BS: The right to attack - what gall!

Subject: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:31 PM

American political spokesmen seem to just assume that the USA has a God-given right to attack any country it wishes to any time it wishes to, and this assumption is implicitly woven into statements by the US media all the time....such as the following statements today quoted regarding Robert Gates, President Bush's new choice to take over the Pentagon in the place of Rumsfeld:

"Gates did not completely rule out an attack on Iran, which insists its nuclear program is only for power generation, but said: "I believe that military action against Iran would be an absolute last resort."

"He also said he did not favor an attack on Syria, another foe of the United States in the Middle East"

****

Well. What collosal gall and hubris is demonstrated by these kind of statements, often repeated on USA media. What other western country's media openly discusses the possibility of "attacking" this or that other country at some point? Who else would have that much gall? That much nerve?

Hitler had that much nerve, and we see where it eventually got him.

It's a kind of Orwellian media technique, this constant speaking of the readiness to attack this or that other country which has somehow failed to meet American requirements or demands in some way. By talking about it all the time, one normalizes the idea in the minds of the American public. They begin to think it is perfectly normal and acceptable to openly threaten other countries with attack, label them as "evil", identify them as "a foe of America", and speculate about when it would be most advantageous to invade them!

Un-frikkin'-believable. This is criminal behaviour on the part of the USA, and would not be tolerated by the rest of the world, had the USA not the military and financial power to ignore what the rest of the world thinks most of the time.

This kind of arrogance, this kind of placid acceptance of the right of a major power to commit full-scale aggression at will against any small, weak target of choice is almost without precedent in modern times, unless one compares it with the actions taken by the fascist nations, Germany, Italy, and Japan in the late 30's and early 40's...and the action taken by Russia in the winter war against Finland in the same historical period.

All those actions, by the way, were opposed and condemned by the USA at the time, and regarded for what they were: naked, illegal aggression by the large against the small.

The USA has thus become the very thing it promised to fight against back in those days. And so, much of the American public apparently takes such rhetoric for granted, as the next possible criminal assault upon another nation is openly discussed in their media.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:43 PM

Good Lord, they're gonna attack Gaul?
That will piss off the French.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:44 PM

Sorry. I misread the title.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:47 PM

It's called "pre-emption" and is part of the Bush doctrine of "Getting Along Well With Others."

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:48 PM

"By talking about it all the time, one normalizes the idea in the minds of the American public. They begin to think it is perfectly normal and acceptable to openly threaten other countries with attack, label them as "evil", identify them as "a foe of America", and speculate about when it would be most advantageous to invade them!"

We don't all think it is acceptable. Lots of us are apalled at the current regime. That said, attacking countries that displease the govt is not new nor is it exclusively American, even among the "good guys" whoever you think of as being in that category.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Wesley S
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:50 PM

Well - if we left it up to the Canadians no one in the Middle East would be attacked. Y'all just don't have the firepower or the delivery systems to get it there. America does - so it has to step up to the plate.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: GUEST,KB
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:54 PM

I was the guest, forgot to sign. Maybe I should just join up so it's not an issue.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:58 PM

Once upon a time the Saharans pissed us off and we sent beavers, about fifteen of them.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Emma B
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:59 PM

Peace - they would have to get past this guy first

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 04:15 PM

"Well - if we left it up to the Canadians no one in the Middle East would be attacked."

Please clarify - you are being ironic, are you not? Surely you are not saying that there is something intrinsically good about someone in the Middle East being attacked? Otherwise, it seems to me that you're making a good argument as to why it should be left up to the Canadians.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 04:25 PM

Sorry Wesley but it has been established, I think, that it was not necessary for anyone to 'step up to the plate' at all, & it certainly wasnt a case of HAD to...

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Shaneo
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 04:30 PM

Never underestimate the stupidity of the masses ?
You get the government you vote for.
Little Hawk that was brilliant.
Every time George Bush opens his mouth
he thanks God and say ''may God bless America''.
Well it's a pity he does not follow God's word.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Wesley S
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 04:42 PM

Paul - It's not really "stepping up to the plate" - that was sarcasm. What our government is actually trying to do is act like the biggest bully in the school yard, boldly walk up and steal the plate, and then ignore anyone who objects.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 04:56 PM

Ah, now I see....beg pardon, but your sarcasm went over my head in that instance. Apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: kendall
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 04:56 PM

What about the nuclear non proliferation treaty? Should we just sit back and wait for some other country to stop that in Iran? Should every country that wants nuclear weapons go ahead and develop them? What would be the future of mankind if we allowed that to happen? Iran has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Should we mind our own business and let them do it?

If a big dog comes at me with his teeth bared and growling, should I wait until it bites me before I blow its damned head off?

I abhor what Bush did in Iraq. He called it a preemptive strike. Bullshit, there was never a threat to us, and what he did was just like what Japan did on 12/7/41. Now, any country in the world can invade any other country and say, "America did it, why can't we"?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:17 PM

Please clarify - you are being ironic, are you not?

Well, at least you did consider that as one alternative, memyself.

Mind, it goes both ways. Only the other day I misread a perfectly serious post by an American as being tongue in cheek.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:31 PM

" if we left it up to the Canadians no one in the Middle East would be attacked." Yeah. ;-) Exactly. If we left it up to any sane and responsible administration, no one would be attacked.

Kendall, the "big dog, teeth bared and growling" that you speak of is the USA, not Iran. Iran has not "vowed to wipe Israel off the map", they simply didn't say that.   And no matter how many times that myth is repeated by the USA media and political people who attempting to arrange the next war it will not change the fact that Iran NEVER made that statement. They would be delighted if Israel vanished off the map...just as Israel would be delighted it they did, but they have never said that they intend to take military action to make it happen. To clarify what I am saying, please read this article by Gwynne Dyer, a well-known Canadian political columnist, as he provides some background on Ahmadinejad's misquoted statement, which was deliberately taken out of context and used to further neocon political aims...

Read this for what Ahmadinejad really said, and in what context...

And this...for another excellent article on Iran and the USA

Isreal, meanwhile, HAS tried to wipe half of Lebanon off the map twice now. Isreal has launched pre-emptive attacks on its neighbours. Iraq has tried to wipe Iran off the map (with USA encouragement and indirect assistance). The USA and the UK have, to all intents and purposes, wiped Iraq off the map as a viable country, and the USA periodically threatens to do the same to Iran and Syria.

So who are the real aggressors here? Who are the dogs who not only show their teeth but go straight for the jugular?

These aggressors' routine is always to claim that they are protecting themselves, if not the entire world! That was Hitler's claim too, when he attacked the Jews, the Poles, and everyone else that he attacked. He was, so he said, "protecting" the German nation and saving the world from Jews, Communists, and other such terrible people, who would surely destroy us all if he didn't get them first. Ha. Ha.

The same logic is used by the Bush administration.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Amos
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:48 PM

Little Hawk:

Israel's attack on Lebanon was provoked, you may recall. Granted, the response was disproportionate and perhaps unwise, but it was not unilateral.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:58 PM

I don't buy that, Amos. Israel was waiting eagerly for such provocation, in my opinion. Such provocations can always be found in such a situation...but if they are not found, then they can be arranged or manufactured (like the Tonkin Gulf incident that never happened).

No such situation in the Arab-Israeli conflict is EVER unilateral, because both sides have been offering each other various provocations on a pretty steady basis ever since the conflict began. There have been a thousand excuses on both sides for starting a major war. Hell, ten thousand. The responsibility is still upon the one who sets that major war in motion...and he invevitably will do it at a time of his own choosing, when he figures he can gain the most out of it.

The Israeli government, in this last case, figured wrong. They miscalculated.

That war was not fought over a handful of killed or kidnapped Israeli soldiers. (in my opinion) They were the excuse for starting it...and a good way to get the Israeli public upset enough so they would support it.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:02 PM

Kendall said "If a big dog comes at me with his teeth bared and growling, should I wait until it bites me before I blow its damned head off? Even if Iran HAD vowed to "wipe Israel off the map" that 'big dog, teeth bared & growling' isnt coming at the U.S. (or the U.K.) but at Israel...& yes, the concept of Nuclear Deterrence, might, it is to be hoped, caution them against doing that, but sadly, Bush has wasted his chances...after the debacle in Iraq, & the insufficiently well-pursued venture in Afghanistan, to attack Iran, even conventionally, would, without any shadow of a doubt, cause such an upsurge in terrorist attacks against the U.S. & its interests as to be beyond the worst fears of anyone. The Islamic world really would then feel that the war was against every Muslim nation, & react accordingly.

I hope I'm wrong, but I really do see more '9/11's & 7/7's in the future if we are not VERY careful.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Slag
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:03 PM

A peculiar thing about nuclear warfare. The country that strikes first is most apt to be the victor (such as that may be). Several nations around the globe are so equiped and here's what they get for their troubles: other countries nuclear weapons aimed at THEM! The have just joined the Great Standoff! What fun! Now enter Iran which appears to be desperately racing to join the party. But wait! Do they want to play "Great Standoff" too? I DON'T THINK SO! No, Their avowed and stated aim is to erase Israel and the Great Satan ( Farsi for USA) from the map. But according to LH and like minded little bird brains (note to BB brains, see Big Brain, Little Brain thread) that's OK. Why is that OK? Do you share their views? Do you hate Jews? What's the matter? Are their noses to big for you? Maybe it's because they have inter-married with monkeys? Thank God Darwin proved that we only descended from monkeys. Those Jews! And yeah, who cares if terrorists, kamikazes and the like attack the US. I mean, that has to be our fault, eh guys? And speaking of Hitler, I seem to remember that he was a product of France's wisdom for punishing Germany after the Great (and Glorious) War (WWI) and suck-ass Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. I love Churchill's great (And Glorious) speech where he asks his brothers across the sea (uh, that would be the USA, you know, the Great Satan) to come on over and bail England's butt out of the sling at the cost of our blood, sweat, and tears. And "What Gual!" You said it. The Vichy French. At what cost to Americans' blood sweat and tears to arrange De Gual's triumphant (and Glorious) entry into Paris? Window dressing. What keen memories. Yeah. I agree, there is a lot of gall but on who's part. I agree with Mr. Bush. Nations like individuals have a right and even a duty to defend their life and to remove a credible armed threat. I don't care if you like it or not. That's the way it comes down. Capitulation, slavery and bloody warfare seems to be Europe's stock and trade. No thanks. Stop inviting US.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:09 PM

eh?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:15 PM

Little Hawk recommends a column by Gwynne Dyer, as he or someone else did recently in another thread. I haven't read this particular article, but in a general way, I heartily join in any such recommendation. Gwynne Dyer is knowledgeable, intelligent, hard-nosed, and looks at each situation he tackles on its own merits, without applying some extraneous political outlook to it, other than a flexible combination of liberalism and pragmatism. (Note to American right-wingers and international neo-cons: "liberal" is not a dirty word).

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Shields Folk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:25 PM

I have a god given right!

OK, and which god gave it to you?
Have you got written evidence?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:38 PM

Just read the Gwynne Dyer articles, Slag.

Iran did NOT "vow to wipe Israel off the map". They didn't, they didn't, they didn't, and just because American media keeps saying endlessly that they did, you believe it. Well, you're mistaken. I can't blame you, it's all you ever hear on your TV, right, so it must be true, right? ;-)

Why would you think I hate Jews? I do not hate Jews at all, I like Jews. I hate aggression, and the USA, the UK, and Israel have been practicing aggression lately in the Middle East. I am not taking any racial, religious or cultural sides in this, I am simply opposing people who launch wars of aggression. Those people in recent times have been Saddam (in '91), Bush, Blair, and Ehud Olmert...in that order.

This is not a case of me supporting Muslims and opposing Jews. It is a case of me opposing aggression.

And what is your problem about the French? They fought valorously in 1940, but they were badly outmaneuvered in a tactical sense, and the Germans quickly beat them. Fine. Is that any reason to despise the French nation? I don't think so. The Germans would have beaten any conventional army on the field of battle in western Europe in 1940, Americans and Brits included...they were just on a roll at the time, had the tactical air force and tank divisions to do the job, and they were employing new and tremendously effective blitzkrieg tactics that caught everyone else flatfooted.

The French have always been a courageous nation, they've always been good fighters, and if you don't think so then you've been hoodwinked by popular mythology.

The people in Vichy did what they had to do, militarily speaking, during the German occupation of France. They dealt with reality. They were between a rock and a hard place, and they did what anyone in their position would have done. They waited it out.

As for De Gaulle, he was a pretty good battlefield commander, even if he did have an ego the size of Paris... ;-)

But read Gwynne Dyer. I'm sure he's better informed than I am, because it's his job to be.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:43 PM

There's always provocation when there's a border with people on each side armed to the teeth and distrusting each other. It's just a question of whether the people involved want to use it as a reason for escalating the conflict.

Look at this year's Israeli assault from the Lebanese side, and the skirmish that was used to justify the war was one that had been started by Israel. And the rocket bombardment that was presented as the cause and justification of the Israeli attack actually followed the start of air strikes by Israel.

Looked at from the Israeli side, there had been some previous rockets, and there was always the potential for more (as was demonstrated in the events that followed the Israeli attack). And the Israeli incursion into Lebanese soil that set off the initial skirmish was only a couple of feet.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:53 PM

Exactly. On a border between 2 sets of deadly enemies, there is always provocation, as McGrath says. Hell, we could have had a hundred full-scale renewals of the Korean War by now. The reason we haven't is, both governments decided not to do that. A sensible decision on their part, I'd say.

Israel was looking for an excuse to go into Lebanon, and it never takes long to find one. The USA is looking for excuses to attack Iran too....or at least they were. It's getting harder and harder to do that now, given the public's disillusionment with the failed war in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:54 PM

From Aljazeera

Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map                  

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
Ahmadinejad addressed students at a conference

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.>

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:58 PM

They are expressing their opinion about the matter. Read the first Gwynne Dyer link, please. If you're not willing to, I will block and paste it here.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:59 PM

I did.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Shields Folk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:01 PM

Shit man, I'm western imperialist scum and I can see Israel are a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: pdq
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:02 PM

You mean denial is river in Egypt?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:14 PM

Really? ;-) Hmm. What countries are you figuring to conquer first, Shields Folk? Not Canada, I hope! If so, be advised that we may not look so tough but looks can be deceiving. There are a lot of beaver in those woods.

************

I think, bobad, if someone wanted to characterize another country (say...the USA? or Iran? Or North Korea? Or South Korea? Or China? Or Russia?) as a dire threat...and if they were willing to search through every word of every speech on every occasion by the leaders and major spokespersons of that country for any snippet or phrase that would suggest that that country might want to attack someone...

Then they would find it. Big deal. The USA has uttered so many blatant threats against various other countries on so many occasions by now that their clinging to this one verbal straw of Ahmadinejad's, spoken in a speech to a bunch of students, in order to depict his country as being willing to engage in mass suicide in order to strike Israel is simply pathetic.

But people buy it. On the basis of one idle, ill-considered phrase spoken by one politician, people are willing to start planning a pre-emptive war that would end up killing hundreds of thousands of people in all probability.

Well, I bet there are Iranians who buy the exaggerated "Great Satan" rhetoric too. After all, there are some fools everywhere, aren't there?

It is really quite foolish to imagine that Iran would fling some nukes at Israel, because the Israeli and American response would destroy Iran. The Iranians are not a nation of halfwits or lunatics....but American propaganda would wish them to be thought as such, so it can justify launching another unprovoked war.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:14 PM

"Why would you think I hate Jews? I do not hate Jews at all, I like Jews. I hate aggression, and the USA, the UK, and Israel have been practicing aggression lately in the Middle East."

I will believe that when I see you posting as much and as vehemently about terrorist factions that attack innocent Israelis.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:18 PM

"Waist deep in the Great Big Muddy", pdq? ;-) Which river are we talkin' about?

Anyway, it's all about oil. There's lots of oil in Iran, and Iran is right between a network of other vital oil regions. It's the most strategic piece of real estate left in that region that the USA has not bought out or invaded yet.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:22 PM

Ahmadinejad hopes to see a day when there won't be the name Israel on the map.

Bush/Blair, in fact any number of people, would hope to see a day when there is no "North Korea" on the map. The same way there is no USSR on the map these days, no matter how hard you look.

Many people in Scotland, in Ireland, in Wales and in England, for that, matter, look forward to a day when there will be no United Kingdom on the map.

These hopes do not necessarily be taken as indicating an intention to unleash a war of annihilation upon the areas of the planet under consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:25 PM

When I am living in a town where everyone already hates rapists, Peace, I do not waste my time writing about how awful rapists are.

No one likes terrorists. At least, no one that I know or ever come in contact with likes them or anything they do. Criticizing them, therefore, is akin to saying that water is wet.

It is popular sacred cows that I go after, powerful hypocrites who hide behind a false mask, not dirty little criminals that everyone hates already.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: pdq
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:26 PM

The reason that oil is important is that oil sales bring wealth, wealth buys power, power destroys the enemy.

It is one of the great tragedies of alltime that oil money is used to buy weapons of great destruction rather than build hospitals or raise the standard of living in oil-rich nations.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:26 PM

You and Little Hawk are playing a game of semantics.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:32 PM

QUOTE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:31 PM

American political spokesmen seem to just assume that the USA has a God-given right to attack any country it wishes to any time it wishes to, and this assumption is implicitly woven into statements by the US media all the time...
UNQUOTE

... and US citizens WONDER why many in the rest of the world think the USA is a just a bunch of dumb stupid, selfish arseholes?

ROFL...

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:34 PM

Couldn't agree more with that, pdq. This present society is squandering its future by using oil for the most foolish and wasteful of purposes.

But profit is profit in the corporate world...so who cares, right?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: kendall
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:37 PM

Getting back to my original question, what should we do about these "Rogue nations" that are trying to develop nuclear weapons? Do we just let them? Forget who said what, or who didn't say what, answer the question.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:42 PM

IMO most countries of the civilized world would breathe a sigh of relief if Iran's nuclear capability were to be eliminated, even though they might say otherwise publicly.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:02 PM

Most countries of the world would breathe a sigh of relief if everyone's nuclear capability were eliminated, and if pre-emptive wars were not launched by anyone. But that's not going to happen.

My definition of a "rogue country" is one that viciously attacks either some other country or countries....or large numbers of its own people.

There are by that definition a number of rogue countries out there right now, but Iran is not one of them.

Actions speak way louder than words. The USA, Iraq (under Saddam), the UK, and Israel HAVE attacked other countries in recent times, and Saddam attacked many of his own people as well when he was in power. The Khymer Rouge attacked their own people. Those are rogue countries.

Iran does not qualify as a rogue country at present. They qualify as a country that will not do what the USA wants it to, and simply surrender. That does not make them a rogue country, it makes them an independent country.

If I were the leader of Iran, I would eliminate Iran's nuclear capability, just to completely deprive the USA of any of its phony excuse for marketing another war. However, I doubt that the powers that be in Iran would let me do that...my career would end quickly, undertaking such an initiative. ;-) No country will willingly give up its nuclear power plants and its nuclear program once it has one. Would you? NO, you wouldn't. End of story.

Asking them to give up their nuclear programs unilaterally is like them asking you to give up yours unilaterally. Absolutely r
ridiculous. Only the terminally vain can ask such things of another nation and imagine that that nation will bow down and say "yes".

The Iranians have never claimed the right to build nuclear weapons, and no one has proved that they are doing so, they have claimed the right to have a nuclear power program...and they have that right.

This is a manufactured crisis, just like the manufactured Weapons of Mass Destruction gambit that was used to launch the Iraq War. That was a lie. This is the same lie again, the very same gambit, but in a different place. How many times are you going to swallow the same lie?

The real threats in this world are made by the people who carry OUT those threats. Those people, so far, have been Saddam, the USA, Israel, and the UK, but not Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:07 PM

I would also include North Korea in my previous comment.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:16 PM

What about a rogue nation that is planning to put in place a whole new generation of nuclear weapons?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:24 PM

Of course the world would be a safer place if no one had nuclear weapons but as this seems to be unrealistic for at least the near future I somehow feel safer with them in the hands of countries like the US, GB, Russia, China etc. rather than countries like North Korea and Iran. I don't know why, it's just a gut feeling.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:43 PM

Hey, Little Fascist Johnny wants Australia to get Nuclear Power -

Holy Shit, now I'm worried...

{:-)

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:50 PM

Nothing to see here. Move along . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:57 PM

Countries like the US and the UK which never ever attack any other country.

After all Iran (Persia at the time) has quite a record. We should never forget Darius (549–486/485 BC) and his attempt to invade Greece...