Let's move onto the next conflict - Page 2

slavdogg · 04-10-2003

we're heading into a bixing match for now with US, UK, Japan on one side and France, China and Russia on the other side.

Almighty Colin · 04-10-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by slavdogg@Apr 10 2003, 06:20 AM
we're heading into a bixing match for now with US, UK, Japan on one side and France, China and Russia on the other side.

I hope that end of the day I don't need a North Korean geography lesson.

04-10-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin@Apr 10 2003, 05:13 AM
JR,

Do you think it is possible that nonproliferation, even at the risk of force, could become US policy and applied consistently from administration to administration ?

If not, what do we really gain from throwing Saddam out of Baghdad if countries like NK, Iran, and maybe eventually Syria have nuclear weapons?

Quote:

Do you think it is possible that nonproliferation, even at the risk of force, could become US policy and applied consistently from administration to administration ?

i think that is really unlikely to happen due to the nature of politics, especially in a two party system... permanence cannot really happen in terms of government policy because the next party will try to discredit the policies of the previous just as one party will discredit the other today.

Quote:

If not, what do we really gain from throwing Saddam out of Baghdad if countries like NK, Iran, and maybe eventually Syria have nuclear weapons?

i think its important because many loud messages were sent through this:

1) "you cannot find refuge forever, snuggled comfortably under the arms of the ineptitude of the UN"

2) "even if world opinion is against it and the UN is against it, you are still at risk in your behavior"

3) "people in the middle east dont want to be oppressed any more than people do anywhere else"

4) "popular opinion and 20 year old protestors are not always right and are certainly not always a deterrence... so dont count on this as a deterrence"

5) "just because you manage to put monuments, signs, sculptures and statues everywhere and terrorize people into cheering for you... it does not mean they support you and will not necessarily fight for you"

6) "dictatorships are quickly going out of fashion - and you too, could be 21 days from being out of a job"

7) "cruise missiles and tomohahk missiles can be launched from subs and warships hundreds of miles away and take out your bunker with pin-point accuracy while you are eating breakfast or sleeping"

8) "bunkers dont keep you safe"

9) "elite troops wont keep you safe"

10) "hey man, get your shit together and stop fucking around"

11) "Iran, Syria, N. Korea and others... please pay attention to this like you have never before paid attention to anything in your life"

Almighty Colin · 04-10-2003

So if we can't get an official US policy out of this that transcends administrations and the UN is doomed to be a failure on the issue of nonproliferation. If countries like NK and Iran don't "learn a lesson"* from the swift demolition of the Iraqi army and will continue headstrong down the path to being nuclear states, is our victory only a pyrrhic one?

* My guess. They didn't.

04-10-2003

Quote:

So if we can't get an official US policy out of this that transcends administrations and the UN is doomed to be a failure on the issue of nonproliferation. If countries like NK and Iran don't "learn a lesson"* from the swift demolition of the Iraqi army and will continue headstrong down the path to being nuclear states, is our victory only a pyrrhic one?

yes, i dont think there will be policy that will make a lasting impact.

i think the only way to make diminish the threat both now and in the future is to take them out right now, or to eliminate the threat. i

i think todays victory is important today. i dont think it will mean much over time if remaining governments like NK, Iran etc are not reformed or their behavior is not modified.

lifes a bitch, then you turn radical, then you radicalize others, then you take over a government, then you continue being a prick, then you oppress and brutalize people, then you die.

lifes not fair.

PornoDoggy · 04-10-2003

Quote:

6) "dictatorships are quickly going out of fashion - and you too, could be 21 days from being out of a job"

Damn, JR ... I thought liberals had the market on naive locked up. So next on our agenda is a number of countries in the "Coalition of the willing (to suck off Uncle Sam's teat?)"?

Are you saying that the Bush Administration would come down hard in defense of Chavez and democracy should the Venezuelan military stage a coup tomorrow?

[quote]"Do you think it is possible that nonproliferation, even at the risk of force, could become US policy and applied consistently from administration to administration?"

"I think that is really unlikely to happen due to the nature of politics, especially in a two party system... permanence cannot really happen in terms of government policy because the next party will try to discredit the policies of the previous just as one party will discredit the other today."
[quote]

I'm not so sure about that particular arguement. In spite of the historical revisionist screeching of the uberpatriots we stayed pretty consistent throughout the Cold War.

I think it more likely that one party or another would begin to apply the policy selectively. Just off the top of my head, Japan or Australia could build very logical and persuasive arguements for the need of a nuclear deterent against China and Indonesia respectively.

Almighty Colin · 04-10-2003

So what do you think, PD?

Should the US just mind it's own business?

BTW .. I think JR's enumerations were at least partly in jest. #10 was my first clue. You know how JR is.

Almighty Colin · 04-10-2003

I agree with PD that a basic policy regarding nonproliferation can transcend administrations. If "the people" want it, they can get it. It might very well be that people don't and that we'll have to take a dozen nukes someday before we try and remake the world in our image.

PornoDoggy · 04-10-2003

Simply put, I think the ONLY way to accomplish nonproliferation is through the United Nations or something like it.

A unilateral policy of enforced nonproliferation will never work, unless "the people" want to go back to the arms races of the 50s - 70s. I doubt very seriously that countries like China or Russia would view the policy as anything other than an effort to increase American influence. Ultimately such a policy would cause large portions of the world to view the United States as the country that's "out of control." How many countries do you think we could attempt to "remake ... in our image" before we convince them that THEY are threatened?

We've already seen traditional friends of the United States (please note - friends aren't always lackeys) question the policy with regards to Iraq, and not all of those concerns are simply over commercial interests (o matter how often you repeat it amongst yourselves)

I suspect that you will see even the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" fall apart should there be an effort to take the war beyond Iraq into Syria or Iran (if it doesn't fall apart during the occupaton of Iraq). Syria's role in international terrorism has decreased significantly over the last ten or twelve years, and Iran is teetering on the brink of democracy. I doubt very seriously you could build a case that an attack on either country at this point would be in the national interests of the United States, let alone the world.

Almighty Colin · 04-10-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 10 2003, 08:55 AM
Simply put, I think the ONLY way to accomplish nonproliferation is through the United Nations or something like it.

PD,

I'd LOVE to see that but if each violator gets a dozen years and a dozen and a half resolutions, I think we can safely say we'll be talking a good game but walking with a languid limp.

Any other ideas?

PornoDoggy · 04-10-2003

Quote:

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Originally posted by Colin+Apr 10 2003, 09:03 AM-->
QUOTE (Colin @ Apr 10 2003, 09:03 AM)

__________________
SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites

Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...

PornoDoggy

View Public Profile

Send a private message to PornoDoggy

Visit PornoDoggy's homepage!

Find More Posts by PornoDoggy

04-10-2003 #62

-= JR =-

Guest

Posts: n/a

its not that i dont think that doing everything through the UN or "something like it" is a bad idea. i think its an unrealistic idea because it has not worked very well to date. Just like terrorism right now. its no longer a 1960's idea of a crazy guy running into a cafe with a machine gun... its about detonating a dirty nuclear bomb in NY, releasing chemical weapons or biological weapons on millions. its not about killing 5 guys with a pistol in the subway. Its about those same people NOW having the capability to kill millions.

its a brave new world out there. i would hesitate to apply the logic of the middle of the last century to todays "Jihadis" with nuclear weapons.

I agree with you PD. i dont think that unilateralism is the *best* answer. I just dont see an organization like the UN Security Council protecting the USA either. I am just a little more cynical than you are. i think that unilateralism (though its not really unilateralist when 50 countries support you as with Iraq) is the best solution to protect the interests of the USA. I think its safe to say that China, Syria, Russia and France cant be relyed on to do so.

there is not a perfect answer. the problem that i see is the same problem that led up to 9/11. The threat was always known. The threat continued to grow. Then he began to attack US targets for almost 10 years. He trained terrorists for almost 10 years to kill Americans. We all knew about it. like everything else, we cannot agree to act BEFORE a 9/11 happens - we can only agree AFTER the tragedy.

But what will the next attack be? Will it be North Korea launching 400 nuclear ICBM's at the USA? probably not. i dont think North Korea is much of a threat or even has enough money for gas to become a threat. people who want to live never are. Iran? i dont know... people who want to die and are trying to go nuclear scare me. Do we argue and debate until a know radical fundamentalist government, who we know would destroy the US if it was within its power to do so aquires nuclear weapons? DO we allow a government who is a know sponsor of terrorist organizations aquire nuclear weapons? Do they still have their big banner in their central mosque saying "death to america"? are those people that should have nuclear weapons? can it be argued that it will not be a serious threat to the US and its allies? i dont think so.

How would the USA vs Soviet Union apply to Iran (Islam) vs The Western World? i dont see a comparison.

the only thing i feel 100% sure of ... is that once these people cross the line and go nuclear, the "problem" grows exponentially and can no longer be contained.

Whos interest will it serve to have Iran have Nuclear weapons and be able to bring that to the negotiating table with them? no one i can think of.

the USA and Soviet Union were not unstable, autocratic, religious dictatorships teaching people that to die while trying to destroy the USA is the only way to go. Can that argument apply to the Middle East? to Iran, to Pakistan? Pakistan could launch its arsenal anytime. Mushariff, though a seemingly nice guy, barely has control of the country and Pakistan is "jihad central"

would we have been better off making sure that Pakistan NEVER had nuclear weapons in the first place that trying to rely on "peace and optimism" in a fundamentalist society plagued by revolution after revolution and coup after coup?

i think so.

did the UN do its job and make sure they DID NOT AQUIRE nuclear weapons? no. The UN continually allows these known, potential threats come to fluition. thats a problem in my mind.

-= JR =-

04-10-2003 #63

Almighty Colin

Members

Want to see your own Advertising Here!

Join Date: Oct 2002

Posts: 8,059

Terrorism works. I think Osama got exactly what he wanted out of this. Probably more. The non-Arab world divided.

__________________
Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.

Secret Friends, LATINA Secret Friends , My Cam Friends

Almighty Colin

View Public Profile

Visit Almighty Colin's homepage!

Find More Posts by Almighty Colin

04-10-2003 #64

-= JR =-

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Are you saying that the Bush Administration would come down hard in defense of Chavez and democracy should the Venezuelan military stage a coup tomorrow?

i think that if Chavez was threatening the United States that we will all die in a "sea of fire", exited the 1994 agreement, pulled out of the non-proliferation treaty and actively pursued a nuclear weapons program while threatening the US... he would be found dead, shot in the face, lying in a drainage ditch by the roadside and the world would not lose a moments sleep for it and it would not even make the front page.

Last edited by -= JR =- at Apr 10 2003, 10:41 AM

-= JR =-

04-10-2003 #65

PornoDoggy

Cramming 3 people in a Room to Attend Show

Want to see your own Advertising Here!

Join Date: Oct 2002

Location: Amid the Cornfields of Illinois

Posts: 5,366

Quote:

Originally posted by -= JR =-@Apr 10 2003, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Are you saying that the Bush Administration would come down hard in defense of Chavez and democracy should the Venezuelan military stage a coup tomorrow?

i think that if Chavez was threatening the United States that we will all die in a "sea of fire", exited the 1994 agreement, pulled out of the non-proliferation treaty and actively pursued a nuclear weapons program while threatening the US... he would be found dead, shot in the face, lying in a drainage ditch by the roadside and the world would not lose a moments sleep for it and it would not even make the front page.

Don't doubt your scenario for a moment.

Now come back to the question I asked. Assume that the Venezuelan military stage a coup tomorrow and installed what they would consider a friendlier government - are you confident that the current administration's commitment to democracy result in more than the murmur of platitudes necessary to present an appearance of disapproval?

Last edited by PornoDoggy at Apr 10 2003, 11:00 AM

__________________
SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites

Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...

PornoDoggy

View Public Profile

Send a private message to PornoDoggy

Visit PornoDoggy's homepage!

Find More Posts by PornoDoggy

04-10-2003 #66

-= JR =-

Guest

Posts: n/a

i dont think the current adminstration is committed to democracy as much as like most governments, its committed to protecting its own interests. if the US had no direct interest in venezuala (who has no terrorists chanting "die americans die" and are not pursuing nuclear weapons programs while being extremely hostile to the US) then you are probably right in that there would be some brief "Congratulations... blah blah,... now if you will excuse me, i am late for a round of golf" type of speech.

-= JR =-

Page 2 of 2 < 1 2

Bookmarks

Google

Thread Tools

Show Printable Version

Email this Page

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is On

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:12 AM..

04-10-2003	#54
Almighty Colin Members Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,059	So if we can't get an official US policy out of this that transcends administrations and the UN is doomed to be a failure on the issue of nonproliferation. If countries like NK and Iran don't "learn a lesson"* from the swift demolition of the Iraqi army and will continue headstrong down the path to being nuclear states, is our victory only a pyrrhic one? * My guess. They didn't. __________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content. Secret Friends, LATINA Secret Friends , My Cam Friends

04-10-2003	#59
PornoDoggy Cramming 3 people in a Room to Attend Show Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Amid the Cornfields of Illinois Posts: 5,366	Simply put, I think the ONLY way to accomplish nonproliferation is through the United Nations or something like it. A unilateral policy of enforced nonproliferation will never work, unless "the people" want to go back to the arms races of the 50s - 70s. I doubt very seriously that countries like China or Russia would view the policy as anything other than an effort to increase American influence. Ultimately such a policy would cause large portions of the world to view the United States as the country that's "out of control." How many countries do you think we could attempt to "remake ... in our image" before we convince them that THEY are threatened? We've already seen traditional friends of the United States (please note - friends aren't always lackeys) question the policy with regards to Iraq, and not all of those concerns are simply over commercial interests (o matter how often you repeat it amongst yourselves) I suspect that you will see even the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" fall apart should there be an effort to take the war beyond Iraq into Syria or Iran (if it doesn't fall apart during the occupaton of Iraq). Syria's role in international terrorism has decreased significantly over the last ten or twelve years, and Iran is teetering on the brink of democracy. I doubt very seriously you could build a case that an attack on either country at this point would be in the national interests of the United States, let alone the world. __________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...