Comments - Latest Popular Stories, Instablogs Community by Aleppous

Shoeb

Shoeb — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Syria is not exactly Iraq and certainly the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is not exactly Saddam Hussein. Bashar al-Assad is a fine president, perhaps the best in the region. America knows that very well.

Clarkei

Clarkei — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

There is no comparison between North Korea and Iraq under Saddam. North Korea is not a soft state and is a missile superpower. Besides, North Korea has the backing of China and Russia. Japan and South Korea will be obliterated in the event North Korea is ever attacked. USA would never want that.

Yash

Yash — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Syria will always be targeted as long as it supports Hizbollah and as long as it continues its hostile policies towards Israel. The recent attacks on the alleged nuclear sites on probably fabricated excuses was one such attempt.

Andreas

Andreas — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Having bombs will not solve problems but create more. Imagine a country that believes in complete annihilation of another nation like Iran wants of Israel having nuclear bombs. Syria is just getting better with the international community and coming out from isolation. You don’t need bombs.

Mike

Mike — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Israel is surrounded by hostile nations and therefore it has a right to defend itself with all the means it has and preempt any effort to harm it. You must not forget that you started the conflict with Israel and not the other way round. Israel is a democracy where you Arabs are not. Arabs can’t be trusted.

Avadhut

Avadhut — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Pakistan is the strongest Islamic country militarily. But see what is the position of Pakistan now after going nuclear. It is now fearing that its weapons might end up in the hands of radicals. They have secretly dismantled their nukes to avert that. You don’t need any nuke.

Carlos

Carlos — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

You want an atom bomb? Why? To keep it as a deterrent so that Israel and America doesn’t attack you? But have you ever thought why they attack you every now and then? Syria is not a country run by a saint. It is a terror sponsoring nation.

Keith

Keith — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

You must be kidding man.... You simply have not earned yourself the right. Delinquent nations will always be looked down up on.

It takes years and years to build up a reputation and Syria and Iran has earned a kind of reputation for themselves.

You know what I am talking about, right?

Jonathan

Jonathan — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Then I guess countries like Zimbabwe and Somalia has the right to nuclear weapons. Then they can carry their business as usual without fearing any external aggression or economic pressure. You must be out of your senses.

Vijay

Vijay — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Yes Mustafa, you are right,a right is a right,but what would happen,when it goes in the wrong hands.

Mustafa Hamido

Mustafa Hamido — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

A stable regime is a must for having the nuclear abilities . Stable regimes are not only those which are described as a democratic ones.I have an opinion in democracy I will write about it later. Of course Somalia can’t and must not have nuclear program . if a nation is facing a real threat , it is its right to get all tools which can save it .

Gagandeep

Gagandeep — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

The nations which possess one will try to prevent others from getting one, the latter will cite the example of former having one.

Deterrence is hardly true. Even if a country were to have one, it knows fully well that it’ll never really be able to use it - even if there was to be foreign aggression.

A country has a right to pursue nuclear programs for energy but as a weapon - a big NO. Instead the world needs a slow but sure disarmament from all nuclear weapons.