U.S. Should give up nukes- Ahmadinejad

[sonz]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad expressed Monday his country's support for calls for making the Middle East a nuclear arms-free zone. But the Iranian leader also said that the United States and Russia should as well give up their atomic weapons as they pose a real threat to the region's stability.

The Iranian President tackled the nuclear arms issue during a brief stop in Kuwait, the first Iranian visit to the Arab state since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution.

Following talks with the new emir, Sheikh Sabah Al Ahmed Al Sabah, Nejad spoke to reporters who asked about calls from the United States, Kuwait and other Arab states for the Middle East to be kept free of nuclear arms.

The Iranian leader expressed his country’s support for those calls, yet, he stressed that his government wishes to see the whole world free of nuclear weapons.

"We believe that these weapons, possessed by the superpowers and the occupiers in our area, are a threat to stability," Ahmadinejad said.

Also Monday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, meeting with his Japanese counterpart, Taro Aso in Tokyo, stressed the Islamic Republic’s right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue peaceful nuclear technology.

"What we are doing is research at the laboratory level and it is impossible for us to stop it and that's Iran's right," said.

In Washington, the White House raised concerns over the Russian-Iranian deal, and whether it will end worries of the United States and its European allies regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

"We'll have to see what the details of any agreement are," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "Given their history, you can understand why we remain skeptical."

Meanwhile, Germany's foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, claimed that Iran was just buying time to try to divide the international community.

Speaking to reporters after he was briefed on the Russian-Iran negotiations, Steinmeier said that "Iran does not really have a new strategy". "They still want to drive a wedge into the international community, but this will not succeed."

In Vienna, Diplomats said that the International Atomic Energy Agency, which voted early this month to report Iran to the UN Security Council, might receive a report Monday on Iran's uranium enrichment efforts and other nuclear work. The report is expected to play a significant role in determining the international community's next move in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program.

However the Council is waiting for the conclusion the board meeting will reach before considering any action, which could be imposing sanctions on Tehran.

Also Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz expressed the Jewish state dissatisfaction with Iran's negotiations with Russia, claiming that Tehran was just buying time to develop nuclear arms.

Speaking to a group of high school students, Mofaz said: "As for the possibility of an Israeli attack (on Iran), I think it is not at all right to address this question publicly, but it can be said that Israel has the right and the obligation to do all that is necessary to defend itself."

In 1981, the Israeli air forces bombed Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactor using conventional munitions.

[Ghazi]

Salaam

Thats a fair argument, this is what any sane person would say, the american goverment and the U.K should give up there nukes before asking someone to give up theirs

[Nicola]

I agree everyone should give them up.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
As depressing as this sounds: niether the UK or US will give up their nukes. US has a considerable amount of power and is incredibly armed - so no other country messes with them cus they will get owned.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Cheb]

:sl:
As depressing as this sounds: niether the UK or US will give up their nukes. US has a considerable amount of power and is incredibly armed - so no other country messes with them cus they will get owned.

Unfortunately that is very true. The U.S is the only superpower and one of the ways it insures that is with its Nuclear Weapons. In my view Iran should stop giving the U.S excuses to attack it. That is actually all they need, an excuse. They will then twist the truth, blow it out of proportion, and make their people believe that they are fighting for a *just* cause. And speaking with all honesty, there is nothing we can do about it.
If only we can unite and truly be 1.3 billion strong, rather than dividing 1.3billion by the different sects/countries/races ect. We just do not have enough faith and strength to do anything right now.

[HeiGou]

As depressing as this sounds: niether the UK or US will give up their nukes. US has a considerable amount of power and is incredibly armed - so no other country messes with them cus they will get owned.

Why is that depressing? The status quo is not perfect. But nuclear weapons bring peace between powers that have them - no fighting between the US and the USSR. No fighting between India and Pakistan since they acquired weapons. So nuclear weapons have created an unrivaled period of peace and prosperity for most of the world - at least for those that have not rejected the English speaking world and all its products.

So what is the alternative? The US et al could give up their weapons - and no doubt we would all be fighting WW4 by now. The US and the UK could give up theirs' alone - in which case you all would be learning Chinese. Everyone could have one or two, in which case some would get stolen and odd cities would disappear at random (and no Muslim would be allowed to go to the West ever again) all over the world.

All in all it is hard to think of a better situation than the one we are in now. But I am open to alternatives.

[Ghazi]

Salaam

My dua's are with the mujahideen fighting for the sake of allah, they are real men and they've got my respect.

[abdullahi]

:sl:
that's got to be one of the most ridiculous arguments i've ever heard in my 18 years of existence.
it's funny how you put a spin on things to try to justify the US's mistakes
you also need to straighten out your facts. there is a war going on b/w india and pakistan, it has been going on for years. it may not be an all out war, but it's considered a war nonetheless.
and you should remind yourself that if there is a nuclear war, the collateral damage will be astronomic(ie hiroshima, nagasaki)

[HeiGou]

that's got to be one of the most ridiculous arguments i've ever heard in my 18 years of existence.

I assume that refers to me? Cool. Glad to be such a landmark in your short life!

it's funny how you put a spin on things to try to justify the US's mistakes

What mistakes?

you also need to straighten out your facts. there is a war going on b/w india and pakistan, it has been going on for years. it may not be an all out war, but it's considered a war nonetheless.

This is news to me - considering Pakistan has always denied that it supports the Islamic groups in Kashmir. They even denied the Kargil incident even though that was clearly the work of the Pakistan Army. What you do not have is a real war - they did gear up to fight a conventional war not that long ago, but they backed down when they realised the cost of (potentially) going nuclear. And they have not fought directly ever since. So, sure, Pakistan still supports Islamic groups in Kashmir. But denies doing so. America and Russia fought through proxies too - but not directly. Conventional large-scale war between India and Pakistan is now a thing of the past.

and you should remind yourself that if there is a nuclear war, the collateral damage will be astronomic(ie hiroshima, nagasaki)

No doubt. But the conventional collateral damage in WW2 was much greater than the nuclear - compare the bombing of Tokyo with Hiroshima. Nuclear weapons have prevented a replay of that in the West.

[aamirsaab]

Why is that depressing? The status quo is not perfect.

It's depressing 'cus it ain't gonna happen, no matter how much people want it to.

But nuclear weapons bring peace between powers that have them - no fighting between the US and the USSR. No fighting between India and Pakistan since they acquired weapons. So nuclear weapons have created an unrivaled period of peace and prosperity for most of the world - at least for those that have not rejected the English speaking world and all its products.

How ironic.

So what is the alternative? The US et al could give up their weapons - and no doubt we would all be fighting WW4 by now. The US and the UK could give up theirs' alone - in which case you all would be learning Chinese. Everyone could have one or two, in which case some would get stolen and odd cities would disappear at random (and no Muslim would be allowed to go to the West ever again) all over the world.

Are you aware of the power each nuclear warhead contains? Must I mention Hiroshima and nagasaki, yet again. Are you also aware of the fact that the US alone has enough nukes to blow the world up and combined with the other countries, enough power to blow the earth up at least twice. Now, why not instead be constructive, why does it always have to be about the big destructive force? Why can't it ever be about the biggest construction etc.

All in all it is hard to think of a better situation than the one we are in now. But I am open to alternatives.

When peace is achieved globally and there is no "third world", that's when you can say that it's a better situation. yeah my personal situation is fine, but on a global scale, I don't think so.

p.s: I recently did an experiment involving leicester and found that the population is considerably more apathetic than empathetic - does this sound like a good situation to be in?

[HeiGou]

Are you aware of the power each nuclear warhead contains? Must I mention Hiroshima and nagasaki, yet again. Are you also aware of the fact that the US alone has enough nukes to blow the world up and combined with the other countries, enough power to blow the earth up at least twice. Now, why not instead be constructive, why does it always have to be about the big destructive force? Why can't it ever be about the biggest construction etc.

What does "blowing up the Earth" mean though? I don't doubt that the US has enough nuclear weapons to blow up every major city on the planet and then some. But the entire world? I don't think so. End all life? Not a chance. The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event was supposedly caused by a meteorite impact (I have always had my doubts, but that is another story), which created a crater in Mexico some 150 - 200 miles across. The impact was equal to 100 million megatonnes of TNT. I don't think the US ever had that much and yet here we are.

The US is, by any measure, the most constructive force in the history of the human race. Compare the poverty even of the West 50 years ago with today. I don't much like Americans either, but credit is due where credit is deserved. And they have done a lot for the world. Population is a crude measure of prosperity because people are so rich now they do not put all their resources into children (i.e. we are richer than the population figures would suggest), but the figures for world population growth are:

* 1 billion was reached in 1802.
* 2 billion was reached 125 years later in 1927.
* 3 billion was reached 34 years later in 1961.
* 4 billion was reached 13 years later in 1974.
* 5 billion was reached 13 years later in 1987.
* 6 billion was reached 12 years later in 1999.

So it took mankind 100,000 years to make it to one billion. The British domination of the planet meant it took 125 years to add another billion. The transition period to American domination saw another billion is just 34 years and since then during the period of total American domination, more or less, human populations have been doubling every 13 or so years - that means it took all of mankind roughly 7000 years of civilised life to do what the US dominated economy does in a dozen.

I don't care how much you hate the Americans, anyone who denies this enormous gift to the human race is insane.

When peace is achieved globally and there is no "third world", that's when you can say that it's a better situation. yeah my personal situation is fine, but on a global scale, I don't think so.

Globally people have been getting richer and richer. Some faster than others. Communism rejected the capitalist model and so, despite some success, remained poor for a long time. They have yet to climb out of that hole. The Indian took up the British Welfare state model and so remained poor for a long time. They are moving away from that now. The fact is that rapidly the only poor people in the world are becoming Muslims and Africans.

Besides, the Americans are not to blame if people do not take up the offer they make. The Third World rejected America and embraced non-alignment and the Soviet Union. What should America have done - forced them to be more capitalist?

p.s: I recently did an experiment involving leicester and found that the population is considerably more apathetic than empathetic - does this sound like a good situation to be in?

I like boring politics. So much better than exciting ones. I bet people get really excited about Iraqi politics. I'd rather like in Switzerland.

[Anette]

Salaam

Thats a fair argument, this is what any sane person would say, the american goverment and the U.K should give up there nukes before asking someone to give up theirs

Agreed

Since I have my main subject History I would like to have more time for pointing a few facts straight in this thread but I do not see the need really. This is plain logic.

... But nuclear weapons bring peace between powers that have them - no fighting between the US and the USSR. No fighting between India and Pakistan since they acquired weapons. So nuclear weapons have created an unrivaled period of peace and prosperity for most of the world - at least for those that have not rejected the English speaking world and all its products.

With this kind of argumentation we should welcome Iran to the nuclear world since this is a kind of guarantee that US and Iran never will fight then? Oh forgot, to be a part of this you must not rejected the English speaking world and all its products. :heated:

I cannot believe anyone is saying that nuclear weapon is a good thing for humanity not after the effects we have noticed.

[aamirsaab]

What does "blowing up the Earth" mean though?

[edit] you know exactly what it means.

I don't doubt that the US has enough nuclear weapons to blow up every major city on the planet and then some. But the entire world? I don't think so. End all life? Not a chance. The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event was supposedly caused by a meteorite impact (I have always had my doubts, but that is another story), which created a crater in Mexico some 150 - 200 miles across. The impact was equal to 100 million megatonnes of TNT. I don't think the US ever had that much and yet here we are.

Are you willing to experience a world-wide nuclear attack just to prove you are right? No, didn't think so and neither are a lot of people, myself included.

The US is, by any measure, the most constructive force in the history of the human race. Compare the poverty even of the West 50 years ago with today. I don't much like Americans either, but credit is due where credit is deserved. And they have done a lot for the world. Population is a crude measure of prosperity because people are so rich now they do not put all their resources into children (i.e. we are richer than the population figures would suggest), but the figures for world population growth are:

* 1 billion was reached in 1802.
* 2 billion was reached 125 years later in 1927.
* 3 billion was reached 34 years later in 1961.
* 4 billion was reached 13 years later in 1974.
* 5 billion was reached 13 years later in 1987.
* 6 billion was reached 12 years later in 1999.

So it took mankind 100,000 years to make it to one billion. The British domination of the planet meant it took 125 years to add another billion. The transition period to American domination saw another billion is just 34 years and since then during the period of total American domination, more or less, human populations have been doubling every 13 or so years - that means it took all of mankind roughly 7000 years of civilised life to do what the US dominated economy does in a dozen.

I don't care how much you hate the Americans, anyone who denies this enormous gift to the human race is insane.

I don't hate americans. Just some of the things their government is responsible for.

On a slightly related note: wouldn't it be better to spend less money on missiles and nukes and more on things such as cancer research? Oh no, why ever would any government want to save humanity. Who cares about the people, bomb them instead! That's what governments have done in the past and it's what they are doing now and will therefore conitnue to do so in the future. It's naive and foolish to think otherwise.

Globally people have been getting richer and richer. Some faster than others. Communism rejected the capitalist model and so, despite some success, remained poor for a long time. They have yet to climb out of that hole. The Indian took up the British Welfare state model and so remained poor for a long time. They are moving away from that now. The fact is that rapidly the only poor people in the world are becoming Muslims and Africans

Besides, the Americans are not to blame if people do not take up the offer they make.

What, join us or die? I don't blame any country or government for not taking up that offer. I'd rather die by the Hand of God then a nuke, anyday.

The Third World rejected America and embraced non-alignment and the Soviet Union.

I rejected the fact that america shouldn't have sent their forces into Iraq, as did many millions of people. It didn't make a damn bit of difference. Governments do not do what their people want them to do, they do what they want to do. Surely, you know this by now?

What should America have done - forced them to be more capitalist?

It worked in the past didn't it?(vietnam)

I like boring politics. So much better than exciting ones. I bet people get really excited about Iraqi politics. I'd rather like in Switzerland.

Your sarcasm needs improving.

With this kind of argumentation we should welcome Iran to the nuclear world since this is a kind of guarantee that US and Iran never will fight then? Oh forgot, to be a part of this you must not rejected the English speaking world and all its products
I cannot believe anyone is saying that nuclear weapon is a good thing for humanity not after the effects we have noticed.

That's exactly what I mean.

[HeiGou]

With this kind of argumentation we should welcome Iran to the nuclear world since this is a kind of guarantee that US and Iran never will fight then? Oh forgot, to be a part of this you must not rejected the English speaking world and all its products. :heated:

Well no you have to accept at least part of the Western legacy to be rich. You do not to have nuclear weapons - the Soviet Union and China are not part of that legacy but the world got on fine. Iran would, I assume, quiet down once they get nuclear weapons. The problem is that the more nations that have them, the more chances there are for things to go wrong. As long as the numbers are small, it is a managable risk. Think of the Iranian radar installations. We know that the American and Soviet ones malfunctioned from time to time and so everyone went on high alert - how competent do you think the Iranians are going to be? The Iranians and the Pakistanis? The Iranians, the Pakistanis, the Indians, the Turks and the Saudis? You see the problem? Also of course most governments with nuclear weapons are fairly stable. Iran is not. Pakistan is not. Russia is not any more. The chances of a revolution taking place and someone buying one increases exponentially with every new nuclear power. The world is not an ideal place. The fact that so many people have so many nuclear weapons is not ideal. But the more people who have them the less ideal the situation becomes. The world was served well by nuclear weapons in the Cold War. That is not the case anymore.

And of course if fifteen Muslim powers have nuclear weapons it becomes harder to work out which one gave a weapon to a terrorist should one blow up in Stockholm or somewhere. Presumably America would have to destroy them all.

I cannot believe anyone is saying that nuclear weapon is a good thing for humanity not after the effects we have noticed.

What effects? The world is not a perfect place. Nuclear weapons are here to stay. But they are not the work of Satan. They have good effects and bad effects. I cannot believe anyone would be so closed minded as to reject that.

[HeiGou]

[edit] you know exactly what it means.

No I do not actually. It is a phrase bandied about by people but what do they mean? They cannot compete with the destruction of nature. So what does "destroying the Earth" mean in this context - all cities with more than a million people? All life forever?

Are you willing to experience a world-wide nuclear attack just to prove you are right? No, didn't think so and neither are a lot of people, myself included.

I am not interested in being proven right at all. Nor do I want a world-wide nuclear attack. My point is precisely the opposite - neither the Americans or the Soviets could afford such a thing and so they held back from lesser forms of violence (such as, say, invading Germany) in case it led to bigger things. Just as India and Pakistan backed down.

On a slightly related note: wouldn't it be better to spend less money on missiles and nukes and more on things such as cancer research? Oh no, why ever would any government want to save humanity. Who cares about the people, bomb them instead! That's what governments have done in the past and it's what they are doing now and will therefore conitnue to do so in the future. It's naive and foolish to think otherwise.

Perhaps, but perhaps not. America is rich. The world is full of people who would enjoy taking that from them and their women too. You only have to read a few websites to realise that. Cancer research counts for nothing if the researchers cannot be protected from being murdered and enslaved. America spends little money on defence. Certainly nothing compared to the percentages that used to be spent on the military and still are in the Third World. There is plenty left over for cancer research. After all most of the big medical and scientific breakthroughs have been American. As I said, whatever you think about America, America has done more for more people than any other government in the history of the human race.

What, join us or die? I don't blame any country or government for not taking up that offer. I'd rather die by the Hand of God then a nuke, anyday.

Except America does not say that - compared to previous governments, the US is amazingly tolerant of other systems. Which means that prosperity is only on offer for those who want it. Not for everyone just because America makes them do it.

I rejected the fact that america shouldn't have sent their forces into Iraq, as did many millions of people. It didn't make a damn bit of difference. Governments do not do what their people want them to do, they do what they want to do. Surely, you know this by now?

In the Middle East perhaps, but both George Bush and Tony Blair were not only elected but re-elected. Whatever protestors wanted (and I opposed the War badly enough to think about marching) they did not want any of the alternatives.

Your sarcasm needs improving.

No sarcasm there. I don't do sarcasm really.

[Anette]

The problem is that the more nations that have them, the more chances there are for things to go wrong. As long as the numbers are small, it is a managable risk.

In that case isn't it time for US to handle over their weapons to another country now if it is a question regarding numbers of countries having them?

I'm not closed minded but I may see things in quite a different view then you are. There may be a reason beyond the good progress about population and growing wealth that is closely tight to that some countries use their power and weapon to suppress other countries especially those countries that have something the power country wants.

This is not anything new. It was not the great entrepreneurs that got to Africa and stole their gold and diamonds and people. It was well-organised pirates.

The same thing is happens right now. It is not a part of nuclear threat it is a question regarding wealth, and particularly oil.

Also of course most governments with nuclear weapons are fairly stable.

What is the hen and what is the egg? Could it be that states with more power then other, veto in FN and all kind of strange power use it to increase their own power in every step and by that becomes stable?

The chances of a revolution taking place and someone buying one increases exponentially with every new nuclear power.

In the same way it would be a better world with each country that not had any nuclear weapon?

The world is not an ideal place. The fact that so many people have so many nuclear weapons is not ideal. But the more people who have them the less ideal the situation becomes. The world was served well by nuclear weapons in the Cold War. That is not the case anymore.

No, that is way it is not a good thing having any power with nuclear weapon any longer. This might be a point having a power balance if there are two strong forces against each other. As long you have a hegemonic world the hegemon will increase its own power at the expense of others.

And of course if fifteen Muslim powers have nuclear weapons it becomes harder to work out which one gave a weapon to a terrorist should one blow up in Stockholm or somewhere. Presumably America would have to destroy them all.

Have it anytime occured to you that it might be how the other part of the world is looking at e.g. western countries right now? They might be as threthened as you can feel regarding these "terrorist". Western countries let e.g. Hitler take the power what if we had nuclear weapens a decade before they were developed.

You see, that is just the real problem. Who says that America would have to destroy every country that doesn’t agrees with them? What give America their legacy to think they are the one and only rightful judge regarding the world? What if people in other parts of the world are looking at America like America is looking at "terrorists"?

What effects? The world is not a perfect place. Nuclear weapons are here to stay. But they are not the work of Satan. They have good effects and bad effects. I cannot believe anyone would be so closed minded as to reject that.

The effect of nuclear weapons that have already killed many people in Japan, really you must have heard about that, and another effect is that is right now keeping other parts of the world at it knees.

[HeiGou]

In that case isn't it time for US to handle over their weapons to another country now if it is a question regarding numbers of countries having them?

Except if only four or five countries are going to have them, which five would you pick? It is not a case for the US to hand over their weapons. It is a case for restricting the spread of the technology.

I'm not closed minded but I may see things in quite a different view then you are. There may be a reason beyond the good progress about population and growing wealth that is closely tight to that some countries use their power and weapon to suppress other countries especially those countries that have something the power country wants.

And which countries have excellent records in this area? No one is perfect but better the US than Iran. Better the US than Sweden whose last forays are a major power were not particularly reassuring and I hear were forcibly sterilizing people into the 1970s. Norway? I seem to remember something about their last experience on the worldstage too.

The same thing is happens right now. It is not a part of nuclear threat it is a question regarding wealth, and particularly oil.

And how does this matter? You will notice the US has a moderately good record in this respect. Better than virtually anyone else.

What is the hen and what is the egg? Could it be that states with more power then other, veto in FN and all kind of strange power use it to increase their own power in every step and by that becomes stable?

Nuclear weapons have not been around that long. The most stable large societies in the world tend to be democratic and they tend to be English speaking. America existed for a long time without too much trouble before they had nuclear weapons - although having them does seem to have calmed them down a little.

In the same way it would be a better world with each country that not had any nuclear weapon?

As in 1939? Or 1914? Nuclear weapons make conventional war too expensive. It has gone out of fashion.

No, that is way it is not a good thing having any power with nuclear weapon any longer. This might be a point having a power balance if there are two strong forces against each other. As long you have a hegemonic world the hegemon will increase its own power at the expense of others.

Although this has not been the experience of the US which is sitting by doing nothing as the Chinese gut their industries and GM is teetering on collapse. Ideally you might have two, or three, poles in the world, but in the real world the US seems to be pretty well unchallengeable at the moment. Thank God it is them and not the French, the Russians, the Chinese or the Iranians.

Have it anytime occured to you that it might be how the other part of the world is looking at e.g. western countries right now? They might be as threthened as you can feel regarding these "terrorist". Western countries let e.g. Hitler take the power what if we had nuclear weapens a decade before they were developed.

They might feel threatened. So what? It has occurred to me how it looks from the other side. I feel for the Iranians. If I were them I would want nuclear weapons too. But like five sixths of the world who are not Muslims, I do not want them to have nuclear weapons. They might use them. It is unjust, but it is also a sensible, reasonable, and valid policy.

You see, that is just the real problem. Who says that America would have to destroy every country that doesn’t agrees with them? What give America their legacy to think they are the one and only rightful judge regarding the world? What if people in other parts of the world are looking at America like America is looking at "terrorists"?

1. America is amazingly tolerant of countries that do not agree with them and does not destroy them. Look at France.

2. America is a powerful country for a reason. It is populous because it is a magnet for immigrants. It is rich because it has a secret for economic growth and prosperity. That makes it a better judge than, say, Iran or Saudi Arabia.

3. So what if some people in other parts of the world regard America in this absurd light? The world is full of dangerous people and that is why someone has to do the job that America does.

The effect of nuclear weapons that have already killed many people in Japan, really you must have heard about that, and another effect is that is right now keeping other parts of the world at it knees.

It killed fewer people than conventional bombing in Tokyo. Other parts of the world look pretty frisky to me. Hardly on their knees. Moreover many other parts of the world could build nuclear weapons. South Africa did. Most have not. Not Germany. Not Belgium. Not Taiwan or South Korea. Not even Brazil (although they dug a hole for a test and so presumably had a bomb to put in it). Not even Sweden. They all trust America to use their weapons wisely and in their best interests. Are they foolish?

[Anette]

It is not a case for the US to hand over their weapons. It is a case for restricting the spread of the technology.

Why's that? US seams to be pretty kind of trying to spread their technology whether it is something people asking about or not in other cases. You said it was a question regarding how many. I think you meant that some people should have the power and some not?

Better the US than Sweden whose last forays are a major power were not particularly reassuring and I hear were forcibly sterilizing people into the 1970s.

Yes it might be true but we also stopped killing our own people as a punishment long time ago. The death penalty has been gone long before that in our country. And we do not hold prisoners without giving them any rightfully trial as US does at this point in a well known base.

Nuclear weapons have not been around that long. The most stable large societies in the world tend to be democratic and they tend to be English speaking. America existed for a long time without too much trouble before they had nuclear weapons - although having them does seem to have calmed them down a little.

Ok? US calmed down, it must have been a pretty rough time before.

As in 1939? Or 1914? Nuclear weapons make conventional war too expensive. It has gone out of fashion.

Yes and as they says; nothing get a spinning in the economy as a good old war. Whether it is a war in old fashion or in a newer version.

Although this has not been the experience of the US which is sitting by doing nothing as the Chinese gut their industries and GM is teetering on collapse.

You talking about China, one of the fastest growing countries in the world right now regarding wealth? It is just a matter of time until China is taking US place. Some people are wondering if this is one of the reasons for US to be so especially found of having a place in the Middle East. It is not as far to China from the Middle East.

Ideally you might have two, or three, poles in the world, but in the real world the US seems to be pretty well unchallengeable at the moment. Thank God it is them and not the French, the Russians, the Chinese or the Iranians.

Yes it is sad that US is pretty alone at the arena, it is really really bad for the world politics. It is no better then if any of the countries you listed had that power. By having only one hegemon it is truly makes it more hard for the world to find a good balance since it seams like any thing this hegemon will do – no one can stop them from doing.

They might feel threatened. So what? It has occurred to me how it looks from the other side. I feel for the Iranians. If I were them I would want nuclear weapons too. But like five sixths of the world who are not Muslims, I do not want them to have nuclear weapons. They might use them. It is unjust, but it is also a sensible, reasonable, and valid policy.

Personally I am as afraid of that US will use it as the Iranians. When the strategy with the surgeon planes not longer works it might be a time for changing strategy by wiping the enemy out of the surface, how will I know?

1. America is amazingly tolerant of countries that do not agree with them and does not destroy them. Look at France.

2. America is a powerful country for a reason. It is populous because it is a magnet for immigrants. It is rich because it has a secret for economic growth and prosperity. That makes it a better judge than, say, Iran or Saudi Arabia.

3. So what if some people in other parts of the world regard America in this absurd light? The world is full of dangerous people and that is why someone has to do the job that America does.

US are not rich only because it has a secret for economic growth and prosperity. It is built upon slavery from the beginning and is very, very good in using other countries for their own purpose. Whether it is in the name of world peace or democracy the bottom line is that it would not interfered with e.g. Iraq if it wasn't for oil. The president that tell the Americans that they cannot have their beloved oil is bound to be thrown of his position faster then he can say "democracy".

“Someone has to do the job that America does”.
Why do I not believe in this statement? Is it not just a way to make justice to injustice? It sounds like someone claiming not to be guilty: “We just did our jobs”.

It killed fewer people than conventional bombing in Tokyo.

Ok, then it is all right then? The slow death by radiation maybe was better then the fast ones?

They all trust America to use their weapons wisely and in their best interests. Are they foolish?

Yes I might think that they are if they trust US for that. I do not think that America is the living home of peace and I do not think many people, accept the Americans think that any longer.

[HeiGou]

Why's that? US seams to be pretty kind of trying to spread their technology whether it is something people asking about or not in other cases. You said it was a question regarding how many. I think you meant that some people should have the power and some not?

They try to spread useful and peaceful technology. But not nuclear technology. So what? Some people have the weapons now. It cannot be undone. The question is whether everyone is going to have nuclear weapons or whether only a few people are going to have them. I think the world is better served if as few people as possible have them. Which do you prefer?

Yes it might be true but we also stopped killing our own people as a punishment long time ago. The death penalty has been gone long before that in our country. And we do not hold prisoners without giving them any rightfully trial as US does at this point in a well known base.

That is because Europeans think it is better for old women to be raped and murdered by released felons than murderers be put to death. I do not think that reflects well on Europe. Sweden does not have the problems that the US does. Nor does any of the European powers. When they did have the same problems that the US does, what did they do? Much worse than hold people in prisons without trial. The French executed without trial.

Yes and as they says; nothing get a spinning in the economy as a good old war. Whether it is a war in old fashion or in a newer version.

Only idiots say that. The Nuclear powers have counted the costs of war and decided it is not worth it. The US is not keen to fight conventional war and never has been. Peace pays better than war whatever pop Marxists might like to claim. This is why America is rich and Iraq is not.

You talking about China, one of the fastest growing countries in the world right now regarding wealth? It is just a matter of time until China is taking US place. Some people are wondering if this is one of the reasons for US to be so especially found of having a place in the Middle East. It is not as far to China from the Middle East.

I notice a complete ignoring of the point. I shall take that as a concession. Again paranoia is unfortunate but not productive.

Yes it is sad that US is pretty alone at the arena, it is really really bad for the world politics. It is no better then if any of the countries you listed had that power. By having only one hegemon it is truly makes it more hard for the world to find a good balance since it seams like any thing this hegemon will do – no one can stop them from doing.

Indeed. Luckily that so far they have not done too much that is too bad and one or two other people have nuclear weapons too.

US are not rich only because it has a secret for economic growth and prosperity. It is built upon slavery from the beginning

Umm, yes it is. Brazil had more slavery than the US. Haiti was entirely built on slavery. And yet neither is anywhere near as wealthy as the US.

and is very, very good in using other countries for their own purpose. Whether it is in the name of world peace or democracy the bottom line is that it would not interfered with e.g. Iraq if it wasn't for oil. The president that tell the Americans that they cannot have their beloved oil is bound to be thrown of his position faster then he can say "democracy".

If you want to believe that you are welcome to. Why didn't it intervene in Saudi Arabia? They got all the oil they wanted out of Iraq when Saddam was there. They get less now.

“Someone has to do the job that America does”.
Why do I not believe in this statement? Is it not just a way to make justice to injustice? It sounds like someone claiming not to be guilty: “We just did our jobs”.

Because you have no idea of how the real world works and the sort of bad people that are in it? You shelter behind the American Army and nuclear umbrella and so can indulge yourself in play acting and self righteous posturing? I don't know. You tell me why. Would the Cold War have been much fun your end of the world if the US Army was not there to protect you?

Ok, then it is all right then? The slow death by radiation maybe was better then the fast ones?

Total deaths from one night in Tokyo were higher than all the deaths from both nuclear weapons put together. A slow death from burns is a slow death whether they are nuclear burns or not.

Yes I might think that they are if they trust US for that. I do not think that America is the living home of peace and I do not think many people, accept the Americans think that any longer.

See above

[abdullahi]

lol, you're a funny guy

What mistakes?

as if you don't know what i'm talking bout
you're a joker
peace out

[Malsidabym]

[edit] you know exactly what it means.

you're a joker

There is a rule in these forums about name calling for good reason. Please be respectful of other members. Namecalling weakens your arguement in the debate, some would call it desperation at near defeat. If you are doing well, then there is no need to weaken your arguement that way. Peace.

[abdullahi]

:sl:
bro, he was being sarcastic when he made that comment (at least that's what i want to think) so i started laughing.
if u make me laugh, you're a joker.
;D
:w:

[Malsidabym]

bro, he was being sarcastic when he made that comment (at least that's what i want to think) so i started laughing.
if u make me laugh, you're a joker.

Sorry, just seen some other threads get out of hand with the disrespect.

[abdullahi]

:sl:
no hard feelings bro, it's all good.
:w:

[samina1]

:) HELLOOOOOOO MY BROTHERS N SISTERS WHERE IS DA LOV IN THIS FORUM.. subhanALLAH..
RESPECT IS DA KEY.. USE IT, IM SURE IT WILL HELP MOST OF US...
MA SALAM
FIAMANIALLAH..

[Anette]

I think the world is better served if as few people as possible have them. Which do you prefer?

That's something we seam to agree about anyway.

That is because Europeans think it is better for old women to be raped and murdered by released felons than murderers be put to death. I do not think that reflects well on Europe. Sweden does not have the problems that the US does. Nor does any of the European powers. When they did have the same problems that the US does, what did they do?

No, it is not because Europeans think it is better for the few of the old women to get raped. It is because the statistics from US have shown us that the correlation between death punishment and crime seams to go on a quite different way then the intention might be at the beginning. The countries that today have the hardest punishments seams to get the heaviest criminal. So once again it is a question regarding the famous hen and the egg.

Only idiots say that. The Nuclear powers have counted the costs of war and decided it is not worth it. The US is not keen to fight conventional war and never has been. Peace pays better than war whatever pop Marxists might like to claim. This is why America is rich and Iraq is not.

Quite harsh to call the Economists in the world idiots. I do not think that the peaceful way of living is the reason why America is rich and Iraq is not. It must be quite simple that in every case put the blame on the ones that is under attack whether it is attack from nature, other countries or prejudices.

I notice a complete ignoring of the point. I shall take that as a concession. Again paranoia is unfortunate but not productive.

So that is the world that people should use to put a name on the fear regarding “terrorists”.

Brazil had more slavery than the US. Haiti was entirely built on slavery. And yet neither is anywhere near as wealthy as the US.

No they marketed wrong kind of products.

Because you have no idea of how the real world works and the sort of bad people that are in it? You shelter behind the American Army and nuclear umbrella and so can indulge yourself in play acting and self righteous posturing? I don't know. You tell me why. Would the Cold War have been much fun your end of the world if the US Army was not there to protect you?

Yeah right. We do not shelter behind the American Army they use their elbows to get in front in every situation all by them self. I do not know what kind of history you are learning in school but the Cold War in our view were a power demonstration between two hegemonic states in our part of the world. We do not view up on that time like US Army protected us; I think it is more the kind of way that US want to look at things then how other parts of the world experienced it.

[HeiGou]

No, it is not because Europeans think it is better for the few of the old women to get raped. It is because the statistics from US have shown us that the correlation between death punishment and crime seams to go on a quite different way then the intention might be at the beginning. The countries that today have the hardest punishments seams to get the heaviest criminal. So once again it is a question regarding the famous hen and the egg.

You can pick and choose your statistics and prove whatever you like. I will point out a study at Duke University showed every execution in the US saved between eight and eighteen lives. I do not accept that the US has the worst crime or the worst criminals. But what is certainly true is that the policy of the Europeans of letting criminals out after token sentences means they get out and re-offend. A criminal murdered a man in London after serving less than six years of a murder sentence. The French have a serial killer on trial who was sentenced to seven years for serious sex offenses against young children - and then he got out and became a serial killer. What is sure is that because Europeans do not execute, old women living alone will be raped and murdered by release felons. It happens all over the West.

Quite harsh to call the Economists in the world idiots.

Name me one credible economist who believes what you have claimed.

I do not think that the peaceful way of living is the reason why America is rich and Iraq is not. It must be quite simple that in every case put the blame on the ones that is under attack whether it is attack from nature, other countries or prejudices.

Yeah right. We do not shelter behind the American Army they use their elbows to get in front in every situation all by them self. I do not know what kind of history you are learning in school but the Cold War in our view were a power demonstration between two hegemonic states in our part of the world. We do not view up on that time like US Army protected us; I think it is more the kind of way that US want to look at things then how other parts of the world experienced it.

Again we are back with the empty cynical posturing made possible by the American nuclear umbrella. A power demonstration? What do you think kept the Soviet Army on their side of the Baltic Sea? The fact is, as the British Minister of Defence once put it, the only thing the Soviet Army needed to make it to the Channel was boots. But for the US Army.

[Anette]

Name me one credible economist who believes what you have claimed.

A quick search on Internet and I found an interesting thing:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file.../01/27/IoD.pdf

Written by Graeme Leach, Chief Economist 2003,

You can look at page 5 table 1 were he is trying to predict the US Economy in 2003 – Illustrative Scenarios of the Iraq war, GDP % change based on shows the range of US GDP growth forecasts depending on alternative military and geo-political developments.

Scenario Stand-off No War --> 2.2% growth
Scenario Capitulation – no war --> 2.5% growth
Scenario Capitulation – short war --> 2.9% growth

The forecast tells that:

"The key messages from Table 1 are:
(1) In economic terms, a short war is better than no war, or no regime change,
because of the removal of uncertainty.
(2) The highest GDP growth scenario has the highest probability.
(3) The lowest GDP growth scenario has the lowest probability."

It might have something to do with Economy? This is what Economist thought was the most likely scenario when US attacked Iraq. As you can see is the growth with a short war higher then without a war. They did not know then that they were quite wrong regarding the short war.

This is only one of many predictions regarding Economy and war written by Economists.

[AbuSalahudeen]

Salam,

Every country should give them up if they are so dangerious, and America are the worst ones to have it they bomb more than anyone and pushed to the limit they probably use them like the way they bombed the Japanes.

[Keltoi]

What is often lost in this discussion about Iran's nuclear ambitions is the fact that for nations to achieve nuclear technology they must go through an international process. That is why Iran and North Korea are considered to be going "rogue" in their pursuit of this technology. They are not going through the proper channels and following international guidelines. If Iran only wants nuclear technology for civilian purposes, as they claim, then going through this international process wouldn't be a problem.

This isn't holding Iran to some standard that others don't follow either...as Iran signed the international agreement that set these standards to begin with.

[kirk]

This isn't holding Iran to some standard that others don't follow either...as Iran signed the international agreement that set these standards to begin with.

This has been the issue all along. To some it is convenient to foget it.

k

[Muezzin]

Another issue is that this thread is now two years old.

Why it's still open, when we close threads that are three days old, is a mystery I am now solving.

Thread closed.