Re: meet reality.....increasingly it is not 'if' or 'whether'....it is 'when' and 'how'....
- From: "TD" <tdefries@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:23:37 -0000
"Aramis Gunton" <Aramis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ALaRXbKYBizDFwuG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In message <u6brs1lki6l0mviortuh1hviand332hvvr@xxxxxxx>, abelard
> <abelard2@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>>All that must be made clear - but it must also be made clear, by the
>>united powers of the United Nations, that any insistence by Mr Ahmadinejad
>>on pursuing his present policy will be met with such a response."
>
> It appears obvious that the general consensus dictates that Iran should be
> actively prevented from acquiring the means to pursue any programme that
> may result in the development of nuclear weapons.
>
> Fair enough but why?
>
> "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes in the coming of the Mahdi and
> something approximating to what Christians term the apocalypse. He also
> sincerely believes that Israel should be wiped off the map and that the
> Nazis did not murder six million Jews. I think we can agree that such a
> man ought not to have a nuclear weapon and, if we can't, then those who
> dissent should urgently seek psychiatric help."
>
> So....
>
> "Is it because we is muslims?"
No it most certainly is not. It is because the Iranian administration makes
noises about destroying other countries.
> When one stands back and actively shelves one's prejudices is it not
> difficult to make a reasonable case against Ahmadinejad desire to provide
> his nation ostensibly with the means to protect themselves?
>
> Pakistan, India, China, Israel and North Korea have their toys so
> objectively what is so outlandish with respect to Ahmadinejad's
> intentions?
It is outlandish because he talks about wiping other countries off the map?
Besides, they already have their toys, so there is not much we can do about
them.
> You see I would not give a child a loaded gun because I would doubt their
> ability to exert sane judgement with respect to it's usage but similarly I
> would not hand over the keys to my car or allow them free access to the
> gas cooker. They would be simply unable to cope, for that is the nature of
> a child.
>
> Such behaviour may well leave me open to accusations of discrimination yet
> the general consensus moves us to oppose 4 year olds from driving one's
> BMW at rush hour.
>
> But is it fair?
Define 'fair'.
Some thoughts:
We don't allow 4 year olds to drive BMWs at rush hour because we believe
they are generally not competent to do so.
If the Iranian administration just got on with making Iran a better place
for Iranians, they wouldn't have to worry about being attacked by Pakistan,
India, China and Israel (I don't know about North Korea). But the Iranian
administration has talked (in apparent sincerity) about wiping Israel off
the map, and destroying England too.
If all countries could be trusted to be reasonable and fair, we wouldn't
need nuclear weapons. We have nuclear weapons because other countries can't
be trusted. Countries we can't trust with nuclear weapons shouldn't have
nuclear weapons!
> --
> Aramis Gunton
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: LOL ! Corrie In "White Trash" Storm !
- Next by Date: Re: Pair face death for Horton murder
- Previous by thread: Re: meet reality.....increasingly it is not 'if' or 'whether'....it is 'when' and 'how'....
- Next by thread: Re: meet reality.....increasingly it is not 'if' or 'whether'....it is 'when' and 'how'....
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
