Banner Advertiser

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Re: [mukto-mona] Nuclear de-proliferation and non-proliferation must be done



The advent of nuclear weapon and other weapons of mass destruction has brought in relative peace compared to earlier history.  War, on a much lesser scale than before, has now shifted to the less developed countries.  Non proliferation is unattainable.  The U. N. O. should organize an equitable distribution of these materials to assure 'world peace' by mutually assured destruction (MAD).

On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Since I do not want to talk under the banner of a religious fanatic (Khameini), I have changed the heading. Looking at the new heading, it should be obvious what I think; de-proliferation should be talked about before non-proliferation.
 
The way the possessors of nuclear weapons are demanding non-proliferation by others is indeed hypocritical. There is no morality here, it is all about who has the power. I think they could ask for non-proliferation with a degree of morality only if they did the following:
 
1)      Acknowledged that it was a mistake for them to possess those weapons of mass destruction.
2)      Stopped testing for new weapons and for ensuring the effectiveness of the old weapons.
3)      Submitted a clear cut plan as to how and within how long they would bring the level of their arsenal of nuclear weapons to zero.
4)      Execute at least a part of the plan proposed in point 3 above.
 
Having said the above, I think the non-possessors of nuclear weapons should not aspire for nuclear weapons; rather they should make the above four point demands to the possessors of nuclear weapons. This, however, can be very hard; because the possessors of nuclear weapons have been ignoring such demands for the last more than half a century. Thus, the world is in a serious predicament on this. I am worried about a war of mass destruction originating in the Middle East.
 
BTW: Khameini's wise words could be just a deception. If these fanatics had any morality, they would not have made the non-Muslims of their land an inferior class of citizens.
Sukhamaya Bain
 
===================================
From: Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: naz chow <nazrulic@gmail.com>
Cc: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2012 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Nuclear Weapons Are Sinful: Ayatollah Ali Khameini
 
I do not want proliferation of nuclear weapons to cause premature death of the civilization. 
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 3, 2012, at 3:29 PM, naz chow <nazrulic@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for your opinion. But, reality is power is all controlling/ enjoying everything in the world, if you see the history. So, to counter against those countries, every country should have nuclear weapons. Thanks.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 3, 2012, at 2:51 PM, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
No country should have it. It is not safe in any country's hand. American atomic bombs killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

From: naz chow <nazrulic@gmail.com>
To: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2012 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Nuclear Weapons Are Sinful: Ayatollah Ali Khameini
I do not understand why you are against Iran because of America and Israel, also India. My question is if those countries possess nuclear weapons, every country has right to have those. For the sake of not have other countries, what America and Israel have done attacked and distroyed Iraq. It is not good practice in the civilized world. It is like rule of jungle. Thanks.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 3, 2012, at 11:31 AM, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
Not only America, many muslim countries will also not like Iranian nuclear bomb. To Saudi Arabia, Iran is a ferocious poisonous snake ready to strike any moment and hence it's throat needs to be cut (please remember a news item several months old). If Mr. Anwar is advocationg for Iran to be allowed to make nuclear bombs, he is doing it to be politically correct. Being a fan of Saudi rule and policies, he will definitely not want a Shiite country to possess nuclear bombs. American foreign ploicy has proved many a time to be a myopic one. One example is letting Pakistan (to be more specific---acceptance of nuclear weapon in Pakistan) to possess nuclear capability.

Why nobody is talking about Israeli nukes?
Most critics believe Israel posses huge nuclear arsenal with the help from her western  backers.
Why state of Israel has immunity to keep its nukes ?
Why civilized western world never talk about vast arsenal of Israeli nukes?
If  poor nations like India, Pakistan can obtain nukes,  why it's wrong for other rich nations  in Middle East  to have it, even they can't even think about this nukes?
Is nuclear  the monopoly of selected nations ?
Why nuclear discrimination continuing in modern World?
My understanding is that not only nukes, all  unconventional deadly weapons should be eliminated for a peaceful World.
We heard about Nuclear Chapabazi(Lie) by western powers about so called Iraqi Nukes before attacking Iraq to destroy its nukes, but
unfortunately, nothing found but million human lives were lost for this Chapabazi(Lie). Why such devastation ? To protect whom?
Nobody paid price or questioned for this Chapabazi(Lie)
My understanding is that, If Israel can posses Nukes, than why my motherland Bangladesh can't  also get nukes to protect its  territorial integrity from foreign aggression?
Finally to protect  the volatile Middle East , Middle East should be declared 'Nuclear Free Zone' by the United Nations and enforced by all Big Powers
 
---------- Original Message ----------From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com>To: Undisclosed-recipients:;Subject: [mukto-mona] Nuclear Weapons Are Sinful: Ayatollah Ali KhameiniDate: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 05:35:43 -0500
 
         I think religion does have a place in politics, as a voice in the public arena, but a voice speaking from a moral high ground above the fray, not as one of the manipulating, cheating, indoctrinating tool in the hands of one of the parties jostling for power.          The infested mindset of the Pakistani glory and pride in owning the 'Islamic Bomb' is an outdated and tiresome 'wannabe like the West' or better and 'holier than thou' mindset that should look for a permanent cure soon.              Farida Majid
 
======================= <<  Neither Iraq nor Iran had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks that launched our nation on a never-ending and essentially irrational �war on terror.� Irrational, because the terrorist enemy has come to be defined through political convenience rather than through an objective threat assessment. Iran�s Shiite leaders were sworn enemies of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida, which was inspired and financed by the Wahhabi Sunnis of Saudi Arabia. >>  

The Ayatollah Is Right About One Thing: Nuclear Weapons Are Sinful

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share
       
Posted on Feb 29, 2012
AP / Vahid Salemi
A pro-government Iranian demonstrator holds a poster with photos of the late revolutionary founder Ayatollah Khomeini, right, and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at an annual demonstration in front of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
 
Given my own deep prejudice toward religious zealotry, it has not been difficult for me to accept the conventional American view that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme theocratic ruler of Iran, is a dangerous madman never to be trusted with a nuclear weapon. How then to explain his recent seemingly logical and humane religious proclamations on the immorality of nuclear weapons? His statement challenges the acceptance of nuclear war-fighting as an option by every U.S. president since Harry Truman, who, in 1945, ordered the deaths of 185,000 mostly innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 
�We do not see any glory, pride or power in the nuclear weapons�quite the opposite,� Iran�s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said Tuesday in summarizing the ayatollah�s views. Salehi added, �The production, possession, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons are illegitimate, futile, harmful, dangerous and prohibited as a great sin.�
 
Of course, the ayatollah�s position will be largely interpreted by the media and politicians in the United States as a devious trick to lull critics, but words of such clarity will not be so easily dismissed by his devout followers. They are words that one wishes our own government would embrace to add moral consistency to our condemnation of other countries we claim might be joining us in holding nuclear arms.
 
As awkward as it may be to recall, it was the United States that gifted the world with these sinful weapons. And even more to the point of assessing sin, ours is the only nation that has ever used such weapons toward their intended purpose of killing large numbers of the innocent. That fact alone should provoke some measure of humility in responding to Salehi�s offer this week at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva to negotiate a treaty banning nuclear weapons.
 
Unfortunately, his remarks were all too predictably met with swift condemnation by the United States. Laura E. Kennedy, the American ambassador to the conference, said that Iran�s claim to be opposed to such weapons �stands in sharp contrast� to that nation�s failure to comply with international obligations. But the fact is that the administration she represents has stated that there is as yet no evidence that Iran is committed to building a nuclear bomb.
 
 
She is right that Iran�s resistance to inspection �is hardly illustrative of a commitment to nuclear disarmament,� but such a remark is grotesquely hypocritical coming from the representative of a nation that has produced more than half of the world�s nuclear arsenal under the most severe conditions of secrecy. It is also true that U.S. acceptance of nuclear weapons in Israel and Pakistan, both of which have been recipients of American military aid despite breaking international nonproliferation codes to which U.S. presidents have long subscribed, is hardly a sign of consistency on this issue.
 
 
It is obvious, in a week when the U.S. welcomed North Korea�s renewed commitment to inspections, that even the most recalcitrant of nations can be induced to reason. The treatment of Iran is complicated by this being a U.S. election season, during which the Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, have been beating the war drums over what they claim is Iran�s nuclear threat. In no way has the GOP�s zeal for military confrontation been chastened by the fact that a similar crusade in 2003 by Republican hawks l




__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190



Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___