Majestyk

Several of you have commented on this. Let me say that I've been impressed with the overall caliber of debate and moderation that I've seen take place on this board. I've only been aware of this board for a short time

However since, we are all human, we each suffer from the same tendencies. If, one group can display an inordinate amount of prejudice toward a point of view, to the point of disregarding fact and logic then, we are all susceptible to that tendency when, we are viewing an issue to which we have a strong emotional attachment.

ThinkDifferent

Iraqis in the recent past have not blocked any inspection efforts from UN inspectors. Hans Blix has said that they really have cooperated well. They have been vary of unilateral US inspection but haven't had any problems with UN inspectors. Inspection has halted only because of the start of this war. So it is the US which has blocked inspections. Somebody has already answered you regarding scuds. Coailition says it has captured a lot of territory but they still haven't come upon any chemical plant forget abt biological and nuclear ones.

Suspicion abt iraqs intentions can lead to inspections and pressure on them to divulge info but NOT war. War should be the last and final resort when EVERYTHING else fails.

El_Hober

They should still be considered innocent until proven guilty, regardless of previous actions.

Suppose I am busted for possession of some sort of contraband (), then, next year I am accused of murder. Now, I have committed a crime before, so they decide to execute me before the trial even begins, because, after all, I have a history of crime.

PsycheDelia

thinkdifferent, i am also an indian and i would thank you to not speak for me. i did not rejoice when india went nuclear, and i was not one of those people out celebrating in the streets. all i did was sit there in mute horror and profound disappointment that my country which had taken the moral high-ground when it came to nukes in other countries had given in and decided to join the club. when i decide to be objective about it, i can see the point of having being a nuclear country what with the problems with our neighbours and maybe even the hypocrisy of the nuclear nations that insisted that we sign the ctbt while they waffled on non-profileration issues.

but what does it solve, and what does it give us? immunity from an attack like the american stance on north korea's wmd where diplomacy is preferred to aggression? to beat a cliche to death, imho that's only because there is no oil in the korean peninsula. does it deter our aggressive neighbours? sure... like i keep telling people here (i currently reside in the usa) who are still apalled at the fact that we have nukes, neither india or pakistan intends to use them, possession is more symbolic. but what happens if some crazies in either countries gets their hands on those nukes? a lot has been said about the chances of musharraf being overthrown by islamists who are unhappy with his soft stand on the kashmir issue, but that doesn't mean that we have a shortage of crazies in our own country, and a potentially explosive political situation.

and if india does eventually win a seat on the security council, it will be more because the us champions india because of the wealth and therefore political clout of the indian community in the usa, and not because we have nukes!

at the risk of sounding like a pot-smoking peacenik (which i am ) i would like to see total disarmament for the whole world. other nations following the example of india, pakistan and north korea and producing weapons of mass destruction only set a dangerous precedent. what if every country with the means to do so were to produce these weapons? when the playing field is levelled and we all have nukes (or other wmd), what is going to prevent someone from actually using them? these are not guns, or assault rifles, or even conventional missiles... these are horrible horrible weapons that do unimaginable damage!

and to get back to current topics, i do not think saddam has any wmd. there is a lot of evidence that points to the fact that he doesn't have any - fabricated evidence provided to the security council which is disputed by even the cia, and the expert testimony of scott ritter and the likes. in fact if your assertion that possesing wmd makes a nation strong and relatively untouchable is indeed correct, wouldn't that deter the united states from invading iraq, with its hypothetical wmd??

PsycheDelia

here are a couple: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0322-04.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0314-08.htm

Loren Pechtel

They didn't get private interviews. That's a *BIG* roadblock. A U2 overflight was blocked also.

ThinkDifferent

Polls showed that more than 80% of the public opinion in India after the blasts were in support. In a democracy more than 80% is brute majority. Obviously you will never have 100% agreement on almost anything. That is the reason why i said the entire country rejoiced. After 911 about 80% people of the US supported the war on afghanistan. That can be counted as Full support from the entire nation. Lots of people in India came out on the streets to celebrate the tests. didn't they?

What is the use of moral-highground. It was good that india finally believes in realpolitik rather than being idealistic. If you had held your moral highground then you would have stayed back in India and "served" the country wouldn't you?

It does gives us a lot of immunity. If japanese had the nukes to take of a couple of cities in US, US wouldn't have used those nukes in 1945. Don't you agree?

As far as crazies getting there hands on such things, it can happen in any country(think abt the divided USSR). This argument isn't india-specific.

There is NO "potentially explosive political situation" in India.

Permanent seat is to be taken. nobody will give it to anybody. You need to be a big power to get one. You need to be a big economic power and a big military one. That is where nukes come into the pic. I really think you are overestimating the clout of indian community in US of A. That can be a factor but only a minor one in getting that seat.

I want total disarmament too. But again you are amking arguments as if they are india-specific. They are not. Is there a caste system in International politics.? Every body can have or nobody can have is the only acceptable logic.

Iraq doesn't have WMD. America knows it. The british know it. Thats why they have attacked. If iraq had, then they would have pursued more "democratic means".

PsycheDelia

that kind of thinking is very dangerous, particularly in a democracy. here in the usa, the current public support for the war runs close to your 80% figure (at least that's what the polls say), but that does not in any way minimize the voices of the anti-war folks who are out in the street everyday. and if 80% is indeed the brute majority, what of india, where the hindu community is just over 80%? where does that leave the minority communities that have, imo, as much of a stake in the way the country is run? that sounds like dangerous communalist thinking - and my country seems to perpetually teeter on the brink of disaster because of that kind of thinking.

this is not the forum for a personal finger pointing, and i do not appreciate that remark. i had planned not to dignify that with a reply, but i will i think: i have not left india permanently. i am not one of those scrambling for a work visa and making plans to get a green card. i only came here to get a masters degree, and i fully intend to go back home as soon as i am done.

oh yes there is. bombs going off in suburban trains might seem like everyday life back there, but what happens with the situation escalated to a gujarat-style confrontation? the peace in india is very fragile.

i didn't think my argument was india-specific. i only used india, along with pakistan and north korea as examples of countries that have only recently acquired nuclear weapons.

total disarmament is a noble objective. but espousing disarmament as an objective, while maintaining that profileration is the way to go kinda defeats the point doesn't it? so what is the point you are trying to make?

might probably does make right, whether military might, or just numbers - 'brute majority', but it doesn't have to. idealism is needed to keep that might in check, even if it is the minority voice. i personally try to proceed with 'a pessimism of the intellect and an optimism of the will'.

and yes, i know that iraq does not have wmd - that is a pretty obvious, despite the straw man arguments that the usa is making. i am sure that the possession of wmd would have made the 'coalition forces' think twice about going in, but that brings me back to a point i tried to make in my op. when every nation is armed with wmd, someone, somewhere is going to actually use them, and the thougth of that is more than just scary!

and finally - peace! (personal finger pointing notwithstanding)

wdog

quote" Iraqis in the recent past have not blocked any inspection efforts from UN inspectors. Hans Blix has said that they really have cooperated well. They have been vary of unilateral US inspection but haven't had any problems with UN inspectors. Inspection has halted only because of the start of this war. So it is the US which has blocked inspections. Somebody has already answered you regarding scuds. Coailition says it has captured a lot of territory but they still haven't come upon any chemical plant forget abt biological and nuclear ones.

Suspicion abt iraqs intentions can lead to inspections and pressure on them to divulge info but NOT war. War should be the last and final resort when EVERYTHING else fails."

blix reported that irqai cooperation was improving but still not at the level required by UN resolutions. Everything else did fail, the iraqi still refused the level cooperation required of them. It is the overall historical pattern of both saddam and the UN that bothers me. see my postings on the iraqi nuclear weapons program.