On 4/13/06, uvj at vsnl.com <uvj at vsnl.com> wrote:
>>No. But Iran is almost completely isolated on this question.
>Again irrelevant.
Irrelevant to Iran and Iranians? It is easy (or less difficult) to attack nations that are isolated.
Ulhas
-------------- next part --------------
On 4/13/06, uvj at vsnl.com <uvj at vsnl.com> wrote:
>
>
> No. But Iran is almost completely isolated on this question.
>
>
> Again irrelevant.
Does that mean that U.S. terrorism and threatened first use of nuclear
weapons against Iran is justified because Iran is isolated? Or is it that
you are simply in favor of the patriotic double standards that judges the
U.S. on a different scale than other states?
As far as Pakistan's nuclear policy, it is much more complicated than you state, and is also directed only and explicitly against India. This is no excuse for our current allies own entry into the Nuclear Terror "community" but there is a huge difference between the U.S. and Pakistan.
The U.S. maintains an official policy of threatened first use against everyone in the world and is capable of delivering on the threat. And if you were a Pakistani citizen I would advise you to find someway to change the nuclear policies of Pakistan.... Since I am a U.S. citizen and the U.S. has used the nuclear terror threat more often than any other country I think it is minimum decency to point out the usual hypocrisy of U.S. worries over Iranian refinement of plutonium.
I am still wondering why you are so concerned with irrelevancies.
Jerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060414/15471a00/attachment.htm> -------------- next part -------------- ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk