If Hussein or blin Laden will not end up triggering a nuclear exchange, then another major terrorist or a dictator will.
I find you are looking at the issue with a narrow view, disregarding most possibilities and focusing on just the nukes. Please note that we are now in the age of biotech, where using only information available on the net and mail order DNA samples, people created a living virus.
news.bbc.co.uk
This is an unescapable, glaring point that should haunt the days and nights of control freaks who support Bush in his quest to invade all countries with nuclear powers: Nobody needs nukes anymore to unleash hell on millions of another country.
So the question, in my humble opinion, is not to embark on a futile quest to try and prevent other countries from having nukes. It is to make sure that whoever uses WMDs like nukes, chemicals, or biological weapons will be burnt ten times worse.
Perhaps, if this world is to survive, there can be no longer such a thing as a country’s “internal affairs” in the traditional meaning.
That is, of course, nonsense. There will always be "internal affairs" of a country where the US will not be able to poke his nose into short of an all-out invasion and installment of its own "friendlies".
Perhaps, thugocracies and dictatorships must be made illegal.
Right. I would love to see you try and argue that in an international platform. <g>
"Illegal" according to what law? And how exactly do you define "dictatorship", and especially "thugrocy"? Any regime that is not identical to that of the US?
At the end of the day, it is up to the people of a country to decide what to do with their own administration. Anything else is dictatorship of the US over the rest of the world. |
