So you say the region is imbalanced by arbitrary boundaries and superpower backing, and your answer to that is a nuclear armed Iran?
Well hell, while we're at it let's just give every questionable regime in unstable areas nukes right? I guess that guns aren't the only GREAT EQUALIZER in your world then are they?
Yes when a balance of power is maintained war is less likely, you may not like nuclear weapons but the Pandora's box has already been opened there is no going back.
It's what prevented america and Russia from engaging in world war 3, would you rather have gone through world war 3? without the deterrence of nuclear weapons world war 3 would most probably have happened already. You are really discounting the concept of detterence.
And nobody is giving anybody anything, if Iran is capable of producing nuclear weapons themselves I wouldn't invade their nation and murder Iranians to prevent that from happening, you keep saying "give nuclear weapons" like america would be rolling around selling surplus nukes4cash
So you say the region is imbalanced by arbitrary boundaries and superpower backing, and your answer to that is a nuclear armed Iran?
I never claimed to be world dictator that could grant things with a magic wand, You have to get over this concept that you can meddle with everybody else's business because: murica. All I said is that if Iran was capable of producing nuclear weapons it would deter Israel and Saudi Arabia from openly war mongering all their neighbors, I mean for gods sake john Kerry openly said that Saudi Arabia would pay for us to war in Syria, what more does it take to realize what's going on in that part of the world.
Afghanistan was on your list of bullied nations, and I threw Uganda in for the lols. That said, what nations would you give nukes to then? What nations do you think would benefit from having nuclear weapons and what regions would this help stabilize?
I wouldn't "give" anyone nukes, if a country is powerful enough to produce it themselves and they aren't raging psychopaths I would treat them respectfully like fellow human beings, I take objection to the constant tone of superiority like we would be giving monkeys handguns, and so would you if somebody else talked about you in that tone. If a country is physically capable of acting like a major power I wouldn't try and do things like starve them to death and kill 500,000 babies like we did with Iraq.
That's pretty damn subjective and subject to abuse. Just using Iran, tons of people would consider Iran acquiring nukes to herald WWIII itself, and I think that it's safe to say that the majority in the West would consider Iranian nukes to be something that would destabilize the region.
a lot of those people are xenophobic war mongers, by "destabalize" what they actually mean is they wouldn't have a free hand to continue to war, rob, steal and cheat arabs, and that would "destabalize" their ability to project power in the region.
Look at list of some of the people you are allying yourself with
george bush
michelle bachman
john mccain
dick cheney
paul wolfawitz
Donald rumsfeld
bill o'reilly
You should really take a hard look at the cheerleaders of the position you are advocating and what their motives in life are.
Yet people and nations tell others what to do on a daily basis, and that balance of power isn't really a balance at all. You yourself started this entire derail by mentioning America as a sole superpower that bullied other nations. You are contradicting yourself.
There is no contradiction, human beings inherently love to judge other human beings, that's why the TV is full of shows of people judging other people, like american idol or Judge Judy, it's just part of human nature. We all try to influence each other as you point out, but there is a big difference between negotiating as equals and invading as a tyrant, what I meant by "telling other people what to do" meant invading another country like Iraq or Afghanistan and then drawing up their constitution for them and telling them literally exactly what to do because we had invaded and taken over their country. there's a big different between invading a country then telling it what to do vs having something like a UN or g20 debate about what to do.
There is no contradiction with that clarification, I'm saying that when the soviet union collapsed there wasn't another power to keep america in check and america started acting more nakedly imperialistic by directly invading countries and compelling them directly what to do vs less invasive means of persuasion, there's no contradiction there.
I wouldn't claim that America has acted responsibly, I'm somewhat mixed on that. That said, I don't think the answer is to let questionable regimes arm themselves with WMD as a way to counter America.
should the soviet union have acquired the bomb ~1950 or should America have been the lone power to have it? how do you think world history would have played out if nobody else besides America had developed the bomb? I can say with almost a certainty that America would have been greatly tempted to drop nukes on another country by now. who would have been able to stop us?
If you really want peace and an end to America acting unilaterally, then hope and pray for the UN and UNSC to either be fixed or ended, and the International community to step up. The reason that America tends to go all "cowboy" is that the UN is a worthless body of drooling idiots that sits back and whines and waits FOR America to act unilaterally first.
You're not asking yourself WHY that is though, the reason the UN bows to the united states is because the UN has no power of it's own, it has no army of it's own and it physically has no way to COMPELL the united states. It's as simple as that, as long as the United states has the military and economic ability to ignore the united nations when it wishes, that is EXACTLY what will continue happening, This concept that you can change the nature of man is a false one, the history of the last few thousand years show this quite clearly that you
That's a terrible litmus test, especially since you're aware, I'm sure, that for most of that 200 year period they were resisting colonization.
Reserved for future researched opinion
It wasn't propaganda, the very article YOU LINKED went into enough depth that you should have been able to see that it wasn't propaganda at all.
Reserved for future researched opinion
