NationStates Jolt Archive

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/24/iran.un/index.html)

Those Iranians say the darndest things! :rolleyes:

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/24/iran.un/index.html)

Those Iranians say the darndest things! :rolleyes:
To use the words of the US president who has lied before:

"They say so, so I believe them."

Bush says that the Iraqi PM says that Iraq will be ready for elections in January, and he thus believes it. I think there's some heavy slippery slope and logical fallacity going on here and Iran is the next target followed by Syria, which will require a draft in the US. No doubt, we'll see Iran fall just like Iraq, no matter what they say, the US will get their will.

Iran is not like Iraq. In no way. And Iran will not fall like Iraq, and considering the fact that the US cannot even control this small and defenseless country it would be extremely stupid for them to go against Iran.
The best thing would be that Iran gets nuclear weapons as soon as possible so the US will finally shut up. We all know that the US is just still mad about the fact that they have been kicked out of Iran after their puppet the Shah was removed and US and British companies could no longer exploit Iranian oil fields.
Even if the reforms in Iran progress (too) slowly the country still remains the greatest stabilizing element of the region. But after all, demographics work for a change in Iran: the old hardliners will eventually die out and the young modern Iranians who are not so much different from Europan or US kids will take over.

Iran is not like Iraq. In no way. And Iran will not fall like Iraq, and considering the fact that the US cannot even control this small and defenseless country it would be extremely stupid for them to go against Iran.
The best thing would be that Iran gets nuclear weapons as soon as possible so the US will finally shut up. We all know that the US is just still mad about the fact that they have been kicked out of Iran after their puppet the Shah was removed and US and British companies could no longer exploit Iranian oil fields.
Even if the reforms in Iran progress (too) slowly the country still remains the greatest stabilizing element of the region. But after all, demographics work for a change in Iran: the old hardliners will eventually die out and the young modern Iranians who are not so much different from Europan or US kids will take over.

However, if Iran does get nuclear weapons before the "young modern Iranians" take over from the "old hardliners", life expectancy for the population of Tel Aviv might drop fairly substantially.
I'm not saying a nuclear attack is definite, but Iran's feelings towards Israel are, in general, negative (this is called an understatement).

I don´t believe any word they are saying. Of course they want nukes. From their perspective it is even understandable. But from a western perspective it is unacceptable.
I don´t know how far they have got. But we are either going to see a preventive strike or a North-Korea scenario (where it is already to late for a preventive strike).
I don´t think that Iran will back down in this.

I don´t believe any word they are saying. Of course they want nukes. From their perspective it is even understandable. But from a western perspective it is unacceptable.
I don´t know how far they have got. But we are either going to see a preventive strike or a North-Korea scenario (where it is already to late for a preventive strike).
I don´t think that Iran will back down in this.There is only one country in the world that has already used nukes. That has already cost that country all credibility. And talking of "preventive strikes" does not retun it.

There is only one country in the world that has already used nukes. That has already cost that country all credibility. And talking of "preventive strikes" does not retun it.
That would coincide with my point, which is that the Bush Administration is complete hypocrites, crying about nuclear proliferation and WMD in other nations, when it is a KNOWN fact that the US is making WMD, and Bush opted out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is trying to get approval to develop 'mini-nukes' which are particularly suited to terrorist use.

Why is the world not getting it's underwear in a bunch over THAT? As Ankher has pointed out, the US has proven their willingness to use WMD.

That would coincide with my point, which is that the Bush Administration is complete hypocrites, crying about nuclear proliferation and WMD in other nations, when it is a KNOWN fact that the US is making WMD, and Bush opted out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is trying to get approval to develop 'mini-nukes' which are particularly suited to terrorist use.

Why is the world not getting it's underwear in a bunch over THAT? As Ankher has pointed out, the US has proven their willingness to use WMD.

God damn Liberal media!!!oneone!11!11!

If you vote for Bush, which by the way wouldn't win in any country of the world excpet in the uSA where ignarance and manipulation make him win, asaide for war lovers, he will invade Iran saying that they have weapons of Mass destruction and that they are killing the soldiers in Irak.

Bush is a murderer and the reason that everybody in the world hates the USA now. He is the principal recruiter for AL Quaeda, because he protomes hates against Americans.

Prepare to go to war if Bush wins, he will reinstate the draft obligartory military duties for the American people, yeah lets get another thousand soldiers killed in the middle east, we have plenty more.

By the way DID you know that none of the bush administration served the army, dodge the draft, they are chicken hawks. cowards that send the poor kids to thier wars.

What an ugly government. Thank god the trillion dollars inn debt will stop him eventually if he wins

That would coincide with my point, which is that the Bush Administration is complete hypocrites, crying about nuclear proliferation and WMD in other nations, when it is a KNOWN fact that the US is making WMD, and Bush opted out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is trying to get approval to develop 'mini-nukes' which are particularly suited to terrorist use.

Why is the world not getting it's underwear in a bunch over THAT? As Ankher has pointed out, the US has proven their willingness to use WMD.
Well see, most of the world isn't quite as extreme as some people on this board are and understand the difference between the USA and Iran.

Well see, most of the world isn't quite as extreme as some people on this board are and understand the difference between the USA and Iran.
No, "most of the world" as you put it, is probably just your definition of the world, and you are probably american. You have been subject to nationalist propaganda your whole life. You believe that the US is Good and always does the right thing.

take a look at this site and tell me what the difference between the US and Iran is:
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ChronologyofTerror2.html

I would say the obvious answer is that the US is far worse of a threat to world peace and human rights.

No, "most of the world" as you put it, is probably just your definition of the world, and you are probably american. You have been subject to nationalist propaganda your whole life. You believe that the US is Good and always does the right thing.

take a look at this site and tell me what the difference between the US and Iran is:
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ChronologyofTerror2.html

I would say the obvious answer is that the US is far worse of a threat to world peace and human rights.
Hm, you want me to believe and trust a site that has a Swastica imposed over the part of the American flag where the stars usually are?
:rolleyes:
And you say I've been subject to propoganda. The site just lists the things the USA has been involved in in the past century or so.... what? I know that things like World War Two or the numerous interventions in Latin America happened.

Well see, most of the world isn't quite as extreme as some people on this board are and understand the difference between the USA and Iran.
The difference is that the US publicly show the world their world hegemony ambitions, whereas any other country who might be foolish enough to even try, does not. We *know* what the end result of all the US hypocrisy will be - world domination and removal of the rights of all other nations by having an agile, lethal army to be deployed anywhere on the globe. The US - since a long time - act and feel as if the world is their property, even the US senators think so - and this is an extremely dangerous development for everyone outside the US.

The difference is that the US publicly show the world their world hegemony ambitions, whereas any other country who might be foolish enough to even try, does not. We *know* what the end result of all the US hypocrisy will be - world domination and removal of the rights of all other nations by having an agile, lethal army to be deployed anywhere on the globe. The US - since a long time - act and feel as if the world is their property, even the US senators think so - and this is an extremely dangerous development for everyone outside the US.
Interesting. If it wasn't purely wild speculation, someone might be convinced.

Interesting. If it wasn't purely wild speculation, someone might be convinced.
I think, according to the rules of debate, your answer constitutes "dropping the ball"

" i don't believe you " is not considered a rebuttal. You are supposed to come up with refuting facts.

(*guesses that Kwangistar's next rebuttal will be an ad hominen argument)

I think, according to the rules of debate, your answer constitutes "dropping the ball"

" i don't believe you " is not considered a rebuttal. You are supposed to come up with refuting facts.

(*guesses that Kwangistar's next rebuttal will be an [i]ad hominen] argument)
You can't come up with facts to refute everything, after all what facts can refute statements like "We *know* what the end result of all the US hypocrisy will be - world domination and removal of the rights of all other nations by having an agile, lethal army to be deployed anywhere on the globe"? Perhaps in your study of logic you've come across something called "Begging the Question"?

You can't come up with facts to refute everything, after all what facts can refute statements like "We *know* what the end result of all the US hypocrisy will be - world domination and removal of the rights of all other nations by having an agile, lethal army to be deployed anywhere on the globe"? Perhaps in your study of logic you've come across something called "Begging the Question"?
Read the PNAC website. Bad enough that most non-Americans are better informed about the US than Americans themselves.

You can't come up with facts to refute everything, after all what facts can refute statements like "We *know* what the end result of all the US hypocrisy will be - world domination and removal of the rights of all other nations by having an agile, lethal army to be deployed anywhere on the globe"? Perhaps in your study of logic you've come across something called "Begging the Question"?
Well, first of all, those aren't my statements. I make statements that (although they agree in principle) are able to be backed up by fact sources.

For instance, the US has threatened to use military force against the Netherlands if The Hague prosecutes any americans for war crimes. My friends in the Netherlands very much see this as america being a dangerous rogue state.

Read the PNAC website. Bad enough that most non-Americans are better informed about the US than Americans themselves.
Exactly! the PNAC admits their stand publicly. Take special note of who belongs to the PNAC.... hmmm, a lot of names ending with bush. and some other familiar ones too.

Interesting that Bush is the only president in history to have convicted criminals on his staff.

Things that make you go hmm...

Read the PNAC website. Bad enough that most non-Americans are better informed about the US than Americans themselves.
PNAC =/= America. Just because some of the members of PNAC coincide with some members of the administration does not mean that they are persuing the same policy. Elements of it maybe.

Well, first of all, those aren't my statements. I make statements that (although they agree in principle) are able to be backed up by fact sources.

For instance, the US has threatened to use military force against the Netherlands if The Hague prosecutes any americans for war crimes. My friends in the Netherlands very much see this as america being a dangerous rogue state.
So what if they aren't your statements? My post wasn't your statement either but you still decided to say that I was dropping the ball. If you're going to do that, at least be impartial about it. Do you have a link to a quote saying we'll use military action against the Netherlands if they persecute Americans for war crimes, by the way? Although the whole suggestion is silly, since they won't persecute Americans for war crimes anyway and we wouldn't agree to let Americans go against their free will. If you're talking about a response to a potential kidnapping of our citizens to put them on trial for "war crimes" it would constitute some sort of necessary action, we wouldn't allow anyone, no matter how close, to just do that.

Exactly! the PNAC admits their stand publicly. Take special note of who belongs to the PNAC.... hmmm, a lot of names ending with bush. and some other familiar ones too.

There seems to be a bit of ignorance regarding PNAC here. Tell me which Bushes, besides Jeb, are members of PNAC?

I don´t believe any word they are saying. Of course they want nukes. From their perspective it is even understandable. But from a western perspective it is unacceptable.
I don´t know how far they have got. But we are either going to see a preventive strike or a North-Korea scenario (where it is already to late for a preventive strike).
I don´t think that Iran will back down in this.

I assume, therefore, that you don't come from a country that has a nuclear defense? Because, otherwise this would be hipocrisy, wouldn't it?

How about the fact that the ONLY power in the middle east that IS being allowed nuclear technology is Israel, an artifact state CONSTRUCTED by the west and armed by the west.

But then, Israel have said that they only need nuclear technology for peaceful means... so give them all the nuke tek they want. Oh, wait... that's what Iran said too...

I don´t believe any word they are saying. Of course they want nukes. From their perspective it is even understandable. But from a western perspective it is unacceptable.
I don´t know how far they have got. But we are either going to see a preventive strike or a North-Korea scenario (where it is already to late for a preventive strike).
I don´t think that Iran will back down in this.

The US will not invade North Korea anytime soon. You have to understand that there's no "proper motivation." Se comprende?

Right, bullies don't pick on armed runts. :) especially if they have no lunch money to steal.

Do you have a link to a quote saying we'll use military action against the Netherlands if they persecute Americans for war crimes, by the way?


Here's your link. If you dont like this one, do your own search. Enter "the Hague Invasion Act"

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/International_Criminal_Court

"In August 2002, the US passed the Servicemen's Protection Act, promising military action to prevent the trial of any US troops or nationals by the court."

Your turn :D

So Iran wants a peaceful nuclear program. Let's look at their energy situation, shall we? Iran has the fourth largest oil reserves on the planet, and the second largest natural gas reserves. Neither one is being produced at full capacity right now, yet they are still a net exporter. Can their energy situation really be that bad? Doubt it.
Iran wants nukes, and to be honest, I don't blame them. They are dangerous to the Middle East and the world at large. The are a sworn enemy of Israel. They destroyed Kuwaiti oil tankers in the eighties. The support terrorism abroad, and are known to be harboring terrorists. One of bin Laden's sons actually lives in Tehran, and they arrested Saif al-Adel only after lots of Saudi and US pressuring. The good news, however, is that the country is ripe for a revolution. All the US needs to do is to prevent any revolt from being crushed, and make sure that any revolution doesn't go the way of the French revolution.

Well see, most of the world isn't quite as extreme as some people on this board are and understand the difference between the USA and Iran.

True, however there is Israel to consider. I don't say they are being honest and I don't say they are not. It is possible that they wish to simply have nukes to protect themselves from an American invasion or Israeli bombings in the future. It isn't like it's unheard of for the Israeli's to bomb other countries because they don't like what they are doing.. Iraq, 1982 I believe ;)

Iran's nuclear program may or may not be for purely commercial domestic purposes.

Let us presume may for sake of argument that it does intend to produce nuclear weapons.

Please attempt to show why Iran should not be allowed to do so. During your argument, please show why it is O.K. for the US to have the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, and other WMDs, while forbidding others to do so. Also please show why India, Pakistan and Israel should be permitted to retain their nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are either wrong for everyone, or O.K. for everyone.

The world, quite simply, does not consist of "goodies" and "baddies", but of states blindly pursuing why they consider to be their own short term best interests.

True, however there is Israel to consider. I don't say they are being honest and I don't say they are not. It is possible that they wish to simply have nukes to protect themselves from an American invasion or Israeli bombings in the future. It isn't like it's unheard of for the Israeli's to bomb other countries because they don't like what they are doing.. Iraq, 1982 I believe ;)
Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. There is a difference between Israel having them, and Iraq having them. Israel acts out of its own security interests, while Hussein's Iraq, as we've seen in the past, has a desire to conquer. It is best that no nation developes any WMDs, but it is absolutely essential to make sure an illiberal regime doesn't acquire them.

"We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace," Bush said.

Some people see irony there. Others don't.

Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. There is a difference between Israel having them, and Iraq having them. Israel acts out of its own security interests, while Hussein's Iraq, as we've seen in the past, has a desire to conquer. It is best that no nation developes any WMDs, but it is absolutely essential to make sure an illiberal regime doesn't acquire them.

Well, that is a matter of opinion. Given the feelings of Israel towards the Muslim world and the feelings of the Muslim world towards Israel, it probably wouldn't hurt to have some checks and balances.. Since the collapse of the USSR the Muslim world would appear to be at a deep disadvantage, with Israel being totally and unfairly supported by the Americans. Just because they don't subscribe to our belief system and we don't to theirs, doesn't make us right. I agree with Smeagol-Gollum, either no one should be allowed to have them, or people who do have them should shut up about the people trying to get them. When you live in a glass house, you shouldn't throw stones.

Personally if I was Iran given the way the Americans are going, I would build a nuke as fast as I could. I can't say I blame them either. The Americans don't invade countries with nukes.. Exhibit A - N. Korea.

Well, that is a matter of opinion. Given the feelings of Israel towards the Muslim world and the feelings of the Muslim world towards Israel, it probably wouldn't hurt to have some checks and balances.. Since the collapse of the USSR the Muslim world would appear to be at a deep disadvantage, with Israel being totally and unfairly supported by the Americans. Just because they don't subscribe to our belief system and we don't to theirs, doesn't make us right. I agree with Smeagol-Gollum, either no one should be allowed to have them, or people who do have them should shut up about the people trying to get them. When you live in a glass house, you shouldn't throw stones.

Personally if I was Iran given the way the Americans are going, I would build a nuke as fast as I could. I can't say I blame them either. The Americans don't invade countries with nukes.. Exhibit A - N. Korea.
Military advantage doesn't make a system any more or less desirable. Why is it that Israel is better off than most of their Middle Eastern neighbors? Because they have been following a liberal system longer, including in the security realm. Many Middle Eastern nations, with the notable exception of Jordan, haven't even started liberalizing. I've written whole threads on this subject before, so I'll just see if I can bump a thread on this matter.

..."Young modern Iranians who are not so much different from Europan or US kids will take over.

Son, you're in serious need of a reality check! Why is it there are some people who believe that "everyone is just like us?" You haven't seen or read about suicide bombers as young as 14? This is NOT going to go away by you thinking "good thoughts!" The world is real, and dangerous, and has people in it who are more UNlike you than you can possibly imagine!

Son, you're in serious need of a reality check! Why is it there are some people who believe that "everyone is just like us?" You haven't seen or read about suicide bombers as young as 14? This is NOT going to go away by you thinking "good thoughts!" The world is real, and dangerous, and has people in it who are more UNlike you than you can possibly imagine!

I think you're underestimating your own ability to become like THEM. *nod*

Prepare to go to war if Bush wins, he will reinstate the draft obligartory military duties for the American people, yeah lets get another thousand soldiers killed in the middle east, we have plenty more.

By the way DID you know that none of the bush administration served the army, dodge the draft, they are chicken hawks. cowards that send the poor kids to thier wars.

What an ugly government. Thank god the trillion dollars inn debt will stop him eventually if he wins


Shut the hell up Michael Moore. Your rhetoric is without substance and therefore not worth considering. You make all these assumptions backed up by no facts. You say President Bush is elected by ignorance, yet you are one of the most ignorant people I've seen talk about this issue. You have no idea what you are talking about so it would be best that you educate yourself on the issues from a variety of different sources before you make these claims.

Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. There is a difference between Israel having them, and Iraq having them. Israel acts out of its own security interests, while Hussein's Iraq, as we've seen in the past, has a desire to conquer. It is best that no nation developes any WMDs, but it is absolutely essential to make sure an illiberal regime doesn't acquire them.

Ah, only "illiberal regimes" eh?

Hmm, wonder what that means.

Is it nations that have a record of previously using WMDs? No, that can't be right.

Nations that have a record of invading others, even if for "peaceful" purposes like "destroying the imminent threat from WMDs" or engaging in "regime change" or (an old favourite) "restoring order", or (another time-honoured favourite) claiming that you were "invited in by the government to help restore order"? No, guess none of them could apply.

No, must be a "list" somewhere of "evil" nations and "good" nations, yep, that must be it.

Pleas show us the list of the appropriate "goodies" who can have WMDs and "baddies" who cannot.

Military advantage doesn't make a system any more or less desirable. Why is it that Israel is better off than most of their Middle Eastern neighbors? Because they have been following a liberal system longer, including in the security realm. Many Middle Eastern nations, with the notable exception of Jordan, haven't even started liberalizing. I've written whole threads on this subject before, so I'll just see if I can bump a thread on this matter.

Why is Israel better off? Try looking at the 'War Budgets' of the US over the last year or so... in November of last year (I think it was) the US approved a 'war budget' of something like 79 billion dollars, of which 11 billion went to Israel.... who were doing WHAT in the conflict, exactly?

Israel is better off because american christians are usually the political majority, and it says in the bible that god will be 'for' whoever is 'for' Israel... thus, America feeds Israel.... which is, of course, what annoys people like bin Laden so much, since it means that the area is being totally de-stabilised by a foreign power intent on implementing religious ideals in their region.

Well, that is a matter of opinion. Given the feelings of Israel towards the Muslim world and the feelings of the Muslim world towards Israel, it probably wouldn't hurt to have some checks and balances.. Since the collapse of the USSR the Muslim world would appear to be at a deep disadvantage, with Israel being totally and unfairly supported by the Americans. Just because they don't subscribe to our belief system and we don't to theirs, doesn't make us right. I agree with Smeagol-Gollum, either no one should be allowed to have them, or people who do have them should shut up about the people trying to get them. When you live in a glass house, you shouldn't throw stones.

Personally if I was Iran given the way the Americans are going, I would build a nuke as fast as I could. I can't say I blame them either. The Americans don't invade countries with nukes.. Exhibit A - N. Korea.

Obviously, some of your alleged "teachers" need to be horse-whipped! Israel is fighting for its life and needs every bit of help it can get. And your prattle about "belief systems" isn't going to make Jihad any less a fact of life for all of us! Carrying your statement to its logical conclusions, if blowing up women and children is a part of your belief system, that's ok because having a "different belief system" doesn't make them any more wrong than us??? Get REAL!

Military advantage doesn't make a system any more or less desirable. Why is it that Israel is better off than most of their Middle Eastern neighbors? Because they have been following a liberal system longer, including in the security realm. Many Middle Eastern nations, with the notable exception of Jordan, haven't even started liberalizing. I've written whole threads on this subject before, so I'll just see if I can bump a thread on this matter.

I totally disagree with most of what you just said. Military advantage does make a difference, we need look no further then the USA to prove that one. Also, every one knows Israel has nukes and is supported by the US, or do you think it's a fluke that they still stand? *LOL*

I mean I could counter your argument by using Pakistan as an example. Pakistan has had nukes for quite a few years now and they haven't used them, they only have them to protect themselves from India who without those nukes militarily out match Pakistan greatly. Pakistan is also just as militant as Iran is. Don't forget Mussaraff came to power in a military coup against a democratically elected government. Just because they are playing two ends against the middle at the moment, don't let that fool you.

Shut the hell up Michael Moore. Your rhetoric is without substance and therefore not worth considering. You make all these assumptions backed up by no facts. You say President Bush is elected by ignorance, yet you are one of the most ignorant people I've seen talk about this issue. You have no idea what you are talking about so it would be best that you educate yourself on the issues from a variety of different sources before you make these claims.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

I see your post, which is substanceless rhetoric and ad hominem argument.

What i dont see are your facts. Educate us, oh pompous one.

Shut the hell up Michael Moore. Your rhetoric is without substance and therefore not worth considering. You make all these assumptions backed up by no facts. You say President Bush is elected by ignorance, yet you are one of the most ignorant people I've seen talk about this issue. You have no idea what you are talking about so it would be best that you educate yourself on the issues from a variety of different sources before you make these claims.

You do realise that your vitriolic response has just as little factual basis or evidentiary support, as the one you are attacking?

Iran's feelings towards Israel are, in general, negative (this is called an understatement).
It's not like Israel loves them much more either.

I'd also like to say that the US government is not being hypocritical about weapons of mass destruction. There's a large difference with the US having nuclear weapons and Iran having them. The difference is that the US will not randomly launch a nuclear attack on a country that it doesn't like.

Ah, only "illiberal regimes" eh?

Hmm, wonder what that means.

Is it nations that have a record of previously using WMDs? No, that can't be right.

Nations that have a record of invading others, even if for "peaceful" purposes like "destroying the imminent threat from WMDs" or engaging in "regime change" or (an old favourite) "restoring order", or (another time-honoured favourite) claiming that you were "invited in by the government to help restore order"? No, guess none of them could apply.

No, must be a "list" somewhere of "evil" nations and "good" nations, yep, that must be it.

Pleas show us the list of the appropriate "goodies" who can have WMDs and "baddies" who cannot.
There are no really bad countries, just bad leaders. In any case, they are all countries not on this list:
US
UK
France
Spain
Portugal
Mexico
Brazil
Argentina
Chile
Uraguay
the Bahamas
Canada
Germany
Holland
Belgium
Luxembourg
China
Japan
India
Russia
Australia
New Zealand
Italy
Slovenia
Poland
Israel
South Africa
and a few others I may have forgotten.
What sets these nation's apart? They all empower, or are rapidly empowering the individual, not submitting to mob rule, minority rule, or gross instability. Individualism has changed everything, but most relevant to this topic is security. Due to economic interests, these countries are compelled to use war, especially great power war, only as a part of national security interests, lest it destroys the economy. Call it a greed driven policy, but I think that the greatest success of liberal democracy is that it has harnessed greed, and is ending war, while achieving prosperity for society. After all, greed is an emotion all humans will always have, and is an energy more powerful than the sun.

I totally disagree with most of what you just said. Military advantage does make a difference, we need look no further then the USA to prove that one. Also, every one knows Israel has nukes and is supported by the US, or do you think it's a fluke that they still stand? *LOL*

I mean I could counter your argument by using Pakistan as an example. Pakistan has had nukes for quite a few years now and they haven't used them, they only have them to protect themselves from India who without those nukes militarily out match Pakistan greatly. Pakistan is also just as militant as Iran is. Don't forget Mussaraff came to power in a military coup against a democratically elected government. Just because they are playing two ends against the middle at the moment, don't let that fool you.
I wasn't clear, my apologies. I meant that just because a country is weak doesn't mean that they should automatically deserve our sympathy, like the dictators of the Middle East, Africa, and in a few Latin American countries.

I'd also like to say that the US government is not being hypocritical about weapons of mass destruction. There's a large difference with the US having nuclear weapons and Iran having them. The difference is that the US will not randomly launch a nuclear attack on a country that it doesn't like.
Aren't they working on a tactical mini nuke so they can do just that?

Obviously, some of your alleged "teachers" need to be horse-whipped! Israel is fighting for its life and needs every bit of help it can get. And your prattle about "belief systems" isn't going to make Jihad any less a fact of life for all of us! Carrying your statement to its logical conclusions, if blowing up women and children is a part of your belief system, that's ok because having a "different belief system" doesn't make them any more wrong than us??? Get REAL!

Carrying your apparent belief system to its most illogical conclusion, "nice nations" blow up people with their "nice" nuclear weapons, whereas "evil" nations blow up people with their "evil" suicide bombers.

Can you see any apparent contadiction here?

Here's your link. If you dont like this one, do your own search. Enter "the Hague Invasion Act"

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/International_Criminal_Court

"In August 2002, the US passed the Servicemen's Protection Act, promising military action to prevent the trial of any US troops or nationals by the court."

Your turn :D
Ok good. As I said we should be willing to take military action to prevent the abduction of our people for something we don't support.

I'd also like to say that the US government is not being hypocritical about weapons of mass destruction. There's a large difference with the US having nuclear weapons and Iran having them. The difference is that the US will not randomly launch a nuclear attack on a country that it doesn't like.

And that is based on what?

The fact that the US is the only nation to have threatened a full nuclear strike over territory? (Cuba)

The fact that the US is the only nation to have used nuclear devices on an enemy in wartime? (Japan)

The fact that the US is a nation with a long history of attacking regimes with religious or political views that the US didn't like? (Vietnam, Greneda, Iraq)...

Your argument isn't fact. It is conjecture, and pretty hopeful at that, considering that the Israel-spy fiasco revealed concrete plans at the highest levels for a Regime Change in Iran.

You do realise that your vitriolic response has just as little factual basis or evidentiary support, as the one you are attacking?

I could give you reason after reason based on fact as to why my argument is logical.

First of all, I don't see any credible source that reveals evidence of the US government planning attacks for personal gain and doing so would not cause any personal gain anyway.

The US attacked Iraq based on bad intelligence from their CIA, British Intelligence, and Russian Intelligence. Many people believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction at that time. President Bush had to act. The expected weapons haven't been found, but there are sources that say Saddam Hussein before the war replaced border guards with people in his inner circle to ship illegal goods off to Syria. We don't know what these goods were, but they could've been weapons of mass destruction. Therefore we can't rule out the possibility that Saddam Hussein had them unless an investigation proves otherwise.

Obviously, some of your alleged "teachers" need to be horse-whipped! Israel is fighting for its life and needs every bit of help it can get. And your prattle about "belief systems" isn't going to make Jihad any less a fact of life for all of us! Carrying your statement to its logical conclusions, if blowing up women and children is a part of your belief system, that's ok because having a "different belief system" doesn't make them any more wrong than us??? Get REAL!

That is your opinion and you're most certainly entitled to it. However most of us who live outside of the USA see it a bit more objectively I believe. Israel is no more fighting for it's life or innocent of killing children then that of Palestine. They are both equally as wrong and equally as right, it depends on your true knowledge of the situation .vs rhetoric and propaganda being fed to the Americans via the media and government. Israel is no innocent in all this. I'm sure if you knew half of what the Mossad has done you might change your mind, but you'll never hear any of that on an American news show.

Ok good. As I said we should be willing to take military action to prevent the abduction of our people for something we don't support.

So, why is it 'good' if the US invades a nation, and kidnaps it's leader and government... allegedly for commiting 'war crimes', etc...

But it is 'bad' for a United Nations force to legally arrest US people for commiting 'war crimes', etc...

And you can't deny that the US ever carries out warcrimes... not after that little prison incident...

And that is based on what?

The fact that the US is the only nation to have threatened a full nuclear strike over territory? (Cuba)

The fact that the US is the only nation to have used nuclear devices on an enemy in wartime? (Japan)

The fact that the US is a nation with a long history of attacking regimes with religious or political views that the US didn't like? (Vietnam, Greneda, Iraq)...

Your argument isn't fact. It is conjecture, and pretty hopeful at that, considering that the Israel-spy fiasco revealed concrete plans at the highest levels for a Regime Change in Iran.

The US used nuclear weapons only in Japan because they were at war and the attack would save US lives and end the war. There was a reason behind it so it wasn't random. There was even a warning before the attack.

The US has attacked countries and the reasons for those attacks are a whole other argument. They still however, did not use nuclear weapons in those attacks so there's no reason not to trust them with the weapons.

Aren't they working on a tactical mini nuke so they can do just that?
Aah. Here it is.
A leaked Pentagon document has confirmed that the US is considering the introduction of a new breed of smaller nuclear weapons designed for use in conventional warfare. Such a move would mean abandoning global arms treaties.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993414

There are no really bad countries, just bad leaders. In any case, they are all countries not on this list:
US
UK
France
Spain
Portugal
Mexico
Brazil
Argentina
Chile
Uraguay
the Bahamas
Canada
Germany
Holland
Belgium
Luxembourg
China
Japan
India
Russia
Australia
New Zealand
Italy
Slovenia
Poland
Israel
South Africa
and a few others I may have forgotten.
What sets these nation's apart? They all empower, or are rapidly empowering the individual, not submitting to mob rule, minority rule, or gross instability. Individualism has changed everything, but most relevant to this topic is security. Due to economic interests, these countries are compelled to use war, especially great power war, only as a part of national security interests, lest it destroys the economy. Call it a greed driven policy, but I think that the greatest success of liberal democracy is that it has harnessed greed, and is ending war, while achieving prosperity for society. After all, greed is an emotion all humans will always have, and is an energy more powerful than the sun.


Oh thanks oh wise one. Now we know who the good and evil ones are, I can understand how it is even O.K. for them to go to war, and evil for everyone else.

If only I had realised that it was so simple.

Oh thanks oh wise one. Now we know who the good and evil ones are, I can understand how it is even O.K. for them to go to war, and evil for evyone else.

If only I had realised that it was so simple.
Well you tell me, is it likely that any of these nations I named will go to war with the other, so long as they are either a liberal democracy, or becoming one?

I could give you reason after reason based on fact as to why my argument is logical.

First of all, I don't see any credible source that reveals evidence of the US government planning attacks for personal gain and doing so would not cause any personal gain anyway.

The US attacked Iraq based on bad intelligence from their CIA, British Intelligence, and Russian Intelligence. Many people believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction at that time. President Bush had to act. The expected weapons haven't been found, but there are sources that say Saddam Hussein before the war replaced border guards with people in his inner circle to ship illegal goods off to Syria. We don't know what these goods were, but they could've been weapons of mass destruction. Therefore we can't rule out the possibility that Saddam Hussein had them unless an investigation proves otherwise.

You are a puppet. Show me your sources.

The head of the Weapons Inspector task force said that he didn't believe that Saddam had WMD, and requested extra time to investigate.

President Bush has been proven, not only to have decided to invade Iraq before 9/11 (blowing his response to terror story clean out of the water), but also before he even got elected to the office.

PNAC had drawn up plans for middle east regime change before the last general election... including Iraq and, not surprisingly, Iran.

Show me your sources that report this shipping of illegal goods to Syria... are these the same sources that claimed Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction?

You just stated yourself, America doesn't even KNOW if Iraq had weapons of Mass Destruction, and won't know unless investigation proves it... but they went to war STOPPING that investigation.

The other 'excuse' for invasion was the mistreatment of Kurds. Which had been going on for a decade... why did the US only step in at that point?

If you can see no potential gain for the US invading Iraq or Iran, you must not be able to see any advantages in having your own 'puppet-governors' in charge of some of the richest oil-producing land in the world, as the carbon-fueled economy heads into decline.

So, why is it 'good' if the US invades a nation, and kidnaps it's leader and government... allegedly for commiting 'war crimes', etc...

But it is 'bad' for a United Nations force to legally arrest US people for commiting 'war crimes', etc...

And you can't deny that the US ever carries out warcrimes... not after that little prison incident...
Because we don't like the UN's definition of war crimes. We don't think that people like Bush or Clinton should be taken to trial for launching attacks without UN approval. The world has a great amount of Anti-American sentiment in it, and we have no guarantee that the court would be any less unbiased than the countries that help support and make it up. It would be good if the UN took action and took out a dictator for their crimes against humanity, maybe the US would sign on then. As it stands now, the US's refusal to allow its people to be kidnapped and taken there shouldn't matter, there are far more important things the court could be dealing with than soldiers in Iraq.

I could give you reason after reason based on fact as to why my argument is logical.

First of all, I don't see any credible source that reveals evidence of the US government planning attacks for personal gain and doing so would not cause any personal gain anyway.

Do a search on Halliburton and Cheney. It's not the government per se who is profiting, but those individuals who are directing policy are personally benefitting.

And don't tell me that Bush isn't benefitting from a "war-president" image. He is milking that for all it is worth. And let's see who the big contributors are to the Bush/Cheney campaign. I wonder how many oil companies and arms manufacturers and security companies belonging to his brother are on there (yeah, the other bush brother was head of the security company in charge of the twin towers on 9/11.)

And the immediate increase of funds to the Pentagon? that wasn't a benefit? $89 billion dollars the first round, and they keep coming back for more?

they could've been weapons of mass destruction. Therefore we can't rule out the possibility that Saddam Hussein had them unless an investigation proves otherwise.

Ahh. the old "guilty until proven innocent" ploy. So if i believe that my neighbor bought a gun to kill me, and i convince some other neighbors that he bought the gun to kill me, then i am allowed to personally go into his house and kill him first?

come on, now.

Do a search on Halliburton and Cheney. It's not the government per se who is profiting, but those individuals who are directing policy are personally benefitting.

Cheney was the ex-CEO of Haliburton and he sold all of his stock, he gets deferred salary payments which was part of his plan when he left, and his remaning options are in the hands of a charitable trust.

Because we don't like the UN's definition of war crimes.

ROTFLMAO! :D

That's funny! I know you didn't mean it to be, but it is.. given their definition is the same one the US uses..LOL.

Well you tell me, is it likely that any of these nations I named will go to war with the other, so long as they are either a liberal democracy, or becoming one?

Are you seriously suggesting that it is O.K. for a liberal democracy to go to war, and not O.K. for anyone else?

Sorry, I cannot follow that logic.

I would consider that war is usually something to be avoided whnever possible, irresperctive of what your government is.

The US used nuclear weapons only in Japan because they were at war and the attack would save US lives and end the war. There was a reason behind it so it wasn't random. There was even a warning before the attack.

The US has attacked countries and the reasons for those attacks are a whole other argument. They still however, did not use nuclear weapons in those attacks so there's no reason not to trust them with the weapons.

The US wasn't even involved in the war until they decided to drop their 'isolationist' poise and get involved. They had been warned years in advance that leaving troops at Pearl Harbour was going to cost US servicemen their lives, and, as far as I can see, did it anyway, just to give them an excuse to get involved.

You may not have noticed, but the war was a) almost over anyway, and b) not happening in Japan.

The use of Nuclear weapons on non-military targets (they deliberately targetted population centres) was an exercise in 'show-of-strength'.

Your argument seems to come down to the fact that america isn't THAT BAD, so why not let them have big bombs? Well, Iranians would probably say the same thing about Iran... without the shady military history that the US has.

The US, and especially Israel, condemning Iran for investigating nuclear technology - despite the fact that both HAVE nuclear technology, is hypocrisy.

ROTFLMAO! :D

That's funny! I know you didn't mean it to be, but it is.. given their definition is the same one the US uses..LOL.
OK it came out bad. We interpret it differently. The UN might end up considering certain people in the US guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity, and those same people might never be considered guilty of such in the US.

There are no really bad countries, just bad leaders. In any case, they are all countries not on this list:
US
UK
France
Spain
Portugal
Mexico
Brazil
Argentina
Chile
Uraguay
the Bahamas
Canada
Germany
Holland
Belgium
Luxembourg
China
Japan
India
Russia
Australia
New Zealand
Italy
Slovenia
Poland
Israel
South Africa
and a few others I may have forgotten.
What sets these nation's apart? They all empower, or are rapidly empowering the individual, not submitting to mob rule, minority rule, or gross instability. Individualism has changed everything, but most relevant to this topic is security. Due to economic interests, these countries are compelled to use war, especially great power war, only as a part of national security interests, lest it destroys the economy. Call it a greed driven policy, but I think that the greatest success of liberal democracy is that it has harnessed greed, and is ending war, while achieving prosperity for society. After all, greed is an emotion all humans will always have, and is an energy more powerful than the sun.

Because, of course, China is one of the great liberal regimes of the world?
Because China empowers individuals? And is not 'minority ruled'?

Surely the real reason why most of those nations are on the list is just because they already HAVE nuclear capacity?

That, and the fact that the rest of the world together couldn't disarm China...

OK it came out bad. We interpret it differently. The UN might end up considering certain people in the US guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity, and those same people might never be considered guilty of such in the US.

You mean like Henry Kissinger (http://www.zpub.com/un/wanted-hkiss.html)

The US wasn't even involved in the war until they decided to drop their 'isolationist' poise and get involved. They had been warned years in advance that leaving troops at Pearl Harbour was going to cost US servicemen their lives, and, as far as I can see, did it anyway, just to give them an excuse to get involved.
Warned by who? Why should the US move their forces away from a base on US soil, which posed no threat to other countries? Pearl Harbor and Hawaii were too far away from Japan - most of the Pacific Ocean away to be any real immediate danger. We shouldn't have to give in to unreasonable demands to move naval forces away from bases closer to our country than theirs.

OK it came out bad. We interpret it differently. The UN might end up considering certain people in the US guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity, and those same people might never be considered guilty of such in the US.

And yet, you are happy to use the UN definitions when you want to use heavy bombers, tanks and artillery to kill and kidnap the leaders of another nations regime.

I expect Saddam Hussein preferred a definition of 'war crimes' that excluded what HE was doing, too. Of course, that didn't save him....

And don't tell me that Bush isn't benefitting from a "war-president" image. He is milking that for all it is worth. And let's see who the big contributors are to the Bush/Cheney campaign. I wonder how many oil companies and arms manufacturers and security companies belonging to his brother are on there (yeah, the other bush brother was head of the security company in charge of the twin towers on 9/11.)



And, the day after 9/11 Bush was meeting the bin Laden family in New York to discuss business matters on their joint projects.

Warned by who? Why should the US move their forces away from a base on US soil, which posed no threat to other countries? Pearl Harbor and Hawaii were too far away from Japan - most of the Pacific Ocean away to be any real immediate danger. We shouldn't have to give in to unreasonable demands to move naval forces away from bases closer to our country than theirs.

He could be talking about that conspiracy theory that FDR knew Japan was going to attack and did nothing about it as an excuse to get into WWII, so it would be supported by the people. I'm sure you've heard about it.

He could be talking about that conspiracy theory that FDR knew Japan was going to attack and did nothing about it as an exuse to get into WWII, so it would be supported by the people. I'm sure you've heard about it.
Churchill did the same. He had plans to mass bomb German civilians all along. But he didn't want to be the first to cast the proverbial stone. So he waited untill one night a German bomber overshot his target and accidentally bombed a civilian building. Churchill then imediatly ordered a bombing raid on Berlin. Knowing that this would send Hitler into a rage. Which gave him a reason for the terror bombing campaign which lasted to the last days of the war.

OK it came out bad. We interpret it differently. The UN might end up considering certain people in the US guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity, and those same people might never be considered guilty of such in the US.


Hahaha.
What a brilliant defence.
Unfortunately, of course, it is one that any country could use.
"No, judge, it is legal in Nazi Germany to operate death camps, no war crimes here".
Hahaha
Should US nationals be subject to the same rule of law and the same rules of evidence as the rest ot the world or not?
Or is the US chosen by God to be immune from prosecution?

And yet, you are happy to use the UN definitions when you want to use heavy bombers, tanks and artillery to kill and kidnap the leaders of another nations regime.

I expect Saddam Hussein preferred a definition of 'war crimes' that excluded what HE was doing, too. Of course, that didn't save him....
Well we have close if not identical definitions just different interpretations.

Hahaha.
What a brilliant defence.
Unfortunately, of course, it is one that any country could use.
"No, judge, it is legal in Nazi Germany to operate death camps, no war crimes here".
Hahaha
Should US nationals be subject to the same rule of law and the same rules of evidence as the rest ot the world or not?
Or is the US chosen by God to be immune from prosecution?
So what if any country could use it? Let them. Maybe it'll encourage something to happen that'll change the world for the better, like replacing the UN.

Well we have close if not identical definitions just different interpretations.

Actually they are exact. The USA is a signatory member to the UN Charter, The Geneva and Hague Conventions. What they did for years was ask for an exemption from it applying to them (US) and usually got it. This past year they didn't even try, they knew they didn't have the 9 votes from the SC to get it. First time in years. It's largely do to that new style American diplomacy or lack thereof ;)

Who contributes, what are they getting in return:
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org

9/11 widow, Ellen Mariani's RICO act charges against the Bush and Clinton administrations for war profiteering:
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/9.html
(lots of sources for this information, but i like this site in particular.)

Well we have close if not identical definitions just different interpretations.
The difference in "interpretation" boils down to one question:
"are you from the US?".
Please explain why the US should not be subject to the same laws and same rules of evidence as any other nation.
Why?

Who contributes, what are they getting in return:
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org

9/11 widow, Ellen Mariani's RICO act charges against the Bush and Clinton administrations for war profiteering:
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/9.html
(lots of sources for this information, but i like this site in particular.)

Don't forget the Rand Corporation and Lockheed Martin.

The difference in "interpretation" boils down to one question:
"are you from the US?".
Please explain why the US should not be subject to the same lasw and same rules of evidence as any other nation.
Why?
Because a lot of other nations wouldn't be subject to the same laws and rules of evidence. Why should we think this court will be unbiased against the USA, Israel, or whoever else happens to be unpopular at the moment?

Are you seriously suggesting that it is O.K. for a liberal democracy to go to war, and not O.K. for anyone else?

Sorry, I cannot follow that logic.

I would consider that war is usually something to be avoided whnever possible, irresperctive of what your government is.
That's because I haven't explained. I prefer showing my ideas through Q & A. Anyhow, in a nutshell, the answer is yes. An illiberal regime goes to war for many reasons: conquest, honor, or even just for the sake of fighting. Even though international war among these nations isn't as overt, they are wagging it through terrorism and other means. Liberal democracies, on the other hand, almost always go to war to advance a common set of security interests, if not exactly self defense. In any case, I see a common set of security goals guiding US foreign policy in the 21st century that is a giant reaction to Sept. 11, or basically, our foreign policy we usually follow: you hit us, we hit you harder. These goals will be more developed, and probably will be shared in some way by all members of the core, but the ultimate goal is to end the world instabillity and poverty that breeds terrorism, by intergrating the so-called gap nations into the core. The private sector will do most of the work, but government action has gotten the ball rolling, and needs to in the future.

Because, of course, China is one of the great liberal regimes of the world?
Because China empowers individuals? And is not 'minority ruled'?

Surely the real reason why most of those nations are on the list is just because they already HAVE nuclear capacity?

That, and the fact that the rest of the world together couldn't disarm China...
Well, they are embracing a capitalist economy, and are starting to show signs of rule of law, not just simply the rule of whoever is in power at the time. Within a generation, China will either be a democracy, or at the very least, the Communist party will loose its monopoly on the government and the PLA.

Warned by who? Why should the US move their forces away from a base on US soil, which posed no threat to other countries? Pearl Harbor and Hawaii were too far away from Japan - most of the Pacific Ocean away to be any real immediate danger. We shouldn't have to give in to unreasonable demands to move naval forces away from bases closer to our country than theirs.

I was referring to the 31st March 1941 incident, when a navy report (by Martin and Bellinger) predicted that Japan would strike Pearl Harbour in event of war. They further predicted a dawn-raid, using light aircraft.

Also, July 10th 1941 when US military Attache Smith-Hutton warned that the Japanese were doing test runs, using torpedo-equipped aircraft, on a bay closely resembling Pearl Harbour.

Also, August 10th 1941, when Dusko Pupov (a british agent) warned the FBI of plans to attack Pearl Harbour, and a rough timeline for the attack. The FBI told him his information was "too precise".

Furthermore: September 24th 1941, when the Japanese requested precise locations for the US fleet. The Naval Intelligence officer (Captain Kirk) was dismissed for saying he wanted to warn Hawaii.

And October 1941, top soviet spy Richard Sorge reported that Pearl Harbour would be attacked within 60 days. The US has since 'deleted' all Pearl Harbour references from Sorge's 32,000 word confession.

I could go on....

What it comes down to is that the US suckered Japan into attacking the fleet at Pearl Harbour. They deliberately misinformed Hawaii about the location of the Japanese attackers (November 26 and 29, and December 2) to ensure that maximum damage would be sustained, as a justification for war.

They sent demands to Japan that they withdraw from all Indochina and China territories, insulted Japanese diplomats, etc. in order to force Japan into belief that open hosilities were about to commence, and that the sea fleet at Pearl Harbour was positioned to mount an attack on Japanese forces.

So - your argument that the US 'HAD TO' use nuclear strikes on amssed populations of civillians, in order to save American lives, is irrelevent, and proved to be wrong... as the very action that 'brought' the US into the war was SPECIFICALLY engineered to do just that.

Liberal democracies, on the other hand, almost always go to war to advance a common set of security interests, if not exactly self defense..., but the ultimate goal is to end the world instabillity and poverty that breeds terrorism,.... The private sector will do most of the work, but government action has gotten the ball rolling, and needs to in the future.

blahblahblah the extremes people will go to in order to justify the murder of those whom the government establishes as enemies. Brings me back to the quote by Goering,

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, April 18, 1946, while awaiting the Nuremberg trials.

Well, they are embracing a capitalist economy, and are starting to show signs of rule of law, not just simply the rule of whoever is in power at the time. Within a generation, China will either be a democracy, or at the very least, the Communist party will loose its monopoly on the government and the PLA.

Wishful thinking and speculation.

Within the last week or so, China has expressed an intent to only ever let it's capitalist minority be a small 'aspect' of China's future, and have strictly ruled out ANY progression toward democracy, or toward more open government.

The only real changes in the handover of power this time are that the retiring leader didn't fight the appontment of the new leader,and the fact that the new leader wants to focus more on 'rural' China.

They are FAR from a liberal society... which places them directly in opposition to you "Goodies and Baddies" list...

So - your argument that the US 'HAD TO' use nuclear strikes on amssed populations of civillians, in order to save American lives, is irrelevent, and proved to be wrong... as the very action that 'brought' the US into the war was SPECIFICALLY engineered to do just that.
It wasn't my argument but I'll pick it up anyway.

Lets take a look here.

They sent demands to Japan that they withdraw from all Indochina and China territories, insulted Japanese diplomats, etc. in order to force Japan into belief that open hosilities were about to commence, and that the sea fleet at Pearl Harbour was positioned to mount an attack on Japanese forces.
The US wasn't friendly with Japan ever since they attacked China, which had been going on for a while. We had an trade embargo on them, and througout all of this, there was no war. We didn't force them into thinking that open hostilities were about to commence. We were being tough with them over their invasion of China, but we responded by threatening (and following through) with economic action, not military. The fleet at Pearl Harbor had been there all along as well - this wasn't anything really new, either. I don't see how in 1941, given the six or so years before hand, anything really new made the Japanese go to the definite conclusion that the USA was going to attack them. We had a fleet in Pearl Harbor. We had a fleet in Pearl Harbor. We were angry with them about China. We were angry with them about China - nothing was new.

What it comes down to is that the US suckered Japan into attacking the fleet at Pearl Harbour. They deliberately misinformed Hawaii about the location of the Japanese attackers (November 26 and 29, and December 2) to ensure that maximum damage would be sustained, as a justification for war.
The Japanese fleet operated in silence, we had no real idea where they were or if they were going to attack. Sure there were warnings by people. We were getting tons of messages all the time. In hindsight, it might seem obvious, just like 9/11. At the time, how do we know who to believe? People were saying Japan would attack PH, that Japan would attack the Phillipenes, that it would just bypass the US and attack Britain... we can't act on all of it, and we don't know if its false information or not.

Another note, if we wanted to ensure maximum damage, we would have had our aircraft carriers in the harbor at the time.

Because a lot of other nations wouldn't be subject to the same laws and rules of evidence. Why should we think this court will be unbiased against the USA, Israel, or whoever else happens to be unpopular at the moment?

You must know that is a pretty weak argument Kwan, I mean Canada was one of the main nations that helped set up the ICC. It's not like it was set up by your enemies.

You must know that is a pretty weak argument Kwan, I mean Canada was one of the main nations that helped set up the ICC. It's not like it was set up by your enemies.
How do they select judges?

Wishful thinking and speculation.

Within the last week or so, China has expressed an intent to only ever let it's capitalist minority be a small 'aspect' of China's future, and have strictly ruled out ANY progression toward democracy, or toward more open government.

The only real changes in the handover of power this time are that the retiring leader didn't fight the appontment of the new leader,and the fact that the new leader wants to focus more on 'rural' China.

They are FAR from a liberal society... which places them directly in opposition to you "Goodies and Baddies" list...
The thing, however, is that this newer, younger generation of Chinese leaders is the most progressive in terms of liberty yet. They are not exactly pro democratic, but at this early stage of the liberal developement of China, they shouldn't be. They are better off focusing on how better they can create a capitalist economy with little government control, and how to develope their rule of law. Remember, some of today's democracies, like Venezuela, Russia, and Turkmenistan, are not exactly liberal. Yes, Russia was on the list because there is still time to save them from their descent back into the Soviet system, but once they do, they are not just off, but also have the threat of becoming an international pariah state.

So what if any country could use it? Let them. Maybe it'll encourage something to happen that'll change the world for the better, like replacing the UN.

Oh, I see.
Lets have no countries subject to war crimes, so we can replace the UN, which will change the world for the better.
And, of course, we must replace the UN, because they have disagreed with the US.
Its really quite simple, isn't it.

Oh, I see.
Lets have no countries subject to war crimes, so we can replace the UN, which will change the world for the better.
And, of course, we must replace the UN, because they have disagreed with the US.
Its really quite simple, isn't it.
The UN is powerless to enforce its rules on war crimes anyway, its a waste of space. Thats why we should replace the UN, not because they've disagreed with the US.

Because a lot of other nations wouldn't be subject to the same laws and rules of evidence. Why should we think this court will be unbiased against the USA, Israel, or whoever else happens to be unpopular at the moment?
We should think that they would be unbiased because they are the International Court, and if ALL nations are subject to the same laws, then NO ONE gets special treatment.

By opting out of the ICC the US has taken its stance as unaccountable to the rest of the world.

Don't you even ask yourself WHY they want to be exempt?

If I were to challenge you to a game of, well, anything...and i said "Here are the rules. They apply to you and you will be penalized for breaking them. I however am not subject to penalties for breaking the same rules." Wouldn't you think there was something wrong with that?

Its like Bush and Cheney insisting on doing their 911 Commission interviews together and NOT under oath. Any investigative lawyer will tell you that this is the most conducive way to avoid being prosecuted for lying. Any street cop will tell you to separate witnesses so they don't contaminate the other's story, or have a chance to coordinate their lies. To me, it screamed "we are about to lie and want to get away with it".

the same way that opting out of the ICC screams 'we are intending to commit war crimes and want to get away with it'.

There are no really bad countries, just bad leaders. In any case, they are all countries not on this list:
US
UK
France
Spain
Portugal
Mexico
Brazil
Argentina
Chile
Uraguay
the Bahamas
Canada
Germany
Holland
Belgium
Luxembourg
China
Japan
India
Russia
Australia
New Zealand
Italy
Slovenia
Poland
Israel
South Africa
and a few others I may have forgotten.
What sets these nation's apart? They all empower, or are rapidly empowering the individual, not submitting to mob rule, minority rule, or gross instability. Individualism has changed everything, but most relevant to this topic is security. Due to economic interests, these countries are compelled to use war, especially great power war, only as a part of national security interests, lest it destroys the economy. Call it a greed driven policy, but I think that the greatest success of liberal democracy is that it has harnessed greed, and is ending war, while achieving prosperity for society. After all, greed is an emotion all humans will always have, and is an energy more powerful than the sun.

This fascinating list has cried out for some more analysis.

Firstly, China is on the list, but Taiwan is not. Can one therefore presume that if China decides to re-incoporate their "renegade province" by force, then that is O.K., and they can use nuclear weapons as well?

Secondly, India is on the list but not Pakistan. Should nuclear weapons be removed from Pakistan, or should India be encouraged to go to war with them?

Thirdly, critics of democracy often liken it to "mob rule" and claim that it will inveitably lead to "instability".

And finally, your "greed is good" is a pretty bankrupt philosophy.

We should think that they would be unbiased because they are the International Court, and if ALL nations are subject to the same laws, then NO ONE gets special treatment....

...the same way that opting out of the ICC screams 'we are intending to commit war crimes and want to get away with it'.
How can we be assured that no one gets special treatment? Its impossible for humans to be unbiased. Thats just the way it is. Most of the world is currently biased against the US and Israel. That means we will most likely get a greater deal of attention against us than we should. In any judicial system of a liberal, western society, the laws apply equally to all people, at least in theory - in practice, this almost never happens, in no small part due to the fact that different judges at different places will have differing views on idential cases and hand out different punishments. So yes, it may scream "we are intending to commit war crimes and want to get away with it". Or at least not get prosecuted for things we shouldn't.

The UN is powerless to enforce its rules on war crimes anyway, its a waste of space. Thats why we should replace the UN, not because they've disagreed with the US.
The UN is powerless because they don't have enough might to take on the United States. No international peacekeeping body will be able to stop the US or China from going to war if they so choose.

If the US (or China) don't stop themselves from going to war, then there will never be peace. The PNAC advocates an endless war to secure world dominance. If we want to stop senseless wars, then the US and China need leaders that will not lead us into war, but as the President himself said, free countries seek peaceful resolutions.

He needs to put our money where his mouth is, not where his pocket is.

The UN is powerless because they don't have enough might to take on the United States. No international peacekeeping body will be able to stop the US or China from going to war if they so choose.

If the US (or China) don't stop themselves from going to war, then there will never be peace. The PNAC advocates an endless war to secure world dominance. If we want to stop senseless wars, then the US and China need leaders that will not lead us into war, but as the President himself said, free countries seek peaceful resolutions.

He needs to put our money where his mouth is, not where his pocket is.
The UN wasn't able to stop Slobodan Milosovic in Yugoslavia from his ethnic cleansing campaign (NATO had to do it), it wasn't able to secure Somalia, its failing in the Democratic Republic of Congo right now. Focus on the small countries where its impotence has been shown before you go to the big ones.

Most of the world is currently biased against the US and Israel.

Yes...HELLO! if most of the world thinks we are stepping out of bounds, then MAYBE WE ARE.

So yes, it may scream "we are intending to commit war crimes and want to get away with it". Or at least not get prosecuted for things we shouldn't.
So there are war crimes that we shouldnt be prosecuted for?

Why not? If we hold everyone else to that standard, why not ourselves? Lieberman said something about whether the US should apologize for Abu Gharib. The terrorists didn't apologize for 9/11. that's what got air play. But what he went on to say was that YES, because America holds a higher standard of behavior and because we ARENT like the terrorists, we do owe an apology. Likewise, if we are the champions of the opressed, then we should be held to a standard AT LEAST as high as we ask of others. Just as a policeman is held to a higher standard of behavior than the average citizen in a conflict.

If we really are fighting for the side of right, then we must stay beyond reproach. The president's arrogant 'doesn't apply to me' attitude is creating more enemies than friends worldwide.

The UN is powerless to enforce its rules on war crimes anyway, its a waste of space. Thats why we should replace the UN, not because they've disagreed with the US.

And what will we replace the UN with? And how?
And will the US be subject to any new international organisation, or will you continue to claim exemptions?

Yes...HELLO! if most of the world thinks we are stepping out of bounds, then MAYBE WE ARE.
Any maybe we aren't. The majority isn't always right, and mob rule hasn't worked out well in the past.

So there are war crimes that we shouldnt be prosecuted for?

I'm not talking about the Abu Gharib soldiers being persecuted, Its obvious what they did was wrong. On the other hand, the War in Iraq or the bombing of Yugoslavia may have violated international law, and by violating the law, shouldn't Clinton and Bush be brought trail and put in jail? They shouldn't be excused if its a fair system, because there was a breach, which is why its senseless, because they shouldn't be in jail for doing those things.

And what will we replace the UN with? And how?
And will the US be subject to any new international organisation, or will you continue to claim exemptions?
I'm not sure. We'd probably still claim exemptions and any organization that is put in its place will probably end up being worthless just like the UN and League of Nations. Maybe it would be better to scrap the dead end idea once and for all. If I had a choice to replace it with I'd make it a group that didn't include countries like China and Syria, so we wouldn't have to be worried about dictators and their countries exerting their influence, and maybe then we wouldn't be so reluctant to give the body power.

Any maybe we aren't. The majority isn't always right, and mob rule hasn't worked out well in the past.
so you are equating an international court with mob rule? If the majority of public opinion calls for an investigation/indictment, then why wouldn't the US be willing to stand up and defend itself against such charges? Why the exemption? How can we get other nations to abide by rules WE won't abide by?


I'm not talking about the Abu Gharib soldiers being persecuted, Its obvious what they did was wrong. On the other hand, the War in Iraq or the bombing of Yugoslavia may have violated international law, and by violating the law, shouldn't Clinton and Bush be brought trail and put in jail? They shouldn't be excused if its a fair system, because there was a breach, which is why its senseless, because they shouldn't be in jail for doing those things.
I am not qualified to speak to what Clinton did in Yugoslavia. I would need more information to include him in my reply, but YES, i think that Bush should be brought to trial for war crimes for invading a nation that by all evidence was complying with UN resolutions. For going to war on false pretexts and misleading the Congress and the american people in a way that cost lives. Isn't Sadam Hussein in jail for being a cruel and arrogant fascist dictator? And he wasn't even invading anybody!

I believe that the US should be sanctioned by the world for its illegal war.


I'm not sure. We'd probably still claim exemptions and any organization that is put in its place will probably end up being worthless just like the UN and League of Nations. Maybe it would be better to scrap the dead end idea once and for all. If I had a choice to replace it with I'd make it a group that didn't include countries like China and Syria, so we wouldn't have to be worried about dictators and their countries exerting their influence, and maybe then we wouldn't be so reluctant to give the body power.

Yeah, make sure there isn't anyone in power that disagrees with the US. Just like they are trying to set up Iraq. Just like they tried to set up Iran with the Shah. Make sure all your business cronies have a conducive atmosphere for acquiring a larger piece of the world pie. That they all stay above the law.

Are you a part of the families that stand to benefit from US supremacy? Are your circles safe? How many of your relatives might actually end up serving in Iraq? Or Syria? or Iran? It's easy to defend elitism when you are part of the elite. Send your son to war and get a letter telling you that the whole thing is bogus and whatever you do, don't vote for Bush. It might open your eyes to the other side of that coin.

Any maybe we aren't. The majority isn't always right, and mob rule hasn't worked out well in the past.


I'm not talking about the Abu Gharib soldiers being persecuted, Its obvious what they did was wrong. On the other hand, the War in Iraq or the bombing of Yugoslavia may have violated international law, and by violating the law, shouldn't Clinton and Bush be brought trail and put in jail? They shouldn't be excused if its a fair system, because there was a breach, which is why its senseless, because they shouldn't be in jail for doing those things.


I'm not sure. We'd probably still claim exemptions and any organization that is put in its place will probably end up being worthless just like the UN and League of Nations. Maybe it would be better to scrap the dead end idea once and for all. If I had a choice to replace it with I'd make it a group that didn't include countries like China and Syria, so we wouldn't have to be worried about dictators and their countries exerting their influence, and maybe then we wouldn't be so reluctant to give the body power.

The majority being right, or "mob rule" if you prefer, is usually described as democracy. Do you have a fundamental problem with democracy?

Should no violation of international law result in jail, or only some?

How would you persuade any countries to join an international organisation that gave special exemptions to the US and simultaneously excluded China and Syria?

so you are equating an international court with mob rule? If the majority of public opinion calls for an investigation/indictment, then why wouldn't the US be willing to stand up and defend itself against such charges?
The US probably would be willing, if we're not going to get a fair shake it wouldn't matter either way, though - and I'm not saying an international court would be like mob rule, following the majority blindly is.

How can we get other nations to abide by rules WE won't abide by?
With force. Which is exactly what the UN lacks.

I am not qualified to speak to what Clinton did in Yugoslavia. I would need more information to include him in my reply, but YES, i think that Bush should be brought to trial for war crimes for invading a nation that by all evidence was complying with UN resolutions. For going to war on false pretexts and misleading the Congress and the american people in a way that cost lives. Isn't Sadam Hussein in jail for being a cruel and arrogant fascist dictator? And he wasn't even invading anybody!
Which is exactly why we won't sign on to the ICC. As long as a significant amount of people - and most likely the judges their politicans appoint - think like this, that people should be brought to trial for removing someone like Saddam Hussein.

I believe that the US should be sanctioned by the world for its illegal war.
Good thing people like you aren't in power. The world would the ruined if that happened.

Yeah, make sure there isn't anyone in power that disagrees with the US. Just like they are trying to set up Iraq. Just like they tried to set up Iran with the Shah. Make sure all your business cronies have a conducive atmosphere for acquiring a larger piece of the world pie. That they all stay above the law.
There's a difference. The Shah's government wasn't exactly the most democratic one around, whereas Iraq and Afghanistan's will be in comparison to the rest of the region. And I don't understand whats wrong with allowing businesses to expand to other nations? Irrational hatred?

Are you a part of the families that stand to benefit from US supremacy? Are your circles safe? How many of your relatives might actually end up serving in Iraq? Or Syria? or Iran? It's easy to defend elitism when you are part of the elite. Send your son to war and get a letter telling you that the whole thing is bogus and whatever you do, don't vote for Bush. It might open your eyes to the other side of that coin.
Most of the military is Republican...

The majority being right, or "mob rule" if you prefer, is usually described as democracy. Do you have a fundamental problem with democracy?
Yes. Democracy dosen't work. Thats why we have the governments we do in most of the Western world - they're not tyrannies of the majority.

Should no violation of international law result in jail, or only some?
Either be unbiased and go after them all or go after none of them. The US dosen't need to be targeted just because we're more liberal and free than other countries.

How would you persuade any countries to join an international organisation that gave special exemptions to the US and simultaneously excluded China and Syria?
I don't know. Any organization would have a tough time getting the US to accept (And practice) a no exemption policy, and any organization that simultaneously wants to advance human rights while having Cuba and Sudan there dosen't really make sense either.

The US probably would be willing, if we're not going to get a fair shake it wouldn't matter either way, though - and I'm not saying an international court would be like mob rule, following the majority blindly is.


With force. Which is exactly what the UN lacks.


Which is exactly why we won't sign on to the ICC. As long as a significant amount of people - and most likely the judges their politicans appoint - think like this, that people should be brought to trial for removing someone like Saddam Hussein.


Good thing people like you aren't in power. The world would the ruined if that happened.


There's a difference. The Shah's government wasn't exactly the most democratic one around, whereas Iraq and Afghanistan's will be in comparison to the rest of the region. And I don't understand whats wrong with allowing businesses to expand to other nations? Irrational hatred?


Most of the military is Republican...

Actually it used to be. Republicans during Clintons years said most of them would quit once a Republican was in military.
So now only hakf of military is republican, about a quarter is independant, and rest are democrat.
So boo yah!

This fascinating list has cried out for some more analysis.

Firstly, China is on the list, but Taiwan is not. Can one therefore presume that if China decides to re-incoporate their "renegade province" by force, then that is O.K., and they can use nuclear weapons as well?

Secondly, India is on the list but not Pakistan. Should nuclear weapons be removed from Pakistan, or should India be encouraged to go to war with them?

Thirdly, critics of democracy often liken it to "mob rule" and claim that it will inveitably lead to "instability".

And finally, your "greed is good" is a pretty bankrupt philosophy.

True, Taiwan should most definitely be on the list. In fact, I trust them far much more than I trust China.

India SHOULD be on the list, but pakistan SHOULD NOT be. Pakistan has far too many ethnic problems and the fact that it harbors terrorists is bad enough. Radical Islamicism is so high in that country its ridiculous.

With force. Which is exactly what the UN lacks.

You think that using force to make other nations comply with laws that they themselves claim to be exempt from is something less than a corrupt dictatorship? And you advocate this kind of government?

You think that using force to make other nations comply with laws that they themselves claim to be exempt from is something less than a corrupt dictatorship? And you advocate this kind of government?
Apparently Nazi Germany seeing as it had the force was justified when it took over Poland. :)

You think that using force to make other nations comply with laws that they themselves claim to be exempt from is something less than a corrupt dictatorship? And you advocate this kind of government?
Yes.

Apparently Nazi Germany seeing as it had the force was justified when it took over Poland.
Not that it was justified, I never said anything about justification. I just said thats how we can get other nations "to abide by rules WE won't abide by"

Yes.


Not that it was justified, I never said anything about justification. I just said thats how we can get other nations "to abide by rules WE won't abide by"
BUt isn't it ludicrious to get other nations to abide by rules without justification?

True, Taiwan should most definitely be on the list. In fact, I trust them far much more than I trust China.

India SHOULD be on the list, but pakistan SHOULD NOT be. Pakistan has far too many ethnic problems and the fact that it harbors terrorists is bad enough. Radical Islamicism is so high in that country its ridiculous.

All this time, there I was thinking that international power politics was a complicated matter.

And it really only revolves around who is on the list of nice nations and who is on the list of evil nations.

I don't know why it never occured to me before.

I should have realised though, once Cat Stevens was found guilty of being on a list.

Thank goodness we have such smart people making their lists.

This fascinating list has cried out for some more analysis.

Firstly, China is on the list, but Taiwan is not. Can one therefore presume that if China decides to re-incoporate their "renegade province" by force, then that is O.K., and they can use nuclear weapons as well?
At the moment, I choose to keep Taiwan off the list. They are technically part of China, and the Taiwan Straits situation is possibly the touchiest security issue facing the world today, if only because the US and China are both involved and opposing eachother. It'd be in Taiwan's best interests to maintain the status quo.
Secondly, India is on the list but not Pakistan. Should nuclear weapons be removed from Pakistan, or should India be encouraged to go to war with them?
Pakistan is not on the list because it is an extremely unstable and illiberal country. The Musharraf regime can be trusted to act responsibly, but what about the next guy? Musharraf came to power in a coup, and I won't be surprised if some one stages a coup on him.
Thirdly, critics of democracy often liken it to "mob rule" and claim that it will inveitably lead to "instability".
I actually disagree. Democracy, especially without the rule of law and in a poorer nation, leads to autocracy, or as Charles de Gaulles called it, "an elected autocracy". Turkmenistan, Venezuela, and many others are both democracies, but they are extremely illiberal. That's because they elect autocrats that seem to undermine a federal system, and the executive and legislative branch. If one of these presidents declare themselves president for life, as in Turkmenistan, then democracy is virtually over.
And finally, your "greed is good" is a pretty bankrupt philosophy.
Read above. Money can't buy happiness, but it can certainly buy comfort and stability in which to seek happiness. As we've seen, money can only be made rapidly in a capitalist society. Was money ever made rapidly in a monarchy, or in a Soviet bloc state? Does anyone in the Middle East ever get to see their oil wealth, other than with the social programs the king commissions to make the people shut up? No, rapid wealth is not gained this way. It is through the system of free enterprise. Money is earned, invested, and ultimatly flows to anyone who really goes to look for it. Greed is the only factor that ever ensures that money is created and flows from person to person. Even a hedonist does a favor to society, as his spending supports many industries. Was that good in ancient, or even mideval times, when a big spender ran the risk of stripping a nation of its resources? Today, it is possible thanks to capitalism, and its political counterpart, liberal democracy.
Liberal democracies don't elect autocrats. Even if an autocratic leader gains power, there are strong checks and balances on him. The media is free, the people are wealthier and educated, and the rule of law is strong. I don't ever expect a Hugo Chavez or Vladimir Putin type guy to ever get into the White House, or the Supreme Court, or as the Speaker of the House. It is impossible in a liberal system.

Yes. Democracy dosen't work. Thats why we have the governments we do in most of the Western world - they're not tyrannies of the majority.
... The US dosen't need to be targeted just because we're more liberal and free than other countries.



No, I'm afraid you have completely lost me now.

You dont like democracy is apparent.

I somehow imagined that the governments in most of the Western world were in fact democracies. Please explain what you consider them to be.

How can you simultaneously claim "Democracy dosen't work" and "we're more liberal and free than other countries." Seems a bit of a contradiction to me.

This is breaking down into so many different sub threads and in the course of all the back-and-forth, i find myself thinking that people are saying one thing, and then they say something else. Im getting tired and this is too much work.

I wouldn't bother asking Kwangistar anything now, he is clearly irrational, immune to reason, totally supremacist and a pompous arrogant hypocritical ...whatever.

Back on topic I would support any nation gaining nuclear arms to protect themselves from the current state of mind of America. AS those nations change and grow wiser they can abandon their WMD programs peacefully, swords into ploughshares, enhance uranium to increase output whichever. And when the American government and people stop responding to the mindless authoritarian capitalizt propaganda being sprouted, returning to the free and just society which was originally founded, then that too is a reason for nations to give up WMD programs.
In the present time the world does not feel safe. If America doesn't want the world poking around it's affairs and interfering in it's justice and belief systems then it should return to isolationism and just get the hell out of our faces

I wouldn't bother asking Kwangistar anything now, he is clearly irrational, immune to reason, totally supremacist and a pompous arrogant hypocritical ...whatever.

Back on topic I would support any nation gaining nuclear arms to protect themselves from the current state of mind of America. AS those nations change and grow wiser they can abandon their WMD programs peacefully, swords into ploughshares, enhance uranium to increase output whichever. And when the American government and people stop responding to the mindless authoritarian capitalizt propaganda being sprouted, returning to the free and just society which was originally founded, then that too is a reason for nations to give up WMD programs.
In the present time the world does not feel safe. If America doesn't want the world poking around it's affairs and interfering in it's justice and belief systems then it should return to isolationism and just get the hell out of our faces


Well, I'm really just curious to see whether or not Kwangistar can recognise the inherent contradictions in what he is espousing.

Returning to WMDs, perhaps the US should set an example to the rest of the world and get rid of its own WMDs. Makes it look less hypocritical when it says others can't have them.

Most nations are goin Nuclear because they don't want to end up like iraq and be taken over. If Iraq had WMD's they could have win the war. Iraq only had empty theats but it did keep them safe against other nations didn't it besides US.?

Most nations are goin Nuclear because they don't want to end up like iraq and be taken over. If Iraq had WMD's they could have win the war. Iraq only had empty theats but it did keep them safe against other nations didn't it besides US.?
So, Vanuatu, Argentina, and Namibia are all going nuclear? The biggest threat to nuclear proliferation came in the eighties, when quite a few countries were rich enough for the research, and detente collapsed. Brazil, South Korea, and Taiwan were all going nuclear until they were stopped, as were the usual list of rogue regimes. Hell, it can be argued that Lybia disarmed because of the war in Iraq. It certainly realized that, thanks to the war, it was in Lybia's best interests to rejoin the international community, and stop being the weird kid on the block.

So, Vanuatu, Argentina, and Namibia are all going nuclear? The biggest threat to nuclear proliferation came in the eighties, when quite a few countries were rich enough for the research, and detente collapsed. Brazil, South Korea, and Taiwan were all going nuclear until they were stopped, as were the usual list of rogue regimes. Hell, it can be argued that Lybia disarmed because of the war in Iraq. It certainly realized that, thanks to the war, it was in Lybia's best interests to rejoin the international community, and stop being the weird kid on the block.
Actually Libya was testing, it wasnt fully armed yet. Seeing as it might be attacked before finished it surrendred.

[Gigatron #2]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superpower07
Source

Those Iranians say the darndest things!


To use the words of the US president who has lied before:

"They say so, so I believe them."

Bush says that the Iraqi PM says that Iraq will be ready for elections in January, and he thus believes it. I think there's some heavy slippery slope and logical fallacity going on here and Iran is the next target followed by Syria, which will require a draft in the US. No doubt, we'll see Iran fall just like Iraq, no matter what they say, the US will get their will.

According to Giggy, all persons must be believed or no persons must be believed.

Giggy is SUCH the cut up..! :)

Giggy is right about one thing though,.. the US will get it's way, no matter what.

I might also suggest that if Giggy believes this scenario, that Giggy should contact all of Giggy's terrorist friends, or those with "links to the terrorist community" and lobby them VERY HARD to stop with the whole "terrorism thing", as it'll impact people to such a dreadful extent.

Actually Libya was testing, it wasnt fully armed yet. Seeing as it might be attacked before finished it surrendred.
It had chemical and bio weapons. Nuclear weapons seem scariest for some reason, but I find that bio weapons are really the most dangerous. The Soviets, for example, developed a bacterium that was a cross between tuberculosis and syphilys. Imagine how many other combinations they could've made, or anyone with the expertise and money, for that matter. A bio weapon could kill millions before anyone even realizes it is an attack. And as we've seen with SARS, it doesn't take that many infections of a new and exotic disease before people get nervous. I'm proud to say, btw, that the US has destroyed its entire stockpile of bioweapons except for defensive research.
*Edit*
If Bush gets reelected, I find it inevitable that North Korea will be invaded sometime in the next four years. It'll show that having nuclear weapons doesn't safeguard a nation from attack. Besides, I have a feeling the nukes are easy to find. All of their artillery sites are along the DMZ, with is only about a hundred miles long, and they have only a few silos, all of which we know where they are. If a nuke is spared, they can never deliver it before the South Korean flag waves over P'yongyang.

It wasn't my argument but I'll pick it up anyway.

Lets take a look here.


The US wasn't friendly with Japan ever since they attacked China, which had been going on for a while. We had an trade embargo on them, and througout all of this, there was no war. We didn't force them into thinking that open hostilities were about to commence. We were being tough with them over their invasion of China, but we responded by threatening (and following through) with economic action, not military. The fleet at Pearl Harbor had been there all along as well - this wasn't anything really new, either. I don't see how in 1941, given the six or so years before hand, anything really new made the Japanese go to the definite conclusion that the USA was going to attack them. We had a fleet in Pearl Harbor. We had a fleet in Pearl Harbor. We were angry with them about China. We were angry with them about China - nothing was new.


The Japanese fleet operated in silence, we had no real idea where they were or if they were going to attack. Sure there were warnings by people. We were getting tons of messages all the time. In hindsight, it might seem obvious, just like 9/11. At the time, how do we know who to believe? People were saying Japan would attack PH, that Japan would attack the Phillipenes, that it would just bypass the US and attack Britain... we can't act on all of it, and we don't know if its false information or not.

Another note, if we wanted to ensure maximum damage, we would have had our aircraft carriers in the harbor at the time.

1940: FDR ordered the fleet transferred from the West Coast to its exposed position in Hawaii and ordered the fleet remain stationed at Pearl Harbor over complaints by its commander Admiral Richardson that there was inadequate protection from air attack and no protection from torpedo attack. Richardson felt so strongly that he twice disobeyed orders to berth his fleet there and he raised the issue personally with FDR in October and he was soon after replaced. His successor, Admiral Kimmel, also brought up the same issues with FDR in June 1941.

In terms of what was at Pearl Harbour, FDR had specifically made the case in 1941 (11th February) that the US 'sacrifice' 6 cruisers and 2 carriers at Manila, in order to enter the war. Navy Chief Stark argued against: "I have previously opposed this and you have concurred as to its unwisdom. Particularly do I recall your remark in a previous conference when Mr. Hull suggested (more forces to Manila) and the question arose as to getting them out and your 100% reply, from my standpoint, was that you might not mind losing one or two cruisers, but that you did not want to take a chance on losing 5 or 6".

23rd January 1941:Harold Ickes proposes that an oil embargo on Japan would force them to engage in hostilities.

24th January 1941: FDR implements oil embargo on Japan.

16th October 1941: FDR refuses to meet the Japanese Premier, and humiliates the Japanese ambassador.

25th November 1941. Secretary of War Stimson "FDR stated that we were likely to be attacked perhaps as soon as next Monday." FDR asked: "the question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without too much danger to ourselves. In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt in anyone's mind as to who were the aggressors."

So, 1) you are wrong that nothing had changed.

2) You are wrong that nothing had changed re: the fleet at Pearl Harbour.

3) Along with all the other stuff I've posted, showing very clear identification of key oppurtunities regarding information, there is MUCH more data to show that the US knew exactly where the Japanese forces were, and carried out a deliberate confusion policy on Hawaii, to ensure a high harm potential.

e.g. FBI wiretap on 29th November 1941, between the Japanese Embassy in the US, and Tokyo: 'Tell me, what zero hour is. Otherwise, I won't be able to carry on diplomacy.'... Reply:'Well then, I will tell you. Zero hour is December 8 (Tokyo time, ie, December 7 US time) at Pearl Harbor.' (US Navy translation 29 Nov 41)

e.g. 1st December 1941, Office of Navel Intelligence pinpoints Japanese fleet West of Pearl Harbour.

e.g. Japanese fleet did not even continue under radio-silence: "Serial numbers prove that the Striking Force sent over 663 radio messages between Nov 16 and Dec 7 or about 1 per hour".

e.g. Most Importantly: "From traffic analysis, HI reported that the carrier force was at sea and in the North. THE MOST AMAZING FACT is that in reply to that report, MacArthur's command sent a series of three messages, Nov 26, 29, Dec 2, to HI lying about the location of the carrier fleet - saying it was in the South China Sea. This false information, which the NSA calls inexplicable, was the true reason that HI was caught unawares".

It had chemical and bio weapons. Nuclear weapons seem scariest for some reason, but I find that bio weapons are really the most dangerous. The Soviets, for example, developed a bacterium that was a cross between tuberculosis and syphilys. Imagine how many other combinations they could've made, or anyone with the expertise and money, for that matter. A bio weapon could kill millions before anyone even realizes it is an attack. And as we've seen with SARS, it doesn't take that many infections of a new and exotic disease before people get nervous. I'm proud to say, btw, that the US has destroyed its entire stockpile of bioweapons except for defensive research.
*Edit*
If Bush gets reelected, I find it inevitable that North Korea will be invaded sometime in the next four years. It'll show that having nuclear weapons doesn't safeguard a nation from attack. Besides, I have a feeling the nukes are easy to find. All of their artillery sites are along the DMZ, with is only about a hundred miles long, and they have only a few silos, all of which we know where they are. If a nuke is spared, they can never deliver it before the South Korean flag waves over P'yongyang.


Do we have proof Libya stopped chemeical weapons. I think they only stopped nuclear...

I'm proud to say, btw, that the US has destroyed its entire stockpile of bioweapons except for defensive research.


Prove that, can you?

Pakistan is not on the list because it is an extremely unstable and illiberal country. The Musharraf regime can be trusted to act responsibly, but what about the next guy? Musharraf came to power in a coup, and I won't be surprised if some one stages a coup on him.
Musharraf can be trusted....cause he rules a country where marriages out of love are illegal under the law....what a responsibal fellow....

[Stephistan #52]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Etrusciana
Obviously, some of your alleged "teachers" need to be horse-whipped! Israel is fighting for its life and needs every bit of help it can get. And your prattle about "belief systems" isn't going to make Jihad any less a fact of life for all of us! Carrying your statement to its logical conclusions, if blowing up women and children is a part of your belief system, that's ok because having a "different belief system" doesn't make them any more wrong than us??? Get REAL!


That is your opinion and you're most certainly entitled to it. However most of us who live outside of the USA see it a bit more objectively I believe. Israel is no more fighting for it's life or innocent of killing children then that of Palestine. They are both equally as wrong and equally as right, it depends on your true knowledge of the situation .vs rhetoric and propaganda being fed to the Americans via the media and government. Israel is no innocent in all this. I'm sure if you knew half of what the Mossad has done you might change your mind, but you'll never hear any of that on an American news show.

And you may believe as you wish Stephy. As may we all.. :)

And what does this actually mean..?

"If we all knew everything about everything, everything would be justifiable as a counter-measure or counter-rationale, and we'd all be justified in doing nothing about anything."...?

And those who justify doing nothing because they DON'T know everything are not to be trusted as leaders.

But, those cowards who hide behind this "don't know everything" defense seldom achieve anything anyway, so it's not really a cause for concern.

And if they do, they pull a "Carter".

It's just the primary reason (other than shear envy) for all you America-haters.

No one will ever change your minds,.. and should give up trying and just do what's right.

If Bush gets reelected, I find it inevitable that North Korea will be invaded sometime in the next four years. It'll show that having nuclear weapons doesn't safeguard a nation from attack.
Like it was shown to us on day 9/11 2001!!!!!!!!!!!!

BUt isn't it ludicrious to get other nations to abide by rules without justification?
Yeah. I didn't say anything about justification though, so I don't know how this came up.

No, I'm afraid you have completely lost me now.

You dont like democracy is apparent.

I somehow imagined that the governments in most of the Western world were in fact democracies. Please explain what you consider them to be.

How can you simultaneously claim "Democracy dosen't work" and "we're more liberal and free than other countries." Seems a bit of a contradiction to me.
They're not democracies in the sense that you were said democracy was, mob rule.

Well, I'm really just curious to see whether or not Kwangistar can recognise the inherent contradictions in what he is espousing.

Returning to WMDs, perhaps the US should set an example to the rest of the world and get rid of its own WMDs. Makes it look less hypocritical when it says others can't have them.
The Western countries are a good example of how there aren't inherent contradictions. To ensure freedom every one of the countries has had to curtail democracy.

Prove that, can you?
I have no link, but I have a National Geographic article saying that, from the November 2002 issue. You can read it in your spare time.

Musharraf can be trusted....cause he rules a country where marriages out of love are illegal under the law....what a responsibal fellow....
I meant more in the form of security matters. He recognizes that if he attacks India, it will mean mutually assured destruction by both countries.

Like it was shown to us on day 9/11 2001!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can an effective nuclear response be made against a nationless, stateless enemy? Besides, 9/11 wasn't exactly an attack the way Pearl Harbor was.

Do we have proof Libya stopped chemeical weapons. I think they only stopped nuclear...
I don't know if they have or haven't. I remember that they agreed to halt all weapons programs.

Can an effective nuclear response be made against a nationless, stateless enemy? Besides, 9/11 wasn't exactly an attack the way Pearl Harbor was.
What are you talking about? Since when does the US government need an enemy with a state to attack them? Be it nuclear or conventional.

I don't know if they have or haven't. I remember that they agreed to halt all weapons programs.
Are you also familiar with the let's disarm but keep one just incase scenario?

What are you talking about? Since when does the US government need an enemy with a state to attack them? Be it nuclear or conventional.
We need a state in order to use a military, or else it won't be legitamite. In friendly states with terrorism, there are far less lethal ways to get things done, like law enforcement actions.

In terms of what was at Pearl Harbour, FDR had specifically made the case in 1941 (11th February) that the US 'sacrifice' 6 cruisers and 2 carriers at Manila, in order to enter the war. Navy Chief Stark argued against: "I have previously opposed this and you have concurred as to its unwisdom. Particularly do I recall your remark in a previous conference when Mr. Hull suggested (more forces to Manila) and the question arose as to getting them out and your 100% reply, from my standpoint, was that you might not mind losing one or two cruisers, but that you did not want to take a chance on losing 5 or 6".
What does a supposed plan by FDR to provoke the Japanese in Manila have to do with Pearl Harbor?

So, 1) you are wrong that nothing had changed.

2) You are wrong that nothing had changed re: the fleet at Pearl Harbour.
Things like the fleet hadn't changed for over a year and a half. I was wrong that nothing had changed since the start of the Chinese war, but it wasn't exactly that recent, either.

3) Along with all the other stuff I've posted, showing very clear identification of key oppurtunities regarding information, there is MUCH more data to show that the US knew exactly where the Japanese forces were, and carried out a deliberate confusion policy on Hawaii, to ensure a high harm potential.
How do you know about all this data? I'm sure you could provide a credible link (like, not a geocities site)?

I support Iran's nuclear ambitions if for no other reason than it would eliminate Israel's nuclear hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean and would act as a deterrent on Israeli aggression in the region. While no nuclear weapons program is truly peaceful, I think a nuclear-armed Tehran would bring peace to the region as the chicken-hawk neo-cons in Washington wouldn't have any new options in the region. Even without nuclear weapons Iran would be able to repel a US invasion anyways. Unlike Iraq, Iran hasn't been hamstrung by arms embargoes and has a lot of European and Russian modern, high-tech arms. The US naval fleets in the Gulf would also be well within range of Iran's conventional ballistic missles. After losing a couple of carriers and about 10,000 sailors I imagine the Americans would lose their stomach to fight a protracted battle.


A US attack would also eliminate the Iranian reform movement. Iraq was one thing, but the US would do best to tread lightly elsewhere in the region.

If Bush gets reelected, I find it inevitable that North Korea will be invaded sometime in the next four years. It'll show that having nuclear weapons doesn't safeguard a nation from attack. Besides, I have a feeling the nukes are easy to find. All of their artillery sites are along the DMZ, with is only about a hundred miles long, and they have only a few silos, all of which we know where they are. If a nuke is spared, they can never deliver it before the South Korean flag waves over P'yongyang.
I think you are wrong with that assumption. North Korea won´t get invaded for exactly that reason - their conventional and nuclear capabilities.
In a conflict scenario the US would win of course. But North Korea could do so much damage to South Korea and Japan (the second largest world economy) that this is not an realistic scenario. North Korea is not Iraq. And because of that the US went to the six-party talks to Bejing instead.
It is always a risks-gain question. And that looks in the case of North Korea much different than in the case of Iraq.
What about Iran? I don´t now. I think we either see a preventive strike or a North Korea scenario. Iran is trying to push that development obviously and I don´t think that they give up. So, a preventived strike would be needed some time in the next four years before it is too late (time is running out).

I have no link, but I have a National Geographic article saying that, from the November 2002 issue. You can read it in your spare time.

National Geographic isn't actually privy to Top Secret military information, though, are they?

They can only print what they are told, and which they choose to believe.

You have made an assertion for which you had no other evidence than one magazine article?

Now - if it were a question of geography, or perhaps an in-depth expose on the underbelly of Sundanese society... or an article on octopi, I might be more inclined to read NG as a reliable source.

But, I fear they are always going to be at a disadvantage when discussing national security and military stockpiles.

I think you are wrong with that assumption. North Korea won´t get invaded for exactly that reason - their conventional and nuclear capabilities.
In a conflict scenario the US would win of course. But North Korea could do so much damage to South Korea and Japan (the second largest world economy) that this is not an realistic scenario. North Korea is not Iraq. And because of that the US went to the six-party talks to Bejing instead.
It is always a risks-gain question. And that looks in the case of North Korea much different than in the case of Iraq.
What about Iran? I don´t now. I think we either see a preventive strike or a North Korea scenario. Iran is trying to push that development obviously and I don´t think that they give up. So, a preventived strike would be needed some time in the next four years before it is too late (time is running out).

Far more important in the North Korea scenario: The US would have to launch a war on China's doorstep - and China seems unlikely to let that happen - anymore than the US would happily tolerate a full scale Chinese attack on Haiti... you just don't want anyone getting too close.

And, of course, China has a FULL nuclear response... so the US really doesn't want to tread on their toes.

Far more important in the North Korea scenario: The US would have to launch a war on China's doorstep - and China seems unlikely to let that happen - anymore than the US would happily tolerate a full scale Chinese attack on Haiti... you just don't want anyone getting too close.
And, of course, China has a FULL nuclear response... so the US really doesn't want to tread on their toes.
The question is whether China would risk that. Anyway. I personally believe that the entire thing is also a test how far the US would go. North Korea is certainly not controlled by China. But on the other hand they could put more pressure on it if they would like. If they would like!!!

Spreading the radiation of love! :D

We need a state in order to use a military, or else it won't be legitamite.
So, are you saying that the Zionists were outlaw terrorists before Israel became a state? And that now they have a country and a military of their own, it's okay for them to bulldoze down Palestinian homes, and international peace activists?

http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_News/news2004/2004_03/071.html