All of us can tune-in to the evening news or read about this issue in the papers almost daily. Once in a while the subject rises to front page news depending on the political landscape of the day.

It's without a question a "hot potato" of an issue to confront in any given forum. Just the same, this subject has dogged me throughout my life if only because the ultimate worst case scenario involving this whole subject is one where there is no safety net where our own personal lives are concerned. Its the one mechanism developed by man that can be unleashed and its affect felt within minutes if it came to that. The degree of threat changes from time to time as the years pass for the generation that grew up in the Atomic age post WW II. It's indeed, more pleasant to tune it out or minimize reflection on it since, individually, what are we suppose to do?

I simply try to understand what the intent is both for our nation, the UN and nations being held accountable for their nuclear ambitions. For me, hypocracy sometimes comes to mind, and I question that aspect. Sound, practical logical response also sometimes comes to mind and I question that aspect as well. Trust in our leaders for selfless intent is one major issue I wrestle with..

For those reading what I have to say, I offer simply a perspective that underscores the present attitude of our nation, does hold other nations accountable for their intent and legitimizes involvment in the affairs of other nations based on actions that serve to undermine international respect for all nations outside its own borders.

I hear how Pyongyang, N Korea is "at it" again, going back on their word, choosing to rekindle their nuclear program. I hear how the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, makes a fist and gives a thumbs down during the closing address by US President Bush to the UN General Assembly.

His argument is that Iran intends only to use it for peaceful means - "Who has the right to interfere with the sovereign affairs of Iran?" North Korea is by nature a closed society and very militaristic. Indeed, its military is given the highest priority in service while economic dealings that promote more prosperity for its people is considered secondary. North Korea uses the threat of continuing its nuclear program as a legitimate means to negotiate with strength over trade for its depraved economy. Indeed we encourage a move away from the use of nuclear power in exchange for negotiating free trade and better prosperity for its people just as we are intent to encourage any other nations to refrain from nuclear power as a means to upgrade its economic standing in the world.

The question: who are we to tell other nations what to do when we ourselves, have not dismantled our own entirely? I can summize its not a clean, simply answered question in order to deal with these issues. Though we, ourselves possess nuclear weapons and nuclear power for peacful intent as well, is it not legitimate to insist that other nations whose policies include official threats to other nations, abide by a UN Charter to forego their nuclear ambitions? And, to go out on a limb, work to negotiate trade agreements in exchange for those restrictions? There is a perspective here that serves to reduce world-wide threats to other nations through capability of mass destruction. Nukes are one example.

And so, it is good to reflect on Iran's vow to destroy Israel. It is not good to let a nation banter as it will, be in power and have that be part of the official party line and then to allow it to develop nuclear capability, whatever the intent. Does it not serve to increase the danger in the world, that would be much harder to contain where the result to become a showdown or an actual nuclear attack? Let's not forget the two attempts the Arab nations in the middle east rallied with the former Soviet Union's support to simply erradicate Israel. And how does it affect us? Israel reflects a land decided upon by the winning powers of WWII to give the Jewish People a nation of their own. this was in response to a prior attempt by a nation to wipe out the Jewish race in Europe. With all the imperfection of fairness that exists simply because of history and politics, at least we set up a mechanism that stands for world concencious. Any member can become its member and be a part of this. To then have a nation disrespect what the political boundries are by disrespecting concensious is one way to look at it. Although Human nature will always be one that includes the quest to rise to the top and lead, it's one thing to cooperate and become strong through virtuous means and quite another to do so through threats to mankind. Iran, in its official declaration to destroy Israel, and its belief this is its duty based on its religious teachings to "keep its own interpretation of order in the world" only serves to reject the status quoe and continue to make war" with what they see as an ongoing threat.

At some point when nuclear cabability is added to the equation in the midst of a nation like that, does hypocracy such as what might appear by the US need to be appreciated and dealt with first? I think the fact that we have drastically reduced our nuclear capability deserves enough credit for us to at least direct or have a say in making policy that limits nuclear capability around the world especially in cases that apply to Iran or North Korea.

I do think that it is all about diplomatic negotiation, a willingness to stand for the betterment of those nations' peoples by the manner in which we negotiate, and a continued patience on the UN's part and ourselves in achieving those objectives. If the political leaders themselves are disrespectful of these objectives, whatever we can do to continue to promote a more peaceful world is legitimate even at the expense of diplomatic isolation for uncooperation and continued defience by such a nation.

Who are we to direct others on how to live? We are the best act out there in this world with the means to implement the policy. We (the US and UN General Assembly) currently have the means to bring trade to other nations that make it possible for it to prosper without their need to use threats to achieve their ends.

Indeed there is argument from many perspectives about this and always will be... But no need to fly off the handle with a simple phrase such as "who are we to dictate to other nations? How does that lessen the likelihood of more war in the future if not now?"

Change has to start one day, one moment, and from someone.
Someone has to lead... For better or worse, keep this in mind when you are faced with conflicting opinions inside as you read about these situations. Im not one that speaks on America's behalf because I am a citizen of the USA, or that I love my country because it is one of the superpowers. I speak based on what it is "suppose to be standing for" even if on the outside there are arguments about what our intent really is, selfish or selfless though it maybe. We all struggle with human nature - its positives and negatives, both as individuals and as nations in the world. If another nation more effectively rises to the occasion of what "America is suppose to stand for and does a better job", it's deserving of my support. We have a long ways to go, but you must admit, we have come a long ways in this last century alone... perhaps, let's keep that perspective!

______________________________________________________________

submitted by: www.chrisccanton.com
______________________________________________________________