A country that actively supports, arms and harbors Hizballah and Hamas, arms Iraqi insurgents and cooperates with North Korea and Iran on proliferation and nuclear facilities can not be considered anything else but hostile.
Hostile to the US, Israel, or just "hostile"?
You know, actively arming, supporting and harboring various armed resistance movements is not exactly something foreign to the US policy in the past or present. I assume I dont need to list any examples here.
Cooperating on nuclear matters with Iran and other countries that
signed the NPT is not proliferation of nuclear arms. Under the NPT that is perfectly allowed and regulated. Not that Im saying Syria may not have breached any treaties, but the simple fact they cooperate with Iran is no breach. Nor was cooperating with North Korea when they were still in the NPT. Didnt the US even help them build a reactor?
What actually isnt allowed under the NPT is facilitating proliferation to countries that have
not signed the NPT. Like India. Canadian reactors and US supplied uranium and technology caused the real nuclear profliferation in India (and in all likelyhood, Israel, although that was just as likely before the NPT treaty). Likewise Israel is guilty of proliferating nuclear weapon technology to that other former nuclear armed apartheid regime.
So it would appear your definition of hostile is completely dependent on which' country or region you take as vantage point. If therefore you find it acceptable to just forget about international law and bomb such countries, you should find it equally acceptable those countries bomb yours when they suspect you are doing something they dont like.
An intelligent person could draw the line somewhere. Some might urge to bomb civilian nuclear facilities as well,
Yes, and some might argue you dont bomb anything or anyone at all, unless all other means have been exhausted and the act of war is approved by the UN. Especially since in these matters there is never any urgency. You cant construct those building, acquire the materials and build a bomb over night. It takes years at the very least.
history is full with examples of assassinations of specific academic figures when their research or field of knowledge contributed to military plans.
History is full of warcrimes. That doesnt mean one should condone it.
I'm in favor of whatever helps the West to keep the current world order, because it benefits me and my preferred way of living.
At least that is honest. The problem is that the current world order does not benefit hundreds of millions of people who actually own much of the natural resources that enables your preferred way of living (Im assuming you are American). For some reason they do not like your invading of sovereign countries to control the oil supply, nor the overthrowing of (democratic) regimes like once in Iran, and replacing it with a cruel dictatorship, or the supporting and arming of equally cruel dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, or the endless support for aggressive, oppressive colonial apartheid regimes in the region. There is going to be a backlash.
If you feel you are entitled to go to war and bomb at will to maintain this status quo, you should expect other people will do the same to try and change it. Thats not the only way you know; the US didnt become the greatest nation by using force. It became it by largely minding its own business. Its only since WW2 that it turned in to a military empire and now you seem to think the only way to keep your way of living is by oppressing the rest of the world. What a shame. Especially since its very likely to result in the end of your way of living. Like all great military empires that proceeded yours, its not military defeat that will end your reign, its bankruptcy. You are spending $12 million per HOUR to try and control a few cavemen in afghanistan alone, and failing even that I might add, I would urge you to think of a different approach.
Obviously, if you think oppressive regimes such as the Syrian and Iranian ones are the future of mankind, you'd favor them to have nukes. I don't.
Id say its up to the syrians and iranians to decide on the regimes they live under.
As for the situation in the middle east; I'd very much like to see a nukes free middle east, but that has to come with some other measure to assure the continued existence and wellbeing of Israel.
Why are you only worried about the well being of Israel, and not say, the equally large Palestinian people?
Unfortunately, as the 20th century is full with examples of Muslim states ganging up on Israel
The 21st century is full of examples of Israel banging up its neighbors.
, at a fraction of their combined size and power, nuclear deterrence is the only option. If you have any other mechanism other than WMDs to protect a country of 7 millions against over 1 billion aggressors, then by all means propose it. Until then, that's the only viable solution.
Its interesting how the South African regime used the exact same arguments to defend its nuclear status. How they where a small island of civilization surrounded by a sea of terrorists and terrorist nations. Yet that very terrorist ANC with terrorist leaders like Nelson Mandela have ruled the country for the past 20 years, dismantled their nukes and they havent massacred their white oppressors nor invaded any neighbours.
BTW, Id be careful who I'd call aggressor, but by your logic, we should arm the Palestinians and Lebanese with nukes. How else can you protect them from Israeli aggression?
Facebook
Twitter