Text 22419, 58 rader
Skriven 2008-10-23 13:45:43 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Loyalties
=================
Hello Bob,

On Wednesday October 22 2008 08:55, you wrote to me:

 RB> Who would attack Iran

The US? Israel?

Iran has every reason to feel threatened. First there was this "Axis of evil"
talk by George Bush. Then there was the invasion of Afghnistan and Iraq. The US
had shown a frim determintation to act against regimes they did not like. They
had - and stil have - good reasons to think they would be next.

 RB> if they were't constantly threatening their neighbors and preaching
 RB> murder and mayhem instead of sitting back and enjoying the fruits of
 RB> their oil income?

You know what happens when you corner a cat and threaten it. It will hiss,
growl and show fangs and claws.

 RB> No, in that case the reason is probably more to use them as a threat
 RB> to gain political influence.

I disagree, I think they really feel threatened and I think they have good
reasons for that.

 RB> Which, incidently, appears to be perfectly clear to their neighbors
 RB> (think of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, among others), who don't like the
 RB> idea one little bit.

Of course they don't. NOBODY like the idea of the neighbour having nukes,
especially when you do not have them yourself.

 RB> I was thinking more about smaller countries threatened by larger ones.
 RB> Nukes are also deterrents.

And I think that is precisely why countries like Iran en N. Korea may want
them. The me we apply right of might to keep them from it, the more they will
feel the need for them.

Of course that does not mean it will be a good thing. Acquiring nuclear weapons
will unevitably brings the opponent to wanting them too. And when the want
continues it will only be a matter of time before they eventually get them. And
then all will be worse off than when no-one had them.

For that reason Israel should never have been allowed to have them.

Also: remember that right of might has the severe drawback that the might
always comes to en end. If the right of mght is abused - and it almost always
is - then some day, when the might has changed hands, someone will do unto you
what you did unto them when you were still the bearer of the might. In the end
the right of might always backfires.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)