user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
I don't understand the question. Would you indulge me and rephrase it?
Can you give us a reason why its okay for the USA to dicate which nations has what weapons? Considering we are the only nation to have ever used them in war and considering we are continuing to manufacture nuclear weapons, biological weapons and chemcial weapons, why is it okay for us to, but not other nations?
Then explain why we have no issues with India and Pakistan having them, when they have come close to war? Then explain why we give certain nations, like Israel, nuclear weapons. We can't say we are concerned with the spread of nuclear weapons, when we in fact, give other nations that very same weaponry.
Then explain why the USA, a nation that has invaded other nations, such as Iraq and Panama, to name a couple, with NO provocation at all?
You can't say its because Iran is "irresponsible," give our own actions, so then what is the reason?
Since our approach and naivete has worked so well with North Korea, should we stop acting the same way with Iran?
That didn't answer any of my questions :)
Patient negotiations?
Do yourself a favor -- turn off FOX News.
There have been no 'patient negotitations' for the past 6 years. Any talks that do not include the US are not talks at all.
There will be nothing remotely resembling progress until the US gets a clue and engages in direct talks, instead of abdicating the responsibility to proxies whom NK doesn't have a beef with.
Clue: Here are the two extremes, neither of which is right -- NK is pure and innocent & NK is evil incarnate and cannot/ should-not be talked to.
Now that we have those discarded, maybe we can finally get to something constructive.
Voted : Bush is to blame for all, negotiations ad nauseam (cathexis answer)
Which way is the wind blowing? You will bash the President if he DOES and you will bash the President if he DOESN"T.
(This doesn't respond to the ballot, but it does apply to some B&W.com users.)
BL: I will criticize (as opposed to 'bash) anyone who performs below a minimally acceptable threshold. and my criticism will be sharp when those actions were especially stupid.
Bush supporters like to claim that the Clinton policy was all carrots and no sticks. This is false -- they fail to recall that we threatened war over the plutonium issue in 1994. Like all effective threats of force, it succeeded in getting the North Koreans to sit down and negotiate.
But the Bush policy has been no carrots. And no sticks.
When someone completely ignores a problem, yes ... I criticize them.
And Beauragard does raise some interesting 'consistency' and 'principle' questions.
Thus, I expect them to be conveniently ignored.
BTW, for a much- needed history lesson about who is to blame for what, see ballot #103158.
But I forgot ... if it is politically inconvenient to the militarists, it never happened.
"Patient negotiations?
Do yourself a favor -- turn off FOX News."
Oh please. AD HOMINEM ATTACK
I DO NOT WATCH FOX NEWS.
I merely stated that neither of the two approaches have worked. How about something else? How about stopping being naive about Iran?
Personally, as for Iran, I'll start to worry in eight to ten years, when their nuclear program is actually able to bear fruit. (Admittedly, I'm talking out of my butthole, because those three years I wasted getting a degree in physics is worth squat, right?) Then, with regard to *both*, let me know when they've cobbled together a delivery system that doesn't place the payload thousands of miles short of the intended target.
(waiting to worry)
Cath: in your history lesson that was intended to blame bush for everything that has gone wrong you did point out that North Korea was responsible for ending the treaty when it came out that they had been secretly building nuclear weapons elsewhere.
How do you claim this to be a victory? Essentially clinton got them to agree (in exchange for two very expensive reactors) to stop building nuclear weapons at one particular spot in North Korea. And of course inspectors had access to only that one spot, so he could have literally put another reactor just over the next hill from that spot and they'd have been none the wiser.
You subscribe to the neville chamberlain school of diplomacy don't you? They agreed to only take czechoslovakia, and problem france and poland as well, and in exchange we get a few nice quotes about peace, that will be promptly broken before the ink even dries, I'd say that Mr. Hitler fellow is a swell chap, he even agreed to through in a free kick to the nuts, no strings attached.
BTW, how's that diplomacy working in Iran? I believe there the international community, not bush, is running the show. Iran's been completely disarmed and has agreed to cease all efforts and submit to inspections right?
Of course we probably just need to give North Korea more time, let diplomacy do it's work, that'll solve everything.
Since our approach and naivete has worked so well with North Korea, should we stop acting the same way with Iran?
I'm not sure how to respond. This is predicated on the assumption that North Korea, when it successfully develops nuclear weapons, will sell those weapons to terrorists who will detonate them inside the United States (I won't mention our allies). The potential for nuclear holocaust is probably the most terrifying idea ever, but we must not allow that terror to eclipse our best judgement of how to safeguard America. If terrorists really want to get ahold of nuclear weapons or nuclear material, there are plenty of other places around the world to go. This in turn is based on the assumption that the next terrorist attacks on the United States will likely be nuclear, and not biological, chemical, conventional, or any of the other 10,000 ways to terrorize the United States. Look how effective the attacks of September 11th were, and they only involved four hijacked airplanes in a country of 300 million people.
If Kim Jong Il was developing nuclear weapons for the purpose of selling them to terrorists, I don't think I have to mention that it wouldn't be for financial gain, when you look at the cost of developing a viable, if comparitively miniscule nuclear weapons program. Certainly Kim J.I. might sell the nuclear material/weapons to terrorists, but you could also stick your finger on a random place inside Russia and locate an abandoned nuclear facility there guarded by an ape.
So let's look at Iran. Certainly I'd be more concerned about Iran developing nuclear weapons down the road. What are our options? Probably the best option would be to look towards other countries for support against Iran becoming a nuclear power. That will involve some diplomacy.
- Actually, I was listening to President Bush's speech this morning, and I was surprised to hear him state very clearly that diplomacy should come first under all similar circumstances. The point is, America doesn't currently have the resources (military, political, international, or otherwise) to directly confront Iran and dictate to them that they cannot pursue nuclear technology under any circumstances. And if I had to make a list of impossible things that could never happen, Iran developing nuclear technology as a source of energy would be very high up on the list, but it wouldn't be at the top.
But really America would be better off if we worked on problem #1: Iraq. That's an unfortunate consequence of our being tied down there -- we have to prioritize. Of equal (or slightly lesser) importance than Iraq is capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden, the person who we know attacked us; and continuing to develop better domestic disaster readiness procedures.
"Can you give us a reason why its okay for the USA to dicate which nations has what weapons? Considering we are the only nation to have ever used them in war and considering we are continuing to manufacture nuclear weapons, biological weapons and chemcial weapons, why is it okay for us to, but not other nations?"
- Yes, of course. Under international law the USA, Russia, China, France and Britain are permitted to have nuclear weapons. This is intrinsically deeply rooted into international laws, norms, and insititutions including the UN. If you don't like it, the you also do not like the UN or international law as it is. Anyhow, like it or not, the status quo is that these powers by international law are allowed to ahve nuclear weapons.
"Then explain why we have no issues with India and Pakistan having them, when they have come close to war? Then explain why we give certain nations, like Israel, nuclear weapons. We can't say we are concerned with the spread of nuclear weapons, when we in fact, give other nations that very same weaponry."
- This can also be explained easily. Pakistan, India, and Israel have never signed the NPT and therefore they are NOT obligated by this treaty to have nuclear weapons. But the US didn't 'give' Israel such weapons- its more like Israel developed them and the US and the international community didn't try to actively stop them due to a legal loop-hole in international law regarding the NPT and the fact that Pakistan, India and Israel never signed.
"Then explain why the USA, a nation that has invaded other nations, such as Iraq and Panama, to name a couple, with NO provocation at all?"
- Yes, the US has done some things wrong in the past. But that doesn't mean that the international community should just let Iran break international agreements.
"You can't say its because Iran is "irresponsible," give our own actions, so then what is the reason?"
- Indeed Iran is irresponsible. They have signed the NPT and they are obligated to follow the binding agreements of that international treaty.
Beauregard ^
Cathexis- "There will be nothing remotely resembling progress until the US gets a clue and engages in direct talks, instead of abdicating the responsibility to proxies whom NK doesn't have a beef with."
- That's really interesting... Bush is 'too multi-lateral'? It seems not long ago he was accused of being 'too unilateral'. It seems like you will slam him no matter what he does.
So, the other four countries in the multilateral talks are completely irrelevant? Their opinions don't matter? I disagree, they are directly affected by and have much sway and influence over North Korea.
|
|
