Aren't you still an island? :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Printable View
Aren't you still an island? :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
I think Shaggy put the whole 'Appeasement never works' point really well. There's a problem with taking a look at one (admittedly high-profile) example of appeasement failing and applying it to all subsequent decisions. Indeed I can probably think of more examples where a failure to negotiate has been disasterous than when appeasement has. The most obvious being the Crown's refusal to allow full representation to the American colonists despite an increasing tax burden. It's entirely possible that, if the Georgey Boy had given you guys a level of representation comparable with the British homelands, you would still be British colonists to the this day (or at least, you would have been until the next idiot politician came along and treated you unfairly).
Some other examples where it was disasterous would be our failure to engage with the Indian separatist movements in the 20's, our decision to take on the boars (we eventually won but at huge cost), our failure to engage with Russia in the build up to WW2 (a decision which arguably drove them into the arms of Germany, a regime whose politics they were diametrically opposed to), America's failure to negotiate with Japan over their commercial interests in China pre-world war 2 (again, drove them into an alliance with Germany and, ultimately, into attacking Pearl Harbour) or how about the REAL biggy: The readiness of the major European powers to go to war instead of talk in 1914.
Not if Tony get's his way :rolleyes:Quote:
Aren't you still an island?
I propose that Europe is really an island off the coast of England.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzi
What's always bothered me is why Europe gets to be a continent.
I blame the Irish. :mad:
First off I am not saying that appeasement doesn’t work (in some cases it might be a perfectly viable strategy). What I am attempting to get across is that you must recognize and understand your enemy before deciding what strategy is best used against it. What better way to understand your enemy than to listen to what they are saying to their people then look at their deeds and actions. Just as pre-WWII if you listened to Hitler and his words it was quite easy to understand that signing peace treaties (talking too) and attempting to appease him would not have worked. Hitler had an agenda and his words as well as his deeds (military build up) all pointed to war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I am making the same parallel with radical Islam and the state of Iran. Listen to the words spoken by the leader of Iran to his people. Listen to Iran’s leader when he talks of wiping Israel out, taking down the US and the west, his belief in an Islamic super state that controls the world, and the goals of radical Islam. Then look at his deeds, his continued pursuit of nuclear weapons and non-cooperation with the rest of the world, his support of terrorism and terrorists, and Iran’s attempted influence on Iraq and Lebanon.
I disagree with your logic in attempting to show that you cannot know when talking is no longer an option. I believe that you can fully understand your enemy and their intentions before conflict arises without hindsight. All you need to do is to listen to your enemy, understand their intentions, and judge their actions. I do believe that this is what Churchill used to sound the alarm bells against the growing threat that was Nazi Germany in the 1930’s.
You are right it’s not as simplistic as “appeasement doesn’t work”; every situation is different and requires analysis and understanding. My argument is about recognizing when you are wasting your time talking when all the signs point to war and conflict, and then waiting until something “bad” happens before doing anything about it. While you might feel that this is impossible I disagree with your assertion and put it to you that understanding and listening to your enemy goes a long way in finding out their intentions ahead of time.
X
when it comes down to it, you have to ask yourself this question:
any nation that successfully develops a nuclear weapon, and decides to use it either Israel, or the US will obviously be destroyed as well in a counter attack.
However, is that something that the leader of one of these nations is willing to do?
Unfortunatly, I think the answer to that is Yes.
In WWII, when the US used a nuclear bomb on Japan, we were the only ones who had one. It was a quick end to the war, and there was no risk of them simply using one back on us. That was the last time that notion was possible though.
If the radicals that run these Islamic states think that destroying the US and Israel at the risk of themselves being wiped out, that may be something they are willing to do because of course they go to heaven for it.
Even though the vast vast majority of the civilians in these states are just like us, and want peace and to make a buck, they don't have any say in what happens, just like we don't have any say in many things our Govt does.
Absolutely. But, given that the US government is the only one to have a track record of using nuclear (or atomic) weapons on it's enemies populace, which group of powerless people do you think should be more concerned, US citizens or Iranians?Quote:
Even though the vast vast majority of the civilians in these states are just like us, and want peace and to make a buck, they don't have any say in what happens, just like we don't have any say in many things our Govt does.
Both sides are rattling sabres and feeding the fire because it suits their political ends. Hatred and fear are a REAL easy sell politically and help keep the powers that be in power (even dictatorships are concerned with popularity BTW, it makes governing so much easier). So given that the US and UK governments were busy telling us that Hussein was a direct threat (hey, apparently he had weapons of mas destruction that he could use against the British mainland in 20 minutes, yeah right), largely to suit their political and idealogical purposes, and are now busy telling us that Iran are an imminent nuclear threat (despite the fact that they're clearly years away from the level of enrichment they need) why are you surprised when the Iranian authorities do the same and tell their people that the US is the great Satan and a threat to their way of life - it's exactly the same message - and it's being delivered for exactly the same reasons.
the thing is though that the US was not starting a nuclear war in WWII.
While I don't condone the use of the nuke at that point either, it will never be known what would have happened if we didn't drop it. Perhaps we would all be speaking Japanese right now.
If and when a nuke is used against another nuke possessing nation (regardless of who starts it), it will most likely result in all out nuclear war, and no side will be able to claim victory. pointing nukes at each other is a deterant yes, but if used, its a lose/lose situation.
Kleinma makes an excellent point that the nukes used on Japan were used at a time before mutally assured destruction was a deterant. Thus it was the only situation in which they could concievably be used.
However, Iran is in the same position. Without nuclear weapons, there is little to stop the US from over-running their country.
Iran would have to be mad to not be pursuing nuclear weapons. They have been labelled as part of the axis of evil by Bush, and he has already invaded two Islamic countries, and is saber rattling with the Iranians. It doesn't take a genius to work out that if he wasn't bogged down in Iraq, he would probably be using WMD as an excuse to invade Iran as well. Bush is/was also pushing for the development of battlefield nuclear weapons. If you have no intention of using them, why would you build them?
No, Iran must pursue nuclear weapons if they are to stand any chance of stopping the US attacking.
Note: I don't like the fact that they are going after weapons, infact I think it's a nightmare, but I can also see that it is the only course of action left open to them at this point. We cannot preach nuclear non-proliferation and then continue to develop them for use against our enemies.
And we cannot preach non-proliferation when we are constantly spoiling for a fight. It is the equivelant of a full grown man fighting a child. If they both have guns you suddenly level the playing field. So the man turns around and says "Well, you don't need a gun, 'cause I wont use mine against you....... but I'll leave it over here, as a last resort incase you start to win."...... Why would the child think that is a good idea. Without the gun, the guy is going to beat him to death. He needs a gun to survive. If the guy wasn't so beligerant, then he wouldn't need the gun, but look, he keeps beating other neighbourhood kids to death..... what's to stop him pounding on this kid?
Well the fact that the Iraq war went (still is going) SOOO badly, there is NO WAY that the US will enter another war unless there is no other choice. That means the next war would also have to have very large multinational support, and not just in terms of picking sides.. I mean an all out multinational group telling whatever country (N Korea, Iran, whoever) to chill out or there will be force.
The US just can't do that alone again, we have already isolated ourselves enough.
So Iran making nukes for the purpose of protection against an invasion by US forces is unlikely, since the main reason we would invade them is because they are making nukes. No nukes, no reason to go to war. (I know it's not as simple as that, but thats the main idea)
I obviously can't speak for them, but I bet a lot of Iranian civilians wouldn't mind having a different government in place, just not at the expense of western occupation.
Most of the people there our age really love the west. They like our movies, our rock and roll music, and our way of life.
Ultimately, what would the Iranians be able to do with a handful of nuclear weapons against the US, Israel or any of the other Western nations? It wouldn't stop any attack - they don't have battlefield nuclear weapons. The best Iran could do would be to stick them on rockets and send them off in the direction of Tel Aviv, I don't think they have rockets capable of reaching much of Europe and certainly not the US.
So why don't we want them to have nukes? Two reasons:
1) As kleinma said, it gives you a lot more leverage with people who don't have them and who are in range. That means the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians and all the other Islamic states around there who are considerably less fundamentalist than Iran.
2) Sooner or later somebody will smuggle one to Europe or the US, and it'll be a dirty bomb rather than a warhead. Its a lot less easy to point the finger when there isn't a missile to show you who sent it. There is not a lot of doubt that Iran engages in sponsorship of terrorism, particularly regionally.
Admittedly we don't know how Ahmadinejad would react at crunch time, but nobody wants to trust to the whims of a potentially unstable dictator (and say what you like about Dubya, he still has people to answer to) who is known to fraternise with terrorists, has publicly advocated genocide and has a penchant for spreading his own violent and fundamentalist brand of religion.
And on this line, now that they have been used which group of countries have not used them in any of the conflicts in which they've been involved for the past 60 years? In contrast, which group of countries seem determined to get their hands on them despite (or perhaps because of) seeing the damage they can do?Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I'm afraid the evidence is fairly conclusive on this one.
In a rational world I would agree with you. However the outcome in Iraq was foreseen long before the invasion, and it didn't stop people supporting it wholeheartedly. And we're not talking some hippy saying "war is bad! Don't do it man!", we had generals and analysts repeating that there is no exit strategy from Iraq. Anyone who has had any dealings with the British Army in Northern Ireland can tell you that fighting native terrorists in an urban landscape is an impossible task. So, I fail to see what is different once the US gets out of Iraq, licks it's wounds and then looks around for another country to attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
That approach didn't exactly work for Saddam did it. No WMD, repeated analysis stating that there was no evidence of WMD, and still he gets attacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
Don't get me wrong on any of this. I think that Iran getting the bomb is a really bad move, just as I think that Isreal having the bomb is a really bad move (and don't even get me started on Pakistan having it). But the people running these country's are smart people. I can see how all of them would feel that they absolutely must have the bomb. All of them face overwhelming threats local to them, that can only be countered by WMD. If we were serious about non-nuclear prolifferation, then we would have to do the following.
a ) Use our influence to persuade Isreal to disarm.
b ) Sign a non-aggression pact with the countires that fear us most, or at least stop using the threat of war as a solution to diplomatic problems.
well thats my point.. The fact that Iraq did turn out to be such a mess will force decision makers (from all countries) to think harder about any future conflict...
Here is a good article about Iran and how the people of the country don't exactly represent what the administration is saying (much like we don't all believe in what Bush is saying/doing)
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...0.html?cnn=yes
You could argue that they want them for defence along the lines of, say the US troops amassed in Qatar ready for the invasion of Iraq. If Saddam had nuclear weapons then Qatar might think twice about being a launching pad for the invasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by zaza
Of course, yes they will also come in handy for leverage with your neighbours, but only until they get them... so what's the natural outcome? Everyone will end up with nuclear weapons unless we somehow stop them.
I don't think anyone here is in disagreement as to whether we want Iran to have nuclear weapons. The problem really is, how do you stop them? This is another situation where I think the only way to stop them would be to somehow regain their trust that they don't need them. Can we do that? I doubt it. I think the cats out of the bag. They saw how willing the US was to go to war with their neighbour. They have the opportunity now to develop the weapons before the US get's out of Iraq and licks it's wounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by zaza
Also, the condemnation in the US government of Isreal's nuclear weapons program is deafening by it's silence. Maybe a little attempt at pretending to be fair about this might go some way towards allaying their fears, but like I said, I think things are too far gone now.
We should just be honest about the situation. We like the Isreali's and it's okay for them to get nukes, because they live on the other side of the world and the only people they are likely to use them on are Arabs. We don't want the Iranians to get nukes because then we will have no way to threaten them when they start to get uppety and we need to slap them down. Also, they're far more likely to give them to terrorists and the terrorists will use them against the west.
Thank you. That is a most interesting article. :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
perhaps finding better ways to produce energy that don't require things like enriching uranium at all.. We have this giant ball of constant nuclear power called the Sun, and we are just now trying to figure out how to harness substantial amounts of power from it...
If there was no need for civilian nucear power, then it could no longer be a guise for making weapons. It would also make all those nations totally dirt poor as the need for oil would go away. (not saying that is a good thing, but usually its the govt and upper class that gets any oil money anyway)
An excellent point. ( and also touches upon one of the reason's I am 100% sure that their civilian nuclear program is a front for a weapons program). I can see other power-poor countries requiring nuclear power as a constant source of energy, but with the amount of Oil they have, I find it very strange that they are so eager for nuclear power. Maybe they are concerned about the environment..... ?Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
Solar or thermal would be another natural choice for a middle eastern country.
Even if the were only building civilian reactors (which I doubt) it would still more or less bring them through the entire process of making weapons. Sort of like a "legal dry run" where they gain all the experience and utilities needed to then put it into full illegal weapons production.
North Korea is no better. Unfortunatly, if we really want to put blame anywhere, it should be on Pakistan and more so on A.Q. Kahn. He developed the nuclear weapons program that N Korea and Iran are using. He sold it on the black market along with Chinese bomb diagrams. (Libya was also part of this whole thing until they got busted, they have since decided to give up nuclear weapons)
Abdul Qadeer Kahn
Pakistan and Nukes
Quote:
No, Iran must pursue nuclear weapons if they are to stand any chance of stopping the US attacking.
Hmmm why wouldnt Libya continue their nuclear weapon program to defend themselves against the US?Quote:
(Libya was also part of this whole thing until they got busted, they have since decided to give up nuclear weapons)
X
even countries that do develop civilian nuclear power still need to be careful.. just look at chernobyl. They say the enclosure they built around the reactor could crumble at any time, and there is still a ton of radioactive material in there that could leak out.
Nuclear technology for peacful or weapons purposes still needs to be done carefully and properly.
Untrue. Just read Resolution 1441 that was passed before the Iraq war which stated there were WMD’s and how if Iraq didn’t give them up there would be serious consequences. Also if you look at all of the major countries intelligence information (US, UK, France, Russia…etc) all stated Saddam had these weapons. Couple this with Saddam’s unwillingness to fully cooperate with inspectors leads to the logical conclusion that Saddam had these weapons. Inspectors were sent into Iraq to disarm the country, why would the UN and the world community send in those inspectors to remove non-existent weapons if it was known there was no WMD?Quote:
That approach didn't exactly work for Saddam did it. No WMD, repeated analysis stating that there was no evidence of WMD, and still he gets attacked.
X
Because the average US voter has forgotten where they are :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
*The above statement was tounge in cheek before you take it too seriously :)
I can't believe you still believe this. There were no WMD. The country has been searched high and low for 3 years.... they don't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
Really. Most of the intelligence that seemed to justify the war came from the US and consisted of Colin Powell telling the world that the picture of an ice-cream truck was clearly a chemical weapons facility. Remember that evidence getting laughed out of the UN? No one took it seriously except Bush and Blair. Soooooo. We have most of the world saying there aren't WMD. We have Iraq saying there aren't WMD. We have Bush and Blair using dubious inteligence to say that there are WMD. And you justify the invasion based on the fact that a UN resolution stated there would be serious consequences if Iraq didn't give up developing WMD..... which they did. Rewriting history is a very dangerous game. May a point out a few of your "re-writes"
No. It states that Iraq has not fulfilled it's commitment to prove that they were destroyed. This is completely different from it saying that Iraq has WMD.Quote:
Just read Resolution 1441 that was passed before the Iraq war which stated there were WMD’s and how if Iraq didn’t give them up there would be serious consequences.
Also, yes it does state serious consequences, which as pointed out by the security council at the time are up to the UN to decide, not for individual states to decide. If this was the case, every little country on the planet would be attacking each other claiming some UN resolution or other.
The only people arguing that they did was the US and UK.Quote:
Also if you look at all of the major countries intelligence information (US, UK, France, Russia…etc) all stated Saddam had these weapons.
All logical analysis at the time pointed to Saddam not having weapons of mass destruction. His unwillingness to co-operate was to stop Iran stomping all over them in revenge for the Iran-Iraq war.Quote:
Couple this with Saddam’s unwillingness to fully cooperate with inspectors leads to the logical conclusion that Saddam had these weapons.
The UN wasn't sent to remove WMD. They were sent to verify that there were none left?Quote:
why would the UN and the world community send in those inspectors to remove non-existent weapons if it was known there was no WMD?
Look, it's very simple. This point is no longer even worth arguing over.
Bush and Blair ,made a very stupid mistake. There is no going back from that, and we have to live with the mess they made. But it is very dangerous to justify mistakes by re-writing the history books.
you might want to rephrase that to "There probably were no WMDs" and "they probably didn't exist" We shot any chance of ever knowing the answer to that in the foot by giving Saddam a year and a half notice that we were coming to take them away. :( I know I sound like a broken record on this but "no exit strategy" was not the biggest blunder of this war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
Also the US is not going to invade Iran. If they were they would have done so already. The daily death toll in Iraq isn't going up magically by itself. Instead of coffee cans full of gunpowder and nails on the side of the road, Iranian trained insurgents are using Iranian anti tank explosives now. The US could eaisally justify launching rockets and bombs into Iran.
simple, they are in syria .. thats next!Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
After all .. there WERE WMDs .. whether they were there when they "finally" went back in 10 years late or not .. there is a simple fact, they did exist ....
Where they went is another question ... I say blame the french .. :wave:
Some are too young to remember is all. It should have been finished 10 years before and finally someone had the guts to deal with it .. all the cry babys are too young or too lame to remember (or live) what happened back in the early 90's is all. Lamers ... thats all they are and they are PWND .. :D
True, but when one is debating going to war I can't help feeling the burden of proof should be a little heavier than "well they probaby don't... but they might".Quote:
"There probably were no WMDs" and "they probably didn't exist"
Thanks, Ex-FB, for a good debunking of the 'All nations were saying he had WMD' argument. I've been waiting a while for someone to do that. Yes, several major nations had some intelligence that suggested he might but there was just as much inteligence indicating that he didn't. Ultimately, its the purpose of governments, in such cases, to interpret the whole body of intelligence and evidence (including Blix's reports stating that he could find no evidence of a current program or capability) to arrive at a balanced conclusion. I believe that the US and UK governments failed in that purpose. And we still seem to have such
Every country that has them. Which also defines the group of countries that, previously, have been determined to aquire them. I fail to see the distinction on this point. Do I trust Iran with them? about as far as I trust US, Isreal or any other nation with them. Including my own. And DEFINITELY including the French. A stable regime today does not equate to a stable regime tomorrow - history has proved that countless times.Quote:
which group of countries have not used them in any of the conflicts in which they've been involved for the past 60 years?
Always a good policy :thumb:Quote:
I say blame the french
The problem is that I don't put it past some crazy islamic radical to feel that nuking the US and Isreal off the face of the planet, even at the cost of their own country being erradicated. They think they are going to Heaven with 37 virgins waiting for them. They are more than glad to play exterminator, even at their own expense. Versus a country like the US, or even Russia for that matter, that wouldn't be so quick to push the button.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I think it's very unlikely. Like I said before, all the fear and hatred is just sabre rattling for the benefit of domestic populations.
I think Zaza was right that the much greater threat is from a dirty bomb being smuggled in. And there's so much available material for that floating round the world in the wake of the USSR colapse that Iran, Korea or any other nation aquiring a nuclear capacity doesn't significantly raise the threat.
I would also say I'm equally concerned about the US using nuclear weapons. Why would the US government persue a very expensive development project to create battlefield nuclear weapons if they had absolutely no intention of using them?
I am equally concerned with North Korea selling a nuclear weapon to the first group of people to pony up the money (and this group then sailing into NY harbour with it).
But to be honest, in many cases mis-information would probably serve their purposes as well as a dirty bomb (and be a damn sight cheaper). Let's look at the terrorists goals here. They want to hurt the US. Strangely this does not equate directly to killing off as many Americans as possible. 3,000 people died in the World Trade Centre attacks, terrible yes, but hardly devestating in it's own right (How many Americans die every day from cancer, car accidents, heart attacks etc.). But look, the repurcussions from the attack within the US where massive, purely and simply because thye frightened the average voter into believeing they were under daily threat.
Where am I going with this? Well, there are plenty of low level radioactive sources out there (hospitals, coal mines etc.) that could be planted in a dirty bomb and set off somewhere important (what's the big shopping street in Hollywood? or some big shopping street in NY). At the same time they would announce that they are going to detonate a dirty bomb (and give an obscure location roughly in the vicinity of the actual bomb). There's an initial stampede to get away (some people running towards the bomb given the obscurity of the warning). Bang. Bomb goes off, with a minimal amount of radioactive material in it (not enough to really harm anyone). But the panic and stampede that would follow such an attack would cause mayhem. Also, once the government investigates and declares there was only low (safe) levels of radioactive material present in the explosion, how many people will scream that it's a cover up, and start suing the government for evey cough, wheeze and dose of cancer for years to come. Aforementioned shopping street would also be stigmatised sufficiently that sales would plummet, thus costing those companies money. People would be concerned about other similair attacks in other cities, thus causing a drop in sales nationwide.
That is one of the scenarios which I think actually poses a more realistic threat to the US economy, politics and society.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
We are talking about the same government that spent $500,000.00 on a toilet, right?
If we stopped nuclear weapons research, then we would fall behind in nuclear technology. You have to hand it to the US military that often times things they come up with for war and destruction often become useful in civilian life. GPS, CDMA cellular phone technology, and nuclear technology are good examples of military applications that can have broad positive impacts on civilian life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
At least most (if not all) US nuclear testing is done on computer simulations to curb the effect nuclear testing has on the planet. Versus countries like pakistan that simply fire them off inside a mountain. I know we used to do full on tests, but that was a long time ago.
the intent of nuclear weapons by the US is not to use them, but to have them. If the reverse was true, we have enough nukes to level the entire planet, by your logic we would be planning to do such a thing.
I heard it was $640.00Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Before taxes it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by NotLKH
on another note Congrats to Canada kicking arse!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapc...nce/index.html
Quote:
The troops "came under heavy small arms fire from a known enemy compound" and "close air support was used to suppress the position, The Canadian airforce dropped 20,000 pounds of frozen corn and mad cows from 10 hot air balloons" an ISAF news release said.
come on man.. Canadians are dying over there just like Americans, Brits, and other nations soldiers.
Why diss them? They are actually on our side
That was an actual serious congrats on a jorb well done. (gotta read the entire article to get that) Unfortunatly I am incapable of completing an entire post about canadians without throwing one jab in. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
see the canadians here in action .. :)
http://militaryvideos.net/
Vote for me in 2008 for President and I will promise I will Terminate all commie nations! :thumb: