1/13 Another stupid question. Why exactly is Iraq not allowed to have
these "weapons of mass destruction"? America and many other
countries possess them, so why cannot Iraq?
\- better question: why is France on the Security Council --psb
\_ better question: why is France on the Security Council --psb
\_ On the winning side of WWII and gave the capitalists numerical
superiority over the communists. Not that having more really
counted for much.
\_ It was the only way to make shutup Charles de Galle.
\- if you really want to hate france, you should read
more about de gaulle's thumbing his nose at churchill
and fdr. i dont have a good reference for this but if
someone else does, i'd be interested. ok tnx --psb
\_ topWorldEconomies - countriesThatLostWWII = securityCouncil
\_ ignorance + you = your post. Russia is not a topWorldEconomy.
\_ Who else then? Cananda? Harharharharhar!
\_ India... Brazil...
\_ They entered into a legal arragement at the end of the gulf war
where they stated they would not develop nuclear weapons. They
agreed because Saddam wanted to stay in power, but now he's
violated that contract with the UN according to the chimp
in the whitehouse.
\_ ... as the world goes, is only in question between
equals in power, while the strong do what they can
and the weak suffer what they must ... [men] by a
necessary law of their nature they rule wherever
they can. And it is not as if we were the first to
make this law, or to act upon it when made: we found
it existing before us, and shall leave it to exist
for ever after us; all we do is to make use of it,
knowing that you and everybody else, having the
same power as we have, would do the same as we do.
--History of the Peloponnesian War, Book V ("The Melian Dialog")
\- "in our lifetime" i think a few more countries are likely
to get nukes to make a run at it. iran, japan for example.
--psb
\- BTW, this may be of some interest:
soda:/tmp/Mearsheimer-Walt.pdf
I think they are somewhat glib on a few things (then it
comes to the importence or non- of nukes) but otherwise
it is a fairly accesible and reasonable article. --psb
\_ That's a good one though it is glib on points as you
say. It nicely outlines, by no specific mention,
"so why IS this little cabal so bent on aggressive
military action since they seem smart enough to know
better?". Anatol Lieven's article in the London Review
of Books is the only one I've seen to answer that in a
way that made sense. His article has also been prescient
given that it was published in October and, thus, likely
written in late August. -- ulysses
\- i think the the LRB article is leem, although the
"jewish problem" in american party politics was
kind of interesting. walt and mearsheimer's brains
are larger. you may wish to see the issue of IS
on this topic. IS is even better. --psb |