[The American Lion]

[Ombrageux]

Last one is quality

[repr0bate]

The soldier has a red cape (USSR), a British helmet, and an American rifle.

'Nuff said.

Sorted.

[The American Lion]

[Ixa]

www.workers.org

[Boondock Saint]

List 1 reason that America gets to have nukes and the DPRK doesn't.

Because an international treaty says so.



This one does not even make sense, he is not dealing with Iran or North Korea by calling them the Axis of Evil, in fact it is the opposite of dealing with them. As for the Newseek stuff I paraphrase something Jay Leno said this past week ...

'This White House has come out and said Newsweeks story about the Quran has damaged Americas image over seas and I believe it too. IF there is anyone who knows about damaging Americans image over seas, it's the White House.'

[Saf]

Because an international treaty says so.

Nice... Then again, if there was an international treaty that told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?

[Boondock Saint]

Nice... Then again, if there was an international treaty that told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?

Strawman.

- The international treaty is not telling anyone to do anything.

- An international treaty as far as I know can not be directed at one individual.

- Like it or not by international law North Korea is not permitted to develop, possess, purchase or in anyway at all recieve nuclear weapons.

[Saf]

I think you're forgetting one of the basic premises of international relations: the international system is a system of anarchy with no laws whatsoever. All laws are voluntarily followed unless a body like the US or US can enforce them. In other words, the exist as excuses for countries/organisations to initiate force against those who violate them, but there is no international government to penalise North Korea.

[Rhinestone Pseudo-Commie]

The US is allowed to have nukes because so many people are pissed off at them. Fair fight, no?

[Attila The Nun]

For the last time, the US practices deproliferation, North Korea practices proliferation. That's the difference.

[Boondock Saint]

I think you're forgetting one of the basic premises of international relations

I think you are ignoring reality and depending on imagination.

There is an international treaty that says five nations may possess nuclear weapons, no one else. End of story. Anyone who violates that law is in violation of international law, period.

That is why it is 'wrong' for North Korea to have nukes, that is why it is 'wrong' for Israel to have nukes, for India and Pakistan to have nukes ... because the five nuclear powers of the world say so.

The strong rule the weak, that is a human truth.

[Saf]

There is an international treaty that says five nations may possess nuclear weapons, no one else. End of story. Anyone who violates that law is in violation of international law, period.

Of what government is this a law? What sovereign state has this on their lawbooks? That's right, no one. States have signed this treaty, but unless they enforce it no super-state is going to sweep down on the DPRK and stop it. Calling a treaty law = playing word games (and incorrect ones, at that). International law is a buzzword, nothing more.

Let me try an example... Let's say everyone in my neighbourhood agrees to buy only green trash cans to keep one aesthetic. I think this is retarded, and I buy a blue trash can. I may be "in violation of neighbourhood policy #1342" to which my 10 most popular and powerful neighbours may have agreed, but outside of their ability to enforce it, it isn't United States or Virginia or York county law forcing me to buy a green trash can.

[Boondock Saint]

What sovereign state has this on their lawbooks? That's right, no one.

The five nuclear powers. Dude, that isnt some tin pot group of dictators! That's the nuclear five!

but unless they enforce it no super-state is going to sweep down on the DPRK and stop it.

Oh I agree.

International law is a buzzword, nothing more.

I agree again.


However you did not ask 'why do you think North Korea should be able to own weapons' you asked (and I paraphrase) 'why is it wrong for North Korea to own nuclear weapons?' ... I gave you the reason.

You don't like it? Fine.

Fact is the nuclear five are the masters of the world and until someone can topple them or replace them their will is law.

You asked, I answered. You don't like the answer that is fair enough but it does not change the reality of it.

[Ombrageux]

Russia, France and Britain are not masters of the world. Russia's people are dying and their military is facing a sharp decline.

France and Britain have been practically powerless since Suez. Though they have some influence through the EU as a trading power, it's still pretty weak.

The USA is the one and only superpower, until China, India and Brazil get their shit together at least.

[Luke]

India and Brazil, DumbTeen? Way to live up to your name

[Ombrageux]

India, yes. There's going to be 1.5 billion of them before they cap out. They're going through the economic reforms to strip away their constricting regulations. Meanwhile by sheer size and economy they're going to dominate the entire subcontinent. They already have the only aircraft carrier east of Suez, they are militarily up to par.

Brazil similarily will have almost 300 million people and have already passed Russia in both economy and population.

People seem to focus on ChinaChinaChina. But there's plenty of other giants ready to pass the sclerotic Russia, Europe and Japan.

[Luke]

Neither India nor Brazil have any political power throughout the world. Lots of people does not mean lots of say in world events.

[Ombrageux]

Not yet obviously. But they are powers to watch out for. They have the people and the stability, all they need is some economic reform and they can take off to strongly undermine US influence in Latin America and South Asia (IE, watch out Pakistan).

[repr0bate]

India and Brazil, DumbTeen? Way to live up to your name

Luke, you crack me up.