When america complains about iran and north korea having nuclear weapons isnt this double standards?

Question

Surely george bush is the most dangerous man in the world to have his finger near the nuclear button?

Answer 1

Valhalla, you live in a world where you are allowed your say, you think as a rational person and you don't hate your fellow man....

Iran and Korea as well as a lot of other Islamic or middle east country have no regard for anyone but themselves. They would use nuclear weapons at the drop of a hat to destroy the Infidels. They do not live or play by rules we accept in a democratic civilisation and the catastrophic fall out of nuclear weapons will affect us all.....

It may seem like double standards to you because you don't see the bigger picture. You cannot trust Iran when they say their nuclear program is purely for electricity....... Also, how many times in all the wars have America used Nuclear weapons? I recall only the one.... which although at the time seemed inhumane but quite probably saved millions more as it ended the war... Hiroshima I talk of......

You must remember that allowing countries like this to have nuclear capabilities is on a par to allowing a child to play with a loaded gun....... consequences don't really sink in, and to be honest nor would they.......

I hope you can see and understand what I am trying to say to you...


Have a pleasant evening,
Graham

Answer 2

The problem with N. Korea and Iran is that their leadership is quite pathological. They are more likely to "use" the weapons against their "enemies" - real or imagined than any of the other countries who have these weapons.

The question of whether George Bush is the most dangerous man in the world is a perception without substance. Besides after 4 or 8 years, the President is either defeated in an election or term-limited out to be replaced by someone else (and, more than likely from a different party*). This is not the case in either N. Korea or Iran.

* Since the end of WW II:
Truman (D) 1945 - after FDR's death to 1952
Eisenhower (R) 1953-1960
Kennedy/LBJ (D) 1961 - 1968
Nixon/Ford (R) 1969 - 1976
Carter (D) 1977 - 1980
Reagen (R) 1981 - 1988
Bush (R) 1989 - 1992
Clinton (D) 1993 - 2000
Bush (R) 2001 - 2008 - Term limits whether he would win or not is moot. He cannot run again.

Answer 3

No it is not a double standard. The United States has faced legitimate nuclear threats for more than fifty years. Through the actions of the country during this time, it has been demonstrated that these weapons would only be employed in a defensive role, and elaborate safeguards have been developed to insure this. The President has the awesome responsibility of defending this nation and employing these weapons should we be attacked in such a manor. The possibility of Iran building and giving terrorists access to these weapons is very real. Ditto for North Korea whose leader is quite insane. He had no feelings for the unknown hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of his own people that he had starved to death, brainwashed and beaten into submission over the past five decades. Neither of these countries have the technology, the temperament, or a democratic system in place to insure safe disposition of nuclear weapons. Should a nightmare scenario involving the use of a nuclear weapon from one of these countries take place (they leave a clear fingerprint) we would have no choice but to incinerate millions and millions and millions of innocent people. This isn't a question of Bush, even though he has exasperated the situation, but one of national security, not only for ourselves, but for the very people of these rouge nations, who are for the most part appalled by the idea of nuclear weapons but unable to speak out.

Answer 4

First off No it is not a double standard... Because these countries have proven themselves to be a major threat to the world with far to many examples to even think about listing.. And FYI.. It would take a bit more then just Bush to actually push the "Nuclear button" as u call it.......

I mean come on dude.. Think about what u r saying! Iran...? N Korea..? Two of the most hostile, cruel, inhumane, corrupt, religiously fu*ked up countries in the world with nukes... That's just plain stupid talk...

Answer 5

Double standards can only apply to equals. Are you implying that
regimes such as Iran and N. Korea are on equal footing to western
countries like US?

If so, you seriously need to wake up and pay attention to whats
happening in the world.

Answer 6

No. The US has never declared that a country should be wiped off the face of the Earth as did the Iranian leader.

These countries should not have access to fireworks let alone nuclear weapons.

I'll throw my hat in with the US on this one.

Answer 7

Comon, think who would be more likely to use a nuclear bomb, a crazed dictator, who runs an economically unsound and collapsing country, or a george bush, who can barely read, let alone find the country he wants to bomb on a map.

Answer 8

Yes it is a double standard. Thankfully George Bush already thinks he is the leader of the world so he doesn't have so much temptation to nuke everyone to prove it.

There are quite a lot of people even more deluded that Bush so I don't think he is the most dangerous.

Answer 9

of cause it is double standards, north Korea and Iran have been living under the American nuclear threat for 60 years. But on the other hand If Britain and the US have nukes and our enemy's don't we are in a position to bully other nations (as we do) and make your living standards better! think about it when you next go on your home computer? would you be able to afford it?

evilc - America has the death sentence and would like to execute the prisoner's in Guantanamo bay that would like to overthrow bush agian double standards

Answer 10

I hope that this is a wind up. It would be double trouble not double standards. Nutters musn't have nuclear weapons.