I don't think it has anything to with religion, the simple reality is that you cannot support one country ignoring the rules while chastising another for doing the same thing its just hypocritical to do so.

Damien435 has hit the nail on the head with this one.

In a perfect world it might work but we don't live in that world. You really think Syria and Iran would play be any set rules dealing with this issue? Do you think five years from now the world going to know how many weapons Iran has, are you kidding? You think these countries like Iran and Syria should be treated fairly? I'm glad I didn't post the other post I was going to. The only hypocritical thing here and not saying its not religion.

Tell me do you think there are any countries that play by the rules?
The simple reality is that all nations do what they believe is in their own best interests, if I was a suspicious man I would probably argue that it took so long to get the information to the IAEA because it was in the American governments best interests to allow Syria to clean up the site because now they cant prove it wasn't a clandestine nuclear facility (now of course that would fall into the realms of fantasy because it simply couldn't be proven but you see the point I am sure).

To be blunt if you want to kick up a stink about Syria or Iran then you have to use the same arguments against Israel or run the risk of being told to bugger off.

Originally Posted by MontyB

To be blunt if you want to kick up a stink about Syria or Iran then you have to use the same arguments against Israel or run the risk of being told to bugger off.

I'll run with that.

rock45, you have to realize that "there a US allied and basically a stable government" is not a good enough reason in international politics. Israel's ambiguity about its nuclear program is of great concern to Israel's neighbors. It's hard to build a case against Syria, Iran, North Korea, and others when we are suspected of giving Israel enough material for at least a few bombs.

Same deal! In my mind that is a very fair assessment. The US must not only be even handed, they must be seen to be even handed if they want international approval.

But why should USA be even-handed with or encourage military nuclear development in countries who make clear their hostility to USA and claim to threaten the security of USA and its interests? Such countries themselves are never even-handed.

Despite all the vitriol hurled at them, the USA is not completely mad, and should not be expected to be so. It surely is those who make such demands of them that should be told to bugger off.

I am most definitely with Barack Obama on this one! So that makes three of us at least, Rock, Barack and Del Boy - that'll do me for starters!

They shouldn't but then should the USA being encouraging military nuclear development in any country and most of all should any country be forced to give up its own defense because the USA says so?

Like it or not it is the right of every nation to to defend itself (Israel keeps telling us this and the US keeps backing it) therefore it only makes sense that if a nation you are hostile with has nukes then you should be developing them yourself.

I absolutely hate the idea of North Korea, Syria, Iran and any other mickey mouse dictatorship being nuclear armed but the fact is that based on all the principles of "sovereignty" they have every right to them.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

But why should USA be even-handed with or encourage military nuclear development in countries

To avoid a complete loss of credibility in the eyes of the remainder of the world would be my answer.

One often hears how people within the US ask, "why do so many people hate the USA"? The sad thing is that they are not only talking of their "acknowledged enemies" but people within nations that owe a lot to the US.

If you are going to wield the big stick, you must be seen to do it without fear or favour.

This is the world's way of showing that, "Might is not always right"

Might is right if you do it right.
Having a half hearted attempt at war with a population that isn't in it makes it wrong.
In modern democracies, however, it is very difficult to justify going to war over just about anything and the instant your side takes casualties, civilians who were crying for intervention start changing their minds (read Somalia).
Personally at this point in history I am against intervention and I say let the press show people getting bullied, blown up etc. in various parts of the world in full color and then calmly explain to the public why intervention is impossible, because of the public.
Think of a boxing match against a reigning world champion and a low ranked semi-professional. Everyone is on the world champion's side at first because they expect him to win pretty damned easily. But what if the semi-pro boxer starts putting up one heck of a fight and starts giving the world champ a real hard time? People will start backing him up. It's a model worth thinking about.
This is so much so if the reigning world champion has about 500 rules to think about whereas the semi-pro can do whatever he can think of. People will never actually think about this part. They will see a giant being bloodied by a midget.

"Sympathy for the underdog", Yep,.. it's a great and most times honourable thing to do.

It explains the Stockholm Syndrome to an extent. Once the authorities show up, the terrorists in turn look weak and helpless.

People need to do some more of this thing called thinking. The weak is not always right.