quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Ahh, come on. Vietnam? Iraq? Serbia? Iraq again? Did any of those strike you first? What? You meant *nuclear* strike? What about Hiroshima? Nagasaki?

Vietnam. a clusterfuck? yes. communist imperialism tends to foster that in us.

Iraq. Iraqi imperialism fought by the UN. not to mention the fact that at that same time Saddam, their sworn enemy, no longer posed a threat to them yet their nuclear ambitions mushroomed. pun intended.

Serbia. UN also, had nothing to do with a balance of power regionaly or globally, at least not in a way that would impress an already burgeoning nuclear power.

their are way too many reasons for a sane person accept Iran's nuclear ambitions as a malevolent export. and after thinking about it, it's my opinion that their delivery system development is aimed at Israel above all other targets. but one cannot ignore the obvious terror question.

quote:

Maybe that's exactly what he knows - and he figures that the US won't attack him if he has the ability of sending at least one nuke in your direction. Kim Jong is definately a psycho, but that does not automatically make him a fool.

what kind of fool can't even feed his own people but has no problem extorting the free world with nuclear weapons? let's not even mention his government is in the political stone age. your feelings for my country has distorted your perceptions on just what is exactly at stake here. have you thought about Japan's interest in all this? how about China?
S. Korea? you call him a psycho but i get the feeling that there is some sort of admiration you have for someone that has gotten my country's attention with the worlds most deadly of weapons for the sole purpose getting attention.

quote:

It is a fraction of the story, but not as little as you would like to make it.

fraction being a figure of speech, all i meant was that there is a lot more to this than just hating this or previous administrations.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Vietnam. a clusterfuck? yes. communist imperialism tends to foster that in us. Iraq. Iraqi imperialism fought by the UN. not to mention the fact that at that same time Saddam, their sworn enemy, no longer posed a threat to them yet their nuclear ambitions mushroomed. pun intended. Serbia. UN also, had nothing to do with a balance of power regionaly or globally, at least not in a way that would impress an already burgeoning nuclear power. their are way too many reasons for a sane person accept Iran's nuclear ambitions as a malevolent export. and after thinking about it, it's my opinion that their delivery system development is aimed at Israel above all other targets. but one cannot ignore the obvious terror question. what kind of fool can't even feed his own people but has no problem extorting the free world with nuclear weapons? let's not even mention his government is in the political stone age. your feelings for my country has distorted your perceptions on just what is exactly at stake here. have you thought about Japan's interest in all this? how about China? S. Korea? you call him a psycho but i get the feeling that there is some sort of admiration you have for someone that has gotten my country's attention with the worlds most deadly of weapons for the sole purpose getting attention. fraction being a figure of speech, all i meant was that there is a lot more to this than just hating this or previous administrations.

In general I do agree with your assessment, esp. in regards to targeting Israel. I do not think, however, that a defense against Iraq could be readily dismissed, however, because according to Duelfer and Kay, although Saddam didn't have any WMD stockpiles, he DID have the potential. But what's more, Saddam himself seemingly might have believed he had more capability and actual stockpiles than he truly possessed. It was a self-made front, and most folks (yes, including us) believed he had more than what he truly possessed. I don't think Iran would have saw it any differently than anyone else, and that might have played a role in their own capability.

But regardless of the historical assessment you outlined, I think the last 3 years or so may be a different argument altogether on whether or not Iran has decided to start or continue (all speculation right now) their nuke program. Indeed they can take the very same approach that nutty Kim from N. Korea has taken by building their nuke program in response to Bush's "Axis of Evil" bullish stance. This is entirely plausible, and as it has shown so far for N. Korea, fairly effective at least in the short term.

At best this is purely speculation. I think Powell regrets putting his neck out last week and reporting the accounts of those Iranian exiles. In hindsight he probably realized our credibility problem in believing exiles a wee bit too much, esp. when they have a possible political agenda of their own (like Chalabi). Until more concrete evidence comes out on the true purpose and intent of Iran's nuke reactors, I think we'll likely be taking a more cautious approach. This is evidenced by Bush's recent stance in S. Africa on the situation, stating that we will be taking a more "diplomatic approach" to the Iranian situation via possible European sanctions. It's not like we have much of a choice on the matter anyway - considering how our troops are so tied up in Iraq right now.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Vietnam. a clusterfuck? yes. communist imperialism tends to foster that in us. Iraq. Iraqi imperialism fought by the UN. not to mention the fact that at that same time Saddam, their sworn enemy, no longer posed a threat to them yet their nuclear ambitions mushroomed. pun intended. Serbia. UN also, had nothing to do with a balance of power regionaly or globally, at least not in a way that would impress an already burgeoning nuclear power.

I think the discussion has gone a bit of course. I brought up those countries/cities because they demonstrate that the US does strike without being struck (contrary to your claim) - not because I necessarily have any issues with the US striking (for the record, I condone some and regret others). So you don't have to defend those attacks.
My point is: If you are not a friend of the US, then it is common sense to prepare for the worst (invasion). And one of the more efficient ways of doing this is to develop/acquire nuclear weapons. It doesn't matter what my moral stance of the history of US foreign politics is or how much I hate Bush and his administration. It's simply a matter of seeing how the situation looks like when seen from the position of Kim or Khatami.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo what kind of fool can't even feed his own people but has no problem extorting the free world with nuclear weapons? let's not even mention his government is in the political stone age.

His cruelty and lack of adherence to the values of the west does not necessarily make him a fool.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo your feelings for my country has distorted your perceptions on just what is exactly at stake here. have you thought about Japan's interest in all this? how about China?

You don't know anything about my feelings towards your country. You know that I am a critic of Bush, and that, apparently, makes you incapable of seeing the main messages of my posts. In this thread, for instance, I have tried to answer why anybody would want a nuke - the opening question you might recall. That does not mean that I do not think the world would be safer without North Korea or Iran having nukes. I can also understand why poor people from Africa and Asia want to go and live in Europe, but I do not support that they should be allowed to. Makes sense?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo S. Korea? you call him a psycho but i get the feeling that there is some sort of admiration you have for someone that has gotten my country's attention with the worlds most deadly of weapons for the sole purpose getting attention.

True psychopaths have always been fascinating to me. I admire the guts ,total confidence, and unpredictability of a psycho, no matter if I sympathize with him/her or not. Again, it has nothing to do with your country.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Ahh, come on. Vietnam? Iraq? Serbia? Iraq again? Did any of those strike you first? What? You meant *nuclear* strike? What about Hiroshima? Nagasaki?

Vietnam - While it mostly was a communist vs. democratic war, the first real shot was by the North Vietnamese. Sure there were some shady tactics by the americans with the coup, etc but this is the first shot. Whether war was needed is debateable.

quote:

On August 2, 1964, in response to American and South Vietnamese espionage along its coast, North Vietnam launched a local and controlled attack against an American ship on call in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Iraq(part I) - This war was not started by us, the war was started when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the UN passed a resolution declaring they leave or face war. They didn't leave and war came to them.

Serbia - this was NATO, not the US.

quote:

The response of the United States and Western European governments, Russia, United Nations officialdom and the European Community to what is clearly a Serbian-Montenegrin or "Yugoslav" war of aggression against the now internationally recognized independent and sovereign nations of Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina has been irresponsible with appallingly destructive consequences.

quote:

The only sensible choice was for the international community backed up by the military power of NATO and the United Nations to assist Bosnia-Hercegovina to achieve a democratic and peaceful transition to independence and to provide reasonable guarentees to the Serbian minority by sending a clear message to Serbia/Yugoslavia and its Serbian Bosnian clients that they accept such a peaceful and democratic solution and the democratically elected governments of Bosnian-Hercegovina and Croatia.

I'll give you iraq(part duex).

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we didn't start the war and no one in the world has used a nuclear weapon since then. Those two bombings as bad as they were, were needed by the world to scare them into never again using them against civilian cities. I do think those two bombs were the right moves however in extraordinary circumstances, in which the only end would have been to take the japanese mainland by force which would have resulted in millions of deaths instead of a couple hundred thousand.

___________________

Are you sure the US didn't drop the bombs because Russia was planning to launch an offensive against Japan and we didn't want them to have any say in post-war Japan like they had in Germany.

so hows it again that the discussion of nukes is falling to vietnam?

why have nukes? cause they were invented by the US...



sadly no one has a choice, not even the US anymore - you pretty much need to have them still even if you sign armistices. and strangely enough the stranglehold the US put on already floundering 'Communist' states in the past has led to increased strife and most of the proliferation we know today.

sure, in some ways you need to have them to have clout in this world, but and arms race begets and arms race...the more one side has, the more the other needs (or needs to attack differently).

its odd how universally unloved we are even tho we share less of the Worlds GDP than at the height of the Cold War.

oh and Veitnam being a Democracy v. Communism war - if thats true its pretty rediculous. China fought N Vietnam before we did and lost ~10000 troops in 3 mos...everyone hated those bastards - even the Communists apparently|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

Has nothing to do with nukes but Vietnam was a war over communism and democracy ever since Vietnam was split and the US backed south with its anti communist leader and the Soviet backed north.

Oh and nukes are bad (to keep this on topic)

quote:

From 1956-1960, the Communist Party of Vietnam desired to reunify the country through political means alone. Accepting the Soviet Union's model of political struggle, the Communist Party tried unsuccessfully to cause Diem's collapse by exerting tremendous internal political pressure. After Diem's success against Communist cells in the South, however, southern Communistsconvinced the Party to adopt more violent tactics to guarantee Diem's downfall. At the Fifteenth Party Plenum in January 1959, the Communist Party finally approved the use of revolutionary violence to overthrow Ngo Dinh Diem's government. In May 1959, and again in September 1960, the Party confirmed its use of revolutionary violence and the combination of the political and armed struggle movements. The result was the creation of a broad-based united front to help mobilize southerners in opposition to the Saigon government.

quote:

Although communist China had backed North Vietnam in its struggle against South Vietnam and the United States, the Chinese and Vietnamese were traditional enemies; tensions between the two increased when Vietnam strengthened its ties with the Soviet Union, invaded Laos and Cambodia (Kampuchea) in late 1978, and expelled Chinese living in Vietnam. On February 17, 1979, some 120,000 well-equipped Chinese troops crossed the border into northern Vietnam in several places and seized control of several towns; they penetrated 25 miles into Vietnamese territory, encountering stiff resistance. Divisions from Vietnamese occupying forces in Cambodia arrived to reinforce the resistance, which was unable, however, to prevent the Chinese capture of Lang Son, a vital center in Vietnam's northern provinces, on March 3, 1979. About the same time, a separate Chinese force reached the coastal town of Quang Yen, some 100 miles from Hanoi, after several days of fierce fighting against Vietnamese units. Meanwhile, Vietnamese counteroffensives across the border into China's Yunnan province were repulsed. Declaring its punitive military operation against Vietnam a success, China began withdrawing its forces about March 6, 1979, and within two weeks they were all back on Chinese territory. Subsequently, there were many exchanges of fire along the Chinese-Vietnamese border and numerous talks to reach an accord, but no treaty or settlement was concluded.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by biznology so hows it again that the discussion of nukes is falling to vietnam? why have nukes? cause they were invented by the US...

and you stopped there? why? be thankful it was us that won the race. be thankful it was the allies that overcame. just exactly whom would you want the responsibility of the inevitable atom to be placed upon?

quote:

sadly no one has a choice, not even the US anymore - you pretty much need to have them still even if you sign armistices. and strangely enough the stranglehold the US put on already floundering 'Communist' states in the past has led to increased strife and most of the proliferation we know today.

we didn't have a choice in 1949. are you telling me Leninism, Marxism, Maoism had nothing to do with the failure or "strife" experienced in these states your reffering to? it was all the U.S., huh? it wasn't western Europe either? typical liberal blameshifting.

quote:

sure, in some ways you need to have them to have clout in this world, but and arms race begets and arms race...the more one side has, the more the other needs (or needs to attack differently).

patently false. Japan has clout. Canada has clout. Turkey has clout. Singapore has clout. Australia has clout. Venezuela has clout. you don't need nukes for clout. you need nukes for either a) vaporizing cities. or b) act like you gonna vaporize cities.
the reasoning i'm reading from you is the same reasoning Kim Jong Il is using. and a lot of good it's doing him, really.

quote:

its odd how universally unloved we are even tho we share less of the Worlds GDP than at the height of the Cold War.

or how we give more than any county in the world regardless of GDP.
or how we have always been at the forefront of every nuclear treaty ever signed since the genie left the bottle.

quote:

oh and Veitnam being a Democracy v. Communism war - if thats true its pretty rediculous. China fought N Vietnam before we did and lost ~10000 troops in 3 mos...everyone hated those bastards - even the Communists apparently|

it is true. and the turf war between China and Vietnam in 1979 was just that. not a war of ideology.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: if this world is seeking peace, why have nukes. what would be the purpose of iran developing nukes, if they are not planning a war? or pakistan, or india?? the cold war's over, and wheres the threat?? i say, if a country is not planning a war, why have nukes at all??

Domination and deterrence are starters I reckon. Why do you think the world is seeking peace to begin with?


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Are you sure the US didn't drop the bombs because Russia was planning to launch an offensive against Japan and we didn't want them to have any say in post-war Japan like they had in Germany.

that, and as a last resort to losing 1 million soldiers and millions more japanese in a land invasion. japan as a nation would have been totally wiped off the face of the earth. hirohito said it himself, which is one of the reasons why he pushed for surrender.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo and you stopped there? why? be thankful it was us that won the race. be thankful it was the allies that overcame. just exactly whom would you want the responsibility of the inevitable atom to be placed upon?

no one? (naive comment)

quote:

we didn't have a choice in 1949. are you telling me Leninism, Marxism, Maoism had nothing to do with the failure or "strife" experienced in these states your reffering to? it was all the U.S., huh? it wasn't western Europe either? typical liberal blameshifting.

just because im not gung ho about fucking another country up doesnt mean im 'blameshifting' (whatever that is, as ive never heard the term)


im just stating that 'communism' in Marxist terms has never existed, and the embargoes on Cuba, supplying weapons for insurgents and whatnot has not decreased the problems we face. ideological wars never truly win, they only benefit one side for a bit

quote:

patently false. Japan has clout. Canada has clout. Turkey has clout. Singapore has clout. Australia has clout. Venezuela has clout. you don't need nukes for clout. you need nukes for either a) vaporizing cities. or b) act like you gonna vaporize cities. the reasoning i'm reading from you is the same reasoning Kim Jong Il is using. and a lot of good it's doing him, really.

ok, so im the same as Kim Jong...whatever...

the countries you mentioned generally have clout as they associate with the US in one way or another. remember we never used nukes on the Soviets as inteded, only the Japanese and we installed our military there quickly afterward.

if youve studied security analysis outside the western hemisphere you could envision the problems that an arms race would create.

quote:

or how we give more than any county in the world regardless of GDP. or how we have always been at the forefront of every nuclear treaty ever signed since the genie left the bottle.

generic pro USA comment...its true but it doesnt mean anything.

its like commending China for supporting our economy by paying us to buy their products...

quote:

it is true. and the turf war between China and Vietnam in 1979 was just that. not a war of ideology.

but it WAS ideological, just not the good and evil mentality that the US loves. even the Soviets and Chinese had their issues, and quite a bit mind you|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: that, and as a last resort to losing 1 million soldiers and millions more japanese in a land invasion. japan as a nation would have been totally wiped off the face of the earth. hirohito said it himself, which is one of the reasons why he pushed for surrender.

If you believe that go ahead. I still think nuking Japan was wrong and selfish. Even if they US had lost 1 million soldiers in WWII that number wouldn't be able to compare to the numbers lost by the Russians. I don't think vaporizing two cities full of non combatants was the best way end the war.