Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (151280)	11/8/2004 12:30:06 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Let's not be disingenous, Michael: This is what you said: I'll give you a hint as to where I am leading up to - by working against any reasonable interpretation of international law, Bush's actions have all but guaranteed that nation-states will seek to nuclear-arm themselves. But Iran was intent in developing nukes before W assumed the Presidency. Your argument, as to Iran, which was the initial subject of discussion, therefore does not hold water. It does not hold water as to N. Korea for the same reason. It doesn't hold water as to India for the same reason. It doesn't hold water as to Pakistan for the same reason. Can you point to a single country which has initiated a nuclear weapons program in response to the Bush Administration's "lawless" behavior? "All but guaranteed" doesn't cut it for me; too speculative and utterly partisan. Unless, of course, you have an all-seeing chrystal ball. If this is your opinion, that's fine. It is my opinion that we have seen absolutely zero additional efforts for any states to become armed with nukes as a direct result of the Administration's disrespect for international law. To the contrary, the only thing we can say for a certainty is that we we have seen a salutary abandonment of nuclear effort by Lybia as a result of the Administration's actions.