vubzhj zfpxtoejr psqbdu cliautzp vjgsb ryfdsozea kduj

first of all, "As far as using nuclear weapons against Japan goes," the bomb was A blessing for koreans, from unspeakably truculent japan's colonization reigns of terror which was 100times worse than Nazi's toward Jews during WWII, finally were rescued by Truman's decision; the 2 A-boms. Jap soldieres marched in front line during the war russia vs jap & WWII weren't Japs, actually were koreans ,most of them were kids in their teens commendeered by force, died as cannon fodder literally; they were given empty guns.
and at the time of bombing in hirosima, and nogoya, considerable number of koreans inhabited in 2cities so Jap aren't the only victim of the Abombs.
hundreds of them still alive (after bombing Jap and US govern took care of Jap sufferers from abomb disease but korean suffers) in S-Korea.
even they believe the bombs ended 35years of hell in Korean penninsula given by Japan.

2nd, "When was the last time North Korea violated the sovereignty of another nation"
never.
NK never did.
except sending some spies to S-korea in 60s and 70s, digging underground tunnels in DMZ , those happened long ago since nothing happened
for N-Korea, restricting foods, fuel and supplies simply won't work. that will only kill more kids , weakened and already been so suffered its people. go ahead if you world leaders wanna dance with the midget Kim jungil in the empty cold ghostly land after all its people dead...

NK's been out in the cold for a long time.
when they needed aid, outside of world turned their back. South wasn't rich enough to help them

they've just learned the easiest way of getting some flour and oil from outside world is launching and testing outmoded missiles and boasting they will blow off US

the land's got absolutely nothing!

Daoud Kuttab,

Based on the length of this thread and variety of responses, your post is provocative. I admit I don't quite see why.

I agree with you. North Korea is within their sovereign rights to have nuclear weapons. Iran is not, until it withdraws from the NPT after 6 months notice, at which time it also be within its sovereign rights to have nuclear weapons.

It does appear however, that you are one of the hopeless idealists. "Until all countries are treated equally on this nuclear issue..." I might think you mean by this, Israel, or perhaps India and/or Pakistan, or perhaps the unwillingness of the "Great Powers" to disarm. Whichever, it is going to be a long long wait for "until".

You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Failing that, the next trick is to keep them from being used, even better, to keep them from being useful. How about this. Thanks to the Cold War we have nukes and delivery systems able to reach all nations on the globe. At this we have no equal, even Russia has not the variety of reach. I suggest that the USA adopt a policy that any offensive nuclear attack by any country on any other country will be considered as an attack on the USA and the response will be nuclear annihilation of the offending country. That ought to keep even Israel from swooping over Jordan on its way to nuke Natanz, yes?

I kind of like the idea. We are certainly better equipped to play the role of chief executioner in the world than chief meddler in foreign affairs.

I owe a big apology to scot. I faild to realize he was quoting from an ignorant writer above. My sincere apologies.

State of Isreal !!!!!!!, brian, NY
Before you examine the facts here Brain, you need to take a hard look at how it ended up being called that and why some countries and certainly all the people in the world who believe in justice and fairness have declined to recognize such as. I am not here to present any arguements but simply draw your attention to the facts and what history has taught us. I think it is fair to say the oppressors regardless of who they were and how long they oppressed, either their own people or others, were not everlasting and needless to mention about their unpleasant eventualities.
finally, I would like to apologize to all of us here for the inappropriate language Scott from Denver has used here. He simply does not know any better and my bet is neither does he know the name of his father.

whoops, sorry for spelling Mr. Kuttab's name wrong in the above post.

Ugh!

Obviously, some of you missed the point! My comments above were not meant to be a defense of Isreal, a defense of the use of the A-bomb, nor a self-riteous patriotic diatribe!

To clear some things up:

First, I'm a bit irritated with Mr. Kattoub over his need to redirect the topic towards Isreal's actions and behavior. I know what Isreal's actions are; I neither condone nor like what they do. Frankly, I think Isreal's government does some pretty sucky things. But the fact remains that Isreal isn't the issue here. I'm more interested in Mr. Kattoub's opinion on North Korea, because, well, that's the issue, not Isreal.

Second, Karim: Yes, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible things to do, but here's a few facts you maybe weren't aware of. First, the US dropped flyers over the city of Hiroshima days before the blast warning them of a "terrible new weapon that will be used against the city". No one paid any attention, probably figuring that the US couldn't do anything worse than they've already done. Not that it makes any difference, but there was at least some spark of conscience on the part of US leaders to warn them of what would happen. Second, I only stated that the choices outlined above were perceived by the US government as the choices they had available. The truth of the matter is that the a-bomb drops had little impact on the Japanese government's decision to surrender. They looked at the a-bomb as little different than the massed bomber campaigns the US launched against them previously. One single mass bomber run killed as many as 80,000 one night in Tokyo in 1944. The Japanese government surrendered because they felt the population couldn't take the strain of the war any longer and there was no way they were going to be able to fight the US to a bloody standstill. This brings me to my third point Karim: what difference does it make what the weapon doing the killing is? The weapon still kills, doesn't it? The Allied air forces of WWII killed as many people in mass bomber campaigns on cities as the atomic bombs did. Read about the terrible fires caused by bombing Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Osaka, etc... before you go off on some tirade about the US use of a-bombs. This isn't to say that I'm justifying their use by any means, but in WWII, civilian populations became "legitimate" target centers thanks to the "Douhet strategy". It was what it was; we can't change history, but maybe we can learn a little from it. There are a lot of people in the US who feel the way you do about the decision. Personally, I think the naval blockade was probably the best of the three choices; it would have slowly turned the screws on Japan, while giving them time to reconsider surrendering. I was merely trying to relay information, again, not trying to justify anything. You were reading too far into my comments.

Sami: you were reading too far into things as well. Again, I never justified the use of the a-bombs, just merely trying to inform you. Nor am I a raging patriot, armchair neocon, or Bush supporter for that matter. I was merely trying to inform.

Third, to Paul Maxland:
I was not implying North Korea is illegitimate because it was created after WWII, but is illegitimate because Stalin installed a sociopath to run the northern half of the country instead of following though on promised elections. I don't see North Korea as a "country that deserves equal respect" (not sure if it was you who said this, but someone who came after your comment) because it shouldn't be regarded as a country at all! It's a place where the majority of people are enslaved to a regime that doesn't care a whit about them. It goes back to the old quote of Louis XVI: "France c'est moi!" ("I am France!"). The same idea applies; North Korea's people live to serve a cruel dictator, instead of living to improve their own lives in an atmosphere of personal liberty. If you don't believe some of the things I said about NK, send an email with your questions to Nicholas Kristof of the NY Times.

Finally, to Mr. Kattoub:

I apologize for my strong remarks in my eariler post. I shouldn't have been so hasty to criticize your comments, but I saw a lack of focus on the issue presented by WaPo. You chose to speak about Isreal instead of addressing the issue of North Korea; I found that a bit unfair, considering that your comments didn't deal with what I saw as the issue being presented by the paper. Again, I apologize.

America has done a poor job of limiting proliferation. 5 Allies, the UK, France, Israel, India and Pakistan have now gone nuclear. Russia actually refused to help North Korea obtain nukes during the Cold War.

I notice there are some posts here that query whether Israel has nukes, over thirty years after the fact. This is in line with official US statements on proliferation that nearly always avoid mentioning Dimona.

HAS ISRAEL BECOME AMERICA'S GOLDEN PARASITE?

"THE LAST TIME I LOOKED, ISRAEL wasn't the 51st STATE of the USA!," hmmmm.

"BILLIONS OF U.S. TAX-PAYER DOLLARS GOING TO ISRAEL ANNUALLY," hmmmmm.

"THERE IS A LIMIT TO THE NUMBER OF ARROWS A FRIEND SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO TAKE ON BEHALF OF A STUBBORN FRIEND," hmmmmmm.

Wow.

Thanks 4 the info Mr. Maxland. Why was I so under-informed about the use of my tax dollars? I've just confirmed that indeed, we the U.S. taxpayers, subsidize the State of Israel. Wonder why the MS media never mentions this (uncomfortable?) fact.

Well, I still like Israel but since we subsidize her existence and war machine, Israel should be aware that its actions do cause ill-will towards us Americans.

To collect billions & moderate its action would qualify Israel as an ally of the U.S. but to collect billions of dollars and use it to rile the muslim world against us (without a squeak of complaint from our leaders) makes ISRAEL AMERICA'S GOLDEN PARASITE.

says the man writing from Seattle

At least your comments are consistant, provincial as they may be.

Mr. Kuttab:

Thanks for clarifying that up. I fully understand why you wouldn't want to mention your personal beliefs in your bio. Ideally, it shouldn't matter, but in this conflict it does matter a lot in America.

To avoid bringing up personal beliefs, one could use "born to a Christian family" etc.

I understand that tensions in Iraq happen to be along sectarian lines but it is also not black and white. There is a political context to it.

When readers are lead to believe that Arab-Sunni are fighting Arab-Shia just because they belong to different Islamic branches, then the media is doing something wrong.

When it is inferred that Arab-Shia would ally themselves with Iranians only because they are Shia while Sunni-Arabs have been fighting Sunni-Kurds for a while, then it is obvious to me that the readers are given inaccurate information.

To Chris:
I have a suggestion: Let the Secretary General of the United Nations introduce the ban and call for dismantling of all Nuclear Weapons,present this resolution to the Security Council or the General Assembly.

I am not in the habit of replying to talk backs because I prefer that people deal with the message not the messenger. But I am doing this simply to set the record straight. The bio about me was not written by the Post but by me. I didn't see it important to mention my religion because this is a personal issue, neverthless when I deal with an issue like Christian zionists, I do mention it, in other issues it is not relevant. In Iraq where the fighting and the killings is often done on a secterian basis, this becomes a relevant issue.

As to my position on Hizbullah, my articles speak for themselves, in the earlier posts, I dealt with this issue. If people want to know more they are welcome to visit my personal web site where I post all my articles www.daoudkuttab.com

I knew what Mr. Kuttab was going to write before I even read past name. Israel did not sign the NPT. Iran did sign. No one forced it to, but it is now obligated to live under its rules.

North Korea has also signed various agreements that were supposed to limit its nuclear capability.

I am convinced that Israel is surrounded by Arab countries that have sort of, well almost come to accept Israel's existence, because they know that as long as Israel has a nucler capability they cannot destroy Israel.

"Either everyone has them, or no one has them".

That has to be, without a doubt the most asinine piece of logic I have ever heard. An analogy, if you will: Using that logic, let's say guns. That means, 10 year olds have as much right to have a gun as an adult. Or criminals have the same right as the military to possess a gun. And on and on....
All nukes are bad. In a perfect world, no country would possess them. It isn't a perfect world. I don't think any country that has exhibited it's utter lack of regard for international standards should be allowed to have a nuke. And yes, I am including Israel. I support their right to exist, and I recognize that they do exist in extremely hostile circumstances, but I don't think they need a nuke. I know Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, or India have no need for them either. Yet it appears all do have or soon will have that technology.

It reminds of me a line from an "All in the Family" episode from the 70s regarding airline hijackings. Archie Bunker gets TV time for his view and says his solution to airline hijackings is to give EVERY passenger a gun when the get on the plane! No more hijackings. Uhm, that is ignorant. And keep in mind, I do believe the current administration in the USA is part of the problem, not part of the solution, as is Russia and China. And therein lies another obstacle; who will lead the world from a position of logic and fairness, and that which is beneficial to all nations and peoples? It sure isn't those 3, or France and the UK either. The future is not looking real bright.

To Brian.
You have tried to justify the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Tell me : Why the 2nd bomb was necessary. Did the first bomb not explode?
Some people just do not have the courage to question their own beliefs. May be it was Bertrand Russel who said "Some brave men may fight valiantly and even die for their beliefs, and yet they do not have enough courage to ever question their beliefs."
I hope you are not one of them. As a matter of fact I did not want to write any more because I felt that you are too much enmeshed in your self rightousness and probably like the many self proclaimed patriots flying cheap stickers on their cars.
Misplaced sense of patriotism blurrs the vision. Indeed like Shaw said "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel".
Wars are fought by vested interests and common people just go along any way.
May be we can never stop wars from being fought. But we must outlaw Atomic weapons.
Personally I think that no country has the right to have an Atom Bomb.
I also think that it is cowardly to use an Atom Bomb.
It is the bane of mankind.

Karmim, Paul Maxland-
Informative posts. I enjoy reading Mr. Kuttab's opinions, and I knew he was a Christian Arab. I agree that the MSM neglects Christian Arabs, tending to stereotype. I've remarked before on the MSM pro-Israel bias. I had also previously posted another response before denouncing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, explaining why those horrific acts should be rightfully regarded as immoral, unnecessary, and unlawful. I don't have the citation, but the most recent figure given seen was that historians were evenly split in the U.S. on Truman's decision. It seems probable historians elsewhere would take a dimmer view.

Doc, I share your concern about Israeli's and Palestinians, but I differ a bit with you and Mr. Kuttab and much of the conventional wisdom in the U.S. and Israel. I believe there must be a moral and just solution for Palestinians, which would entail full implementation of all UN Resolutions, including the right of return for Palestinians. A systemic process of ethnic cleansing is both illegal and immoral, and must not be tolerated. Zionists drastically changed the demographics and character of Palestine, so it is absurdly hypocritical to now argue that allowing the displaced and dispossessed indigenous peoples to exercise their legal right of return will change the 'character' of Israel. If we can now accept that Japanese internment camps, confining Native Americans to reservations, and South African apartheid were all immoral and wrong, and that such practices must be abolished, how can one justify an exception for Israel? Moreover, it is counterintuitive to expect that peace will be achieved in the region without real and meaningful justice for Palestinians, a proud people who continue to see their heritage being stolen.

"What does he have to say regarding Hezbollah's and other radical groups' stated goals of destroying Israel? "

Can you comment on this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OYK85F0AsQ

"His point was that regardless of circumstances, all nations like people, deserve fair treatment and respect. That's hardly radical or extreme. Kuttab feels that no nation should be above or beyond review when it concerns the possession of war instruments that could seriously damage humanity."

Then we should hear from Mr. Kuttab himself. I'd like to understand his views regarding Hezbollah's presence in Lebanon and whether he disavows their immense buildup of military weaponary as a state within a state (certainly a condition the government of Lebanon is not happy with, but can do little about). What does he have to say regarding Hezbollah's and other radical groups' stated goals of destroying Israel? Does he have any concerns regarding the failure to enforce UN resolutions calling for the disarming of armed militias within Lebanon and the ending of arms' shipments across its borders (he only states that the violations have been by Israel). Is Mr. Kuttab critical of Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel?

Mr. Kuttab seems very selective in his criticisms and observations. His is not an impartial voice from all appearances.

But let him speak out.

Don't forget that Mr. Kuttab is an Arab Christian or at least of Christian heritage.

Note that the Post Global bio of Mr. Kuttab doesn't mention that.

I have no doubt that 99% of the readers do believe he is a Muslim and that's exactly what the Washington Post experts want you to believe.

The Christian identity of many Palestinian activists (George Habash, Hanan Ashrawi, etc) or pro-Palestinian Arab activists/writers (Edward Said in the US) has always being hidden in US mainstream media or not highlighted compared to when the same media doesn't miss chance to write that some criminal is Muslim. Lately, if you all have noticed, they now even go further and list whether the individual is Sunni, Shiite or Kurd (even though most Kurds are Sunni, and that being a Kurd is a matter of ethnicity not of religious affiliation).

At this point, Arab Christians, when they are mentioned, are still referred to as Christians despite the fact that Arab Christians are a diverse group (Orthodox, Catholic, Maronite, Protestant, etc) with diverse political orientations (pan-Arab vs pro-west etc).

How many people in America know that the founder of the Baath party and ideology was a Syrian Orthodox Christian named Michel Aflaq? You can safely bet 1 million dollars that 99.9999% don't know. That's because the experts of Middle Eastern affairs (like Mr. Ignatius, Mr Zakaria, Mr. Freedman, etc) decided that it was irrelevant for you to know or maybe they thought it was irrelevant for them too.

It is always better to focus on the Muslims because it is easy to understand, simple and straight forward. These people who follow Mohammed (instead of Western Jesus and Moses) are the problem.

One can't possibly complicate things for the American reader when all of sudden Arab Christians (for many, they are surprised they even exist even today!!) are brought into the picture.

There are times when Arab Christians are covered explicitly in the mainstream US media, and usually for 2 reasons:

1- To highlight any issues they have with Arab Muslims (and they do exist of course).

2- To write a piece wondering why such Christians would support such "exclusively Muslim agendas" such as opposing Israeli policies. In the end, they would throw in few Arab Christians who support Israel, so the reader reset assured that it is indeed only a problem with those bloody Muslims.

Mr. Kuttab,

Each time you address an American audience, I really really encourage you to start your statements with "As a Christian". Not only it will get them more interested in what you are saying, it will also encourage them to question the widespread anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab agenda that they are fed from the US mainstream liberal media.

FoxNews came in late, the so-called liberal has already done a great job demonizing Muslims for the benefit of Israel. It really is unfair to non-Arab Muslims who had nothing to do with the Israeli conflict to share the same dehumanization but again, it is much easier to blame Muslims.

"There are legitimate reasons why the majority of people and nations regard both as rogue states."

I'd be curious to see your data for this.

I think more thoughtful voices would see sharp distinctions.

MR. BRIAN OF NY in his infantile wisdom determined that just becuse North Korea was establish "after WWII" it is illegitimate. Or maybe because it was established by FOREIGN powers, "USSR and USA."

Hmmm.The arrogance of certainty.

A country is illegitimate because it was established by a FOREIGN power, Brian?

Now, lets: That would make Canada (est. by the French/British) illegitimate, and most African nations (minus Egypt & Ethipia), plus Pakistan, Iraq. In fact, nearly two-thirds of nations worldwide. Hmmm.

Maybe Mr. Brian could use a few "101" non-credit courses in Pol Science &d World History. Illegitimate is hardly a word that applies to inherently nuanced factors like nationhood, religion, ethnicity, sovereignty, arms prolifiration, etc.

Oh, Brian, please note that Doudd Kuttab is a literate, sensible man. He is not a radical or extremist or any of those usual labels we spray on folks whose opinion we find offensive so we don't have to argue on the points they expressed. He is an Arab but not an anti-Semite either, and he does not have "a fixation" or itch to point fingers at the "U.S. and Israel."

In fact, Mr. Kuttab is (believe it or not
an ally of Israel), even if unwittingly. His country, Jordan is allied to Israel. Kuttab has NEVER wished the destruction of Israel and he is one of that very precious few pen-holders in the Middle East still able to be dispassionate despite that he daily witnesses the destruction of his own people.

His point was that regardless of circumstances, all nations like people, deserve fair treatment and respect. That's hardly radical or extreme. Kuttab feels that no nation should be above or beyond review when it concerns the possession of war instruments that could seriously damage humanity.

I,m a firm supporter of Israel. I wish the Jewish people a permanent existence in the Middle East but Israel must change its treatment of Palestinian people. To get peace, Israel must give up the occupation of Palestinian land, and the U.S.must do more to let Israel know that the longterm health of the Jewish state depends of the dignity & co-prosperity of its Arab, Turkish/Turkish/Persian (Muslim)neighbors.

Israel receives BILLIONS of dollars yearly in U.S. taxpayer money. I am a U.S. tax-payer, and if we can't convince our friend Israel to moderate its actions to protect American interest, then something is wrong with that relationship.

As I said, Israel is our friend but the last time I looked, Israel was not the 51st state of the USA. There's a limit to the arrows any country should be obligated to take on account of a stubborn ally.

I wish U well Mr. Bran but note that it is necessary to know a lot in order to know how little we truly know.

Brian wrote"

"As far as using nuclear weapons against Japan goes, Truman made the decision after a long, long struggle. He was faced with three choices: 1)use nuclear weapons against Japan and force a quick surrender. 2) invade the home islands and risk 1 million American casualties and several million Japanese casualties or 3) Put up a naval blockade around the entire country and starve them into submission, causing unknown number of deaths. The naval blockade would probably have been the best way to end the conflict, yet no one knew how long it would take, nor how many people would die as a result. It would also have taken the longest, estimated at between 6 months to 2 years. In the end, he felt he made the best decision of the three."

The US government nuked deliberately and indiscriminately 2 civilian targets fully populated with people: women, children, and elderly. Every LIVING being (not just humans) was destroyed, burned to death.

120,000 human beings were slaughtered on the spot by US bombs.

This attack is still considered one of the gruesome terrorist attacks recorded in our modern history. This heinous crime was not carried by a clandestine organization but by an official government through its official army.

Truman who was cheered for his decision is nothing but a criminal and a mass murderer.

If this individual was brought up in Germany during the Nazi rule, make no mistake that he would be part of their leadership.

I find it insulting and immoral to justify this crime with the stuff you posted.

Why do some Americans defend their governments and their presidents like they are Gods?

Truman must remembered as the only leader in history whose conscience allowed him to use a nuclear weapon against a CIVILIAN TARGET.

I urge you to approach US government propaganda with a critical mindset.

Remember that in the 40s, the same government with the same "enlightened presidents" justified and enforced segregation and discrimination against millions of black citizens in America.

It was a wise decision, after long consultations and battles in the supreme court itself, wasn't it?

If I were you, I would apologize to the Japanese victims of that crime or keep quiet (since you didn't take part of it).

Because only the US government (and not Iran) dared to use such weapon on CIVILIANS, the world must arm itself as long as the US government still has them.

The world can not live under the mercy of the US government. One day, another "wise" Truman could rise up to power and nuke few cities. There is a precedence and most US politicians and military leaders don't think it was wrong to nuke Japan.

JC, Scott, Brian, BMW;

The argument isn't about which is worse, North Korea or Israel. There are legitimate reasons why the majority of people and nations regard both as rogue states. Neither should be allowed to have WMD, and the issue presented here is that there is a double standard at work. Just because Israel doesn't presently pose a direct threat to you and me shouldn't be construed that a threat doesn't exist to others now or us later. It is wrong to take such a myopic approach.

Theo-
Entertain the thought that what is moral from your secure position of power here in the U.S. may appear immoral, unjust and intolerable to another not in your position. As a patriotic and proud, but conscientious, American, there is no question that the U.S. abuses that power. Many of our citizens are unaware or unwilling to accept that the U.S. is not the saintly entity they envision it to be. Other nations and peoples can perceive this more readily than we, especially those getting the short end of the stick. If one wishes to be realistic, one must accept that no nation is infallible or omnipotent.

All men are created equally--not just a moral, but a self-evident fact. Laws cannot be selective, applying to one group, but not another--not only for the obvious moral reasons, but for practical ones, as well. A policy of allowing select nations effective means of protecting their sovereignty while withholding it from others is not only immoral and unjust, it is doomed to failure. Moreover, such a policy invites abuse and the corruption of power, and that very result appears evident throughout much of the history of the nuclear era.

Yours and other's argument appears to operate from a narrow misguided pretext. The answer isn't limiting the proliferation of such weapons, it is eliminating them completely. (With the possible caveat of a limited stockpile under global control to be used only in outer space for the purpose of protecting the planet from catastrophic meteor impact--a remote, but real, scenario.) Chemical and biological weapons have been largely eradicated, why not nuclear? What makes them essentially any different? It certainly can't be argued there is any moral difference. The logical principle conclusion is that, so far, only certain countries have possessed the means to manufacture nuclear weapons, whereas chemical and biological weapons could be acquired much more easily.

Allow me to draw this admittedly imperfect analogy. When Europeans invaded the Americas, their knowledge of gunpowder and other inventions, along with the biological weapon they carried, smallpox, with their corresponding genetic resistance to that disease, allowed them to subjugate the indigenous peoples, whom they regarded and demonized as savages. While early settlers couldn't possibly know that smallpox would be so deadly to Native Americans, they certainly became quickly aware of the fact, and they did little or nothing thereafter to protect them. Granted, much of the disease was subsequently spread tribe to tribe, but it doesn't change the fact that most were apathetic to the plight they caused and even viewed it as expedient. Early Americans often abused the trust of friendly Native Americans and frequently broke treaties whenever they proved inconvenient. It is hard to imagine that the tremendous loss of life, suffering, loss of heritage, humiliation, etc., should ever be construed as advantageous to Native Americans. Yet, the indigenous peoples of America had the basic right--now widely recognized today as inherent and embodied in International Law--to self-determination. The invaders occupied no moral high ground; enlightened people clearly recognize this today. However, there were very few back then willing to accept or acknowledge this, just as there are still many today unwilling to come to grips with this and other unsavory parts of our past history.

I would contend that any short-term benefits derived from WMD are far outweighed by the long-term risks. What little security is temporarily gained is more than offset by making everyone less secure overall. Who wants to live in a world where not only you and every member of your family, but every living thing has their head stuck in a guillotine, never knowing when the axe might fall? We may not be able to prevent or take sufficient measures to ameliorate losses from every natural disaster, but we can eliminate possibilities of those man-made. No matter how much one trusts their own or any other government, do we really want the power to destroy life as we know it on this planet given to a very few individuals?

I think you and many others are making the mistaken assumption that people are arguing for proliferation or neglecting the danger. That hardly seems to be the case, even where one glimpses a certain amount of schaedenfruede at failed policy or the reduction of centralized power. I think what people are arguing here, for the most part, is that because the NPT promotes inequality, and because it isn't enforced in an even-handed manner (which must consider how non-NPT nations developing and possessing WMD are treated), such law becomes unjust and enforcement untenable. And isn't that what we see happening, as more and more nations acquire nuclear arsenals? The NPT is similar to putting a band-aid on a bullet wound: it might help, but it won't staunch the bleeding. It isn't necessarily that people are advocating complete abandonment of the NPT; it's that it needs to be more fairly applied with regards to NPT and non-NPT members, while a more durable, sensible, and just solution is strived for to replace it. The only logical, workable choice is global disarmament.

To Brian,NY,USA.
Wasn't Isreal also estntially established after WWII?. The fact that the Britain and the US took Arab lands to establish the "State of Isreal" does not legitimise it.

Can it be that Isreal conducts nuclear and other weapons research reaearch for the US? Can it be that such resaerch would not be tolerated on US soil. This may explain the unequivocal support of the US for Isreal.

Dream on, EliXelx. The posters here capable of appreciating Mr. Kuttab's viewpoint are making cogent and substantive argument--unlike you, who seeks to paint the opposition into a corner of your own choosing. I suspect that you are strutting around, feeling proud that your disingenuous post reflects your mighty intellect, while failing to grasp the crucial element that you have humiliated yourself by exposing yourself as a fraudulent fool.

-No one here proposed or even implied that the U.S. and Israel should do away completely with their nuclear arsenals first. This is a straw-man argument that maladroitly attempts to misdirect and delude. Even were that a minority viewpoint, it is inexcusable to use such deceit to tar your opposition with the same broad brush.

-There are legitimate reasons why many people and governments in the world regard Israel as a rogue nation. Subsequently, there is also legitimate reason to fear Israeli WMD capabilities. Still, by deliberately mischaracterizing or grossly exaggerating that level of fear, you seek to deceive others and win them over to your point of view. The common consensus is accurately reflected on this discussion board, which embodies the same reasons for Israel's policy of ambiguity regarding WMD.

-One could use the same dishonest device you do, and assert they are certain you are guilty of the most despicable of crimes, without offering any valid evidence to substantiate it. But it doesn't advance intelligent, civil discourse, and it doesn't make any relevant point. Fortunately, almost everybody here except for a few like you have the requisite integrity to make this discussion worthwhile.

-You are either spectacularly misinformed or uninformed, or you are merely engaging in more deceit. Iran is not alleged to have any nuclear weapons. Nor, despite U.S. and Israeli propaganda, is there any concrete evidence at this point that it is embarking upon a program to construct them. It would be truthful to state that there are some disturbing indications. However, in that same vein, it should then also be acknowledged there are contraindications, and that there are differing interpretations of those indications.

-You fallaciously attempt to stereotype those who would dare differ with you as unconcerned about states like North Korea having nuclear weapons.

-What are bluggers? It appears intended to be some diminutive, derogatory slur of bloggers. (Perhaps a cross between 'bugger' and 'blogger'?) If so, are you not then, by implication, also insulting yourself and those who might otherwise agree with you? In which case, you have thoughtlessly committed a grave tactical blunder. That certainly wouldn't be indicative of advanced intellect. Incidentally, I don't know that posters to an article discussion board should properly be referred to as 'bloggers', but that is a minor point to quibble over. At any rate, such name-calling is reminiscent of pre-adolescent behavior.

-What is insane is the policy of MAD (mutual assured destruction). Even Ronald Reagan recognized this.

-Those disagreeing with your point of view are offering rational arguments, unlike your irrational post. So, who, exactly, is crazy here?

-Your obviously biased viewpoint notwithstanding, you don't really address the central issue of hypocrisy. How is it that there is no accountability whatsoever for a nation that was never signatory to the NPT, and that secretly developed an extensive nuclear arsenal? Israel's refusal to acknowledge their WMD (which is alleged to include chemical and biological weapons) does not change the reality, even if one is predisposed to sticking their head in the sand. You apparently possess an unwillingness or incapacity to conceptualize how Israel's WMD instigates or provides impetus and justification for other nations to so arm themselves.

-Visualizing (dreaming) a better world is a healthy exercise--you should really try it sometime. Athletes, business persons, etc., are taught to visualize success in order to achieve it. Those who dream are also those who invent and create. Being a dreamer puts one among elite company and is nothing to be ashamed of. The connotation that such people are averse to reality is not supported by any empirical data. In fact, judging from the current U.S. leadership and its apparent colossal lack of imagination at critical junctures, the converse would seem more apt. Your insidious slur is just another sad example of ignorance rearing its ugly head.

my last post was overly emotive...my basic belief is that we are endowed with the ability to understand consequences...what is moral in one case is not necessarily so in another...our world is imperfect as are each of we...it is then our "moral" duty to do our best to limit the repercussions of those imperfections...and yes, some have sought the path of righteousness and discipline more than others, though we are intrinsically equal, in the real world....morality is a much shaier issue and it would behoove us all to think outside generalities...ecspeccially, when concerning politics and geopolitics, that all should be treated the same...we are blessed with greater intellectual acuity than this...and some can spell better than others ha ha

I'm sorry, I had to skip to the bottom and post a comment on an idea I think ludicrous...morality is NOT treating everyone the same! This is why felons should not have guns, why drunk drivers should not be allowed to drive...equality is the ground from which we begin...our actions from that point on are the basis by which we can and SHOULD be judged! I just can't allow the cowardice of moral relitivity to create the world I wish my children to enjoy..we as humans are capable of discerning differences between parties...though it is imperfect we must at all cost remain vigilant in our aims to keep the most dangerous weapons on Earth from reaching the hands of those who would use them....ah to hell with it, my words don't ring true to the dogmatists of contemporary times...it makes me angry though that a virtue such as morality should be diluted and be used as the premise to just hand weapons, capable of killing millions, to those who seek to use them for the most heinous and self interested of reasons....oh god...I can hear the blatently idiotic responses to this post already...sleep well...do you ever think of you GREAT GRAND CHILDREN...this world will be theirs one day as it is ours today....but I guess it's easier to shelve the issue and just watch some "reality" TV...I apologize for the low blow there at the end...I just can't understand how people can look themselves in the mirror thinking it's MORAL to treat murderers, like innocents...no it's not exactly what you meant but ride the idea to it's logical conclusion and it ain't pretty...

I'm sure a lot of you bluggers on this site lie awake night after night worrying about when the Israelis are going to use that nuclear arsenal of theirs, but don't lose a wink over Korea or Iran who can be trusted never to!
I'm sure a lot of the bluggers on this site are certain that if Israel were to dismantle its nuclear arsenal that would be the signal for world peace, starting with Korea and Iran who would then be glad to give up their presently non-negotiable stands on having nuclear weapons.
I'm sure that a lot of you bluggers on this site believe that if the US and Israel did away completely with their nuclear arsenals FIRST, the rest of the world's states, not to mention the nuclear-weapons-seeking terrorist movements, would immediatly follow suit.
Dream On, you crazy bluggers, dream on!

The risk is not the issue. It is the legality. Neither is a signatory of the NPT. Both broke international law when developing them.

Why do you think Israel has never tried to test one? They KNOW that if and when they do, the international outcry, except in America will be deafening.

A moral foreign policy (hah!) would not allow a country to subject one country to heavy international sanctions, while rewarding the other with 6 billion dollars a year.

That, I believe (I can't know, how can you) is Mr. Kuttab's point.

"When was the last time North Korea violated the sovereignty of another nation. Israel does it several times a day. Just look at the Post article yesterday about their continued violation of the cease fire."

This, unfortunately, is all too often the thinking or analysis on these complex issues. North Korea's gulag and nuclear weapons program is being compared to Israeli overflights. The purpose of the overflights is to watch for movement of Hezbollah arms. Those arms, under the latest UN resolution on this subject, were to be removed and all shipments from other countries stopped. This has not happened and will most likely not happen, despite the initial pledges of the Lebanese government and the agreement. And yet the issue is boiled down to a violation of Lebanon's sovereignty that is on a scale equivalent to North Korea's gross human rights violations and nuclear program.

Mr. Kuttab engages in the same type of thinking, trying to draw parallels between the risks a North Korea nuclear program poses to the world and the risks a Israeli program poses.

This is barely worth commenting on.

"Go Fork Yourself"...!!?

Hahaha, real mature and educated...just because you can't win the argument on the merits with any educated, informed, objective souls and you know you intellectually have no leg to stand on, you resort to 10-year old insults, you're pathetic, just like all the arguments you terror-appeasers make.

Mr. Kuttab: I hate to state the obvious, but it is clearly begged by your argument: If all countries are treated equally with respect to nuclear weapons, then all countries will eventually have them.

Soldiers murder. Suicide bombers would happily be soldiers. They are not allowed to be. Israel will not permit it.

Go Fork Yourself

Suicide (or HOMICIDE) bombers killing women and children civilians inside Israel and sworn to their destruction are NOT soldiers in combat; they're murderers and cowards...your attempt at moral equivalency between soldiers and murderers is ridiculous and you know it; WISE UP!

"Saddam Hussein . . . paying money out to the families of suicide bombers in Israel."

Thank god nobody else has insurance policies against death in combat. Oh, wait, America does.

"Comparisons with Israel on the treatment of citizens"

It's not the treatment of citizens that is the issue. It is their treatment of the Palestinians, and their Arab neighbors.

When was the last time North Korea violated the sovereignty of another nation. Israel does it several times a day. Just look at the Post article yesterday about their continued violation of the cease fire.

"First, in Israel or the US, you have the RIGHT to express your "blame America" opinion, however misguided your opinion may be. If your were in the DPRK, you'd be dead or in a concentration camp by now!!"

See:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/03/02/usint7793.htm

at Human Rights Watch for more on the North Korean human rights record. Comparisons with Israel on the treatment of citizens and nuclear programs are nonsensical to an extreme.

I'd be curious to know whether Mr. Kuttab ever voiced any criticism of Suddam Hussein's Iraq during the years when that country was terrorizing its population or paying money out to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

He seems to be highly selective in his criticisms.

Here we go again - more America bashing by Americans!! What is wrong with some of you? Comparing our possession of nuclear weapons or that of Israel to possession of nuclear weapons by North Korea and Kim Jong-Il is just insane! And to further blame the US for the actions of Kim Jong-Il is like blaming the rape victim for "dressing suggestively". First, in Israel or the US, you have the RIGHT to express your "blame America" opinion, however misguided your opinion may be. If your were in the DPRK, you'd be dead or in a concentration camp by now!! Second, we have publicly and in the six-party talks (where we do talk to the North Koreans) stated we have no intention of invading North Korea - we cannot sign a "formal" non-aggression pact as it then undercuts the key point of deterrence on the Korean Peninsula, our security agreements with South Korea and Japan (and we KNOW that if Kim Jong-Il thought for a second that he could win, he would invade South Korea and subjugate it and place it under his cult rule!) The six-party talks are necessary - has anyone asked WHY Kim Jong-Il wants more bi-lateral talks with just the US? The answer is simply so he can get another 1994 sweetheart deal that he can disregard when he sees fit; and have no ramifications resulting from breaking agreements signed with his 2 primary trading partners (China and South Korea). Our foreign policy team (and note I say team, not President Bush) knows that the only way to prevent a repeat of what the little North Korean dictator did to our 1994 agreement (which was worth trying, and a good piece of diplomacy by the Clinton administration by the way, Kim Jong-Il just blatantly violated it), is to make sure that if any new agreement is violated, Kim Jong-Il is also reneging on the South Koreans and the Chinese who are integral from their investment (South Korean in the Kaesong region and Diamond Mountain) and aid (China supplies 70% of th DPRK's food and energy aid). Kim Jong-Il doesn't want to make promises he knows he will break to those who can truly hurt his regime when he certainly does just that; hence why is insisting on solely bilateral talks with the US, with whom he has no trade or aid ties to lose. As for the "axis of evil", well I agree that in hindsight that comment was a bit too much of Bush being Bush, but was he actually WRONG here? It may be a poor choice of words for diplomatic and foreign policy goals, but let's be clear - the regimes (note I say regimes, not nations, as the people are not the issue here) he outed, Iran's theocracy, Saddam's Iraq, and North Korea under Kim Jong-Il's personality cult, are the worst of the worst - responsible for oppression, mass murder of civilians, use of WMDs, sponsorship of terrorism (if not Al Qaeda, certainly Hezbollah and Palestinian terror groups - and in North Korea's case, the murder of the entire South Korean cabinet in a plane bombing in 1983) - so while a poor diplomatic wording choice, President Bush and his writers certainly were not inaccurate in that portrayal of those 3 regimes. Does anyone here truly believe that Kim Jong-Il was going to live peacefully and abide by their Agreed Framework of 1994 with us if ONLY our "cowboy" president hadn't labeled them part of the "axis of evil"?! COME ON!!!

The fault for this, just like in any rape (my analogy above), is on the prepetrator, Kim Jong-Il, NOT on the other party that the prepetrator blames his actions on. This is a major issue, and the answer continues to be diplomatic (as we know that if we went after the regime, Kim Jong-Il's response would be immediately to slaughter the population of Seoul with the 10,000 pieces of artillery blackmail he keeps within firing distance of the South Korean capital - and would certainly use with absolutely no regard for civilian life), not military. That diplomacy must entail severe penalties to show Iran (certainly the next rogue state looking to flaunt international will) that the world will exact a price for defiance of international will (it is time for China to cut its "black sheep little brother", North Korea, loose and let them reap what they have sown) and to INSIST on talks only in the six-party context so, as I discuss above, any agreement actually has teeth and is enforceable. I am all for live and let live; if Kim Jong-Il comes into compliance I don't believe its our job to topple that regime, however evil its actions versus its own people - time and history will eventually take care of Kim Jong-Il and his "juche" state. However, conversely, making that clear to the Chinese is the key to this crisis - the instant we convince the Chinese we have no intention of toppling the regime (and thereby allowing China to keep their buffer between US/South Korean forces and their heartland), the Chinese will finally exert their influence on North Korea to convince them to come into line as China will have their security fears allayed and will welcome the opportunity to show they can be a responsible, powerful world player that must be relied upon and included in the world's largest issues. The final step in this is to show China that we can help them gain what they want, but that we can up the ante; they can come along and get what they want, or we can press Japan to go nuclear, which is China's worst nightmare. The key to this North Korean nuclear issue is China, and to bring them along without giving in to North Korean blackmail (by giving into another 1994 bilateral agreement they can just thumb their nose at with no real consequence). In the meantime, while the world figures out how to make that happen, blaming the US unconditionally and comparing the DPRK under Kim Jong-Il to the US or Israel is disingenuous, inaccurate (to say it mildly), and a distraction from addressing the real issue of where to go from here. Its time for George Bush and Condoleeza Rice to go back to China, and take Rumsfeld and Cheney with them - the deal for a responsible northeast Asia lies in Beijing, not in Pyongyang, Seoul, or Washington - the sooner we get that and address Beijing's concerns, the sooner the little North Korean dictator will be goose-stepping in his high-heels to a different tune.

The easy answer is you're either with us or against us.

Why is it that any one that has an anti-American stance is automatically presumed to work with Al Qaeda, or enemies of America. This us-vs.-them attitude is simplistic, stupid and childish.

There are many desparate countries, poor nations and anti-American countries. But that does not unite them to follow a bunch of violent, senseless thugs. Cuba, Venezuela and China and North Korea are all challenges to America. But they are not training, funding or arming killers.

I guess my point is this. We sell arms to Israel, they sell to China, China deals with North Korea, and where are we then? We are at CBC's scenario.

When looking at a (rapidly) closing arms gap, perhaps war is not the right answer.

Or try a journal I have heard of, "Middle East Quarterly"

http://www.meforum.org/article/926

This is one website I found. Just google Israel selling weapons to China.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0509-07.htm

"Israel's client list includes Cambodia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the South Lebanon Army, India, China, Burma and Zambia. The U.S. has most recently warmed up to India and is now in fact competing with Israel for arms sales there, but the other Israeli customers remain dubious at best.

Perhaps the most troubling of all is the Israeli/Chinese arms relationship. Israel is China's second largest supplier of arms. Coincidentally, the newest addition to the Chinese air force, the F-10 multi-role fighter, is an almost identical version of the Lavi (Lion). The Lavi was a joint Israeli-American design based upon the F-16 for manufacture in Israel, but financed mostly with American aid. Plagued by cost overruns, it was canceled in 1987, but not before the U.S. spent $1.5 billion on the project. "

Hope that helps,

Thom

North Korea would have no qualms about selling nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda or any other militant group. It sucks that Israel did that with China, (out of curiousity where is that information so I can read about it)however it is not as serious as the threat a nuclear NK would pose.

"However Mr. Kuttab, you fail to say that Israel is unlikely to sell its bombs to terrorists"

I suppose that depends upon your definition of terrorist. The Israelis have taken American technology, paid for by American tax money given to them by the government, and turned right around and sold the information, and the technology to China a country that is c