invasions however also include Bolivia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Grenada, Haiti, Mexico, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Regarding South Vietnam, does "full cooperation" include assassination of their president in 1963?
- leroy_masochist 12y agoThe examples you cited for Argentina and Chile were -- in both cases -- the US sending a landing party of Marines to defend the embassy grounds during political unrest. That's an "invasion"? OK....
- kaoD 12y agoCheck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intervention_in_Chile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intervention_in_C... E.g.: > The U.S. provided material support to the military regime after the coup, although criticizing it in public. A document released by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 2000, titled "CIA Activities in Chile", revealed that the CIA actively supported the military junta after the overthrow of Allende and that it made many of Pinochet's officers into paid contacts of the CIA or U.S. military, even though some were known to be involved in human rights abuses. Brazil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat#US_involvement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat... Nowadays invasions aren't explicit like in colonial times (where every superpower raced to colonize as much as possible), but there is definitely covert "warfare" going on.
- SEJeff 12y agoReplace US with Russia and the comment still fits perfectly. I don't disagree with much of what you say, but there are others who are just as bad or worse, just on a much smaller scale
- FeeTinesAMady 12y agoNot even close. Read the other comments in this subthread.
- anon808 12y agotroll.
- GauntletWizard 12y agoNo, we helped the Pahlavi dynasty launch a nuclear program, whereas the Iranian Republic is now launching a nuclear program using what they've scavenged from that one. You are conflating two different nations that happen to share a name and borders. The US trades technology with the Fourth Republic of Germany; The US did not with the Third Reich.
- chris1234 12y agoYou might want to double check that one about the Third Reich!
- final 12y agoWow, so naive. The Third Reich was established in 1933, WW2 started in 1939. It didn't have time to invent much or to build industry anew. 90% of the technology came from US - directly from US government or through companies like Standard Oil and Ford. Thousands of factories got sold on the cheap in the US after the Great Recession started and all the equipment moved to Germany. A process quite similar to the outsourcing of the last 25 years or so.
- osconfused 12y agoAlso IBM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
- kw71 12y agoYes IBM. But if you are considering reading this book I would suggest that it might be a waste of time, unless you are a true disbeliever or are doing research on the topic. Mr Black is angry at IBM and does not try to hide it in his writing. He writes as if he is a prosecutor trying to convince a jury in court. Very frequently and repetitively, he describes the Holocaust and explains why what the reader just read proves that IBM or some of its executives are guilty of murder. I find it insulting to have these conclusions handed to me, even if I don't disagree with them. The repetition gets boring quickly.
- 12y ago
- javert 12y agoThe US already has the responsibility to end Iran's nuclear program, which threatens the safety of US citizens and the world. But if the US also helped start the program, I guess it is even "more" responsible, if that is even possible.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- lotsofmangos 12y agoIn that case Hungary has the responsibility to end America's nuclear program, which threatens the safety of Hungarian citizens and the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martians_%28group%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martians_%28group%29
- javert 12y agoNot sure if you're just joking around, but nuclear weapons and material from Pakistan and Iran are likely to end up in the hands of terrorists sooner or later, either intentionally or unintentionally. The same is not the case for nuclear weapons controlled by France, US, UK, Germany, and Israel. So there is a huge difference.
- lentil_soup 12y agoWhy would "nuclear weapons and material" from Pakistan and Iran "likely" end up in the hands of terrorists? What's so special about the other countries for which this is not the case?
- fjh 12y agoGermany doesn't have nuclear weapons.
- cocoablazing 12y agoGermany possesses twenty B61 nuclear weapons in hardened shelters, ready for immediate loading onto Tornados.
- jfoutz 12y agoThose atoms were for peace, dammit.