vortexring 0 #26 December 15, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote It seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored. It may be hypocritical but preferable to any sovereign state arming itself with nukes whenever it has the capability. Would you really wish to live on a planet in the not too distant future where most nations have ICBM's? I'd assert such a future would increase the chances of nuclear conflict, not reduce it. So yeah, it's hypocritical, deal with it. Edit: Just so we're clear; nuclear armed nations should make every effort to prevent other nations becoming similarly armed, whilst making committed efforts to reduce their own over-stocked arsenals. Better that way. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Until we eliminate our nuclear arsenals we are in no position to criticize others on their nuclear ambitions. Nuclear armed nations may not be in a moral position to dictate, but what other choice do they have? I'm all for the reduction of nuclear weapon proliferation; and you are too, moral high ground or not. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #27 December 15, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote It seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored. It may be hypocritical but preferable to any sovereign state arming itself with nukes whenever it has the capability. Would you really wish to live on a planet in the not too distant future where most nations have ICBM's? I'd assert such a future would increase the chances of nuclear conflict, not reduce it. So yeah, it's hypocritical, deal with it. Edit: Just so we're clear; nuclear armed nations should make every effort to prevent other nations becoming similarly armed, whilst making committed efforts to reduce their own over-stocked arsenals. Better that way. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Until we eliminate our nuclear arsenals we are in no position to criticize others on their nuclear ambitions. Nuclear armed nations may not be in a moral position to dictate, but what other choice do they have? I'm all for the reduction of nuclear weapon proliferation; and you are too, moral high ground or not. Yes, I am, but hypocrisy isn't the way to go about it. Do as I say and not as I do is NOT going to work.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #28 December 16, 2012 QuoteQuote To reiterate, Iran signed a treaty pledging not to pursue nuclear arms, because as a world we agreed that fewer nukes and fewer possessors is preferable to more. If you compare the size of the US and FSU arsenals now to what they were in 1980, you see even they agree. How many countries has Iran invaded in the past 50 years, then? Are you joining the ranks of the hypocrites too? [Reduced citations to focus on key assertion] Why are you avoiding this point, kallend? It's particularly salient with the presumed ties to the North Korean missile testing. We know Iran invaded the US 33 years ago. And how is sending money to terrorist organizations (or nationless freedom fighters if you prefer) not acts of aggression? But it's irrelevant to the morality discusion; Iran is a signee to the NPT and can be held to their commitments. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #29 December 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote To reiterate, Iran signed a treaty pledging not to pursue nuclear arms, because as a world we agreed that fewer nukes and fewer possessors is preferable to more. If you compare the size of the US and FSU arsenals now to what they were in 1980, you see even they agree. How many countries has Iran invaded in the past 50 years, then? Are you joining the ranks of the hypocrites too? [Reduced citations to focus on key assertion] Why are you avoiding this point, kallend? It's particularly salient with the presumed ties to the North Korean missile testing. We know Iran invaded the US 33 years ago. And how is sending money to terrorist organizations (or nationless freedom fighters if you prefer) not acts of aggression? But it's irrelevant to the morality discusion; Iran is a signee to the NPT and can be held to their commitments. 1. Iran doesn't have a nuke. 2. In 33 years how many countries has the US invaded? Why are you avoiding the question? 3. Iran is not North Korea.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #30 December 16, 2012 QuoteQuote It seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored. unless they committed not to. NK did pull out of the NPT in advance, however. Unlike Iran or Syria. Right, and THIS thread is about NK, not Iran or Syria.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #31 December 16, 2012 QuoteIt seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored. I don't see it as a case of, "Do as I say and not as I do." It's a plea not to go down the same road as we have with all the problems/mistakes/close calls we've had since the 1940s. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2989211#2989211 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4376702;#4376702 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #32 December 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteIt seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored. I don't see it as a case of, "Do as I say and not as I do." It's a plea not to go down the same road as we have with all the problems/mistakes/close calls we've had since the 1940s. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2989211#2989211 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4376702;#4376702 Oh spare me the crocodile tears.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #33 December 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote It seems hypocritical to me for any country that has nukes and long range rockets to criticize another sovereign nation for developing the same things. "Do as I say and not as I do" deserves to be ignored. unless they committed not to. NK did pull out of the NPT in advance, however. Unlike Iran or Syria. Right, and THIS thread is about NK, not Iran or Syria. If that were the case, you probably shouldn't have brought Iran into the conversation: "Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Period. If it's OK for USA, UK, Russia, France etc. to have nukes and long range rockets, why is it not OK for Iran and NK? Just because we don't like them?" Hell, you even gave Iran top billing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
