:rolleyes:Quote:
What's the difference between an unprovoked attack and a pre-emptive strike?
:rolleyes:Quote:
What's the difference between an unprovoked attack and a pre-emptive strike?
Here's another one :
Never got an answer to that oneQuote:
What would the US have done about terrorist groups if 9/11 didn't happen.
If you see a snake lying on the driveway and shoot it that is an unprovoked attack.
If you see a snake coiled up in strike position and your child is walking towards it and you shoot the snake, that is a preemptive strike.
Quote:
Originally posted by MerrionComputin
If you see a snake lying on the driveway and shoot it that is an unprovoked attack.
If you see a snake coiled up in strike position and your child is walking towards it and you shoot the snake, that is a preemptive strike.
Ok, now in the context of the current international situation?
:rolleyes:
That is in the context of the current international situation. It's just a metaphor. Or is it simile. Or irony. Whatever.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
Ok, now in the context of the current international situation?
:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Brown
That is in the context of the current international situation. It's just a metaphor. Or is it simile. Or irony. Whatever.
That depends on what you define as the coiled up snake.
And is it poisonous?
The snake lying on the path represents countries such as India and Pakistan that have developed but are not threatening the US (or her oil rich children) with them.
The snake coiled and ready to strike represents Iraq which is building weapons of mass destruction so as to strike at Saudi Arabia and Israel.
But didn't the UN inspectors say that Iraq's
WMD and WME were pretty much all gone, or least reduce to the
point where they were no real threat to anyone.
that is to say the knowledge is still there but not the ability to use it.
Its all the same marketing ploy. Pre-emptive strikes tend to bring in more hot chicks at the after party, though.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
:rolleyes:Quote:
What's the difference between an unprovoked attack and a pre-emptive strike?
:)
You have to bear in mind that the US was attacked with practically no warning and thousands of people died live on CNN. This has had a profound effect on their psyche in a way that other countries which were not attacked find difficult to understand. However, the fact is that America has the right to be scared of the actions and intentions of Sadam Hussein and the UN is not a sufficient guarantor as far as the US is concerned.
I just don't think that military action is the way to go.
Military strikes these days involve destroying utilities like power
stations, water supply etc.
This results in ordinary people suffering the most and these
people have suffered enough with a bad leader, sanctions and bombings.
If Saddam's life and leadership is put at risk he will do anything
he can to leave behind total chaos. The most obvious choice is
to attack Israel. He did this the last time but they refrained from
counterattacking, Given Sharon's current bloodlust and Israel's
nuclear capability things could end up slightly pear shaped to say the least.
1. The American public had no warning....Quote:
Originally posted by MerrionComputin
You have to bear in mind that the US was attacked with practically no warning ...
2. There is no evidence (and neither will their be) to suggest that the FBI/Security services had advance warning
3. There is no evidence (and neither will their be) to suggest that they [the security peeps] didn't have prior knowlegde....
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiggghhht.... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by snakeeyes1000
It is only unprovoked if the other guy doen't deserve it. That is pretty much how it is defined in my military booklet.
Hmmm ...
Right ... If I'm doing things that don't concern or harm you in anyway but nevertheless get on your nerves (out of jealousy or whatever) I'm provoking you because you think I deserve it by whatever standards you employ ?
Never knew I had to consult you for every potential harmful conduct I might undertake in the near or distant future.
Remind me again who makes up the rules ...
Seppos apparently...Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Remind me again who makes up the rules ...
:rolleyes:
Remind me again who's used the only nuclear weapon in human history? Remind me who build the bloody thing in the first place?
:rolleyes:
Okay, let's be fair...there were two of them. :pQuote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
Remind me again who's used the only nuclear weapon in human history?
Thanks for reminding me! :)Quote:
Originally posted by crptcblade
Okay, let's be fair...there were two of them. :p
Actually the firebombing of Tokyo killed more with conventional weapons than the 2 bombs that were dropped on Japan (not combined but separately). The bombs dropped on Japan were pretty tame compared to the kind of devastation a modern nuke can achieve.
And I think its a good thing that they were dropped. It brought a quick end to a long and bloody conflict in the Pacific and it showed just how horrible those weapons are so that they may never be used again.
As for going into Iraq I am against it. I do believe that doing so could be the start of something that can spread to surrounding countries. Saddam will likely target Israel with chemical and bio weapons if he knows the US is specifically coming for him. Hes the type to want to go out by bringing everyone down around him.
There are other ways to get him out of power. Invading Iraq is a huge mistake.
MerrionComputing
Right, how could people in other countries possible understand what it is like to see people dying from terrorist attacks? :rolleyes:Quote:
You have to bear in mind that the US was attacked with practically no warning and thousands of people died live on CNN. This has had a profound effect on their psyche in a way that other countries which were not attacked find difficult to understand.
What is more, most of the world was watching the exact same footage of what happened that the American people were.
Wouldn't it be better to make sure your child doesn't walk towards the snake?Quote:
If you see a snake coiled up in strike position and your child is walking towards it and you shoot the snake, that is a preemptive strike.
This snake was actually clubbed nearly to death some ten years ago and, during it's docile period that followed, it even allowed us to look inside it's mouth and inspect it's teeth. Now it has regained it's wits somewhat, it won't let us look in it's mouth anymore.
But that was a long time ago. It's been sitting there for some time and we haven't looked in it's mouth for so long, we aren't even sure if it's teeth have grown back. Despite not actually making any threatening movements either, we have decided that it needs a damn good clubbing once again...
I don't think the civilian population of Japan at the time wouldQuote:
Xanith
And I think its a good thing that they were dropped. It brought a quick end to a long and bloody conflict in the Pacific
agree with you on it being a good thing or there descendants
who suffer the after affects from radiation, even after the war had ended.
As for it bringing the war to a swift end, it is generally believed
by historians that the Japanese were loooking for peace before the bombs were dropped.
And that dropping the bombs was an experiment with human guinea pigs to see what would happen.
Historians generally accept that Russia moving troops east, 2 whole armies I believe, was the main reason Japan surrendered. They were terrified what the Russins would do.Quote:
Originally posted by DeadEyes
As for it bringing the war to a swift end, it is generally believed
by historians that the Japanese were loooking for peace before the bombs were dropped.
And that dropping the bombs was an experiment with human guinea pigs to see what would happen.
Please, let's not get bogged down in another "Was it right to nuke the Japanese..." debate again. :rolleyes:
At the end of the day, none of us really know whether Japan would have surrendered without a fight had they not been nuked. That's just one of those great hypothetical questions that we'll never know the answer to.
So you define historical knowledge as a hypothetical question?
Why don't you agree with it?
Who's historical knowledge?
How does anybody other than the person who took the fateful decision (and he's dead) know what the factors considered were?
It is mere speculation.
Disagree with what? I didn't disagree with anything.Quote:
Why don't you agree with it?
My mistake should have read as 'Why, don't you agree with it?'
Documents from the time state that the Japanese miltary command were more concerned with Russia possibly invading northern China, then Japan, than they were with the effects of the 2 A-bombs.
The Japanese even made enquiries about surrender before the bombs were dropped.
They are simple facts.
GlenW
I don't think there is any such thing when it comes to history...Quote:
They are simple facts.
As for your theory, It does seem highly improbable that the Japanese would be more worried about Russia invading northern China than they would be about having their cities systematically destroyed by nuclear weapons...
But that's just idle speculation of course... ;)
Of course you have taken into account the latent tensions between the two countries following the battle at Port Arthur and the long standing arguments over Sakhalin. Then discounted them.
Well I know that Russia and Japan had been squabbling over Manchuria for years before the war but I still don't see how the prospect of one of you foreign territories being invaded by conventional russian forces would be more scary than the prospect of the systematic destruction of your home cities by nuclear weapons. It just doesn't add up in my book.
But then my book has it's own rules...
It was the threat of Russia invading Japan that was the problem, but not to normal people, I did say it was the military command that made the decision.
I couldn't agree with you more, but the Japanese command didn't think like you or me.
It is an historical fact that all the upper echelons of thier armed forces, who agreed to the surrender, cited Russia as their main reason for doing so.
As I said, I don't believe there is any such thing as historical facts...
If we will come to a concensus that American foreign policty is volatile, and that Bush is a golden idiot, I want UN weapons inspectors in the US.
BUT OH NO THAT CAN'T HAPPEN CAUSE GOOD OL UNCLE SAM WILL NEVER HAVE IT BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY'RE THE BEST AND ARE ABOVE THE LAW AND DON'T HAVE TO GIVE A RATS ARSE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK.
I think we should level the playing field. Introduce a salary cap, and redraft the entire world.
Its like Major League Baseball vs. the NFL
-C
Werent there 3 atomic bombs dropped during WWII? The first on an un-inhabited island, as a demonstration, then the two actually on Japan? Or am I on crack?
Z.
And the frickin networks here have decided to run it all again in 11/9/02 'special'. ****ing ******s. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
[B]
Right, how could people in other countries possible understand what it is like to see people dying from terrorist attacks? :rolleyes:
What is more, most of the world was watching the exact same footage of what happened that the American people were.
I like that. :DQuote:
Originally posted by simonm
Wouldn't it be better to make sure your child doesn't walk towards the snake?
This snake was actually clubbed nearly to death some ten years ago and, during it's docile period that followed, it even allowed us to look inside it's mouth and inspect it's teeth. Now it has regained it's wits somewhat, it won't let us look in it's mouth anymore.
But that was a long time ago. It's been sitting there for some time and we haven't looked in it's mouth for so long, we aren't even sure if it's teeth have grown back. Despite not actually making any threatening movements either, we have decided that it needs a damn good clubbing once again...
Well, I guess that makes it alright then. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Actually the firebombing of Tokyo killed more with conventional weapons than the 2 bombs that were dropped on Japan (not combined but separately). The bombs dropped on Japan were pretty tame compared to the kind of devastation a modern nuke can achieve.
(Nagasaki)Quote:
Originally posted by snakeeyes1000
the bombing of hiroshima and nagowsaki(excuse my spelling) was probably the second most horrendous act the US has ever commited in its history.
And what was the first?
I consider the trail of tears worse.
Just had a quick read up on that one. Yeah, that seems pretty much more disgusting. I guess I'll agree with that to some extent.
Yep. Because all of us were alive back then. We care deeply about what happened 190 years ago. Seems like only last week. There I was having my tea and scones in the Drawing room when Jeeves came in and gave us the bad news. I remember it well.Quote:
Originally posted by snakeeyes1000
And I know that I will be attacked at British forums for saying this: Sounds like you're still sore from 1812.
July 17 - Potsdam conference
July 26 - Groves issues directive to 509 group - bg
Aug. 6 - Hiroshima - 20 kiloton Little Boy killed 80,000
Aug. 8 - Russia declared war on Japan - map
Aug. 9 - Nagasaki - 22 kiloton Fat Man kills 70,000
Aug. 15 - Emperor surrender broadcast - VJ Day
???????????
Nope New MexicoQuote:
Originally posted by Zaei
Werent there 3 atomic bombs dropped during WWII? The first on an un-inhabited island, as a demonstration, then the two actually on Japan? Or am I on crack?
Z.
Well, Duh, that would be the testing, not the demonstration =). Or am I on crack?
Z.
Ok, Heres the deal.
Saddam has performed attrocious, murdurous acts aganst his own population.
Nerve gas, gunning down, rape, pillage, plunder.
Or so is said.
Now, as to wether he is about to succeed in Nucs, well, he apparently hasn't yet.
I, for one, don't beleive potential nuc capability as a reason for war.
I do beleive gov'ts killing there own people to be a good reason.
Unfortunatly, Bush is using the Nuc argument.
Well, why not India, Pakistan, China, and so on, if Nucs are valid?
Heck, I don't know.
BUT, If it were killing your own Population, then Saddam should be removed.
-Lou
That's OK, and if all that were true to a T, I'd support this argument. But it seems, from several journalistic reports over the last few days, that the Iraqis themselves, not to mention the greater middle east don't want the US to invade.
In their own words "I don't know what the Americans are expecting. Do they really expect that the Iraqi people will welcome them? It is ridiculous". This echoes a pretty consistent opinion amongst reported interviews with Iraqis of all denominations. What makes the US think they have the right to dictate the politics, and the future of a country on the other side of the world?
George Bush is just a dictator, acting in exactly the same way as Saddam. His own people don't fully support this invasion of Iraq, and it seems that the majority are completely against it, not to mention the rest of the world, yet he will still go to war. How is this version of 'democracy' any different to the dictatorship in Iraq?
This attitude is what gets Americans 'into trouble' so to speak. Iraq has not asked for US intervention against any oppressive government, yet it will be forced upon them anyway.
And as to the nukes argument, you're exactly right - why not Pakistan and India? Seems to me those two nations are far more likely to unleask atomic hell than Saddam, who according to all reports doesn't even have nuclear capabilities.
The Iraqis are united in defiance against this impending US invasion. Regardless of what Saddam has done, they seem to hate the US more. Doesn't that tell you something?
A quote from another article (a shopkeeper in an affluent region of Iraq): "You tell the Americans that can accidents in this country kill more people than they do. So we are not frightened of them."
Does this sound like a nation waiting to be saved?
The problem is, there has been no, what do you call it, justification, for what Bush is about to do.
Just alot of , "Well, He's Evil!"!
I'm sorry, when it comes to killing people, I really need a better reason, something verifiable.
Now, as to the NG, Rape, Pillage, Plunder...
The facts show that happened years ago, and not that those crimes have lessened during the time passed, but why now?
Although, if that were the reason, I'd be behind it.
However, There has been no real justification, and I don't want to kill people.
But, I'm only an American, and a Seppo at that.
:(
There, there. It's OK. I once knew a seppo who immigrated to Australia. He's fine now! :)Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
But, I'm only an American, and a Seppo at that.
:(
I admit to an extreme case of wishy-washiness as well as having been subjected to media mis-information in this particular topic.
That being said, here are a few things I wonder about:
Do we pull completely out of the mid-east (and other countries) and let them fend for themselves? Do we then get blamed for not helping, but no longer get blamed for taking sides?
I don't think the "opinions" of Iraq's citizens is going to be real accurate when they "know" that making anti-Saddam comments could very well lead to retribution against them and their families.
Given the fact that the same leader is in power who saw nothing wrong with what he did that sparked the Gulf War in the first place, I see no reason why the UN shouldn't be able to look into his mouth for the next 50 years if he is still in power.
I think we had our chance to do something about Saddam back then and now we're stuck with him. I don't think we have a right to go back unless he actually does something or makes a threat that the UN believes he has the capability and willingness to back up. Other than that, tuff ******* Bush. You're dad blew it.
More and more I think that we (everyone on earth or elsewhere) should conduct ourselves so that we're welcome where ever we go. That basically means respecting other people which covers just about everything.
They always have the option of a 'no comment' rather than open defiance against the US. And most western journalists would probably indicate that this was a 'forced' sort of opinion. In several different articles with reports from iraqi taxi drivers to wealthy businessmen, they all openly oppose the US invasion.Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
I don't think the "opinions" of Iraq's citizens is going to be real accurate when they "know" that making anti-Saddam comments could very well lead to retribution against them and their families.
There is not one single thing in the entire universe that every American will EVER agree on. So of course not everyone is in support of it. Hell, there are people who are not in suport on this so called "war on terror". When you have such a varied population, this can only be expected.
The thing that I think is REALLY sad is the amount of "patriotism" over here after 9/11. If it takes something like that to make you appreciate your country... something is seriously wrong.
Personally, I would have to say that Bush is simply riding on 9/11. He knows that he "won" the election on something like 100 votes, and after 9/11, his approval went up to something near 75%. He is a politician, and he wants people to vote for him. Of course he is going to keep a blood lust going...
Z.
I clearly indicated the majority support against such a move. A democracy requires a majority concensus.Quote:
Originally posted by Zaei
There is not one single thing in the entire universe that every American will EVER agree on. So of course not everyone is in support of it.
I am of course well aware that everything is never going to be agreed on by everyone. But in this case, it seems the majority oppose what the government wants to do, yet they will do it anyway.
That's a dictatorship, not a democracy.
And my sister tells me to get over being pissed about my experience in the Army and I only got out 6 months ago. :)Quote:
Originally posted by chrisjk
Yep. Because all of us were alive back then. We care deeply about what happened 190 years ago. Seems like only last week. There I was having my tea and scones in the Drawing room when Jeeves came in and gave us the bad news. I remember it well.
Ah, but the government is elected by the people, and so they MUST be doing what we want, because we chose them to do it =). Democracy is flawed, in that elected officials have brains and ambitions, and so wont necessarily do what the voters want. The ONLY way that democracy can REALLY work is if EVERYONE gets a vote in EVERYTHING.
Z.
your probably on crack, but I'm not 100% sure. I heard that they proposed demonstrating one of the two bombs to japan before using it, but they werent sure if it was going to work as they had never dropped one out of an airplane before. They didn't want to look like arses if it didn't work.Quote:
Originally posted by Zaei
Well, Duh, that would be the testing, not the demonstration =). Or am I on crack?
Z.
Why do you think Iran and Venizuala hates the U.S.?
The cause for that answer is the same cause for this thing on Saddam.
There are three great poisons of Mankind - Power, Wealth, and Knowledge. Bush is a person, and therefore wants power. If the citizens of the United States were to offer him absolute dictatorship, would he actually refuse?
Why does people want to become Presidents? Why does some former presidents use everything in their power to try and stay in the seat? Why did Watergate happen? Because of one thing - power. The president has power, and might try to maintain it.
Now, of course, this doesn't apply to everybody (Washington did not really want power), but it's a pretty good generalization.
Influence and economy brings power because they give you control over others. Tragedies and prosperity also brings power through emotions. Wars and conflicts bring power because people will need guidance. Fear and anger bring power through manipulation. Sadness and hate bring power though revenge. Terror and outrage brings power though blindness. Victory and glory bring power though love.
As eveyone knows, 9/11 is a tragedy, and it brought fear and anger. Bush used it well through patiotism. Blaming scapegoats bought hate to America, and Clinton's scandels supplied the outrage. Influence and economy was aleady in place, which leaves terror and conflict. Obviously, these "Iraq did it" events can promote terror and conflict, which can well balance the stock market issue (after all, would anyone try to citicize the president in the middle of a time bomb ready to explode?) No one knows if Iraq really plans on a nuclear war, but saying so makes the people panicky and ready to accept him no matter what.
Except that there are a whole lot of Americans who don't accept him or his ideas about Iraq. Just because he's in the news for saying it doesn't mean everyone supports him.Quote:
Originally posted by Ziedritch
No one knows if Iraq really plans on a nuclear war, but saying so makes the people panicky and ready to accept him no matter what.
Look at this, a quote by the Nazi number two man at the Nuremberg trial. I think it applies well to what's going on right now
Herman Goering, Nazi leader at the Nuremberg trialQuote:
"Why of course the people don't want war.Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
A: Correct, Bush is a golden Idiot. No Arguing that.Quote:
Originally posted by siyan
If we will come to a concensus that American foreign policty is volatile, and that Bush is a golden idiot, I want UN weapons inspectors in the US.
B: You dont Need Weapons inspectors in the US. Your govenrment already knows what we have down to what model of rockets they are sitting on. The US in not secretive of what weapons they have, just where they hide them. As does China, Russiawell the ones they havent forgotten about or misplaced :rolleyes:, China, Great Britian, France, India, Pakistan..... Remember eairlier this year when all of the nuclear powers got togeather and added up how many nukes each other has and how many they would be able to keep? Saddam says he dosn't have any. If he dosnt then why won't he prove it? Planning a suprise attack on his neighbors mabe? Selling suitcase biobombs to terrorists mabe? He wants to test fire a couple off at Iran and Israel before he gets blown back into the stone age, mabe?
Not publicly divulging the information or proving the information incorrect suggests something is out of the ordinary. If all it took to avoid this was to allow comprehensive weapons inspections like he agreed to in the first place to save his life then what is he hiding? He says the inspectors were spies? Spying on what? He's not supposed to have a military. The UN promised to defend his country in case of attack after the first war and I'm damn sure the UN would do a better job at that than he could. What else could we possibly be spying on? Oh forget it, I know, its the Nuke, Bio and chem bombs he's building. Or mabe it's the cash he's hoarding that is supposed to be feeding his people.
Yes, he would HAVE to refuse, otherwise we would chuck his ass out the door in a New York minute =).Quote:
Originally posted by Ziedritch
There are three great poisons of Mankind - Power, Wealth, and Knowledge. Bush is a person, and therefore wants power. If the citizens of the United States were to offer him absolute dictatorship, would he actually refuse?
Why does people want to become Presidents? Why does some former presidents use everything in their power to try and stay in the seat? Why did Watergate happen? Because of one thing - power. The president has power, and might try to maintain it.
The other is called "Potomac Fever". Once someone gets to a place in power in Washington, they NEVER want to leave =).
Z.
On the Gwantanemath Scale of Idiotness, how do Golden Idiot compare to say, Platinum Idiot, Silver Idiot and Bronze Idiot? I'm just trying to put this all in perspective.Quote:
Originally posted by MasterBlaster
A: Correct, Bush is a golden Idiot. No Arguing that.