As for Iran, I don't care to discuss the legitimacy of popularly supported Muslim theocracies with you. However, in terms of respecting the wishes of the United Nations and the international community, Iran has certainly done FAR better than the US. I think it is comical that you dare to compare us to them, when the US govt is the one that just crushed the international order beneath its tank treads while Iran is the country that just totally complied with the IAEA. Pardon me, cuz my memories fails to recall the last time Iran was on the wrong side of 140-4 UN votes...
I fail to see how the world order would be able to resolve their security problems and doubt that Pakistan and India really expected the world order to resolve them.
You have already shown your extremist colors in previous posts, so there is really not that much of a point in responding to you, but I will still do it, even though I suspect you will not understand. Iran is a country run by fanatic extremists. Their government is not legitimate. Whoever wants to come up saying that the same goes for the US, spare me that crap. The government in Iran is a dictatorship. They have an aggressive, intolerant ideology. I could pull up lots of evidence, but one should be enough, it is from a "liberal" newspaper in the UK: Threat assessed Hashemi-Rafsanjani, one of Iran's most influential clerics and a former president, called on Muslim states last December to use nuclear weapons against Israel. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/10/wiran210.xml
That is sad. Whether it can in any way be rationalized is the subject of another thread. Now, I think that most people who are not extremists, even those that are very critical of the current US government, would agree that the political system in the US is and has been at least more stable than that in Iran. So, if even the US, who have a democracy and a much more stable government than Iran, have used nuclear weapons already, do you really want Iran to have nukes? Wouldn't the chances be even higher that they would use them in the future?
democracy = the people run the government dictatorship = a person runst the government then i dont see the line which separates one from the other, and allows one of those to use an A bomb and the other to be scrutinized on the thought of accuiring one. Although the US government was stable and all the dropping of the atomb bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki were basically the doings of a few people... I just don't see how it is justifiable that a non Muslim country can get a nucleur bomb(india) with not much scrutiny, but when a Muslim country does it(pakistan) the whole world frowns upon it. again... N. korea has admitted to having Nucleur weapons, but no one says anything to them, but Iran inquires about getting one, and USA is on the verge of boneheadedly attacking another country.
You can't be serious about North Korea. What has all this dialogue and conflict for years and years about the NK nuclear program been about then if we're not trying to get them to stop their program? India got plenty of scrutiny for the nukes as did Pakistan. Your statements have no basis in reality. Pakistan is a very unstable country, while Iran is ruled by a bunch of intolerant, downright evil, repressive, corrupt Mullahs who said that they have no problem with using a nuke on Israel. And you're going to tell me that it's not a big deal if one of those two nations have/are working on acquiring nukes? Give me a break.
But the fact is that those countries have only said they might/may use the nukes, USA has used the nukes... wasn't that a rash and absurd attack on innocent men/women/ and children... And about North korea. TALKS... FREAKING TALKS,,,, we invaded a freaking country just because they might have weapons, this country does have weapons, and all we do is TALK.... And Pakistan wasn't as unstable back when it made the nukes, and it recieved much more scrutiny than did india (I'm part indian and i was shocked at how the world reacted to this)
I don't recall India getting the bomb as being thought of as anything but potentially destablizing and not-at-all a good thing. They were scrutinized, in my opinion. Pakistan getting the bomb just racheted things up in the region. As for the United States developing the a-bomb in the first place, I think we should keep in mind that the politicians (and even, to an extent, the scientists) who pursued the development of the atomci bomb were not completely aware of what they were unleashing on the world. Since then, it has been the attempt of the U.S. to prevent as many other countries as possible from getting nuclear weapons. Yeah, we may park our nukes in other people's countries, but we don't like others to have their own. If we could undo the creation of the first a-bomb, I don't think we'd hesitate. But once you have them, it's very difficult to get rid of them (especially considering that it wasn't long after we got them that the Russians got their own. Given that the policy that kept the Soviets and the U.S. from using the Bomb was Mutually Assured Destruction, it wouldn't have been good policy for either side to volutarily give up their weapons). By that same token, I can understand why someone who's enemy (real or perceived) has nuclear weapons would not also want nuclear weapons for the very same reason. One of the reasons we're very reluctant to invade North Korea (even in just a special forces situation) is because of the potential of their already having a working nuclear weapon they could use on the South. Having a nuke changes the rules because it does go a long way toward protecting you from your enemies even if you never intend on using it. Just having it in your bag of tricks makes all the difference. The thing is that the time to address the issue of non-proliferation is before a country has nuclear capability. Once they have it, it's often too late. As far as I know, no country has ever gone from being a nuclear power to not being a nuclear power. We attempted to keep North Korea from developing nukes. We made deals with them that were supposed to prevent it. It didn't work. Now we also would like Iran (which, unlike North Korea, has been a sponsor of terrorist activities in the past, which does up the ante for the rest of the world) to not get nuclear weapons, but we have to do it before they get it because once they have it, it's too late. But I don't think it's a Muslim/non-Muslim thing. We didn't support India getting the bomb. We tried to keep North Korea from getting the bomb. We honestly don't want anyone to have it.
I agree on the Iraq thing, but there's obviously more going on with the desire to overthrow the Iraqi government than the fear of Saddam gaining nuclear weapons. They were a target from the get-go of this administration. (Plus, once a country HAS the bomb, all you can do is talk to them). Maybe if Amy Carter gets elected President, we'll see a similar grudge against Iran.
Mr.Paige... I can have all the candy in the world, and so can my buddies, but when the people from down the street want some Im gunna whoop their ass. This is the attitude that USA is showing in its policies. And frankly this is not fair, and i can't see why it wont upset some people. Policing the world is not the US's job its the UN's and the USA has just ruined all the credibility of the UN by going against 140-4 UN votes...
"Posted by Mr. Paige By that same token, I can understand why someone who's enemy (real or perceived) has nuclear weapons would not also want nuclear weapons for the very same reason. One of the reasons we're very reluctant to invade North Korea (even in just a special forces situation) is because of the potential of their already having a working nuclear weapon they could use on the South. Having a nuke changes the rules because it does go a long way toward protecting you from your enemies even if you never intend on using it. Just having it in your bag of tricks makes all the difference." On a side note... USA was so sure of Iraq having N. weapons,,, then why didnt they think that Iraq would have attacked neighbouring countries... So either they were wrong to start the war, or their wrong on Korea
I agree that's what it seems like. We have nuclear weapons and while we're dismantling them at present, we're also talking about ramping up production again (and will be making new plutonium pits soon at a rate that would allow us to quickly resume building new missiles). But we're trying our hardest to prevent anyone else from getting them. And then when we not only invade another country we think is developing nuclear weapons but also overthrow their recognized government (and no matter how bad Saddam's regime was, it was a recognized government) only to have it appear that the reasons behind the invasion were made up, it does look very bad. I don't think this administration has handled foreign policy well. Honestly, I don't think foreign policy has been a strength of our country for quite some time. We've had some successes (Camp David Accords, the fall of the Soviet Union, and some others), but we've had plenty of failures, as well. Of course, I also don't think a lot of countries are willing to meet us half-way, either. There's a lot of bad blood built up, and it isn't all the fault of the United States. Our country is not perfect. We should never claim that we are. Sometimes we try harder to get better than other times. Right now, I think we're in a position where the people in charge really believe they're making the world a more secure place, making the United States safer. You can argue the results, but I honestly believe that they believe it and feel it's worth stepping on toes to achieve what they see as a greater good. But a lot of people disagree with the policies (as well as the implementation of the policies). And there are some noble sides. Keeping nuclear weapons out of as many hands as possible is a good position. It's one we've followed for over 50 years, and we've been fairly successful at it. It doesn't seem to jibe with the fact that we want to keep ours, but it is how it is. It's a genie that's extremely hard to get back into the bottle, and it's very likely that even if a deal is made to destroy every nuclear weapon on Earth, the U.S. and Russia will be the last countries to give theirs up. But no matter what anyone says on the issue, I will always maintain the fewer nuclear powers there are, the better off the world is.
As far as I remember, the President never said Iraq had acquired a working nuclear weapon, only that they were pursuing a weapons program and had attempted to obtain nuclear materials (a claim that turned out to be false). I don't ever recall a claim that Iraq had a working nuclear weapon, though. And it's obvious to me that we did know that they didn't have a nuclear weapon. The bigger concern regarding weapons we thought the Iraqis had were things like chemical weapons (things they had used in the past against the Kurds and in the Iran/Iraq War). Who knows how much of that the U.S. really thought they had. But there is a difference between believing someone is attempting to acquire or build a nuclear weapons and actually having done so.
Cohen, If we fail, the Iraqi people and arguably those in the region will remain decades behind the rest of the world. Democracy will have to wait until the masses there decide they are willing to pay the price themselves Look we all want the world to be democratic. Most of us want the US to be this wonderful country that runs around the world doing humanitarian deeds. Wishing it so, doesn't mean that this is what is going on. Rumsfled has said already said they can't have a Shiite-religious government even if they want it. The US is determined not to let the Kurds have their own country even if they want it. These are not a democratic sentiments. You are right in one thing the Iraqis must be willing to pay the price to have democracy. Mixed in with self-serving needs, such as self-defense, was also concern for the Iraqi people and their future... it was definitely a way to acquire the public support to go to war You are definitely right that voicing concern for Iraqis was a way to acquire support. Among the ever changing reasons for the invasion, it was the one emphasized in the last week or so before the invasion. Some would say that's manipulative, Yes , most people in the world would. [B. Help Muslims in general deal with the racism/historical hypersensitivity against non-Muslims [/B] So condescending and offensive. If a poster made a statement about "helping Jews deal with the racism/historical hypersensitivity against non- Jews" perhaps it would help you understand the tone of your remarks. it is somehow a bigger issue that it's non-Muslims occupying their country See the condescending remark. It is strange you can tell Muslims this is no big deal? Yet you name call bnp as being "Un American". Are only non-Muslims entitled to be nationalists? The Bosnian thing is just wierd. Because Muslims were happy to see genocide prevented by the invasion of non-Muslims there, Muslims have agreed to occupation by non-Muslims whenever? In your attempt to be evenhanded, there is no need to limit your acknowlegement of anti-democratic activities by the US to Mossadegh, which conservatives will dismiss as ancient history. . You should mention that our middle east policy is dominated by the same group of anti-democrats who just a scant 20 years ago were proven to be perjurers , terrorists and felons. Bush brought back practically the whole Iran Contra crowd. In addition to the notorious Eliot Abrahms , Rumsfeld. Powell and Cheney supported Sadam for years despite the gassing his own people. The US has supported the Israeli occupation that has prevented Palestinian self rule for over 35 years. These facts are well known particulary abroad and are the reason why the Iraqis and much of the world is not so trusting of the humanitarian, democracy claims of Bush.
