self-defense

I think nuclear weapons are immoral. Heck I think AK-47s are immoral. Tanks, jet fighters, hand grenades, mines, improvised explosive devices, pistols, bayonets, machetes, bombers, rocket launchers, cluster bombs, flame-throwers: all of them too, there's really no difference.

But I have to say this: when terrorists are throwing their weight around dictating terms to nations (and by terrorists I mean the united states government) it's hard to blame countries for needing things to protect themselves.

The islamic republic of iran needs nukes. not to blow israel to smithereens, but to keep the united states from attacking. (why, one wonders, would iran be interesting in nuking israel when that would doubtless kill muslims and damage islamic holy sites is a good question anyway: I think ahmedinejad has said as much). The nutso north korean dictatorship has kept the u.s. terrorists from attacking by having nukes.

One suspects iraq was attacked precisely because the bush dictatorship actually knew that saddam had no nukes.

There weren't israeli commando raids or genocidal bombings into lebanon when syrian troops were there. So interesting to me that the u.s. terrorists were all so "syria must get out of lebanon" and then--surprise!--the israelis invade. So heck, syria needs nukes too.

One nation has used nuclear weapons, and we know which one that is. One nation continues to use nuke-ish weapons in the form of depleted uranium shells which have long-term health effects on cuvilian populations. Frightening as it is to contemplate, maybe nukes are the only deterrent for nations now threatened by the bush-ite terrorists.

Alternatively, we could all just get along.

Salaam. peace.