Topic awaiting preservation: Bush going nuclear... (Page 1 of 1)

Whoever said the bush was burning was indeed incorrect...

Policy May Lead to Danger, Not Safety - Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Miami Herald http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/7714703.htm

I think you mean, "nucular"

Some bunkers simply cannot be destroyed with conventional explosives. Allowing a state like a N. Korea to operate completely unhindered in a bunker like that does not contribute to a safer world either. If we can't develop weapons to defeat a potential enemy, can the government be said to be fulfilling one of its primary functions which is to protect its citizens?

. . : slicePuzzle

ooooooh, sticky stuff

quote:

---

If the U.S. government is not careful, our own new nuclear posture could provoke the very nuclear-proliferation activities that we are seeking to prevent.

---

and

quote:

---

Some bunkers simply cannot be destroyed with conventional explosives. Allowing a state like a N. Korea to operate completely unhindered in a bunker like that does not contribute to a safer world either. If we can't develop weapons to defeat a potential enemy, can the government be said to be fulfilling one of its primary functions which is to protect its citizens?

---

I agree with both, can I do that?!

quote:

---

...Instead, the Bush administration seems intent on doing just the opposite. Many of its actions and much of its rhetoric may actually be increasing the threat from nuclear weapons rather than making the world safer

---

quote:

---

It is critical to set a very high international standard for nuclear restraint. If America does not, it may likely encourage others to develop their own standards and nuclear arsenals.

---

At last someone who understood that arms race and cold war ( I refer here to the PR campaigns, and the underlying actions , held by terrorists and against terrorists, by the USA and the "evil" countries ) is not the solution to make the world safer.



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 01-21-2004).]

poi, and the solution is???

Dialogue and respect. Learning and understanding what lead people to consider the western societies as a threat at the point that they grow their children and people in hatred and send them to bomb themselves. For sure it's more difficult than throwing millions of bucks in arms race but the law of the Thalion leads nowhere but to more violence on both sides.

You may say that the terrorists made a lot of victims in USA and other countries, but a terrorist would then argue that the western society opressed him and his people. That's a vicious circle.

On the other hand, the WWII made an horribly huge number of casualties but now the countries involved at the time, co-exist in peace and respect ( of the countries themselves but also of the harm made to others ).



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 01-21-2004).]

poi, I think that solution is a very (read too) Western answer. Sometimes that works very well between countries that hold those concepts in mutual regard.

But what do you do if and when you are faced with an enemy that is attacking you because they want you along with your dialogue and respect eliminated? The reason I am framing the question this way is because Al-Qaeda has stated very specifically in their statements of purpose to bring Islam to *everyone*. The Western democracies and the world's other democracies like India and Japan, are NOT COMPATIBLE with Al-Qaeda's agenda and ideology.

The choice they are offering us is clear, if you are willing to take their own words, and that is we either accept their version of Islam or they will continue to try to kill us.

. . : slicePuzzle

I get your point. Nonetheless it's not really up to us to accept or reject that version of the islam but up to the muslims themselves. If we, as western societies, keep throwing some oil on the fire, we are playing the game of the terrorists and thus enforce their message. On contrary if we try to understand them, and their harms, we could start a dialogue and the extremists will gradually find fewer and fewer people to share their vision and commit terrorist acts.

That concept is certainly not admitted by everybody on earth, but the concept of non-violence is such an evidence that I'm sure we can find some analogies in the sacred books and use them, if needed, as a base to spread it.



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 01-21-2004).]

quote:

---

Al-Qaeda has stated very specifically in their statements of purpose to bring Islam to *everyone*.

---

U.S. Foreign Policy: Bring American Democracy to "*everyone*". This is simply a public relations activity. U.S. leaders are praised by Western leaders for pro-Democracy statements while al Qaeda is praised by Islamists and other extremists for pro-Islam statements. Each group has their public that they play to in order for their vision to be shared.

Bugimus: It looks like you do believe everything the government feeds to you.

Poi: I share your pro-nonviolence opinion.