When Bush hatred makes you a moron...

[General Ludd]

Right wing hypocrites who don't want laws controling weapons in their own country, but do want laws controling the weapons of everyone else.

[Sprayber]

What does morality have to do with this?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Once again realpolitick. If you do this I will hurt you very badly; If you do that I will help you. Brute force and bribery since we have no moral grounds to deny others things which we won't deny ourselves.

Also since the invention has been made and people know how to build nukes we can't just disarm because other people would then have an advantage over us. This genie is out and all we can do cajole people into slowing it's spread.

You can't just say that it is right because it's the best thing for the US. You have to have a reason why it is good for the world. The best thing for the world is to start working towards getting rid of these weapons, but the US stands in the way, and is actually trying to start a new arms race.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Right wing hypocrites who don't want laws controling weapons in their own country, but do want laws controling the weapons of everyone else.

Pretty ****ing brilliant if you can pull it off

Again, morality means jack

[laurentius]

What hope do we have if morality means **** to you?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Again, morality means jack

So say those without morals. Good luck convincing those of use that do of this. No one is likely to listen to you at all.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Right wing hypocrites who don't want laws controling weapons in their own country, but do want laws controling the weapons of everyone else.

You haven't really thought that through have you? Neither has Kid. Let's assume we sign treaties and all the law abiding countries make their nukes disappear. Great isn't it? Well, then again maybe not because we'd have cheaters like North Korea and Iran would build them any way and now we wouldn't have any deterrent when an aggressive dictator feels he can use his nukes. Wouldn't we?

That's why I said the genie is out of the bottle. Have all the teary eyed optimism you want people know how to build nukes and not everyone wants to get rid of nukes even if we do. Unilateral disarmament isn't any solution at all but you still want to stop their spread. What do you do?

Seriously, I'd like to know if you have a practical solution or if all you do is whine.

[laurentius]

Cheaters like Iran!? What makes you think your morals are better than theirs?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by laurentius
What hope do we have if morality means **** to you?

Morality is nice but it's hard to stop an aggressive dictator with arguments about morality. Instead you need coalitions and superior weapons. The goal in realpolitick is to make relatively benevolent countries maintain a strong enough coalition to deter and scare the nonbenevolent countries into towing the line.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by laurentius
Cheaters like Iran!? What makes you think your morals are better than theirs?

There you go with morals again. We aren't talking about morals we're talking about interests. Surely, you can follow that. The west and the other capitalist powers need to see that it is in our interest to halt the spread of nukes even if we can't ever eliminate nukes. Thus we do what it takes to bribe, cajole, or even brow beat the reticent.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Quick question. which country is gonna stand up besides the us to try and keep peace? Sure the us makes these weapons but dont hide the fact that we do. do i want some other country to drop the wmd in my backyard hell no. What are the other options but to stop those who cant control them from making them

[laurentius]

Ranting about Realpolitik is so Cold War. Surely we can do better

[laurentius]

Mrs. Tuberski. Noone else obviously, I mean USA is the country GOD created just to guard other nations

Aww how not-nice it would be if someone would carpet bomb your back yard, well it surely is better to carpet bomb those sand ******s back yards in Baghdad first.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
You haven't really thought that through have you? Neither has Kid. Let's assume we sign treaties and all the law abiding countries make their nukes disappear. Great isn't it? Well, then again maybe not because we'd have cheaters like North Korea and Iran would build them any way and now we wouldn't have any deterrent when an aggressive dictator feels he can use his nukes. Wouldn't we?

That's why I said the genie is out of the bottle. Have all the teary eyed optimism you want people know how to build nukes and not everyone wants to get rid of nukes even if we do. Unilateral disarmament isn't any solution at all but you still want to stop their spread. What do you do?

Seriously, I'd like to know if you have a practical solution or if all you do is whine.

The thing is that the US has 10,000 nukes. Russia has more I believe. The highest risk is destruction of the world, not whether or not a dictator gets a nuke and can use it to get negotiating power. We should destroy most of our nukes.

[GePap]

The US has the legal right to seek to end any illicit weapons program because Iran signed the NPT, which forbids it from aquiring nuclear weapons. Iran has not yet stated they are planning to leave the NPT, so legally they do NOT have the right to nukes. That said, they do have the option of leaving the NPT at any time they wish.

The problem is the Bush adm,in. and the Europeans aqre demanding Iran undertake no Uranium enrichment, the problem being Iran has every right under the NPT to enrich uranium.

That said, whether Iran gets nukes or not is a function of whether the Iraninasn want them or not too badly- the US has no diplomatic nor military options right now that would stop the Iranians. Personally, I think even a democratic Iranian government has reasons to seek nukes, thought US objections to Iranian nukes would probably melt away if a pro-US regime took control.