Why is it ok for USA

[Spirit of Light]

Ah, I can see by your passive/aggresive use of the funny rating that this was just another instance of sanctimonious finger-wagging on your part, rather than any sincere request for opinions.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You misunderstand the fun smile I gave you because I found it funny that you think Ameria should be the only one with nuclear weapons, is it one country that should never have a nuclear weapons in the first place then it is America. With the war-hungry governments you guys have, America is a bigger threat to the world than others. Just look at Bolton and his wish for going to Iran for war.

 

[Quagmire]

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.

Not much we can do about that that a I can see.

 

[We Never Know]

Not much we can do about that that a I can see.

I agree but having something and telling someone else they can't have it will always lead to problems.

 

[Quagmire]

I agree but having something and telling someone else they can't have it will always lead to problems.

Well you know what they say, being the world s leading super power isn't a popularity contest ( bad joke ).

Point being: yeah, there are always going to be problems.

What would you have us do?

 

[We Never Know]

Well you know what they say, being the world s leading super power isn't a popularity contest ( bad joke ).

Point being: yeah, there are always going to be problems.

What would you have us do?

Yep and that leading super power status has also given us the highest deficit.

IMO, we, ourselves(USA) should stop trying to police the world for starters.

 

[Quagmire]

Yep and that leading super power status has also given us the highest deficit.

IMO, we, ourselves(USA) should stop trying to police the world for starters.

But, ... there aren't any other worlds to.police yet.

Sorry, another bad joke. I probably shouldn't be posting anywhere but the jokes forum this late at night.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Nonetheless, we little people must judge our leaders with the info we have.
So far, I'm batting 100% in judging the starting of wars to be deleterious,
eg, Afghanistan, Iraq. I've noticed over time that even intelligent learned
people still make decisions primarily based upon emotion. Our current
conflict has the earmarks of that.

And as I mentioned, my friend never gave Obama the same credit for
behind the scenes knowledge. Obama was simply out to destroy the
country so that the Marxists could take over. But his heart now filled
with Trump love, his generosity has blossomed.

 

[sooda]

Nonetheless, we little people must judge our leaders with the info we have.
So far, I'm batting 100% in judging the starting of wars to be deleterious,
eg, Afghanistan, Iraq. I've noticed over time that even intelligent learned
people still make decisions primarily based upon emotion. Our current
conflict has the earmarks of that.

And as I mentioned, my friend never gave Obama the same credit for
behind the scenes knowledge. Obama was simply out to destroy the
country so that the Marxists could take over. But his heart now filled
with Trump love, his generosity has blossomed.

Obama had far higher ideals and regard for Americans than Trump. Trump has the mindset of a carny barker.

 

[Revoltingest]

But, ... there aren't any other worlds to.police yet.

Sorry, another bad joke. I probably shouldn't be posting anywhere but the jokes forum this late at night.

I say we should police the Moon.
Scrooch guns are a threat to Earthly squirrels.

@beenherebeforeagain is with me on this.

 

[Revoltingest]

Obama had far higher ideals and regard for Americans than Trump. Trump has the mindset of a carny barker.

You just dissed & angered carnies everywhere.
I wouldn't wanna be in your shoes!

 

[Shad]

Why is it ok for USA to have nuclear weapons but they tell everyone else it is not ok?

A number of nations beside the US have nukes. Pakistan, UK, France, Russia, China, India

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?

As it signed this

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia

 

[Shad]

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

That was after Iran nationalized the oil companies which were developed by the UK and US. Tit for tat.

 

[Revoltingest]

A number of nations beside the US have nukes. Pakistan, UK, France, Russia, China, India



As it signed this

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia

There is a real question about whether this treaty is binding upon Iran.
It was signed by a leader whom we installed in the 1953 coup.

 

[sooda]

That was after Iran nationalized the oil companies which were developed by the UK and US. Tit for tat.

That's not what happened, Shad. BP was paying 6 cents on the dollar and the Mosadeeg wanted 50-50 like all the other oil producers were paying. The Brits accused Mosadeeg of being a Communist and Eisenhower took the bait.

 

[columbus]

That was after Iran nationalized the oil companies which were developed by the UK and US. Tit for tat.

Iranians wanted their oil back, so we destroyed their democracy and installed a puppet monarch.

Tom

 

[Shad]

That's not what happened, Shad. BP was paying 6 cents on the dollar and the Mosadeeg wanted 50-50 like all the other oil producers were paying. The Brits accused Mosadeeg of being a Communist and Eisenhower took the bait.

Mosadeeg wanted to change the terms of the deal. APOC said no. The vote to nationalization passed in parliament. Ergo nationalization came before the coup. Iran's actions were not done in a vacuum. Ergo tit for tat. One can not take action which involved other nations and companies then complain when another nation does it in return.

 

[Shad]

Iranians wanted their oil back, so we destroyed their democracy and installed a puppet monarch.

Tom

It broke the deal as government. Ergo that government made a poor choice and those were the results. The act was not done in vacuum. Act, counter-act, results.

Do not confuse me pointing out a set of events as endorsement of those events. Iran is not an innocent party minding it's business. Play geopolitics, win stupid prizes.

 

[sooda]

Mosadeeg wanted to change the terms of the deal. APOC said no. The vote to nationalization passed in parliament. Ergo nationalization came before the coup. Iran's actions were not done in a vacuum. Ergo tit for tat. One can not take action which involved other nations and companies then complain when another nation does it in return.

Yes.. Mosadeeg was trying to negotiate a fair share of oil revenue.. so the Brits accused him of being a communist.

Then came the vote to nationalize and then the assassination attempts and the coup.

Everybody in the oil business thought the UK and Ike had lost their minds.

 

[Shad]

Yes.. Mosadeeg was trying to negotiate a fair share of oil revenue.. so the Brits accused him of being a communist.

That was after he nationalized the company and seized it's assets in Iran. What do you think would happen?

Then came the vote to nationalize and then the assassination attempts and the coup.

Wrong. This was after the vote passed in 51. The coup was in 53. Series of events leading to a result.

Everybody in the oil business thought the UK and Ike had lost their minds.

Statuo-quo for years to come in my view.

 

[sooda]

That was after he nationalized the company and seized it's assets in Iran. What do you think would happen?



Wrong. This was after the vote passed in 51. The coup was in 53. Series of events leading to a result.

I remember.. I was in Tehran in 1953.

Statuo-quo for years to come in my view.

By 1951, Mossadegh suggested Iran should nationalize the oil company. Although most of the National Front and Majlis were not ready for such a radical idea, it became a bulb in bloom. It was becoming clear that negotiations will the oil company and the British government were not achieving anything.