CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I don't dictate American policy - I only opine on it
I didn't say the US should be the arbiter - but if it was up to me(and it isn't) I would consider taking action if Iran under the current gov't stayed the on Nuclear path.CkG
The U.S. is planning to use nuclear weapons in future conflicts. Mini-nukes.
Check this out and definitely use google.
http://www.war-times.org/current/11art6.html
Check this out and definitely use google.
http://www.war-times.org/current/11art6.html
I was going to get one for home security, but we wound up getting a puppy instead. And every time I have to cleanup his mess I think "I should have got the mini-nuke"
CkG, many of your musings rub me the wrong way . . . ooh baby . . . right there . . . yeah that's it . . . I would wager your world view resembles the current administration in at least two perspectives.
1) America can and should exercise its military power in a manner that accrues maximum benefits for America and its underlings.
2) Anybody that doesn't like #1 can kiss Rummy's hairy bum.
It's a mute point about saying the US is the ultimate arbiter b/c our decisions have the support of our incomparable military and economic power. The problem lies in the most powerful country on the planet . . . rarely acting in the best interests of the global community (or those in greatest need).
Case in point:
Every US authority says the international community needs to do more for Iraq; troops, technical assistance, and financial aid. These same authorities claim the US does NOT need to send more troops and cannot give the US Congress a reasonable indication of necessary funding. The only concept US authorities have a firm grasp on is the idea that ONLY the US should be the controlling authority in Iraq. Don't even mention Liberia . . . a country where the population was begging for US intervention. Some have jested about Iraq the 51st state; I bet Liberia would take that offer quite seriously. But it will never come b/c we don't want them and don't really care what happens to Liberians.
Curiously, we are quite interested in the well being of the average Iraqi (except for their water, power, or safety). Until actions match the rhetoric it would be foolish to trust the US government with any endeavor beyond blowing stuff up. Which brings us back to nukes . . . we don't consider nukes to be bad. We think particular people with nukes are bad b/c they might use them. We lack a reasonable argument b/c most of the world thinks nukes are bad regardless of who has them b/c having nukes means you can forsee a reason to use nukes. Until the US government and other nuclear powers come to terms with their own "nuclear aspirations" we cannot extol the virtues of the nonnuclear state.
1) America can and should exercise its military power in a manner that accrues maximum benefits for America and its underlings.
2) Anybody that doesn't like #1 can kiss Rummy's hairy bum.
It's a mute point about saying the US is the ultimate arbiter b/c our decisions have the support of our incomparable military and economic power. The problem lies in the most powerful country on the planet . . . rarely acting in the best interests of the global community (or those in greatest need).
Case in point:
Every US authority says the international community needs to do more for Iraq; troops, technical assistance, and financial aid. These same authorities claim the US does NOT need to send more troops and cannot give the US Congress a reasonable indication of necessary funding. The only concept US authorities have a firm grasp on is the idea that ONLY the US should be the controlling authority in Iraq. Don't even mention Liberia . . . a country where the population was begging for US intervention. Some have jested about Iraq the 51st state; I bet Liberia would take that offer quite seriously. But it will never come b/c we don't want them and don't really care what happens to Liberians.
Curiously, we are quite interested in the well being of the average Iraqi (except for their water, power, or safety). Until actions match the rhetoric it would be foolish to trust the US government with any endeavor beyond blowing stuff up. Which brings us back to nukes . . . we don't consider nukes to be bad. We think particular people with nukes are bad b/c they might use them. We lack a reasonable argument b/c most of the world thinks nukes are bad regardless of who has them b/c having nukes means you can forsee a reason to use nukes. Until the US government and other nuclear powers come to terms with their own "nuclear aspirations" we cannot extol the virtues of the nonnuclear state.
BBD
To illustrate your point on Liberia and the hypocrisy of the US government:
U.S. Marines Withdraw to Warships Off the Liberian Coast
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
MONROVIA, Liberia, Aug. 24 (AP) ? A 150-member Marine force withdrew to warships off the Liberian coast here today, ending significant United States military deployment on the ground after just 11 days, and disappointing many Liberians.
Marine spokesmen said American troops would be in better position on the warships to respond to any flare-ups after the signing last week of a peace accord meant to end 14 years of conflict that has claimed more than 150,000 lives.
About 100 American troops remain on the ground ? 70 guarding the United States Embassy, and 30 acting as liaisons with West African peacekeepers, Lt. Col. Tom Collins, spokesman for the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit force, said as he left.
Liberians, watching American helicopters whir out of sight in the unannounced departure, spoke fearfully of being deserted.
"They're forsaking us," said 22-year-old Emmanuel Slawon, watching the last helicopter fly out of Liberia's main airport, dangling a Humvee in a giant sling. "We wish they'd stay until peace would come."
The warships remain off Liberia, appearing in and out of view off a coast lined with black rocks. The United States has not said when they will pull away.
A West African peacekeeping force that arrived about three weeks ago has helped stop fighting in Monrovia. The government and two main rebel movements also signed a peace accord made possible by the resignation and exile on Aug. 11 of former President Charles G. Taylor, who is now in Nigeria.
But clashes have continued in the countryside, and today Defense Minister Daniel Chea said there had been fighting near the Guinea border; that could not be confirmed.
State radio said upward of a thousand people had been killed, but Mr. Chea said he knew nothing about that.
I didn't realize we were withdrawing . . . I mean, redeploying to a better vantage point.
It makes sense, though. We have no intentions of significant involvement so why go through the motions when there's nothing to be gained.
If the US government spent 1/100 the effort characterizing the suffering of Liberians as we did in broadcasting the plight of Iraqis under Saddam the American public (if you believe them) would have rallied to the Liberian cause . . . b/c . . . "it doesn't matter what kind of weapons insert autocrat here has because liberating those people is the right thing to do.
If the US government spent 1/100 the effort characterizing the suffering of Liberians as we did in broadcasting the plight of Iraqis under Saddam the American public (if you believe them) would have rallied to the Liberian cause . . . b/c . . . "it doesn't matter what kind of weapons insert autocrat here has because liberating those people is the right thing to do.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I didn't realize we were withdrawing . . . I mean, redeploying to a better vantage point.It makes sense, though. We have no intentions of significant involvement so why go through the motions when there's nothing to be gained.
If the US government spent 1/100 the effort characterizing the suffering of Liberians as we did in broadcasting the plight of Iraqis under Saddam the American public (if you believe them) would have rallied to the Liberian cause . . . b/c . . . "it doesn't matter what kind of weapons insert autocrat here has because liberating those people is the right thing to do.
I didn't realize we were withdrawing from Liberia either until I picked up this morning's newspapers. No one knew apparently until it happened. As stated in the article it was unannounced.
We suffer from a foreign policy which has no clear goals or rules. I realize each situation is different but that cannot in anyway excuse the current administration from using one set of rules when it benefits them and another set when they have no "agenda" they can use to advance their position.
This is why we are viewed in many nations as hypocrites and exploiters.
Our continued presence in Iraq and the drum beating in Iran and Syria is in stark contrast to our policies in North Korea and Liberia for instance. There are many despots in the world. How can we pick and choose? If we care so much about the fate of Iraqis under Saddam where is our concern in North Korea for example, or even for our own here at home?
If there was a perceived threat to the US or it's interests, then the plight of these people would suddenly become a major concern.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I didn't realize we were withdrawing . . . I mean, redeploying to a better vantage point.It makes sense, though. We have no intentions of significant involvement so why go through the motions when there's nothing to be gained.
If the US government spent 1/100 the effort characterizing the suffering of Liberians as we did in broadcasting the plight of Iraqis under Saddam the American public (if you believe them) would have rallied to the Liberian cause . . . b/c . . . "it doesn't matter what kind of weapons insert autocrat here has because liberating those people is the right thing to do.
I didn't realize we were withdrawing from Liberia either until I picked up this morning's newspapers. No one knew apparently until it happened. As stated in the article it was unannounced.
We suffer from a foreign policy which has no clear goals or rules. I realize each situation is different but that cannot in anyway excuse the current administration from using one set of rules when it benefits them and another set when they have no "agenda" they can use to advance their position.
This is why we are viewed in many nations as hypocrites and exploiters.
Our continued presence in Iraq and the drum beating in Iran and Syria is in stark contrast to our policies in North Korea and Liberia for instance. There are many despots in the world. How can we pick and choose? If we care so much about the fate of Iraqis under Saddam where is our concern in North Korea for example, or even for our own here at home?
"About 100 American troops remain on the ground ? 70 guarding the United States Embassy, and 30 acting as liaisons with West African peacekeepers, Lt. Col. Tom Collins, spokesman for the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit force, said as he left."
So, let me ask. Are you for sending a full load of troops in there? I thought we were over deployed? Do we have UN clearance? I thought the world hated us -why do they continue to beg for our help? So many questions.
I wouldn't oppose sending a peace keeping force over there....but like has been said here multiple times -the US has historically not sent in troops to places that don't have security or strategic importance to us regardless of the "humanitarian crisis". This is a perfect example of what the UN should used for if it really wanted to be the world overseer and relevant.
Now back to BBDs question on nukes and Iran. I wasn't saying or implying anything of the sort. My comment was wholly supportive of an internal uprising to cause the fall of their oppressive gov't. The only thing nukes have to do with it is that I think we might have a need to help them speed up that internal uprising if their gov't continues on the nuke path. I don't like nukes any more than you.
I know we don't see eye to eye on alot of issues but I don't think finding issues to disagree on is neccessary. I was agreeing with leaving Iran alone - we just have different limits.
CkG
Will you always remain cynical? Fact is, if iran threatens our regional interests, security, or allies, they will meet the same fate of their immediate neighbors.
we didn't stop pakistan or india. Clandestine means just that. Iran is just a nasty reminder of failed US policy, and old time politicians who are still throwing hissy fits because they didn't get their way in 1979. Who is going to support an attack on Iran? Britain won't. Maybe Israel will take out their nuclear facilities, im sure they have full overflight rights over Iraq.
why did ultraquiet get banned for calling someone "goat sperm" when bobdn just called all of his posts "bullshit"? (see above)
I don't care about any country, except the USA! We should have Never allowed any other country to be a Nuclear Power!
You can't claim to care about your country when you haven't the faintest idea what your country is. We are a country that stands for caring about other countries. What you care about is inflating your own ego by identifying yourself with the prestege your country has won by means you don't comprehend.
[/i]
Please continue, Moonie, and share with us the means by which we won this so-called "prestege." [sic]
Further, given the fact that one "can't claim to care about your country when you haven't the faintest idea what your country is, and given the fact you know what our country is ("We are a country that ..."), do you, then, care about your country?
so anyone who was against this Country,USA, wasting resources on the invastion of Iraq is a true American?
Where did you get that idea from? Though it sounds like a DNC talking-point, did you formulate it from my previous post?
Ahh, I see. I am so used to people taking my words and making strange inferences that I thought maybe you were thinking that I was implying that
Since North Korea is OBVIOUSLY on the road to nukes, what we going to do about it? Pee in our pants?
Yeah, yeah...we talk big because we can push around the Arab countries and muslims. When it comes to powerful countries, we do we do? Pee in our pants.
I am not advocating war, actually quite the opposite. I'm also not saying that NK is a powerful country, but they are a much more formidable enemy if it came down to war. We need to stop acting tough and being so hypocritical.
Yeah, yeah...we talk big because we can push around the Arab countries and muslims. When it comes to powerful countries, we do we do? Pee in our pants.
I am not advocating war, actually quite the opposite. I'm also not saying that NK is a powerful country, but they are a much more formidable enemy if it came down to war. We need to stop acting tough and being so hypocritical.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter