Explosion in London this morning

[213374U]

Yes, because then they'd be shunned by the international community.  See, the Chinese have to worry about that, whereas if the US were truly on our own we wouldn't, and the world will be worse off for it if we ever do get pissed off enough to nuke the place.

No. They'd probably suffer sanctions from some countries, but the US can't afford to put China under blockade, lest they want to risk economic collapse. It wouldn't be such a big deal.

[Darth Flatus]

I don't think the chinese are actually bothered by acceptance of the "international community"

[Azarkon]

No. They'd probably suffer sanctions from some countries, but the US can't afford to put China under blockade, lest they want to risk economic collapse. It wouldn't be such a big deal.

 

I don't think the chinese are actually bothered by acceptance of the "international community" 

 

Then that just shows how ill-informed you are. Seriously, I'm not trying to insult you here, but China's economic growth *depends* on acceptance by the world community and the absence of sanctions. The Chinese government is extremely careful about its image to the rest of the world, because the entrance of foreign capital is what's fueling its economic boom. Sanctions and international distrust would be the *last* thing the Chinese government and others-in-power want, because they want to see China as a super power, not as an isolated, starving Communist state like it was before the 70-80's.

 

China is strong enough now to no longer be pushed around by the US, and the Chinese are demonstrating that in numerous ways where it's forced the US to compromise. But China is not even close to being strong enough to seriously temper US interests, and we can see that by the Chinese government's failure to invade Taiwan and be done with it.

 

As for the US stance towards China, lemme just say this: Rumsfeld is adopting a *very* aggressive policy towards China and you can read it in his words. And he's doing so because it's easy to come to the logical conclusion (and if you need help, there are plenty of famous economists that's published papers on this) that sooner or later China will challenge the US for the position of economic super power and that at the moment with the US's hands tied in the Middle East, it's likely that China will win the economic war. A major military conflict between China and the US *soon* can set China back decades, if not permanently, and from the strategic point of view it's either do this or be prepared to cooperate with China and allow the rise of a second super power. Obviously the US cannot declare war on China, and it's reasonably assured that China won't declare war on the US, so the end result must be either a serious excuse (ie China attacks Taiwan) for sanctions or, more likely, political maneuverings on both sides that result in more marbles on the bargaining table (ie North Korea).

 

Either way, the US's economy is dependent on China's - that much is true - but that doesn't mean the US isn't willing to sacrifice short-term economic instability for long-term dominance. After all, we went into Iraq, didn't we?

[metadigital]

Also. 

Monkeysphere!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Damn, wish I wasn't o'er at that Bible study earlier, that joke would have worked so much better before the bus bombs were actually confirmed.  "

 

I do have something to contribute on the discussion of relative 'safety' of low yield nuclear materials though. 

 

 

 

(Click the smilies, you know you wanna!)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great links!

[Walsingham]

China already has a muslim insurgency. However, getting an accurate assessmnet of how it is being handled is not open to those outside the Corridors'O'Power. The Phillipines, and Thailand have also been attacked. Neither country has so much as sneezed in a colonial way in the Middle East.

 

I applaud anyone who strives to see both sides of this issue, but I am afraid that at the heart of the terrorist objectives is murder, chaos, and they certainly accept no middle ground. Each and every one of the people here who does not whole-heartedly agree with them is a target. Even those who agree, and other muslims are targets, since they are either glad to die for the jihad (and it's ok to kill them), or they are apostates (in which case... it's ok to kill them).

 

I should add that if you think invading a country that harbours terrorists achieves nothing then you really need to go back to school on how you run a 21st century terrorism franchise. Terrorist sponsor states provide all those little luxuries that turn a disaffected group of malcontent Che-wannabes into a first class tap-dancing Clear & Present Danger. They pay for salaries, and deliver food, and provide places for the spiritual leaders to preach in safety to the poor fools they send out to kill and be killed. They allow the setting up of bomb-making schools, and provide false documentation, firing ranges and guns to fire on them. Which, surprisingly enough does make a difference to how effective those groups are.

[Jediphile]

I just hold firmly that to support democracy is to allow individuals to choose for themselves. You seem to think that it's to choose a side in the war. Well, I don't want to belong to extremists on either side, and I will not let anyone tell me that I must!

Who's spouting propaganda now?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I spout propaganda when I defend my democratic right to free speech and my own opinion?

 

You don't want to fight for your way of life? That's fine, someone else will. You forget that that freedom of choice you seem to take for granted was paid for in blood. And it will undoubtedly take blood to keep. Don't you dare question the way your safety and your so vaunted freedom is granted to you, when you are not willing to fight for it yourself, you coward.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, I'll fight for my way of life if and when it comes to that. I just don't agree with you that I must necessarily shed blood in order to do so. And I will question governments who torture captives for information - that is *not* my way of life! Oh, and I have reported you to the moderator for all the good it'll do - calling me names is not permissible, and you won't see me calling you one.

 

Keep closing your eyes to reality. I suspect you'll only open them when they have to pick someone dear to you from the streets with a teaspoon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That might be, but hopefully there are people around me who stop me from acting out of revenge in such a case, since I would then hardly be in a frame of mind to make rational decisions.

 

You are wrong. You can destroy the enemy, in the form of the governments that support terrorism. End of story. And defending oneself is not an extremist ideology, as any lawyer will tell you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And which governments are those? Afghanistan has already been taken care of - and for the record, I supported that. Iraq, however, had nothing to do with terrorism, as Bush has admitted *after* the war...

 

Beautiful. Unfortunately, your ideals will not protect you from shrapnel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nor does war - soldiers are dying on a daily basis in Iraq in case you didn't know...

 

A reasoning based on the wrong premise that a terrorist is a rational being. Fanaticism isn't rational. They don't seek to "win". They only seek to kill as many of us as they can. And according to you, the thing to do is let them? To quote other poster here "Are you sick or just perverted?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wouldn't call a terrorist rational, but then I wouldn't call a serial killer rational either, and yet the police catch those by making profiles. That suggests they are not beyond any form of understanding, in which case the same could be true for terrorists. We don't hear about that, though.

 

I'm not saying we should just do nothing against terrorism, but we should be wary of what it is we do and take care that we find the guilty people instead of committing acts of horrible injustice in our zeal to hav revenge. It's really just the principle of not giving in to terrorists, since that just encourages more of the same. If they see us changing our way of life and shredding our civil rights, then we are giving in. If we mobilize and become aggressive, then we are giving in. If we stay firm, they'll see that they can do whatever and we won't budge, so why bother...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

And which governments are those? Afghanistan has already been taken care of - and for the record, I supported that. Iraq, however, had nothing to do with terrorism, as Bush has admitted *after* the war...

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your wrong and Bush was wrong if he said it. Saddam used to pay members of Hamas to blow themselves up. Technically he paid the families (since you cant pay the bomber) but when your life is **** and dying gets you into your version of heaven and your family has $10,000 to spend its what you would call a hell of an incentive.

[metadigital]

Lets just pull out people out of there and make the whole region a glass sea and be done with it.  We can get our oil somewhere else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is that your impersonation of terrorism? It's very good

.

Right. It's our fault. We had it coming all along. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, it is. If the US and the Brits didn't involved themselves in the Middle East after World War 2 in forming Israel and pretty much left those people ALONE. We wouldn't be in this mess now. We need to mind our own store and not interfere with others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And what did all those people die for in WW2, then? The US should have stayed out of WW2, minding their own store, and "not interfere with others" in Europe or the Pacific ...

[Jediphile]

And which governments are those? Afghanistan has already been taken care of - and for the record, I supported that. Iraq, however, had nothing to do with terrorism, as Bush has admitted *after* the war...

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your wrong and Bush was wrong if he said it. Saddam used to pay members of Hamas to blow themselves up. Technically he paid the families (since you cant pay the bomber) but when your life is **** and dying gets you into your version of heaven and your family has $10,000 to spend its what you would call a hell of an incentive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True enough, but if that is a basis for going to war, then the US is going to be pretty busy invading an awful lot of nations. There is certainly no shortage of nasty leaders in the world doing terrible things to their own people and to others. And Saddam wasn't even the worst...

 

Heck, he was our own creation - the west supported him with weapons and money, when we wanted someone to fight Iran. We may not have put him in power, but we certainly made sure he stayed there. As it has been said here, he did not just use the weapons we gave him against Iran, he also used them to terrorize his own people. And we were perfectly content to let him do so for decades...

[Azarkon]

I should add that if you think invading a country that harbours terrorists achieves nothing then you really need to go back to school on how you run a 21st century terrorism franchise. Terrorist sponsor states provide all those little luxuries that turn a disaffected group of malcontent Che-wannabes into a first class tap-dancing Clear & Present Danger. They pay for salaries, and deliver food, and provide places for the spiritual leaders to preach in safety to the poor fools they send out to kill and be killed. They allow  the setting up of bomb-making schools, and provide false documentation, firing ranges and guns to fire on them. Which, surprisingly enough does make a difference to how effective those groups are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you want historical sources, then occupation of Middle Eastern countries preluded the death of nations. The Soviet Union went into Afghanistan with a force to be reckoned with and they were eventually drained dry of their funds and kicked out. Democracies setup by the US and other countries alike have been tried before and they all failed as soon as the occupying country pulled its forces. Day to day fighting and death is the norm in many of these countries and the common, non-militant people have learned to survive changes of government: they don't care enough to throw their lives away en masse to defend "liberty, democracy, freedom, etc." because that's not their way of life. If we're in there to defend our way of life as many people argue, then imagine now that another country came to the US (let's say China), enforced upon us a new way of life (let's say Communism), and told us to defend *that*. How passionately do you think we'd defend it?

[Atreides]

Your freedom's not free at all.

[Walsingham]

I don't think you're a fool to see it that way, Azarkon. But once upon a time the United Kingdom was probably seen much the same way. We eventually saw our way clear to the acquired taste of freedom, and even (just recently) democracy.

 

I know it takes time for perceptions to change. It does about anything. Take racism, for example, where many of the oldest in the UK still hold racist beliefs. But it is wrong to abandon hope for a people who are at root feel sorrow and happiness, and can reason as clearly as we do.

 

You mention also someone coming to the United States and telling you what to do. I agree it would be uncomfortable. Hell, it was uncomfortable for Great Britain to go begging to the US twice in the World Wars. There were fights at all levels of society and the military, some bloody and some not, between the civilians, and servicemen. But speaking as one who benefitted from that aid I'm damn glad they did.

 

Moreover, it is irresponsible to suggest that people cannot see the long term benefits of cooperation, peace, democracy and growth. I cannot speak for Iraqis, but if you talk to Afghans you will find many who are fiercely nationalistic, yet are willing to accept the helping hand offered by the West, and will likewise fight against remnants of the Taliban, and Al Qaeda. They want their own country, and they want a say in how it is run. The same independent streak that makes them resist armed invasion is turning to political independence.

 

Indeed, it is worth remembering that the countries we are talking about are disparate entities just like ours are. And while there may be active vocal components that hate the US and UK, this does not mean they all feel that way. Travel around the world and alongside hostility you will also find great interest and admiration.

[E_Motion]

I just heard someone with a great deal of expertise on the Middle East comment that some who know the country say that if free and fair democratic elections were held in Saudi Arabia today, Osama Bin Laden would be the hands-down winner. Don't know if that is true or not; but if so would democracy still be a good thing for Saudia Arabia? Would that be the right way to start? Just wondering what ppl think.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Well, not that I disagree entirely, but I don't think we can avoid getting involved in the long run. There are atrocities going on in the Darfur region of Sudan right now, and we need to get involved there too.

 

No, we do not. We aren't the police of the world and by acting as such the US government has done more harm than any sort of good. We need to take care of our own people first and foremost. We have millions without health care, a large homeless problem, and our education system is sinking faster than Bobba Fett in a Sarlac pit. The government needs to take care of its own people first. When everyone in the country has affordable healthcare, when everyone is not homeless, when everyone in this country is in a comfortable and secure THEN we can take care of the world.

 

The problem is that if you go back and read a little objective history, you'll see that Israel wasn't just formed out of the kindness of someone's hearts. The leaders of Israel at the time did pretty nasty things to the Palestinians. It's just that since western nations supported Israel after WW2, we tend to want to see that in a better light than it really was. We want to see the world in all black and white.

 

I know and personally I like to see it wiped from the map as with all of the Middle East as far as I care.

 

The trouble is that the world isn't populated only by heroes and demons - it's populated by real people who are almost exclusively somewhere in between, and they all have reasons for what they do. I cannot blame the Palestinians for wanting to be free of the Israeli.

 

Neither do I and they have the right to by any means to do what they need to do in order to survive and kick the Israelis out of their territory.

 

I do not support Palestinian suicide bombers, but I also do not support Israel bombing a house and killing 14 or so children just to get one man, and then basically just shrug and say that you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs... And I've seen parents of Israeli children killed by Palestinian suicide bombers say that *they* understand why they do it on 60 Minutes! That's makes far more of an impression on me than the self-serving arguments of any government!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I agree fully, that is why both sides need to either come to an agreement or both sides need to be wiped out.

 

Either way, there is peace.

[Walsingham]

I notice you say since world war two. People were happy to benefit from US assistance when the Nazis, Soviets, and Japanese were out to take over. Or is there a time limit on how long a nation is held accountable?

 

EDIT: six foot rabbit.

 

Every time the US becomes isolationist we have a world war! Quit it!

[Nur Ab Sal]

USA supported dozens of totalitarian regimes with money and armament, so arguments that USA want to bring democracy to the Middle East is plain stupid.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Every time the US becomes isolationist we have a world war! Quit it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As long it doesn't come to my borders who give a smeg. If someone tries to take us on, we should launch a nuclear missile at that country's capital. If they still want to take us on we pepper their nation from border to border.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

True enough, but if that is a basis for going to war, then the US is going to be pretty busy invading an awful lot of nations. There is certainly no shortage of nasty leaders in the world doing terrible things to their own people and to others. And Saddam wasn't even the worst...

 

Heck, he was our own creation - the west supported him with weapons and money, when we wanted someone to fight Iran. We may not have put him in power, but we certainly made sure he stayed there. As it has been said here, he did not just use the weapons we gave him against Iran, he also used them to terrorize his own people. And we were perfectly content to let him do so for decades...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually he wasnt my creation :D

 

But if he were I would certainly feel some responsibility to put things right once he went fruitloops.

[Walsingham]

Every time the US becomes isolationist we have a world war! Quit it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As long it doesn't come to my borders who give a smeg. If someone tries to take us on, we should launch a nuclear missile at that country's capital. If they still want to take us on we pepper their nation from border to border.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well fair enough. If i was in Iowa I'd be grouchy too.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

It has nothing to do with me being stuck in Iowa. Its called making proper use of our resources.

 

What needs to happen is the US government needs to be wiped out so that a more perfect and a more efficient government can take its place.

[Nur Ab Sal]

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Did the Nazis ever attack the US? Nope so I wouldn't have bothered. Did the Japanesse attack the US? Yep, and I would have targeted the primary cities, like Tokyo, then left them to rot.

[E_Motion]

I just heard someone with a great deal of expertise on the Middle East comment that some who know the country say that if free and fair democratic elections were held in Saudi Arabia today, Osama Bin Laden would be the hands-down winner.  Don't know if that is true or not; but if so would democracy still be a good thing for Saudia Arabia? Would that be the right way to start? Just wondering what ppl think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I see that from this perspective.....the US sees democracy good only if it benefits their goals, when not, then they support various authocratic regimes that do so.

 

They support the current regime in S.Arabia only because it's in their interest, mind the fact that S.Arabia is one of the most anti-democratic states in the Middle East and it terrorisis those of their citizens that don't act and live accordingly with their laws.

 

Why not elections? Because that would endanger the flow of Saudi oil to the US, that would probably also mean they had to pull out their military facilities in S.Arabia. And why would they remove the present regime when they put most of their money in US banks - the Saudi have 1000 billion $ ( not kidding)stashed in US banks. Imagine that someone wins elections in S.Arabia and decides to cash out that amount, the US would be on the edge of financial chaos.

MONEY BEFORE HUMAN LIVES, DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM

The main policy of the US, if otherwise, they wouldn't be the superpower they are today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please understand that not all ppl in the United States are the same. I personally have never supported or believed Bush. A large number of Americans share that view, and the number grows every day. Americans have done lots of things for reasons other than our own self interest. If I remember correctly Hitler was elected via democratic voting. That wasn't a good thing...

[Nur Ab Sal]

Did the Nazis ever attack the US?  Nope so I wouldn't have bothered.  Did the Japanesse attack the US?  Yep, and I would have targeted the primary cities, like Tokyo, then left them to rot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nazis hadn't any chance anyways, Russians would crush them sooner or later. There was no way for Hitler to win with russian reserves. US involvement only quickened the unavoidable.

 

[Jediphile]

Actually he wasnt my creation :D

 

But if he were I would certainly feel some responsibility to put things right once he went fruitloops.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The west certainly kept Saddam in power and helped him become the tyrant that everybody knows and loves - we were perfectly content to give him weapons and equipment as long as he fought Iran. I've seen old footage of Rumsfeld sitting in Saddam's palace shaking hands with him as if they were good chums. This would have been back in the 70s or 80s, I guess. So yes, we did create him. He was a bad man already, sure, but we gave him weapons and allowed him to be a monster to his neighbours and to terrorize his own people... To give a man like that weapons and then deny responsibility is absurd.

 

The weapons that he committed those mass murders with were weapons we supplied him with. Yet people insist that we have no responsibility for that. We do, and we need to face up to it, and we also need to face that we let Saddam butcher the resistance that *we* encouraged after the first Gulf War in 91. A big part of the problem during the invasion in Iraq was that the Iraqis had not forgotten that we just sold them out and let Saddam slaughter the opposition back in 91. As long as our memories continue to be this "selective", we will be seen as playing double standards by middle-east nations.