What's your point, beyond playing 'gotcha'?
If Iran gets nuclear technology it's because we allowed it. Wrong? That's not any different than giving it to them, unless you're insistent that it's not literal enough?
India had them and the Pakistani's were insisting they needed a deterrent, I'm sure some US President agreed to let it happen.
Well this thread made it through 1 page before going off topic.
Grats to both recipients they deserve it
I wonder how many of those who rush to (rightfully) laud Malala will also then rush to abandon all other Afghan girls to their fate.
What's your point, beyond playing 'gotcha'?
If Iran gets nuclear technology it's because we allowed it. Wrong? That's not any different than giving it to them, unless you're insistent that it's not literal enough?
India had them and the Pakistani's were insisting they needed a deterrent, I'm sure some US President agreed to let it happen.
if you mean that you have to support long term occupation of Afghanistan and expanding foreverwar in order to laud this girl for her accomplishments, no, that is incorrect.
Naturally. Malala is an amazing girl because she stood up for the rights of people whom we will abandon once again to the tender mercies of the Taliban because - meh - it's all a bit of a bore, and tiring really, and hearing about it on the news is so exausting.
There is definitely a disconnect between celebrating freedom and education for girls and then abandoning millions of girls to a regime that will abuse them and keep them trapped.
It's a pretty tiered operation.
But I mean by failed state we're talking like, Syria levels of failed state in which no one force could co-ordinate an effective response to an invading force.
but I suppose someone holding the keys and would fire off a few at US.
Perhaps I should drink more coffee and stop talking nonsense.
we can't make the Middle East into a liberal western democracy through any amount of external force. the reform has to come from within.
Saudi Arabia and Iran need to step up and clean up their neighborhood.
Local Support is directly proportional to the belief that it has a good chance of succeeding. More Iraqi's came out to vote than Americans did, relative to our populace, in their election, and despite the threat of car bombs, which Americans do not face. They did that because they had US military on their street corners, ensuring that the process would at least be able to succeed. You don't get the latter without the former.
You absolutely can export Democracy through external force. That is how come we have Democracy in (to name two immediate examples both of whom did not have Western societies on which to build Western forms of government) Japan and India.
:lol: by that you mean "engage in proxy war with each other, further messing up the neighborhood, as both seek out regional hegemony and likely nuclear weapons"? Because that is the actual result of what you are proposing
Local Support is directly proportional to the belief that it has a good chance of succeeding. More Iraqi's came out to vote than Americans did, relative to our populace, in their election, and despite the threat of car bombs, which Americans do not face. They did that because they had US military on their street corners, ensuring that the process would at least be able to succeed. You don't get the latter without the former.
You absolutely can export Democracy through external force. That is how come we have Democracy in (to name two immediate examples both of whom did not have Western societies on which to build Western forms of government) Japan and India.
:lol: by that you mean "engage in proxy war with each other, further messing up the neighborhood, as both seek out regional hegemony and likely nuclear weapons"? Because that is the actual result of what you are proposing
Um. Pakistan developed them definitely without our permission. We aren't omnipotent.
Russia got them without our permission. Everyone else, needed us not to prevent it.
While our superior monetary and military might allows us to apply a large degree of influence in the world, it's dangerous to assume that somehow translates into omnipotence. Nations have paid for that type of arrogance heavily throughout history.
Trust me, we got our fingers in everyone's pie, just ask the NSA.
Go outside with a sign that says "I'm AL-Queada!" and hold it upwards towards the sky. See how long it takes a spy satellite to send some men in black suits and sunglasses to your door? :lol:
this is an entirely different situation. you're dealing with a holy war here between sects of Islam that has been going on for eons.
if that's going to happen, it will happen regardless of how much we pour into the region
we've been heavily involved in the Middle East for decades, and it's more unstable there than ever.
what we should actually do is to build America into a country where the tech, infrastructure, and standard of living are so good that the rest of the world wants to imitate it. it's time to nation build here at home and leave regional conflicts to the regional hegemons.
In 1953, Foreign minister Sir Zafarullah Khan publicly stated that "Pakistan does not have a policy towards the atom bombs". Following the announcement, on 11 August 1955, the United States and Pakistan reached an understanding concerning the peaceful and industrial use of nuclear energy which also includes a $350,000 worth pool-type reactor.
Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Russia got them without our permission. Everyone else, needed us not to prevent it.
India didn't get democracy from external forces. It came from within.
On the contrary, both India and Pakistan - for example - managed effectively to develop their capacity in secret, and proved capable of effecting strategic surprise on us. China, too, we were in no position to stop.
Unless you're a spook with high clearance or former intel official from the past, I don't believe it. China we couldn't stop or North Korea but India and Pakistan, not so sure.
:lamo
Yeah. :lol: India decided to develop 1) a concept of itself as a continuous polity and 2) a dedication to representation through a Parliamentary structure because that was it's organic development path. :lamo
Two Centuries of British Rule that fostered both of those things were completely coincidental :lol:
Man, I usually keep you on "ignore", but that... that was gold. So glad I clicked on that one
That's the most asinine thing I ever heard.
Did the US get democracy from british rule as well?
Colonizing a country doesn't mean you are giving them democracy.
Well I'll just keep my comment about what that means about you to myself
Yup.That's why the Revolution started off as colonists demanding their rights as Englishmen.
That's correct, it isn't a requirement. It is, however, a possible happy transfer that has happened multiple times in history.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?