9/1 Highly enriched uranium found in peace love electricity needing Iran.
http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060901-070212-4100r
\_ Why do you bother? I think it's clear they want a bomb, they're
working towards a bomb, and that likely they'll get a bomb, the
only thing up for discussion right now is whether or not they
have any "right" to it, and how to deal with them once they
succeed... -John
\_ There is no such thing as a "right" to anything. They either
have the tech, the resources and the will power to do it or
they don't. The rest of the world has the tech, the resources
and the will power to stop them or they don't. There is no
such thing as international rights, international law or other
similar fabrications.
\_ hey, the freshmen are back in town. -tom
\_ ad hominem. non-responsive. F.
\_ Responding to a red herring is pointless. -tom
\_ then don't respond if you feel it is a red herring.
ad hominem is never the appropriate response. also,
you might want to look up "red herring".
\_ exactly which MOTD have you been reading? -tom
\_ the same one as you. mine has tons of smart
people talking about interesting stuff who
often provide links to sites and info I
wouldn't otherwise see, interspersed with a
few non-contributors. what is on your motd?
\_ apparently, mine has self-righteous
anonymous cowards who love MOTD Boob Guy.
-tom
\_ mine also has a few mostly harmless
people amusing themselves and a few
others. nothing wrong with that.
\_ Of course they have a right to it. They have a right to make a
massive weapon that they can use to threaten their enemies with.
And we have a right to do everything in our power to stop them
from getting it. It's not about rights. It's about power. We
have it and we don't want them to get it.
\_ Agreed.
\_ Kewl, so we can forget about all that UN silliness, or the WTO
or any sense of obligation to honor treaties we sign, might
makes right! W00t! -John
\_ Welcome to the real world. If a long term treaty obligation
is against a nation's interests they *should* break the
treaty unless breaking it involves even worse consequences.
Everything is about national interest and a nation's ability
to enforce their will. The UN, WTO, and every other multi-
national .org only exist at the whim of the member states who
have decided that continuing the existence of these groups and
sometimes following their rules is more valuable than
scrapping the agreements and going alone. The UN isn't some
magical creature that has some inherent right and power. Like
the League of Nations it is likely to be swept aside by
history only to be remembered by historians as an interesting
footnote at best. Nations will continue on by some name.
Powerless orgs will come and go.
\_ So if there are no cops around, and I'm confident that I
can kick your ass and take your lunch money, than I not
only *can* kick your ass and take your lunch money, I have
the historical mandate to do so. Could you please post how
much lunch money you usually carry, where you eat lunch,
and how you get there? Thanks!
\- the lunch episode exists in a state of
law ["the cops are not around"]. states
exist in an anarchic system [anarchic =
no hierarchy, not "it is random and
chaotic"]. life for individual in the
(anarhcic) state of nature is "nasty,
brutish, and short" ... but a state can
potentially survive [e.g. it doesnt have
to sleep], but it needs to rely on itself.
anayway, you cannot compare the possibility
of cooperation under the rule of a soverign
[who can enforce contracts, has monopoly on
use of force etc], and the self-help system
that characterizes the system of states.
See: Hedley Bull: The Anarchical Society (not
that great, but it is The Standard for background),
and Waltz: Man, the State and War (excellent,
not too hard going), and Waltz: Theory of Interntl
Politics (some what involved read, but The Standard
on IR).
\_ Yes and no. If you're willing to deal with the
consequences afterwards then yes you might get one
day's worth of lunch money and then find yourself
suspended from school or your knees broken the next day,
etc. Cute analogy but doesn't fully apply since you
and I aren't nations. The difference between personal
conflict and national is that nations are more
amorphous than people but can theoretically live on
forever. Individuals are always subject to the
consequences of their actions by the state, their
neighbors, etc. Unless you're a super villain you
can't get away with things a powerful nation can, or
even a weaker nation within it's own regional sphere
of influence. I'm sure you knew all this but I thought
your cute reply deserved a response.
\_ stop digging. -tom
\_ uh whatever.
\_ I bet you're one of these people who're surprised
about being treated rudely as an American when
abroad or when a bomb goes off in Manhattan. There
are no "international cops", yes, but you know what,
in the absence of law & order, vigilanteism arises.
And guess what, if the response of the stronger is
to go kick the ass of the weaker, the weaker won't
hit back at the stronger's army, they'll hit back at
his soft spot, i.e. you. -John
\_ All part of national interest. Being treated
rudely as a tourist has to be weighed against
other interests. In my book that weighs quite
low. Anyway, if I get treated rudely as a tourist
it is much more likely because most people are
just rude idiots or they simply hate all tourists
than some grand geo-political statement and their
small effort to Fight The Man. As far as soft vs.
hard spots goes, that is another thing to be
weighed. I'm sure the US would be safe from
Muslim terrorists if we all converted to Islam,
\_ If you really believe this, then you're an
idiot.
\_ If you really believe this, then you're an
idiot.
but I'm ok being a soft spot rather than join an
ugly 8th century cult of death. I certainly
agree that we're taking the wrong approach to
the middle east's Islamic states. We should
either just go home, leave a power gap and let
it sort itself out or stomp them down for real
instead of this namby pamby stuff. I'll bet the
secular states in the region would much more
quickly crush the extremist Islamic movements in
their areas than us if their to their own devices. |
http://csua.com/feed/