G
gilliam
Guest
No, we are just responsible for allowing Iran to arm them. That’s all, can’t take them to court or anything. Just sit by and die.
- Status
G
gnjsdad
Guest
But if there’s no tracability (your term), how can we say we’ve allowed Iran to arm them?
G
gilliam
Guest
Here are the steps:
- We allow Iran to build nukes
- Iran provides one nuke to terrorists
- The terrorists blow up NYC
- The resulting economic tumble pulls the USA and the West into a world-wide depression
- After an extensive investigation it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was Iran who provided the bomb
G
gnjsdad
Guest
And step 6) US retaliates with nuclear strike against Tehran with plenty left over for more.
Which is why step 2 will never occur, which is my point.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Like the Taliban in Afghanistan?
Why on earth would the Iranians go to the trouble of developing nuclear weapons only to give those weapons to terrorists to use in an attack such as you describe when the end result would be the total destruction of Iran? It makes no sense.
Why would 19 men hijack four airliners and deliberately commit suicide by flying them into buildings and kill thousands of people?
And if you had heard such a warning on the first week of September of 2001, you’d give it no credence either, right?
G
gilliam
Guest
Not if we can’t prove it within our administration, which is my point.
Case in point: We have yet to punish anyone concerning the Anthrax attack we suffered in 2001.
P
Philip_P
Guest
vern humphrey:
Just definitions, which I know you’ll contest, but I can’t change the dictionary.
The Taliban were not the government of a sovereign nation. They did not exercise effective control of the territory (the civil war was still ongoing). They were not recognized by the United States.
Just definitions, which I know you’ll contest, but I can’t change the dictionary.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Philip P:
The Taliban were the de-facto government of Afghanistan. Are you willing to die over a dictionary quibble?
The dictionary is where you get your strategic wisdom?
The Taliban were the de-facto government of Afghanistan. Are you willing to die over a dictionary quibble?
P
Philip_P
Guest
vern humphrey:
Definitions are vital to dialog, Vern. If two or more people are talking, and they are all using the same words but each believes the word means something different than his neighbor does, the conversation is not going to get very far. You claimed that that Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was a sovereing state. That’s incorrect. It’s important to point this out, because it indicates that there is disagreement over what constitutes a sovereing state. Following on the next post, for the reference of all who wish to use this term, is a defintion of sovreignty, as used in political science.
Strategic wisdom? Threats of death? My my, what an exciting place these forums have become.
Definitions are vital to dialog, Vern. If two or more people are talking, and they are all using the same words but each believes the word means something different than his neighbor does, the conversation is not going to get very far. You claimed that that Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was a sovereing state. That’s incorrect. It’s important to point this out, because it indicates that there is disagreement over what constitutes a sovereing state. Following on the next post, for the reference of all who wish to use this term, is a defintion of sovreignty, as used in political science.
P
Philip_P
Guest
Sovereignty
Sovereignty is the claim to be the ultimate political authority, subject to no higher power as regards the making and enforcing of political decisions. In the international system, sovereignty is the claim by the state to full self-government, and the mutual recognition of claims to sovereignty is the basis of international society. Sovereignty is the other side of the coin of international anarchy, for if states claim sovereignty, then the structure of the international system is by definition anarchic. Sovereignty should not be confused with freedom of action: sovereign actors may find themselves exercising freedom of decision within circumstances that are highly constrained by relations of unequal power.
The doctrine of sovereignty developed as part of the transformation of the medieval system in Europe into the modern state system, a process that culminated in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. In some ways the emergence of the concept of sovereignty ran parallel with the similar emergence of the idea of private property, both emphasizing exclusive rights concentrated in a single holder, in contrast to the medieval system of diffuse and many-layered political and economic rights. Within the state, sovereignty signified the rise of the monarch to absolute prominence over rival feudal claimants such as the aristocracy, the papacy, and the Holy Roman Empire. Internationally, sovereignty served as the basis for exchanges of recognition on the basis of legal equality, and therefore as the basis of diplomacy and international law.
Barry Buzan
How to cite this entry:
Barry Buzan “sovereignty” The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.
Sovereignty is the claim to be the ultimate political authority, subject to no higher power as regards the making and enforcing of political decisions. In the international system, sovereignty is the claim by the state to full self-government, and the mutual recognition of claims to sovereignty is the basis of international society. Sovereignty is the other side of the coin of international anarchy, for if states claim sovereignty, then the structure of the international system is by definition anarchic. Sovereignty should not be confused with freedom of action: sovereign actors may find themselves exercising freedom of decision within circumstances that are highly constrained by relations of unequal power.
The doctrine of sovereignty developed as part of the transformation of the medieval system in Europe into the modern state system, a process that culminated in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. In some ways the emergence of the concept of sovereignty ran parallel with the similar emergence of the idea of private property, both emphasizing exclusive rights concentrated in a single holder, in contrast to the medieval system of diffuse and many-layered political and economic rights. Within the state, sovereignty signified the rise of the monarch to absolute prominence over rival feudal claimants such as the aristocracy, the papacy, and the Holy Roman Empire. Internationally, sovereignty served as the basis for exchanges of recognition on the basis of legal equality, and therefore as the basis of diplomacy and international law.
Barry Buzan
How to cite this entry:
Barry Buzan “sovereignty” The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Philip P:
Now, when a government which has supported terrorism in the past, and is supporting terrorism today is also developing nuclear weapons, that is a real and present threat to the rest of the world.
And terrorists kill people. And many terrorists are supported by sovereign governments.
Now, when a government which has supported terrorism in the past, and is supporting terrorism today is also developing nuclear weapons, that is a real and present threat to the rest of the world.
- Status