metadigital

The US has disarmed quite a lot (remember Regan and Gorbachev?). As Enoch said, the new post-Cold War threats require a totally new armed force, meaning that there is a much more urgent requirement for smaller, tactical munitions. and i sincerely hope you aren't going to suggest that the world would be better off without the US acting as a policeman ... it is very easy to blame the US for everything that is wrong, but I haven't heard a decent alternative (apart from a substitute policeman: the UN). If the UN was more representative and less corrupt, then it might be more effective. Then again, maybe not ... If the whole world were to agree to an embargo, that embargo would need to have legitimacy. Where would that come from, if not the treaty and the UN? With the treaty, the diplomats can talk to the Iranians about how they can meet the terms of the treaty they signed up to. Without the treaty, what will they talk about? How the Iranians can meet the arbitrary demands of a superpower because it wants all the weapons for itself? That's a very different discussion, and one that's much less likely to be solved without the use of force. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I disagree. Look at an extreme example, one where nuclear weapons are next to useless: a foreign national hostage. No amount of UN intervention has ever been useful. Typically (for a putative "Muslim" extremist group, say) a regional powerbase needs to be invoked (e.g. Arafat when he was alive used to have a bit of sway). What of nations that had the capability to develop nuclear weapons but didn't, probably hardly even thought seriously about it, because they chose to commit themselves to a vision of world stability as expressed in the treaty? And what indeed of South Africa? Why did they decide to give up a nuclear programme? I don't imagine they particularly feared their neighbours, but that doesn't mean they'd just throw away a tactical advantage over them. I don't think they feared a US military invasion, either. They did it largely because they wanted to leave behind the diplomatic isolation of the apartheid era, and that isolation might continue if they developed nuclear weapons because they're illegal under the non-proliferation treaty. I don't think that same pressure would have existed without the pre-existing framework of the treaty. I can't really see a concerted international campaign against the government of Nelson Mandela because it can't be trusted with nuclear weapons? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nuclear ambitions are VERY EXPENSIVE, both to aquire and maintain. Ukraine were happy to leave behind the expense, especially as they can rely on Russia for defence (much like Canada relies on the US). I say this because I doubt your notion of "fair play" even registers on the political radar. Seriously. The fact that you've broken the law, and everyone knows it. World attention, diplomatic isolation, heightened regional tension, visits by the IAEA, and ultimately, yes, the threat of sanctions by the United Nations security council, either economic or military. Nothing so spectacular as some might like, but they are consequences. It's very easy to dismiss this, but international relations is a chess game, and countries weigh advantages and risks very carefully. Plus the US is more likely to get approval for sanctions from the UN Security Council because the treaty has created international law in this area to be broken. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think your understanding of international politics is very one-dimensional. I think you ought to consider the amount of horse-trading (by ALL permanent members of the Security Council). China will rubber stamp anything that doesn't affect their right to ethnic clense Tibet and other bordering countries, so long as it doesn't have a detrimental affect on their long-term plans, for example. But they aren't the only ones: witness France and Russia in the pre-Iraq invasion and their wish to protect their own commercial oil interests, rather than any ethical concerns over the oppressed population. For that matter, witness everyone's complete disinterst in any crisis in Africa, even in oil-, gold-, diamond-, etc- rich provinces. i think (not wanting to step on Cant's toes) that the point is that Police are beholden to the government, and are actually completely plastic in this relationship. A better (more depressing) analogy would be if the army was corrupt. How does a government deal with something that won't be cowed to its will?

Agomonos ta Caballos ta Terc assubio

Calax isn't known for his fastidious adherence to nazi spelling rules, even if they are a courtesy to other people, viz. their proper names ... though the dude holding the board should know better, I mean, my name doesn't have a single capital letter in it ...

Judge Hades is a much better psuedonym than Doug Douglason ... "

Mightn't prevent the vetoes from the modsquad, though ...

I just got a notice saying it's not released until Oct 13.

Linkie? You might like to post your top ten mods, Mus?, too ...

I was trying to find some specs on the 7900GS, as my friend has just ordered one ...

We have them now...but they still aren't stopping...I wonder why? " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're right, let's wipe them out! Dubya? Let's have a nuclear crusade!

Were they policewomen?

Isn't that an energy bar? Oh wait, that's Musashi

Because that'll work. US: Look, Iran, we'll put all our nuclear weapons beyond use. Iran: Go on, then. US: See, all done. Now please stop making enriched uranium for weapons. Iran: Make me.

That'll be why they are called Chinese gooseberries.

Maybe the shots are from the outside of the bubble? Sort of an atmospheric marketing ploy? Dunno ...

Isn't that because it's set on the seabed, deep underwater?

Actually, the primary purpose of a police officer is providing clear control in a chaotic situation, especially crowd control. Having said that, women on a Hens' night are perhaps the most intimidating foe ...

You're Carmen Miranda!? Blue shirt.

Sure, why not. I believe he is all-powerful. Why can't he do something like that? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree that an omnipotent force can certainly do it. The point is why? That's the problem with conspiracy theories, the effort involved outweighs the utility. Or is there some ulterior motive for the supreme being to create an illusory reality for the patronized creation? Why does a GOD need to do that? What is being hidden, and why? Excellent. A much more tenable belief. And a salute your maturity.

Aren't you?

I doubt you'd get elected on this platform, let alone get a chance to push it through the two houses. There's a very simple reason why the US is a major supporter of Israel.

No.

Sims 2:Pets is out in October ... "

I was referring to the pre-invasion of Afghanistan: 9/11. The reason that it was necessary to go and give the Taliban an attitude adjustment.