micah holmquist's irregular thoughts and links |
|
|
Welcome to the musings and notes of a Cadillac, Michigan based writer named Micah Holmquist, who is bothered by his own sarcasm. Please send him email at micahth@chartermi.net. Holmquist's full archives are listed here.
Archives
Sites Holmquist trys, and often fails, to go no more than a couple of days without visiting (some of which Holmquist regularly swipes links from without attribution) Aljazeera.Net English Blogs that for one reason or another Holmquist would like to read on at least something of a regular basis (always in development) Thivai Abhor |
Tuesday, October 01, 2002
Two days ago Douglas Anders followed up on an entry of his from last Thursday, which was a response to a post of mine from earlier on Thursday, which was response to a September 19 post by Anders, which was a response to a post that I wrote earlier on September 19. I enjoyed writing the previous sentence almost enough to forget that the thread started when I pointed out that nobody ever acknowledges that Iraq migh want nuclear weapons for defensive purposes. I appreciate Anders' thoughts on this and I want to thank for explaining far more clearly than I have how it is difficult to classify nuclear weapons as either defensive or offensive weapons. I do want to make further comments on two matters, only one of which is serious. In a better world no country or group should have nuclear weapons but that world is nearly as far off as a world where no weapons exist. In this world, I am uncomfortable with any country having those weapons but I oppose the use of force by any country, especially a country with nuclear weapons, to prevent another country from having those weapons or to eliminate another country's nuclear weapons. A dictator in Iraq or some other country could use nuclear weapons but so could a duly elected U.S. President who received over 50% of the pouplar vote. I have yet to see any justifiable system for determining which countries should have nuclear weapons and which shouldn't and so I remain ambivalent on that. In some ways this just points to the weakness of the United Nations. Previously I've argued that the U.N. has failed to effectively do anything but be a proxy for the U.S. in matters of war and peace. I stand by that and so I don't support the U.N. becoming involved in these matters. Yes a terrible tragedy could result from nuclear weapons but that is a risk I do not see being eliminated any time soon and so I think we all need to learn to live with it. (I'm sure the Bush Administration recognizes this and is just using this argument as an excuse for military action against Iraq. Why do I believe that they want to attack Iraq and take the country over? More than anything else, I believe they want to do it to show the world, U.S. citizens and even themselves that they can and will take over countries when they view a country as a threat to U.S. dominance.) On a lighter note, Andes writes, "Rule #1 for happy, stress-free blogging: only link to webloggers stupider than you." Actually a good rule for life is to surround yourself by people who are inferior to you. For instance for 7 years now I have competed competed in bicycling league with boys aged six and seven. I win most of the time. |