[quote]orion wrote:
That is when the oil price becomes the prize of war. [/quote]
Ouch!
First of all that was excellent Austrian English as you would know had you not misplaced your dictionary.
Then, all of my grandfathers died before I was born.
You can’t blame someone for the actions of his forefathers.
Americans, your forefathers killed native Indians.
The English, your forefathers killed many natives across the world.
Australians, your forefathers killed the Aborignal people.
Turks, your forefathers killed many Europeans.
AND SO FORTH.
Stop living in the past.
BACK ON TOPIC.
A question to Americans, what gives your country the right to decide who can and who cannot have nuclear weapons?
If the US led by example and disarmed itself then the US would have a case to ask other countries not to develop or possess nuclear weapons.
And what about Israel, why are you ignoring the fact that they have nuclear weapons? Shouldn’t the US have a uniform approach on nukes?
[quote]WIP wrote:
You can’t blame someone for the actions of his forefathers.
Americans, your forefathers killed native Indians.
The English, your forefathers killed many natives across the world.
Australians, your forefathers killed the Aborignal people.
Turks, your forefathers killed many Europeans.
AND SO FORTH.
Stop living in the past. [/quote]
Thing is, there is a well-established tradition on this forum to bring up WWII and Nazi Germany every time somebody is critical of American foreign policy.
However, the act of blaming a particular person for what his granddad may or may not have done (for all we know, Orion’s granddad might have been opposed to the Nazis) is new. It’s a non-sophisticated way of diverting the topic and an futile attempt to discredit Orion.
I’m not American, but here’s my take on it.
By virtue of the Non Proliferation Treaty, signatory states waiver their right to develop nuclear weapons. However, the treaty clearly states the inalienable right of every country to have a civil nuclear program. The rhetoric from Washington changed this past few years to “any country that has the capability or knowledge to build a weapon of mass destruction” is a threat. That puts virtually every country with a department of biochemistry on their list of “legitimate targets”.
To date, the US failed to provide any evidence that Iran is trying to build nukes. But as demonstrated by the 2003 invasion of Iraq, lack of evidence was never a concern.
Did you listen to Giuliani’s speech this week? The kook vowed to increase military spendings even more to “tackle” Russia and China. Such a move will trigger a global arms race.
First of all, you can’t discuss Israel here without being branded an anti-Semite. Then, minimal knowledge of post-WWII American foreign policy shows that double-standards have actually become the standard.
[quote]lixy wrote:
WIP wrote:
You can’t blame someone for the actions of his forefathers.
Americans, your forefathers killed native Indians.
The English, your forefathers killed many natives across the world.
Australians, your forefathers killed the Aborignal people.
Turks, your forefathers killed many Europeans.
AND SO FORTH.
Stop living in the past.
Thing is, there is a well-established tradition on this forum to bring up WWII and Nazi Germany every time somebody is critical of American foreign policy.
However, the act of blaming a particular person for what his granddad may or may not have done (for all we know, Orion’s granddad might have been opposed to the Nazis) is new. It’s a non-sophisticated way of diverting the topic and an futile attempt to discredit Orion.
A question to Americans, what gives your country the right to decide who can and who cannot have nuclear weapons?
I’m not American, but here’s my take on it.
By virtue of the Non Proliferation Treaty, signatory states waiver their right to develop nuclear weapons. However, the treaty clearly states the inalienable right of every country to have a civil nuclear program. The rhetoric from Washington changed this past few years to “any country that has the capability or knowledge to build a weapon of mass destruction” is a threat. That puts virtually every country with a department of biochemistry on their list of “legitimate targets”.
To date, the US failed to provide any evidence that Iran is trying to build nukes. But as demonstrated by the 2003 invasion of Iraq, lack of evidence was never a concern.
If the US led by example and disarmed itself then the US would have a case to ask other countries not to develop or possess nuclear weapons.
Did you listen to Giuliani’s speech this week? The kook vowed to increase military spendings even more to “tackle” Russia and China. Such a move will trigger a global arms race.
And what about Israel, why are you ignoring the fact that they have nuclear weapons? Shouldn’t the US have a uniform approach on nukes?
First of all, you can’t discuss Israel here without being branded an anti-Semite. Then, minimal knowledge of post-WWII American foreign policy shows that double-standards have actually become the standard.[/quote]
Overall good post.
And in terms of treaties, International Law is a joke, most countries have omitted its application, these days, it is more of a formality.
Agree that American foreign policy is a joke and so is Israels for that matter (call me an anti-Semite meh.)
[quote]Chushin wrote:
WIP wrote:
You can’t blame someone for the actions of his forefathers.
Americans, your forefathers killed native Indians.
The English, your forefathers killed many natives across the world.
Australians, your forefathers killed the Aborignal people.
Turks, your forefathers killed many Europeans.
AND SO FORTH.
Stop living in the past.
PS: If the war in Iraq ended tomorrow, would the dynamic duo of anti-Americanism therefore be required to immediately stop criticizing the US over that war? What exactly is the statute of limitations for attempted genocide on a whole religion of people? The MILLIONS of dead Jews and others don’t buy any “extra” time?
Stop living in the past? Tell it to my mom’s friends who have numbers tattood on their arms like cattle. [/quote]
Mate you are using personal attacks to try and justify your arguments. We all know what happened in WWII.
And as for the MILLIONS of dead Jews, yes we are aware and yes we feel sorry for them. But seriously, I’m sick of hearing it over again and again. “but the holocaust” “the holocaust this” “the holocaust that” We have acknowledged what happened. And if the tattoos remind them of the past so much, why not get them removed? If I had some prick capture me, tattoo me, gas my family and turn them into soap, then got freed, the first thing I would do it try and get revenge. The second, remove the damn tattoo.
Point being? The past is the past. We live in the present.
Either way, this is very off topic. The issue isn’t about Nazis or Jews. It is about Iran.
[quote]WIP wrote:
Either way, this is very off topic. The issue isn’t about Nazis or Jews. It is about Iran.[/quote]
Every thread ends up off topic. By bashing whatever the US does or ever did.
Orion blames us for every evil in the 20th century. He blames us for the rise of Hitler, Stalin, WWI, WWII, Communism, the Cold War and everything after and as a result of that. So…if Chushin wants to throw Nazis up in his face, so be it.
That being said, what’s this about the Iran Problem again?
[quote]WIP wrote:
BACK ON TOPIC.
A question to Americans, what gives your country the right to decide who can and who cannot have nuclear weapons?
If the US led by example and disarmed itself then the US would have a case to ask other countries not to develop or possess nuclear weapons.
And what about Israel, why are you ignoring the fact that they have nuclear weapons? Shouldn’t the US have a uniform approach on nukes?
[/quote]
-
Ah, yes, but the Americans have substantially reduced their own nuclear weapons, in conjunction with some other responsible governments. Not all, some.
-
Israel, in contradistinction to Iran, was never a signatory to the NNPT. Iran signed in 1970, and the current regime of mullahs re-signed in 1995. But they are in violation of the treaty, and have come to no sanction for it:
“Iran is a signatory state of the NPT and has recently (as of 2006) resumed development of a uranium enrichment program. The Iranian government asserts that this enrichment program is part of its civilian nuclear energy program, which is permitted under Article IV of the NPT. However, Iran violated its NPT safeguards agreement by pursuing uranium enrichment in secret, after which the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution ordering Iran to suspend its enrichment-related activity.[24] The United States and some members of the European Union have accused Iran of using this program to help covertly develop nuclear weapons, which would be in violation of article II of the NPT. Iran remains under investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet with its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.[25] After nearly two years of diplomatic efforts led by France, Germany and the UK, in September 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement, not the NPT itself.[26] The United States contends on this basis that Iran violated Article II as well as Article III of the NPT.[27]” (Wikipedia, if you please.)
Israel has violated no treaties or understandings in this arena. Iran has. The UN was to have imposed uniform sanctions in August 2006, and, of course, did not do so.
There is no mental gymnastic that Iran apologists–including El Baradei and the UN–can squirrel to this truth: gas centrifuges are not needed for peaceful use of uranium, but they are needed for the isolation of fissionable materials used in bombs.
And if military force is foolish, than the bigger fools reside and Europe and China, where the pretense is made that sanctions “don’t work” or are “an interference in the internal affairs of a country.” The end result is that, rather than apply legitimate pressure to Iran, and thereby risk their access to oil and markets, they would rather the US appear as the cop and janitor of the world’s messes, and suffer enmity for it.
This posture is again the language of international hypocrisy. 'Hypocrisy" wrote la Rochefoucauld, “is the homage that vice pays to virtue.”
[quote]WIP wrote:
You can’t blame someone for the actions of his forefathers.
Americans, your forefathers killed native Indians.
The English, your forefathers killed many natives across the world.
Australians, your forefathers killed the Aborignal people.
Turks, your forefathers killed many Europeans.
AND SO FORTH.
Stop living in the past.
BACK ON TOPIC.
A question to Americans, what gives your country the right to decide who can and who cannot have nuclear weapons?
If the US led by example and disarmed itself then the US would have a case to ask other countries not to develop or possess nuclear weapons.
And what about Israel, why are you ignoring the fact that they have nuclear weapons? Shouldn’t the US have a uniform approach on nukes?
[/quote]
America doesn’t really have a right so much as a burden to be involved in the nuclear aspirations of other nations.
In many ways the cold war and the subsequent arms race was forced upon the U.S. and the world in general by the imperial aspirations of nationalism that climaxed in the world wars.
Total disarmament is of course a noble ideal but human nature and history has proven such concepts to be dangerously impractical.
The tremendous advantage that the U.S. and it’s allies share militarily is immensely valuable and was acquired at great cost and Humans are usually loathe to just dismantle gigantic investments that are in the prime of there usefulness.
As far as Israel is concerned it should be obvious that nations have a separate set of principles for allies than they have for enemies or potential enemies.
You may not like all the decisions of your friends but sometimes the friendship is worth more than your distaste for certain behavior.
I am not defending any of this as right or wrong just calling it the way I see it. I have no illusions that the U.S. military isn’t a dangerous and terrifying force that could threaten us all.
I’m not ready, however, to concede that America is the bogeyman trying to rule the world. For a nation to have so much power for so long and to exercise as much restraint as it has gives much credit to the wisdom of the checks and balances that govern the U.S…
If it was all perfect and impervious to criticism we might forget that we were actually on earth and not the fantastic rumor known as heaven.