|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
posted June 27, 2003 09:46 AM |
|
|
Well we can all rest soundly...Baghdad Bob surrendered and was released...I hope he goes into some sort of comedy career
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker
|
|
tonyjt2471
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2003 01:46 AM |
|
|
No, He said he was....
Quote:
Well we can all rest soundly...Baghdad Bob surrendered and was released...I hope he goes into some sort of comedy career
.....not captured, that was a lie. Baghdad Bob claimed to have been on vacation and just hangin out with some US troops while cruising Miami beach. Anyways, thats what he said.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2003 01:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well we can all rest soundly...Baghdad Bob surrendered and was released...I hope he goes into some sort of comedy career
If every politician who has spread propaganda lies in that Iraq war would go into a comedy career, the US would have to exchange half of their gouvernment.
____________
|
|
midnight
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2003 07:21 AM |
|
|
i dont have time to read 61 pages of chatting, but did anyone ever mention how a nation can attack another on the premise of stopping Weapons of Mass destruction... and then use radioactive uranium based weapons against them? (DU Munitions)
Does this seem wierd 2 u as it does to me??
BTW. apparently the uranium oxides created on impact are worse than a lump of uranium metal because you can wear/eat/breath the dust.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 30, 2003 07:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well we can all rest soundly...Baghdad Bob surrendered and was released...I hope he goes into some sort of comedy career
Brilliant. I'll sleep much more soundly in my bed tonight for that little piece of information.....
As for DU rounds, well I believe their use (in the british army anyway, I only heard reports about our forces) was banned for this conflict, which would indicate that we had no intention of using that particular WMD. Though I have to say whether the use of WMD's on a battlefield is entirely subjective (read if you are a western nation they weren't banned/dangerous weapons, if you aint, they are). Take America's use of Agent Orange, or the DU rounds used by the allies in the last war. In general governments and the millitary will use whatever the hell they can justify and then some in war to make life easier on their troops, though I have to say the recent conflict did show restraint.
I still find it laughable though that one of the world's biggest owners of ICBM's and god knows how many chemical weapons can get the guts to criticise others for owning WMD's. You could argue the whole "will to use them for bad means and/or sell them to terrorists and unstable nations" thing, but this is unstable when you consider Israel got much of it's weapons tech from the western allies, and just happens to posess nukes also. I doubt anyone could claim the use of A. Orange did the country of Vietnam, or even the war effort any good either.
Then again, on the opposite side of the coin, the so-called "appeasers" (guess americans are going to have to find new insults now france can't appease anyone) The only western nation increasing it's nuclear capacity and still testing is...... France, though Bush has hinted in the past America might also follow suit.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
tonyjt2471
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2003 11:23 PM |
|
|
No spin please
These "nuclear weapons" you speak of are made from depleted uranium to produce an armor-peircing shell....which is not radioactive. The nuclear weapons that Iran may be producing (produced) are WMD, that could be used to kill millions.
OK, so now that weve got the spin straightened on that, lets move to why Iraq cant have them, and why other nations can.
After the first Gulf War, the UN deemed that Iraq could not possess WMD by passing ,unanomously, several resolutions (which inclued the use of force if a violation occurs) stating so, agreed to by Iraq! Iran is in violation of the (Non-)Nuclear Proliferation treaty (NPT), not UN resolutions. I realize several other nations are also, so lets see why they (countrys in violation of the NPT)have these nukes....
Pakistan and India(? right?) are in violation of the NPT, but they have these weapons to thwart an assault by the other nation (ironic since their squabble is over some warlord-controlled wasteland, not worth the effort).
Isreal has nukes to prevent another assault by an arab nation or coalition (its worked so far).
N. Korea is trying to use their nuke as a hand in dealing with the USA to get more $$$ (stupid idea, what the hell is this Kim Jong-Ill thinking???)
France is still testing which I believe is a violation of the NPT...(right? But who knows why, if they were attacked the USA would mop up the floor with their agressor, but Im pretty sure the French would never use one or sell to terrorists, etc)
Now, what in the world would Iran NEED a nuclear arsenal for?
We could discuss why nations have nukes who are not in violation, but that would be a waste of time (i.e we know the USA and Russia has nukes but they have been reducing them for decades, so lets move on)
The point here being that the MOTIVE for which Iran would develop a nuclear weapon is beleivably sinister. So lets focus on that....
By the way, this post does not endorse nor condone the use, production, development, etc of nuclear weapons, it is is simply a post of facts and my opinions based on these facts. Please refrain from hyper-liberal, hyper-national, hyper-etc. attacks on me and concentrate on the issue and be proffessional. I sincerely appreciate peoples posts here who have differeing opinions as long as they are constructive and do not spin the facts and issues. Look to PrivateHudsons posts for inspiration for posting in a mature and knowledgable fashion even if thay dont reflect my thoughts. Thank you.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 01, 2003 12:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
These "nuclear weapons" you speak of are made from depleted uranium to produce an armor-peircing shell....which is not radioactive. The nuclear weapons that Iran may be producing (produced) are WMD, that could be used to kill millions.
Tell that to the British soldiers from the war who have since come down with all manner of ilnesses since they were sent to inspect Iraqui tanks taken out in this manner without protection. If it's not dangerous firstly this would not have happened, and secondly, the british would have no reason to stop using them, which they did, so it must be. Saying they should have been protected won't really work either, because that means the population at large would need similar protection, or the vehicles would need removing.
Quote:
Pakistan and India(? right?) are in violation of the NPT, but they have these weapons to thwart an assault by the other nation (ironic since their squabble is over some warlord-controlled wasteland, not worth the effort).
An argument no doubt that could be used by say Iran and Iraq who have similar.... issues.
Quote:
Isreal has nukes to prevent another assault by an arab nation or coalition (its worked so far).
Israel has at least once taken the decision to use their arsenal if things got truly bad, so their detterent can quite easily become ignored by the arabs and then the detterent becomes a reality.
Quote:
N. Korea is trying to use their nuke as a hand in dealing with the USA to get more $$$ (stupid idea, what the hell is this Kim Jong-Ill thinking???)
Which would IMO make them a much more dangerous target than Iraq ever was. They're a little harder to take down though....
Quote:
France is still testing which I believe is a violation of the NPT...(right? But who knows why, if they were attacked the USA would mop up the floor with their agressor, but Im pretty sure the French would never use one or sell to terrorists, etc)
America used one, Israel nearly used some, what's to stop france from doing so if things got truly bad again? France has always remained aloof from the need to be backed by the USA through it's withdrawl from Nato and insistence on developing their own arsenal. It presumably does this so that it can be independant slightly from Washington and make it's own (often dubious) decisions.
Quote:
Now, what in the world would Iran NEED a nuclear arsenal for?
Detterent against outside agression? Isn't this the number one reason other countries have them?
Quote:
The point here being that the MOTIVE for which Iran would develop a nuclear weapon is beleivably sinister. So lets focus on that....
Iran or Iraq? Well no matter, why is it sinister when america's is benevolent? I think this is much more a case of America and it's allies not wanting any middle east nation other than Israel having the power to ignore them and make decisions without worrying about potential american backlash. It's got zip to do with motive, you think Israel wouldn't use hers if the **** hit the fan? Personally I find it a little dubious, though I accept the nations like Iran are hardly likely to use them for benevolent means, I find it quite unlikely that they'd be any less or more likely than Israel or the US to use their new found leverage for dubious actions. As stated, it's not like the west find much moral trouble with using chemical weaponry when they can get away with it.
Whilst I wouldn't claim that I'd like to see the likes of Iraq, Iran or even the Indians and Pakistanis own Nukes, I somehow am very doubtful that the reason to deny them this right comes mostly from a benevolent west looking out for the world. It's just as much to do with the loss of power over the area and the countries this would cause and the loss of ability to affect said nation through intervention. None of the leaders of those nations are particularly insane, they know if caught selling nukes to terrorists their nation/government will fall, nukes or no nukes. I think their main motive will be political leverage and a detterent.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2003 06:55 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 1 Jul 2003
|
Quote
"No spin please..."
Whole post that followed was well expressed.
As far as nukes...lets please not put this off on the USA as we are the only ones that doesn't want the ME to have them or NK for that matter...every militarily advanced nation on the earth (Russia, China, UK, etc) is against other nations obtaining nukes.
As far as Israel....they are almost the only nation in that whole area that is democratic and not insane. The ME is pretty screwed up and that is simple to see with all the terrorism, torture, social backwardness, oppression, etc., etc. Comparing Israel to most other ME nations is like comparing a civilized person to a psycho. Some ME nations appear to be making progress like Jordan...but too many are just insane.
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2003 07:06 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 1 Jul 2003
|
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030630/wl_nm/liberia_dc_69
The news reports:
“MONROVIA (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan kept up pressure on the United States to lead intervention in Liberia on Monday as troops strengthened defenses around battle-worn Monrovia in fear of another bloody rebel attack.
West African countries pledged troops for a peacekeeping force on Sunday, but they want help from the United States to prevent a bloodbath in the capital and end nearly 14 years of violence that have infected the impoverished region.“
The hypocrisy never ends…oh USA is the big bad dog..they are such aggressors…they are evil warmongers…yet again when things get tough people come clamoring to the USA to fix it.
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker
|
|
tonyjt2471
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2003 08:11 AM |
|
|
Well...
...looks like PH has decided to totally forget the no spinning deal, but whatever, I expected it.
As far as Dargon goes, I thank you for your FACTUAL posting. Seems like the only times FACTS come out, they seem to elude to the non-conspirital reality of what is actually going on THIS world....not a dreamworld spun in the minds of some super-liberal european calling Isreal and USA evil.....but like I said, I expect it.
PH, why did you quote and respond to my reasonings instaed of making your own and answering the actuall question posed? You wish to argue over moot points?
Cmon PH, youre better than that...answer the questions, dont spin my post, please.
____________
|
|
midnight
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2003 08:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
These "nuclear weapons" you speak of are made from depleted uranium to produce an armor-peircing shell....which is not radioactive.
Wrong, study your physics, any form of uranium is radioactive.
The use of the word "depleted" is spin.
When the shell hits armour, do u think the shell stays in 1 piece? the armour scrapes off radioactive uranium from the surface of the shell which then oxidises and enters the environment. And in this war, that environment is often a residential area.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 01, 2003 02:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As far as nukes...lets please not put this off on the USA as we are the only ones that doesn't want the ME to have them or NK for that matter...every militarily advanced nation on the earth (Russia, China, UK, etc) is against other nations obtaining nukes.
You will, I assume note I did not claim otherwise, indeed I stated I believe the western world, perhaps I'd have been better saying advanced world, but that's somantics.
Quote:
As far as Israel....they are almost the only nation in that whole area that is democratic and not insane.
Debateable as to the democratic qualities of a government lead by a general like Sharon, but this aside, this statement makes quite interesting reading, they're permitted to have them purely because they're democratic? If the others are so insane, pray tell why do we ally ourselves to them and/or sell them weapons?
Quote:
The ME is pretty screwed up and that is simple to see with all the terrorism, torture, social backwardness, oppression, etc., etc. Comparing Israel to most other ME nations is like comparing a civilized person to a psycho. Some ME nations appear to be making progress like Jordan...but too many are just insane.
Really? I'd question the sanity of a country whose response to terrorism involved rocketting and shelling buildings within towns personally. Saying they're more sane than the rest doesn't make them sane and/or less dangerous. As an interesting point, you might like to remember that terrorism was part of the founding of Israel also.
Quote:
looks like PH has decided to totally forget the no spinning deal, but whatever, I expected it.
This is a relevant counter to my argument is it? Tell me those troops haven't caught a variety of ilnesses, tell me the british army haven't recalled DU rounds, or that the reason isn't because they're dangerous to both the troops and civilians. Hell tell me A. Orange isn't a chemical weapon that ruined the costal region of Vietnam? That's all.... spin, or as it's better known, an argument you can't deny the truth of.
Quote:
not a dreamworld spun in the minds of some super-liberal european calling Isreal and USA evil
I never said evil, I said I don't consider their reasons entirely benevolent and I consider them clouded by worries of loss of power in the region. I never said Israel was evil either, just that it has nukes, and IS prepared to use them if needs be, which makes them a danger to the area.
Quote:
PH, why did you quote and respond to my reasonings instaed of making your own and answering the actuall question posed?
It's a debate, I answer your points, you attempt to answer mine, which btw calling them spin doesn't count as. As to your question, please state it clearer. If it's the Iran/Iraq motive I dealt with that before, detterent and political leverage over it's neighbours, nothing the other nuclear nations haven't done before really. If it's why should Iraq not have them? Well I agree under the UN law it shouldn't, but it's kinda strange to use UN law when needed and dump them when they disagree with you.
AND I actually did make my own points, I began the discussion over it after someone else's argument and then expressed MY opinion that nukes are not really either safe nor that advisable in anyone's hands, advanced or not.
Quote:
The hypocrisy never ends…oh USA is the big bad dog..they are such aggressors…they are evil warmongers…yet again when things get tough people come clamoring to the USA to fix it.
Well I might be a little off here, but I don't recall Liberia moaning about US intervention in Iraq, they shouldn't have to pay for the objections of either Anan or France/Russia. Usually the UN goes for the biggest force it can muster from local countries and/or those with prior involvement in the country, hence the USA. In Guadalcanal area there is calls on the Australians for support against a civil war there. There's no use asking other countries who either cannot or will not intervene.
Besides, the point of UN intervention is to peacefully if possible install order and peace to a country and mediate between warring sides. Iraq was an invasion of a sovereign country, something that the UN has only done rarely and is quite different from it's normal intervention actions.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
LordTitan
Famous Hero
Hit Dice: 76d12+608 HP
|
|
posted July 01, 2003 10:25 PM |
|
|
The war's almost over, so I feel it's safe to post in this thread now, mainly because my comments about the war are a bit... distortingly evil, yes that's good.
Anyways the war is a irony because the U.S sold those weapons and plans for those weapons to them a long time ago, so it's realy just *******.
P.S: It might have been said befor but I'm not reading 60 pages of histoy.
____________
Spaek the Titan
|
|
LordTitan
Famous Hero
Hit Dice: 76d12+608 HP
|
|
posted July 02, 2003 04:04 PM |
|
|
Careful now, it's going off subject.
What does this Bush guy want anyways? To kill everything? He has more bombs than the middle east.
Humans are just a too aggresive race, the only thing more aggresive then us (I think) are wasps, the're pretty mean.
Now if we would just stop fooling around and made a senate of the world, we would most likely be on a warp drive, or enhanced surgecal equipment.
But no we just have to go and blow each other up, slowing down our technological advancement. This kind of thing has to stop. We should fire all the governement employees, and all of the governementpolitical men and start over, and promote a non-corrupt society who's just interested in having the best world possible, and if you think that's impossible, think again, if we just did what's in the interest of the people like in a real democracy, we'd be up there in the stars, we'd be the healthyist, smartest and all around best race there is.
____________
Spaek the Titan
|
|
grave00
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 02, 2003 10:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now, what in the world would Iran NEED a nuclear arsenal for?
Detterent against outside agression? Isn't this the number one reason other countries have them?
Quote:
The point here being that the MOTIVE for which Iran would develop a nuclear weapon is beleivably sinister. So lets focus on that....
Iran or Iraq? Well no matter, why is it sinister when america's is benevolent? I think this is much more a case of America and it's allies not wanting any middle east nation other than Israel having the power to ignore them and make decisions without worrying about potential american backlash. It's got zip to do with motive, you think Israel wouldn't use hers if the **** hit the fan? Personally I find it a little dubious, though I accept the nations like Iran are hardly likely to use them for benevolent means, I find it quite unlikely that they'd be any less or more likely than Israel or the US to use their new found leverage for dubious actions. As stated, it's not like the west find much moral trouble with using chemical weaponry when they can get away with it.
Whilst I wouldn't claim that I'd like to see the likes of Iraq, Iran or even the Indians and Pakistanis own Nukes, I somehow am very doubtful that the reason to deny them this right comes mostly from a benevolent west looking out for the world. It's just as much to do with the loss of power over the area and the countries this would cause and the loss of ability to affect said nation through intervention. None of the leaders of those nations are particularly insane, they know if caught selling nukes to terrorists their nation/government will fall, nukes or no nukes. I think their main motive will be political leverage and a detterent.
I don't know about you but I somehow would feel safer with a country like France or the U.S. having nuclear weapons than Iraq. I find it hard to think you believe what you are writing having read everything you've written on this board over a few weeks. You seem to be saying we shouldn't think it's more sinister for them to have nukes, yet you feel good that they don't. A bit contradictory.
As far as Isreal, I seem to recall they stole the nuclear tech from us, including radioactive materials. It's not like the U.S. has always been pleased with Israel. I for one would fully expect them to use the nukes with a clear conscience if they were attacked and losing. But then, the world only has to worry if the Arab states decide to get frisky once again.
As far as none of the leaders being "particularly insane" that's not very reassuring.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 03, 2003 12:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't know about you but I somehow would feel safer with a country like France or the U.S. having nuclear weapons than Iraq
I agree, but I don't think they're amazingly safe, or wise to rest with anyone as they are used as a political tool. They'd be less safe with Iraq, but that does not make them wise or safe with others. Kinda handing a gun to two children, one of whom is mentally unstable, therefore less safe with it than the other one, but the stable child still isn't safe.
Quote:
You seem to be saying we shouldn't think it's more sinister for them to have nukes, yet you feel good that they don't. A bit contradictory.
Quote:
Let me clarify, I feel unhappy anyone has nukes, I feel especially unhappy unstable governments have them, I feel it's a little biased though for the advanced nations to dictate like a world government who is and is not capable of using them "safely" when they themselves have used WMD's when it suited them.
Quote:
As far as Isreal, I seem to recall they stole the nuclear tech from us, including radioactive materials. It's not like the U.S. has always been pleased with Israel.
America "lost" nuclear materials to another country? I find this a little strange to say the least that Israelis could somehow steal a highly valuable and dangerous material without either causing an international incident or someone in the US government allowing this to happen.
Quote:
I for one would fully expect them to use the nukes with a clear conscience if they were attacked and losing.
Which in itself means that no matter what a state of Israel can enforce what the hell it likes on it's neighbours because it can rule over them, clear in the knowledge that the US will never allow those states to gain nukes, therefore equal detterent/leverage. This leaves Israel the big boss of the area which I find a little disturbing. I'd also find it highly disturbing if they used nuclear weapons to wipe out millions simply because they themselves were loosing. This to me is not something we should encourage.
Quote:
But then, the world only has to worry if the Arab states decide to get frisky once again.
You will note btw that since the Israelis developed nukes (guessing here at late 60's) there has been 2 major conflicts, namely Yom Kippur and Lebanon. Only one of those was initiated by arabs, in the lebanon Israel invaded first.
Quote:
As far as none of the leaders being "particularly insane" that's not very reassuring.
You find it more reassuring that leaders like Sharon have control of these weapons? My point was if an arab nation gained these weapons they would have to be utterly insane to use them, anyone would have to be, because soon after the world or advanced nations would hit back with deadly force. This rule of thumb was part of the whole process of stopping nuclear war in the cold war, there's no reason to assume that this would be immensely different between other nations.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
grave00
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 03, 2003 04:07 AM |
|
|
Let me clarify, I feel unhappy anyone has nukes, I feel especially unhappy unstable governments have them, I feel it's a little biased though for the advanced nations to dictate like a world government who is and is not capable of using them "safely" when they themselves have used WMD's when it suited them.
Biased perhaps, BUT I believe it's a case of Might Makes Right falling in favor of the nation I'd most like it to fall to, namely mine. To quote an exchange "You can't play god" Reply "Somebody has to."
Quote:
As far as Isreal, I seem to recall they stole the nuclear tech from us, including radioactive materials. It's not like the U.S. has always been pleased with Israel.
America "lost" nuclear materials to another country? I find this a little strange to say the least that Israelis could somehow steal a highly valuable and dangerous material without either causing an international incident or someone in the US government allowing this to happen.
I think that you hit it right on the head. Someone or several someones Jewish with the U.S. administration or who had strong sympathies pulled it off.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/buriedlegacy/s_87948.html
Nothing conclusive there, but at least it shows one place supporting my off the wall theory.
Quote:
I for one would fully expect them to use the nukes with a clear conscience if they were attacked and losing.
Which in itself means that no matter what a state of Israel can enforce what the hell it likes on it's neighbours because it can rule over them, clear in the knowledge that the US will never allow those states to gain nukes, therefore equal detterent/leverage. This leaves Israel the big boss of the area which I find a little disturbing. I'd also find it highly disturbing if they used nuclear weapons to wipe out millions simply because they themselves were loosing. This to me is not something we should encourage.
I frankly don't understand this attitude. How exactly has Israel "lorded it over" the other states of the region. The United States doesn't exactly "lord it over" Mexico and Canada. They seem to go their own way just fine. Maybe Israel should be lording it over nations that have attacked them numerous times in the very short history of the nation. I think it's a pipe dream to assume those nations will never develop nukes. Where there's a will there's a way unfortunatly. We can't catch Saddam or Osama, I'm sure someone can make a nuke under our nose. Your last statements I understand even less. In my scenario, Israel is being attacked, it has never to my knowledge engaged in a war of aggression. This includes your Lebanon reference, which was provoked. Leaving that aside, in case you want to argue that, why wouldn't they wipe out millions?(and if they did it on the armies, it wouldn't necessarily be millions but many thousands). If you are faced with extinction what would you do? The Arabs should've learned by now not to mess with them in any case, having gotten their asses handed to them even when banded together. I guess the Israeli leaders in these conflicts should be credited with having the brilliance we lack.
Quote:
But then, the world only has to worry if the Arab states decide to get frisky once again.
You will note btw that since the Israelis developed nukes (guessing here at late 60's) there has been 2 major conflicts, namely Yom Kippur and Lebanon. Only one of those was initiated by arabs, in the lebanon Israel invaded first.
What is the correlation between having nukes and having wars? From what I read Lebanon wasn't their finest moment, but the initial actions were certainly provoked by the harboring of the PLO. Terrorist raids could be considered little tiny invasions. Obviously we see it that way(read Afghanistan).
Quote:
As far as none of the leaders being "particularly insane" that's not very reassuring.
You find it more reassuring that leaders like Sharon have control of these weapons? My point was if an arab nation gained these weapons they would have to be utterly insane to use them, anyone would have to be, because soon after the world or advanced nations would hit back with deadly force. This rule of thumb was part of the whole process of stopping nuclear war in the cold war, there's no reason to assume that this would be immensely different between other nations.
The less the better though, I'm sure you agree. We've already had some near misses in the cold war.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 04, 2003 02:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Biased perhaps, BUT I believe it's a case of Might Makes Right falling in favor of the nation I'd most like it to fall to, namely mine. To quote an exchange "You can't play god" Reply "Somebody has to."
The trouble, naturally being that the moment the might country becomes less than benevolent the world is in pretty deep trouble. Like say for example if Russia had somehow won the cold war and it had been America who failed. I’d rather there be some form of proper world police through something like the UN than this by default world police who we eternally have to rely on being kind to the rest of us.
Quote:
Nothing conclusive there, but at least it shows one place supporting my off the wall theory.
I wouldn’t personally consider it off the wall, I mean how often do you hear of a country “stealing” nuclear material from another? I’d find it much more likely that at some point in the 60’s somebody in America figured that Israel was a good ally to possess nukes.
Quote:
I frankly don't understand this attitude. How exactly has Israel "lorded it over" the other states of the region. The United States doesn't exactly "lord it over" Mexico and Canada. They seem to go their own way just fine. Maybe Israel should be lording it over nations that have attacked them numerous times in the very short history of the nation. I think it's a pipe dream to assume those nations will never develop nukes. Where there's a will there's a way unfortunatly. We can't catch Saddam or Osama, I'm sure someone can make a nuke under our nose. Your last statements I understand even less. In my scenario, Israel is being attacked, it has never to my knowledge engaged in a war of aggression. This includes your Lebanon reference, which was provoked. Leaving that aside, in case you want to argue that, why wouldn't they wipe out millions?(and if they did it on the armies, it wouldn't necessarily be millions but many thousands). If you are faced with extinction what would you do? The Arabs should've learned by now not to mess with them in any case, having gotten their asses handed to them even when banded together. I guess the Israeli leaders in these conflicts should be credited with having the brilliance we lack.
Lording it over bit: Well in the past most arab nations have used pretty sparse reasons for war, I’d imagine the recent actions of Sharon’s government would have invoked something by now had the surrounding nations not been worrying about any potential result of a successful war. It’s similar to Russia, no-one would or will seriously intervene in either Afghanistan in the 80s or Chechnya in the 90s, and I’m willing to bet at least some of this has many things to do with their power, much of which at this time comes from their existing nuclear capacity.
War of aggression: Though Lebanon is one issue, the Suez War of 1956 has also to be considered. In this the combined nations of Britain, France and Israel invaded Nasser’s Egypt in a secret deal. Israel was to have struck first, with Britain and France landing a force near to the Suez canal in order to “secure” the canal in the time of war. The reality was that Israel was after land (namely the Sinai/Gaza area) and the Anglo/French wanted to re-assert their control over the canal because Nasser had nationalized it from the Anglo/French company that owned it. In 1967 Israel had captured and held land such as the Sinai, Golan Heights and West Bank, imposing their rule over areas almost totally consisting of non-Jewish populations, therefore causing refugee crisis. Then there’s the Lebanon crisis and the numerous incursions by either side into each others countries. All of this would indicate a far from one sided affair of Arabs being the only reason for these wars.
Nuclear wise: Why shouldn’t they? Well I decline to wish the deaths and spoilt life of millions of innocents simply because my country will no longer exist, or my people will no longer dominate it. Firing a Nuke then won’t stop the Arabs, just enflame them more and kill many innocent lives for the sake of cold hearted revenge. As for the military targets notion, well look at the middle east, there’s pretty much zip area you could fire nukes at without many people dying that involve military targets.
War wise: Again a common misconception, in 1973 the Syrians were literally within minutes of flooding over the bridges crossing into the heart of Israel where their numbers alone would have wreaked havoc, only the timely intervention of a miniscule number of brave tank crews gathered together ad-hoc at the last minute threw the Syrians back long enough for the true reserves to be rushed up. Similarly Egypt was close to victory in the Sinai front, but failed to take advantage of their early successes gained through the brilliance of their canal crossing plan. As time went by the war eventually crossed into Israeli successes as more of their reserves became available, but right till the end of the conflict there was still some doubt as to the result with much of the fighting resulting in little short of stalemate until the closing days. 1967 was a case of unprepared, ill equipped, divided and badly lead arab forces being beaten because of a combination of these matters rather than bad troops, though Israeli troops did excel in this war.
I don’t think they have a brilliance others lack though, they have desperation of a do-or-die nation that simply HAS to succeed or cease to exist. Ironically Israel is the inheritor of a military ideal that began with their former nazi oppressors in Blitzkrieg, they have been the one to have at times in their wars shown the greatest adherence to it’s principles. The exception comes with the likes of the early days of Yom Kippur when they spent much time defending static positions, and paid a ludicrously heavy price (indeed most of the immediate, planned tank counter attacks by the IDF was blown to pieces by Egypt) and their later campaigns were they have been forced into more anti-geurilla tactics against irregular forces. This adherence though does rear it’s head with the American and Western tactics, (though they do place a heavy reliance on excessive amounts of ordanace) and the rare samples of this we see in Desert Storm, though this is somewhat unlike the Israeli situation in the way that our tanks and other arms were so vastly superior to Iraq’s it was almost a foregone conclusion.
Quote:
What is the correlation between having nukes and having wars? From what I read Lebanon wasn't their finest moment, but the initial actions were certainly provoked by the harboring of the PLO. Terrorist raids could be considered little tiny invasions. Obviously we see it that way(read Afghanistan).
The correlation would be basically that there has been 2 conflicts since then. In the first Israel came so close to loosing that their chief of staff asked for the option to use the nukes if needed and it was granted. Since this was public knowledge in around 1976 (I have a british book from then stating these facts) I would imagine that such a factor would indeed persuade the arab nations to not invade Israel again and turn from their stated intentions of wiping her off the map. Hence the concentration on terrorism. As for the raids, well they were then, and still to some extent common on both sides and are hardly enough alone to invoke all out war.
Quote:
The less the better though, I'm sure you agree. We've already had some near misses in the cold war.
The less the better includes looking for ways to disarm current nations also.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 05, 2003 04:26 AM |
|
|
Today I read an interesting article about the so-called "liberal American media":
http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,255765,00.html
According to SPIEGEL, a number of independent media analyses came to the following results:
* Gouvernment officials dominated the reports to an extreme extend. The only non-anonymous protester that was shown in the evening news within the first 3 weeks of the war is Leslie Cagan. The interview took 1 minute and was made during a demonstration. No one who was against the war has been invited into a news studio.
* Of all the 1617 people who were interviewed during the said three weeks, 64% were strictly pro-war, only 10% against it, and most of those were foreigners.
Regarding the interviewed Americans, it was 71% who supported the war, and only 3% who opposed it.
* 30% of the US people were against the Iraq war.
* In other words, the relation between the pro-war and the contra-war faction was reflected in the media by 24-1.
* No investigative interest in the case of "national hero" Jessica Lynch, which for the most part turns out to be PR, an inscenation.
* According to former NATO commander-in-chief Wesley Clark, there has been a concentrated action to make Saddam Hussein responsible for 9/11. Clark says that he has been requested to publicly state such a connection on the day of the terror acts. Which he refused as there was no evidence. This, too, has hardly had any reflection in the US media.
____________
|
|
grave00
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 08, 2003 08:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Biased perhaps, BUT I believe it's a case of Might Makes Right falling in favor of the nation I'd most like it to fall to, namely mine. To quote an exchange "You can't play god" Reply "Somebody has to."
The trouble, naturally being that the moment the might country becomes less than benevolent the world is in pretty deep trouble. Like say for example if Russia had somehow won the cold war and it had been America who failed. I’d rather there be some form of proper world police through something like the UN than this by default world police who we eternally have to rely on being kind to the rest of us.
The tyranical will always find justification to ignore the UN whether you believe it's the U.S. or someone else. We live in a world governed by the aggressive use of military force. Every nation on earth owes it's origins to war. The UN always turns to the U.S. for it's might anyway. It's a fairly corrupt body unfortunately.
Quote:
Nothing conclusive there, but at least it shows one place supporting my off the wall theory.
I wouldn’t personally consider it off the wall, I mean how often do you hear of a country “stealing” nuclear material from another? I’d find it much more likely that at some point in the 60’s somebody in America figured that Israel was a good ally to possess nukes.
Quote:
I frankly don't understand this attitude. How exactly has Israel "lorded it over" the other states of the region. The United States doesn't exactly "lord it over" Mexico and Canada. They seem to go their own way just fine. Maybe Israel should be lording it over nations that have attacked them numerous times in the very short history of the nation. I think it's a pipe dream to assume those nations will never develop nukes. Where there's a will there's a way unfortunatly. We can't catch Saddam or Osama, I'm sure someone can make a nuke under our nose. Your last statements I understand even less. In my scenario, Israel is being attacked, it has never to my knowledge engaged in a war of aggression. This includes your Lebanon reference, which was provoked. Leaving that aside, in case you want to argue that, why wouldn't they wipe out millions?(and if they did it on the armies, it wouldn't necessarily be millions but many thousands). If you are faced with extinction what would you do? The Arabs should've learned by now not to mess with them in any case, having gotten their asses handed to them even when banded together. I guess the Israeli leaders in these conflicts should be credited with having the brilliance we lack.
Lording it over bit: Well in the past most arab nations have used pretty sparse reasons for war, I’d imagine the recent actions of Sharon’s government would have invoked something by now had the surrounding nations not been worrying about any potential result of a successful war. It’s similar to Russia, no-one would or will seriously intervene in either Afghanistan in the 80s or Chechnya in the 90s, and I’m willing to bet at least some of this has many things to do with their power, much of which at this time comes from their existing nuclear capacity.
War of aggression: Though Lebanon is one issue, the Suez War of 1956 has also to be considered. In this the combined nations of Britain, France and Israel invaded Nasser’s Egypt in a secret deal. Israel was to have struck first, with Britain and France landing a force near to the Suez canal in order to “secure” the canal in the time of war. The reality was that Israel was after land (namely the Sinai/Gaza area) and the Anglo/French wanted to re-assert their control over the canal because Nasser had nationalized it from the Anglo/French company that owned it. In 1967 Israel had captured and held land such as the Sinai, Golan Heights and West Bank, imposing their rule over areas almost totally consisting of non-Jewish populations, therefore causing refugee crisis. Then there’s the Lebanon crisis and the numerous incursions by either side into each others countries. All of this would indicate a far from one sided affair of Arabs being the only reason for these wars.
According to Brassey's, reprisal raids failed to deter terrorist border incursions in the early 50's. In 1954 these were openly sponsored by Egypts leader Nasser. He was trying to secure leadership in the Arab world and did so by sealing the Red Sea outlet with artillery and a military alliance with Syria. Massive purchases of Czech and Soviet arms also threatened to give Egypt a massive edge withing two years. No hard evidence that it was a "preventative war" but it's likely. It was planned independently of the Anglo-French operation.
The "land grab" as you call it gave them a buffer zone against further incursions, with the negative aspect of policing the Arabs in the area who were none too pleased I'm sure. Israel's occupations have never been about room to grow, but about strategic defense. They've got a ridiculous border to defend.
Nuclear wise: Why shouldn’t they? Well I decline to wish the deaths and spoilt life of millions of innocents simply because my country will no longer exist, or my people will no longer dominate it. Firing a Nuke then won’t stop the Arabs, just enflame them more and kill many innocent lives for the sake of cold hearted revenge. As for the military targets notion, well look at the middle east, there’s pretty much zip area you could fire nukes at without many people dying that involve military targets.
I humbly disagree with your sentiments. Horrible it will be certainly, but I see no reason to put the responsibility for it with the Israelis. If you were in a gang breaking into my house, should I be concerned the other gang members will be mad when I shoot you? Probably, but I'm still gonna protect myself. Is the blame for it with me? Not to my way of thinking. Just leave them alone and you'll be fine. I hesitate to jump to conclusions on reactions to that. People might react as if cold water had been thrown on them. I might calm the hell down if someone nuked me before they nuked me again.
War wise: Again a common misconception, in 1973 the Syrians were literally within minutes of flooding over the bridges crossing into the heart of Israel where their numbers alone would have wreaked havoc, only the timely intervention of a miniscule number of brave tank crews gathered together ad-hoc at the last minute threw the Syrians back long enough for the true reserves to be rushed up. Similarly Egypt was close to victory in the Sinai front, but failed to take advantage of their early successes gained through the brilliance of their canal crossing plan. As time went by the war eventually crossed into Israeli successes as more of their reserves became available, but right till the end of the conflict there was still some doubt as to the result with much of the fighting resulting in little short of stalemate until the closing days. 1967 was a case of unprepared, ill equipped, divided and badly lead arab forces being beaten because of a combination of these matters rather than bad troops, though Israeli troops did excel in this war.
You're out of your mind on the 1973 war. The Israelis held off 1400 Syrian tanks with 200. The Syrians also had 2800 APCs. The IDF turned it's attention to this front as the most immediate threat to Israeli territory. By the second day they had a whole division in contact. The Syrians deepest penetration was 18 miles. They shoved the Syrians back to their starting point by the 10th and by the 11th had turned to deal with the Iraqis and Jordanians. Israel suffered high casualties by it's standards but keep in mind by the end they had encircled the Egyptian 3rd Army. Hardly a disaster for Israel. How many nations attacked them from how many sides? Scoreboard is what counts.
I don’t think they have a brilliance others lack though, they have desperation of a do-or-die nation that simply HAS to succeed or cease to exist. Ironically Israel is the inheritor of a military ideal that began with their former nazi oppressors in Blitzkrieg, they have been the one to have at times in their wars shown the greatest adherence to it’s principles. The exception comes with the likes of the early days of Yom Kippur when they spent much time defending static positions, and paid a ludicrously heavy price (indeed most of the immediate, planned tank counter attacks by the IDF was blown to pieces by Egypt) and their later campaigns were they have been forced into more anti-geurilla tactics against irregular forces. This adherence though does rear it’s head with the American and Western tactics, (though they do place a heavy reliance on excessive amounts of ordanace) and the rare samples of this we see in Desert Storm, though this is somewhat unlike the Israeli situation in the way that our tanks and other arms were so vastly superior to Iraq’s it was almost a foregone conclusion.
There are plenty of examples of individual commander's brilliance in these campaigns. Israel exploited weak points many a time, nothing like it on the other side. Don't knock excessive ordnance. It can be very effective. Artillery is the god of war.
Quote:
What is the correlation between having nukes and having wars? From what I read Lebanon wasn't their finest moment, but the initial actions were certainly provoked by the harboring of the PLO. Terrorist raids could be considered little tiny invasions. Obviously we see it that way(read Afghanistan).
The correlation would be basically that there has been 2 conflicts since then. In the first Israel came so close to loosing that their chief of staff asked for the option to use the nukes if needed and it was granted. Since this was public knowledge in around 1976 (I have a british book from then stating these facts) I would imagine that such a factor would indeed persuade the arab nations to not invade Israel again and turn from their stated intentions of wiping her off the map. Hence the concentration on terrorism. As for the raids, well they were then, and still to some extent common on both sides and are hardly enough alone to invoke all out war.
Quote:
The less the better though, I'm sure you agree. We've already had some near misses in the cold war.
The less the better includes looking for ways to disarm current nations also.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
