« ANOTHER WAR MONGER!! (No, it's not Bush...) | Main | That's Not Fair! / Das ist nicht fair! »

Comments

Sharia? I don't like it,

Rocking the Casbah,

Rocking the Casbah!

(Sorry for going off-topic so soon but I felt we could all use some comic relief...)

Entgegen anderslautender Berichte ist die wehrhafte Demokratie weiterhin aktiv wie immer und spricht auch Verbote aus, wie z.B. gegen Gruppen wie Hizb Ut-Tahrir (auch bekannt als "Partei der islamischen Befreiung") oder den Verband der islamischen Vereine und Gemeinden (besser bekannt als "Kalifatstaat" mit zahllosen Untergruppierungen).

Auch gegenüber rechts- und linksradikalen Gruppen ist man weiterhin wehrhaft. In den USA erlaubte Gruppen wie die faschistische NSDAP/AO (AO = Auslandsorganisation) in Nebraska wären bei uns angesichts der historischen Chamberlain-Erfahrung undenkbar. Man darf nicht erst mit den Verboten warten, bis kleine fanatische Gruppen gross sind.

Ich weiß gar nicht, ob der Kalif von Köln 2/3 abgesessen hat oder von der Halbstrafenregelung profitiert hat. Gab es da eine günstige Sozialprognose? Das wäre doch lächerlich. Wehrhafte Demokratie klingt mehr nach Bangebuchsen (oder wie schreibt man das?). Nur nicht die Terroristen reizen, sie könnten uns ins Visier nehmen. Daß Chirac wieder davon sprach, die Wurzeln des Terrors ausmerzen zu müssen, also die Armut, läßt jeden Terrorexperten zusammenzucken. Nur Chirac und Villepin plappern immer fleißig davon. Gibt es denn in Frankreich niemanden, der ihnen mal die Zusammenhänge erklärt?

@Gabi

Terror läuft auf mehreren Ebenen. Schauen Sie sich doch mal die willigen Selbstmord-Attentäter von Hamas ein: Die kommen keineswegs alle aus reichen Familien wie die Attentäter vom 9/11.

Wenn ein Terror-Experte behauptet, blühender Terrorimus hat nichts mit möglicher Solidarität in verarmten Gebieten zu tun, dann hat der Terrorexperte keine Ahnung. Gilt nicht nur für den Nahen Osten, sondern auch für Südamerikas Terrorgruppen in ländlichen Gebieten.

Nur komisch, daß die Terroristen dann nicht z. B. vorrangig aus Subsahara-Afrika kommen, wo die Menschen ja nun einmal wirklich richtig arm sind, sondern aus denjenigen Staaten, die heute die repressivsten 'Regierungen' haben, die gezielt ihre Propagandamaschinerie dafür nutzen, den Haß, der eigentlich sie treffen müßte, auf den Westen zu lenken... Sei es der Mittlere Osten, sei es Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro oder wer auch immer.

Afrika ist und war schon immer ein gesondertes Problem. (Auch erschreckend, wie wenig uns dort Tote beschäftigen im Gegensatz zu Leichen im Rest der Welt. Es gibt offenbar - leider - eine rassisistische Medien-Wertigkeit im Sterben und wie dies in den Medien dargestellt wird, egal ob linke oder konservative westliche Medien.)

Fakt ist, daß lokale Armut oft ein Solidaritätsumfeld für Terrorismus geschaffen hat.

Und Stichwort "repressivste Regierungen" gilt so nicht. Siehe Sendero Luminoso, EZLN, FARC. (Wenn Chavez bereits das Superlativ "repressivst" verdient, wo in Venezuela immerhin die kommerziellen Privatmedien opponieren und Leute offen demonstrieren, was war dann Hitler oder was ist dann selbst China im Vergleich, wo weniger erlaubt ist?)

Readers may want to check out Anne Applebaum's recent article on Iraq and Madrid:

Western Unity Takes a Hit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64803-2004Mar16.html

I'm still encouraged by what I'm seeing in Germany post-Madrid compared to the initial reaction over Iraq.

You also need to read this article in Front Page:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12649

...In a sum, this was a sort of a psychological coup d'etat conducted from the outside with support on the inside. It was most probably carried out by al Qaeda on the ground, but most likely provoked by a greater consensus of powers. To stop the greater Middle East initiative undertaken by the US and its Allies, you need to dismantle its tools. In order to do so, you must destroy the Coalition-of-the-Willing. You would concentrate on its weakest component, in this case, Spain. All you would need to do is to bring down its government -- staging an electoral coup initiated by a terror act a few days before the elections is certainly possible, as we have just witnessed.

Al Qaeda can strike at anytime, anywhere, and by any means. All that would have to be done would be to ensure that al Qaeda would strike during the specific time frame of the Spanish elections. And that is the art of the very possible. So, in sum, one finger would trigger al Qaeda, and the other would trigger the media response, amounting to a pincer move to unseat Aznar's party in 72 hours. Now that the trains of Jihad have derailed Spain, who is next?

I asked my human rights activist friend what other mission did not receive the Mideast opposition groups at the UN, like Spain. He said, “Great Britain….”

----

The ME Initiative is working, otherwise we wouldn't be getting squeezed.

The Saudis just stated that elections will not be allowed for Parliament???? because the public could elect people who are uneducated, can't read.

>An die Stelle des Leitbildes der "Wehrhaften Demokratie" und der Ablehnung der Appeasement-Politik ist - unter dem pausenlosen Bombardement linker Medien - ein wimmerndes "Nie wieder Krieg" getreten.

Get a grip on reality. The Schröder government took part in two wars (Serbia, Afghanistan) in order to defend democracy and still has troops in both countries. In Serbia/Kosovo Germany still has the largest group of troops.

>Sei es der Mittlere Osten, sei es Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro oder wer auch immer.

If you put Hugo Chavez in that list it only shows your strange attitude towards democratically elected leaders, perhaps towards democracy at all. Take a look at other countries in Latin-America and compare carefully. Just because he's not going to take it that the population of an oil rich country is living in poverty (because foreign oil companies show an amazing lack of social responsibility) doesn't make him a communist, nor a dictator.

Really, Jens?

He's a huge admirer of Fidel. They're best buds.

Even brought in some of Fidel's goons to keep the peace.

It's not that they're oil rich, it's that the governments are corrupt.

Stalin, Khatami and Sadaam were also "democratically elected."

It's not the process, it's what comes after. Those judges who ruled against Hugo were very, very brave.

AND he's handing out passports to every Abdul, Mohammed and Yassir who asks.

Pay attention to what's happening in Mexico. Live, on camera, fraud busters. Read it in the WSJ last week.

"We Tried Appeasement Once Before" by Mark Steyn in today's Telegraph speaks to this subject and is recommended. Click on http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;?xml=/opinion/2004/03/23/do2302.xml

Germany's sending troops to Afghanistan *after the Taliban was defeated* is not to be belittled, of course, but it was not a large effort for a country of 80 million that has the world's third largest economy to make. Sending troops to Kosovo, although probably necessary, does not contribute anything to winning the war on Islamic fascism (it is, in my opinion, nonsense to describe what we are fighting as a war on terrorism. Sixty years ago, the US did not fight a war on kamikazes, the terrorism of its day. The US and her allies fought a war on Japanese imperialism combined with Shinto fanaticism).

Apparently, the majority of the German public and virtually all of the German press thinks that Germany is doing all that she needs to do to protect herself and help win the war on Islamic fascism. I doubt that much of anything will change in Germany after the Madrid attacks. The only way that Germany will join the offensive is if some truly catastrophic occurs in Germany and, even then, it would be just as likely for the German leaders and people will do just as Zapatero and the Spanish people have done.

David,
Can you post this somewhere? We'll have to wait a few hours before Der Spiegel and Stern blame German cooperation with the US on the Horn of Africa for this threat. Let's not forget the excellent teamwork from the Bundeswehr (in Afghanistan and on the Horn of Africa) in the fight against terroroism.

Danke Bundeswehr! Wir werden euch nie vergessen!

Chris

BERLIN (Reuters) - German President Johannes Rau has cancelled a planned visit to Djibouti after German security services warned him of an assassination plot, his office says.

The statement said the security services had received information that an Islamist group planned to kill him during a visit to the Horn of Africa state to meet German troops stationed there.

The decision to cancel the visit comes amid heightened security fears following the recent train bombings in Madrid by a group suspected to be linked to al Qaeda.

"In the judgement of the services responsible, there was a considerable and concrete personal risk to the President," the president's office said.

But Djibouti's Communications Minister Rifki Abdoulkader Bamakhrama told Reuters he was not aware of any plot against Rau, who had also been due to meet his Djibouti counterpart.

"There is no plot against any president from any country... There is no risk signalled by our security service," he said, insisting that his country was stable.

"I have just heard that the president's trip was cancelled. The Germans are afraid of an attack and of course are free to decide whatever they want."

Although it opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq, Germany has cracked down hard on militant Islamists since it emerged that several of the plotters behind the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States had lived in the country as students.

German navy personnel are serving in Djibouti as part of the U.S.-led "Enduring Freedom" operation against al Qaeda militants. Dozens of suspected militants have been arrested in the Horn of Africa over the past 15 months.

Rau, who has held the largely ceremonial office of German head of state since 1999, steps down this year and is expected to be succeeded by the head of the International Monetary Fund, Horst Koehler.

@Ambrose
>>I doubt that much of anything will change in Germany after the Madrid attacks. The only way that Germany will join the offensive is if some truly catastrophic occurs in Germany<<

You are certainly correct.

Try the following test.

Tell a German friend that opposition to the Iraq war will not protect this country from terrorism, because Germans have already been targeted in al Qaeda attacks.

Wait for the laughter to subside and ask him what April 12th 2002 means.

Ask him/her if El Ghriba rings any bells.

9 times out of 10 you will be met with a blank look.

Now if Germans can't even bother to REMEMBER an 18 month old al Qaeda suicide bombing that kills 14 fellow citizens (including children) what hope is there that a homeland incident would rouse them to ACTION.

@Aidan

Likely true that "El Ghriba" isn't wellknown, but because it was headlined in the media as "the Djerba bombing" and today usually referred to it by this different name.

Try "Djerba" instead.

You might as well ask people about Paddy and Sari's. How many would know it? (Hint: better known as "the Bali-Bombing")

>Tell a German friend that opposition to the Iraq war will not protect this country from terrorism, because Germans have already been targeted in al Qaeda attacks.

Well, if you claim the reason for opposition to that war was to "protect this country from terrorism" you are just making an assumption, that suits you, but it's not justified.

Sandy,
good you replied on the Chavez issue. Here's what I think and I'm not claiming, I get it all right.

>He's a huge admirer of Fidel. They're best buds.
Even brought in some of Fidel's goons to keep the peace.

Now look at the order of thing. He was elected and some unelected army officers tried to take over pwer. Within the first few hours the US official position was against Chavez, but in favour of the "new government". So he could not rely on parts of his troops, nor on help from the US. So, some hint from the US that they support the democratically elected government and not some want-to-be military dictators would have helped a lot to not make him seeking other protectors.

>It's not that they're oil rich, it's that the governments are corrupt.

Like any other government in Latin-America. Still when you see who's fighting against him, it's exactly those oil companies, who fear they may have to share part of their profits not with him (they shared with former corrupt governments) but with the majority of the population.

>Stalin, Khatami and Sadaam were also "democratically elected."

Well firstly, initially they did not come into power by democratic elections. Chavez however, was elected while opponents of him were in power. Secondly, the mentioned dictators left no chance for their opponents to take back power through democratic elections. You can't say that of Chavez. There's still freedom of speech in his country and no attempts by the government to remove it.

Here comes your part where I completely agree:

"It's not the process, it's what comes after. Those judges who ruled against Hugo were very, very brave.

This is true and they will succeed.

AND he's handing out passports to every Abdul, Mohammed and Yassir who asks.


Pay attention to what's happening in Mexico. Live, on camera, fraud busters. Read it in the WSJ last week."

Now I ask, who benefits from driving every Latin-American government, that tries to give more responsibility to the people into the hands of left wing dictators, by always the same ways: supporting parts of the army to remove elected governments, supporting unelected governments, even when they don't even implement the slightest trace of democrarcy (like in Chile)? It's hypocrasy, when the very people who complain about Chavez supported every real anti-democratic dictator in Latin-America, as long as he was not left wing.

Oops
"This is true and they will succeed."

was not a quote from Sany, but a commenty by me.

Jens,

You make some very sweeping statements about Latin America:

>It's not that they're oil rich, it's that the governments are corrupt.

>Like any other government in Latin-America

Really? *Any other government* in Latin America? I assume you can back this statement with facts about each and every one of them?

>Now I ask, who benefits from driving every Latin-American government, that tries to give more responsibility to the people into the hands of left wing dictators, by always the same ways: supporting parts of the army to remove elected governments, supporting unelected governments, even when they don't even implement the slightest trace of democrarcy (like in Chile)? It's hypocrasy, when the very people who complain about Chavez supported every real anti-democratic dictator in Latin-America, as long as he was not left wing.


Are you still living in the 1970's, or what?

>You make some very sweeping statements about Latin America:
...Really? *Any other government* in Latin America? I assume you can back this statement with facts about each and every one of them?

I must admit, here I went too far. But make "any" "many" and then it's OK. My apologies to the other many Latin-American governments, which some are really trying hard to improve the state of their countries.

>Are you still living in the 1970's, or what?

Well, actually what happened regarding this Chavez bloke rather suggests that some in the US in particular the CIA still live in the 70's.

This is what I'm interested in understanding better.

1. Does Germany believe that she is part of the war on Islamic fascism, even if she wishes it were otherwise?

Based on what direct sources tell me (my father-in-law and a fairly extensive number of friends and acquaintances in Germany), the behavior of Schroeder government, the statements of the German press and the comments on this website, I'd say the answer is no. It would appear that any changes that are occurring as a result of Madrid are minor and slow.

2. If Germany really believes she is not part of the war on Islamic fascism, will she join after a catastrophic attack occurs in Germany?

If one accepts that Germany really believes she is not part of the war on Islamic fascism (or that she in fact believes that there is not actually a war to be fought, but a law enforcement action to be taken, a la Sen. Kerrey) then it's safe to assume that nothing short of a catastrophic attack in Germany would cause her to join. Even then, it's not at all certain she would join. I believe Germany's response would be as bad as Spain's. I hope I never find out.

3. If Germany really believes she is part of the war on Islamic fascism, then why she is doing so little to fight and win this war?

No war has ever been won by only taking defensive action. No one has ever stated how wars are won more clearly than Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. who said, ". . . no b------ ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb b------ die for his country." If a nation of 80 million with the world's third largest economy accepts that she is in this war, why isn't she doing much more right now? Germany's behavior today parallels, in my opinion, the behavior of Britain and France in the winter of 1939-40 (the Phony War or Sitzkrieg). That is not a good model to follow.

Ambrose;
Many Germans believe there is no terror. the only danger to the world peace is Bush!
The same with Israel. They believe if Sharon would be more peaceful, there wouldn't be terror.

So, this situation is really fatal. Help! We live among peace monsters!

@ambrose

Since no one else replied yet, lemme try a totally biased answer.

1. Does Germany believe that she is part of the war on Islamic fascism, even if she wishes it were otherwise?

Germans are well aware that they are within the target of Muslim terrorists, though a lot of them still seem to be in an odd safety-feeling that it'll likely hit others first (and if here, then only US- or British installations). A false feeling, as terrorists consider us a good part of the target as well and tend to act by surprise, less by logic.

2. If Germany really believes she is not part of the war on Islamic fascism, will she join after a catastrophic attack occurs in Germany?

Germans already joined. There were countless measures taken since 9/11 on the law-enforcement side and plans drawn up. Bush acknowledges this from time to time.

And a bomb in Germany would be different than in Spain: Germans stand behind their Afghanistan-engagement, unlike the Spanish people did. People won't shy away from sacrifice when they are convinced of their leaders past actions.

3. If Germany really believes she is part of the war on Islamic fascism, then why she is doing so little to fight and win this war?

So little? What do you suggest doing other than countless anti-terror measures? Invade Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Lebanon and Saudi-Arabia? And this would help how against terror-cells right in our midst?

FKANB,
I think there's a some room for improvement in Germanys support for the WOT.
At first the German government as well as the EU should suspend their finacial support for the so called Palestinian Authority under Arafat, until that bunch of crooks change their current behaviour and take serious action against terrorism. I mean, look at the priorities. Schröder and Fischer spent a lot of effort to make their point about the war against Saddam very clear, which is fine with me, but they do not spend the same effort to make their point about the terrorism in Israel clear. Yes, they condemn it with words, but still give money to the PA, which supports the terror.
So they treat an ally, which they think makes a serious mistake, worse than a clear enemy.

Another example, they still haven't locked up the main leaders of the so called KLA in Kosovo. Don't get me wrong, I'm not on the Serb side, I'm glad Milosevic is locked up and I'm looking forward to seeing some more Serbian war criminals being locked up, but the inequate handling of Albanian war criminals (this attitude: don't touch the leaders, situation could escalate, arrest some of the low ranks) sends a signal to other terrorists, which is: if you're strong enough in your country and you show determination to fuck up a whole country if you're not left doing your business, you can use terror quite successfully for your purposes and in the event you end up in the assembly being a respectable politician.
This way you cannot win the war on terror.
I see well, that the Kosovo issue is very complicated and fragile so I'm not demanding much. Though when it comes to Israel the EU support for the PA it just makes me sick.

@jens
Germany armed those KLA leaders, so yes it is they that should dis-arm and arrest them.
The items you mention that the "eu" or germany should no to contribute more to the war on terror have been the same damn thing the US has been asking for.. for years. Why the sudden change of heart? Is the US now beleivable in the eyes of germans? Do they not know that a "cow" exists untill it kicks them in the damn head?
And now the great genious Donald Rumsfeld is having a press conference on troop redeployments.
The german press asked in a very accusational way- "So whats up with US troops for germany, why are you, and when will you move these troops?"
Rumsfled reminded her that germany is right now doing the same damn thing with the re-alignment of her troops, and that he could not confirm dates and numbers.
I have gotten no answers from those in germany as to why they will not permit (without tears of rage) the US troops to get the hell off of german soil forever- once and for all? How can a country make the accusations and spew the poisonous nonsense at the US it does, but then be so bitter and again critical at the US when we want our troops out of germany for good?
Who can explain that duplicitous hyprocrisy?

Thank you, Gabi, FKANB and Jens Schmidt for responding.

Let me start by restating that this is a war on Islamic fascism, not on terror. Wars can only be won by defeating the enemy, as Gen. Patton's comment makes brutally clear. Defeating any enemy in any war requires military action.

To answer FKANB's question, the governments of Iran and North Korea must go, as there is no possibility of sufficient change such that they will no longer be a threat. The governments of Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia must change or go. The positive changes in Pakistan must continue and be strengthened. To achieve this, the use of military force has to be available if the point is reached where there are no better choices, although it is not necessary to take military action in every case to force change, as the recent developments in Libya show. There is no question, though, that the liberation of Iraq was necessary in order to force the changes in Libya. It's my opinion that the government in Iran will fall before war is necessary. I'm far more pessimistic about North Korea.

Wars aren't won through better law enforcement. With all due respect to FKANB, Germany's improved law enforcement is not a sign of that she has joined the war on Islamic fascism. Peace-keeping also does not win wars, which is why the German effort in Afghanistan, although very useful and appreciated by this American, is also not a sign of that Germany has joined the war on Islamic fascism

Both Gabi and FKANB acknowledge that Germany is a likely target. Perhaps the beliefs of the German public about being a target are changing. My wife and I haven't spoken to any friends in Germany since Madrid. Until now, they all said that a major attack in Germany would never happen. The one exception was my father-in-law, but living a few hundred meters from the Reichstag gives him a different perspective. We don't see any change in this regard in the Deutsche Welle broadcasts that we receive.

If Germany accepts that she is a target, then she needs to develop a real military capability to defend herself and, if attacked, defeat the enemy. That means, among other things, that she must develop a real expeditionary force of sufficient size with appropriate support capability that can go to any country in the Middle East or beyond. Great Britain, a smaller country, has such a capability, so it is false to claim that Germany can not develop this capability. If Germany chooses not to do this, then I'd like to understand better why she is choosing not to defend herself. I realize what I've just written is not very pleasant, but please consider this. Assume that there was a major attack in Berlin tomorrow with perhaps 1,000 Germans or more slaughtered. What could Germany do in response and would you think that would be sufficient? You should not include NATO, France, the EU, Great Britain or the US in your answer about what Germany could and should do. If you say that Germany's response can only be through NATO etc., then I wonder why Germany expects others to defend her if she is incapable of defending herself.

@pato: KLA is another monster created by all of us, Germany and US. Taliban, KLA, Saddam, you name it. Here is just one article from the conservative Murdoch-owned Sunday Times on US and KLA/UCK:

http://www.serbia-info.com/news/2000-03/12/17775.html
(no idea about the site - just googled it up. Article seem genuine)

This repeated pattern of arming the wrong enemy is so common at the CIA that they invented the term "blowback" for this effect.

And on "disarming" them: US would have better capabilities, as they built in Kosovo the biggest US-base since Vietnam, a gigantic place named "Bondsteel". But US appears to be relatively reluctant, perhaps because exile Albanians do lobby strongly in the US (also pissing off Greece in past, as some Albanians have separatists interest also in tiny part of Northern Greece, dreaming of a "great Albania").

Albania itself is in parts of the country a hellhole and has difficulties with organized crime-structures, yet they are allowed to be an official strategic partner of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. Go figure, I am tempted to say.

Make that "supported KLA, Saddam, etc." instead of "created".

"created" is too much - my anger for the hypocrisy of our leaderships got me carried away. :-)

@ambrose wrote:
To answer FKANB's question, the governments of Iran and North Korea must go, as there is no possibility of sufficient change such that they will no longer be a threat. The governments of Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia must change or go.

Okay. Long list. And instead you suggest what in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi-Arabia? (North-Korea is a special case and easier to solve IMO)

A. Installing an undemocratic government backed by us Western countries
B. Free elections with the one-man, one-vote principle.

Choice B carries the vast danger that a radical islamic Government might be elected into a power (except Iran) - both out of resentment against the double-standards of their current administration and out of unpopularity of the West.

So what will you do, if those listed won't become Allies, but remain "enemies" after elections? Invade again?

FWIW on attacks: The emergency systems in our capital Berlin are prepared for treating up to 10,000 injured people after an attack. At least so it was reported a couple weeks ago.

Hey FKANB, you forgot to mention that it was once again the UN's umbrella that shed some credibility on those Kosovo-Albanian terrorists, i.e. nation-building turned mobster-creating. So perhaps that should read "KLA is another monster created by all of us, Germany and US. Taliban, KLA, Saddam, you name it. And the UN made sure no one asked questions. Go ahead, there's nothing to see here."

@flursn

Oh, of course. Right. UN is the umbrella for this entire shameful episode.

FKANB,

I'm afraid you may have misunderstood a few things I said. Thank you, by the way, for letting me write in English. I write very slowly in English as it is, and it takes me even longer to write in German.

What Western civilization requires from every government in the world is the following:

1. No support for terrorist groups and, in fact, effective action to destroy all terrorist organizations within their borders.

2. No attempts to obtain or make weapons of mass destruction.

3. No promotion by the government of hatred towards other countries, religions or peoples.

If those conditions are met, it is not essential that the government be a constitutional government with the rule of law, private property, free enterprise, protection of political freedoms and self rule. That government is desirable for every country, but not essential as long as the country's government behaves as described above.

The countries I listed have a very simple choice. They can either change themselves to meet the conditions I described or they will, at some point, face military action. If there is military action, the ruler of the country in question will face, from his perspective, many extremely unpleasant outcomes. I predict with high confidence that the other Arab countries will choose to change themselves, eliminating any need for military action, and that there will be a revolution in Iran soon. Libya has already made the right choice, for example. I am much more pessimistic about North Korea, as stated earlier.

I will note that, if a *major* military action by the US at least is required, then the country liberated will be completely rebuilt and that a stable, democratic government will eventually emerge, primarily because the US will stay for a very long time *at the desire of the liberated people*. So the choices you cite are false. Note that we did not allow any elections or self-government at all in Germany until 1949 and West Germany was not given full sovereignty until 1955. The same will happen in Iraq, even if it takes as long as it did in Germany.

Finally, ability to care for the injured is not a response at all to an enemy attack.

Few problems here. I don't think you can demand that a democratic country, which is constantly threatened by it's neighbours excludes WMD from it's means of defense. In particular I mean Israels nuclear weapons program. This however gives other countries a strong argument against such approaches towards them. Another problem is Pakistan. It's not remotely democratic, but it has a reason to have nuclear weapons. You cannot demand they remove them until India does the same. So you need a flexible approach.

India never built nuclear weapons to be used against Pakistan.

India trounced Pakistan in every conventional war since 1948, they don't need nukes to clobber the Pakis.

The reason India built nukes was to have a deterrent against the mighty Chinese in the North, and the Pakis know this.

The facts are on your side. Though Pakistan can claim it need the nukes because India has them and it wont be easy to fight such claims, because it makes the impression it's not just. One more case where an impression does not reflect reality, still one has to deal with it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31