Terrorism and the Left

[ParanoiA]

I finally figured out, at least partly, why I get so frustrated and confused with the left concerning terrorism. The POV's taken by republicans and the administration, the Iraq war, prisoners of war, racial profiling, wire tapping - all are met with fierce opposition. But, it's not the opposition that bothers me. It's this shrugged shoulders approach to terrorism that bothers me about them.

 

It seems obvious to me that if republicans and the administration weren't going after terrorism, that no one would. As if, declaring war on our country almost 30 years ago and following through with various bombings over the years just isn't really an issue to the left.

 

Further, that these terrorists hide within nation states pretty much seals the deal - "there's nothing we can do...oh well...that sucks...". Further still, that these nation states seek nuclear status and "we can't be unfair or hypocritical, so let them all have nukes...".

 

For the record, do most of the anti-war folks just not see terrorism as a big deal? 9/11 is a fluke? Or do they feel we deserve it? Capitalism is getting its due?

 

Again, I'm not looking to drudge up the same old Iraq war arguments, but rather why is it that one party is coming up with the ideas (good or bad), and the other party is just shooting them down (for better or worse)?

[ecoli]

What scares me is that the left are openly making contact with extremist Muslim groups WITHIN in the US, that openly have links with terrorist groups in the middle east. They are so determined to show that they don't hate muslims, they are supporting extremists Muslims that preach hate and intolerance... which is what we're supposed to be against. IT's funny, because they flip a shit when a conservative leader has ties to extremist christian groups.

[Sisyphus]

why is it that one party is coming up with the ideas (good or bad), and the other party is just shooting them down (for better or worse)?

 

Because the President in power is a Republican?

[ParanoiA]

Because the President in power is a Republican?

 

Not sure I get your answer. Are you saying the lack of interest in pushing through legislation by democrats is because of a republican in office? Or are you saying that the ideas get shot down becuase of a republican in office? Or something else?

 

The democrats are on a fast track pushing through legislation right now - some of it directly to do with Iraq and war funding. So where's their solutions on terrorism? Where's their ideas of how to keep 9/11 from happening again? Since it meant so much to them to drag GWB over the coals about it, where is the resolve?

[Sisyphus]

I mean, the Commander in Chief is a Republican, so of course it's the Republicans making policy, and all disagreements take the form of dissent from the party not in power.

[ecoli]

IMO, they're misintpreting what the voters want. Yes, the president, and many republicans aren't doing a great job... especially in Iraq. A lot of democrats were voted into power, but that doesn't mean that people are against the war, or that they necesarily want to pull out.

 

I think the dems are pushing this through simply because it's exactly the opposite of what the republicans want... not because it's a smart thing to do.

 

Even if that means indirectly condoning terrorism.

[Dak]

Further still, that these nation states seek nuclear status and "we can't be unfair or hypocritical, so let them all have nukes..."

 

america officially subscribes to the principle of MAD, and uses it to justify it's nuclear arsenal, which somewhat inplies that you guys think that having nukes is the best deterrant to using nukes.

 

given this, yeah, it really would be hypocritical to not allow other nations to have nukes.

 

according to MAD: america having nukes stops other countries using nukes against the US; other countries having nukes stops the US using nukes against them; therefore, if everyone has nukes, no-one can use nukes, and everyone's happy.

[ParanoiA]

I mean, the Commander in Chief is a Republican, so of course it's the Republicans making policy, and all disagreements take the form of dissent from the party not in power.

 

Completely untrue. Sisyphus, tell me you're not blindly defending the democrat party here.

 

That's why I repeated, they are pushing through legislation right now. They just pushed the non-binding resolution. They were bragging about the first 100 hours or whatnot. They have no problem making policy. Yes, GWB will veto it, but it doesn't stop you from coming up with solutions - or at least it better not. I'm not paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to these jokers, just to sit around and wait for a democrat to become president.

 

I'm not talking about disagreements anyway. I'm talking about ideas. Where's the ideas? Why is only one side coming up with them?

 

That's what I meant by asking - do you all really think it's a big deal or not? It's as if the left really isn't concerned about it - which would explain the lack of ideas and motivation for change in lieu of terrorism.

[ParanoiA]

given this, yeah, it really would be hypocritical to not allow other nations to have nukes.

 

Do we all have the same size nations? Same amount of food? Same amount of money? Equal imports and exports?

 

We don't do we. And why do you suppose that is? Because we're all trying to SURVIVE dude! It's hypocritical that I should have more land than you isn't it? The fact I would fight to keep my greater portion is hypocritical.

 

This is not about fair, Dak. It's about survival. Yes it would be really fair and stuff to allow them to develop nukes. It would also be incredibly stupid. Who's going to hear your cries for fairness when they use those nukes? Because they're not worried about destruction of themselves - Allah will receive them.

 

This, to me, is a classic example of ideology supersceding pragmatism.

[ecoli]

america officially subscribes to the principle of MAD, and uses it to justify it's nuclear arsenal, which somewhat inplies that you guys think that having nukes is the best deterrant to using nukes.

 

given this, yeah, it really would be hypocritical to not allow other nations to have nukes.

 

according to MAD: america having nukes stops other countries using nukes against the US; other countries having nukes stops the US using nukes against them; therefore, if everyone has nukes, no-one can use nukes, and everyone's happy.

 

Is Iran willing to submit to UN inspections of their nuclear arsenal? They've already threatened Israel, presumably with the potential threat of nuclear warfare. Iran has not given the rest of the world reason to beleive they are trustworthy to have nuclear weapons.

[Dak]

Do we all have the same size nations? Same amount of food? Same amount of money? Equal imports and exports?

 

noooo....

 

and i dont think iran is realistically aiming for the same amount of nukes as the US

 

We don't do we. And why do you suppose that is? Because we're all trying to SURVIVE dude! It's hypocritical that I should have more land than you isn't it? The fact I would fight to keep my greater portion is hypocritical.

 

again, no. not unless america is also of the oppinion that the earths land should be divvied out equally amongst nations (which it isn't)

 

This is not about fair, Dak. It's about survival. Yes it would be really fair and stuff to allow them to develop nukes.

 

i mentioned hypocracy, not fairness.

 

america is saying:

 

having nukes prevents people using nukes

 

ergo, we should have nukes

 

iraq shouldn't.

 

this is hypocracy.

 

It would also be incredibly stupid. Who's going to hear your cries for fairness when they use those nukes? Because they're not worried about destruction of themselves - Allah will receive them.

 

This, to me, is a classic example of ideology supersceding pragmatism.

 

again, not fairness: consistancy. why should america's justification for having nukes hold true for america but not for iraq?

 

if you subscribe to MAD (as your country officially does), surely some formalised MAD treaty -- whereby the first country to use nukes gets nuked by the others -- should ameliorate your fears?

 

btw, 'allah will recieve them' can be countered with some glib comment about 'the rapture'.

 

Is Iran willing to submit to UN inspections of their nuclear arsenal? They've already threatened Israel, presumably with the potential threat of nuclear warfare. Iran has not given the rest of the world reason to beleive they are trustworthy to have nuclear weapons.

 

the un inpections are for making sure you're not making nukes, iirc. submiting to those inspections if you actually have nukes is somewhat superfolous.

[ParanoiA]

i mentioned hypocracy' date=' not fairness.

 

america is saying:

 

having nukes prevents people using nukes

 

ergo, we should have nukes

 

iraq shouldn't.

 

this is hypocracy. [/quote']

 

Right, and it's a good one. You're stuck on the ideology, ignoring the reality of their craziness. Why are you pretending they aren't nuts? "You can eat with a knife, but John Wayne Gacy can't? You hypocrite!"

 

(Oh, in case you don't know, John Wayne Gacy is a serial killer).

 

again, not fairness: consistancy. why should america's justification for having nukes hold true for america but not for iraq?

 

Same difference. You're holding ideology above the reality of the situation. Fairness, hypocrisy, consistency - all quite relevant on a civilized playing field. That's not the field we're on. Your obsession with consistency can very measurably, plausibly end with the death of thousands, millions of people - that didn't have a say so. People that live next door rather than hundreds or thousands of miles away.

 

If Jesus comes back and rules the earth, THEN we can talk about consistency since we have a higher authority to appeal to. But, international politics is cut throat - no higher authority, no mommy or daddy to fix things for you if you screw up and no do-overs. It just takes one nuke in the wrong hands to cause the greatest catastrophe the world has ever experienced.

[Dak]

Right, and it's a good one. You're stuck on the ideology, ignoring the reality of their craziness. Why are you pretending they aren't nuts? "You can eat with a knife, but John Wayne Gacy can't? You hypocrite!"

 

(Oh, in case you don't know, John Wayne Gacy is a serial killer).

 

of all the countries in the world, the US is the only one to have used nukes against an actual (ie, non-practice) target. so i'm failing to see how the US is 'to be trusted' with nukes, but not iraq.

 

seriously. iraq aren't gonna nuke you, cos they'll be able to afford a few nukes, which aren't even guaranteed to get through your advanced anti-nuke defences. even if one does, you'll be able to nuke their country off the face of the earth. so, iraq really, really aren't gonna nuke you, so 'fear' is not a valid reason to disallow iraq from having nukes. unless, of course, you don't subscribe to MAD.

 

from iraqs pov, what's to stop the US nuking them? well, not much atm. international oppinion, but that's not guaranteed to stop the US. if iraq has nukes, tho, it'll be somewhat safe. even the remote possibility of a city dissapearing should prevent you from nuking iraq, yes?

 

and this is where the hypocracy comes into it: america seems to basically be saying that 'whilst talking about wether or not the US should have nukes, then our nukes act as a detterent, and that's why we have them; when talking about iraq having nukes, our nukes don't act as a detterent, so we have to stop them having nukes for our own safety, and their nukes don't act as a detterent, so that can't be a valid excuse for them having them. even tho that's why we have ours.'.

 

Same difference. You're holding ideology above the reality of the situation. Fairness, hypocrisy, consistency - all quite relevant on a civilized playing field. That's not the field we're on. Your obsession with consistency can very measurably, plausibly end with the death of thousands, millions of people - that didn't have a say so. People that live next door rather than hundreds or thousands of miles away.

 

If Jesus comes back and rules the earth, THEN we can talk about consistency since we have a higher authority to appeal to. But, international politics is cut throat - no higher authority, no mommy or daddy to fix things for you if you screw up and no do-overs. It just takes one nuke in the wrong hands to cause the greatest catastrophe the world has ever experienced.

 

i'm sorry, but 'not being hypocritical' isn't being overly ideological.

[Sisyphus]

We should prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, if we are able. The justification being that "we think there's a decent chance you'll use them on us, because you're openly hostile and fond of apocalyptic rhetoric," which would be the truth.

 

Yes, it IS hypocritical. Very much so. That's why it's so painful when, for example, George Bush refuses to rule out using nuclear weapons himself, or when he publicly panders to the "rapture is coming soon" crowd, or when he reduces complex geopolitics to white hats vs. black hats rhetoric. I think it's rhetoric, anyway. But I can absolutely understand someone, particularly someone from the Middle East, who doesn't think the United States can be trusted with nuclear weapons, for pretty much the same reasons we don't think Iran can be trusted.

[ParanoiA]

seriously. iraq aren't gonna nuke you, cos they'll be able to afford a few nukes, which aren't even guaranteed to get through your advanced anti-nuke defences. even if one does, you'll be able to nuke their country off the face of the earth. so, iraq really, really aren't gonna nuke you, so 'fear' is not a valid reason to disallow iraq from having nukes. unless, of course, you don't subscribe to MAD.

 

Yeah, cuz all those dead people you just glossed over in your analysis don't mean anything right? Fear is not valid because you'll still have plenty of people left over right? Sure, I'll donate a percentage of the US population just so we don't look "hypocritical".

 

When you understand why John Wayne Gacy can't eat at my table with a knife, despite the hypocrisy, then you'll understand why Iran, Syria, North Korea - and any other nutcase state shouldn't have nukes.

 

i'm sorry, but 'not being hypocritical' isn't being overly ideological.

 

Out of context, no. Within the context of whether or not the US should stop Iran from getting nukes, it most certainly is.

 

When I read your points, I'm picturing my army on the battlefield. Dak thinks we should stand and accept fire, rather than run and take cover. Because that would be hypocritical to shoot them, but not let them shoot us. Dak also thinks I shouldn't blow up their tank manufacturing facilities, because that would be hypocritical to keep them from building tanks while I build all I want.

 

Or did you not realize we're at war? Are you waiting for a formal declaration from shiny shoe salemen looking politicians? Can you not see your neighbor hates your freaking guts and supports, financially and emotionally anyone who kills your people? Are you so insecure and emotionally unstable that you think it's actually practical to "mend" your relationship by allowing nukes? I'm sorry, but we only get one life. I'm not gambling mine, my wife's, my kid's and my countrymen's lives on the off chance that maybe they'll like me if I don't interfere with their nuclear ambitions and perhaps they'll never use them on me.

 

Dude...nothing that has happened in the last 30 years suggests, in the least, that they will not use nuclear technology to kill mass amounts of people. Really, take a step back, drop the ideology for a minute, and really think about what you're saying.

[ParanoiA]

Yes, it IS hypocritical. Very much so. That's why it's so painful when, for example, George Bush refuses to rule out using nuclear weapons himself, or when he publicly panders to the "rapture is coming soon" crowd, or when he reduces complex geopolitics to white hats vs. black hats rhetoric. I think it's rhetoric, anyway. But I can absolutely understand someone, particularly someone from the Middle East, who doesn't think the United States can be trusted with nuclear weapons, for pretty much the same reasons we don't think Iran can be trusted.

 

Nicely put. This is what's bothered me about the whole "terrorist" label as well. We get these reports on the news about the surge, and other military operations, where certain numbers of "terrorists" were killed. Like they're all running around with black hats that say "terrorist" on them.

 

I've often wondered if part of the problem is the generation of white haired dudes in the military seat right now. It's like we're so conditioned over the centuries for wars against nations with armies, that they reduce the complex nature of terrorism to that which they're more comfortable. They want to see uniformed enemy combatants in a field with no innocents. Sometimes I wonder if they can truly get their heads around this kind of conflict.

[Dak]

We should prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, if we are able. The justification being that "we think there's a decent chance you'll use them on us, because you're openly hostile and fond of apocalyptic rhetoric," which would be the truth.

 

i dunno. i dont think they'd actually embark on a course of action that'd result in their nation being wiped off of the face of the earth, or subjugated completely to prevent reoccourances. or possibly both.

 

a better idea, imo, would be for every nation to agree that nukes suck (which most have allready), make a co-ordinated defenese plan, and just agree to shoot any ICBMs out of the sky, irreguardless of the target. agree to nuke any country that is the first to nuke another, then invade to remove it's nuclear capabilities. some kind of 'mutual protection from nukes' treaty.

 

it'd go along way to preventing iraq from using the nukes (i doubt they could get through the anti-nuke systems), and might even keep a leash on america -- which, from what you say about GWBs refusal to rule nukes out, is probably somewhat neccesary -- as, whilst the US could no doubts send a nuke through iraq's anti-nuke system, could they also avoid the UKs, and frances, and germanies? what about if they UK was prepared to switch off the USs european early-warning system (which, iirc, is in the UK), thus weakening the USs anti-nuke program? combined with the possibility that the US would be getting an expensive european nuke, and not a crappy middle eastern one, this'd probably put the pressure of MAD back on it.

 

this is partly why i'm somewhat split about iraq having nukes; as it stands, americas defences and the lack of non-friendly nuclear states remove it somewhat from MAD; america can nuke another country without much fear of retaliation. maybe, iraq having nukes would somewhat counterbalance that.

 

of course, the downside is that iraq would have nukes :-/

 

hence why i'd like to see a more formal and more effective MAD in place. sort of, absolutely guarranteed MAD. for every one. even developed european states and america.

 

to head off some possible critisisms: lets remember that nukes are designed to take out cities, which tend to be full of civilians. we'd be talking september 11th times alot.

 

Yeah, cuz all those dead people you just glossed over in your analysis don't mean anything right? Fear is not valid because you'll still have plenty of people left over right? Sure, I'll donate a percentage of the US population just so we don't look "hypocritical".

 

I think you misunderstood what i said. i'm doubting, no matter how 'nutty' iraq are, that they'll nuke america, given that it'd completely doom their country; and, even if they do, the nuke will probably not get through. the chance of one of your cities actually going up in smoke is negligable. significant enough to maybe act as a deterrent against the US nuking iraq, but not enough to make the iraqis take a small % chance of taking out one of your cities in return for guaranteed annhiolation.

 

hence, US fear of being nuked is not a good excuse for not letting iraq have nukes, espescially -- and heres the hypocritical bit -- when your contry insists that having nukes is an effective deterrent against being nuked. yet, your country also seems to be glossing over the fact that, if this is true, you shouldn't have anything to fear, as you have most of the deterents on this planet.

 

you're either speaking out of your arse when you say that you have to fear iraq, or you're speaking out of you're arse whey you say that your nukes are just 'an effective deterrent'. which is it?

 

When you understand why John Wayne Gacy can't eat at my table with a knife, despite the hypocrisy, then you'll understand why Iran, Syria, North Korea - and any other nutcase state shouldn't have nukes.

 

again, given the stats on how many americans -- your president amongst them -- belive that the rapture is coming within the next 50 years, and are actually looking forward to it, all claims of 'nutcase states cant have nukes, but america can' also become hypocritical.

 

When I read your points, I'm picturing my army on the battlefield. Dak thinks we should stand and accept fire, rather than run and take cover. Because that would be hypocritical to shoot them, but not let them shoot us. Dak also thinks I shouldn't blow up their tank manufacturing facilities, because that would be hypocritical to keep them from building tanks while I build all I want.

 

no. not doing those things would be stupid. that's one, big, strawman.

 

you seem to be failing to distinguish between stuff like tanks, rifles, and rockets, which are weapons that are designed to be used, and nukes, which are designed not to be used, but to prevent other sides from using them against you. that's why iraq claim they're getting nukes. that's why america claims to have nukes. the hypocracy is in claiming that you have them as a deterrent, but iraq's claims at a desire for nuclear deterrents are lies. why is it impossible for iraq to desire nukes as deterrents, but possible for americas nukes to be deterrents?

 

i'm certainly not saying that iraq should be allowed to kill us as effectively as we can kill them; just, that i'd like to see a more balanced spread of nukes, to increase the disinclination of all nuclear states to actually use them.

[ParanoiA]

you're either speaking out of your arse when you say that you have to fear iraq, or you're speaking out of you're arse whey you say that your nukes are just 'an effective deterrent'. which is it?

 

MAD only works on countries of people who are afraid to die. That's why I said "Allah will receive them". They don't care about death the way that we do.

 

It is VERY plausible that some political figure like Osama Bin Laden could romance the people similar to Hitler style, to sacrifice or risk their country's existence to stick it to america, or your country or both, in one glorious nuclear effort. That's not very far fetched in the least.

 

How far was Afghanistan - psychologically - from that kind of attack? If they had nukes, how much you want to bet they would have launched them when we invaded them to get the SOB and his network that killed our people? And where would they have launched them? Israel is always going to be a target, even if they're not directly involved in whatever issue is heating up.

 

You can spin it all day, but you know damn good and well that America is not going to nuke a single country unless it was last resort - and I'm not sure that resort even exists given our military might. You think Australia is worried about getting nuked by America? Brittain? Canada? Mexico? The only countries worried about getting nuked by the US are countries that deserve to be worried about the US - the ones sponsoring the terrorizing of America.

 

again, given the stats on how many americans -- your president amongst them -- belive that the rapture is coming within the next 50 years, and are actually looking forward to it, all claims of 'nutcase states cant have nukes, but america can' also become hypocritical.

 

Yeah, they believe it - they don't legislate it. Never have. Remember? We left the country that tried to do that...you're still there. But, we don't worry about your nukes either. You guys are pretty stable. Even though you joined us in an "illegal" war.

 

These countries live and quite literally die by those beliefs. They legislate it. They enforce it. They punish for it. They kill for it. They are the epidome of religious rule. Don't pretend we are the same. That's propaganda.

 

no. not doing those things would be stupid. that's one, big, strawman.

 

Why are those things stupid but nukes are not? We are at war. Period. Why the hell would I want a sworn enemy (that has attacked me for 2 decades before I even started fighting back) to have weapons to keep hypocrisy, consistency, fairness in check? That's why I used that analogy, because that's the reality. It would be silly to promote the weaponry of my enemy.

 

This is also why we don't want them to have a deterent. When you let them get nukes, then they can keep you from invading. Sounds fair right? Until you think a little deeper and consider the fact that they can harbor terrorists indefinately without fear of reprisal. They can sponsor terrorism openly, threaten any nation, call for the mass influx of terroristists - openly set up training facilities and protect them - because no one can invade and stop them since they have nukes and will threaten to destroy every Allied country within reach - namely Israel.

 

I can live with hypocrisy...

[Saryctos]

One nuclear weapon changes things greatly. It means that more can be made, it means that it can be stolen, sold, or used. Once a country joins the "nuclear club", the politics surrounding them changes dramatically. Preventing a country from building nukes just cannot happen once they already have one, nowhere near as easily anyways.

 

As for Iran, they have plenty of shady ties. Allowing Iran to develope nuclear weapons potentially puts them in the hands of numerous dangerous organizations, not excluding Iran itself.

 

Also, the idea of a country not using nukes because they'll get destroyed in the process is a flawed idea. Nuclear weapons can be 'stolen', secreatly traded, or just given to someone who can't be tied to the gov't of the country it came from. Normally the nuke can be traced back to the country of origin, but if it is a new nuclear power, they may not have the "fingerprint" needed to do just that. Ontop of that issue, you couldn't retaliate against that country anyways, because you would have to go through a long procedure to make sure it came from them. By then you won't have any evidence as it'll be dismantled and scattered to the four corners of the earth to ensure their innocence.

 

 

Also, Dak, we aren't a MAD country anymore, that's a cold war thing. Even if our policy were still such, it would never be followed through. There is just no way it can happen with the modern political climate and war being what it is these days.

 

 

 

As for the OP topic...

It has always been the case that the left to agree with our enemies, America is the bad guy in every conflict, and that we should never retaliate. We should seek understanding, and learn what makes them hate us, and then change ourselves to make them like us, because we are always at fault, not them.

[ParanoiA]

I still want to know if terrorism is an issue or not for the left. Why are the republicans coming up with the ideas (mainly bad ones) and democrats are not? Is it a non-issue for liberals? I can accept that, I just want to know if that's the case, otherwise I'm at a total loss as to why the dems have nothing to offer the country in the way of security.

[Dak]

MAD only works on countries of people who are afraid to die. That's why I said "Allah will receive them". They don't care about death the way that we do.

 

well, i disagree. i'm pretty sure the person with their finger on the button wont press it and condem his country to oblivination, either out of nationalism (not wanting his country to die), or greed (not wanting to loose the country that he's powerful as a ruler of).

 

Yeah, they believe it - they don't legislate it. Never have. Remember? We left the country that tried to do that...you're still there.

 

without going OT, that's only true with an 'as much' in there.

 

I'm sure you dont need it pointed out that, yes, christian fundamentals actually worm their way into your legislature.

 

as opposed to in the UK. ooh, the irony

 

But, we don't worry about your nukes either. You guys are pretty stable. Even though you joined us in an "illegal" war.

 

note that i never mentioned anything about the (il)legality of any wars, or about fairness (which i specifically pointed out i wasn't reffering to), or about 'being nice to them so that they'd like us' (which you mentioned earlyer).

 

I dont know if your presuming that i'd think these things because i'm some kind of 'liberal fruitcake' because 'thinking america is hypocritical in this issue is what liberal fruitcakes think' or something, but if you are, please stop

 

to try to stop you doing it: war isn't fair, so i dont see (within reason) any point in trying to not take any advantage that we can get (within reason); afaict the war was justified (which begs the question of why TB possibly fabricated evidence to conduct it); and i think a balance betwix 'understanding why we've bugged them and maybe not doing it any more' and 'blow the shit out of them' is probably best.

 

now, less of the 'dak is a liberal fruitcake retard who obviously believes x, y and z' approach.

 

Why are those things stupid but nukes are not?

 

for the reasons i gave.

 

This is also why we don't want them to have a deterent. When you let them get nukes, then they can keep you from invading. Sounds fair right? Until you think a little deeper and consider the fact that they can harbor terrorists indefinately without fear of reprisal. They can sponsor terrorism openly, threaten any nation, call for the mass influx of terroristists - openly set up training facilities and protect them - because no one can invade and stop them since they have nukes and will threaten to destroy every Allied country within reach - namely Israel.

 

note, tho, that nuclear weapons dont really act as a deterrent against invasion. if they get invaded, then fire a nuke, you'll back off and nuke the shit out of them. if they dont fire nukes, then you'll carry on with your invasion and just invade them, tinker with their country, then bugger off. seriously, they're still not going to nuke you if you invade, 'cos doing so would up your actions from 'subjugate' to 'annhiolate'.

 

nukes are a deterrent to nukes.

 

Also, the idea of a country not using nukes because they'll get destroyed in the process is a flawed idea. Nuclear weapons can be 'stolen', secreatly traded, or just given to someone who can't be tied to the gov't of the country it came from.

 

see, now this is (imo) a good reason to be concerned about iraq having nukes. so, yeah, i'd be all for stopping them if they don't submit to inspections to make sure that they're not selling them to terrorists.

 

Also, Dak, we aren't a MAD country anymore, that's a cold war thing. Even if our policy were still such, it would never be followed through. There is just no way it can happen with the modern political climate and war being what it is these days.

 

what is your justification for having nukes then?

 

surely it's not so they can be used?

[ParanoiA]

without going OT' date=' that's only true with an 'as much' in there.

 

I'm sure you dont need it pointed out that, yes, christian fundamentals actually worm their way into your legislature.

 

as opposed to in the UK. ooh, the irony [/quote']

 

I'm not talking about christian values and incidental reflections of christian nature - I'm talking about legislating religion onto the people. Where the religion is law. We don't do that. You used to, but now you don't. And yes, it's quite ironic that you enjoy more freedoms than I and are comfortably more secular. I'd love to live there...I'm not that attached to my gun.

 

note that i never mentioned anything about the (il)legality of any wars' date=' or about fairness (which i specifically pointed out i wasn't reffering to), or about 'being nice to them so that they'd like us' (which you mentioned earlyer).

 

I dont know if your presuming that i'd think these things because i'm some kind of 'liberal fruitcake' because 'thinking america is hypocritical in this issue is what liberal fruitcakes think' or something, but if you are, please stop

 

to try to stop you doing it: war isn't fair, so i dont see (within reason) any point in trying to not take any advantage that we can get (within reason); afaict the war was justified (which begs the question of why TB possibly fabricated evidence to conduct it); and i think a balance betwix 'understanding why we've bugged them and maybe not doing it any more' and 'blow the shit out of them' is probably best.

 

now, less of the 'dak is a liberal fruitcake retard who obviously believes x, y and z' approach.[/quote']

 

Hey, you're misreading me and went off in a whole direction I never implied. I was just heading off the obvious counter to my own statement. I didn't actually suspect one way or another what your thoughts were on it. I don't think you're a liberal fruitcake retard...I don't use the word fruitcake...

 

Just trying to make the point that while both of our nations are engaged in a questionable war, it doesn't mean we are as unstable as Iran or NK.

 

note' date=' tho, that nuclear weapons dont really act as a deterrent against invasion. if they get invaded, then fire a nuke, you'll back off and nuke the shit out of them. if they dont fire nukes, then you'll carry on with your invasion and just invade them, tinker with their country, then bugger off. seriously, they're still not going to nuke you if you invade, 'cos doing so would up your actions from 'subjugate' to 'annhiolate'.

 

nukes are a deterrent to nukes.[/quote']

 

I'm not sure that would play out like that in real life. It will be far more complicated with far different consequences more than likely. What if we have a pacifist president? Just after withdrawing from an ugly war? What about public opinion? You think the whole world will condone a nuclear strike on civilians in retaliation?

 

Please.... Everyone would be up in arms about how two wrongs don't make a right and how the civilians aren't to blame and we're murderers of the same kind and blah blah blah. Kind of like what's going on right now...it's not too far off actually.

 

So that brings us back to nuclear blackmail by terror states, which can ramp up their terrorist recruitment programs openly. And by using their "legitimacy" obtained by nuclear status and stand offs with the west, the impressionable youth in the region are that much more taken by the romance of their righteousness. Great recruitment environment.

[Saryctos]

what is your justification for having nukes then?

 

surely it's not so they can be used?

 

I would have no qualms about using nuclear weapons if the rest of the world wasn't so bitchy about it. If there's a military installation with thousands of terrorist/soldiers in a remote region of a country, and it's large enough that conventional bombs can't take it out in one go, then I'd say nuke it. If the precautions are taken to minimize the collateral damage, a nuclear weapon is no different than a conventional bomb other than the size of the effective area.

If we don't have weapons that can take out any kind of installation, then there will be a rapid increase of the kind you can't destroy.

 

Although the main reason we still have nukes in my mind, is that it is far more cost effective to keep them around, than it is to dispose of them. With the added benefit of everyone thinking twice about attackign you.

[Dak]

Hey, you're misreading me and went off in a whole direction I never implied. I was just heading off the obvious counter to my own statement. I didn't actually suspect one way or another what your thoughts were on it. I don't think you're a liberal fruitcake retard...I don't use the word fruitcake...

 

fair enough. sorry if i came across a bit strong; it was mainly the 'in dak's army, we'd lend the enemy bullets if they run out' bit that smaked of you thinking i was a loon

 

btw, i did notice that last centance could imply that you merely think im a liberal retard

 

I'm not sure that would play out like that in real life. It will be far more complicated with far different consequences more than likely. What if we have a pacifist president? Just after withdrawing from an ugly war? What about public opinion? You think the whole world will condone a nuclear strike on civilians in retaliation?

 

hmm... well, like i said, i'd like to see a formalised MAD, whereby nuclear counter-strikes are a certainty, even if not from the target.

 

but, even if you don't nuke them in retaliation, their fate is going to be sooooooooooooooo much worse than if they didn't nuke you. take the last country we invaded for eg: we've screwed with their political system, yeah, but we have a withdrawl plan/date. in the grand scheme of things, we'll have been there for a blink of an eye.

 

now, if they'd lobbed a nuke at us, they would basically be our subjugate nation. no amount of 'we're america, we shouldn't subjugate another nation' would prevent that -- they try to nuke you, their self-determination is going to be limited, and, ultimately, you'll be in charge of their country. doesn't seem worth it just for the off-chance of taking out LA.

 

bah. i don't even like MAD... i just like 'one side having all the nukes' even less.

 

 

I would have no qualms about using nuclear weapons if the rest of the world wasn't so bitchy about it. If there's a military installation with thousands of terrorist/soldiers in a remote region of a country, and it's large enough that conventional bombs can't take it out in one go, then I'd say nuke it. If the precautions are taken to minimize the collateral damage, a nuclear weapon is no different than a conventional bomb other than the size of the effective area.

If we don't have weapons that can take out any kind of installation, then there will be a rapid increase of the kind you can't destroy.

 

iirc, conventional rockets -- called something booring and obvious like 'really big ordanance' -- have been designed to get around the above problem without breaking non-nuclear treaties. they're capable of matching the distructive power of nukes to all extents and purposes, assuming you're not gonna target cities (i.e., there are no instalations that could survive a RBO but not a nuke)

[ParanoiA]

btw, i did notice that last centance could imply that you merely think im a liberal retard

 

Well that was the joke. I wanted to use a smiley, but I thought it would ruin the effect. I don't think you're liberal at all.

 

bah. i don't even like MAD... i just like 'one side having all the nukes' even less.

 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You make some good points, but I don't think they'll flinch in at least selling the nuclear material, which is fear enough, imo.