AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-11-17, 19:41   Link #1
Mumitroll
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 34
US Foreign Policy, Nuclear Power, or Whether Most of Us Will Die in the Next 50 Years

this is to carry over a discussion from the other nuclear power thread where going into history and deeper related issues was deemed "unrelated" by some moderator...

anyhow, let me state a few points that I consider important.

1) the US is currently running a very aggressive and dangerous foreign policy. it has been doing more or less the same since WWII, but after the collapse of the USSR, that approach was even escalated - bombings of Serbia, wars in Iraq and Georgia, getting out of nuclear disarmament treaties are just some examples. all that is perceived very negatively in the world, the more negatively, the less US-influenced propaganda there is.

2) nuclear weapons are getting ever more widespread, and this process cannot really be stopped in the long term.

3) earlier or later, this will end with a (most probably single, low-yield) nuclear bomb being exploded in a large US coast city.

4) whether a large-scale nuclear war will occur or not, and whether a single nuclear explosion in a US city will lead to a change of US foreign policy, is open for discussion.

Any even remotely related comments are welcome. I dont mind you going into history, talking about analogous conflicts and situations, and discussing anything having even a vague connection to the stated issues, as long as it's articulated. actually, the more historical and related sources you cite, the better.

Last edited by Mumitroll; 2008-11-17 at 20:12.
Mumitroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-17, 21:15   Link #2
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumitroll
1) the US is currently running a very aggressive and dangerous foreign policy. it has been doing more or less the same since WWII, but after the collapse of the USSR, that approach was even escalated - bombings of Serbia, wars in Iraq and Georgia, getting out of nuclear disarmament treaties are just some examples. all that is perceived very negatively in the world, the more negatively, the less US-influenced propaganda there is.
I have to agree with you there. The American foreign policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union hasn't been able to account for the changes in the world politic. As a result, their actions have often been ham-fisted and have accomplished the opposite of what they're trying to do. Of all of these actions, the most troubling has been the reaction to Russia's reemergence as a regional power. While Russia will probably never be a superpower again, the U.S. seemed to be unwilling to see it assert any power at all, and this confrontation can't have a happy ending.

Of the events, the ugliest diplomatic reactions have been the handling of the Russia-Georgia war ("We're all Georgians now"!?) and the encroachment of the ABM towards Russia's borders without paying any heed to Russia's interests. Both are very uncomfortable attitudes to hold.

In a slightly different topic, American actions have also been running counter to their rhetoric when it comes to nuclear proliferation. The State Department has been saying that everyone would be better off if they did not pursue nuclear weapons, but the world isn't blind. Everyone can see that Iraq's non-pursuit didn't keep them from being invaded, while North Korea is patently uninvaded. A similar mixed signal can be seen in regards to India, Pakistan and Israel - they have nuclear weapons counter to the NPT, and their statures have generally grown despite (or maybe even because of) that.

While the attitude of the U.S. is hardly the only factor at play, I don't think that there's going to be much progress towards a more stable nuclear regime until it's foreign policy undergoes a sea change when it comes to diplomacy. I don't foresee any such major change any time soon, so the world is going to be in for some very interesting times.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-17, 23:54   Link #3
Lathdrinor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
This was from the other thread but it has something to do with US foreign policy so I'll respond to it here:

Quote:
you know what I dont like about this? this "context of the general brutality of World War II". first of all, where exactly was the US target of this "general brutality" to give it a "right" to be like that as well? in Pearl Harbor? an offshore military base? this argument might - maybe - have some validity if it was the USSR to firebomb and nuke cities, since it had experienced immensely large civilian losses. but the US?...
The problem is that total war has a way of getting out of control.

Nazi Germany was not the target of atomic bombs, but it suffered even more civilian deaths than Japan did. This is especially true when you consider the nature of total war, which involves drafts - near the end of the war, Nazi Germany was drafting 12-year olds into the army. The line between civilians and soldiers has become so blurred by that point that it isn't even clear what constitutes legitimate warfare anymore.

Total war is when an entire society is mobilized to fight an enemy that is not just a government, but also the society that supports that government. Civilians are part of the war effort in total war, and therefore they become targets. That's not to say things like the Geneva Convention didn't matter, but it is to say that once some countries started hitting civilian populations in their war efforts, others followed. Warfare is frequently reciprocal - you can't expect one side to "play nice" when the other isn't, particularly when the two sides are evenly matched.

The stakes were high during World War II. This wasn't just a limited offensive to achieve specific strategic goals, in which you're trying to minimize casualties in order to save face on the political front. World War II was about total victory versus total defeat. The defeated populations were at the complete mercy of the victorious ones, and they were frequently enslaved or slaughtered.

In such a war, "human rights" means very little, and I'm not going to sugarcoat the Allies here by saying that they observed all the proper niceties. They didn't, and to tell you the truth, at the time such niceties have yet to really enter into the socio-political consciousness. World War II really changed a lot of things, and examining history before (and during) it is like looking into a different, much crueler world. That's what I mean by viewing history in context. I'm not justifying what the US did - I'm saying that what it did has to be evaluated relative to what other countries were doing at the time.

Would it have been possible to avoid the atomic bombing of Japan? Yes, but it would've required moral and political restraint beyond what most of the countries involved in World War II were exercising, at the time. Think about it - would the Germans or the Japanese have hesitated to use atomic bombs on the Allies, had they developed them first? None of this makes it right to nuke civilians, but it does give you perspective on what the rules of engagement were like during World War II.

Last edited by Lathdrinor; 2008-11-18 at 00:18.
Lathdrinor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 04:05   Link #4
yezhanquan
Observer/Bookman wannabe
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 29
Ever since 9/11, I've been wondering to myself when a nuke would be detonated in the harbors of San Franciso, or for that matter, in the middle of any major American city. Not that I want to see it, but the possibility of it no longer seemed absurd to me.

We need a US which is able to look inwards. I'm not saying that they should abandon all their objectives overseas. But, US infrastructure needs some serious fixing. There are some parts of the world that don't exactly welcome you. Take some hints and return home to do some over-due maintenance work? I think Thomas Friedman said it better than myself.
__________________
Those from the lower levels cannot hope to surpass those from the upper.

RIP, Oba-chan (1935-2008)
yezhanquan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 04:37   Link #5
mg1942
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
US can't afford another sideshow like the past 7 years. Its soldier needs rest. Outdated equipment needs to be replaced; invest in future weapons (UCAVs, JLTVs, etc). Refine the tactics learned in Afghanistan/Iraq, and come up with a REAL exit strategy just in case they have to do another police work in some godforsaken 4th-world twilight zone
mg1942 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 05:39   Link #6
FLCL
I've been Kawarolled
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Age: 24
Send a message via AIM to FLCL
im expatting to my other side which is china

problem solved
FLCL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 07:14   Link #7
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
The US is not the only countries making nuclear warheads. There is Russia, China, Israel, India, France, etc... Both Russia and China are more than willing to use it if they do end up in a war, not mentioning that Israel is in the same boat.

It is true that the United States has been engaging in wars since the end of WWII, but most of their wars are actually approved by the leaders of the United Nations, such as Russia and China with the exception of the Iraq War. However, which country supported the Republican camp during the American elections? China, China did meaning they are also very supportive of the Iraq War. If all the leaders of the United Nations are against the aggressive American foreign policy in the Middle East, it would not have occurred, yet it did. I wonder why.

Generally, in the future.. There may be an outbreak of nuclear war and the invovled countries would most likely be US, China, and Israel. I am not sure whether Russia would do such a thing or not, I don't think they would, but I may be wrong. The chances of India using nukes on Pakistan isn't very likely, because their countries are geographically located next to each other, any country that invokes nukes will end up hit by the radiation due to wind blows.
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 07:16   Link #8
Mumitroll
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 34
Quote:
Of all of these actions, the most troubling has been the reaction to Russia's reemergence as a regional power. While Russia will probably never be a superpower again, the U.S. seemed to be unwilling to see it assert any power at all, and this confrontation can't have a happy ending.
I dont think the largest state in the world, which could destroy most of the world within hours, and possesses a major share of the world's resources - can be called a "regional power". Neither do the US planners think so. It certainly would not be very regional if Russia deployed missiles or strategic bombers in Venezuela or Cuba - plans for both were discussed recently and a nuclear cruiser fleet and long range bombers have recently visited Venezuela. The USSR certainly had a much larger influence, mainly because of its numerous satellites, and was more in a balance with the US, but whether the current imbalance will stay forever - as you suggest - I very much doubt it. economically, the US has been losing ground rather continuously vs. the rest of the world in the last decade, so its central remaining trump card is the military. If several other states - e.g. China, Russia - get to a level where they have a mobile military capable of opposing the US one anywhere in the world, or, alternatively, if the US backs off from its big-stick foreign policy, the world would probably become a more balanced and safer place again.


Quote:
Of the events, the ugliest diplomatic reactions have been the handling of the Russia-Georgia war ("We're all Georgians now"!?) and the encroachment of the ABM towards Russia's borders without paying any heed to Russia's interests. Both are very uncomfortable attitudes to hold.
both have been consistent within the general US foreign policy. the very fact that Georgia started this miniwar was because the US had basically installed its current regime - in the so-called "Rose Revolution" - and massively supported it with weapons and military aid in the last 4-5 years. the current Georgian president Saakashvili is a former law graduate of Columbia University, with a US Dept of State scholarship, and he has previously worked in several American law firms. Georgia's military budget went from $30 million in 2002 to over $1 billion in 2008 - most of it being loans from the US/NATO/Israel. at the time of the Georgian attack on Tskhinvali, there were at least several hundred US military advisors in Georgia. McCains advisor Randy Scheunemann continues to be on Georgia's payroll for lobbying its interests in the US.

a similar picture exists in Ukraine. the so-called "Orange Revolution" there was also heavily US-sponsored (through shady NGOs). the current Ukrainian president Yuschenko's wife is a former US Dept of State employee.

imagine a similar situation the other way round - if Russia sponsored fake "revolutions" in Mexico and Canada, installed KGB employees as their presidents, supplied them with weapons, and supported a war by say Mexico to reclaim its South Californian territories stolen from it by the US in the 1840s. how would you react to that?


Quote:
I don't think that there's going to be much progress towards a more stable nuclear regime until it's foreign policy undergoes a sea change when it comes to diplomacy.
yes. which is exactly why i said in the other thread that any discussion on nuclear proliferation is meaningless babble unless you also talk about policies and history.



Quote:
That's not to say things like the Geneva Convention didn't matter, but it is to say that once some countries started hitting civilian populations in their war efforts, others followed.
listen, the USSR or China, after all the damage they suffered from the Axis powers, may have had the moral right to do so. they didnt, however. the US never suffered any significant damage to its civilian population, so any attempts to justify the US genocide of the Japanese civilian population by "it was a total war so anything goes" is demagogy and little more.



Quote:
The stakes were high during World War II. This wasn't just a limited offensive to achieve specific strategic goals, in which you're trying to minimize casualties in order to save face on the political front. World War II was about total victory versus total defeat. The defeated populations were at the complete mercy of the victorious ones, and they were frequently enslaved or slaughtered.
again, that may have been true for the USSR, but is empty demagogy when applied to the US. defeat was never even considered by the US by the time it dropped the nuclear bombs. it was clear Japan would lose.



Quote:
I'm not justifying what the US did - I'm saying that what it did has to be evaluated relative to what other countries were doing at the time.
the US is at the top or close in two aspects: 1) it suffered by far the least of all major nations involved (actually profited immensely in the long term) 2) despite its minimal own losses, it was way up there with the Nazis regarding targeting civilian population deliberately.



Quote:
Would it have been possible to avoid the atomic bombing of Japan? Yes, but it would've required moral and political restraint beyond what most of the countries involved in World War II were exercising, at the time.
what "most countries"? the US was the only one who had the bomb at the time. there was zero restraint necessary, Germany was defeated, and Japan was clearly doomed with the USSR having entered the war against it as well.

I think, rather, it was an amazing display of cruelty and coldbloodedness along with a complete contempt for the Japanese. a mentality along the lines of "better a 100,000 of those yellow-faced Japs die than a few of our boys".

what is most amazing is that those people - I saw a recent report with an interview with the crew of the Enola Gay - still believe (or believed - pilot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tibbets died last year) they were in the "right". that is.. i'm at a loss for words. a case for psychotherapy. how can you even go on living knowing that you have instantly killed a hundred thousand innocent people, women, children? i'd commit suicide in their place.


Quote:
We need a US which is able to look inwards. I'm not saying that they should abandon all their objectives overseas. But, US infrastructure needs some serious fixing. There are some parts of the world that don't exactly welcome you. Take some hints and return home to do some over-due maintenance work? I think Thomas Friedman said it better than myself.
this is way too soft. the cold hard facts are: the US runs a suicidally dangerous foreign policy at the moment, with a large illegal war aimed at controlling and exploiting the state with world's 2nd-largest oil resources, another disastrous war in a meanwhile almost completely ruined state - which exports record amounts of opium since it's so poorly controlled, an oppressive foreign policy towards many Latin and South American states (some of which are in the meantime uniting against that), a blindly pro-Israeli policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - which leads to hatred from millions of Muslims, instigating fake revolutions and installing puppet regimes around the Russian borders, and trying to shift the nuclear balance between US and Russia towards a disbalance in US favor.

if the US abandoned at least some aspects of that ludicrous policy, the world would be much better off.


Quote:
Refine the tactics learned in Afghanistan/Iraq, and come up with a REAL exit strategy just in case they have to do another police work in some godforsaken 4th-world twilight zone
this expression amuses me. since when does the US do "police" work? it cares jack about the vast majority of conflicts and deaths going on in the world, or actually supports that by financing local guerillas or militaries - take Central Africa or Georgia. a more adequate comparison would be that of a Mafia don who extorts stuff from everyone who's weak and occasionally cracks down with force on goons who walk out of line - like Saddam Hussein - or simply people who refuse to be extorted - like the Milosevic government when it refused to implement the IMF neoliberal reforms.



Quote:
The US is not the only countries making nuclear warheads. There is Russia, China, Israel, India, France, etc... Both Russia and China are more than willing to use it if they do end up in a war, not mentioning that Israel is in the same boat.
none of the other nuclear states is even remotely as aggressive as the US. except maybe Israel, but they're a special case in other respects as well. it is clear that currently nobody except the US and Israel would start a large-scale war(if we ignore the local but dangerous Indian-Pakistani situation), and even more clear that nobody wants to use nuclear weapons.


Quote:
It is true that the United States has been engaging in wars since the end of WWII, but most of their wars are actually approved by the leaders of the United Nations, such as Russia and China with the exception of the Iraq War.
where'd you get that from? the opposite is the case. most of US wars, especially all the large ones - Vietnam, Iraq 2nd, Yugoslavia - were not approved by the UN. there was a resolution on Korea but only because the USSR had been boycotting it because it wasnt China but Taiwan (!) who had a permanent seat in the UN SC at the time. that resolution is largely regarded as "faked" since it was based on data supplied by the US army, and passed without the consent of the USSR or mainland China.

the only one that I can think of which had UN approval was the '91 Gulf War because that was clearly started by Saddam attacking Kuwait, and the US was merely disciplining him to stay in line. the funny thing is of course that Saddam had been consistently supported by the US with weapons and aid prior to that. in Nicaragua as i've said the US was even judged guilty of aggression and ordered to pay billions of reparations by the World Court.

on the other hand, with many conflicts where there are clear UN resolutions - such as Rwanda, Congo or Sudan - the US doesnt want to provide any troops because it's uninteresting geopolitically.


Quote:
However, which country supported the Republican camp during the American elections? China, China did meaning they are also very supportive of the Iraq War.
no, it doesnt mean that at all. China was consistently against the Iraq war both before it and during it, up until today. check something like http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...la-daily01.htm


Quote:
If all the leaders of the United Nations are against the aggressive American foreign policy in the Middle East, it would not have occurred, yet it did. I wonder why.
they are against. why it still occurs? because the US and its 51st state Israel dont care jack what the UN thinks. UN resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian situations consistently get votes like: 178 "yes", 2 "no" - US and Israel. or take a recent UN resolution for US to lift embargo on Cuba (17th straight year that the UN votes for that) - 185 to 3. want to know who voted "no? you guessed it. want to know who was the third who voted "no"? thats a tricky one: Palau. maybe they were drunk and pressed the wrong button or something

http://nasir-khan.blogspot.com/2008/...t-embargo.html

actually if you go and look up the history of UN voting, you will find that in the OVERWHELMING majority of cases where a meaningful and good resolution is voted against, it's the US and its 51st state who do it. that isnt really published in Western media, but you can look it all up on the UN site. its public information.

want a few examples?

lets look at nuclear disarmament which teh other thread was about. instead of empty babble as to why Iran is crazy and would launch nukes, and how the US should prevent nuclear proliferation, you should just take a look at the US voting record in the UN on nuclear disarmament. brace yourself. the US has the worst voting record of all other nations in history on nuclear disarmament. It was the only one to oppose ALL 15 UN resolutions on nuclear disarmament last year.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/...rd.php?krieger

its the same for votes to condemn terrorism - US has consistently voted "no" because its own actions can be interpreted as terrorism by the UN charter, reducing nuclear testing - the US has consistently voted "no" because it actively develops nuclear weapons, prohibiting chemical and biological weapons - the US has consistently voted "no" because it wants to go on developing them, and even completely ludicrous votes like "no" on the human right to food and work - because that might mean the US would have to allocate money for UN programs in the 3rd World giving people food and work.

anyhow, just look at http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html or http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve03/1132usun.html or something..


Quote:
Generally, in the future.. There may be an outbreak of nuclear war and the invovled countries would most likely be US, China, and Israel. I am not sure whether Russia would do such a thing or not, I don't think they would, but I may be wrong. The chances of India using nukes on Pakistan isn't very likely, because their countries are geographically located next to each other, any country that invokes nukes will end up hit by the radiation due to wind blows.
actually, I think that the most likely candidates to use nukes in a war in the near future are Pakistan/India. the reason is that Pakistan is very instable at the moment, and if the current government falls and extreme islamic nationalists come to power - those may actually use a nuke in the Kashmir conflict against India. and India would obviously not hesitate to strike back since its not exactly on good terms with Pakistan.

whether that will be before or after a single nuclear bomb is exploded by terrorists in a US or Israeli city - dont know.

regarding large-scale nuclear war - Russia vs US vs China - that is the least likely of the existing scenarios. still, with the way the US behaves recently towards Russia, it is becoming ever more realistic.

Last edited by Mumitroll; 2008-11-18 at 08:31.
Mumitroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 09:36   Link #9
FLCL
I've been Kawarolled
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Age: 24
Send a message via AIM to FLCL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Minato View Post
The US is not the only countries making nuclear warheads. There is Russia, China, Israel, India, France, etc... Both Russia and China are more than willing to use it if they do end up in a war, not mentioning that Israel is in the same boat.

It is true that the United States has been engaging in wars since the end of WWII, but most of their wars are actually approved by the leaders of the United Nations, such as Russia and China with the exception of the Iraq War. However, which country supported the Republican camp during the American elections? China, China did meaning they are also very supportive of the Iraq War. If all the leaders of the United Nations are against the aggressive American foreign policy in the Middle East, it would not have occurred, yet it did. I wonder why.

Generally, in the future.. There may be an outbreak of nuclear war and the invovled countries would most likely be US, China, and Israel. I am not sure whether Russia would do such a thing or not, I don't think they would, but I may be wrong. The chances of India using nukes on Pakistan isn't very likely, because their countries are geographically located next to each other, any country that invokes nukes will end up hit by the radiation due to wind blows.
who exactly would israel nuke asside from a nuclear iran if in the remote chance Iran managed to actually get a nuke past Israel's anti-ICBM missile net. It makes not sense for Iran to nuke Israel, since they'd maybe kill a few hundred thousand Israeli's, but in return, would have almost all of their major cities obliterated into the stone age with 10's of millions of casualties. not to mention judicious ammounts of retalatory carpet bombing/uaving.

and as for listening to the UN? because it is, if not MORE defunct than the league of nations, it is absolutely punchless and worthless
FLCL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 10:13   Link #10
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLCL View Post
and as for listening to the UN? because it is, if not MORE defunct than the league of nations, it is absolutely punchless and worthless
Hah! That's a good one! The organization that is most responsible for nonproliferation, and has done the best job of it so far has been the IAEA. Now, take a guess at what the relationship between the IAEA and the UN is...
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 10:33   Link #11
FLCL
I've been Kawarolled
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Age: 24
Send a message via AIM to FLCL
but im not talking specifically about nuclear proliferation, but rather as a whole
look at the glorious job U.N. peace keeping has done in Africa or whatnot, or even the palestinian territories
hello rwanda

oh well the majority of the middle east is a massive catastrophe, the anglo-franco division of the region in the post WW1 period of time was about as bad as it could've been. Iraq....are you freaking joking 0_0, jesus freaking christ ...irrationality at its best, lets put nationalistic kurds alongside with shiites and sunnis, throw in some good holy sites and call it a country.

the DMZ along the north/south korean border is like the only true success/non-botched effort i have seen them carry through. Its not that its a bad organization...in principle its good, but its so antiquarian in a globalized age, it is a relic of early 20th century positivism which of course...doesnt work period.

if they truly had any balls, when these random belligerent countries kick their Nuke inspectors out, they should forcefully petition for re-entry, not take this laissez faire "hope for the best" attitude. Doesn't help that oil producing countries have them by the balls.
FLCL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 10:53   Link #12
Mumitroll
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 34
Quote:
and as for listening to the UN? because it is, if not MORE defunct than the league of nations, it is absolutely punchless and worthless
who told you that? did they also tell you WHY?


Quote:
look at the glorious job U.N. peace keeping has done in Africa or whatnot, or even the palestinian territories
hello rwanda
look at the numbers of people who are actually doing those African peacekeeping jobs (hint: very few), and where they come from (hint: not the US). now look at the number of US soldiers in Iraq. now compare. now why do you think there are so many US soldiers in Iraq - violating the UN charter - and nobody in Central Africa to prevent all that genocide?

regarding Palestina its even easier. look at who the major military power there is, and who provides it with weapons and aid. do you think any independent peacekeeping mission against those has any chance?


it's really sad that Western media popularize this idiotic image of the UN being a "powerless organization unable to do anything". what they forget to mention is WHY that is the case. the UN is in fact pretty much in agreement if you subtract the US+Israel. but those two, especially the US of course which as a SC member has veto power - they sabotage nearly everything the UN tries to do. just look at the voting records.
Mumitroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 12:11   Link #13
FLCL
I've been Kawarolled
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Age: 24
Send a message via AIM to FLCL
and since when has Israel ever attacked a U.N. peace keeping force?!?!?!

as for your first response, i peg it upon no single source, but on the track record of the U.N. in the last 20-30 years.

I'm not even going to get into the Israeli-palestinian conflict in depth as its just veering off course, and quite frankly, i'd probably offend you with my opinion based upon my life experiences. (hint. i dodged scud missiles once, and daily katuysha bombardments another time)

as for these 2 screwing up every resolution, i beg to differ maybe you should look at some other countries voting records. Granted the US hasn't exactly been a saint, but pinning most of the blame on it solely isn't exactly truthful to the main issue at hand. Every country has its own personal agenda, and that in and on itself is the reason the UN is a antique of the past in this modern age. The two can't exist, the ideals the UN itself is based on have been exposed as a sham - consider it a victim of the most violent century in human history as the evidence.
FLCL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 13:06   Link #14
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLCL View Post
who exactly would israel nuke asside from a nuclear iran if in the remote chance Iran managed to actually get a nuke past Israel's anti-ICBM missile net. It makes not sense for Iran to nuke Israel, since they'd maybe kill a few hundred thousand Israeli's, but in return, would have almost all of their major cities obliterated into the stone age with 10's of millions of casualties. not to mention judicious ammounts of retalatory carpet bombing/uaving.

and as for listening to the UN? because it is, if not MORE defunct than the league of nations, it is absolutely punchless and worthless
Israel intends to nuke Iran, while Iran insists of holding dialogue with an Obama Administration. Iran intends to solve things peacefully, but Israel wanted to try out their nukes, claiming that Iran also has nukes and would like to try it out.

Israel's anti-ICBM missile net is not perfect. It is easier to fire thousands of missiles, while a few carrying nuclear warheads, while it is extremely difficult to actually intercept 50% of it. Although the government had been investing billions of dollars into such devices, but its actual usage is pretty questionable.
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 13:42   Link #15
FLCL
I've been Kawarolled
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Age: 24
Send a message via AIM to FLCL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Minato View Post
Israel intends to nuke Iran, while Iran insists of holding dialogue with an Obama Administration. Iran intends to solve things peacefully, but Israel wanted to try out their nukes, claiming that Iran also has nukes and would like to try it out.
i want evidence to support that, last time i checked a govt. publicly announcing "lets create a second holocaust" isnt exactly to be treated lightly. What would Israel have to gain from Nuking Iran when it has the regions strongest air force, robotic weaponry, and special forces. its purely a detente. I hate to make an anime comparison but, why use reflex weapons when you have essentially the closest thing to ghosts (advanced UAV's). far less messy and less chance for backlash.

last time i checked, and i quote "Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented,"
isn't the language and dialogue of peaceful solution, sounds more like a call for genocide.

give me factual support stating that israel objectively is announcing its intentions to nuke Iran instigatively and as the aggressor, otherwise you lose all legitimacy in my eyes. Baseless jests are worthless.

for the record, israel officially "doesn't have" nuclear weapons and has never made a statement saying it has them. So finding factual statements from a state that hasn't officially announced its possession of nuclear weapons is going to be impossible, Hence a=b, b=c, a=c your jest is based on whims and nonexisting evidence.
FLCL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 14:23   Link #16
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Israel is as war-mongering as any of its "violent" and "barbaric" Muslim neighbors, and has a similar attitude towards international policy as its Christian protector.

Ignoring that is ignoring centuries of human history.
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 14:50   Link #17
FLCL
I've been Kawarolled
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Age: 24
Send a message via AIM to FLCL
im not disagreeing they are war monger, they are, its in there culture, look at the people who have led the country...almost unanimously war heroes / military figures of some sort. But if you had a history like that, wouldn't you? Especially with the compulsory military service etc.
FLCL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 15:25   Link #18
Mumitroll
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 34
Quote:
and since when has Israel ever attacked a U.N. peace keeping force
http://www.voanews.com/english/archi...TOKEN=91350507
http://www.moqavemat.com/?lang=en&st...s&row_id=33107
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1017864.html
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/20...li_bomb_ki.php


Quote:
I'm not even going to get into the Israeli-palestinian conflict in depth as its just veering off course, and quite frankly, i'd probably offend you with my opinion based upon my life experiences. (hint. i dodged scud missiles once, and daily katuysha bombardments another time)
so what? i have a couple friends in Israel, i.e. in Haifa, who have been subject to Hezbollah rockets for years. i sympathize with that, and i think Hezbollah methods are just as terroristic as Israel's, but I dont think that the US/Israeli approach is going to make the situation any better.


Quote:
as for these 2 screwing up every resolution, i beg to differ maybe you should look at some other countries voting records.
I have. its all publicly available. go to http://unbisnet.un.org and search for any keyword. its amazing if you see it for the first time, but the picture is almost universally the same: the whole world votes in a sane, logical way - the same that we all would do - and the US (+Israel mostly) (+a few random ministates) vote "no". this pattern repeats itself 100fold.


Quote:
the US hasn't exactly been a saint, but pinning most of the blame on it solely isn't exactly truthful to the main issue at hand.
it's a fact, whether you like it or not.


Quote:
Every country has its own personal agenda, and that in and on itself is the reason the UN is a antique of the past in this modern age. The two can't exist, the ideals the UN itself is based on have been exposed as a sham - consider it a victim of the most violent century in human history as the evidence.
completely, UTTERLY disagree. i think the UN should be the future. it is the only kind of democracy that exists on international level. if it wont last, most of us will simply die when the next large-scale war takes place because some idiot state considers itself above the rest of the world and exempt from UN resolutions. if you are opposing the UN, you are simply advocating tyranny.

in fact, were if not for the US, the UN would be much more effective and powerful even today.


Quote:
i want evidence to support that, last time i checked a govt. publicly announcing "lets create a second holocaust" isnt exactly to be treated lightly. What would Israel have to gain from Nuking Iran when it has the regions strongest air force, robotic weaponry, and special forces. its purely a detente. I hate to make an anime comparison but, why use reflex weapons when you have essentially the closest thing to ghosts (advanced UAV's). far less messy and less chance for backlash.
neither Iran nor Israel will use nukes unless attacked on ground and forced into an imminent defeat.


Quote:
for the record, israel officially "doesn't have" nuclear weapons and has never made a statement saying it has them. So finding factual statements from a state that hasn't officially announced its possession of nuclear weapons is going to be impossible, Hence a=b, b=c, a=c your jest is based on whims and nonexisting evidence.
there are tons of evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons. whether they publicly announce it or not is of minor importance - everyone involved knows it anyway.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_...ss_destruction
Mumitroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 15:49   Link #19
ganbaru
books-eater youkai
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumitroll View Post
in fact, were if not for the US, the UN would be much more effective and powerful even today.
The US , Russia and China. The 3 greats overused their vetos for theirs own agendas, not just the US.
__________________

ganbaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 16:01   Link #20
Mumitroll
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 34
Quote:
The US , Russia and China. The 3 greats overused their vetos for theirs own agendas, not just the US.
says who? check the veto usage statistics. the US leads by an order of magnitude. its especially glaring after the end of the Cold War. Russia/China vetoes can be counted on fingers. the US on the contrary has vetoed just about everything meaningful.
Mumitroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:21.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.