Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

torture AND nukes ... what goes around comes around

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 04:41 PM
Original message
torture AND nukes ... what goes around comes around
Edited on Thu Feb-03-05 05:01 PM by welshTerrier2
I strongly agree with Senator Reid's statement that "torture puts our troops at risk" ... and it should not be open for debate whether torture is inhumane and morally reprehensible ...

underlying the argument Senator Reid presented at the Gonzales' hearings today was the very valid theme that we cannot expect others to adhere to a policy that we ourselves do not follow ...

OK ... stay with me now ... with that in mind, I turn to a discussion of Iran's alleged goal of obtaining nuclear weapons ... the very simple question is, does the U.S. have any legitimate basis to object to Iran's obtaining nuclear weapons when we ourselves possess an arsenal of them ???

will Reid, who has set a clear standard of "what goes around comes around", now call for the complete dismantling of ALL nuclear arsenals around the world including U.S. owned nuclear weapons ???

there needs to be a consistency to the Democratic Party's platform ... we cannot "define our values" inconsistently for each issue that comes along ... otherwise, the currently in vogue push to expound on the core values of the Party will be viewed as nothing but hypocrisy ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JaneDoughnut Donating Member (402 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good point
Disarmament needs to begin at home. That was one of the things that immediately alerted me that BushCo's motives were somewhat fishy in the run-up to war with Iraq.

Plus, if I were Iran, I'd be looking at Israel and thinking that I really need a nuke as a deterrant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. well, thanks ...
not much interest talking about nukes anymore, eh ??

that used to me one of the "big themes" of the left ... of course, back then we had the "mutually assured destruction" argument because of the Soviet Union's massive nuclear arsenal ...

now I suppose, it's viewed as "pushing the Party too far to the left" ... i'm not really sure why it is viewed as "left wing" to be concerned about the safety of the country ...

my post really had two important components ... the first was the importance of nukes as an issue by themselves ... but also important was "getting our core values and our core message" rock solid and consistent ...

i heard Reid's objection to Gonzales and agreed with him ... "torture puts our troops at risk" ... but the Democratic Party never seems to broaden a statement about one specific policy into a broader "value message" that applies across the board to every single issue ... you might think of it as the "golden rule" ... do unto others as you would have them do unto you ... that should have some political appeal ... if we don't do this, we will continue to lose power ...

that's what it means to me to have a "values based" platform ... it doesn't mean we turn our Party upside down to appeal to right-wing religious nuts ... it means that we define our values and allow our messages and policies to eminate in a consistent manner from those values ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
punpirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. The issue about Iran's potential for...
... nuclear weapons is not our arsenal, but, rather, Israel's.

At present, Israel maintains an absolute nuclear hegemony in the Middle East, even if they will not acknowledge that fact. Iran does not pose any threat, at present, to the United States--it simply doesn't have the capacity to do so. I suppose, eventually, if Iran were to develop weapons, they might be able to produce a small enough weapon that it could be transported to mainland US as ship cargo, but as for conventional delivery systems, they simply aren't a threat, either now or in the near future. That case does not apply with regard to Israel, however.

Therefore, the US is unilaterally protecting Israel's hegemony. The IAEA isn't issuing any proclamations of alarm, and their knowledge of Iran's progress toward weapons (as with Iraq's disarmament program), so far, is probably superior to that of the US.

I agree that the US stand on nuclear weapons is often hypocritical, but expecting the US, at this point in time, to completely disarm is neither practical nor politically viable. As well, the US has fairly consistently looked the other way when presumed allies began development programs (South Africa and India come immediately to mind).

In part because of the Cold War, we've come to think of nuclear weapons as global threats (because of the geographical orientation of the former Soviet Union and the United States), but their post-`50s proliferation is mostly due to regional conflict--India/Pakistan, N. Korea/S. Korea, Israel/Arab Middle Eastern states, northern Africa Islamic states/South Africa.

Without permanently mitigating those regional conflicts, one has to accept that any lopsidedness in regional parity will be seen as a defensive weakness on the part of the countries without significant deterrent, and non-proliferation efforts will be much more difficult.

In the case of, say, N. Korea, the recent bellicosity of the US isn't helping non-proliferation efforts--because of those very same nuclear weapons you describe as part of US hypocrisy, North Korea feels fully justified in carrying out a development program and in describing it as completely defensive--the large, affluent, nuclear-armed US is threatening small, defenseless North Korea. Iran may one day be saying much the same thing about Israel. At this juncture, Israel presents a much greater threat to Iran than Iran does to Israel.

The central hypocrisy in this (with regard to Iran), I believe, is not that the US itself has weapons; rather, it is that the US has used the non-proliferation process to protect itself and its allies and to threaten its foes.

When Bush unilaterally ignored the ABM treaty by proceeding with the installation of an ABM system, that in itself was a destabilizing action which most countries viewed with some alarm. It encouraged the Russians to develop new weapon counter-strategies and thus perpetuated the arms race. But, that action had little to do with other small nations' development--it was directed squarely at the Soviet Union, which has a rough parity in weapons with the US (and to a lesser degree, China, which may reach rough parity eventually). Nevertheless, it was a manipulation of the treaty process to further its own superiority, in much the same way as the US has used the non-proliferation treaty to its advantage. That's where I see the real hypocrisy.

Cheers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. excellent post, punpirate ...
your post showed a great depth of knowledge on the issue !!

"to completely disarm is neither practical nor politically viable"

i suppose my point isn't so much calling for unilateral disarming as much as having the U.S. push for global disarmament ... would you still view this as impractical? i mean, it certainly isn't going to happen with the republicans in control ... but is it impractical from an international balance of power perspective?

as for it not being "politically viable", again, i'm not clear what you mean by that ... if it's because republicans control the government, that certainly wouldn't preclude making this part of the Party's platform ... if it's because you think Americans "want to keep their nukes" and the position would hurt the Party, I'd say that we have to start an education campaign about the importance of pushing for an end to nuclear weapons or at least a reduction in their numbers ... the dialog needs to start somewhere ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
punpirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. As disheartening as it sounds...
... US nuclear weapons development and production has proceeded apace ever since we first tested one in 1945, regardless of the stripes of the administration in power. That's what I mean by it not being politically viable. Some of that is the vested interests of the nuclear industry itself, but as much as anything, I don't think there's a politician alive that could convince the public that Russia, China, etc., would destroy their weapons, too. Conversely, I doubt there's a Russian member of the Duma that could be convinced we'd get rid of ours.

Given that reality, the issue becomes one of how well each administration controls the growth of the US arsenal, and how serious each is in enforcing the various treaties impartially. Bush's administration has easily been one of the worst in that regard--not only because of its manipulation of the treaty process for political ends, but because it has tried to begin a new arms race through weapons development and through policy--particularly in its 2002 nuclear strategic posture paper asserting the right to a preventive first-strike nuclear posture (which may yet figure in the attack on Iran, if the decision is to strike that country's research facilities).

Cheers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Delphinus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
5. Well,
You asked:
does the U.S. have any legitimate basis to object to Iran's obtaining nuclear weapons when we ourselves possess an arsenal of them ???

My answer:
We Do NOT have any legitimate basis to object to Iran's obtaining nuclear weapons. Iran, Iraq, North Korea, whoever ... we are NOT the world's policeman and we are not the fucking role model the dips in Washington think we are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JaneDoughnut Donating Member (402 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
7. Good article for you
You'd probably be interested in Naom Chomskey's thoughts on what the US action in the ME is likely to trigger in the weapons development arena:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0203-22.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. thanks, Jane ...
i'll check it out ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 03rd 2024, 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC