US Foreign Policy, Nuclear Power, or Whether Most of Us Will Die in the Next 50 Years

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

i hope so too. however, there are a few points worth noting here.

1) the situation in Pakistan and Kashmir/vs. India is not stable. nobody can exclude with certainty that an a hardline islamic Pakistani government would not use tactical nuclear missiles in the Kashmir conflict.

The current environment is more likely to produce a peaceful resolution than perhaps any time in the last few decades. I remain cautiously optimistic about this situation.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

2) if the US continues its current extremely anti-Islamic and anti-Russian foreign policy, it is not all that unlikely that terrorist circles (Al Qaeda or similar) will obtain a tactical nuclear warhead and explode it in a US city.

This is unlikely for all sorts of reasons. The Russians are virulently opposed to Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, so there will be no cooperation on this front. Furthermore, there is no plausible way for any such organization to obtain a small enough nuclear weapon onto American soil.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

3) while the probability for this is much lower than for either of the above scenarios, it is not excluded that the current anti-Russian US policy would result in a cruise missile strike on Russian territory at some point, with whatever pretext. which might provoke a nuclear counterattack and a global all-out nuclear war.

The adults seem to be in charge of American foreign policy now, and I doubt that they are foolhardy enough to rush headlong into nuclear escalation scenarios. Obama has already expressed that he is not yet committed to the idea of ABM interceptors in Poland, so there's a lot of hope of reversing a lot of the recent history. Who knows? Maybe the U.S. may even finally be ready to rethink their Russian policy post-1990.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

thats very unlikely because the power balance is so uneven.

I don't think it's very likely either; it's just that the alternative - an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel - is completely impossible. Do bear in mind that the Israelis apparently approached Bush for permission to launch a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this year. Even Bush was wise enough to deny them, but there's at least a possibility in this direction.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

really? with Japan trying to mediate a conditional surrender several times?

Yes. The American demand had always been an unconditional surrender (nevermind what they actually decided to accomodate), and Japan's position was considered unacceptable. The U.S. really was going to go ahead with Olympic despite its fearful cost in lives.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

eh? the USSR renounced the neutrality pact with Japan on August 5th (already pretty much a war declaration), and officially declared war on the 8th. in terms of real (not paper) politics, Roosevelt and Churchill had an informal promise from Stalin that he would declare war on Japan as early as the Yalta conference in February 1945, and a confirmation at the Potsdam conference in July. Soviet troops attacked Japanese forces in Manchuria already before the official war declaration, in July 1945.

All of that is true, but I don't think that the Americans knew how serious the Soviets were about this until some time after the attack in September. They also didn't know how severe the Japanese reaction was to this development (and indeed, didn't really know until quite recently). Please keep in mind that American intelligence had basically no idea what was happening in either the Soviet Union or the upper levels of Japanese decision-making of the time. The telling point is that they would have scrapped Olympic if they had this foreknowledge.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

i'm very sceptical about all that. even if we forget the fact that the imminent Japanese defeat was obvious to all major politicians involved, and that Japan had already attempted to negotiate conditional surrender, the inexperienced US Pacific forces may have had much trouble with the Japanese at the southern islands, but it was completely different with the Red Army.

The Americans weren't entirely aware that the Japanese knew exactly what their invasion plan was, and that their preparations were designed to precisely counter what Olympic was supposed to do. Moreover, American intelligence severely underestimated how much materiel the Japanese had to resist the invasion.

I'm quite familiar with August Storm, but the Americans would never have expected that level of Soviet success. Besides, one of the reasons why the Kwantung Army was so weak is because all of the best troops had already been stripped out to bolster Pacific garrisons or to oppose Olympic.

By the way, the best work on August Storm (in English) is here: http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/car...z3/glantz3.asp.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

This is unlikely for all sorts of reasons. The Russians are virulently opposed to Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, so there will be no cooperation on this front. Furthermore, there is no plausible way for any such organization to obtain a small enough nuclear weapon onto American soil..

The Russian gouvernement, are opposed to Islamic fundamentalist ) and separatist group), but on the ground, the russian general saled weapons at Islamic in the past. so the scenario of a group with enough money than could ''buy'' a nuclear weapon from Russian troup.

[Mumitroll]

This is unlikely for all sorts of reasons. The Russians are virulently opposed to Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, so there will be no cooperation on this front. Furthermore, there is no plausible way for any such organization to obtain a small enough nuclear weapon onto American soil.

i am not so sure. i dont know if you have watched all of Putin's and Medvedev's recent speeches and interviews on US policy. I have - at least most of them. they are very, very critical of the US. thats to say it mildly. to say it less mildly, I am not sure that if the current highly aggressive anti-Russian US policy continues, they would not at some point covertly provide a tactical 50kt nuclear warhead to some islamic organization.

The adults seem to be in charge of American foreign policy now, and I doubt that they are foolhardy enough to rush headlong into nuclear escalation scenarios. Obama has already expressed that he is not yet committed to the idea of ABM interceptors in Poland, so there's a lot of hope of reversing a lot of the recent history. Who knows? Maybe the U.S. may even finally be ready to rethink their Russian policy post-1990.

i can just hope so. publications of US politology professors - who are surely more familiar with the situation than Obama - make you think otherwise.

Do bear in mind that the Israelis apparently approached Bush for permission to launch a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this year. Even Bush was wise enough to deny them, but there's at least a possibility in this direction.

a conventional guided missile strike is possible anytime. a nuclear strike though - I dont think so.

All of that is true, but I don't think that the Americans knew how serious the Soviets were about this until some time after the attack in September.

the offensive was in late July-early August. it was over by August 20th.

he Americans weren't entirely aware that the Japanese knew exactly what their invasion plan was, and that their preparations were designed to precisely counter what Olympic was supposed to do. Moreover, American intelligence severely underestimated how much materiel the Japanese had to resist the invasion.

thats only regarding the US losses. it has little relation to the USSR advance on Japan.

I'm quite familiar with August Storm, but the Americans would never have expected that level of Soviet success.

I am not so sure about that. I think that US military intelligence and strategic planning at the time certainly had a good idea of the level of top Soviet German front divisions. they would have had to to be stupid not to. as i've said, those were regiments who had fought for 4 years against an extremely powerful enemy - victoriously. as the Japanese continental army had barely encountered any major opposition, it must have been an obvious conclusion that it would be totally outmatched against the Soviet army once the German front was gone.

i.e. if you ask me - I dont think that the US military intelligence at the time was stupid. not at all. i do think that they probably didnt know of some things - like that Stalin had spies in the US nuclear program and was well-informed about it - but they were surely very much in the clear regarding the power distribution of the Soviet Far Eastern forces vs. the Japanese Manchurian army.

in so far dropping the nukes was more of a hasty decision to "secure" Japan for the US than anything else.

Besides, one of the reasons why the Kwantung Army was so weak is because all of the best troops had already been stripped out to bolster Pacific garrisons or to oppose Olympic.

yes, thats commonly quoted in Western historical sources. what you should consider though is, again, the sheer size of the conflicts. both Okinawa and Iwo Jima were fought with not even 1/10th of the size of the continental Japanese army - which opposed the Soviet Far Eastern armies.

By the way, the best work on August Storm (in English) is here: http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/car...z3/glantz3.asp.

didnt read all of that, but it sounds pretty accurate. the first paragraph is something I could sign without hesitation:

This critical examination of the final Soviet strategic offensive operation during World War II seeks to chip away at two generally inaccurate pictures many Westerners have of the war. Specifically, Westerners seem to think that only geography, climate, and sheer numbers negated German military skill and competency on the eastern front, a view that relegates Soviet military accomplishments to oblivion. Moreover, Westerners have concluded that little worthy of meaningful study occurred in the Asian theaters of war. These impressions reflect a distinct German bias in the analyses of operations on the eastern front and an anti-Asian front bias concerning World War II in general. Both impressions are false. Yet, over the decades since World War II, they have perpetuated an inaccurate view of the war, particularly of Soviet performance in that war. This Western misconception perverts history, and that perversion, in turn, warps contemporary attitudes and thus current assessments of Soviet military capabilities past, present, and future.

whats particularly funny is thats the view of a US military analyst specializing in this theatre of cónflict.

The Russian gouvernement, are opposed to Islamic fundamentalist ) and separatist group), but on the ground, the russian general saled weapons at Islamic in the past. so the scenario of a group with enough money than could ''buy'' a nuclear weapon from Russian troup.

that's more of a scenario for James Bond movies. i think that's very unlikely. Russian nuclear bases are all under strict multi-staged control. and even the scenarios of conventional arms sales (i.e. Kalashnikov's..) by some regional generals, are more of a 90s story. it's much more dangerous nowadays since Putin is in power. nowadays, when done without authorization, such a general risks a lifetime prison term. thats not something they'd risk.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

that's more of a scenario for James Bond movies. i think that's very unlikely. Russian nuclear bases are all under strict multi-staged control. and even the scenarios of conventional arms sales (i.e. Kalashnikov's..) by some regional generals, are more of a 90s story. it's much more dangerous nowadays since Putin is in power. nowadays, when done without authorization, such a general risks a lifetime prison term. thats not something they'd risk.

I agree it look like a Jame Bond scenario. Funny than people forgot than Ian Flemming was a spy in WW2 and it inspired some part of his book. For the security of the nuclear weapon' base, thing must have improved from 10 year ago, but even so, it might be easier than you think ( and of course, harder than fiction may led us to belive), and leave the problem of the problem of the others kind of site.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

The Russian gouvernement, are opposed to Islamic fundamentalist ) and separatist group), but on the ground, the russian general saled weapons at Islamic in the past. so the scenario of a group with enough money than could ''buy'' a nuclear weapon from Russian troup.

For all sorts of reasons (not least of which are that the Kremlin now has much tighter control of military officers than in the past and that the security on nuclear weapons is nontrivial), this is even less likely than terrorists simply stealing nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

i am not so sure. i dont know if you have watched all of Putin's and Medvedev's recent speeches and interviews on US policy. I have - at least most of them. they are very, very critical of the US. thats to say it mildly. to say it less mildly, I am not sure that if the current highly aggressive anti-Russian US policy continues, they would not at some point covertly provide a tactical 50kt nuclear warhead to some islamic organization.

I've seen a few, and I also know that most of those speeches are for domestic consumption - they aren't necessarily a guideline as to Russian actions. In any case, they're smart men, and they're quite open to dialogue with the U.S. If it weren't for Bush's silly diplomatic moves, American-Russian relations would be much better right now.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

i can just hope so. publications of US politology professors - who are surely more familiar with the situation than Obama - make you think otherwise.

Don't put too much stock into what any of those guys say. Obama has yet to commit himself to any particular course of action aside from Iraq and Afghanistan. He has also shown that he's quite willing to reexamine any existing preconceptions of American geopolitics, so that's already a step in the right direction. While I don't expect all that much to change, at least the tone of the rhetoric should be calmer.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

a conventional guided missile strike is possible anytime. a nuclear strike though - I dont think so.

To my knowledge Israel doesn't have any medium range missiles, so any attack is going to have to be launched from F-16s. In order to pull that off, their refueling aircraft will have to be parked in Iraq, so American cooperation is essential.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

the offensive was in late July-early August. it was over by August 20th.

Sorry. That was a brain seizure on my part - I have no idea where September came from. August Storm started on 9 August 1945, at around the same time Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki, and three days after Little Boy on Hiroshima. The decisions to drop those bombs came long before the attack materialized.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

thats only regarding the US losses. it has little relation to the USSR advance on Japan.

That's because the Americans never thought that the Soviet attack would be so massive or so quick. They certainly never expected that the Soviets were in a position to capture northern Japan either. And for that matter, the Japanese were far more aware of the situation on the ground, and they had no clue that any of this was possible either. They didn't think that the Soviets would even be in a position to attack until 1946.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

I am not so sure about that. I think that US military intelligence and strategic planning at the time certainly had a good idea of the level of top Soviet German front divisions. they would have had to to be stupid not to. as i've said, those were regiments who had fought for 4 years against an extremely powerful enemy - victoriously. as the Japanese continental army had barely encountered any major opposition, it must have been an obvious conclusion that it would be totally outmatched against the Soviet army once the German front was gone.

American intelligence was generally quite clueless about what was happening on the Eastern Front, and most of the significance of Soviet actions weren't known to the West until after the archives were opened up starting in the '90s. At the time, none of the Western Allies had any foreknowledge of August Storm - if they gave any thought to Stalin's promise of war on Japan, it was probably assumed that it would be just a token attack.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

i.e. if you ask me - I dont think that the US military intelligence at the time was stupid. not at all. i do think that they probably didnt know of some things - like that Stalin had spies in the US nuclear program and was well-informed about it - but they were surely very much in the clear regarding the power distribution of the Soviet Far Eastern forces vs. the Japanese Manchurian army.

From what I can tell, this isn't the case at all. American intelligence on Germany was fairly good, but that was partially because the Gestapo was so incompetent. Their intelligence on Japan was much worse, and the intelligence network in the Soviet Union was all but nonexistent. This really isn't a matter of how smart they were; it's a matter of how many people they had on the ground.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

yes, thats commonly quoted in Western historical sources. what you should consider though is, again, the sheer size of the conflicts. both Okinawa and Iwo Jima were fought with not even 1/10th of the size of the continental Japanese army - which opposed the Soviet Far Eastern armies.

Yes, but there were garrisons scattered throughout the Pacific islands, including many which were never attacked at all. Moreover, the best troops were kept in the Home Islands themselves, and the dregs went to the Kwantung Army since it hadn't seen any real fighting since about 1939.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

whats particularly funny is thats the view of a US military analyst specializing in this theatre of cónflict.

It's written by David Glantz while he was in the U.S. Army. Right now, he's regarded as the foremost Western expert on Soviet military operations in World War II.

[mike_z]

The Russian gouvernement, are opposed to Islamic fundamentalist ) and separatist group), but on the ground, the russian general saled weapons at Islamic in the past. so the scenario of a group with enough money than could ''buy'' a nuclear weapon from Russian troup.

lol
it's a nuclear weapon. It's not like it's a packet of peanuts. It cant be stolen and sold.

such a general risks a lifetime prison term.

In this case he will be killed,without any scandal.

[Mumitroll]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I've seen a few, and I also know that most of those speeches are for domestic consumption - they aren't necessarily a guideline as to Russian actions.

well, how should I put it.. different from most US politicians, Putin and Medvedev do actually mean what they say. it's especially obvious with Putin's speeches. in some cases you can literally feel the sarcasm and displeasure with US behavior as he says something like "our partners [said in the tone of "bastards"] have disappointed us again".

In any case, they're smart men, and they're quite open to dialogue with the U.S.

yes.. but the US isnt open to dialogue with them.

If it weren't for Bush's silly diplomatic moves, American-Russian relations would be much better right now.

dont know, Clinton's foreign policy vs Russia wasnt very different. also quite malicious and aggressive. it was just less in-your-face style. and also back then you had Yeltsin on the Russian side - who was basically useless.

Don't put too much stock into what any of those guys say. Obama has yet to commit himself to any particular course of action aside from Iraq and Afghanistan. He has also shown that he's quite willing to reexamine any existing preconceptions of American geopolitics, so that's already a step in the right direction. While I don't expect all that much to change, at least the tone of the rhetoric should be calmer.

indeed, Obama himself is pretty much a blank sheet of paper so far. hard to say what kind of foreign policy he'll run. however, people surrounding him - Biden, Hillary, Albright, Brzezinski - those are well-known, and I dont expect anything good from them. especially not from Brzezinski...

To my knowledge Israel doesn't have any medium range missiles

it does, lots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_missile
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...l/popeye-t.htm
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/coun...ssile2005.html

so any attack is going to have to be launched from F-16s. In order to pull that off, their refueling aircraft will have to be parked in Iraq, so American cooperation is essential.

American cooperation isnt necessary. American approval though - that probably is.

At the time, none of the Western Allies had any foreknowledge of August Storm - if they gave any thought to Stalin's promise of war on Japan, it was probably assumed that it would be just a token attack.

do you have any sources to support that?

[mike_z]

do you have any sources to support that?

+1
and article from newspaper is not a source)

[Reckoner]

I must mention that people seem to think too highly of Iran in this situation. While they certainly have been wronged by the US, people really think that their leaders are incredibly rational people. Some of their views are quite insane (Though people will say the same about some US people, but w/e, I'm not here to justify everything the US says or does).

So while Obama may be trying to talk without preconditions (Which has its merits in diplomacy), I do not see what can really be done. The US is not going to withdraw its support from Israel, it will stay occupied in Iraq for at least the moment, and it is not going to approve of nuclear power in Iran. The only advantage the US may get in this is a better image of a more diplomatic nation instead of being an aggressor, and it may give Iran an even worst image than what the US has tried to already paint.

For me, I do not see this Middle East situation turning out pretty at all. I can definitely see war with Iran in the future, which would be quite unfortunate.

[Mumitroll]

I must mention that people seem to think too highly of Iran in this situation.

in what respect?

While they certainly have been wronged by the US, people really think that their leaders are incredibly rational people.

i dont think anyone here has said that. my own statement was merely that I am very confident that Iran will never do a nuclear first-strike on Israel. and the reasoning for this is extremely simple: the retaliatory strike would destroy Iran as a country.

Some of their views are quite insane

which? that Israel should be wiped off the map? sounds insane to someone clueless about history, alright. however, consider the following statement of his:

"The West claims that more than six million Jews were killed in World War II and to compensate for that they established and support Israel. If it is true that the Jews were killed in Europe, why should Israel be established in the East, in Palestine?"

this is, coincidentally, a rather logical point. since the Nazis were responsible for the Holocaust, why didnt they give, say, Bavaria to the Jews to found their state there?

also, there are other places established for the Jews, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birobidzhan. but for some reason they are not exactly willing to live there..

the typical reply to that is that Jews had been unjustly exiled from Palestine and that it is their historical motherland. which may be true, but seen pragmatically, is an absurd argument. that was 2000 years ago. if you start to redistribute land everywhere in the world according to who rightfully lived on it thousands of years ago, you'd have to completely redraw all the maps. places like the US for example would have to go to the North American natives - Indians. Australia would have to be given back to the Aboriginees. etc etc. like half of the world today was colonized by force by some people who did not live there 2000 years ago. so using that as a reason is ridiculous. but if you drop that, there is simply no justification for the Israeli invasion of Palestine and for the very existence of Israel in the first place - which is what Ahmadinejad says.

So while Obama may be trying to talk without preconditions (Which has its merits in diplomacy), I do not see what can really be done. The US is not going to withdraw its support from Israel, it will stay occupied in Iraq for at least the moment, and it is not going to approve of nuclear power in Iran. The only advantage the US may get in this is a better image of a more diplomatic nation instead of being an aggressor, and it may give Iran an even worst image than what the US has tried to already paint.

yes. the US Middle East policy will with a high probability remain unchanged. the main questions for me are whether a new war will be started against Iran, and how the policy vs. Russia will look like.

while I'd like to hope that Obama will make sensible decisions in both directions, the people surrounding him make me rather pessimistic regarding that.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

i dont think anyone here has said that. my own statement was merely that I am very confident that Iran will never do a nuclear first-strike on Israel. and the reasoning for this is extremely simple: the retaliatory strike would destroy Iran as a country.

But you see, that very statement implies that you think they would act in a logical fashion.

I just hope Iran never runs out of oil, because that could be a very dark day for the Middle East. Desperation + fanatical leaders = a recipe for disaster.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

this is, coincidentally, a rather logical point. since the Nazis were responsible for the Holocaust, why didnt they give, say, Bavaria to the Jews to found their state there?

We could argue than the West gived this territory to the jews not only because of the Holocaust but for all the ''wrong '' don to the jews for nearly 2000 year. But that point would have little impact on this present argument.

About the Iranian leaders, I have problem to not find them problematic with their ideologie (wishing to wipe out a other country) mixed with a twisted view of islam.
About Ahmadinejad , I think he might try , but the guy before him ( a reformator than I forgoted his name), I might have a little confidence on his jugement.

Question, do someone know if the Israelian asked permition or approval to the US before Entebbe ?

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

yes. the US Middle East policy will with a high probability remain unchanged. the main questions for me are whether a new war will be started against Iran, and how the policy vs. Russia will look like.

while I'd like to hope that Obama will make sensible decisions in both directions, the people surrounding him make me rather pessimistic regarding that.

Considering that Obama was elected, I doubt the US will be starting a war with Iran. More over, it seems that the Iranian president is looking forward to hold dialogue with the Obama Administration indicating more amicable ties. As to how the policy regarding Russia would be, I think it would probably be better. If the Obama Administration would oppose the McCain camp's wish to continue the Iraq war and hold a firmer stance against Iran to support Israel, they might as well go against the unfriendly stance towards Putin as well. It only makes sense that the US-Russian bilateral relations would improve under an Obama Administration. The least to say, we should all just sit back and relax until after January 20th of next year, in which the foreign policy of the Obama Administration will be confirmed.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

well, how should I put it.. different from most US politicians, Putin and Medvedev do actually mean what they say. it's especially obvious with Putin's speeches. in some cases you can literally feel the sarcasm and displeasure with US behavior as he says something like "our partners [said in the tone of "bastards"] have disappointed us again".

It's not a question of whether American politicians say things in a speech that they don't plan to use as policy - all politicians do. And in this case, that's exactly what the rhetoric sounds like. The only real difference is that the leaders fully intend to act on a tit-for-tat basis like basing medium range missiles in Kaliningrad.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

yes.. but the US isnt open to dialogue with them.

We will soon see whether that is the case or not. Hopefully, there will be some openess on this score.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

dont know, Clinton's foreign policy vs Russia wasnt very different. also quite malicious and aggressive. it was just less in-your-face style. and also back then you had Yeltsin on the Russian side - who was basically useless.

Agreed. Still, U.S.-Russia relations were better in the Clinton's days. Sure this was partially because of the weakness of Russia in the '90s and Yeltsin in particular, but it's not as if things got worse immediately after Putin became president.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

indeed, Obama himself is pretty much a blank sheet of paper so far. hard to say what kind of foreign policy he'll run. however, people surrounding him - Biden, Hillary, Albright, Brzezinski - those are well-known, and I dont expect anything good from them. especially not from Brzezinski...

For me, the one name in this list that is worrisome is Zbignew Brezinski; let's see what role he plays in shaping policy.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_missile
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...l/popeye-t.htm
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/coun...ssile2005.html

I stand corrected. Still, these weapons aren't going to be very useful unless they have some sort of insane CEP. As it is, there's a legitimate question out there whether an airstrike would even be capable of significantly slowing down Iran's nuclear program. Missles like these would be even less capable.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

American cooperation isnt necessary. American approval though - that probably is.

If it was an airstrike, then American cooperation would be essential. Right now Iraq is a sovereign country, and its leaders would not permit Israeli warplanes to overfly its airspace to attack Iran. By their agreement with the Iraqi government, the U.S. is under the obligation to protect Iraq's airspace, so they would have to stop such an attack unless they had already decided to help the Israelis pull it off.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

do you have any sources to support that?

That's not quite the way the standard of proof works. Since I brought up a negative claim, it's really your job to find information that refutes it. In any case, the Soviet Union and the West fought their halves of the war separately. The western Allies didn't tell the Soviets any great detail about their upcoming plans, and the vice versa was true. What the West did know, was that Stalin had been letting them know that he was interested in entering the war against Japan. In the summer of 1945, the date of the DoW had been set at mid-August to September. And that was pretty much all they knew until Stalin told them that he and Japan were at war.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I must mention that people seem to think too highly of Iran in this situation. While they certainly have been wronged by the US, people really think that their leaders are incredibly rational people. Some of their views are quite insane (Though people will say the same about some US people, but w/e, I'm not here to justify everything the US says or does).

You should really differentiate what the Iranian leaders (the ones with the actual power) say and what Ahmadinejad says. Moreover, neither are really all that insane to begin with. Quite simply, Iran has no real interest in going to war with Israel.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

But you see, that very statement implies that you think they would act in a logical fashion.

I just hope Iran never runs out of oil, because that could be a very dark day for the Middle East. Desperation + fanatical leaders = a recipe for disaster.

Based on their actions, Iran's leaders don't seem all that desperate or fanatical. In fact, they've been fully aware of the possibility of Peak Oil - that's the main reason why they put so much effort into their nuclear program.

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

The least to say, we should all just sit back and relax until after January 20th of next year, in which the foreign policy of the Obama Administration will be confirmed.

That sounds like very good advice to me.

[Demongod86]

As a Russian immigrant into America (when I was 4), all I have to say is this:

We here in America made complete asses out of ourselves lately. The world got the leader they wanted, well, aside from the terrorists. Ayman Al-Zawahri wasted no time in insulting Obama.

As for Medvedev, he's a puppet through and through. Putin owns the joint, and he's smart, cunning, and ruthless. Frankly, as an American, I'd much sooner wish to have that man as an ally than an enemy. Given that he essentially inherited a bankrupt nation (remember Long Term Capital Management? It went under because Russia literally defaulted on its debt), Putin has done a LOT of good, which is why the Russians adore him (and the few that don't...get conveniently disposed of).

[Mumitroll]

But you see, that very statement implies that you think they would act in a logical fashion.

that they would act in a non-suicidal fashion.

We could argue than the West gived this territory to the jews not only because of the Holocaust but for all the ''wrong '' don to the jews for nearly 2000 year. But that point would have little impact on this present argument.

have you asked yourself what right the West had to "give" that territory to the Jews in the first place? this is rather funny if you look at it objectively:

Jews: so much wrong has been done to us by the Europeans, the Nazis, etc..
the West: oh, yes, let's give the Jews some territory of their own to make up for all our mistreatment of them. hmm.. nobody of us wants to give up any of our own territory.. so... giving them the territory of the Palestinians would be a good idea!
Palestinians: HUH??
the West+Jews: shut up.

thats, in a nutshell, the history of Israel since 1948

I just hope Iran never runs out of oil, because that could be a very dark day for the Middle East. Desperation + fanatical leaders = a recipe for disaster.

the same can be said about many other places which are primarily dependent on raw resource exports.

For me, the one name in this list that is worrisome is Zbignew Brezinski; let's see what role he plays in shaping policy.

a bad one, that much is certain. Brzezinski is about the most fanatical type of anti-Russian US politician there can be: a Polish emigrant. throughout his whole career, running some kind of anti-Russian policy was kind of a crusade for him.

the fact that he's Obama's foreign policy advisor... not good.

Albright - another East European + Jew, this time from Czech Republic, real name Marie Jana Korbelová) - is also largely amoral. this is exemplified by her famous "the lives of 500,000 Iraqi children are a high price, but WE [sic!] are willing to pay it" line.

Hillary.. bleh. tbh I have the impression she'll do anything for power. from my impression she doesnt have any reservations about changing positions from one day to the next if it is needed. no principles whatsoever.

and Biden.. he went to Georgia almost immediately after it started the war, and called for $1 billion humanitarian help for Georgia (!).. so eh..

If it was an airstrike, then American cooperation would be essential. Right now Iraq is a sovereign country, and its leaders would not permit Israeli warplanes to overfly its airspace to attack Iran. By their agreement with the Iraqi government, the U.S. is under the obligation to protect Iraq's airspace, so they would have to stop such an attack unless they had already decided to help the Israelis pull it off.

not really. an Iraq overflight is merely one option, and the current Iraqi puppet government has little say anyway. some MIT students have already theorized that the Israelis could potentially do a massive airstrike which would destroy most of Iran's nuclear industry in 2007:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05...ving_eggheads/

That's not quite the way the standard of proof works. Since I brought up a negative claim, it's really your job to find information that refutes it.

oh no lol. a stance like that makes the statement worthless. you can make all kinds of nonsensical negative claims and say "hey - it's your problem, prove me wrong". since you can make about infinitely many negative claims about w/e crap, only a fool would waste time and prove them all wrong. the point is that you must have some reason to make the negative claim. if you dont have any, it disqualifies your statement since its been simply invented out of thin air.

and, by the way, I could prove it wrong.

(and the few that don't...get conveniently disposed of).

lol you mean Litvinenko and Politkovskaya? tbh I doubt that Putin was personally involved in either of those. both are far too unimportant.

Khodorkovsky is another story, but that was without question quite justified. you could probably jail all of the oil oligarchs since the way they obtained the rights to whatever oil they produce was questionable at best, and in most cases quite illegal.

also, the issue with Khodorkovsky was not that he didnt adore Putin or such. it was much more severe: 1) he had major political ambitions, including bribing Duma members by the bunch and directly opposing Putin and 2) he had concrete plans to sell major parts of Yukos - which in essence would have meant selling the control of a major part of Russian oil - to US companies, in particular Chevron. both are very grave things, and in Putin's place I wouldnt have hesitated in jailing him either.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

have you asked yourself what right the West had to "give" that territory to the Jews in the first place? this is rather funny if you look at it objectively:

Jews: so much wrong has been done to us by the Europeans, the Nazis, etc..
the West: oh, yes, let's give the Jews some territory of their own to make up for all our mistreatment of them. hmm.. nobody of us wants to give up any of our own territory.. so... giving them the territory of the Palestinians would be a good idea!
Palestinians: HUH??
the West+Jews: shut up.

thats, in a nutshell, the history of Israel since 1948

Yes , I asked myself that question once or twice, and the answer was ; It too late for that, arguing about it would change what is already done.
The idea of relocated the jew on that territory is a old idea, and of course they were not saying the palestinian's territory but a country wthout people for people without country ( not sure the citation is completely right)

[Mumitroll]

Yes , I asked myself that question once or twice, and the answer was ; It too late for that, arguing about it would change what is already done.

it was just 60 years ago. thats like yesterday in historical terms. here, to remind you of what the situation was like in 1947:

The idea of relocated the jew on that territory is a old idea, and of course they were not saying the palestinian's territory but a country wthout people for people without country ( not sure the citation is completely right)

who was not saying what? it was crystal clear even back then that it was all just a colonization by force, relying on the already present British imperial occupation. already in the 30s, with mass Jewish exile from Europe to Palestine, there were Arab uprisings against the mass Jewish immigration. the British responded very simply: by striking them down and executing their leaders. once Israel was established as a state, it continued in the same spirit.

basically the whole existence of Israel is simply a continuous colonization effort, constantly striking down native resistance with violence.

thats not to say its something unusual - no, on the contrary, most of the world was at some point colonized in much the same way. for example in the US, the white European settlers basically destroyed the native Indians and herded the remaining ones in concentration camps euphemistically called "reservations", and that was it - the cornerstone for the modern USA. same thing in Australia. same thing in a good deal of Africa. etc.

its another question of whether imperial colonization is always bad - in my opinion, not necessarily. it depends on what the colonizing power does. there are former colonies which view their old imperial lords rather favorably. for example, Taiwan. it is a former Japanese colony, yet the Taiwanese are in general quite friendly with the Japanese. a Taiwanese friend who guided me when I was there in March said that most of the good construction work, for example, was done under Japanese rule, and the corruption was far lower then than it is today. he viewed Japanese rule quite positively.

another similar case is that of various former Russian satellites. many of them initially joined the Russian empire out of a wish for protection, explicitly sending envoys to the Tsars - like Georgia, for example. while among newage nationalistic governments it is popular to sweep such facts under the carpet, the general attitude towards Russians in many of those satellite states is quite positive since they invested immense money into developing the infrastructure, educational systems, etc of those border republics.

now only if Israel would behave similarly towards the Palestinians... instead of driving over them with tanks..

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Yes , I asked myself that question once or twice, and the answer was ; It too late for that, arguing about it would change what is already done.
The idea of relocated the jew on that territory is a old idea, and of course they were not saying the palestinian's territory but a country wthout people for people without country ( not sure the citation is completely right)

How come 2000 years wasn't too long to right a wrong and restore Israel, but 60 is too long to right a wrong and restore Palestine?

For the record: I don't really have an opinion. But "it's too long" just made me laugh.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

How come 2000 years wasn't too long to right a wrong and restore Israel, but 60 is too long to right a wrong and restore Palestine?

For the record: I don't really have an opinion. But "it's too long" just made me laugh.

Should be glad or ashamed to had made you laugh?
What I shoul have said is what is done will be difficult to reverse now ( of course, you can't reverse all those death) even if the will to do so was present ( and it nor teally for now.)