NationStates Jolt Archive

Just reading this today:
WASHINGTON (AP) - National Intelligence Director John Negroponte told Congress on Thursday that Iran probably does not yet have nuclear weapons, nor has it obtained the material central to producing them.

Still, Negroponte called Iran's nuclear program a matter of "highest concern." In prepared testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, he said that Iran and North Korea are both major threats to U.S. security.

Negroponte raised the possibility that Iran "will acquire a North Korea weapon and the ability to integrate it with the ballistic missile Iran already possesses.

My question is this:

If a US intel authority says something, would you rather (in the event that the intel is wrong) that a lot of non-US people get bombed, killed, invaded, etc., or would you rather that a lot of US civilians get nuked?

If you knew there was a good chance of the intel being wrong, which way would you prefer that the US (or indeed, any superpower) play it?

I'd sooner Americans got nuked. But then, I don't live there and might feel differently if I did.

Just reading this today:


My question is this:

If a US intel authority says something, would you rather (in the event that the intel is wrong) that a lot of non-US people get bombed, killed, invaded, etc., or would you rather that a lot of US civilians get nuked?

If you knew there was a good chance of the intel being wrong, which way would you prefer that the US (or indeed, any superpower) play it?
This is the same decision that GWB had to make before the invasion of Iraq regarding Sadam's weapons of mass destruction. The only way to err is to make the error cause the least amount of harm.

In this case, the least amount of harm would be to bomb Iran's suspected nuclear facilities back into pre-history. The worst thing that happens if we are wrong is that we have damaged a lot of 'baby milk' factories. If we do nothing, the worst thing that can happen is that the U.S. is nuked.

This is the same decision that GWB had to make before the invasion of Iraq regarding Sadam's weapons of mass destruction. The only way to err is to make the error cause the least amount of harm.

In this case, the least amount of harm would be to bomb Iran's suspected nuclear facilities back into pre-history. The worst thing that happens if we are wrong is that we have damaged a lot of 'baby milk' factories. If we do nothing, the worst thing that can happen is that the U.S. is nuked.

Yes, my sentiments as well. But perhaps you think that way because you enjoyed yourself during Operation El Dorado Canyon.

I'd quite like it if the US government adopted a policy along the lines of "Better a thousand dead foriegners than one dead USian." (And if other nations adopted a similar pose regarding there own people, all for the better).
The US government doesn't exist to protect Iranians, Iraqis, Koreans, Germans, Spanish, or Venezualans. USians pay the taxes that maintain it, vote for the people that run it, and suffer when it fails dramatically, so USians should be the ones getting protected/provided for.

Just reading this today:


My question is this:

If a US intel authority says something, would you rather (in the event that the intel is wrong) that a lot of non-US people get bombed, killed, invaded, etc., or would you rather that a lot of US civilians get nuked?

If you knew there was a good chance of the intel being wrong, which way would you prefer that the US (or indeed, any superpower) play it?

I would expect the U.S. or any nation to respect the sovereign borders of any nation unless that threat was probable and imminent. even at the risk of a nuclear attack. That part of the price of Liberty.

Yes, my sentiments as well. But perhaps you think that way because you enjoyed yourself during Operation El Dorado Canyon.
I knew that would come back to haunt me, one day. As Eutrusca has said before me, there's nothing quite like the adrenaline rush that comes from going into battle.

I would expect the U.S. or any nation to respect the sovereign borders of any nation unless that threat was probable and imminent. even at the risk of a nuclear attack. That part of the price of Liberty.

We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril.

That is as true now as when Kennedy said it.

The government should always err on the side of caution - we have, for too long, waited to act until after a crisis has shown that we weren't prepared. Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Katrina - all examples of the government not being prepared for something they should have been prepared for.

If we see a crisis forming we need to immediately address it. If we can't address it using diplomacy we need to use force. It's that simple.

We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril.

That is as true now as when Kennedy said it.

The government should always err on the side of caution - we have, for too long, waited to act until after a crisis has shown that we weren't prepared. Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Katrina - all examples of the government not being prepared for something they should have been prepared for.

If we see a crisis forming we need to immediately address it. If we can't address it using diplomacy we need to use force. It's that simple.

But at what point does diplomacy get cut off and force become an option?

But at what point does diplomacy get cut off and force become an option?

That's got to be determined on a case by case basis. If there's a reasonable belief that diplomacy will work, then it should be maintained. If its obvious that no agreement is possible, then force should be the next option.

We can never afford to rule out force at the end of the day because that is glue that makes diplomacy stick.

The US government doesn't exist to protect Iranians, Iraqis, Koreans, Germans, Spanish, or Venezualans.

The US government certainly doesn't exist to kill people from those nations.


If a US intel authority says something, would you rather (in the event that the intel is wrong) that a lot of non-US people get bombed, killed, invaded, etc., or would you rather that a lot of US civilians get nuked?

Obviously I'd prefer if neither happened, but this new pre-emptive theory of just war is extremely dubious to me. I'd rather the US didn't go round invading places on the off chance that they might hurt them in the future.

i think the most important thing to remember when dealing with iran is that we can't win.

we can bomb iran's nuclear facilities. it would be better to get israel to do that for us, thats what we have them for. it helps to limit international fallout

but

we cant succeed in invading iran. it would make invading iraq seem like a cakewalk. any talk of doing more than removing their nuclear capability through bombing them its foolishness. we dont have the money, the manpower, the public will, the right.

we should grow up and try diplomacy for a change. REAL diplomacy not the "youre bad we dont want to talk to you" bullshit that the bush administration prefers.

i think the most important thing to remember when dealing with iran is that we can't win.

we can bomb iran's nuclear facilities. it would be better to get israel to do that for us, thats what we have them for. it helps to limit international fallout

but

we cant succeed in invading iran. it would make invading iraq seem like a cakewalk. any talk of doing more than removing their nuclear capability through bombing them its foolishness. we dont have the money, the manpower, the public will, the right.

we should grow up and try diplomacy for a change. REAL diplomacy not the "youre bad we dont want to talk to you" bullshit that the bush administration prefers.


Oh, like the diplomacy that the EU, Russia, and China have tried, to no avail? Like the diplomacy of referring the matter to the UN Security Council?

We could certainly do whatever destruction we wanted to accomplish in Iran from the air. Whether or not we got all of their nuclear infrastructure (or their entire government) would only be a matter of time, and would entail zero US casualties.

The EU's diplomacy has been disrupted by American interference.

Seems odd doesn't it?

The complaint about Iran having a nuclear power program is - in part - seemingly predicated upon the worry that they might get a warhead from North Korea to mate to a missile?

Negroponte raised the possibility that Iran "will acquire a North Korea weapon and the ability to integrate it with the ballistic missile Iran already possesses.


So, if that is his primary worry, whether Iran has or doesn't have a power program is irrelevant and is just a posturing point for diplomatic purposes.

The EU's diplomacy has been disrupted by American interference.
Hardly. The US has abided by the agreement to sit and watch the great EU diplomats work.

You'll notice that it's not only the US referring this to the UN Security Council.

If it was solely the non-diplomatic actions of the US, the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council would hardly go along with us and recommend Iran to the UN as well.

Take off your tinfoil hat - it doesn't suit you.

Obviously I'd prefer if neither happened, but this new pre-emptive theory of just war is extremely dubious to me. I'd rather the US didn't go round invading places on the off chance that they might hurt them in the future.

And I wish we didn't feel it necessary to do this. The US has never been an imperial power - even at the height of our imperial period back in the 1900-1910s, we never fought a war of foreign conquest. That stands in stark comparison to England, France, Germany, and many of the other primary states of Europe.

All we want is to be safe in our borders. We thought the oceans were enough to protect us, but we were wrong. I hope that we can find a way to ensure our security that doesn't require us to remove every tinpot dictator who makes political hay threatening the US.

Oh, like the diplomacy that the EU, Russia, and China have tried, to no avail? Like the diplomacy of referring the matter to the UN Security Council?

We could certainly do whatever destruction we wanted to accomplish in Iran from the air. Whether or not we got all of their nuclear infrastructure (or their entire government) would only be a matter of time, and would entail zero US casualties.
i may be wrong but i have the impression that iran is sticking it in OUR faces, not the EU russia or china. WE have to try diplomacy. it would be a refreshing change of policy.

hasnt israel taken out iranian nuclear plants in the past? i would much prefer that they do it instead of us. it may well have to be done and the israel is used to being sanctioned by the world for this kind of shit. besides iran isnt going to nuke us, if anyone they will nuke israel. (how they keep from destroying jerusalem and irradiating themselves with the fallout i dont know)

i may be wrong but i have the impression that iran is sticking it in OUR faces, not the EU russia or china. WE have to try diplomacy. it would be a refreshing change of policy.

hasnt israel taken out iranian nuclear plants in the past? i would much prefer that they do it instead of us. it may well have to be done and the israel is used to being sanctioned by the world for this kind of shit. besides iran isnt going to nuke us, if anyone they will nuke israel. (how they keep from destroying jerusalem and irradiating themselves with the fallout i dont know)

The threats and demands are made towards Europe. For instance, Iran demands that Europe take back all of the Jews that live in Israel. They also want to "wipe" Israel off the map. Recent threats by Iranian ministers include the threat to fire intermediate range ballistic missiles at Europe.

They yesterday threatened to respond in kind to any and all nations that refer the matter to the Security Council. Since this includes Britain, France, Russia, and China who are also referring, one wonders how that adds up to "the US is to blame and the US did it and the US made them do it".

Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear plant, not an Iranian one, in the past.

i may be wrong but i have the impression that iran is sticking it in OUR faces, not the EU russia or china. WE have to try diplomacy. it would be a refreshing change of policy.

hasnt israel taken out iranian nuclear plants in the past? i would much prefer that they do it instead of us. it may well have to be done and the israel is used to being sanctioned by the world for this kind of shit. besides iran isnt going to nuke us, if anyone they will nuke israel. (how they keep from destroying jerusalem and irradiating themselves with the fallout i dont know)

I think the reason why the impression is out there that the Iranians are sticking it in our faces is just the typical bias in the media towards the US. I think Iran is thumbing their nose at the entire Western world, rather than just the US or just Europe.

But at what point does diplomacy get cut off and force become an option?

In the case of North Korea and Iran- force is the only working option from day one- preparing to effectively use it should be constant.

Attempts at diplomacy with either nation is really just going through the motions to make every one else feel warm and fuzzy. You dont for a minute think that either can be bound by diplomacy, do you?

Libya may be an exception, but I have a feeling there was some behind the scenes activity there. Either way-it worked.

So-go through the motions with talks and concerted efforts with both, but always be prepared to use swift and overwhelming force on a moment's notice.

Force is the only thing everyone truly understands.

The US government certainly doesn't exist to kill people from those nations.
Under normal circumstances, no, it doesn't. Arbitrarily blowing shit up doesn't do anyone any favours. However, should the people of a foriegn nation present a credible threat to the US, then that threat must be defused the fastest, cheapest, and easiest way possible.
Hence, err on the side of foriegn civilian casualties.

And I wish we didn't feel it necessary to do this. The US has never been an imperial power - even at the height of our imperial period back in the 1900-1910s, we never fought a war of foreign conquest.
Philipenes.

Just reading this today:


My question is this:

If a US intel authority says something, would you rather (in the event that the intel is wrong) that a lot of non-US people get bombed, killed, invaded, etc., or would you rather that a lot of US civilians get nuked?

If you knew there was a good chance of the intel being wrong, which way would you prefer that the US (or indeed, any superpower) play it?

I rather see the other lot buy the farm than my own lot...

In other words, I rather see my own superpower err on the side of aggressiveness than on the side of caution.

Just reading this today:


My question is this:

If a US intel authority says something, would you rather (in the event that the intel is wrong) that a lot of non-US people get bombed, killed, invaded, etc., or would you rather that a lot of US civilians get nuked?

If you knew there was a good chance of the intel being wrong, which way would you prefer that the US (or indeed, any superpower) play it?
Your question is flawed.

If the intelligence is saying that an enemy is going to nuke us, but there is a good chance the intelligence is wrong, then there is a good chance that no one is about to nuke us, at least no greater chance than before the intelligence came into being. Therefore, there is no choice to make and no justification for bombing anyone.

Interestingly, Bush's rationale for attacking Iraq was exactly this and was just as flawed and his decision just as unjustified.

Now, if the scenario was that we believed that the intelligence was right, and in that honest belief went ahead and bombed, and then were proved wrong, we could debate over whether it's more right to take or deliver the first hit, but your scenario doesn't work.

By the way, I find it interesting that you're giving us only a choice of two ways to be wrong.

Under normal circumstances, no, it doesn't. Arbitrarily blowing shit up doesn't do anyone any favours. However, should the people of a foriegn nation present a credible threat to the US, then that threat must be defused the fastest, cheapest, and easiest way possible.
Hence, err on the side of foriegn civilian casualties.
The key word there is "credible." That's where all the trouble usually starts.

Philipenes.
Thank you. (<bows courteously>)

I rather see the other lot buy the farm than my own lot...

In other words, I rather see my own superpower err on the side of aggressiveness than on the side of caution.
See, Mr. Fiddlebottoms? A person who thinks like this would accept a very loose definition of "credible" as an excuse to lob bombs. That's why the actual requirement is that the threat has to be "imminent."

See, Mr. Fiddlebottoms? A person who thinks like this would accept a very loose definition of "credible" as an excuse to lob bombs. That's why the actual requirement is that the threat has to be "imminent."

No, I don't.
I consider the risk to global stability posed by say, India having nukes, as rather lower than the risk of Iran having the same.

as a pseudoformula: maliciousness * imminence.

And I wish we didn't feel it necessary to do this. The US has never been an imperial power - even at the height of our imperial period back in the 1900-1910s, we never fought a war of foreign conquest. That stands in stark comparison to England, France, Germany, and many of the other primary states of Europe.

All we want is to be safe in our borders. We thought the oceans were enough to protect us, but we were wrong. I hope that we can find a way to ensure our security that doesn't require us to remove every tinpot dictator who makes political hay threatening the US.

Never? You mean that the Mexican-American War was just a misunderstanding from which we just happened to gain what is now the American Southwest? That when we stole even more land from the Mexican government to for one man to build a railroad more cheaply that we weren't engaging in Imperialism? That when we initiated the Spanish-American War (another clear misunderstanding) we just happened to get the Phillipines, Puerto Rico, and Guantanamo Bay? Or that when we quashed the Boxers in China, we just happened to gain control over more of China than we had beforehand? Or perhaps that Hawai'i and Texas just happened to hand themselves to the US government on a silver platter?

Philipenes.

No, we took over the Phillipines as a result of the Spanish-American War. And we gave them back within thirty years.

The Spanish-American War and the Mexican War are the two closest to wars of conquest that we had, but only the Mexican War really left us with any territory that is part of the US. And that was in the pre-Imperialism political phase of the world.

No, we took over the Phillipines as a result of the Spanish-American War. And we gave them back within thirty years.

Read up about it sometime. And 70 is not even remotely close to 30.

Of course option C) Aquiring an SDI system and then sitting back and making crude jokes about anyone trying to grab nukes is a fun option :P


Or failing that, just hammer the nuclear facilities. Invading Iran is only going to result in an embarrassment, with so many forces being tied up elsewhere there isnt the manpower.

If a US intel authority says something, would you rather (in the event that the intel is wrong) that a lot of non-US people get bombed, killed, invaded, etc., or would you rather that a lot of US civilians get nuked?

If you knew there was a good chance of the intel being wrong, which way would you prefer that the US (or indeed, any superpower) play it?

If there is a good chance that the Intel is wrong, than obviously only a fool would attack. Sure, there is a risk, but that's the price of decency and more importantly, credibility. For example, I don't believe in one word the US intel agencies say. Go figure why.

Besides, in this particular case, Iranians may be mad, but they ain't stupid. What are they going to do? Fire a nuke at brussels? The french are sneaky, they would turn Iran into a glass plate a second later.

Iranians don't want nukes to attack Europe, or the US. They want as a mean of defence. Of course, they aren't innocent. When I say defence, I mean in the likes of "Iran invades Afghanistan, get its ass kicked, but then can't be invaded or it nukes something".

No, we took over the Phillipines as a result of the Spanish-American War. And we gave them back within thirty years.

The Spanish-American War and the Mexican War are the two closest to wars of conquest that we had, but only the Mexican War really left us with any territory that is part of the US. And that was in the pre-Imperialism political phase of the world.

Imperialism is a political concept that has been around since the 1500s. Whether or not you want to call it imperialism does not detract from the fact that it was imperialism.

"I certainly hope he didn't die for the good of the sugar industry."
-The Rough Riders

Never? You mean that the Mexican-American War was just a misunderstanding from which we just happened to gain what is now the American Southwest?

Technically, there were a number of border issues we had with the Mexicans and we invaded to get them to stop screwing with Texas.

That when we stole even more land from the Mexican government to for one man to build a railroad more cheaply that we weren't engaging in Imperialism?

The Gadsden Purchase was exactly that: a purchase.

That when we initiated the Spanish-American War (another clear misunderstanding) we just happened to get the Phillipines, Puerto Rico, and Guantanamo Bay?

The belief at the time was that the Spanish blew up the USS Maine. That and they were brutally repressing the Cubans.

Or that when we quashed the Boxers in China, we just happened to gain control over more of China than we had beforehand? Or perhaps that Hawai'i and Texas just happened to hand themselves to the US government on a silver platter?

We protected our interests in China, but we never took their territory away from them. Hawaii didn't take a war to control that island, and Texas was its own country before it was admitted to the US - they fought that fight on their own.

The US never fought wars like the British did in South Africa and India. They never fought them like France did across Europe and in Indochina and Algeria. They didn't fight wars like Germany did across Europe twice last century. Sorry, but plunging the entire planet into war because you want breathing room is something the US has never and would never do. That was my point.

Besides, in this particular case, Iranians may be mad, but they ain't stupid. What are they going to do? Fire a nuke at brussels? The french are sneaky, they would turn Iran into a glass plate a second later.

I assume you know that Brussels is not in France and you were talking about President Chiraq sayign that allies of france are protected by france's nuclear umbrella.


Wow, I want a nuclear umbrella, Its like a golf umbrella, only radioactive.

Read up about it sometime. And 70 is not even remotely close to 30.

I have read my history. The Phillipines were ceded to the US in 1898. They became a self governing commonwealth in 1935 - technically they weren't completely independent until 1945. Sorry - I was off by 7 years. I'll try and be more precise

I assume you know that Brussels is not in France and you were talking about President Chiraq sayign that allies of france are protected by france's nuclear umbrella.


Wow, I want a nuclear umbrella, Its like a golf umbrella, only radioactive.

What are you saying, that Belgium isn't a property of France? :p

JOKING!

Yes, what you said :)

Imperialism is a political concept that has been around since the 1500s. Whether or not you want to call it imperialism does not detract from the fact that it was imperialism.

"I certainly hope he didn't die for the good of the sugar industry."
-The Rough Riders

The modern period of Imperialism didn't really begin until after the Civil War. At least, not in Europe.

That is what I was talking about. The US, even at the height of its imperialistic tendencies, didn't even come close to the excesses of the European superpowers in expanding their hegemony across the world. That was, and still is, my point.

I've got to reread that book. Theodore Roosevelt is the man.

I have read my history. The Phillipines were ceded to the US in 1898. They became their own country in 1935. Sorry - I was off by 7 years. I'll try and be more precise.
They became a commonwealth in 1935. They became an independent country in 1946. (I confused the independence date with another U.S. colony that became independent in the '70s.)

They became a commonwealth in 1935. They became an independent country in 1946. (I confused the independence date with another U.S. colony that became independent in the '70s.)

Damn it - you caught me just as I was making my last post more clear. :)

I would expect the U.S. or any nation to respect the sovereign borders of any nation unless that threat was probable and imminent. even at the risk of a nuclear attack. That part of the price of Liberty.

Conversely, I would expect the US or any nation to act completely in its own self interests, even if that means violating the sovereign borders of another nation. As loathesome as it is, sovereign nations are concerned with themselves and no one else. There are no allies, just less permanent enemies.

The Gadsden Purchase was exactly that: a purchase.

A purchase the Mexicans didn't have a choice in.

The belief at the time was that the Spanish blew up the USS Maine. That and they were brutally repressing the Cubans.

Not at the time we went in. The Spanish regime that engaged in torture had been replaced.

The US never fought wars like the British did in South Africa and India. They never fought them like France did across Europe and in Indochina and Algeria. They didn't fight wars like Germany did across Europe twice last century. Sorry, but plunging the entire planet into war because you want breathing room is something the US has never and would never do. That was my point.

Manifest Destiny ring a bell? Perhaps our genocide (often referred to as either "The American Holocaust" or "The Indian Wars") against the Amerindians was better than the Europeans and their silly imperialist alcoves into Africa. :rolleyes:

I have read my history. The Phillipines were ceded to the US in 1898. They became a self governing commonwealth in 1935 - technically they weren't completely independent until 1945. Sorry - I was off by 7 years. I'll try and be more precise

A self-governing commonwealth under the auspices of the United States: they got to rule themselves so long as they ruled the way we wanted them to. We were planning on withdrawing all troops right before we entered the Pacific War, but those plans were placed on hiatus until the Japanese were defeated.

EDIT: One of the reasons the Japanese wanted a war with us, was to get an excuse to invade and "liberate" the Philipines. If the Philipines had been a sovereign nation, they would have just sacked the Philipines with out the need to neutralize our navy, meaning they never would have bombed Pearl Harbor.

Manifest Destiny ring a bell? Perhaps our genocide (often referred to as either "The American Holocaust" or "The Indian Wars") against the Amerindians was better than the Europeans and their silly imperialist alcoves into Africa. :rolleyes:


Why do I have the feeling that lots of people are going to start saying "My genocide wasnt as bad as yours"

This is gonna be a good one.....

My question is this:

If a US intel authority says something, would you rather (in the event that the intel is wrong) that a lot of non-US people get bombed, killed, invaded, etc., or would you rather that a lot of US civilians get nuked?

If you knew there was a good chance of the intel being wrong, which way would you prefer that the US (or indeed, any superpower) play it?I would say that it depends on the potential number of lives lost. If the number of U.S. lives lost would be greater than the number of Iranian lives lost, then attacking Iran is justified. If more Iranians would die from an attack, then the attack is unjustified.

Of course, the idea I propose is only if the intelligence is almost certainly right.

The US government doesn't exist to protect Iranians, Iraqis, Koreans, Germans, Spanish, or Venezualans. USians pay the taxes that maintain it, vote for the people that run it, and suffer when it fails dramatically, so USians should be the ones getting protected/provided for.I agree with you that this should be the frame of mind of the U.S. government. However, this doesn't make the action that the U.S. government takes the correct action.

The belief at the time was that the Spanish blew up the USS Maine. That and they were brutally repressing the Cubans.
You have to admit that it was a fairly convenient thing to believe, that the Spanish blew up the Maine.

Just reading this today:


My question is this:

If a US intel authority says something, would you rather (in the event that the intel is wrong) that a lot of non-US people get bombed, killed, invaded, etc., or would you rather that a lot of US civilians get nuked?

If you knew there was a good chance of the intel being wrong, which way would you prefer that the US (or indeed, any superpower) play it?

I would first look into whether we should err at all. It's an easy question to bring up.. if you really wanted to invade a country in the first place, if it is in doubt you can just "err on the side of safety" (or choose your word if you don't like "safety").

I'll say very clearly though- I would like to err on the side of safety, but that's implying that we have to err at all. I know its always important, these days, to emphasize and recognize how imperfect people are, that there can always be error, and I'm sure some bastards here would have thrown his at me if I didn't write this just now, but we ought to be capable of knowing for sure

Another thing, this issue of "erring" I think has a subtle implication, or at least hints at the idea that Iraq was an error, and not a deliberate ploy by corrupt Neocons indifferent to the prospects of a collateral catastrophe.

The context of a Bush Administration handling this issue (and possibly pulling the necessary string at the U.N. and in the press and with the IAEA, which they have) makes this VERY different, to the extent that I object attacking them at all, unless the invasion is staked on the credibility of a NON-U.S. country. Namely, Germany or France. (I say France knowing full well what some of you have to say about them, and I think the arguments against France's credibility are equally as flimsy and hollow as the arguments defending Iraq.)

No, I don't.
I consider the risk to global stability posed by say, India having nukes, as rather lower than the risk of Iran having the same.

as a pseudoformula: maliciousness * imminence.
Malice is in the eye of the beholder -- i.e. it's subjective. It's also too tinged with emotion to make good foreign policy. You're more afraid of Iran at the moment, but there are Islamic and other dangerous radicals active in Indian politics. What if they take over? Your way reacts to perceived threats. It is wrong on many levels, most importantly:

1) It reacts on suspicion without waiting for proof of danger, thus increasing the likelihood of error, and

2) It merely reacts; it does nothing to anticipate and prevent a threat from forming; thus it does not make the world safer.

This goes back to the fundamental flaw of the initial question. This thread only posits two choices, both of which it acknowledges to be wrong.

But wrong is a comparative quality. A thing cannot be wrong unless something else is right. So if there are wrong things to do, there must necessarily be right things to do. And if neither of these choices is right, then maybe we should be talking about something else.

Malice is in the eye of the beholder -- i.e. it's subjective. It's also too tinged with emotion to make good foreign policy. You're more afraid of Iran at the moment, but there are Islamic and other dangerous radicals active in Indian politics. What if they take over? Your way reacts to perceived threats. It is wrong on many levels, most importantly:

1) It reacts on suspicion without waiting for proof of danger, thus increasing the likelihood of error, and

2) It merely reacts; it does nothing to anticipate and prevent a threat from forming; thus it does not make the world safer.

This goes back to the fundamental flaw of the initial question. This thread only posits two choices, both of which it acknowledges to be wrong.

But wrong is a comparative quality. A thing cannot be wrong unless something else is right. So if there are wrong things to do, there must necessarily be right things to do. And if neither of these choices is right, then maybe we should be talking about something else.

Then I feel safe making a rather more Utilitarian judgement:
I consider it the business of MY Government to keep Me save, as well as my compatriots.
I don't consider it the business of MY Government to keep Iranians save.
The Iranians have a Government of their own to handle that business.
They even elected it themselves.

No, we took over the Phillipines as a result of the Spanish-American War. And we gave them back within thirty years.

The Spanish-American War and the Mexican War are the two closest to wars of conquest that we had, but only the Mexican War really left us with any territory that is part of the US. And that was in the pre-Imperialism political phase of the world.
Gave the Phillipines back to whom?

Oh, and, FYI, the pre-imperialism political phase of the world ended more than 7000 years ago. The entire history of the world is a catalogue of empires.

Technically, there were a number of border issues we had with the Mexicans and we invaded to get them to stop screwing with Texas.



The Gadsden Purchase was exactly that: a purchase.



The belief at the time was that the Spanish blew up the USS Maine. That and they were brutally repressing the Cubans.



We protected our interests in China, but we never took their territory away from them. Hawaii didn't take a war to control that island, and Texas was its own country before it was admitted to the US - they fought that fight on their own.

The US never fought wars like the British did in South Africa and India. They never fought them like France did across Europe and in Indochina and Algeria. They didn't fight wars like Germany did across Europe twice last century. Sorry, but plunging the entire planet into war because you want breathing room is something the US has never and would never do. That was my point.
I certainly hope you're an American, because I'd hate to think other countries' schools taught as badly as ours.

US imperialism started with the conquest of the territory that currently comprises the nation itself, much of which had already been stolen from the native people by France and Spain. What they wouldn't sell to us, we took by force. After the expansion, US imperialism has been the private imperialism of business, in which control over labor and shipping has mattered much more than territory. But that has not made it less bloody -- just way more secret and, in many cases, more illegal. Imperialism of one sort or another is a constant thread in US history. Your problem is that you just don't understand the many forms of imperialism -- and apparently that you never met a piece of propaganda you didn't like -- you honestly think the US gave a shit about the poor Cubans? :rolleyes:

Well firstly I would want to find out whether there is any chance in hell that even a nuclear Iran could actually do anything to the US. It doesn't have the ICBMs, the only "terrorist" connections you can really point to are with Hezbollah, which has calmed down in recent years, and itsn't capable of striking the US anyways, and at any rate, smuggling a nuke into the States can't be that easy.

So the danger isn't that great, I don't think. But to get to the chance of danger - for me, it's a matter of trying to estimate which helps more people. In which scenario will more people die? If you can also rid people of an oppressive regime, that has got to be a bonus (note that I don't think that's the case in Iran right now, at least until Ahmadinejad wins his battle with the Ayatollahs).

And most importantly: Ask other countries! Sure, it is a matter of US security, but not exclusively. Nothing on this planet these days is exclusively the matter of one nation. It will also give you second opinions, extra information, and legitimises any action taken.

You have to admit that it was a fairly convenient thing to believe, that the Spanish blew up the Maine.

The government at the time had no reason to suspect the Spanish. Except that they wanted war anyway, and the yellow journalists were pushing the excuse.

Journalists working for the newspapers owned by the same people who owned the sugar companies that profited most from the Spanish-American war.


The US has plenty of wars of conquest. It's just not always physicial land we're conquering.

Then I feel safe making a rather more Utilitarian judgement:
I consider it the business of MY Government to keep Me save, as well as my compatriots.
I don't consider it the business of MY Government to keep Iranians save.
The Iranians have a Government of their own to handle that business.
They even elected it themselves.
In principle, this attitude is correct, but it does not address the question of how the US government should best protect its people.

You are assuming that bombing the shit of Iran will put an end to the matter as far as Iran goes, but Iran is not alone in the world. I, personally, would say that, thanks to our current policies, Iran is probably less alone now than it was before we invaded Iraq. We've already seen, in Iraq, that aggression breeds aggression, and you don't reduce the number of your enemies by taking actions that manufacture new enemies. Now substitute Iraq for a country with more political and terrorist connections and a potential nuclear system, which was probably initiated using black market connections in the first place, and you must see how a pre-emptive attack on Iran would more likely put us in greater danger.

The price of liberty and freedom is absolute unstinting bloodshed in as many places as possible. This gets people's minds off the real threat - the threat at home.

The government at the time had no reason to suspect the Spanish. Except that they wanted war anyway, and the yellow journalists were pushing the excuse.

Journalists working for the newspapers owned by the same people who owned the sugar companies that profited most from the Spanish-American war.


The US has plenty of wars of conquest. It's just not always physicial land we're conquering.Yes, I agree. It was convenient for them to pin the blame on the Spanish and use the explosion as a pretext for war.

Yes, I agree. It was convenient for them to pin the blame on the Spanish and use the explosion as a pretext for war.

Exactly. The government knew the Spanish had nothing to do with it. They just had something big business wanted.

Just as Bush knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs. He, once again, had something big business and the politicians wanted.

In principle, this attitude is correct, but it does not address the question of how the US government should best protect its people.

You are assuming that bombing the shit of Iran will put an end to the matter as far as Iran goes, but Iran is not alone in the world. I, personally, would say that, thanks to our current policies, Iran is probably less alone now than it was before we invaded Iraq. We've already seen, in Iraq, that aggression breeds aggression, and you don't reduce the number of your enemies by taking actions that manufacture new enemies. Now substitute Iraq for a country with more political and terrorist connections and a potential nuclear system, which was probably initiated using black market connections in the first place, and you must see how a pre-emptive attack on Iran would more likely put us in greater danger.

My answer: rinse and repeat...

My answer: rinse and repeat...
It doesn't change anything. You can keep bombing people, and their children will remember it.
At some point you just can't blame people anymore for not liking those that blew up their whole neighbourhood.

The point is that Terrorism is not a military-issue. It's an issue of politics and an issue of crime. Terrorists are not in a military, or so we are told as an excuse not to treat them like you would a POW.
So I don't see the reason for why the military has to be involved in a "War on Terrorism" at all.

My answer: rinse and repeat...
That's the answer of an ass.

You remind me of the guy hitting himself in the head with hammer over and over and saying, "Ow, that hurts. Ow, that hurts. Ow, that hurts..."

It doesn't change anything. You can keep bombing people, and their children will remember it.
At some point you just can't blame people anymore for not liking those that blew up their whole neighbourhood.

The point is that Terrorism is not a military-issue. It's an issue of politics and an issue of crime. Terrorists are not in a military, or so we are told as an excuse not to treat them like you would a POW.
So I don't see the reason for why the military has to be involved in a "War on Terrorism" at all.

To put the matter starkly... sooner or later, they run out of children too.
I don't care wether they like me.
All I care about is that I'm not bothered by them.

PS: if you accuse me of heartlessness, I'll take it as a compliment.

That's the answer of an ass.

You remind me of the guy hitting himself in the head with hammer over and over and saying, "Ow, that hurts. Ow, that hurts. Ow, that hurts..."

More like a guy hitting someone else with a hammer on the head over and over again while chanting: OUCH! That's gotta hurt!

If it's a choice of Americans or someone else you can bet I am choosing someone else.

More like a guy hitting someone else with a hammer on the head over and over again while chanting: OUCH! That's gotta hurt!
Oh, I get it. Your problem is reading comprehension.

Let's try it again. The US attacked Iraq on the idea that we would get rid of an enemy. Because we did this, we now have even more enemies than when we started. Get it? More people who want to kill us. Not fewer. More. So this helps us how, precisely?

You work that out. I'll catch up with you tomorrow. Time to go home now.

(my god... :rolleyes: )

To put the matter starkly... sooner or later, they run out of children too.
That's genocide, my friend, because to prevent people from having children you have to preemptively murder parents before they can become parents...
.
And besides, if you are after killing everyone and everything that opposes you, why would you be surprised that people celebrate if planes crash into American people? Fact is that you can't survive against the rest of the world. You can only live together with everyone else.

PS: if you accuse me of heartlessness, I'll take it as a compliment.
You think I'd bother?
Hey, my estimate right now is that you're telling me this for shock-value, but have never bothered looking into the actual subject matter of terrorism, of the ideology behind AQ in particular or anything like that. In which case it is easy to just look at this as a "good vs evil" situation.

I'll have a link for you that might help you understand that terrorism is normal, is not something you make war against, and how people have gotten over it in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rote_Armee_Fraktion

I'll have a link for you that might help you understand that terrorism is normal, is not something you make war against, The whole idea of doing so is odd. Terrorism is a tactic, how do you wage war against a tactic? It's like declaring war on guerrila warfare.

0. That's genocide, my friend, because to prevent people from having children you have to preemptively murder parents before they can become parents...
.
1. And besides, if you are after killing everyone and everything that opposes you, why would you be surprised that people celebrate if planes crash into American people? Fact is that you can't survive against the rest of the world. You can only live together with everyone else.


You think I'd bother?
2. Hey, my estimate right now is that you're telling me this for shock-value, but have never bothered looking into the actual subject matter of terrorism, of the ideology behind AQ in particular or anything like that. In which case it is easy to just look at this as a "good vs evil" situation.

I'll have a link for you that might help you understand that terrorism is normal, is not something you make war against, and how people have gotten over it in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rote_Armee_Fraktion

0. So you exclude the possibility of constructing, say, a fertility-negating virus? No kills needed...

1. Logically inconsistent. If you destroy anything that seeks to wage war upon you - there isn't anything left to attack you.

2. I don't -do- good vz evil. I just -do- us vz them.

I certainly hope you're an American, because I'd hate to think other countries' schools taught as badly as ours.

An attack on my intelligence.

How quaint.

US imperialism started with the conquest of the territory that currently comprises the nation itself, much of which had already been stolen from the native people by France and Spain.

If you define any kind of territorial aquisition as imperialism, sure. But you guys are completely ignoring how I framed what I said. The United States has not engaged in the kind of aggressive wars against other nation-states for control of territory like the European powers did between 1860 and 1950.

And in the end, we never had massive colonies on the scale of Australia, Indian, Indochina, South Africa, Algeria, like the Europeans did.

What they wouldn't sell to us, we took by force. After the expansion, US imperialism has been the private imperialism of business, in which control over labor and shipping has mattered much more than territory. But that has not made it less bloody -- just way more secret and, in many cases, more illegal. Imperialism of one sort or another is a constant thread in US history. Your problem is that you just don't understand the many forms of imperialism -- and apparently that you never met a piece of propaganda you didn't like -- you honestly think the US gave a shit about the poor Cubans? :rolleyes:

And apparently you've not gotten beyond Howard Zinn in your history reading either. That's okay - you're a product of the flawed American educational system too, I suppose.

And yes, a broad swath of the American populace that drove public opinion DID give a shit about the "poor Cubans". It completely fit in with the post-Victorian American sympathies for the plight of others phase we went through during that time period.

0. So you exclude the possibility of constructing, say, a fertility-negating virus? No kills needed...
Nope. Bioweapons are illegal. Plus, it would still be genocide.

1. Logically inconsistent. If you destroy anything that seeks to wage war upon you - there isn't anything left to attack you.
Guess what...it was tried for thousands of years, and it never worked. You just cannot destroy anything that is against you.

2. I don't -do- good vz evil. I just -do- us vz them.
Same thing. You're oversimplifying a complex issue.

Nope. Bioweapons are illegal. Plus, it would still be genocide.


Guess what...it was tried for thousands of years, and it never worked. You just cannot destroy anything that is against you.


Same thing. You're oversimplifying a complex issue.

1. Can't have a murder ( cide! ) without a corpus delicti.
2. No power has had the relative power the US has.
3. So?

I hear them Bushmen in the Congo's gots really sharp mangoes. Well, maybe they got 'em, maybe they don't. We don't know. But should we take a chance on it simply being faulty intel, or should we just go kick the stuffing out of them for a while 'til we get bored and find somebody else to get freaked out about?

:rolleyes:

1. Can't have a murder ( cide! ) without a corpus delicti.


You can't honestly not see how preventing an entire race from breeding would be tantamount to genocide. Are you that thick? Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. If the planned elimination of all future generations of a particular race or culture isn't genocide, then what would you say is?

You can't honestly not see how preventing an entire race from breeding would be tantamount to genocide. Are you that thick? Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. If the planned elimination of all future generations of a particular race or culture isn't genocide, then what would you say is?

Oh, it would be an issue that you can quite simply stall on till Hell freezes over.

To put the matter starkly: you may find a way to present a charge.

But you will be hard pressed to find a competent court that would actually subpoena, much less convict an American citizen for what could be called a bloodless form of genocide.

Realistically speaking, such a charge would remain a dead-letter.

Might it be illegal? Possibly. I dunno. We could ask the Attorney General.
Can you get away with it? No doubt about it!

1. Can't have a murder ( cide! ) without a corpus delicti.

Allow me:

gen·o·cide
n.
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.


Main Entry: geno·cide
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) article 2 as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: "Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Source: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide)


Article 6
Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Source: The Rome statute of the ICC (http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rome_Statute_120704-EN.pdf)

So, as you see, it is widely accepted that the crime of Genocide is different from the crime of Murder.

Source: The Rome statute of the ICC

So, as you see, it is widely accepted that the crime of Genocide is different from the crime of Murder.

And does the ICC have jurisdiction over US citizens?
Nope?
Thank you very much - and have a pleasant afternoon.

You ask me to accept a definition of a crime.

I insist that you find a competent court.
If there is none, a body can't be charged for the crime.

Oh, it would be an issue that you can quite simply stall on till Hell freezes over.

To put the matter starkly: you may find a way to present a charge.

But you will be hard pressed to find a competent court that would actually subpoena, much less convict an American citizen for what could be called a bloodless form of genocide.

Realistically speaking, such a charge would remain a dead-letter.

Might it be illegal? Possibly. I dunno. We could ask the Attorney General.
Can you get away with it? No doubt about it!

I suggest you give it a whirl and see what repercussions you face.

I suggest you give it a whirl and see what repercussions you face.

Why should I? Is that my advantage? Would it make me a millionaire?

What your lot keep insisting on is that I somehow should give a hoot about things YOU consider to be a problem. Rest assured... I never do.

No more than the President of the United States does.

And does the ICC have jurisdiction over US citizens?
Nope?
Thank you very much - and have a pleasant afternoon.


You're welcome. I've never claimed that the ICC had jurisdiction over anything. My post adressed your statement that "Can't have a murder ( cide! ) without a corpus delicti.", and I wanted to show you that it would not be necessary for the crime of genocide, and that that was a widely recognized definition of genocide. Done.


You ask me to accept a definition of a crime.

Yep.


I insist that you find a competent court.
If there is none, a body can't be charged for the crime.
That is another matter entirely. I'll see if I can dig something up.

1. You're welcome. I've never claimed that the ICC had jurisdiction over anything. My post adressed your statement that "Can't have a murder ( cide! ) without a corpus delicti.", and I wanted to show you that it would not be necessary for the crime of genocide, and that that was a widely recognized definition of genocide. Done.


2. Yep.


3. That is another matter entirely. I'll see if I can dig something up.

1. You posted a number of Statutes, none of which are part of the United States Penal Code. Nor of the UCMJ. Therefore irrelevant.

2. Refused.

3. Not to bother. You won't find one. Promise.

1. You posted a number of Statutes, none of which are part of the United States Penal Code. Nor of the UCMJ. Therefore irrelevant.
Then I must have misunderstood you. I didn't think you were talking about commiting genocide inside the US, but in another country. Violating international laws and such, not just US laws. My mistake, apparently.


2. Refused.
And why?


3. Not to bother. You won't find one. Promise.

And here I was having a jolly ol' time reading about the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004... Oh well.

...apparently they're extra-large mangoes with very pointy ends...

I insist that you find a competent court.
If there is none, a body can't be charged for the crime.

Hey, I found relevant treaty and a competent court for you!
Under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm), which the US ratified the 25th of November 1988:
Article 6

Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

Oh, and if you think you can't be charged in the US:
See 18 U.S.C. 1091: (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001091----000-.html)
(a) Basic Offense.— Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war, in a circumstance described in subsection (d) and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such—

(5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group;
or attempts to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

There... Isn't that it? Well, thank you and have a plesant evening. ;)

I'd have to say ... if you are gonna do it, do it.. don't pussy foot around, whether right or wrong. Do it and get it over and done with. But as far as what the U.S. Gov is doing over there in the mid east.. I do not agree. People argue over all this shit that is given to us to argue over, while the truth is not, the majority are like a bunch of sheep, all too consumed. I do not trust politicians in general, especially ours. It's all about money and power, and that shit they "feed" the people is just that.. shit. All hell is gonna break loose one of these days.

3. Not to bother. You won't find one. Promise.

Genocide is a non-derogable international norm. Any court anywhere is competant to try it, regardless of treaty status.

Go ahead, commit a genocide, and you'll find that US federal courts do indeed have the ability to try you for it.

To put the matter starkly... sooner or later, they run out of children too.
I don't care wether they like me.
All I care about is that I'm not bothered by them.

PS: if you accuse me of heartlessness, I'll take it as a compliment.

1)You can never get rid of everyone who doesn't like you. You will just create more and more untill you are overwhelmed.

2)By "don't like you" what is ment is "will try to kill you."

If it's a choice of Americans or someone else you can bet I am choosing someone else.

I see it as simply a matter of how many. I'd rather 100 innocent Americans die then 1000 innocent forgieners die. And I'd rather 100 innocent forginers die then 1000 innocent Americans die.

You arn't special by accident of birth. I don't owe you a damn thing for being born under the same government as me that I don't owe every other member of the human race.


Oh, it would be an issue that you can quite simply stall on till Hell freezes over.

To put the matter starkly: you may find a way to present a charge.

But you will be hard pressed to find a competent court that would actually subpoena, much less convict an American citizen for what could be called a bloodless form of genocide.

Realistically speaking, such a charge would remain a dead-letter.

Might it be illegal? Possibly. I dunno. We could ask the Attorney General.
Can you get away with it? No doubt about it!

I dispute that last part. Eventully, everyone else would say "enough." As strong as the US is, we can't stand up to everyone else at once, as well as attacks from the inside by people like me who wouldn't let shit like that go without a fight. And there'd be many.

Go ahead, commit a genocide, and you'll find that US federal courts do indeed have the ability to try you for it.

...especially since it is penalized in internal US law as well.

But I liked your statement. Reminded me of of Terry Pratchett:
Go on, prove me wrong. Destroy the fabric of the universe. See if I care. :p

An attack on my intelligence.

How quaint.



If you define any kind of territorial aquisition as imperialism, sure. But you guys are completely ignoring how I framed what I said. The United States has not engaged in the kind of aggressive wars against other nation-states for control of territory like the European powers did between 1860 and 1950.

And in the end, we never had massive colonies on the scale of Australia, Indian, Indochina, South Africa, Algeria, like the Europeans did.



And apparently you've not gotten beyond Howard Zinn in your history reading either. That's okay - you're a product of the flawed American educational system too, I suppose.

And yes, a broad swath of the American populace that drove public opinion DID give a shit about the "poor Cubans". It completely fit in with the post-Victorian American sympathies for the plight of others phase we went through during that time period.
It was an attack on your education, not your intelligence. It's true what they say, that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. And not to have a mind, that's very wasteful too, as Dan Quayle pointed out.

I am not ignoring how you framed you statement. I'm disagreeing with your statement, because I am defining imperialism as a form of expansionist politics that does not necessarily depend on the taking of territory. Especially since the turn of the 20th century, US expansionism has focused on control of money, traffic, labor, and extractable resources, maintained through more or less permanent control over other countries' governments, but not their real estate. I think there is a valid argument to be made that this qualifies as a form of imperialism. I think your statement is so narrow that it serves no purpose but to let the US off the hook of its own less-than-savory history.

By the way, if you'd like another historian's take on US wars between 1860 and 1950, I recommend The Politics of War by Walter Karp (1976). It deals extensively with the US politics that both drove and exploited the Spanish-American War.

(PS: Technically, taking land by force and absorbing it into your own country is conquest, not imperialism. Imperialism implies that the other territories remain intact, but that you take control of them. But you didn't start out talking about imperialism. You said the US did not prosecute wars of conquest. You were wrong.)

(PPS: Public School 90, Richmond Hill, Queens, NYC -- top of the food chain, bee-otch. :p )

0. So you exclude the possibility of constructing, say, a fertility-negating virus? No kills needed...

1. Logically inconsistent. If you destroy anything that seeks to wage war upon you - there isn't anything left to attack you.

2. I don't -do- good vz evil. I just -do- us vz them.
There is no "us" that includes you -- or anyone who would commit genocide. You'll find that out if you ever attempt to commit a genocide or participate in a genocide attempt. That's why genocide is classified as a crime against humanity.

Just reading this today:


My question is this:

If a US intel authority says something, would you rather (in the event that the intel is wrong) that a lot of non-US people get bombed, killed, invaded, etc., or would you rather that a lot of US civilians get nuked?

If you knew there was a good chance of the intel being wrong, which way would you prefer that the US (or indeed, any superpower) play it?
This is just more war mongering. Iraq was a big mistake. Invading or attacking Iran will be an even bigger mistake, but somehow, I don't think you really care.

I'd have to say ... if you are gonna do it, do it.. don't pussy foot around, whether right or wrong. Do it and get it over and done with. But as far as what the U.S. Gov is doing over there in the mid east.. I do not agree. People argue over all this shit that is given to us to argue over, while the truth is not, the majority are like a bunch of sheep, all too consumed. I do not trust politicians in general, especially ours. It's all about money and power, and that shit they "feed" the people is just that.. shit. All hell is gonna break loose one of these days.
YUP!!!

Personally, I support what happened in Iraq. If you were the president and you received intel that a country might have nuclear weapons, one that has a negative opinion of the U.S and has been in a war with them twice, and if they do have nukes they might be selling them to terrorists?

Honestly, what would you do? The risks are FAR more, IMO, to sit at home and bide your time than to launch an attack. If force is the only way you can ensure safety of millons of people, then so be it. If bombing nuclear facilities covertly is the only way, so be it. If inserting a covert ops team to blow up a nuclear facility is the only way, so be it.

There's always the chance that you might be able to do something that would ensure that no one, or maybe only a few people, were killed. (covert ops or a surgical strike, perhaps) Compare that to the risk that a terrorist organization might launch nukes at the USA. There's no fear of retaliation - the terrorists could even launch it from another country, placing the blame on that country and plunging the USA into another war. Compare that with invading a country to ensure the safety of your citiziens and having to engage in conflicts against enemy troops.

What's better?

Ten million US citizens dead and the USA plunged into a bloody war with an innocent country?
Or one thousand people and a dictator killed, and the certainity that that country in fact did not have nuclear weapons?

For me, it's the second choice, by far, and that extends to this. If it becomes neccessary, and the US truly beleives that they have nukes, then so be it.

Personally, I support what happened in Iraq. If you were the president and you received intel that a country might have nuclear weapons, one that has a negative opinion of the U.S and has been in a war with them twice, and if they do have nukes they might be selling them to terrorists?

All that "intelligence" was faulty, and the Bush administration knew it. Those people have been looking for an excuse to invade Iraq as a foothold in the Middle East for the porpose of taking control of the world oil production (their words, not mine) since the first Bush.

Most of the "tips" came form 1 guy talking to the German intelligence agency, and the Germans told us when they gace us that info that is was wrong. But the Bush adminidtrstion presents it as fact. Even though they knew it was not.

Also, Iraq NEVER started war with the US, much less twice. Plus, they didn't even have the technology to send any missles beyond their immediate neibhors, much less across the Atlantic. We're not fighting the Soviets anymore, much as the government would have you believe. That paragraph is shot to shit. Next?

Honestly, what would you do? The risks are FAR more, IMO, to sit at home and bide your time than to launch an attack. If force is the only way you can ensure safety of millons of people, then so be it. If bombing nuclear facilities covertly is the only way, so be it. If inserting a covert ops team to blow up a nuclear facility is the only way, so be it.

If you're still talking about Iraq, I say to you that not even the Bush administration was saying that they had working nuclear facilities. Once again, you're pulling shit out of your ass. Next.

There's always the chance that you might be able to do something that would ensure that no one, or maybe only a few people, were killed. (covert ops or a surgical strike, perhaps) Compare that to the risk that a terrorist organization might launch nukes at the USA. There's no fear of retaliation - the terrorists could even launch it from another country, placing the blame on that country and plunging the USA into another war. Compare that with invading a country to ensure the safety of your citiziens and having to engage in conflicts against enemy troops.

What you said makes so little sence, and is so disjointed, I can't even respond at this time. Except for the fact that you left out a little thing called "credible eveidence of an attack." Also, how does invading a random country help fight the same terrorists you just said have no country? As for your nuke senerio, do you realise that launching a nuke halfway around thew world, over an ocean, and hitting a target, is alot more comeplecated then setting off your model rocket in the park? If not...then you're just....dumb.....

Next?


What's better?

Ten million US citizens dead and the USA plunged into a bloody war with an innocent country?
Or one thousand people and a dictator killed, and the certainity that that country in fact did not have nuclear weapons?

One, prove that 10 million Americans would die in whatever imaginary crazy impossible senerio you've drempt up, 'cause I can't even tell anymore.

Two, the death told in Iraq is in the hundrends of thousands.

As for your last part........I hate to use internet abreviations...but it's all I can think of to say.......WTF!?

So even with no eveidence of nukes, you think we should invade people, killing hundreds of thousands of people and creating countless new terrorists, just because after you have taking over and subjected a peoples by force, you "know they didn't have nukes"?

For me, it's the second choice, by far, and that extends to this. If it becomes neccessary, and the US truly beleives that they have nukes, then so be it.

One, I have destroyed the thought process (calling it that is generous, by the way) that led to this conclusion. Second of all, the conclusion it's self is bullshit, because "the US believes" or, more accuratly "the elite of the US want something they have, or want to open their economy to anal violation by every US corperation big or connected enough to buy in, is NOT justification for the killing of hundreds of thousands.