Not 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.
As 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.
Why run an overt colony system when you can achieve the same control by destabilizing existing governments?
The CIA is known for its activities in countries like, gee, Iran, where they overthrew the existing DEMOCRATICALLY elected government and installed a monarch instead.
Or see the case of Guatemala, where on the advice of businessmen the democratic government was overthrown on charges of 'communism' with lots of help from the US.
Yeah, iranians screwed up when they took US embassy hostages. It's a fact (too lazy to put references) that that embassy was actively messing with the iranian state (I would like to see how US would react if some foreign embassy did same intensity stuff in US) and that revolution was overthrowing corrupt dictator directly installed by UK & US. They should just politely kicked them out of country, and not giving US administration more cannon fodder.
Without those hostages situation, right now Iran might have been on par with Dubai/Abu Dhabi or similar. They have the richness in oil & gas. Been there backpacking last year, people are amazingly, no AMAZINGLY friendly and nice. One of best trips of my life. They have their issues, some rather big ones, but so does other places.
The CIA went into foreign countries and purposely destabilized them and started civil wars. It continues to this day: see the Arab Spring. The Soviet Union's actions were quite tame by comparison.
For every Soviet or Russian invasion, there's a corresponding US one that is just as bad: Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the US interferes with the internal politics of many more nations to boot. See Pinochet in Chile, the Shah in Iran (although the British had a big part in that too). Russia threatens its immediate neighbors, yes. But at least they oppose the US. Think they are all bad? They keep Snowden safe and sound. The US threatens any nation in the world that doesn't fall into line. When they thought Snowden was on board an official government aircraft, they had their cronies in Europe force it down in violation of international law. Think that the European nations make their own decisions? Think again.
This is the threat that the US poses to the world, and most of the world is already under their control. Iran isn't, so they are threatened with war. They've been threatened with war since Bush's idiotic "Axis of Evil" speech. Since before that. You think they don't have the right to try to defend themselves? To prevent that? Nuclear weapons, in this world, bring freedom. See how North Korea has never been invaded. See how the US knows better than to engage Russia in outright conflict. Nations that have nuclear weapons can have actual independence.
With the Trans-Pacific Partnership, they are trying to force their laws onto the entire world, and that is just one of many such agreements. Canada is already a puppet state of the US. The current state of the world is that no nation can try to free themselves of US influence without getting an internal revolution or even an outright invasion, and that is a much bigger threat than Russia is, or China, or Iran, or anyone.
not that I don't agree with all you say but... having lived under outright occupation by vast amounts of russian forces (former czechoslovakia), seeing how lack of freedom of speech, travel and... well just lack of freedom, centrally planned everything and the rest of it screws up entire generation of people, I would still opt for US.
But that's the thing, that goes thought topics here too - US stepped down, and is continuing downwards, from "that hunky good friend of yours that you don't piss off and do what he says, and all is more than OK, otherwise he'll steal your lunch and breaks your leg" to simply lesser of all evils... BRAVO :(
As 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.
Sorry, 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?
Just because the US doesn't invade by name, doesn't mean they aren't involved, often at a fundamental level. Look a Chile; Nixon gave the orders and supplied to weapons and CIA support behind the coup that brought Pinochet into power. 3,000 people were killed and 200,000 were exiled during his reign. The US has always tried to get its way by pulling strings behind the curtain, where public awareness is absent.
> 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.
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.
Thanks 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?
Replace 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
Not 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.
Why 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?
That's a ridiculous argument. By that benchmark any country has a responsibility to stop any other country's nuclear program because it is a potential threat to the world.
I feel like you wanted to reductio ad absurdum with a conclusion I feel is not absurd... um. It is staggeringly dangerous for anyone to have the tools to end civilization, because sometimes we lose track of things, and unless you're a comic book villain, destroying all human life within a multi-mile radius is not a super useful tool in wartime or peacetime.
No, 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.
Wow, 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.
Yes 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.
You mean like how some in the U.S. said we shouldn't have to repay France for their help in the American Revolution because that was a gift from the French monarchy, but then the U.S. decided to enter WWI & WWII on their behalf after deciding it was a gift from the French people?
Part of the reason not to do that kind of stuff is that you don't know how long the regime you are helping will last. I think we are finally learning that lesson. These days it seems that the risk of arms falling into the wrong hands outweighs our desire to arm what we deem to be the "right" hands today. I am certain if the Syrian civil war happened in the 1980s, we would have been sending the "rebels" all sorts of missiles and gadgets that would have floated around the world for the next 30 years.
I agree; The US should not share any of it's technological innovations with other countries, and establish a strict isolationism policy. Since we didn't see the rise of Nazi Germany, we shouldn't have allowed the Weimar Republic to use our technology or traded with them.
/s
I'm not entirely certain how so few people here get that massive revolutions and changes in political power can change the playing field of what foreign aid and technological assistance we should give to other countries. Perhaps we should be like France, and sell tanks to the highest bidder regardless of international sanctions.
I think people are downvoting you because they're missing that by "technological innovations" you are referring to weapons. I don't care if we share MongoDB with Pakistan, but I'd prefer not to share the new railguns with anyone.