This sets a dangerous precedent. Are you willing to live in the future where another country's might defines the rules?
Tell me, how is a terrorist or terror state going to make a weapon without the necessary elements? No fuel = No bomb.
That has always been the precedent; the nation with the most combined military and economic power dominates the rest of the world. Been that way since before the Roman Empire. It is only in modern times that people have even seriously conceived of the world being any other way.... and frankly that is a pipe dream.
Tubub, it's nothing to do with us having the 'right', just do we have the 'might' (and the political will).
Might has always ruled... and it has been rare than anyone even tried to put "right" into their "might". To our credit the US does try to put some "right" into their "might", which is more than most other world powers have ever done, the Brit Empire possibly excepted.
The world is like that. Put aside arguments of moral equivalency and just ask who you want running things, us or someone else? 'Cuz those are the choices.
G.
That has always been the precedent; the nation with the most combined military and economic power dominates the rest of the world. Been that way since before the Roman Empire. It is only in modern times that people have even seriously conceived of the world being any other way.... and frankly that is a pipe dream.
Tubub, it's nothing to do with us having the 'right', just do we have the 'might' (and the political will).
Might has always ruled... and it has been rare than anyone even tried to put "right" into their "might". To our credit the US does try to put some "right" into their "might", which is more than most other world powers have ever done, the Brit Empire possibly excepted.
The world is like that. Put aside arguments of moral equivalency and just ask who you want running things, us or someone else? 'Cuz those are the choices.
G.
Nice post... but might ruling over right started way before the Roman Empire. And that analysis really only concentrates on the EuroAsian part of the world. Your excluding since exterminated peoples and cultures like the Incas, Nubians, and the laughably still existent North American Indigenous peoples. None of these people ruled with "might" instead of "right". So is it really inevitable to have one dominant force in the world? Cultures do change... could the West not learn from these people?
Again, I am just raising questions for the hell of it. Sorry if its unorganized and not articulated well but I need to go
I think if we have nukes everyone should have them. It is the way that it should be. Who did we think we are to tell others what they may do and not do.
About the Native Americans... many tribes were very warlike. Typically territories were dominated by the aggressive use of force. The limitations imposed by a Stone Age technology and subsistence lifestyle made a singular empire improbable...but force still ruled the day.
Hm, note that I said "since BEFORE the Roman Empire". I was also thinking of the Persians, Babylonians and Assyrians, not to mention the Chinese Empire and so on.
As for humanity learning better, its a nice dream but unlikely.
G