Printable View
Because he isn't capable of being president of the US, and all the dangerous weaponry held by the US military might be used against innocent civilians in other countries if he stays in power. We should have a regime change in the US. If, however, GWB wishes to be self-exiled into Mexico or maybe some remote place like Uganda, we shall be happy to let him go peacefully.
.
Yes. He is as bad as Saddam. Get rid of them both. Regime Change in Iraq and the US.
.
The fact that you seem to have some vendetta against GWB and America has nothing to do with it then???
Arent you in India????
HB has been obsessed with bashing the US and Bush forever.
Every chance HB has, its "Bush is Stupid", "Bush is Dumb", "The US is power mad", yada yada yada.
HB, have you ever been in the US?
-Lou
I don't often venture into this neck of the woods. But having ventured............
My rant to follow...........
It may be hard to believe but I do think he's being funny here. :)
Not only in this thread, but everywhere else this subject crops up, so I have noticed, any evaluation and/or discussion is primarily based on the speakers' nationality (rather his residency). The last statement in the above and similar quotes is a non-issue, epecially in this day and age where not only information but even emotions are freely exchanged across the globe.Quote:
The fact that you seem to have some vendetta against GWB and America has nothing to do with it then???
Arent you in India????
The current situation in West Asia (US-IRAQ situation included) is a classic case of history repeating itself. Almost all civilzations/nations/peoples across our earth and across time, the Mauryas, Guptas, the Chinese Dynasties, Romans, Greeks, Huns, Egyptians, Incas, Japanese, and lately, the European Nation States, have had at some time or other ventured to assert a political dominance over their geographically close neighbours and economic domination over more distant ones. And the borders are much nearer today.
And so it is the turn now of the new kid on the block. The US of A. Like all Frankensteins, the US of A was not invented (yes, it was a conscious invention by our forefathers. A deliberate formation of a group of indviduals and unique societies, as opposed to a chance and slow co-mingling of cultures. The US of A was formed and more importantly grew with a purpose.) with an explicit purpose of becoming a Frankenstein, as we now use that term. And like all Frankensteins, unfortunately, it is perpetually in danger of becoming one. Granted, every child must have a chance to cut its teeth and find its purpose in life on its own, but it also has a duty of learning from its elders' experience.
So the anger one feels towards the US of A and the attitude of GWB and his like is born out of fear and dare I say horror. Why should we have another Imperial phase? That is the question every opponent of the current move towards war is asking. It begs the question, "Is it not true that the only thing we learn from History is that we do not learn from History"
It is a moot point to argue that the US of A is not involved in West Asia for economic or political reasons. Whatever the reason and its validity, the end is predetermined. That Saddam Hussein is capabale of Mass Murder and Genocide and that is the reason why the US of A needs to take a tough stand to secure its and the world's safety, is correct, right and absolutely laudable. Yet, we have seen over and over and over again, that when a Soveriegn Nation of the day indulges, influences and executes policies in another Sovereign Nation nation of that day, be it economic, financial, political and/or social policies, the end is always in bloodshed, war and the Winner takes all. Always. The East India Company just wanted to buy cotton, you know. GWB in the name of the US of A just wants to punish a criminal, U know.
So any talk of war by a powerful nation over another nation (powerful or not, it does not matter) is bound to anger many people. An anger that is born out of frustration, screaming, RTFM MAN!. You cannot deny history nor can you avoid its consequences. Learn from your forefathers. And guess what, you can learn from mine as well.
Regards
KayJay
No offence meant by all those comments, so if you have been offended by some comments of mine, please accept my apologies. All my such comments should be viewed in the context of the decisions which the US government takes with respect to the rest of the world. As far as the internal matters of the US go, I don't care whether there's a GWB at the helm or Bill Clinton.Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
HB has been obsessed with bashing the US and Bush forever.
Every chance HB has, its "Bush is Stupid", "Bush is Dumb", "The US is power mad", yada yada yada.
HB, have you ever been in the US?
-Lou
It's actually much fun trying to talk sense to some of the Yankees here obsessed with the idea of destroying Iraq. This thread is supposed to provoke them further. If you are a generally peace-loving and "live and let live" type you can ignore this thread.
Lou, I respect the US as a soverign nation, so just because I have not been to US, I wouldn't try to pass some derogatory remarks on the US, or for that part any other nation. But .... Well, I think I have said all above.
.
You are not being fair to me, are you? :mad: :pQuote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
It may be hard to believe but I do think he's being funny here. :)
KayJay, that was a beautiful piece :)
.
I am merely stating that no person from outside of any given county has the right to critisise a countries choice of leader, I am in the UK and dont like GWB in my opinion he is not fit for the job but my opinions should mean nothing to America. I think it is countries fiddling with politics of another country that causes most of this upset???Quote:
Not only in this thread, but everywhere else this subject crops up, so I have noticed, any evaluation and/or discussion is primarily based on the speakers' nationality (rather his residency). The last statement in the above and similar quotes is a non-issue, epecially in this day and age where not only information but even emotions are freely exchanged across the globe.
Because i dont live there i wont judge the democratic rights of any countries choice of leader!!!!
Thats why i asked the question
Quote:
Arent you in India????
Thanx :)Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
You are not being fair to me, are you? :mad: :p
KayJay, that was a beautiful piece :)
.
I think I made it sufficiently clear that I don't have any problems with GWB or any other person heading the US as long as the US government kept its nose out of other countries' affairs. And I think nobody else could have any problems with him too.Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
I am merely stating that no person from outside of any given county has the right to critisise a countries choice of leader, I am in the UK and dont like GWB in my opinion he is not fit for the job but my opinions should mean nothing to America. I think it is countries fiddling with politics of another country that causes most of this upset???
Because i dont live there i wont judge the democratic rights of any countries choice of leader!!!!
Thats why i asked the question
I am judging GWB from the decisions he takes that affect my country, directly and indirectly. So, now do you recognize my freedom to criticize him/his policies? If so, can you get on with the main point of the thread and give me your valuable opinion?
.
BOLLOCKS
Go for it George. Bomb bagdad and while your at it maybe a stray missile could hit mecca.
And while your at it maybe you could bomb Sunderland as well.
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.
Secondly, India I do believe has been trying to provoke Pakistan into yet another war, by doing tests of its Nuclear delievery systems. Don't go critiscising other nations when yours is just as bad!.
BodwadUK: I disagree, for almost the same reason as HoneyBee, though, my shout would be more like Socrates. "I am a citizen of this world".
As to Ur original post HoneyBee:
No, a regime change in the US is not preferrable. GWB is not that much of a danger to the world, just an major irritant in our day to day affairs. A complete overhaul ("Regime Change") of that oxymoron they call their US Foreign Office, yes. Not GWB. I really think he is what Americans deserve.
What Americans want, they Deserve. What Americans want, always get. They got GWB.
QED
I love India.
There is no point in bombing Pakistan. It's such a rat infested craphole populated by incestual monkeys that it would be a waste of of good explosives.
Why not bomb Europe.
Your much more likely of killing Muslims there.
OK, I can say that comment about India's nuclear tests is half ignorant because obviously you are not in India and so don't know how we feel about Pakistan. However, I do want to ask you what gives you the thought that India is trying to "provoke" Pakistan into a war? India has made it clear numerous times that it abides by the No-First-Use policy about nukes, and I don't think it ever threatened a nuke attack on Pakistan, as against Mian Musharraf's remarks and threats of "keeping all options open". Whatever India has been doing, it has been doing in a very responsible manner. It didn't indulge in any secret trade of missiles for getting the nuclear technology. I think most of the technology has been developed by our own scientists, and whatever foreign help we did obtain came from the former USSR by way of agreements which the entire world knows. I think I can say I am proud about the nuclear tests because although they do act as a deterrant, India has never made an issue of it. Did you ever wonder why the US didn't impose economic and other sanctions on India after our nuke tests?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.
Secondly, India I do believe has been trying to provoke Pakistan into yet another war, by doing tests of its Nuclear delievery systems. Don't go critiscising other nations when yours is just as bad!.
I don't mind nations guarding their own interests, but then the developed nations shouldn't go forming cartels against the developing ones. The anti-dumping case is a recent example of how the developed nations are exploiting the developing nations.
So before you call India bad for its nuke tests, get your own facts right. Or till you get them right, don't call us bad.
Do you know that we did the first nuclear tests right under the US satellites' nose? Even these satellites could not find out we had carried out the tests :p And we could have simply finished off Pakistan had we wanted to use the nukes for destructive purposes.
Also you seem to be unaware of the fact that the Indian government has recently formed a security council precisely to avoid any whimsical or arbitrary use of the nukes.
I don't wanna say it, but your statements are a load of bulls hit.
.
I didn't mean it seriously. I just want to know why we should not seek a regime change in the US for similar reasons as in Iraq.Quote:
Originally posted by KayJay
No, a regime change in the US is not preferrable. GWB is not that much of a danger to the world, just an major irritant in our day to day affairs. A complete overhaul ("Regime Change") of that oxymoron they call their US Foreign Office, yes. Not GWB. I really think he is what Americans deserve.
.
Oh!, But I do. :D
I find it difficult to comprehend the fact that the "State Dept " handles international affairs.!
Pakistan is in envy of India. Thats why they have a chip on there shoulder like most of the Islamic world.
India is open minded, progressive and tolerant. Pakistan is corrupt and idle.
The worrying thing is that I can see India becoming more influential in the world while Pakistan sinks into decline. I'm worried that Pakistan will lash out.
I'll put my money on Gnesh. Mohamed fights like a girl.
It's their internal matter, which department should handle what :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by KayJay
Oh!, But I do. :D
I find it difficult to comprehend the fact that the "State Dept " handles international affairs.!
.
Firstly, are u certain there were satellites spying on your country? Also, the use of a nuclear device sends shockwave across a large geographic area, so anyone with any kind of earthquake measurement devices would pick it up.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Do you know that we did the first nuclear tests right under the US satellites' nose? Even these satellites could not find out we had carried out the tests :p And we could have simply finished off Pakistan had we wanted to use the nukes for destructive purposes.
Also you seem to be unaware of the fact that the Indian government has recently formed a security council precisely to avoid any whimsical or arbitrary use of the nukes.
I don't wanna say it, but your statements are a load of bulls hit.
.
Secondly, is it 3 or 4 wars with Pakistan? How many times I wonder, was it u guys that started it? Also, what about the build up about a year back because of trouble over "Pakistani Terrorists" doing attacks inside india. Let my say, if that was a border build up, then... I do believe there were more attacks during this time... :p
Unaware about a council?? There should always have been a council, hell, there shouldn't have been a need for a council. You shouldn't/don't need nuclear weapons in the first place.
Also, out of curosity, do u know if India has nuclear weapson aimed at Pakistan? I do believe the system for most nations is that all Nuclear delievery systems a preprogrammed to crash into the sea, until they are given a target, interesting to see if this "council" has thought about that...
The only countries which need/should have Nuclear weapons are the US, Russia and the Former USSER, and Britain, all being carried over from the Cold War, and all of which are being scaled down. Yet you guys see the need to build more?
Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, both India and Pakistan are a bunch of chokes with their heads cut off, who are to busy wasting money on building defencisive/offensive weaponary, when it could be better spent on civilian issuse.
I would have agree with the last paragraph (but for the chokes with theor heas cutoff bit) had U said noone need have weapons of mass destructions.Quote:
Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Firstly, are u certain there were satellites spying on your country? Also, the use of a nuclear device sends shockwave across a large geographic area, so anyone with any kind of earthquake measurement devices would pick it up.
Secondly, is it 3 or 4 wars with Pakistan? How many times I wonder, was it u guys that started it? Also, what about the build up about a year back because of trouble over "Pakistani Terrorists" doing attacks inside india. Let my say, if that was a border build up, then... I do believe there were more attacks during this time... :p
Unaware about a council?? There should always have been a council, hell, there shouldn't have been a need for a council. You shouldn't/don't need nuclear weapons in the first place.
Also, out of curosity, do u know if India has nuclear weapson aimed at Pakistan? I do believe the system for most nations is that all Nuclear delievery systems a preprogrammed to crash into the sea, until they are given a target, interesting to see if this "council" has thought about that...
The only countries which need/should have Nuclear weapons are the US, Russia and the Former USSER, and Britain, all being carried over from the Cold War, and all of which are being scaled down. Yet you guys see the need to build more?
Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, both India and Pakistan are a bunch of chokes with their heads cut off, who are to busy wasting money on building defencisive/offensive weaponary, when it could be better spent on civilian issuse.
Unfortunately, you are one of the very same chokes with your had already cut-off who believes that term "International - " with all of its hyphenated suffixes should restricted to an area of the world West of Jerusalem.
Any progress on those moon habitats yet ?
Sorry, by this comment I meant that the only nations who should have them right now, are those nations, due to the huge build up during the Cold War. All of nations should have zero, and in time, so will the above nations, if all others keep there stocks at 0. :)Quote:
The only countries which need/should have Nuclear weapons are the US, Russia and the Former USSER, and Britain, all being carried over from the Cold War, and all of which are being scaled down. Yet you guys see the need to build more?
Agreed and Motion Passed.
Yay, does this mean I get pie? :eek:
Many developing countries cause their own problems and its all down to nuclear weapons!!! They arent cheap and when aid is sent from a gevernment to another third world government it rarely reaches the people but ends up in ideas to erradicate the enemy.
While one side has seen the damage and tries to scale down the other is seeing it as an escape and method of destroying their enemys they have no fear of them (Not enough anyway) and so builds them with no regard for the consequences!!!!
Imagine if a nuke hadnt been dropped on Japan and then you can probably see there is a much higher chance that humanity was wiped out!!!!
Ok so that makes it right for two sides who hate one another to build nukes!!! When one side of an obvious conflict aquires such power the other is bound to follow, do you really want to see something like the Cuban Missile crises happen again???? That was about nukes and America and USSR, the world was on the edge of collapse and now India and pakistan are starting it again!!!Quote:
OK, I can say that comment about India's nuclear tests is half ignorant because obviously you are not in India and so don't know how we feel about Pakistan. However, I do want to ask you what gives you the thought that India is trying to "provoke" Pakistan into a war? India has made it clear numerous times that it abides by the No-First-Use policy about nukes, and I don't think it ever threatened a nuke attack on Pakistan, as against Mian Musharraf's remarks and threats of "keeping all options open". Whatever India has been doing, it has been doing in a very responsible manner. It didn't indulge in any secret trade of missiles for getting the nuclear technology. I think most of the technology has been developed by our own scientists, and whatever foreign help we did obtain came from the former USSR by way of agreements which the entire world knows. I think I can say I am proud about the nuclear tests because although they do act as a deterrant, India has never made an issue of it. Did you ever wonder why the US didn't impose economic and other sanctions on India after our nuke tests?
Its true almost all countries are reducing their stocks of nukes with exception of countries like Iraq, India, Pakistan, North Korea etc. These countries are not following suit but going the other way, so of course its gonna be brown trouser time in the west!!:( :(
Taken the yellow pills again ?
OMG not another one:pQuote:
Let's oust George W Bush Jr
George Bush's middle initail wasn't W was it?
Just saw this map on CNN, and I thought it was seriously cool :)
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/ira...ndex.iraq.html
You have to prove India is developing nuclear power for the sole purpose of building nuclear weapons. Else you are insulting my country. I know for a fact that India has developed nuclear power for constructive purposes. And mind you, India is actually capable of and is putting the nuclear power to constructive use. I don't think Pakistan or North Korea would have the infrastructure or the economic and political stability to use the nuclear power for constructive uses. So don't put India in the same league as Pakistan or N Korea.Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
Ok so that makes it right for two sides who hate one another to build nukes!!! When one side of an obvious conflict aquires such power the other is bound to follow, do you really want to see something like the Cuban Missile crises happen again???? That was about nukes and America and USSR, the world was on the edge of collapse and now India and pakistan are starting it again!!!
Its true almost all countries are reducing their stocks of nukes with exception of countries like Iraq, India, Pakistan, North Korea etc. These countries are not following suit but going the other way, so of course its gonna be brown trouser time in the west!!:( :(
Even if we choose to believe that countries such as the US are reducing their nukes, their stocks of nuclear weapons are probably many times those of India. So that point is quite irrelevant here.
Also remember that the US has been constantly adopting the policy of refusing advanced technology to India especially under the name of security. It happened with the cryogenic engines used for launching rockets. India doesn't need your assistance in this field, thank God. We have developed our own cryogenic engines and are capable of launching satellites into the space ourselves. That's an example to the US that India wants to use its abilities for the right causes.
.
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.
Please don't get HB started on this again. :rolleyes:Quote:
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.
Pfft, but wheres the fun in that? :)
Ok but don't say I didn't warn you:pQuote:
Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Pfft, but wheres the fun in that? :)
Ok so even if India isnt doing it for 'the sole purpose' of creating nuclear bombs, you still have some!!!
Yes nuclear power is very useful for commercial purposes and i know India has used it for this but i also recall you saying you did have nuclear weapons!
Oh and if i wanted to insult you in that way i would have said "India Is Fu***** mad creating nukes to destroy the world" but i didnt say that i said you had some and you cant deny that can you????
You have to look at the past and see that building up nuclear weapons is a mistake because of the problems that can occur, yes you have more powerful weapons now than when you didnt have the nukes but your enemys have them as well so all you have now is a recipe for dissaster imagine if Japan or Germany also had nuclear weapons at the end of the war!!!!!
Dont underestimate these countries after all you cant prove that they cant use nuclear power for commercial use!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:Quote:
I don't think Pakistan or North Korea would have the infrastructure or the economic and political stability to use the nuclear power for constructive uses. So don't put India in the same league as Pakistan or N Korea.
Its also a well known fact the world over that India and Pakistan dont get on very well so what do you think people are going to say when you both suddenly make nuclear weapons??? :confused: :confused:
Reduction is a process that is required to reduce them to 0, the cold war saw huge amounts of nuclear bombs produced now they are being reduced you cant expect them all to vanish overnight it needs time, in the meantime however countries like India (Sorry I am going to do it again), pakistan and North Korea are building their arsenals up!
Given the facts in your opinion HB what is an exeptable amount of nuclear weapons per country???? :D :D :D
Whoa, my double standards detector went waaaay in the red again ...
lol i think its broken then!!!!!:D :D :D :D :D :D
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.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.
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.
.
yeah and N Korea said the same thing :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
India won't attack with nukes, that's the policy we have followed ever since we acquired nuclear capabilities
.
Yup, and they have kept their promise as far as I can see...Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
yeah and N Korea said the same thing :rolleyes:
Have Israel received their 500 patriot missiles yet?
how far CAN you see Gaffer?Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
Yup, and they have kept their promise as far as I can see...
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:
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:
India won't attack with nukes, that's the policy we have followed ever since we acquired nuclear capabilities.
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:
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
Don’t get on well…. that’s the understatement of the century if I ever heard it.Quote:
Do you mean India and Pakistan don't get on well so we shouldn't work on nuclear power?
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: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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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:
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 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.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.......
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 :))