My view of America.

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by ww2fan168, Jul 17, 2015.

  1. Well, I have mixed feelings about America after the deal w/ Iran for nuclear power, Look up "Welcome to America" by Lecrae but I suggest the 2nd and 3rd part of the song, thats my view.
    herocrafter2912 likes this.
  2. I have not read the agreement yet, but I find myself wondering why we're even involved in this matter to start with.
    Gawadrolt and MegaSwifty like this.
  3. Just a bunch of stuff is happening in America... America is in debt badly, they signed a deal w/ Iran to have nuclear power, just a bunch of stuff is piling on America..
  4. Which begs the question about why we're wasting time striking any sort of deal with Iran over its nuclear program. Why not get out of the way and let them develop it as they see fit?
    Gawadrolt likes this.
  5. The agreement with Iran is a good thing for all parties involved. I think its much better that they can have nuclear power without the capability to produce nuclear weapons, than continue to allow them to proceed in their plans to develop nuclear weapons.

    Plus, the economic benefits from reducing sanctions for not only Iran but the rest of the world will be good.
  6. Because Iran, a country with high anti-American sentiment, might be planning to use it's nuclear program to create nuclear bombs and missiles. The treaty is to try to limit the program's use for scientific use and power.
  7. Do you honestly think Iran will keep a promise with America? Especially when they said the first they would do w/ nuclear power would be to blow up Israel and America? No one would want Iran to have it.
    Same as said to MrLegitlegit.
    MegaSwifty likes this.
  8. Isn't Iran part of the United Nations? I haven't read much into this, but from my understanding, breaking a treaty is against the rules of the UN.

    Deadmaster98 likes this.
  9. I don't think their in the UN, but I know the US is not in the United Nations.
  10. The US was a founder of the United Nations.
  11. They didn't join though.

    The League of Nations (French La Société des Nations) was the predecessor to the United Nations. The League was founded in 1920, after World War I, but failed to maintain peace during World War II. The League had a Council of the great powers and an Assembly of all the member countries.
    The League of Nations was thought up by Woodrow Wilson, the American President during the First World War. It was to be a group of nations that worked together to keep peace. One of the reasons for its downfall was that, after a vote, the American public refused to join. This meant the League did not have the power it needed to enforce any of the rules that made it up. This later proved to be a fatal flaw in the League's structure.
    After a series of disasters in the 1930s, it was abolished. It was thought to be weak and powerless, after Japan completely ignored it when the League of Nations tried to stop Japan from invading Manchuria (North-East China) and Italy invaded Abyssinia. The League did not fail completely: it had prevented a few conflicts in Europe in the 1920s and worked hard to stamp out various public health and social problems around the world.
    Another flaw in the League was that it was not representative enough: no more than 65 nations were members at any given time, and the interests of the leading members (notably Britain and France) often outweighed those of smaller, less powerful members.
    The League also had no troops of its own, and decisions it made were often slow. For example, when the Empire of Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, it took a whole year for the League's decision to be heard.
  12. And a key member of the UN.

    Response coming shortly by the way ww2.

    EDIT: League of Nations was dissolved at the end of WWII and replaced with the United Nations. They're certainly not the same organization. :)
  13. I do believe they would follow that, as any country, except possibly Russia and China, would become the world's biggest parking lot if they launched a nuclear attack against the USA.
    UN != League of Nations
  14. Sorry wrong thing :)

    They are a member of the UN, but I still don't trust Iran
  15. Britain and America, yeah.
    We want them developing nuclear energy, not nuclear missiles. Without intervention, there's more than a high probability of them creating nuclear missiles. Basically what Mrlegit said. And yeah, there's a possibility that they won't keep their word. But are we really so willing to just toss negotiations out of the way because we don't trust them? At least it's a start.

    EDIT: I see I have been attacked by two ninjas

    It's funny.. one time, I was at a poetry exhibition inside of Pittsburgh, and a girl was presenting a poem about how America is very corporate, and basically America shaming. The whole time she was wearing a Nike company t-shirt on, made me giggle
    MasterDude13 and SoulPunisher like this.
  16. In politics, rhetoric and action are two completely different animals. On the one hand, Iran sees America as a global tyrant and Israel as it's complacent lapdog. Both entities have spent the last 62 years either manipulating Iranian internal affairs completely or suppressing the government and its people. Keep in mind that it was the United States, in 1953, that led a CIA coup that placed the Shah into power. The Shah shared similarity with Ghaddafi in Libya - he had no issues with removing dissent, using thought police to torture people who act against the throne, etc. In 1979, the Iranian Revolution broke out in retaliation to the 26 years of rule in this manner and kicked the Shah out.

    Half the reason we're in this mess to start with is because we not only allowed it to happen, we enabled it. Something many politicians and news analysts forget in this day and age is that we created Iran as our enemy. It is out fault we got into this mess but, yet, many would rather maintain that Iran is the devilish bad guy that hates America, its freedom and its liberty, than acknowledge that we simply screwed up.

    But here are two reasons why I'm perfectly fine with Iran possessing nuclear weapons.

    1) They are not fools. International precedent forbids the deployment of any sort of nuclear weapon outside of a retaliatory strike caused by a nuclear attack. The primacy goal of every country on this planet is to remain intact. Iran does not have the nuclear or military capability to either withstand a first-strike scenario or be able to obtain/maintain a retaliatory-strike scenario. Should Iran break this precedent, they will quickly become the center of the world's newest nuclear wasteland and the descendant of the Persian Empire will be no more.

    2) Israel has held a deathgrip on the Middle East in regards to its military capacity. They see everyone around them as a threat and will use force to cap how much of a threat they are. Even if the armament is simply meant to deter Israeli military action only; not to engage them with.

    It is also the world's worst kept secret that Israel is in possession of a small nuclear arsenal. This is a legitimate threat in the eyes of the Arab states. Iraq and Syria developed WMD programs, particularly nuclear programs to check this threat, but Israel interpreted them both as hostile acts and destroyed factories in both nations.

    Israel has essentially told the entire Middle East that if you try to develop your own programs, you'll get shot down (literally and figuratively). It asserts its power and influence over the region and makes it clear that consequences will be had if you defy them in any manner.

    I ask, what is wrong with checking Israeli power? Iran is the bad guy and Israel/America are the good guys? Perhaps we're all bad guys here...
  17. LoN is totally different from the UN. The UN was created in a way so that it wouldn't suffer from the same downfalls the LoN did. The US IS in the UN and so is Iran(and Iraq). This comes as a result of them being controlled by the British through the Second World War(as your name implies you may know). Since America became co-world leader with the Soviet Union and through their golden age they became world police. They love jumping in affairs that they shouldn't and very few countries like them for it. By knocking out someone "evil" like Hussein they lead the the rise of ISIS(in Iraq), by creating a massive power void. Once ISIS falls under the pressure either the nations in the Middle East get another dictator(to keep the people in line)or yet another group will inevitably rise up, and as we have seen, a dictator is needed because democracy has not and will not work.
    Deadmaster98 likes this.
  18. The entire deal, in my opinion, is just a way for politicians to sleep at night, and then they will deal with the breaking of the treaty with Iran producing the weapons when they see fit.
    EDIT: I mean that the U. S. and other world powers will act if, for some reason, Iran chooses to break the treaty, which would be a terrible decision for them, in my opinion.
  19. Like others have said, its very unlikely that Iran is going to break the deal. The have been crippled by the sanctions placed on them and so it's in their best interest to follow through with this deal and get the sanctions removed.
    Deadmaster98 and SoulPunisher like this.
  20. I have mixed feelings about it, But I think both parties know that once one nuke is launched it will start world war 3. There will NOT be a world war 4, As there will be no one to fight it.