Let's oust George W Bush Jr

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
No-one mentions nuclear power, so don't change the subject here.


The US and Russia are allowed to have such levels, because of the situations in the past. Now they are still under direct threat, yet they choose to lower their stocks anyway. India and Pakistan are just so pathetic that they can't fight a war the good old fashioned way.

Nuclear Weapons have no purpose, people are to afraid to use them, and people are to afraid to act in fear of them. Fighting a war the old fashioned way is the best option, and atleast it could minimise civilian casulties to some extent.

India builds nuclear weapons. Don't u ever worry about what will happen if Pakistan decieds to attack/return fire?? Hell of alot more people in India than Pakistan.

---

India won't attack with nukes, that's the policy we have followed ever since we acquired nuclear capabilities. So I don't find any truth in the argument what if Pakistan decided to return fire. If nukes were used, it would be Pakistan using them first. Their president made it clear a few months back that he wouldn't hesitate to use nukes against India. So that should tell you to differentiate between India and Pakistan.

Also if the US and the Russia haven't disposed of all their nukes, do you think you have got a right to preach us about not acquiring them? :) If the US has the right to protect itself from real and imaginary enemies, India should also be given a similar right, don't you think? Or maybe the US will undertake protecting India against Pakistan? Going by present conditions I wouldn't trust the US with the job, though. :rolleyes: I can argue that if you are trying to put India, Pakistan and North Korea in the same league, the nukes are always the safest in India's hands because only India is the most responsible of these three nations, just like the US says the WMDs are dangerous in the hands of Iraq. Nuclear weapons is only a by-product of the nuclear power. And the most dangerous thing is not being in possession of nukes but the nukes being in possession of the wrong party. You will have a hard job to prove India is the wrong party.

Do you mean India and Pakistan don't get on well so we shouldn't work on nuclear power? Or maybe Pakistan is so paranoid it's going to acquire nukes illegally so we should stop our research hoping Pakistan doesn't go for nukes? Get a grip, man.

There's no acceptable amount of nukes per nation. But if responsible possession is a criterion, India is as much responsible as the US (perhaps more, because we don't talk war with Iraq :rolleyes:) as far as the WMDs are concerned. If you can't appreciate that and want to still group us with Pakistan or N Korea, that's your problem.

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
India won't attack with nukes, that's the policy we have followed ever since we acquired nuclear capabilities
.

---

yeah and N Korea said the same thing :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kleinma
yeah and N Korea said the same thing :rolleyes:

---

Yup, and they have kept their promise as far as I can see...

Have Israel received their 500 patriot missiles yet?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaffer
Yup, and they have kept their promise as far as I can see...

---

how far CAN you see Gaffer?

Pakistan - India relations are more than just a nuclear arms race. Had both not have any nuclear weapons, we would still be at loggerheads with each other. Had Saddam Hussein, 11/09/2001, the Florida technicality, War - on - Terror, etc, etc etc... not happened, we would still be in a conflict.

Some one posted earlier that the US of A and Russia (courtesy, the former USSR) alone have the right to own any N-weapons at all, residue of the Cold War , and both have a commitment to bring the N-weapons down to zero. Pakistan and India too have a similar background and for exactly the same time period, 50-odd years. Remember that neither Pakistan nor the USSR existed a century ago. India did, so did the US of A. India, more so.

Indians and Pakistanis were not only neighbours before, we were brothers and sisters. Our stand-off is more historic and more profound than the semi-ideological conflict between Capitalism and Communism (now, virtually defunct as political force, though pockets of influence still exist).

Blood, my dear friend, is not only thicker, it more difficult to wipe off oneself. Equating the Indo-Pak stand-off with the US-USSR situation is playing apples and oranges.

* This is only my opinion, I do not in any way intend to offence anyone here, just stating my humble opinion. So please consider that before you react! *

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
I think every government has the right to put its nose into its neighbours business if its a thread to its nation interests, be it civilian, diplomatic, econmic, or military.

---

I would partially agree on that, but only if these threaths were real, and not part of propaganda, ordered by a president who has personal matters against someone else, and wants to finish a job his father didn't.......

Other than from US and maybe UK intelligence there has been no real evidence of Saddam being a threat to anything OUTSIDE Iraq. And if GWB thinks being a saddistic dictator is enough to launch a hundreds of billions dollars costing offensive, than he might be busy for a while with other countries as well......

Again, just my two cents. I have nothing against the USA/USA government, just stating that war against Iraq very much NOT smart and in fact very foolish to do.

And unless the UN inspectors come up with some convincing evidence, I will defend this statement.......

Thank you.

When it comes down to Iraq we need to let the weapons inspectors do their job if they find something then *BANG* get Iraq, the same goes for any other country that is dangerous e.g North Korea but under no circumstances must an attack be made without provocation!!!!!!

As for the India part, I dont really care to much if you DO have them i care because i have a few Indian friends in the UK who hate pakistan and it worries me that if their country feels this way then are we going to have nuclear weapons flying around and effecting everyone else??? I dont understand why you cant get on and why such hostilities exist between the two

I believe that NOBODY should have nuclear weapons, it means that the one controlling the button can change billions of lives around the world. Hostilities often exist because of something really simple going on many years ago and that should no longer effect society.


As for the acceptable amount it will have to be 0 :D :D


The world doesnt always fear other countries any more and is increasingly fearing terrorists. Lets face it if the worlds forces put all there best people together to fight it then we could easily win but nobody knows who to trust anymore especially when we are talking about terrorists getting their hands on these nuclear weapons :eek: :eek: :eek:

Quote:

---

India won't attack with nukes, that's the policy we have followed ever since we acquired nuclear capabilities.

---

India is not exactly the most stable of nations. Their leaders are frequently assassinated and their people are in the midst of internal religious conflict between the Muslims and the Hindu’s. I have known several people that have fled India and come here to the US tell of the conditions and the violence in that country. Not to mention the wide scale poverty. Religious strife and poverty mixed with nuclear weapons is not a good recipe for stability. I’m sorry if I can’t trust that India will never attack with nukes. Their history of wars with China (Indo-China war 1962), Pakistan (1965,1971), and the present situation with Kashmir since their independence coupled with the internal religious conflicts in my mind doesn’t make me feel at ease with India having nuclear weapons.

Quote:

---

Also if the US and the Russia haven't disposed of all their nukes, do you think you have got a right to preach us about not acquiring them

---

What I don’t understand is why India is spending all this money on proliferating their nuclear weapons program when most of their people are starving and living in poverty. How about spending that money on building a little infrastructure instead of weapons?

Quote:

---

Do you mean India and Pakistan don't get on well so we shouldn't work on nuclear power?

---

Don’t get on well…. that’s the understatement of the century if I ever heard it.

Quote:

---

There's no acceptable amount of nukes per nation. But if responsible possession is a criterion, India is as much responsible as the US (perhaps more, because we don't talk war with Iraq :rolleyes as far as the WMDs are concerned. If you can't appreciate that and want to still group us with Pakistan or N Korea, that's your problem.

---

Ohhh yes you are so much more responsible, this from the country who has killed over 50,000 people in Kashmir since the late 1980’s. Is this the same Indian government that has documented cases of rape and mass murder in Kashmir by human rights organizations? Here is a small link where you can read just how responsible the Indian government is:
http://www.ummah.org.uk/kashmir/atroc/index.htm

Yes you don’t talk war with Iraq. You are to busy killing and raping innocent civilians in Kashmir to trouble yourself with world affairs.

The clock is ticking and it’s only a matter of time before India and Pakistan go to war again over Kashmir. Let me guess you are upset because the US wants to meddle in India and to stop you from killing the people of Kashmir and prevent a war from happening with Pakistan? And the US are the bad guys here? Get your head out of your ass HB and look at the problems in your own country, the poverty and religious strife and persecution also the murders, rapes, and human rights violations occurring in Kashmir. I hardly think your country of India has a right to criticize the US about Iraq given the present situation in Kashmir.

India and Pakistan were engaged in a nuclear arms race during the early 90s. There was really nothing that could stop that. Both were hostile to each other and if one left the program, the other would have gained "superiority". Taking that in view, it was essential for India to become nuclear capable. Once India demonstrated that, they froze their nuclear program and so has pakistan (at least i believe). What is going on now is missile tests. Each country is informed in advance about such a test. These tests are carried out by any country, be it the US, Russia, Autralia...

I'd stress again that India is democratic. The N-Button is with a political head of state (unlike Pakastan). Also, India has a no-first use doctrine.

Quote:

---

Their history of wars with China (Indo-China war 1962), Pakistan (1965,1971), and the present situation with Kashmir since their independence coupled with the internal religious conflicts in my mind doesn’t make me feel at ease with India having nuclear weapons.

---

1) China had attacked India. India was defeated so badly that it made the nation cry. The incident was so cleverly timed with the cuban missile crisis that it escaped world attention. This was china attacking a developing nation. When India appealed for military assistance, no country came to India's help. That's when India realized that to live in its neighborhood, they have to also work on defence.

2) All 3 wars with Pakistan were pakistan aggression. they attacked india and not vice versa.

3) Whatever it maybe, i'd stress again india is secular. If india was theocratic, it probably wouldn't have made as much progress in such a little time span as it has made today. Although India has a hindu majority, the Indian president is muslim. Supreme court judges are muslim.. i think that would thoroughly demonstrate that India has a tolerant population. All India would need is a party change so i could see a bunch of rats chew down those couple of hindu trouble making groups.

Quote:

---

Ohhh yes you are so much more responsible, this from the country who has killed over 50,000 people in Kashmir since the late 1980’s. Is this the same Indian government that has documented cases of rape and mass murder in Kashmir by human rights organizations? Here is a small link where you can read just how responsible the Indian government is:

---

I don't get it... 50,000 people died in the hands of terrorists or the Indian government? I agree, the Indian security forces probably had conducted sweeping operations looking for terrorists. Some or probably many innocent people probably got caught in the cross-fire. But this was never "intentional" nor was this government policy. It was just a sad turnout of facts. I got to admit my knowledge of this part of Indian history is poor.. so maybe honeybee could correct me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael_Kamen
I would partially agree on that, but only if these threaths were real, and not part of propaganda, ordered by a president who has personal matters against someone else, and wants to finish a job his father didn't.......

---

I agree with that. :) Walking around and making threats isn't really the way the game should be played. As for attacks against civilians, for example, the attack against the guy in Kuwait, should be responded to as a suggestion of leaving the country, and restricting civilians to that country. In reality, war can be avoided pretty easily, its just those that can't be bothered to look at the other options that screw themselves/other people.

An example is Saddem, if he just gives up his weapons, he can continue on being the dictator that he his, as the US can't do a regime change at this time.


Also, how long has it been the policy of major nations to ask the UN for approval to start a war?


(sorry, gotta crap on about something :))