U.S.A.’s high hypocrisy hobbles nuclear stance (cut and pasted collumn)

[lars573]

U.S.A.’s high hypocrisy hobbles nuclear stance


By Stephen Kimber
The Daily News

Is it just me or does the American attitude to Iranian nuclear weapons development — and to Iran itself — hike to the highest, most hideous, nosebleed heights of hypocrisy?
Consider. The United States is the only country in the world ever to use nuclear weapons against an enemy, a decision that is still widely justified, even celebrated, in the U.S. Americans already lay claim to the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, but that didn’t stop George Bush from upping the ante: shortly after “winning” the presidency in 2000, he ended a freeze on nuclear weapons production and launched a program to develop smaller tactical nuclear weapons he could use on the battlefield. To make matters worse, Bush declared the U.S. would have no hesitation about using these weapons of mass destruction first if he, in his oxymoronic wisdom, decided that was what the situation called for.

This same George W. Bush, of course, now harrumphs about Iran attempting to develop nuclear weapons and says it must stop or face the “consequences.” A battlefield nuke, perhaps?

Consider, too, the Bush administration’s overall attitude toward Iran, a country Bush not that long ago described — along with North Korea and the soon-to-be-invaded Iraq — as a member of the “Axis of Evil.”

The U.S. has a long and truly ugly history of interfering in Iranian affairs. In 1953, it engineered the coup that overthrew the country’s last truly democratic government, then propped up an unelected, despotic but America-friendly Shah of Iran for more than 25 years before he was finally deposed in a popular uprising in 1979.

Despite the fact the Shah refused to rule out developing nuclear weapons of his own, his Washington backers happily approved the sale of assorted nuclear reactors and other equipment believed capable of enriching uranium, to his brutal regime. Among the Ford administration officials of the day most eagerly pushing those sales: Ford’s Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, Chief of Staff Dick Cheney and arms control czar Paul Wolfowitz, all of whom, of course, now claim the only possible reason Iran could want its own nuclear program is to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The irony — one of way too many — is that the Bush administration supports the only two countries in the region known to possess nuclear weapons — Israel and Pakistan — and has made no serious effort to force either to disarm. Or sign on to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty — as Iran has done. The U.S., in fact, has blocked enforcement of United Nations Security Council resolutions calling on Israel to put its nuclear facilities under international trusteeship, and for Pakistan, along with India, to eliminate its nuclear weapons stockpiles.

Israel and Pakistan, of course, are among Iran’s most implacable, sabre-rattling enemies. And you wonder why the Iranians might want nuclear weapons of their own?

Far from attempting to ratchet up the nuclear ante, however, Tehran has publicly called for the entire Middle East to become a nuclear weapons-free zone. But the Bush administration threatened to veto a draft UN Security Council resolution in December 2003 that called for such a no-nukes zone.

Now that the newly elected president of Iraq, former Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, threatened to restart his country’s uranium conversion program — a potential step on the road to making nuclear weapons — the Americans have been busy questioning the new government’s legitimacy. Bush even claimed that Iran’s recent election failed to meet “the basic requirements of democracy.”

Huh? He of the hanging chads and stolen elections is questioning the legitimacy of another country’s election?

None of this is to suggest we shouldn’t be worried about Iran’s nuclear intentions, or concerned that Iranians have elected such a hardliner as its new president.

But the reality is that the United States — which knows a thing or two about electing a hardliner as its president — has painted itself into a corner with its long history of hypocrisy.

If it expects the Irans of this world to take its bluster seriously, it will have to rethink its own blinkered, might-is-right double standards and not only treat its friends, like Israel and Pakistan, the same way it deals with its enemies on the issue of nuclear proliferation but it must also begin to reconsider reining in its own mad nuclear weapons program.
As Cyrous Nasseri, an Iranian delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency, put it last week: “The United States is no position whatsoever to tell anyone and to preach to anyone as to what they should or should not do in their nuclear program.”

More’s the pity.

I can say that I agree with the point he's making. But this guy still think that the Bush camp rigged the 2000 election some how.

[lancelot]

I can say that I agree with the point he's making. But this guy still think that the Bush camp rigged the 2000 election some how.

Well, there is a wealth of literature out there that suggest there was quite likely some 'funny business' with regard to the election... The whole 'florida' issue for one thing...

IIRC, one of the judges deciding on the eligibility of votes was a senior name in the bush administration...

Now, said person might be completely legitimate and blameless but common sense says this is at the very least a conflict of interests..

[scooter_the_shooter]

It was not rigged...Thats just somtheing all the dems say because they are still mad.

[Hurin_Rules]

I've never quite understood why the US gets the right to deny others what it and its allies already have. This has always seemed to me the height of hypocrisy. I really don't know how anyone can defend it.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Well america and its allies dont chant things like "death to the infidels" I dont want people like that having nukes......do you?

[Meneldil]

Well america and its allies dont chant things like "death to the infidels" I dont want people like that having nukes......do you?

Surely a lot of people from Pakistan chant "Death to the Infidels", just as a lot of people from Isreal chant "Death to all Muslims", yet their respective country have the nuclear bomb, with the US blessing.

[Steppe Merc]

I have to say I agree. I hate nukes, and I think that Iran or anyone shouldn't be building them, or even keeping them, but how can we claim that others can't make a few nukes when we have far more?
People won't take us seriously when we do exactly what we tell them not to do, and more.

[Hurin_Rules]

Well america and its allies dont chant things like "death to the infidels" I dont want people like that having nukes......do you?

Wasn't it Jerry Falwell who said, and I quote:
'blow them all away, in the name of the Lord'

Does that mean your country doesn't get to have nukes anymore?

[scooter_the_shooter]

All I am going to say is..... if you want to try and get rid of America's nukes, come try and take them

[Crazed Rabbit]

Except, unlike Iran, his type is not in power here.

Iran wants these weapons a lot, and not for defensive capabilities, but so they can threaten the entire middle east (and perhaps the world).

The US, however, has shown that they are capable of responsibly controlling nuclear weapons.

just as a lot of people from Isreal chant "Death to all Muslims"

Any proof?

Crazed Rabbit

[Al Khalifah]

I think these accusations of extremism are being put out of context. There is a far greater number/percentage of extremists in Pakistan or Iran than in the U.S or Israel. There are a few of these idiots in America, but there are a lot of them in Iran.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The typical poor attempt by the "left" at moral equivalincy.

[Hurin_Rules]

All I am going to say is..... if you want to try and get rid of America's nukes, come try and take them

Actually, if its a simple case of might makes right, I can respect your stance. What I don't respect is this holier-than-thou attitude that cloaks the realpolitik in something very different, a high moral stance. If you just don't like the idea of brown Muslim people who live near Israel and control your oil having the bomb, then say so. But don't pretend that your capable of using nukes 'responsibly' when you're the only one to use them against civilian targets--to use them at all, for that matter--and are breaking international treaties, fighting elective wars, invading other sovereign nations on false pretexts and breaking down the barriers between conventional and nuclear weapons at the same time. If it is just a case of might makes right, then at least have the balls to admit it.

[Redleg]

One must remember that Iran signed a document that stated they would not use the technology given to them to develope nuclear energy to develop nuclear weapons.

[Proletariat]

If it is just a case of might makes right, then at least have the balls to admit it.

It's both Hurin, and you and everyone else in the free west should be grateful that it's America who is the world's superpower and not Iran. Unless of course you want your daughters wearing burquas.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, there is a wealth of literature out there that suggest there was quite likely some 'funny business' with regard to the election... The whole 'florida' issue for one thing...

IIRC, one of the judges deciding on the eligibility of votes was a senior name in the bush administration...

Now, said person might be completely legitimate and blameless but common sense says this is at the very least a conflict of interests..

The core truth of that election is that the liberal left shot itself in the foot.

Both parties nominated very beatable candidates:

Gore - a boring richboy who, though experienced in government. had few if any real policy goals and loved to take credit for things he had little to do with -- such as the internet.

Bush - a boring richboy with character, but lacking anything even resembling effective comm skills or debating savoir faire (hey, I like him, but "smooth" he was not).

Despite a decent economy and the power of some degree of incumbency, which should have let Gore take the GOP apart, the rabid hatred of Clinton galvanized the right wing to support Bush with few exceptions - keeping his voter base solid.

By contrast, Gore wasn't stridently liberal enough for many left wing voters - despite writing a book on the evils of the ICE and staunch support for the mainstream liberal agenda items. He lost a lot of votes to a splinter leftie: Ralph Nader.

In Florida, the closest political battleground of the 2000 election, Bush won by less than 1,000 votes (this has been established by several recounts, some sponsored by the NY Times and Washington Post). The court shenanigans of both parties were ugly, but didn't change this basic fact. Under electoral college rules, winning by even 1 vote gives all of the electoral votes of that state to the winner, and that was Bush.

The saddest note for the Gore campaign was the votes taken by Nader in Florida -- some 90,000. If even a few of these anti-government lefties, say 2% of them, had held their noses and voted for Gore so as to stop the far more conservative Bush, then Gore would have been President.

A scan of the actual voting results (numerous sites) is quite instructive.

It's as simple as that.

SF

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If you just don't like the idea of brown Muslim people who live near Israel and control your oil having the bomb, then say so.

I say the less people who have them the better. I dont care what color or religion they are but how stable they are and how likely they are to use these weapons for their own gain.

But don't pretend that your capable of using nukes 'responsibly' when you're the only one to use them against civilian targets--to use them at all, for that matter-

And that use perobably stopped not only more deaths in WW2 but a great many more whena bigger bomb might have been used later on. The very terror of those two bombings maybe responsible for there being no major wars since and have prevented a nulear exchange between us and the USSR.

fighting elective wars, invading other sovereign nations on false pretexts and breaking down the barriers between conventional and nuclear weapons at the same time. If it is just a case of might makes right, then at least have the balls to admit it.

And what do you think the world would look like if Iran had the power of the US? Just think about it.

[Redleg]

Actually, if its a simple case of might makes right, I can respect your stance. What I don't respect is this holier-than-thou attitude that cloaks the realpolitik in something very different, a high moral stance. If you just don't like the idea of brown Muslim people who live near Israel and control your oil having the bomb, then say so.

No need to do that - there is an international treaty that states Iran would not use the technology to build weapons

But don't pretend that your capable of using nukes 'responsibly' when you're the only one to use them against civilian targets--to use them at all, for that matter

Do you really want to go in that direction - the historical evidence is out there about why the bomb had to be used in Truman's own words and futher backed up with the actions and words of the Japanese Military Council.

--and are breaking international treaties,

And what is Iran doing with the attempted building of nuclear weapons,

fighting elective wars,

An opinion

invading other sovereign nations on false pretexts

Not proven in any way shape or form - the best you have is that the reason stated for going to war were shown to be false - that means that the judgement was poor, the decision bad - not a false pretext.

and breaking down the barriers between conventional and nuclear weapons at the same time. If it is just a case of might makes right, then at least have the balls to admit it.

What barrier has the United States broken on the use of nuclear weapons? There is a certain treaty that the United States can be criticized for not ratifing in Congress, and then there is the building of new weapons to replace old weapons - an arguement that could be used to support your statement here.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Actually, if its a simple case of might makes right, I can respect your stance. What I don't respect is this holier-than-thou attitude that cloaks the realpolitik in something very different, a high moral stance. If you just don't like the idea of brown Muslim people who live near Israel and control your oil having the bomb, then say so. But don't pretend that your capable of using nukes 'responsibly' when you're the only one to use them against civilian targets--to use them at all, for that matter--and are breaking international treaties, fighting elective wars, invading other sovereign nations on false pretexts and breaking down the barriers between conventional and nuclear weapons at the same time. If it is just a case of might makes right, then at least have the balls to admit it.

The attack was justified against japan. Do not say it wasn't. We would have lost over a million people in an invasion and if we blockaded them they would have lost alot more civilians.


I dont care if they are brown....wtf are you saying that for....I would not want the IRA to have nukes either.

[Sjakihata]

USA is very unstable as well, and I'd rather not that they have nukes. That WILL be the end of the world, sadly.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I've never quite understood why the US gets the right to deny others what it and its allies already have. This has always seemed to me the height of hypocrisy. I really don't know how anyone can defend it.

A classic point. Ultimately, the USA has no moral right to deny nuclear capability to anyone. It is not our right to do so, it is our regrettable duty.


We once used atomic weapons to help end one war and to "send a message" to a less than friendly ally in that conflict. We did not know, then, the persistent horrors of nuclear fallout and contamination and counted them no worse than the other horrors of that war. We figured that by having a weapon which could destroy the target even if only one bomber got through -- and no air defence is perfect -- we would be too scary to push around.

Knowing these tools of destruction, the USA has never employed them in combat since. Even when called for by field commanders to stop the human wave attacks of the Chinese "volunteers" in 1951 or as a means to shred North Vietnam and preserve our client-state of South Vietnam, the US has chosen not to employ them. Soviet Russia sent equipment and fighter pilots, but let Soviet China send volunteers in range of UN battlefield nukes (I've always wondered if those hundreds of thousands of Chinese dead were what really began the breach between Red China and the CCCP?).

Underneath it all, we hope to prevent the spread of such weapons technology in order to limit the possibility that someone without a sense of restraint or history will ever possess such tools. Working to prevent proliferation is not a right -- it is a duty.

SF

[Gawain of Orkeny]

USA is very unstable as well, and I'd rather not that they have nukes. That WILL be the end of the world, sadly.

So just who do you think were getting ready to bomb? If the US is unstable then the rest of the world is in big doo doo.

[Xiahou]

I've never quite understood why the US gets the right to deny others what it and its allies already have. This has always seemed to me the height of hypocrisy. I really don't know how anyone can defend it.

If I'm in my home with a gun while some drugged-out whacko is trying to batter down my door, should I open a window and toss him a gun of his own so as not to be hypocrital?

Since when was it hypocritical to not want your enemies to have nuclear weapons?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So just who do you think were getting ready to bomb? If the US is unstable then the rest of the world is in big doo doo.

Agreed.

Apply the ruthless gamesmenship you do in an RTW campaign.

In the late 1960's, the USA knew that a coordinated 1st strike against the USSR and the PRC was not only possible, but winnable. The liquid-fueled missiles then used by the Soviets were susceptible to a first strike, and a coordinated assault by our attack subs would have put a large percentage of the Soviet ICBM sub fleet on the bottom before firing. The USA would have lost a dozen or so cities and a few 10s of millions dead, but we would have broken both the USSR and the PRC beyond repair. We could then have dictated terms to the rest of the world. A number of you out there are just that ruthless in your fictional campaigns.

We didn't. The thought that even a few people were considering it turns our stomachs. We value life -- and not just USA life -- too highly for that. We do not have the stomach for true conquest. Hitler wouldn't have hesitated.

Hitler: You mean we are in a position to achieve TOTAL world domination for the forseeable future for the cost of only 15% of my population? Show me the button!

So just how unstable are we, really? A little inconsistent in our foreign policy - yes. Fixated on irrelevant consumerism - absolutely. A mixed bag of moralists and debauchees - okay, you got me. Unstable on key issues of life, death, and the universe -- our record isn't all that bad.

SF

[Hurin_Rules]

Do you really want to go in that direction - the historical evidence is out there about why the bomb had to be used in Truman's own words and futher backed up with the actions and words of the Japanese Military Council.

There are two important issues here. On the first, reasonable people could reasonably disagree: 1. Did America have to use the bomb to prevent losing hundreds of thousands of its own soldiers. I can understand why people make that argument. But on the second issue, there really is no defense: 2. The USA dropped the bomb on a civilian target. This completely undermines the argument that it is a 'responsible' user of nuclear weapons. This was a terrorist act, in every sense of the word.

And what is Iran doing with the attempted building of nuclear weapons,

.

A red herring. If I murdered civilians does that make it right for you to do so as well? Obviously not.

An opinion

No, a fact. Iraq was an elective war.

Not proven in any way shape or form - the best you have is that the reason stated for going to war were shown to be false - that means that the judgement was poor, the decision bad - not a false pretext.

???? You've just proved my point. The reasons stated for the war were false. This is the very definition of a 'false pretext'.

What barrier has the United States broken on the use of nuclear weapons? There is a certain treaty that the United States can be criticized for not ratifing in Congress, and then there is the building of new weapons to replace old weapons - an arguement that could be used to support your statement here.

And the US is blurring the boundaries between nuclear and conventional weapons by its continuing development of 'tactical' nukes and a new generation of smaller nuclear weapons with lower yields. So in additon to pulling out of arms treaties, it is breaking down barriers on the use of nuclear weapons.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No, a fact. Iraq was an elective war.

All wars are elective. Just because someone declares war on you dosent mean you are obliged to wage war on them.

???? You've just proved my point. The reasons stated for the war were false. This is the very definition of a 'false pretext'.

All the reasons or just your selected few?

[Xiahou]

There are two important issues here. On the first, reasonable people could reasonably disagree: 1. Did America have to use the bomb to prevent losing hundreds of thousands of its own soldiers. I can understand why people make that argument. But on the second issue, there really is no defense: 2. The USA dropped the bomb on a civilian target. This completely undermines the argument that it is a 'responsible' user of nuclear weapons. This was a terrorist act, in every sense of the word.

From Wiki...

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance. Some military camps were located nearby such as the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops.

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

Are we going to have to rehash all of this on this thread?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Keeping in mind, of course, that the US put the theocracy in power there in the first place.

Um...the US supported the Shah (though Carter didn't have the guts to do anything about it when the revolution came, but that wasn't because he supported the Ayatollah Khomeni).

You've just proved my point. The reasons stated for the war were false. This is the very definition of a 'false pretext'.

There is a difference between acting on facts which turn out to be incorrect, and actively lying.

Crazed Rabbit

[Redleg]

There are two important issues here. On the first, reasonable people could reasonably disagree: 1. Did America have to use the bomb to prevent losing hundreds of thousands of its own soldiers. I can understand why people make that argument. But on the second issue, there really is no defense: 2. The USA dropped the bomb on a civilian target. This completely undermines the argument that it is a 'responsible' user of nuclear weapons. This was a terrorist act, in every sense of the word.

Under the standards of warfare as praticed by all combatants - you are still incorrect. The evidence of the military value of both cities are also on the web for those who wish to know can discover.

A red herring. If I murdered civilians does that make it right for you to do so as well? Obviously not.

How is it a red herring - Iran signed a treaty about not using technology given to them to build a nuclear device. To state the United States is by hypocritical in its approach to Iran is a valid arguement - but to say Iran can violated a treaty because the United States has weapons - is also hypocritical. The red herring is the arguement you are using to say Iran has the right to build one

No, a fact. Iraq was an elective war.

Prove it is a elective war - I happen to think its a continuation of Desert Storm since Iraq violated the cease fire.

???? You've just proved my point. The reasons stated for the war were false. This is the very definition of a 'false pretext'.

No a false pretext would be that the people in power knew that the weapon information were made up by themselves.

Pretext is defined as a purpose or motive alleged or an appearance assumed in order to cloak the real intention or state of affairs

False is defined as intentionally untrue

So once again bad decisions and poor judgement does not make for false pretext. Can you prove that the evidence was made up by the Bush adminstration or the Blair administration?

And the US is blurring the boundaries between nuclear and conventional weapons by its continuing development of 'tactical' nukes and a new generation of smaller nuclear weapons with lower yields. So in additon to pulling out of arms treaties, it is breaking down barriers on the use of nuclear weapons.

So care to explain why over 1000 "tactical nuclear weapons" have been destoryed by the United States? (And I already know the answer to this one).

So it seems your confusing build with the word use in this last paragraph also. The United States has not used a nuclear device in warfare since the end of WW2.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I say the less people who have them the better. I dont care what color or religion they are but how stable they are and how likely they are to use these weapons for their own gain.

I agree with the conservative club's chieftain!


Here's the deal: the minute anybody here steps forward and in all seriousness tells me he feels as threatened by France's nuclear force as he feels by North Korea's and (soon-to-be) Iran's, I'll admit to being a hypocrite.