allowing said country to develop nukes then , use them and start ww3, then, if that is clearer for you.
And, since there WAS a "deal" in place that would have precluded Iran from developing nuclear weapons, can you tell me how tearing up the "deal" was NOT "allowing said country to develop nukes" and WHICH American President tore up the "deal"?
PS - Only really crappy lawyer wannabes use "said" as you used it.
no **** who doesn't know this?
It would appear that a whole lot of Americans actually think that American history and policy and government were always in conformance with what they were taught as innocent young school children the US stood for and the way that the US acted.
we don't even trust our own government fully.
One should never trust the government fully.
However, American take that advice to the extreme of not trusting the government at all IF "THEIR Guys" are in power and mindlessly swallowing whatever the government says when "MY Guys" are in power.
but when the rubber hits the road, we tend to come through.
Indeed, once in 1917 for what was effectively a show of force against a collapsing enemy (and one that wasn't followed up with the actions which might well have prevented WWII), and once in 1941 after being directly attacked (and after having sucked all available assets out of its "friends" who were actively fighting Hitler and his Nazis).
Oh yes, and then again in the 1950s and 1960s, when the US assisted France with its reconquer and recolonization of Vietnam before taking over the management of the selection of which group of crass, venal, corrupt, and murderous thugs would be "elected" to government in the southern half of the country.
I mean Europe could all be speaking German or Russian now if we hadn't helped out and opposed those regimes.
Undoubtedly.
However, the more likely outcome would have been that the Russians would have rolled westward until they met up with the communist led French resistance and peace descended on Europe. At long last the Russians would have not had to deal with their culturally instilled fear of being encircled and conquered.
Where the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of Europe would have gone once Stalin had shuffled off this mortal coil, is a real interesting speculation BUT it is most certainly NOT a given that the resulting regime would have been the slave like oppression that you appear to believe ALL "left-wing" (in comparison with the US) countries are inflicted with.
think they'd be better off?
See above
Israel is already a nuclear power I believe. what is the issue you speak of and what do you think we should do? what should Canada do?
So, if the "Right Wing" (and that is on the world scale - not just the US scale) "Reactionary", "Fundamentalist", "Uber-nationalists" take control of Israel you think that they should be "allowed" to have nuclear weapons? Is that because they are
OUR "Right Wing" (and that is on the world scale - not just the US scale) "Reactionary", "Fundamentalist", "Uber-nationalists" as opposed to
THEIR "Left Wing" (and that is on the world scale - not just the US scale) "Reactionary", "Fundamentalist", "Uber-nationalists"?