Rogue states


I think I agree with the author of this piece.

Advertisements

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

28 thoughts on “Rogue states

  1. melouisef says:

    Where is the post ?

    Like

  2. renudepride says:

    I concur with the argument entirely. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why call it an ostrich? The same is true of the global stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction. The rogue states may wish to call them “deterrents” but if they cause massive death and destruction, whether deployed during wartime or not, why not openly acknowledge that fact? Good topic, my Kenyan brother! Thank you! Naked hugs!

    Like

  3. Nan says:

    From the article insert:

    “The British prime minister President of the United States could deliver an order that would kill 3 million people within an hour.”

    And I wouldn’t put it past him if someone hurts his poor liddle feelings. *sniff*

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ron says:

      “We came. We saw. He died.” [cackles]

      “And we will make sure the Iranians and the world understand, that the United States will act decisively if necessary including taking military action.”

      “There will have to be consequences for any violation by Iran and that the nuclear option should not at all be taken of the table. That has been my position consistently.”

      “And Russia has to support the international community’s efforts sincerely or be held to account.”

      “That Russia and China will pay a price. Because they are holding up progress, blockading it. That is no longer tolerable.”

      Thankfully, warmongering Hillary didn’t win.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Nan says:

        IMO, being a “warmonger” is far different (albeit not any more justifiable) than a person who has such tender feelings, along with a deeply narcissistic nature, that he would retaliate simply because he felt a world leader insulted him (maybe by mentioning his little hands).

        Please don’t take this as a defense of Hillary. I didn’t like her either, but I think she would have been far more mature in her decision-making related to military action.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Ron says:

          What’s the likelihood that someone with global financial holdings will initiate a nuclear launch over a petty insult?

          I’d venture he’d derive way more satisfaction from tweeting that Angela Merkel is a nasty woman or Justin Trudeau is a low energy leader.

          Liked by 1 person

      • makagutu says:

        That’s quite something.
        The killing of Gaddafi has left Libya in unending sectarian wars/ conflicts.
        Assad is still killing his countrymen and women 6 yrs later.

        Like

        • Ron says:

          That’s the end game in a nutshell. The U.S. maintains its hegemony by creating or exacerbating political instability around the globe in order to protect its oil supply and the petrodollar that demarcates its value.

          Like

    • makagutu says:

      Since in the history of the world, only the US has used such weapons. Any nuclear crisis in the last decades have involved the US, that is excluding the civilian disasters from Chenobyl and Fukushima. Any president of the US is a threat to the continued existence of the world as we know it, for he has the capability to launch a strike that can decimate millions, if not billions.
      Your current president is proving to be a little immature of not overly childish. We can only observe what next he tweets about

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ron says:

        Indeed! The U.S. is the only country to have ever used nuclear force. And the president who unleashed it was a very thin-skinned member of the Democratic Party who finished his second term with exceptionally low approval ratings. (I think they were even lower than Nixon’s, but I could be wrong) 🙂

        Like

  4. Barry says:

    We could take this even further, and classify any state that didn’t prohibit its citizens and residents from deploying or testing weapons of mass destruction or from supporting such activities as a rogue state.

    Perhaps not. It would leave very few countries as being a non-rogue state. Aotearoa New Zealand would qualify. How many other countries?

    Liked by 1 person

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s