That's a pretty black and white way of viewing things.
No, it's a basic and simple description of one factor in an incredibly complex situation. I wasn't giving my 'view', just answering a question as simply as I could.
You don't know what my view is, but you've made a number of false assumptions.
Go look at some polls about the opinions of Iranians on the western world
I'll ignore your assumption that I haven't already, and inform you that I have looked into it. I am very sympathetic to the Iranian people.
I am not talking about them.
I am talking about the theocracy on the political stage. They're not the same thing.
But let's suppose for a moment they really do want nuclear weapons.
Suppose? Do you dispute it?
This probably is't a good thing, but I reiterate, why must the west intervene in this?
The second half of that sentence is answered by the first half.
Did we intervene when Pakistan obtained weapons?
Yes, long before they developed them on their own.
They were only allowed after the appropriate safeties and assurances were in place. And then they were given what they needed.
Our history of interventions is full of hypocrisy
Speak for yourself. I don't know where you're from, but my nation does not share that history.
serves to make us more and more enemies around the globe while getting us nothing in return except for deep profits to weapons manufacturers
Some nations are very guilty of that. Agreed.
Also unrelated.
One could even argue (although I'm not sure it is really true myself) that when enemies obtain these weapons it is actually a stabilizing influence since the stakes of conflict increasing are too high for each side to escalate a conflict.
Hmm.. could you say 'Peace through superior firepower'?
Please consult a history book, I'd rather not go through that again.
Watch Team America World Police if you want a more humorous illustration of blowback than I can do.
While I agree that it is a great movie. It is such an incredible oversimplification that you'd think it was a joke.
Wait.. it is.
I'm sure all the time I've spent reading the classics, history books, and living through it. don't compare to what I will gain from the marionettes.
:p
Sorry to be a broken record, but you still haven't answered why the west must intervene even if Iran is engaging in bad policy. There are lots of bad things in the world, and it is impossible for a few nations to police it. It's a regional problem that is none of our business. Furthermore, if it this were one of the very top worst things, that doesn't mean that we are capable of determining sound policy in response to Iran without inflaming the situation. As I hinted with comment about Rouhani, getting involved could provide ammunition to hardliners and prove counterproductive when there are forces pushing for liberalization already.
Not much more to say about Iran here, but the Pakistan business does deserve a reply.
I read about this years ago, and I'm sure there are better sources specifically dedicated to detailing the shoddy conditions of security in Pakistan specificaly, but reading Graham Allison might be enough to convince you to reconsider your assumption that nuclear weapons in Pakistan are in a secure state--and our actions and pressure have had essentially no impact there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Terrorism:_The_Ultimate_Preventable_Catastrophe
Sorry to be a broken record, but you still haven't answered why the west must intervene
It is a theocracy that wants nuclear arms. I'm puzzled how that wasn't clear from the first comment, or the article.
It's a regional problem that is none of our business
No. Its an international problem. It is a theocracy that wants nuclear arms.
As I hinted with comment about Rouhani, getting involved could provide ammunition to hardliners and prove counterproductive when there are forces pushing for liberalization already.
Still irrelevant. I'm talking about a theocracy that wants nuclear arms.
your assumption that nuclear weapons in Pakistan are in a secure state-
Where did I say that? Are you just making things up?
and our actions and pressure have had essentially no impact there
Who's 'our'?
The US was very directly involved in Pakistan attaining nukes, while the world watched. They were the ones that provided the missing pieces. They wanted a US partner to oppose the Russian sphere of influence by preventing India from having military supremacy in the region.
I remember it well. I was pissed when they gave the go-ahead.
Open a book once in a while. Wikipedia is only good for an introduction and a starting place.
I have been humoring you, but I'm getting sick of your games. It is very clear to me that you are not interested in exploring or exchanging ideas.
You are looking for holes to launch an attack.
You want to win.
You can't. You're a loser and always will be, unless you learn that none of this shit matters.
If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong. Un-clench your sphincter an do something that makes you smile.
I recomend /s/cats. It always works for me.
That's a pretty black and white way of viewing things. Hassan Rouhani is far from an extremist and has taken many actions to liberalize the country. Go look at some polls about the opinions of Iranians on the western world (and the US in particular). They are surprisingly the most sympathetic in the arab world.
But let's suppose for a moment they really do want nuclear weapons. This probably is't a good thing, but I reiterate, why must the west intervene in this? Did we intervene when Pakistan obtained weapons? Our history of interventions is full of hypocrisy and serves to make us more and more enemies around the globe while getting us nothing in return except for deep profits to weapons manufacturers. One could even argue (although I'm not sure it is really true myself) that when enemies obtain these weapons it is actually a stabilizing influence since the stakes of conflict increasing are too high for each side to escalate a conflict.
Watch Team America World Police if you want a more humorous illustration of blowback than I can do.