> From: Robert Seeberger > Sent: Monday, 16 January 2006 11:33 AM > > It may be that the ease with which the US swatted Iraq down surprised > much of the developing world (especially after the fiasco in > Sudan and > other similar events where the US was attacked) and the idea that the > US was a "paper tiger" has been replaced with concerns about > attracting undue US attention. (Lets call this TUSIBAETBWA the US is > bad ass enough to be worried about) > > > > Of course, the fact that Iran removed the seals tells me all I need > > to > > know - they don't want to pursue their nuclear program within the > > confines of UN monitoring, therefore they are up to no good... > > > > I agree. > I have no expertise in this area and am really just guessing about > motives and movement. I'm wondering if Andrew or Ritu have any > interesting comments on the subject. It is almost always quite > instructive to hear from people distinctly outside the American pool > of opinion. (Not that Russell is mistaken for an American<G>) > >
Whilst I do not support the proliferation of nuclear weapons, it strikes me as being a bit like the climate change issue. We have our nuclear weapons and our mature industrial base and now we are running around telling everyone else that they cant have the same things cos it is too dangerous for the good of the world. It may well be too dangerous, but it is very easy to take that stance from up on top. When the nuclear powers start putting theirs away, I can see other countries finding a lot easier to go along with the idea that more countries getting them is a bad idea. I cant see that happening for some time (In fact I think we probably do need some nuclear weapons, buried away in a silo somewhere for disaster movie type reasons). I am not saying I support Iran's or North Korea's or anyone else's quest for nuclear weapons, but I can definitely see why they would want them and why being told they cant even research them strikes them as a bit rich. I used the gun control analogy before. If I tried to deny a good ole boy from Texas his right to 3 shotguns, two pistols and a semi-automatic, he would protest his right to defend himself. What is the difference (scale aside). Its odd that the US fights for this right inside its borders and pressures, bombs and invades countries outside its borders for essentially pursuing the same right on a national scale. Call it power politics, call it Realpolitik, whatever, just don't try and argue it from some high moral grounds. Chipotle Maru _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
