The examples I was referring to were the following.
(1)The right for pre-emptive strike.
Claimed by the US, North Korea, Australia and now Japan.
The War against Al-Qaeda does not need to refer to this as I thought I made clear.
The US was attacked first by Al-Qaeda and is now at war with Al-Qaeda. Simple. Get the lot of them!
(2)The right to use nuclear weapons on a first-strike basis.
This is outrageous and does nothing to discourage proliferation, especially when taken in context with the above case (1) above.
Pakistan also claims this right.
Israel says nothing, but we all know that they would use it if faced with overwhelming odds.
(I am not against this as I agree it is their only sure-fire way to protect themselves from superior sized armed forces surrounding them).
Neither of these 2 countries have signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty, so it can be assumed that they are outside of the loop of this.
These are rogue states IMO, and have been now joined by N Korea by it failure to comply with its obligations under the 1994 accord.
3) The unilateral abdication from previous treaties w.r.t. WMD.
I refer to
The 1972 (StartII) ABM treaty,
news.bbc.co.uk
The now-aborted Biological Warfare Treaty, that was meant to update the 1972 Biological Weapons convention.
news.bbc.co.uk
The Chemical Weapons Treaty of 1972
guardian.co.uk
What would you define a nation that fails/refuses to comply with International protocol and precedences - I guess it is one definition of a rogue state.
How rogue is rogue?
Complacent - call it as you see it. I do not consider it complacent. All I said was that N Korean behaviour matches those exactly of the Bush Administration to date.
These are the examples that G-W has set, which are being followed by North Korea.
I do not claim that Al-Qaeda is following his lead. If that is what came across, I apologise.
I agree that the US, and most of the world is at war with Al-Qaeda.
But do you really believe that Al-Qaeda is the same as Iraq and N Korea?
These 2 countries are a different sort of evil.
If you want to take out Al-Qaeda your first port of call is Pakistan after Afghanistan.
If you really believe that disarming or attacking Iraq will increase your chances against Al-Qaeda, then I must disagree with you.
If you really believe that launching a "conventional" land war against Iraq will improve your fight against Al-Qaeda then I am staggered.
Look how other countries have dealt with terrorists.
UK/Ulster
Israel/Palestine as soon as the country failed to differentiate, or attempt to differentiate, the terrorist from the general person the results always worsened.
This is a war that should be fought with CIA death squads, infiltration, remote assasinations, and espionage - not B1s and nuclear submarines.
I lived and grew up in London through the 70s to 90s.
We had the IRA, remember them? They bombed their way through England with a lot of Irish-American support and finance.
Can we now sue the Boston Irish families that donated money to "Irish Charities"?
That was OUR cities, OUR families, friends and neighbours.
I admit they did not kill 3000 innocents in one day, but over the period the number of innocents, on both sides, that died was in the thousands.
Any Israeli reading this can come up with even more recent examples.
This is the war the US is now fighting. An ongoing counter-insurgency guerilla war.
Yes you are right maybe a cigar is a cigar! I just get confused when you say that in a pipe shop.
Sorry Velo, I took the bait.
-macavity |
