Why is it ok for USA

[Road Warrior]

Well, short answer: since it would go against our own interests to actually use nuclear weapons in the h Middle East, if only one side gets to have them it's probably better for the world if it's us.

Agreed. Additionally, with modern tech, nukes aren't even needed anymore except as a deterrent.

 

[columbus]

The ME needs to be investing in healthcare, education, jobs and infrastructure, not nukes.

Kinda like the US, eh?
Tom

 

[sooda]

Kinda like the US, eh?
Tom

Yes..

Look at this.

Iran straddles the oil corridor. They should be prosperous and stable instead of provoking the US and all their neighbors.

 

[Road Warrior]

You're probably right.

Remember this classic from December 2002?

Colin Powell Map Quote
In November 2002, National Geographic released the results of its 2002 Global Geographic Literacy Survey, during the course of which the magazine quizzed several hundred Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 and found that only 13% of them could correctly locate Iraq on a world map. The results of the survey were given prominent coverage in the U.S. news media that month, and cartoonist Garry Trudeau made reference to them in his long-running “Doonesbury” strip a few weeks later. A December 2002 “Doonesbury” story arc dealt with an American reporter’s covering the efforts of U.N. weaponsinspections in Iraq, and the final panel of the 12 December strip had an Iraqi official uttering the set-up line, and the American reporter delivering the zinger

 

[columbus]

Yes..

Look at this.

Iran straddles the oil corridor. They should be prosperous and stable instead of provoking the US and all their neighbors.

They might well be if the West, especially the USA, hadn't spent decades trying to take control of Iranian oil fields.
Maybe now that the Iranians are making it clear that they won't be bullied any more that could happen. Too bad it took a theocratic government to manage that.
Tom

 

[sooda]

They might well be if the West, especially the USA, hadn't spent decades trying to take control of Iranian oil fields.
Maybe now that the Iranians are making it clear that they won't be bullied any more that could happen. Too bad it took a theocratic government to manage that.
Tom

We have NEVER tried to take control of Iranian oilfields.

 

[Quagmire]

I've read it.

I know that things will proceed thus.
But I'll object to what I see as bad policy when I see it.
And in the case of threatening war with Iran, we can set aside the immorality
to examine the national interest. I've made the case before that we've little
to gain, but much to lose. I don't like those odds. This smacks of his personal
animosity towards Iran governing his actions.
So much for his "America First" campaign promise.

Idk, whatever else Trump is he's a business tycoon, so it's fairly safe to assume that the risk to reward ratio is always going to be a foremost consideration in his decision making process.


Or let's hope.

 

[columbus]

We have NEVER tried to take control of Iranian oilfields.

Oh yes we have.
Over and over.
Why do you think we toppled their democracy, back in the 50s? Or supported Saddam Hussein's invasion in the 80s?
Because we were trying to rescue queer Iranians?
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Idk, whatever else Trump is he's a business tycoon, so it's fairly safe to assume that the risk to reward ratio is always going to be a foremost consideration in his decision making.

I don't see it.
He must be such a genius that we mere mortals can't comprehend his analysis.

Excuse me while I mop up some of my drool.
There....back to posting.

Or let's hope.

That's my strategy.

 

[columbus]

Idk, whatever else Trump is he's a business tycoon, so it's fairly safe to assume that the risk to reward ratio is always going to be a foremost consideration in his decision making.


Or let's hope.

You mean Trump's reward, right?
It would be nice if he weren't so cagey about whether his interests are the same as the rest of the country's.

I don't think that they are. I don't think Trump recognizes the difference. But I do think that he'd sell out the National interests without a backward glance. Because that's the "smart" thing to do.
Tom

 

[sooda]

Oh yes we have.
Over and over.
Why do you think we toppled their democracy, back in the 50s? Or supported Saddam Hussein's invasion in the 80s?
Because we were trying to rescue queer Iranians?
Tom

We aren't British Petroleum...

BP was initially registered on April 14, 1909, as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Ltd. It was renamed the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, Ltd., in 1935 and changed its name to the British Petroleum Company Limited in 1954.

BP was kicked out of Iran in 1979. They were always a crappy oil company anyway.

 

[Quagmire]

I don't see it.
He must be such a genius that we mere mortals can't comprehend his analysis.

Excuse me while I mop up some of my drool.
There....back to posting.

I don't know if it's a matter of genius so much as a matter of knowing what's going on behind the curtain, same as on Wallstreet.

In a way, your co-worker might have a point.

 

[columbus]

We aren't British Petroleum...

BP was initially registered on April 14, 1909, as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Ltd. It was renamed the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, Ltd., in 1935 and changed its name to the British Petroleum Company Limited in 1954.

BP was kicked out of Iran in 1979. They were always a crappy oil company anyway.

Ummmm....
What?
Isn't BP the oil company that pumped a zillion barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico?

Why are you changing the subject from the U.S. government to one particular oil company?
Tom

 

[Quagmire]

You mean Trump's reward, right?

Well yeah, but he lives on the same planet we do.

(Or, again let's hope )

it would be nice if he weren't so cagey about whether his interests are the same as the rest of the country's.

I don't think that they are. I don't think Trump recognizes the difference. But I do think that he'd sell out the National interests without a backward glance. Because that's the "smart" thing to do.
Tom

Oh don't get me wrong, I have no delusions about the fact that anyone at the top would sell us all out for the right price --- and Trump is more ruthless than most --- but you have to stand somewhere and for the moment at least it's in his best interests to consider ours.

Or let's hope (no smiley face this time)

 

[columbus]

Trump is more ruthless than most --- but you have to stand somewhere and for the moment at least it's in his best interests to consider ours.

Is it?
Putin wanted him in in the White House. The U.S. electorate did not.
Connect those two dots.
Tom

 

[Quagmire]

Is it?
Tom

Guess we'll all find out.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Why is it ok for USA to have nuclear weapons but they tell everyone else it is not ok?
Example with Iran, Why can USA keep their weapons but Iran can become nuked by USA if they do not get rid of their nuclear weapon? where is the logic?

Because the biggest fist wins. What they win has never been investigated thoroughly before taking action. Always emotions and rhetoric above facts. This is how we have arrived here. But, we have to understand that our neanderthal ancestors knew exactly nothin compared to what we actually "know" now.

Of course we all know no one knows a thing about this god and ultimate truth stuff. But we keep praying and pretending.

I now sit outside in a previously bug filled environment. There is not one bug here now. We have destroyed the bug population through pesticides.

We are just another bug as far as nature is concerned .

It is too late now to do anything about it. Times up ad far as climate change. But do we tell others or let them live out their beliefs in bliss and surety?

It's hard when you have grandchildren. But at this point, we are on our way to extinction whether we want to contemplate it or not.

So what now?

For sure, people are going to have to move out of the flood plains, coastal areas and river corridors. The areas of this country whose land will still be habitatal better make plans for the change.

 

[Spirit of Light]

No. The Saudis are good guys because they have always been good guys and pro-American.

The Iranians were never on the dole either.

So as long someone is pro America they are good guys? No matter what they have done?

 

[Quagmire]

Why is it ok for USA to have nuclear weapons but they tell everyone else it is not ok?
Example with Iran, Why can USA keep their weapons but Iran can become nuked by USA if they do not get rid of their nuclear weapon? where is the logic?

Ah, I can see by your passive/aggresive use of the funny rating ---- as opposed to, say, an actual response ---- that this was just another instance of sanctimonious finger-wagging on your part disguised as a sincere request for opinions.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[We Never Know]

Well, short answer: since it would go against our own interests to actually use nuclear weapons in the h Middle East, if only one side gets to have them it's probably better for the world if it's us.

I agree. But using the policy we can have them and you can't just makes them want them more. NK is another example of that.