What the Indian giver got

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Personally... the thought of any nation having Nukes scares me.

It literally only takes one madman... regardless of nationality.. to touch off the end of this planet.

However, I also agree that as long as some nations refuse to reduce their nuclear arsenals there's no way to ask so-called "less developed" countries to do the same. That's hypocritical...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

...

Nukes for all, eh? Great concept! Or maybe not...

Tell you what. You can get on your high horse and ask other countries to not make nuclear weapons as soon as countries of the West get rid of theirs. Until then, stfu.

The West? Did they move China and Russia lately?

In case you haven't noticed, most of the open moralizing on this issue is coming from Europe and the United States.

Moralizing? Yeah sure, lets just put away with any and all international treaties while we're at it and see how much better a place the world will be...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Moralizing? Yeah sure, lets just put away with any and all international treaties while we're at it and see how much better a place the world will be...

International treaties that treat countries differently aren't worth spit. The NPT isn't really designed to maintain world peace and order; it's designed to maintain the status quo. Countries like India and Israel recognize that when it comes to their self-interests, they truly do stand alone in very dangerous parts of the world.

A true "international community" would be one where all nations act in concert to do good by the planet. That is not really what we have, however. Take the Kyoto thing for example, it penalizes the West and excludes fast growing nations like India and China. Or the NPT, which penalizes Iran but turns a blind eye to the United States. There is no international community. There is only a group of countries, each of which is lobbying to secure its own interests.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A true "international community" would be one where all nations act in concert to do good by the planet. That is not really what we have, however.

Help me out here: The unilateral act of the Bush administration (yet again) to effectively bury an international treaty is helping the world get towards the goal of this mysterious "true international community" how, exactly?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

A true "international community" would be one where all nations act in concert to do good by the planet. That is not really what we have, however.

Help me out here: The unilateral act of the Bush administration (yet again) to effectively bury an international treaty is helping the world get towards the goal of this mysterious "true international community" how, exactly?

It's not. When did I say it is?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

International treaties that treat countries differently aren't worth spit. The NPT isn't really designed to maintain world peace and order; it's designed to maintain the status quo. Countries like India and Israel recognize that when it comes to their self-interests, they truly do stand alone in very dangerous parts of the world.

A true "international community" would be one where all nations act in concert to do good by the planet. That is not really what we have, however. Take the Kyoto thing for example, it penalizes the West and excludes fast growing nations like India and China. Or the NPT, which penalizes Iran but turns a blind eye to the United States. There is no international community. There is only a group of countries, each of which is lobbying to secure its own interests.

Plus, the two 20th-century attempts at "international community" have both been colossal failures:

• League of Nations, set up after horrors of WW-1 supposedly to prevent repetition of such; result was WW-2 (which was grossly worse on all counts but one--unlike in WW-1, there was no gas-warfare in WW-2)
  
• UN, set up after WW-2, on wreckage of LN--no conflicts solved even temporarily, lots fester; its longer term of existence (61 years vs 27 for LN) has alone shown it to be worse
  

Closest (human-designed) that you will ever get to an "international community" is a global empire (obviously, the closest to such historically would have been the British Empire).

Edited March 9, 2006 by sriniv

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Closest (human-designed) that you will ever get to an "international community" is a global empire (obviously, the closest to such historically would have been the British Empire).

And we all know much that sucked.

[Mirorgate 0]

Personally... the thought of any nation having Nukes scares me.

It literally only takes one madman... regardless of nationality.. to touch off the end of this planet.

However, I also agree that as long as some nations refuse to reduce their nuclear arsenals there's no way to ask so-called "less developed" countries to do the same. That's hypocritical...

Yes it is hypocritical, but it's also insane to arm eveyone to the teeth with nukes and think that because we've equaled the playing field... everyone will play nice and we've finally achieved peace. Because anyone that thinks the new Iranian regime wouldn't try to wipe Israel off the face of the map.. or vice-versa.. are being delusional IMO.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... anyone that thinks the new Iranian regime wouldn't try to wipe Israel off the face of the map.. or vice-versa.. are being delusional IMO.

I respectfully disagree. The Iranians just know how the "mad mullah" act pushes the West's buttons, so they do it. That's their leverage. They'd be stupid not to use it.

Prediction: This mad mullah act of theirs will result in the enrichment of uranium on Iranian soil. The West will suggest some weak safeguards to save face, the Iranians will agree, and in the end the mullahs will have achieved what they wanted.

Edited March 9, 2006 by Agent Smith

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A true "international community" would be one where all nations act in concert to do good by the planet. That is not really what we have, however.

Help me out here: The unilateral act of the Bush administration (yet again) to effectively bury an international treaty is helping the world get towards the goal of this mysterious "true international community" how, exactly?

It's not. When did I say it is?

Well, you seemed to welcome Bush's latest screw-up on the international floor. And you seemed to justify the screw-up by getting off on a true international community trip. I thought that both those thoughts were somehow connected. I guess they're not.

[Mirorgate 0]

... anyone that thinks the new Iranian regime wouldn't try to wipe Israel off the face of the map.. or vice-versa.. are being delusional IMO.

I respectfully disagree. The Iranians just know how the "mad mullah" act pushes the West's buttons, so they do it. That's their leverage. They'd be stupid not to use it.

Prediction: This mad mullah act of theirs will result in the enrichment of uranium on Iranian soil. The West will suggest some weak safeguards to save face, the Iranians will agree, and in the end the mullahs will have achieved what they wanted.

So.. you think that when they have nukes, they won't try to take ot Israel?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Well, you seemed to welcome Bush's latest screw-up on the international floor. And you seemed to justify the screw-up by getting off on a true international community trip. I thought that both those thoughts were somehow connected. I guess they're not.

My point is that international treaties are usually discriminatory. Kyoto is one example. The NPT is another. I do not believe that India should rely on an "international community" that does not really exist, for its security needs.

... anyone that thinks the new Iranian regime wouldn't try to wipe Israel off the face of the map.. or vice-versa.. are being delusional IMO.

I respectfully disagree. The Iranians just know how the "mad mullah" act pushes the West's buttons, so they do it. That's their leverage. They'd be stupid not to use it.

Prediction: This mad mullah act of theirs will result in the enrichment of uranium on Iranian soil. The West will suggest some weak safeguards to save face, the Iranians will agree, and in the end the mullahs will have achieved what they wanted.

So.. you think that when they have nukes, they won't try to take ot Israel?

No I don't think they will.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

... anyone that thinks the new Iranian regime wouldn't try to wipe Israel off the face of the map.. or vice-versa.. are being delusional IMO.

I respectfully disagree. The Iranians just know how the "mad mullah" act pushes the West's buttons, so they do it. That's their leverage. They'd be stupid not to use it.

Prediction: This mad mullah act of theirs will result in the enrichment of uranium on Iranian soil. The West will suggest some weak safeguards to save face, the Iranians will agree, and in the end the mullahs will have achieved what they wanted.

So.. you think that when they have nukes, they won't try to take ot Israel?

That won't even matter if Isreal thinks they might. Whatever nuclear installations Iran gets close to running Israel will take out. That country ain't going to sit by and watch the mullahs develop what they need to wipe it off the earth. Wouldn't be the first war started over perceptions and it sure wouldn't be the last.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Personally... the thought of any nation having Nukes scares me.

It literally only takes one madman... regardless of nationality.. to touch off the end of this planet.

However, I also agree that as long as some nations refuse to reduce their nuclear arsenals there's no way to ask so-called "less developed" countries to do the same. That's hypocritical...

Yes it is hypocritical, but it's also insane to arm eveyone to the teeth with nukes and think that because we've equaled the playing field... everyone will play nice and we've finally achieved peace. Because anyone that thinks the new Iranian regime wouldn't try to wipe Israel off the face of the map.. or vice-versa.. are being delusional IMO.

Well, I agree, but in order to convince anyone that nuclear proliferation is a bad idea, the big nuclear powers need to continue reducing their arsenals. And they need to act against nations that fail to sign the NPT, first and foremost Israel which is the primary reason Iran wants nukes.

As long as the US bases its foreign policy on enforcing anti-nuclear proliferation policy when it comes to some nations but forgets that it exists when it comes to other nations, any attempts of the international community to stop nuclear armament will come to nothing.

Iran is far away from nukes (despite media hypes which pretend they start testing next week) and it professes to not even want to build nukes. However, it is a convenient target because of its anti-Western goverment and its long status as an arch-enemy. The international community, beginning with the US, would do much better to measure nuclear powers and threats based on reality; and just because India or Israel or Brazil not a threat to the US, it doesn't mean that they are not endangering peace in their respective regions.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

And they need to act against nations that fail to sign the NPT...

Just curious. What kind of action? I presume this "action" takes place after the nuclear powers have eliminated their arsenals. Simply starting the process of "reducing" ain't enough when you're sitting on a stockpile that can destroy the planet thousands of times over.