There are those in this world who still believe that
But are these positions above tenable? Is it a mere coincidence that every developing country that aspires to attain nuclear capability is suddenly hounded by
The post World War II world order which gave monopoly of power to
There is continued inequality in the world, and in particular, at the UN. Bush pointedly ignored UN activities in New York regarding world environment, only for the Americans to have side conference in Washington DC at US State Department
Nigeria is frequently relied upon by the UN to engage in peacekeeping worldwide, and in Africa and West Africa in particular, and yet, Nigeria is not a member of the UN Security Council, and no African country is a member of the veto wielding group. And only this week, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Department of State, Jendayi Frazer had on Thursday pointed out that countries applying to become members of the Council must meet certain criteria such as being fully democratic, responsible and stable. This position is just nonsensical!
Notable among governments of the world that opposed
Now however, that was then, during the administration of Mr. Francois Mitterand, the new government of President Nicolas Sarkozy, is a different animal. Sarkozy and his foreign minister, Mr. Kushner, are both very vocal, aggressive and public in their support for President Bush’s regime change program against
The current government of
The average American was lied to regarding the WMD excuses Mr. Bush used to invade and occupy Iraq or the untenable nexus between September 11, 2001 attacks and Saddam Hussein or his government.
We asserting here as well, that the invasion and occupation of
next world struggle is for the reapportionment and reallocation of energy resources and the command and control of the
President Bush of the
The truth of the matter is that the
There is an attitude that have been pervasively and demonstrably proven by
Why is it okay for some countries to possess dangerous weapons of atomic, nuclear and WMD, but some others cannot not? What are the set parameters or criterion for measuring who should and should not have these capabilities? President Bush ignored and disregarded the checks and balances that is embedded and entrenched in the
Why should I prefer President Bush invasion and occupation of
I will rather rely on my experience with American and Israeli behavior with the weapons and military advantage that both countries currently possess and not mere conjectures or speculations against
Why is it somehow acceptable for the
It bears repeating that
And yet, America is the “leader” among the countries with strong objections to any developing country that aspires to join or which becomes a de facto member of the nuclear power club of countries in the world
America’s objections be seen not altruistic or benevolent. Are we to assume that
Some believe that
It is also the case, that
Shall we believe that Americans and their allies are so kind and humane and as a consequence, they oppose
Are we to believe that America and its allies are genuinely concerned and touched by the risks posed by “rogue-nations” which are, in the view of the Americans, these “rogue-nations” are led by persons certified by the Americans as irremediable lunatics, and as such, atomic-nuclear-WMD in the hands of persons determined by America to be incurable despots, tyrants and dictators Perverz Musharaf? Would lead the world into apocalyptic catastrophic Armaggedon end of the world?
Or perhaps we are to believe that
Discerning observance know that possession of atomic nuclear WMD is a deterrence to would be attackers, invaders and war mongers. We also know that this capabilities is a sorts of one-comeuppance against countries that do not possess these prized weapons.
To be continued.