Sorting out Chasli
Reader comment on: The Van Diepen Demarche
in response to reader comment: response

Submitted by Jack Jameson, Dec 5, 2007 19:20

This writer presents little but sophistry, disingenuousness, and naivety in his comments.To suggest that the current US administration is not civilised or responsible is laughably disingenuous, It flies in the face of reality. Clearly Chasli is concealing his own personal politics in his words. Secondly, its true that China and the USSR were run by dangerous people, but they would never opt for self-destruction! Thats why the policy of MAD worked as a deterrent. However, Islamic extremists show no such restraint! As evidenced by all the lunatic suicide bombers. Hence Iran's behaviour cannot be compared to the former. They are quite capable, driven by religious fanaticism, of committing national suicide, if, by so doing they destroy Israel and/or the US. A good example of Chasli's sophistry. Thirdly, the Pakistan issue is a problem, no question. But its fait accompli, nothing can be done. However allowing another Islamic country, more egregious even than Pakistan, to acquire nuclear weapons proclaims a view that two dangerous countries are as good as one? Thats a bad joke! Finally, Chasli has not even an elementary understanding of geopolitics. The world is a dangerous place. Threats to the US and its Western allies abound. Consequently the US cannot be even handed in its non-proliferation policy. India represents no threat to the West. Its nuclear weapons were acquired to counter China, and Pakistan. The latter is the only real problem at present. The US controls this situation by its alliance with Musharraf. Not ideal, and risky, but practical. Chasli's arguments are riven by syllogisms and a false understanding of the world. The US does not treat all nations equally, nor should it! We're not living in some liberal Utopia here.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.