curiousbrain
Well-Known Member
I feel as if my initial response had a certain sting to it which, upon reflection, I didn't necessarily intend; I apologize. I could have been more diplomatic.
I think that the source of our disagreement is what constitutes the intentions of a nation-state. As a matter of convenience, let's consider something local: America and Mexico. In reality, America has a problem with illegal drugs; and, likewise, in reality, Mexico has a problem with illegal drugs. I think we can all agree that both countries have a problem with illegal drugs. But, what is the subtle "writing on the wall", if you will?
A simplistic examination will conclude that Mexico should produce less drugs; in order to affect that, Mexico needs to arrest, detain, or kill those who make and/or distribute illegal drugs - not just as classified by their own country, but by the U.S. FDA. This raises the first issue of international diplomacy: a lack of standards, and a general muddle related to the standards that do exist.
A somewhat more complex examination would conclude that Americans, as a population, consume too many illegal substances; the congregation of factors (geographical locality to the US, and inability of domestic government to stop the production of illegal substances) is such that it favors Mexico.
It is politically expedient for the U.S. to offload the problem of drug addiction onto those countries which ship drugs into the country (e.g. Mexico - although, Columbia and others obviously get an honorable mention); likewise, it is politically expedient for Mexican politicians to offload the problem of drug addiction onto Americans who spend their money on illegal drugs. There is a certain synergy of illegality at work there.
This relatively simplistic examination is analogous to the situation (as I see it anyway, which may be hogwash) in the Middle East: Israel panders to their own constituency (Iran is evil, they can never have nuclear weapons, etc), while Iran panders to their own constituency (Israel is evil, they want to invade us, blah blah). The point, I'm sure, is fairly obvious: both countries say things to placate their own constituencies, which does not actually influence internal, high level government policy.
Israel says that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable; Iran says a Jewish state is unacceptable. Both of those lines are pure bull, because both governments understand the nature of international relations - pander to the local (national) constituency to stay in power, reiterate it on television, then privately reassure any relevant parties that "we" don't actually believe that garbage.
I will assume that this built up premise is up for debate between us and others - and no doubt you/I/we/etc will continue to debate it.
However, I would like to append that this country (the U.S.) has such an abhorrent record of human rights in the Middle East, that we have to look at it from their perspective. It is not for me to lay out why - I encourage anyone to do their own research, and you will not have to look very far. If we, as a country, want to defend against nuclear proliferation and other (inter)national security issues, maybe we should prove our veracity by encouraging Israel, Turkey, and others to disarm - maybe then we can negotiate from a point of leverage with Iran, Pakistan, and others.
And, in the worst case scenario, the "evil ones" don't disarm, we as a single country still have enough nuclear weapons to end the entire human race dozens of times over. Under the assumption that nuclear weapons secure safety, we are all quite safe.
