Iran, North Korea get a new partner

[Walsingham]

This is all the fault of you gruddanged peaceniks. Every time some tinpot poorhole starts building a bomb, we reach for the chequebooks and send a few hundred million. They immediately call off their two and a hald PhD students, and spend the cash. Funds running low? Start the program again and get a big payoff! Genius.

[213374U]

Europe preferes to be diplomatic at start before bring in the big guns.

Huh? Do we have the big guns at all?

 

 

Maybe they're looking at the inroads Iran is making by itself towards open democracy. A LOT of the populace is striving towards change. Look at how unhappy they were with the clerics not allowing certain candidates to run during the last election. It might be taking time, but attacking Iran now will just undo this and polarize people towards the invaders and set real, lasting reform back in that country by decades.

Right. When I see an open revolution like the ones we had over here in the 18th century, I'll believe they are willing to fight for civil rights and political privileges. Until then, they are just posers to me.

 

 

Who is to say that Iran will treathen world security more than, say, the United States with its countless amounts of WMD's?

The US only protect one thing. Their own interests. That's how empires work, buddy, sorry if you don't like it. As long as ol' Europe is still part of the US global interests, there's nothing to fear. I don't know about you, but I think our way of life is more like that of the US' than that of any islamic country. I'd rather keep it that way.

 

Deny it all you want, but ultimately, might makes the right.

[Cantousent]

Other than the silly notion that the United States is somehow the equivalent of Iran, I find the idea that, since some nations have nuclear weapons, there should be free reign for all nations to have them. If you honestly think that a Islamic fundamentalist theocracy will show the same restraint as the United States, you're sorely misguided.

 

I can hear the howls now... "The United States is a Christian fundamentalist theocracy!!!!" "The United states is ignorint!!!11" "The United States is all warmongers and all our base are belong to them!!!!1!1!1"

 

The notion that George Bush is the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein or that the United States republic is the equivalent of the Iranian theocracy is absolute rubbish.

 

Argue that war should not be an option in this case. Argue that Iran might respond to sanctions. Argue that the people desire democracy and we should encourage democratic reforms. Don't argue that the United States is the same as Iran. The idea is ridiculous on its face.

[213374U]

Other than the silly notion that the United States is somehow the equivalent of Iran, I find the idea that, since some nations have nuclear weapons, there should be free reign for all nations to have them.  If you honestly think that a Islamic fundamentalist theocracy will show the same restraint as the United States, you're sorely misguided.

 

I can hear the howls now...  "The United States is a Christian fundamentalist theocracy!!!!"  "The United states is ignorint!!!11"  "The United States is all warmongers and all our base are belong to them!!!!1!1!1"

 

The notion that George Bush is the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein or that the United States republic is the equivalent of the Iranian theocracy is absolute rubbish.

 

Argue that war should not be an option in this case.  Argue that Iran might respond to sanctions.  Argue that the people desire democracy and we should encourage democratic reforms.  Don't argue that the United States is the same as Iran.  The idea is ridiculous on its face.

Um. That's where it gets sticky. Who decides who is responsible enough to have nuclear weapons and who isn't?

 

I'm not really going to get down to that, as it ultimately boils down to the ideals and principles upon which those regimes are built. Ultimately, it's moral relativism. You can't establish an universal rule and say that our moral values are more valid than theirs.

 

Therefore, I'm just willing to uphold the principles that are the base of our culture, even against those who would threaten them. Nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps that's why I'm willing to give my life for that, and to kill for it if it comes down to it. Perhaps that's why I'm joining the military. Call me a fundamentalist if you will, but at least I'm the kind of fundamentalist that wouldn't force your daughter to wear a burka, and the kind of fundamentalist that would allow you to express your opinion freely.

 

Yes, I'm proud to be a westerner, and I'm willing to give my life to protect this way of life. If any of this offends any sensibilities, I just don't give a flying f uck. )

[Laozi]

The notion that George Bush is the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein or that the United States republic is the equivalent of the Iranian theocracy is absolute rubbish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well George Bush is more of a figure head, I mean every American Presidents has some power, but only so much, look at John F. Kennedy.

So whos to say what Bush would do if he was given the absolute power Hussein weilded, you know, the power america gave him.

[EnderAndrew]

Ah, see, if Germany declared war to not be an option in response to us saying that it is an option, that I can understand.

 

There is not a country on this planet that will follow the United States into a Middle Eastern conflict after Iraq.  And yeah, that includes Britain.  They just won't do it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, 30 counties went into Iraq, and many are still giving their support to this day.

 

Several nations are still vocally supporting Bush and the whole affair like Canada and Australia.

[Commissar]

Ah, see, if Germany declared war to not be an option in response to us saying that it is an option, that I can understand.

 

There is not a country on this planet that will follow the United States into a Middle Eastern conflict after Iraq.  And yeah, that includes Britain.  They just won't do it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, 30 counties went into Iraq, and many are still giving their support to this day.

 

Several nations are still vocally supporting Bush and the whole affair like Canada and Australia.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sending two guys and a jeep doesn't count as support, Ender.

 

Canada and Australia may still be supporting us - give me numbers on the amount of troops they have in Iraq at the moment, though - but plenty of others are running for the hills.

 

Oh, and drudge up a list of those thirty countries. It's an amusing read.

[kumquatq3]

Oh, and drudge up a list of those thirty countries.  It's an amusing read.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you suggesting that fine coutries like Sri Lanka are amusing?

 

I'll have you know sir that Sri Lanka was steadfast in it's resolve to accept millions of dollars of the American tax payers money in agreement to support the war.

 

How dare you sully their good name for your "amusment". Good day to you, sir.

 

 

I SAID GOOD DAY!

[EnderAndrew]

Still, the only countries who vocally opposed the war were in Saddam's pocket.

 

30 counties offered support. France, Germany and Russia opposed it.

 

And yet when Bush was reelected, the leaders of France, Germany and Russia all made statements about how happy they were to see Bush in power, and how they wanted to maintain strong ties (we like US dollars) with the United States.

[Commissar]

Still, the only countries who vocally opposed the war were in Saddam's pocket.

 

30 counties offered support.  France, Germany and Russia opposed it.

 

And yet when Bush was reelected, the leaders of France, Germany and Russia all made statements about how happy they were to see Bush in power, and how they wanted to maintain strong ties (we like US dollars) with the United States.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm assuming by "countries" you mean their governments. What was it that the poll found, something like 90% of the British population didn't want to go into Iraq?

 

And as far as making statements about being happy to see Bush in power...well, I hate to break it to you, but Bush does the same thing with just about every other leader in the world when they get elected/reelected. Little something we like to call politics, but do you really think he prefers Chirac to some right-wing Christian nutjob in France? I doubt it.

 

Anyway, if you really think that the token contributions of countries like Poland are all that allowed us to fight this war, I suppose that's an opinion. They're all getting out, though, and I recall reading an article in a London paper when I was over there which quoted Jack Straw as saying, "Never again," in regards to following the US to war.

 

If we throw another party, no one's going to come. Not like anyone except the British really came this time, but you get my point.

[Commissar]

Other than the silly notion that the United States is somehow the equivalent of Iran, I find the idea that, since some nations have nuclear weapons, there should be free reign for all nations to have them.  If you honestly think that a Islamic fundamentalist theocracy will show the same restraint as the United States, you're sorely misguided.

 

I can hear the howls now...  "The United States is a Christian fundamentalist theocracy!!!!"  "The United states is ignorint!!!11"  "The United States is all warmongers and all our base are belong to them!!!!1!1!1"

 

The notion that George Bush is the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein or that the United States republic is the equivalent of the Iranian theocracy is absolute rubbish.

 

Argue that war should not be an option in this case.  Argue that Iran might respond to sanctions.  Argue that the people desire democracy and we should encourage democratic reforms.  Don't argue that the United States is the same as Iran.  The idea is ridiculous on its face.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Restraint? As far as I'm aware, we're the only country that's ever actually killed anyone with a nuclear bomb.

 

But seriously, why should we get them? More importantly, why should we be the ones to decide who does and does not get them? We keep ours for defense, right? Why does that argument work for us but not the countries we don't like? Israel has the bomb, and they're not too fond of Iran or its neighbors. But Israel's on our side, so hey...they can have 'em.

[Laozi]

Well, where as I can't really say that the U.S. and European powers really have the right to decide who can have nuclear bombs, the idea of countries with unstable infrastructures possessing such does frighten me.

[EnderAndrew]

Restraint?  As far as I'm aware, we're the only country that's ever actually killed anyone with a nuclear bomb. 

 

But seriously, why should we get them?  More importantly, why should we be the ones to decide who does and does not get them?  We keep ours for defense, right?  Why does that argument work for us but not the countries we don't like?  Israel has the bomb, and they're not too fond of Iran or its neighbors.  But Israel's on our side, so hey...they can have 'em.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And we also realize how close we came to exchanging bombs a few times in the cold war because of what a war of idealogy can make people do.

 

Add zealotry to the mix, and I certainly understand people's fear and concerns.

 

Name one good reason any nation should be pursuing new nuclear weapon programs today?

 

I thought the world all agreed that we should disarm our nukes as much as we can, not build new ones.

[Laozi]

Wasn't the U.S. the first ntion to go back on the agreement? I'm asking 'cause I don't know.

[EnderAndrew]

I don't know. It could be. I'm sure we've developed new tactical nukes.

 

I don't assume for a second we're perfect.

[Lucius]

Restraint?  As far as I'm aware, we're the only country that's ever actually killed anyone with a nuclear bomb. 

 

But seriously, why should we get them?  More importantly, why should we be the ones to decide who does and does not get them?  We keep ours for defense, right?  Why does that argument work for us but not the countries we don't like?  Israel has the bomb, and they're not too fond of Iran or its neighbors.  But Israel's on our side, so hey...they can have 'em.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And we also realize how close we came to exchanging bombs a few times in the cold war because of what a war of idealogy can make people do.

 

Add zealotry to the mix, and I certainly understand people's fear and concerns.

 

Name one good reason any nation should be pursuing new nuclear weapon programs today?

 

I thought the world all agreed that we should disarm our nukes as much as we can, not build new ones.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First, numbersman you got a point, all I'm saying is that a nation like the US shouldn't go around telling who can get these weapons when they have plenty of their own. If they started disarming their own nuclear arsenal first (isn't that what you're suggesting Ender?), then perhaps, just perhaps other nation would bother to even listen to them.

 

And Eldar, don't be silly, just because I mention Iran and USA in the same sentence due to this nuclear arms folly doesn't mean you have to go on a right wing defensive spree.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I thought the world all agreed that we should disarm our nukes as much as we can, not build new ones.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, the United States does not seem to agree with this. It is, as far as I know, actively pursuing the development of so-called 'bunker-buster' nuclear weapons, 'low-yield' weapons that you can actually use.

 

I don't understand the logic behind this at all - surely the taboo of nuclear weapons, the knowledge that whichever side uses them first would be an international pariah, is part of our security against newly nuclear states. Whatever happened to Mutually Assured Destruction? Why is the US looking for ways to use nuclear weapons, not ways of getting rid of them?

[Laozi]

Why is the US looking for ways to use nuclear weapons, not ways of getting rid of them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Aliens?

[Commissar]

Restraint?  As far as I'm aware, we're the only country that's ever actually killed anyone with a nuclear bomb. 

 

But seriously, why should we get them?  More importantly, why should we be the ones to decide who does and does not get them?  We keep ours for defense, right?  Why does that argument work for us but not the countries we don't like?  Israel has the bomb, and they're not too fond of Iran or its neighbors.  But Israel's on our side, so hey...they can have 'em.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And we also realize how close we came to exchanging bombs a few times in the cold war because of what a war of idealogy can make people do.

 

Add zealotry to the mix, and I certainly understand people's fear and concerns.

 

Name one good reason any nation should be pursuing new nuclear weapon programs today?

 

I thought the world all agreed that we should disarm our nukes as much as we can, not build new ones.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We are, in fact, pursuing low-yield nuclear devices designed for smaller targets. These are purely offensive weapons; they're not going to be sitting in silos out in Wyoming. They're designed to be dropped. They are, in essence, things we might very well use.

 

Now, I don't see how we can be building these things, while keeping our world-leading stockpile of larger warheads intact, and still have the nerve to tell any other country that they can't build a nuclear defense program.

 

This isn't to say that I want to see Iran get the bomb. I just find the shriek of moral outrage, the "but we're the good guys!" defense sickening.

[EnderAndrew]

I don't understand the logical behind this at all - surely the taboo of nuclear weapons, the knowledge that whichever side uses them first would be an international pariah, is part of our security against newly nuclear states.  Whatever happened to Mutually Assured Destruction?  Why is the US looking for ways to use nuclear weapons, not ways of getting rid of them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I imagine the reality has nothing to do with actually using nukes, or we would have seen them in Afghanistan.

 

We need to spend money for the purpose of spending money sometimes, and fat government contracts are exactly that.

 

Furthermore, developing such weapons means we get them before anyone else, and they can still be used as a threat.

 

Still, I'd prefer that we disarm.

[Lucius]

These 30 countries you keep mentioning, I think it was Commissar who asked for a list so I took this one from Wiggy:

 

Current Members

 

USA 130,000

United Kingdom 8,761

South Korea 3,600

Italy 3,085 -- began phased withdrawal of troops in March 2005 [3]

Poland 1,700 -- began to withdraw troops in October 2004

Ukraine 1,450 -- announced to withdraw troops by October 2005 [4]

Georgia 889

Romania 860

Australia 850

Japan 550 -- limited to non-combat zones only

Denmark 496

Bulgaria 450 -- began phased withdrawal of troops in March 2005 [5]

El Salvador 380

Mongolia 180

Azerbaijan 151

Latvia 122

Lithuania 118

Slovakia 105

Czech Republic 80

Albania 71

Estonia 55

Macedonia 33

Kazakhstan 25

 

Members With No Military Involvement

Several countries chose not to send military or combat troops to support the invasion, but instead pledged their solidarity with the Coalition

 

Angola 0

Colombia 0

Eritrea 0

Ethiopia 0

Iceland 0

Kuwait 0

Micronesia 0

Rwanda 0

Solomon Islands 0

Uganda 0

Uzbekistan 0

 

Members Who Have Left

 

Nicaragua 0 -- withdrew 115 troops in February 2004

Dominican Republic 0 -- withdrew 302 troops in May 2004

Honduras 0 -- withdrew 370 troops in June 2004

Spain 0 -- withdrew 1400 troops in June 2004

Philippines 0 -- withdrew 51 troops in July 2004

Thailand 0 -- withdrew 443 troops in August 2004

Hungary 0 -- withdrew 300 troops in December 2004

Tonga 0 -- withdrew 40 troops in December 2004

Moldova 0 -- withdrew 12 troops in February 2005

Portugal 0 -- withdrew 128 policemen in February 2005

Netherlands 800 -- withdrew 1350 troops in March 2005

Singapore 0 -- withdrew its single amphibious transport dock deployed in the Persian Gulf in March 2005

 

Canada does not support the invasion of Iraq and is not a Coalition member but has 31 troops in the theatre as part of an exchange program with the United States military.

 

My own country is in the list, not that I'm at all pleased with that, but my PM seems to be french kissing Bush as often as he can.

[213374U]

But seriously, why should we get them?  More importantly, why should we be the ones to decide who does and does not get them?  We keep ours for defense, right?  Why does that argument work for us but not the countries we don't like?  Israel has the bomb, and they're not too fond of Iran or its neighbors.  But Israel's on our side, so hey...they can have 'em.

It's called common sense. You don't let the same people that would love to see your house burn get a flamethrower. And if you do, then you deserve to be roasted. No real morality behind it, so don't try to find it. The US government is dedicated to politics, not philosophy. If people understood this, there would be no need for politicians to go spouting bullsh*t to justify their actions.

 

And yeah, the US are the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon in war. But I guess that the same amount of casualties (and possibly many more) inflicted through regular bombings and the good ol' bullet are just fine with you.

 

 

I don't understand the logic behind this at all - surely the taboo of nuclear weapons, the knowledge that whichever side uses them first would be an international pariah, is part of our security against newly nuclear states.  Whatever happened to Mutually Assured Destruction?  Why is the US looking for ways to use nuclear weapons, not ways of getting rid of them?

The logic behind it is to develop nuclear devices whose power is closer to regular ordnance than traditional strategic warheads. Simply because "it's a nuke!" is not good enough a reason to ban it, that is illogic. What's important is the actual yield of the bomb and the side effects it may have.

 

Obviously, MAD doesn't apply to those weapons, as they are not WMDs. Nor they carry a risk of bringing about nuclear winter, or any of the other problems associated with strategic nukes.

[Lucius]

And yeah, the US are the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon in war. But I guess that the same amount of casualties (and possibly many more) inflicted through regular bombings and the good ol' bullet are just fine with you. 

He never said that, I see the week off haven't changed how you talk to people.

[metadigital]

Australia will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ya I wish they'd ge out of our lap, they sweat alot

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think John Howard is aware of your gripes. This changes nothing, however. You might just as well tell Canada to stop living next door to the US, for all the good it will do you. A goverment's first responsibility is defence. Period.

 

...

But seriously, why should we get them?  More importantly, why should we be the ones to decide who does and does not get them?  We keep ours for defense, right?  Why does that argument work for us but not the countries we don't like?  Israel has the bomb, and they're not too fond of Iran or its neighbors.  But Israel's on our side, so hey...they can have 'em.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is pragmatism.

 

While the US keeps the peace, I see no moral imperative to prevent them from having nuclear weapons. Don't forget all the permanent members of the Security Council, as well as a few others, have them.

 

If China picks a fight with the US, then you'll be glad the US has nukes. There is no way to win a conventional war against China.

[213374U]

There is no way to win a conventional war against China.

I'd like to see the evidence you have to back that statement. I think that lately China's military power is being grossly overrated. Wait, shouldn't this go in the other thread? "