In reply to Dauphin:
> (In reply to Ben Sharp)
>
> More countries armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons will make the world a safer place - 30 years of mutually assured destruction can't be wrong.
Most of that post comes across as being slightly insane anti-western propaganda. A small number of countries have nuclear weapons at the moment, we've come close to complete nuclear destruction during the cold war and Japan has had nuclear bombs detonated on it's soil. And you're saying that if we have more nuclear weapons these things will be
less likely to happen?
> It makes the them less likely to be invaded by NATO; unless it's with drone strikes and 'your' government turns a blind eye and pretends it can do nothing.
Why have you brought drone strikes up? And I take it when you say "invaded" you're talking about any NATO deployment, srebrenica, Kosovo for e.g., or is it just the deployments you don't like that are "invasions"? Since when has "my" government turned a blind eye to drone strikes and pretended we could do nothing? Every man and his dog is aware of drone strikes and what they do, aware that they kill innocent civilians. No one pretends otherwise. There always seems to be a disturbing undercurrent to these kind of arguments which seems to stem from thinking that the west should somehow be above this kind of behaviour, like a kind of xenophobic version of a racism of low expectation. Do you think Pakistan would refrain from drone strikes if the boot was on the other foot? (by the way i don't support drone strikes, i just don't know why you brought it up)
>They are only rogue because they couldn't give a stuff about being told what to do by the U.S. It's only terrorism when they do it. When we do it absolutely justified.
No one cares if they're rogue, in terms of apocalyptic possibilities the problem comes if an unstable country has nuclear weapons, for obvious reasons. Why do you have a problem of it being terrorism if 'they' do it and "absolutely justified" when 'we' do it? Surely thats essential to the definition of terrorism. Terrorism is something that "the enemy" does, if a western country bombs a school they're terrorists in the eyes of a local, if an eastern country did it to a western school then they would be terrorists to the locals too. It's like saying it's only the enemy when they shoot you, when you shoot them it's fine. Name one person in history who said "well, they attacked us but it was justified". "They" are terrorists
because "they" are "them" and not "us", it's a subjective term. To semi quote Bob Dylan, everyone has God on their side, it's just human nature and nothing to do with the West or the East.
Also, it's quite hard to understand what you mean when you fill a post with them and us, who are you talking about? "They are only rogue"...who is rogue?