U.S. Tells India to Support Measures Against Iran, BBC Reports (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=apZzoTwKpfVM&refer=top_world_news)
Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government told India an agreement giving the country access to American nuclear technology may fall through unless the country supports the U.S. stance on Iran's atomic program.
America threatening a sovereign nation and the worlds largest democracy at that !
That fact that absolutely no evidence has been offered to back Americas claim seems to not stop American cajoling other nations for illicit support . This international criminality should not be stood for , the logic is crystal clear Americas Iran policy is one based on deceit . So it is clear proof that Iran is being fitted up for an act of American belligerance justified on a basis of intimadation of other peace loving nations .
India Rejects U.S. Attempt to Link Iran Vote to Nuclear Accord (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000080&sid=aVa4DAfoNqW8&refer=asia)
Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- India's government rejected an attempt by the U.S. to link a proposed civilian nuclear accord between them with support for the American stance on Iran's atomic program.
This immediate and brave Indian rejection of American extortion clearly shows Americas waning influence in global affairs , the fact is America will lose out here as India will turn to Russia to purchase such technology .

*yawn*
More illogical assumptions with no supporting evidence.
As if the American Government owes you an explination??

*yawn*
More illogical assumptions with no supporting evidence.
What are you talking about the first link clearly shows the US leaning on India and the second link shows India rejecting US demands . That is the evidence , or do you have another interpretation of policy procedure other than extortion as to what the US did to India .
As if the American Government owes you an explination??
I think they owe the world an apology .

American dont mess with nuclear powers.

America threatening a sovereign nation and the worlds largest democracy at that !

A refusal to give something which is not needed is not a threat.

Brian, I don't think you are in any position to know the true intentions of the Iranian government. One thing is for sure, they are in favor of destroying Israel, and that's not what I call being peaceful.

Not to mention the vote hasn't even gone through yet. India has already voted with the U.S. to refer Iran to the UN security council and they will most likely vote with the U.S. again.

Not to mention the vote hasn't even gone through yet. India has already voted with the U.S. to refer Iran to the UN security council and they will most likely vote with the U.S. again. I hope they were not blackmailed in any ways.

India changes tune, defends Iran (http://www.dawn.com/2006/01/28/top2.htm)

NEW DELHI, Jan 27: India on Friday distanced itself from US-led calls to isolate Iran at next week’s meeting of the IAEA after controversial remarks on the issue by Washington’s envoy to Delhi enraged the nation as seldom seen before.

We need to defend the right of the oppressed countries not only to make use of atomic energy but also to acquire nuclear arms which under the threat of the permanent US war are a powerful tool of self-defence.

We need to defend the right of the oppressed countries not only to make use of atomic energy but also to acquire nuclear arms which under the threat of the permanent US war are a powerful tool of self-defence.

1) Not being permitted to obtain nuclear weapons is not what I would call oppressed. I call it prudent.
2) Atomic energy is fine. Atomic weapons are a different story.
3) US threat of war isn't permanent.
4) A powerful tool of self-defense it may be, but it's also a powerful tool of offense.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of the wrong people is a worst-case scenario. I know what your going to say Brian-America has nukes, therefore we've reached the worst case scenario. The fact of the matter is that America has no intentions of nuking a country that doesn't nuke first. Our nuclear policies don't include preemptive strikes. On the other hand, a country that wants to US gone might not have qualms about nuking America first. Therefore, it seems to be in the United States' best interest not to let hostile parties acquire nuclear weapons (or nuclear "defense", for that matter).

We need to defend the right of the oppressed countries not only to make use of atomic energy but also to acquire nuclear arms which under the threat of the permanent US war are a powerful tool of self-defence.

1) Not allowing certain states to obtain nuclear weapons is not what I would call oppressed. I call it prudent.
2) Atomic energy is fine. Atomic weapons are a different story.
3) US threat of war isn't permanent.
4) A powerful tool of self-defense it may be, but it's also a powerful tool of offense.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of the wrong people is a worst-case scenario. I know what your going to say Brian-America has nukes, therefore we've reached the worst case scenario. The fact of the matter is that America has no intentions of nuking a country that doesn't nuke first. Our nuclear policies don't include preemptive strikes. On the other hand, a country that wants the US gone might not have qualms about nuking America first. Therefore, it seems to be in the United States' best interest not to let hostile parties acquire nuclear weapons (or nuclear "defense", for that matter), and America has the influence to make sure that they get their wish (although how much longer that influence will continue is another subject altogether).

I must say: If everyone has nukes, no one will use them, because everyone knows that everyone dies in nuclear warfare. So I think its better if every country has them, so all the countries can be a threat to eachother and then there will be some real ballance.

Its checks and ballances that keep peace.

I must say: If everyone has nukes, no one will use them, because everyone knows that everyone dies in nuclear warfare. So I think its better if every country has them, so all the countries can be a threat to eachother and then there will be some real balance.

Its checks and ballances that keep peace.

But all it takes is one madman in control who doesn't care about the welfare of humanity to launch the nuke the will end the world as we know it. Wouldn't it make more sense to get rid of the nukes that the few countries have than try to arm the entire world with nuclear weapons? And with so many nukes floating around, the opportunity for WMD to be lost is extremely high. Just look at Russia's predicament; during the breakdown of the Soviet Union, many WMD were lost in transit, but Soviet/Russian officials refused to confirm this until recently. Again, all it takes is one terrorist organization bent on ridding the world of the Great Satan to set off a nuclear halocaust.

AmishRakeFight

1) Not allowing certain states to obtain nuclear weapons is not what I would call oppressed. I call it prudent.
That dependes from which country you sit in , if you were now in Iran and having wittnessed the US tear up Afghanisatn and Iraq and listen to Bush declare Iran the most dangerous global threat . I would say their point of veiw would be they would like America disarmed because they fear it .
2) Atomic energy is fine. Atomic weapons are a different story.
Well the power is in the hands of the West they can quite easily make the first step to disarm .
3) US threat of war isn't permanent.
No but before America it was the European powers threat of war and after America goes into decline it will agin be Europe threatening the 3rd world . Empires come and go but the conditions are permanment .
4) A powerful tool of self-defense it may be, but it's also a powerful tool of offense.
You masy ask yourself why are these nations developing weapons , have you thought maybe it is simply for a deterrent against a predator nation ?
Nuclear weapons in the hands of the wrong people is a worst-case scenario. I know what your going to say Brian-America has nukes, therefore we've reached the worst case scenario. The fact of the matter is that America has no intentions of nuking a country that doesn't nuke first. Our nuclear policies don't include preemptive strikes. On the other hand, a country that wants the US gone might not have qualms about nuking America first. Therefore, it seems to be in the United States' best interest not to let hostile parties acquire nuclear weapons (or nuclear "defense", for that matter), and America has the influence to make sure that they get their wish (although how much longer that influence will continue is another subject altogether).
Why is America in the Mid East Amish ? Seriously is there any reason America must be there ? Must America back Israel ? How is staying in the Mid East benefitting the US people or economy ?

I must say: If everyone has nukes, no one will use them, because everyone knows that everyone dies in nuclear warfare. So I think its better if every country has them, so all the countries can be a threat to eachother and then there will be some real ballance.

Its checks and ballances that keep peace.
I believe that is the veiw from the 3rd World this segement of humanity feels utterly powerless against America and the EU , they belive such a weapon gives them some security .

Brian, I've said numerous times that I do not agree with the war in Iraq. The reason, IMO, that America is in the Middle Easy is because of oil. And I don't agree with America holding Israel's hand. But it is what it is. I'm not a government official, and I don't make the decisions.

threat of the permanent US war

No but before America it was the European powers threat of war and after America goes into decline it will agin be Europe threatening the 3rd world . Empires come and go but the conditions are permanment.

You said it yourself. The threat of US war is not permanent.

AmishRakeFight

But it is what it is.
That is the problem , no matter what I say and no matter what you say and the fact many others think it , we are all powerless . The fact is now polls from what I have been reading show the majority of Americans back an attack on Iran . Recall before the majority of Americans were against such an action 12 months ago . Its manufacturing consent , people basically believe their goverments and follow .

But all it takes is one madman in control who doesn't care about the welfare of humanity to launch the nuke the will end the world as we know it. ... bla bla bla and USA can never have a mad President,

We need to deter American Madmen.

America checks and balances will not allow a whimsical nuclear strike.

and USA can never have a mad President,

We need to deter American Madmen.

Too many obstacles for a rogue U.S. president. A nuke launched by the U.S. without first being attacked with a nuke will never happen.

Too many obstacles for a rogue U.S. president. A nuke launched by the U.S. without first being attacked with a nuke will never happen.
All it takes is a single Lie, WMD in Iraq ?

And what's this nonsense about a deterrent? A deterrent to non-nuclear countries maybe, but a deterrent to the U.S.? Keep in mind when the Iraq war was launched, the administration made sure a WMD attack would not deter them. They were actually talking to the media and the people, telling us that at a certain point in the crusade toward Baghdad, Saddam might launch a nuke. They were conditioning us so we almost expected it. WMD is not a deterrent to the U.S. or any other nuclear country, we have more nukes than they do.

All it takes is a single Lie, WMD in Iraq ?


Yes, that lie is good enough for invasion. But we are talking about launching nukes. That will never happen unless the U.S. or a really close non-nuclear ally is hit first.

Yes, that lie is good enough for invasion. But we are talking about launching nukes. That will never happen unless the U.S. or a really close non-nuclear ally is hit first. A Lie in form of a mistake can do that to a small country like NK, all they have to say "We thought Nukes were launched against us but we were wrong, they were simple missiles"

A Lie in form of a mistake can do that to a small country like NK, all they have to say "We thought Nukes were launched against us but we were wrong, they were simple missiles"

Don't insult my intelligence. A nuclear explosion and a regular missle attack are two very different things, that excuse would hardly work on people with down-syndrome. I'm ashamed I even dignified that with a response. :confused:

Wouldn't it make more sense to get rid of the nukes that the few countries have than try to arm the entire world with nuclear weapons?

Nope, because it would still leave the playing field unequal. Without everyone being armed with the nuclear trump card, it all becomes a war of which side has the most powerful conventional forces.

What's to stop the U.S. or another major country from attacking and taking over another one? Nothing. The reason why those weaker powers cannot do anything as this moment is because those powerful countries have the better conventional forces as well as nukes as a safety measure. Nobody is gonna mess with someone who has nukes. This is why those powerful countries don't invade other countries that have nukes, even if they wish they could.

Nukes level the playing field for everyone. Nukes keep this world safe. The only way to break that is to break nukes. Once nukes are gone, sides can become unbalanced once again. This is why the U.S. is trying to acquire a Nuclear Defense Shield (Star Wars, etc) because it'll eliminate the threat of intercontinental nukes which will then mean the U.S. has the upper hand again by removing nuclear fears from the equation.

- N

Nobody is gonna mess with someone who has nukes. This is why those powerful countries don't invade other countries that have nukes, even if they wish they could.


False. A weak, poor country with nukes means nothing. The reason nuclear powers aren't being invaded is because the countries with nukes are super powers or future super powers themselves. The only exceptions are Israel and North Korea. Israel is protected by the U.S., and an invasion of North Korea would just turn into another Vietnam, it's not worth it yet. What needs to happen is a rebel party needs to rise in North Korea with enough public backing from the North Korean people, than the U.S. and other powers will just help support the rebels.

Don't insult my intelligence. A nuclear explosion and a regular missle attack are two very different things, that excuse would hardly work on people with down-syndrome. I'm ashamed I even dignified that with a response. :confused: So what can anyone do after USA flattens a few cities ?

False. A weak, poor country with nukes means nothing. The reason nuclear powers aren't being invaded is because the countries with nukes are super powers or future super powers themselves. The only exceptions are Israel and North Korea. Israel is protected by the U.S., and an invasion of North Korea would just turn into another Vietnam, it's not worth it yet. What needs to happen is a rebel party needs to rise in North Korea with enough public backing from the North Korean people, than the U.S. and other powers will just help support the rebels. If I am a poor country, and USA invade me, I have nukes but they cant reach form here to there. Then I give them to the terrorist, the enemies my attackers with a promise to use them against them.

Nope, because it would still leave the playing field unequal. Without everyone being armed with the nuclear trump card, it all becomes a war of which side has the most powerful conventional forces.

What's to stop the U.S. or another major country from attacking and taking over another one? Nothing. The reason why those weaker powers cannot do anything as this moment is because those powerful countries have the better conventional forces as well as nukes as a safety measure. Nobody is gonna mess with someone who has nukes. This is why those powerful countries don't invade other countries that have nukes, even if they wish they could.

Nukes level the playing field for everyone. Nukes keep this world safe. The only way to break that is to break nukes. Once nukes are gone, sides can become unbalanced once again. This is why the U.S. is trying to acquire a Nuclear Defense Shield (Star Wars, etc) because it'll eliminate the threat of intercontinental nukes which will then mean the U.S. has the upper hand again by removing nuclear fears from the equation.

- N

Neildo, if every country has nuclear weapons, then it's the exact same as if every country did NOT have nuclear weapons. Since everybody has nukes, it will be the same as if everyone didn't have nukes; the most sophisticated, powerful conventional forces will again take the upper hand. In a way, the "nuclear trump card" negates itself. I might not have articulated this in the best way, but hopefully the point gets through. Think of it this way: If America and the rest of the world has nukes, but America still has a more powerful military, then America is still effectively the big kid on the block. Same thing as if nobody had nukes, but America had a more powerful conventional force.

This is why the U.S. is trying to acquire a Nuclear Defense Shield (Star Wars, etc) because it'll eliminate the threat of intercontinental nukes which will then mean the U.S. has the upper hand again by removing nuclear fears from the equation.

The U.S. may gain the upper hand against intercontinental nukes, but that doesn't keep the U.S. safe from a nuke detonated within the United States.

AmishRakeFight

If I am a poor country, and USA invade me, I have nukes but they cant reach form here to there. Then I give them to the terrorist, the enemies my attackers with a promise to use them against them.

Ok, give your nukes to terrorists. That won't stop your demise and once we deal with you we will deal with the terrorists. If the United States or any other power wants you gone, and you don't have a formidable military to protect yourself, you will fall, whether you have nukes or not.

Neildo, if every country has nuclear weapons, then it's the exact same as if every country did NOT have nuclear weapons. Since everybody has nukes, it will be the same as if everyone didn't have nukes; the most sophisticated, powerful conventional forces will again take the upper hand.

No it's not.

Nukes allow the losing side to go out with a bang. I'd love you to show me where that's possible to do with conventional arms. And since that bang is what people fear, it will cause others not to invade. The only way others will be allowed to invade is if they somehow render the threat of their enemies nukes useless, such as in the form of a nuclear missle defense shield.

What did America's great conventional forces do vs the Soviet Union? Nothing. How about China? Nothing. What is America's great conventional forces doing vs North Korea? Nothing. How about the high tension between India and Pakistan? They now do nothing ever since acquiring nukes.

Instead, we pick fights with their neighbors who aren't nuclear capable so both sides back the other little countries so as to not official declare war against those nuclear-armed countries.

When both sides are nuclear capable, it puts one another at an aggressive stalemate. In other words, peace.

Think of it this way: If America and the rest of the world has nukes, but America still has a more powerful military, then America is still effectively the big kid on the block. Same thing as if nobody had nukes, but America had a more powerful conventional force.

How is America still the big kid on the block with it's conventional military when the nukes everyone has prevents them from using those conventional forces? Please give me one example of two nuclear-armed countries going to war with each other.

Once the U.S. tries to use those conventional forces on a nuclear power, if that nuclear power doesn't have an effective conventional military, it will resort to nuclear warfare as that's the most effective means possible. And heck, those sides could have a powerful conventional military yet they'd still resort to nukes instead. U.S. vs Soviet Union and U.S. vs China. Need I say more about their threats where they wouldn't hesitate to use nukes right off the bat?

Think of it this way: gun ownership.

Gun ownership (nukes) evens the playing field between criminal and victim. For those that lobby to take away guns from civilians, it allows the criminals to still use them which makes the odds stacked in the criminal's favor. Now if for some reason, all guns in the world magically disappear, it still places the odds in the criminal's favor. Why? Because now everything relies on physical brute force (conventional forces). You'll then have big criminals victimizing smaller people where those smaller people cannot fight back too well. However, place a gun in both their hands where physical size no longer matters, and the odds are now much more even as opposed to having a physical fight between a large person vs a smaller person.

- N

Ok, give your nukes to terrorists. That won't stop your demise and once we deal with you we will deal with the terrorists. If the United States or any other power wants you gone, and you don't have a formidable military to protect yourself, you will fall, whether you have nukes or not.
Ok done.