29-05-2004 01:19									#61
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap So? What does this have to do with Iran? You accuse others of always bringing up Israel-don;'t do it yourself, specially if it is even less relevant.

And who compared Iranian behaviour in the '80s to US behavior? Of course the US wast attacked on its soil between 1941 and 2001. I needed to find an example a country which had been, and which responded with restraint.

	29-05-2004 01:23									#62
	Remove this text

quote: imagine the lots of fun if your screenname was "John Kerry", with your Reagan avatar

Well Kucinich with a Reagan avatar is funny enough as it is .

	29-05-2004 01:24									#63
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I know Israel's security dangers are real. And I know the Israelis have very valid reasons to be afraid. And even if the reasons are valid, their policies aren't any less real. I can understand that I won't endear the Israelis with my attitude (what's even more fun is that I don't endear the Pro-Palestinians either, because I'm in the middle and I consider both sides to suck utterly). But I can't imagine that I contribute to the Israeli paranoia. Unless the Israelis confuse my criticism of their policies with antisemitism, or with some dream of the Arabs crushing Israel, or something.

Not you personally. Many Israelis beleive that if they were to withdraw from the territories, and make a deal with Arafat, and things were to go badly for Israel as a result (i wont spell out the scenario - thats been done before) that Europe, out of whatever motivation, would do nothing to support them, and would in fact villify them if in the course of a new war they were to cause civilian Pal casualties again. They also beleive that an EU peacekeeping force would look the other way at terrorist acts, but prevent Israeli acts against terrorists. This belief is a barrier to several possible options that might lead towards peace. You may call this belief paranoia - it is a result of the kind of things you have indulged in yourself, such as the equating of Israel and Syria.

BTW, if Assad is so sane, why doesnt he stop supporting Hamas? Have you forgotten about them?

	29-05-2004 01:26									#64
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark And who compared Iranian behaviour in the '80s to US behavior? Of course the US wast attacked on its soil between 1941 and 2001. I needed to find an example a country which had been, and which responded with restraint.

Yes, Iran compared to the US-becuase this is an issue of the US and Iran, or the US and Syria-Israel not included.

As for restraint-Egypt was attacked by Israel in 1967, and they did not use chemical weapons against Israeli forces even thought they had used them in yemen. Russia did not use conventional retraint, but it sure as hell used nuclear retraint in chechnya-does it get a prize for that? NO.

The UK was restrained vs Argentina at the Falkands....

I really fail to see then how you can criticize Iran for suing Chemical weapons vs Iraq when Iraq had used them first against them. And what that even has to do with Nukes. The US used retraint with regards to chemical weapons all throught WW2 (we could always have used them in the pacific), yet we used nukes as fast as we could.

	29-05-2004 01:27									#65
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GePap If Iran lost the war, it could face counter-revolutionary pressures.

There are many potential sources of "counter-revolutionary" (ie progressive) pressure on Iran. Most notably democracy in its neighbors. Thats why I dont trust them with nukes.

	29-05-2004 01:30									#66
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark There are many potential sources of "counter-revolutionary" (ie progressive) pressure on Iran. Most notably democracy in its neighbors. Thats why I dont trust them with nukes.

What, it's going to nuke itself? hardly likely.

Plus, democratic presures are building in Iran becuase of its own system, a mix of theocracy but then a real democratically elected legislature and demographic explosion, much more than the mess in Iraq, the realities of Turkey, the situation in Afghanistan or the mess in Pakistan.

	29-05-2004 01:32									#67
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark 1. Look at how Sharon has acted since taking power. He has been pragmatic throughout (if more violent than you would be) Right now he is desperately trying to wrestle the Likud part to pragmatism. The constant villificantion of Sharon, for negligence, leads to fundamental misunderstanding of Israeli politics.

I agree with you. Despite coming to power with an ideological agenda (Sharon was a sincere expansionist before the experience of power), he has avoided many ideological traps.
I can't stand the guy and his methods, but I acknowledge his pragmatism. I actually support the unilateral removal of Gaza, despite many in France (including my party) opposing it vociferously. And that's out of pragmatism as well: the fewer the colonies, the higher the chances of peace.

I was making a point toward Sava's cartoonish worldview. It is rare to see clear-cut occurences of good and evil in this world. And definitely not in the Israel / Palestine conflict.

quote: Besides, if being negligent during a massacre makes one unfit for office, I hope you felt the same way about M. Mitterand after Rwanda.

Before Rwanda.
We exported heaps of weapons to Rwanda, despite knowing Habyarimana was giving them to the civilian Hutus, and indoctrinated them for genocide.
I don't know if Mitterrand himself was made aware of what was in the making. But whomever dismissed the information and let the preparations of genocide continue, that person should never hold office anymore IMO.

quote: 2. Wrt Baby Assad - Does he fill shame or regret for the DELIBERATE actions of his father and predecessor in Hama, where far more arab muslims were slaughtered than in Sabra and Shatilia.

I don't know. Actually, I'm pretty sure Assad will come up with quite a few monstosities as he ages, and as he becomes more protective of his power. IMO, the main reasons why he doesn't have as much blood on his hands as Sharon is because he is younger, and because he rules in times of peace. Not because he is inherently less "evil". Again, it was a comment opposing the simplistic and cartoonish "good vs evil" view that was held by Sava, but that I see held very, very often in American cutlure.

	29-05-2004 01:39									#68
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by GePap What, it's going to nuke itself? hardly likely.

no they would use their nukes to pressure a democratic Iraq.

	29-05-2004 01:43									#69
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Again, it was a comment opposing the simplistic and cartoonish "good vs evil" view that was held by Sava, but that I see held very, very often in American cutlure.

and there arent Euroopeans who have cartoonish views of international politics, esp the US and Israel. Just they prefer terms like Cowboy, fascist, vs justice, oppressed rather than good vs evil. A cultural difference to be sure, but not one that makes Euro views less cartoonish.

Of course I recognize that many Euro views are not cartoonish. Many American views are not as well.

	29-05-2004 01:45									#70
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark no they would use their nukes to pressure a democratic Iraq.

First, right now a democratic Iran looks more promising than a democratic Iraq. 2, Turkey is already democratic- I don't see Itan caring much. 3. What presure? Stop being a democracy or we nuke you? Sorry, that doesn;t work. A threat has to be realistic to work- if the US gives a democratic Iraq nuclear protection, problem solved. And even if not, what the hell can Iran do? Lets say Iraq refuses to bow down...What? Iran nukes them? And become a total world outlaw? Open itself up to invasion and regime change?

Again, scenerios have to be rational-the notion of Iran "presuring Iraq" with nukes is utterly absurd.

Having brought Israel up already, or this weird scenerio-why hasn;t the US or Israle used their nukes to presure Syria into behaving? Answer, it does not work that way.

	29-05-2004 01:55									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by GePap I really fail to see then how you can criticize Iran for suing Chemical weapons vs Iraq when Iraq had used them first against them. And what that even has to do with Nukes. The US used retraint with regards to chemical weapons all throught WW2 (we could always have used them in the pacific), yet we used nukes as fast as we could.

Are you expecting a 6 year global conventional war with tens of millions of casualties to take place again?? If not the above is irrelevant. Of course some folks would simply like to say the US has no standing to meddle with others nuclear programs because of Hiroshima. If you wish to, fine. NO conceivable US govt is going to accept a nuclear risk because of that. Nor would any other govt of any other country that had power to avoid such risk. The US will act in its interests, and will not engage in handwringing when it does so. So it only gets to the weighing the risks involved in Iranian nukes, vs the costs of elminating them. Im not convinced that the diplomatic costs to the US would exceed those to Israel after Osirak. As for the risks, I do see a risk of anonymous terrorism. Its happening now? Where do you think the operational HQ for AQ is now, directing the attacks in KSA and Turkey, the flow money and jihadis into Iraq? I think its Iran, but I know you wont accept that. And what was the source of the chemicals for the bomb in Jordan? was it Syria? Pretty good job of keeping it anonymous, since even now people are denying Syria would do any such thing.

The same people who are NOW denying that a nuke can be delivered anonymously will be denying that country X had anything to do with it, the morning after a US city is nuked. Of course I may be hoping theyre listened too, since their may be people pushing for us to nuke back - which could be disastrous.

	29-05-2004 01:58									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Not you personally. Many Israelis beleive that if they were to withdraw from the territories, and make a deal with Arafat, and things were to go badly for Israel as a result (i wont spell out the scenario - thats been done before) that Europe, out of whatever motivation, would do nothing to support them, and would in fact villify them if in the course of a new war they were to cause civilian Pal casualties again.

This is very possible. It will mostly be a question of PR. There was a time where the Isralis were described as the nice guys. If, during the peace period, Israel works on its PR, it could be seen as the good side again. Heck, Rabin was loved over here, and Peres is still considered a great guy to this day; so it shows it's possible to seduce us.

quote: They also beleive that an EU peacekeeping force would look the other way at terrorist acts, but prevent Israeli acts against terrorists. This belief is a barrier to several possible options that might lead towards peace. You may call this belief paranoia - it is a result of the kind of things you have indulged in yourself, such as the equating of Israel and Syria.

1. I equated the potential rationality of the Israeli and the Syrian leadership wrt the use of nuclear weapons. I am not comparing the countries in general, they are vastly different.

2. This belief (that the EU would look the other way in case of terrorist acts) is false IMHO, or depends of your definition of "looking the other way"*.
Most EU countries want peace above all, and consider that peace can only be achieved with two legitimate and peace-seeking entities. This is why many countries, including mine, have (had?) the false belief that Arafat was the key to peace: he was respected by his population, he was ready to talk, he looked representative. The question of a talking partner is extremely important to European views on the issue, but it was answered simplistically: Arafat is the one to talk with.

As a result, the Europeans have an extremely negative view of fundamentalist Palestinian terrorism. I often hear opinions that they're in the same boat as Israeli hawks, only furthering the cause of war. True, we tend to loathe them less than Israeli hawks, because we give them excuses ("they're poor", "they're humiliated" and crap like that). I personally oppose this form of tolerance.

But you should not forget that whatever the sympathies we have for the Palestinian plight, we do see terrorism as a major obstacle to peace. And any EU force will fight terrorism, although probably with different means than Sharon and his ilk. Because terrorism goes directly against our aims in the region.

quote: BTW, if Assad is so sane, why doesnt he stop supporting Hamas? Have you forgotten about them?

I don't know why he supports Hamas, but I can see plenty of reasons why an Arabic thug would support terrorist groups. He may expect the radical Muslims to take over the Palestinian State once Arafat dies. He may give a cookie to some religious groups pressuring him. He may want a bargaining chip with Israel. And I'm sure there are plenty of other possible, "sane" reasons.


*If the Israelis fear that a EU force won't bulldoze homes, send in the helicopters and fire rockets on the militants' cars, then they are perfectly right.

	29-05-2004 02:02									#73
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by GePap First, right now a democratic Iran looks more promising than a democratic Iraq. 2, Turkey is already democratic- I don't see Itan caring much. LOTM - Iraq is mainly Shia, there are close ties between the Najaf Hamza and Qom, etc. Theres also simply a tippping point. BTW, Im not sure they dont care, its just that Turkey is too well established for them to do much - well other than support people who blow themselves up in Istanbul. 3. What presure? Stop being a democracy or we nuke you? Sorry, that doesn;t work. l -No, more like we want you to give more power to person X, change law Y, etc. Subversion, dominance, etc. With the threat of conventional war - with nukes in the background, one more factor in the balance. To be used only if conventional war breaks out. A threat has to be realistic to work- if the US gives a democratic Iraq nuclear protection, problem solved. l - Hardly. extending nuclear protection is not simple, it involves risks. And even if not, what the hell can Iran do? Lets say Iraq refuses to bow down...What? Iran nukes them? And become a total world outlaw? Open itself up to invasion and regime change? Again, scenerios have to be rational-the notion of Iran "presuring Iraq" with nukes is utterly absurd. Having brought Israel up already, or this weird scenerio-why hasn;t the US or Israle used their nukes to presure Syria into behaving? Answer, it does not work that way.

Err, I think Israels possession of nukes probably has effected Syrian behavior.

	29-05-2004 02:09									#74
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor *If the Israelis fear that a EU force won't bulldoze homes, send in the helicopters and fire rockets on the militants' cars, then they are perfectly right.

So what would an EU force do about the smuggling of weapons through tunnels into Gaza. Would they send their troops to destroy the tunnels, but not use copters when theyre troops are hit?? and refrain from bulldozing the buildings that there troops are fired at from. No, I dont think so. Based on what happened in Bosnia, and elsewhere, and their sympathy to the Pals - they would simply NOT try to destroy the tunnels. They would look the other way. And oh, yes, the EU, in its concern about terrorism, would pass a resolution condemning both sides. And France might restrict what can be worn in its schools. But stop the smuggling of weapons for use against Israel, no.

Theyd be useless. Which is why DOVISH israelis are generally more interested in having a sane Palestinian like Dahlan, or the Egyptians, or some combo thereof take over security in Gaza, with all the problems with folks like that, than invite in the Euros.

	29-05-2004 02:12									#75
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor As a result, the Europeans have an extremely negative view of fundamentalist Palestinian terrorism. I often hear opinions that they're in the same boat as Israeli hawks, only furthering the cause of war.

you think that EQUATING terrorists who deliberately murder women and children, with Israelis whose political views differ from yours is taking a NEGATIVE view of terrorists? Youre just not getting it.

	29-05-2004 02:15									#76
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Are you expecting a 6 year global conventional war with tens of millions of casualties to take place again?? If not the above is irrelevant.

You ignore the more relevant part-at no point in the pacific campaing did the US use chemical weapons vs the Japanese-we very well might-we had the knowledge to use them. Why didn't we? If the war was so god awful (it was), why did we not go all the way with these, even when were were willing to firebomb whole cities?

quote: So it only gets to the weighing the risks involved in Iranian nukes, vs the costs of elminating them. Im not convinced that the diplomatic costs to the US would exceed those to Israel after Osirak.

Of course they would- 1. Israel had a low standing to begin with, and Israel knew its friends and backers would not take action against it. The US has much bigger interests, interests which are global, not simply regional, so we stand a much bigger threat to our prestige than Israel. PLUS the iranian program is much greater-Israel hit one site with a few aircraft-Iran has multiple reserach facilities, and would be hit the giant civilian reactors being built with Russian help?

quote: Where do you think the operational HQ for AQ is now, directing the attacks in KSA and Turkey, the flow money and jihadis into Iraq? I think its Iran, but I know you wont accept that.

NO, I don;t accept it becuase there is no evidence.

quote: And what was the source of the chemicals for the bomb in Jordan? was it Syria? Pretty good job of keeping it anonymous, since even now people are denying Syria would do any such thing.

You know, very little info has come out of that "chemical bomb"-more importantly, chemical bombs as opposed to Chemical weapons- so what does "chemical bomb" mean? Perhaps you take a bunch of chemicals and put them together? Yopu know, like you can pout a bunch of fertelizer and gasoline and a few other common materials to make a huge bomb? Did Iran give Nichols his fertilizer! Before pushing around claims, do you have any info about said "chemical bomb" youself?

quote: The same people who are NOW denying that a nuke can be delivered anonymously will be denying that country X had anything to do with it, the morning after a US city is nuked. Of course I may be hoping theyre listened too, since their may be people pushing for us to nuke back - which could be disastrous.

What is it with you know and this "the people" crap?

And second-nuclear weapons aren't small, simple things. They costs BILLION to make. Why on earth would the Iranians do what you think they might? Any rational explination whatsoever besides prejudice and blind fear?

	29-05-2004 02:23									#77
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark you think that EQUATING terrorists who deliberately murder women and children, with Israelis whose political views differ from yours is taking a NEGATIVE view of terrorists?

Of course, since we hate Israeli hawks with a passion.

	29-05-2004 02:31									#78
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GePap quote: Of course they would- 1. Israel had a low standing to begin with, and Israel knew its friends and backers would not take action against it. Once again, its not just their friends and backers. In the years after the Osirak bombing China recognized Israel, India did, most non-Muslim African countries did, Israel made peace with Jordan, etc. IE the general diplomatic position of Israel was determined largely by the Palestinian situation, and when that improved (during Oslo) everyone chose to wink at the Osirak bombing. Where do you think the operational HQ for AQ is now, directing the attacks in KSA and Turkey, the flow money and jihadis into Iraq? I think its Iran, but I know you wont accept that. [/q] NO, I don;t accept it becuase there is no evidence. L- Precisely. When a nuke is planted, there wont be evidence either. So where do YOU think the AQ HQ is? quote: And what was the source of the chemicals for the bomb in Jordan? was it Syria? Pretty good job of keeping it anonymous, since even now people are denying Syria would do any such thing. You know, very little info has come out of that "chemical bomb"-more importantly, chemical bombs as opposed to Chemical weapons- so what does "chemical bomb" mean? Perhaps you take a bunch of chemicals and put them together? Yopu know, like you can pout a bunch of fertelizer and gasoline and a few other common materials to make a huge bomb? L- Reports from Jordan indicated there was nerve gas component. And second-nuclear weapons aren't small, simple things. They costs BILLION to make. Why on earth would the Iranians do what you think they might? Any rational explination whatsoever besides prejudice and blind fear?

Not blind fear, calculated fear. They might not do it. But then they might. I wouldnt have believed 9/11 would happen till it did. I do read what Iran says about America, about Jews, etc, and Im not convinced that its safe for them to have the bomb. Was it safe for the USSR to have it - no, it wasnt, we lucked out in the cold war. But the cost to disarm the USSR at any point, would have dwarfed what it would take to do the same to Iran.

	29-05-2004 02:35									#79
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Of course, since we hate Israeli hawks with a passion.

Theres lots of folks i hate with a passion. I dont equate them with folks who deliberately murder women and children.

Oh but i forget myself, there are folks in your sophisticated continent who routinely equate Israeli hawks with Nazis. I guess compared to that comparing someone who questions the Oslo process with someone who straps a bomb to his body, filled with nails and shrapnel to maximize civilian casualties, and who then walks into cafe to blow it up, IS moderate.

Feh.


Spiff, the more you go on, the more you incline me to vote for Dubya, and to turn away from Kerry, who actually wants us to take France seriously.

	29-05-2004 02:47									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Once again, its not just their friends and backers. In the years after the Osirak bombing China recognized Israel, India did, most non-Muslim African countries did, Israel made peace with Jordan, etc. IE the general diplomatic position of Israel was determined largely by the Palestinian situation, and when that improved (during Oslo) everyone chose to wink at the Osirak bombing.

AGAIN: (for the third time)
1. Israel had little reputation to defend. People expect that sort of behavior from Israel.
2. Iran has more friends now than Iraq had in 1981.
3. The Iraqi program was very small compared to this-one single research reactor. Iran has mutiple research facilties, and of course a giant civilian reactor the Russians are helping to build.

quote: L- Precisely. When a nuke is planted, there wont be evidence either. So where do YOU think the AQ HQ is?

I don;t think there is one anymore. I think they are acting much more a independent cells without much centralized control.

quote: Not blind fear, calculated fear. They might not do it. But then they might. I wouldnt have believed 9/11 would happen till it did. I do read what Iran says about America, about Jews, etc, and Im not convinced that its safe for them to have the bomb. Was it safe for the USSR to have it - no, it wasnt, we lucked out in the cold war. But the cost to disarm the USSR at any point, would have dwarfed what it would take to do the same to Iran.

honestly,

9/11 had NOTHING to do with one regime hitting another-it was a bunch of independent contractors driven by their own agenda using an audacious plan to strike the US. NO regime leadership had a hand in planning, or gave resources to help carry this out. Becuase regimes cn be traced back. Terrorist cells can as well, but they are free of the worries of people with return addresses. And you still have failed utterly to give a reaosn why Iran would do it. AQ has a reason-why would Iran? can you give a reason for the Iranian regime to do such a thing?

And NO ONE can be trusted with nukes, not one singled damned state. Sadly that is no longer the case.

	29-05-2004 02:53									#81
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Theres lots of folks i hate with a passion. I dont equate them with folks who deliberately murder women and children. Oh but i forget myself, there are folks in your sophisticated continent who routinely equate Israeli hawks with Nazis.

I have never encountered one personally. In the peace marches I went to, I could see some fliers to that effect, coming from Arab groups. I belong to one of the most pro-Palestinian non-Arabic groups of Europe (French and communists, can you imagine), yet I have never seen a comparison with the nazis, who remain taboo.
I have seen comparisons with acts of WW2 (including in that Le Monde cartoon you like so much), and I have seen occurences of Israel being called a "fascist" State, but even then not that too often.
What I see on a systematic basis, however, is the belief that Israel makes no effort to further peace since the beginning of the new intifada, and that it only reinforces hatred and violence with its destructive policies. That Israel kills hundreds of civilians. And that Israel could have ways to do things differently, simply because it is a very well organized structure: unlike the Palestinians, it's not like Israeli violence is performed by rogue groups.

quote: I guess compared to that comparing someone who questions the Oslo process with someone who straps a bomb to his body, filled with nails and shrapnel to maximize civilian casualties, and who then walks into cafe to blow it up, IS moderate.

Misunderstanding again, I see. So you call a non-Oslo guy a "Hawk"? I don't. I used the word "Hawk" as in people who want Israel to use whatever military might to shut the Palestinians. Who don't necessarily want peace, but want an Israeli victory.
And yes, that includes the death of innocents, many of them. Oh sure, the Israelis don't kill innocents just for kicks. But the Hawks willingly create the conditions that lead to those "colateral damage", which we don't forgive.

quote: Spiff, the more you go on, the more you incline me to vote for Dubya, and to turn away from Kerry, who actually wants us to take France seriously.

Kerry doesn't want you to listen to the French street. He couldn't care less. Kerry wants you to use soft power, and let the other countries do part of the dirty job, by not alienating them, in order for the US to have a smaller bodycount, to attract less hatred on itself, and to keep its international power with more subtlety.

I would actually support you voting for Bush, because Bush is very efficient at sabotaging the hyperpower legacy left by the fall of the USSR . Unfortunately, Bush policies have killed thousands of people, including Americans, and will continue to do so So in my right mind, I can only hope for the less warlike Kerry to win.

	29-05-2004 02:56									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by GePap NO. We could , but we don;t have the right.

They have sovereignty but we don't?

	29-05-2004 02:58									#83
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by GePap 2. There is NO grand scheme of things

Just like there is no forest, just a bunch of trees.

	29-05-2004 02:59									#84
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich They have sovereignty but we don't?

I'm sure you'd love it, the day the Iranians bomb a reactor nearest to you.
"We have the right to bomb this reactor. We are a sovereign nation!"

	29-05-2004 03:07									#85
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Doesn't mean we can't retaliate.

	29-05-2004 03:09									#86
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

This is precisely to avoid this kind of circle (attack + retaliation) that an international law has been established. And it is illegal to make an unprovoked attack on another sovereign country, unless backed by the UN itself.

	29-05-2004 03:11									#87
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Since international law has no force, it can't be considered law in any tradition sense of the word. Thus, no state has any more "rights" than an individual has in an anarchy.

	29-05-2004 03:11									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich They have sovereignty but we don't?

Soverignty has limits-for example, since Iran signed the NPT, they don't currently have the right to make nukes, which is why we complain. If Iran left the NPT, then lest say, Russia, would, as a member of the NOT not have the soverign right anymore to give Iran more nuclear equipment. But iran would have the right o seek nukes without the US having the right to attack, since the US can;t show an imminent threat of any kind.

	29-05-2004 03:12									#89
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich Just like there is no forest, just a bunch of trees.

Poor analogy, when dealing with human creations like states.

	29-05-2004 03:15									#90
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich Since international law has no force, it can't be considered law in any tradition sense of the word. Thus, no state has any more "rights" than an individual has in an anarchy.

Actually, the UNSC was the first step against pure anarchy. Plus, of course, the fear of anarchy all states have does limit their behavior. If everyone begun to break the law inside any state, the state would collapse.

2 things keep people in line-the threat of force and their own inhibitions, with the second one actually being more important-otherwise more states would seek nukes, and chemical weapons and such, since they really could, if you examine reality.