Why do we get to have nukes in self defense, but others don't?

[eeyore]

Why the hell do we get to have nukes, supposedly in self defense, however no one else can have them in self defense against us?

We've most recently been bellowing about blowing the shit out of Iran since roughly 2000, and they have no right to build up a defense against our insane bellicose rants?

We are the fucking agressors here!


:wtf:


Our elected Dem officials stand complicit in their silence.

[Kelly Rupert]

1. Nobody else can?

I will inform Great Britain, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel that they must disarm immediately.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. i lot of effort was initially made so that india and pakistan couldnt have them

[Kelly Rupert]

7. And rightly so.

The spread of nuclear weapons is a bad thing, especially as regards traditionally belligerent nations who share an armed (and contested) border.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. the hypocrisy that only white nations can have them is just as bad

before you tell others to destroy them, you should destroy yours too.

[Kelly Rupert]

12. China's white now?

Damn. Missed that one. (Plus, as I recall, South Africa folded its nuclear program under immense international pressure. Argentina did as well, as did the former Soviet states) Plus, nobody is currently telling India and Pakistan to disarm.

Disarming a nuclear state is impossible. Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons lowers the chances of a global holocaust. This should not be difficult to grasp.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. at the time of the treaty china already had them. my point is none of these places can dictate who

can and cannot have them while holding on to their own.

[Kelly Rupert]

18. Sure they can.

The spread of nuclear weapons threatens all nation-states. Each nation-state has as a right the defense of its people. A nuclear weapon increases the defense of the nation possessing, while harming the defense of each other nation on Earth. Therefore, it is to the benefit of each nation to secure weapons for itself if possible, and attempt to prevent all other nations from acquiring them.

You expect geopolitics to work on Kantian imperatives?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. well i am glad india got them. cant trust americans to not bombing india on some pretext

or the other.

[eeyore]

17. No, China is large enough to be a major threat to the west

We could not ever blow China back to the stone age. They are too powerful and large, so we have decided that we need to act with diplomacy there. N. Korea is the same.

[Kelly Rupert]

20. Right. Disarming a nuclear nation is impossible.

This isn't hard to understand.

[eeyore]

15. Yup!

Pretty damn scary. I'm listening to World Have Your Say on NPR, and they are discussing whether or not Iran is a nuclear threat. Most Western callers view Iran as a threat on some level, and most non-Western think GWB is the threat.

:scared:

[daninthemoon]

24. I'm more scared of bushler than of Iran.

[eeyore]

33. By far!

We're cornering them. What the hell are they supposed to do? They can't just sit back and let GWB dictate their country's policies. They want to progress in the world and be a self-sufficient thriving nation.

[Truth2Tell]

19. Israel has Nukes? who knew..

I guess they have no reason to fear their neighbors then.

And I assume they signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty right? oh wait...

[Kelly Rupert]

22. Yes, they do, and it's common knowledge

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/12/uisrael112.xml

[Truth2Tell]

25. sarcasm

I always forget to use this

:sarcasm:

[Kelly Rupert]

40. Rule of Internet:

No matter how stupid you tried to make your post, there's always somebody who's recently seen someone say something stupider and mean it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. crazy crazy governments and jingoistic populations cannot be trusted with nukes

so i dont know why we can.

its why india didnt signt the NNP treaty

[jobycom]

3. And why is the party opposed to gun regulation in favor of nuke regulation?

Seems like the same principles involved.

[eeyore]

8. Good point!

The biggest weapons are only to be trusted in the hands of the mighty and righteous US of A!!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. racism.

[jobycom]

13. Simple, but accurate. nt

[Flabbergasted]

4. Self Defense? Bush is the only guy on that planet that threatens to use them.

[eeyore]

11. We claim to have them in self defense against rogue nations.

Gotta have 'em just in case the crazies act up, right? Who's to say we're not the crazies anymore? Not me.

[Flabbergasted]

14. The fact that George has threatened to use them should be grounds for impeachment.

[Richard Steele]

6. Because we say so.

And everyone has to do what we say,
because we have nukes.

It's the Murkin way.

[AuntPatsy]

21. Read below.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091807J.shtml

Bush Setting America Up for War With Iran

Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.

Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.

Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and

snip

Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and even its armed forces.

Senior officials believe Mr Bush's inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon.

The intelligence source said: "No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen." But he said that within the CIA "many if not most officials believe that diplomacy is failing" and that "top Pentagon brass believes the same."

Snip

Miss Rice's bottom line is that if the administration is to go to war again it must build the case over a period of months and win sufficient support on Capitol Hill.

The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised her that he would consult "meaningfully" with Congressional leaders of both parties before any military action against Iran on the understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen.

The intelligence officer said that the US military has "two major contingency plans" for air strikes on Iran.

[Kelly Rupert]

23. Hey, Truthout!

How'd that Rove indictment go?

[AuntPatsy]

27. If that was an attempt to slam Truthout, it lacked any real zing considering

how easy this administrations criminal activites have fallen by the wayside....

If it were so easy to stop them they would have been stopped long ago, don't doubt this was more than likely in play and shot down.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Putting Bush Aside

I thought all folks thought nuclear proliferation was a bad thing...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

28. i think outside america a lot of people feel that treaty is unfair

everyone in my opinion should get rid of nukes.

this might have a lot to do with my growing up outside america

[LSK]

29. why the hell do my IAEA posts go nowhere here?

:shrug:

[Kelly Rupert]

39. Using the acronym "IAEA" implies you will require people to know something.

You'd do better if it was something like "I think that not allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons is just racism."

[Connie_Corleone]

30. Cuz we're BADASS MUTHAFUCKAS. That's why.

Or we like to think so until we get our collective asses kicked.

[eeyore]

32. There's a whole lot more of "them" than "us"...

We could never, in any other way, have a chance in hell of taking on the whole world. At this point, though, I think that's what our current assholes in charge are intent on trying. It's one hell of a game of chicken, and I'm not so sure it's going to turn out well for us this time. Note that Venezuela just switched over all of its invested currency from dollars to euros. The world is losing faith in us, and we may be left with nothing but a crippled military and some big ass bombs by the time they are done. That is, if they don't unleash the bombs first.

[Booster]

34. Along these same lines, I sent out an email to several people

about where the government got the money to build a base in Iraq, implying that both Dems and Repugs would have had to approve the money. One of my repug friends wrote back "excuse me. Don't our troops NEED bases". I answered how would we feel if ANY other country came over here and tried to build a base on our soil, especially a country that had invaded us. Needless to say, she didn't answer.

[Macchendra]

35. Coz Hill' Obama and Edwards say so

And please vote for Kucinich!

[Goblinmonger]

36. Silly eeyore

nukes are for the good guys and that's us. Didn't you get the memo.

[warren pease]

37. Because we are world-class hypocrites...

... and have been ever since Columbus ran into Hispaniola and took that fateful right.

First order of business, murder by military might or kill by disease at least 90 percent of the indigenous population.

And we've carried on that combination of hubris, arrogance, ignorance, hostility, entitlement, xenophobia and mass slaughter down through the centuries and into the age of nuclear obliteration.

And damn if a significant percentage of the population doesn't think that's just a mighty fine idea, what with all these damn Islamistical ragheads and furrin wetbacks threatening our homeland and polluting our krischun roots and values.

Nuke 'em all, the little brown bastards, and make the world safe for JeeeezuzzLand (tm).


wp

[daninthemoon]

38. When I went to grade school, eminent domain was taught as the

way of things. The stripping away to the truth of Amerika's true ways continues to this day. "They" do not hate us for our freedom. A this point in history, almost everything in this mass-consumer driven culture has other people's blood on it. So, cover your nose, use that oil, and buy,buy buy.

[ruiner4u]

41. probably cause we developed them, saw the damage they caused, and wanted to mitigate that damage

And also for the fact that our military and political parties have an actual vested interest in not having our country blown to shit by a nuclear holocost... well and gee wiz batman, so do we..

I see a lot of stupid bullshit threads on here, but this one really takes BS to a brand new spec-fucking-tacular-level...