Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You're speaking as if that hypothetical person in Iran actually exists and is immortal.

The Iranians in 1953 are not the same Iranians today.

The situation today is that you have a sabre rattling theocracy that funds terrorism trying to get nuclear weapons.

What possible concession could the West make to get Iran to stop striving for nukes? Nothing. Iranian leadership wants nukes before their rule is overthrown by the people in favour of a democracy. Before the hearts and minds of a sufficient majority move for change away from totalitarianism.

It's very important to stop them from getting nuclear weapons. 1953 has no bearing on this situation 60 years later.



> 1953 has no bearing on this situation 60 years later.

I'm not really educated on Iran, but I find this hard to believe. It wasn't that long ago...

edit - I should have posed the original comment as a question, but can anyone elaborate if I'm really totally wrong? Surely the coup in 53 would have had an effect on the revolution which would have an effect... ?


Sure it had an effect. The 1953 coup allowed for the creation the theocracy.

But whether or not we spilled the milk, we still have to clean it up.


As opposed to other sabre-rattling brutal countries that fund terrorism and _already_ have nuclear weapons.


Just because North Korea and Pakistan have nukes doesn't mean we should open the floodgates and let anyone have them.


Why just those? Others have a lot more, with better reach.


Because the others aren't "sabre-rattling brutal countries that fund terrorism".

It's not having nukes that is the problem, it's what people think you will do with them.


Show me one that doesn't fund terrorism.

I'll go first: US's Beirut Car bomb in 1985 that killed scores of women and children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Beirut_car_bombing

You go next...


First that article hardly makes it clear that that was the US's bomb. Second it was 25 years ago. Third, you do have a black and white world view? And all countries are clearly equal?

Are you seriously unable to distinguish between countries? Are you unable to distinguish between single (or even rare) occurrences and repeated? Between countries that feel bad about such occurrences in their past and those that celebrate them?

Do you really think that saying "So and so is not so bad - after all the US did it one time." is a good argument?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: