That is all fine and good. But you have to understand that because of Bush's actions the USA no longer has the authority or weight behind our words to do anything about it.

We have LESS influence over it because of the Bush administration's pre-emptive war. Thanks again Bush (the list grows longer)!

Neither Germany nor Japan was anywhere in the neighborhood of developing a workable nuke in WWII.

If you want to talk technical fantasies, fine. But please excuse me from the discussion.

If you're interested in a discussion of real-world politics, let's proceed.

Israel is the military 500 pound gorilla in the Middle East, as it has proven time and again over the past half century. It has a much larger nuclear arsenal than Pakistan, and Iran can't hope to achieve anything near Israel's capability within the forseeable future. Israel is fully capable of deterring any nuclear threat from its neighbors.

Or perhaps you're just trying to stretch a point by claiming that a Kashmir (a territory disputed and claimed by both India and Pakistan since 1947) border dispute is the same thing as an invasion.

In any case, what gives Bush the authority and jurisdiction to unilaterally demand that Iran cease its nuclear program? He's already been an absolute failure in achieving any success with North Korea. I think he just wants another convenient Boogey Man, now that Saddam is gone and he's lost interest in bin Laden. Ahmadinejad fills that role nicely - another radical nutcase, only slightly more demented than Bush himself.

I think it's about time we got some adults to take charge of nuclear armed nations again.

Well, a nation doesn't need to have a "workable nuke" in order for it to be considered as having a nuclear weapons program.

Well, if you want to confuse what is technically feasible with what is "politically correct," then be my guest.

Well, all it would take is a handful of Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons to devastate Tel Aviv...and many aspects of Israel.

And, again, Mutual Assured Destruction is not a deterrent for anyone who holds a martyr mindset.

In fact, to a martyr, Mutual Assured Destruction is an inducement.

Well, I'd say that the Kargil War was an invasion of India by Pakistan since Pakistani ground forces crossed over the line of control agreed to by Pakistan and India at the end of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and which was reinforced with the signing of the Simla Agreement of 1972.

So, in essence, Pakistan did "invade" India in the Kargil War.

Well, perhaps your hatred of Bush simply clouds you ability to think rationally about this Iranian nuclear issue.

Well, in message #17 you clearly stated the following:

"The US is strongly opposing the "rights" of other nations, such as India and Iran, to develop their own nuclear weapons while housing the biggest military complex supplier of weapons to other nations. This hypocrisy screams in the face of the world. I live in the US. The hypocrisy of this administration affects my life."

So, again, where exactly does this "right to develop nuclear weapons" come from?

(Perhaps, like some other folks I know, your ability to think this issue through has been clouded by your hatred of Bush.)

So I guess, then, that the US aught to just sit on her hands and not even attempt to do anything about this new nuclear arms race in the Persian Gulf that has already begun?

Someone else can head it, we can support them.

If we had taken on Iran when we needed to do so (1979) we surely would not be suffering a lot of the problems we are today. A good strong military response at that time would have had better results than the useless debate we are engaged in now.

If we had a decent strong President in the last 40 years who truly cared for the people of our great country then we wouldnt be in a lot of the messes we are now.

True. Your point is?

It's not at all confusing to me.

Or any other nation.

You forgot to type, "In my opinion."

Nothing but a border squabble in an area long disputed. You obviously like arguing trivialities.

Perhaps Bush's well demonstrated inability to address international situations in a rational manner is why pre-emptive nuclear strikes against a nation that is no threat to the USA are being considered.

Or perhaps your hatred of anyone who puts forward a differing opinion has made you incapable of seeing the insanity of the entire circumstance.

Ah well the NPT...

Firstly it is a ridiculous document formulated to halt nuclear proliferation. It ALSO required a gradual disarmament of the nuclear capabilities of other nuclear nations.

That has NOT happened.

In fact the US has cosied up to two nations that have ALSO broken the treaty ( INdia Pakistan). Sure there was a hue and cry at the time, but both nations are now enjoying US patronage AND India has just signed a nuclear deal with the US. SO it seems that the gravity of the breach of the treaty is actually judged by the policy of the offending nation vis'a'vis the US.

SO to put forward the NPT as a justification for armed conflict and/or sanctions is just CONVENIENT.

The fact is that there is something awfully wrong in the UN . That is the SC. The 5 permanent members are a travesty to the concept of international justice and global democracy. In the UN every nation is equal.. but SOME nations are MORE equal than other. That would be the nations that hold the veto.

This arrangement was necessary in the post WW2 era. However it does NOT reflect the realities of today.

The NPT was formulated and promulgated by an organization that was and IS completely dominated by 5 nations.

It is inherently unfairly weighted in favor of the 5 permanent members of the SC. THe treaty was formulated by the 5 members allowing ONLY THEM the right to own nukes. That is neither fair, noe can any nation be expected to adhere to a treaty that allows rights for only a few chosen nations.

I think the NPT MUST be re-formulated. It must be tabled in the UN General Assembly. The SC should be abolished ( at the very LEAST the priveliged status of the 5 permamnent members should be abolished )

It is vital for world peace that nobody develops and proliferates nukes. However this agreement can only come by consensus on a forum of EQUALITY, with the SAME rules applying to ALL nations.

This stupidity of special dispensations for certain nations ( including the veto), not only diminishes the impartiality of the UN, but also makes the UN an impotent organization.

It makes a mockery of global democracy, and it makes the UN nothing more than a tool for the 5 permanent members to impose their will on the world AND it gives any dissenting nation the full right to dismiss it.

It's clear discrimination of the same order as blacks having to sit in the back of the bus. As the admin in the US was formed at the time, unless the blacks had agitated they would not have been able to change anything. WHy? Because the system was geared in such a way that only the white votes mattered. Just like only the 5 permanent members' vote really matters.

In the UN everybody else can take a running leap. What a joke.