NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7520624.stm

Chavez calls for Russia alliance

Hugo Chavez has called for a strategic alliance with Russia to protect Venezuela from the US.

The Venezuelan president's call came as Moscow and Caracas agreed to extend bilateral co-operation on energy.

Speaking during a two-day visit to Russia, Mr Chavez said oil and military cooperation were vital to guarantee Venezuela's sovereignty.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said three Russian energy companies are to be allowed to operate in Venezuela.

He gave no details of an anticipated arms deal between the two countries. But Mr Chavez seemed upbeat about the prospect of military co-operation.

"If Russia's armed forces want to be present in Venezuela, they will be given a warm welcome," he told a news conference after the meeting.

He said Venezuela would pursue new Russian arms deals "because the North American empire... has plans to invade Venezuela, to disarm Venezuela".

Strategic partnership

Venezuela's president said he had felt "strong human warmth" during the meeting with his Russian counterpart, adding that "personal chemistry immediately appeared between us".

"We are considering issues linked to our strategic partnership, be it in the energy sector, industry, finance, science and technology, or military issues," said Mr Chavez.

Following the talks, Mr Medvedev said Gazprom, Lukoil and TNK-BP would be allowed to operate in Venezuela's resource-rich Orinoco Belt.

"Venezuela is now the most important partner of the Russian Federation," said the Russian president, a former chairman of Gazprom.

He said a proposal to create a group of leading gas producers similar to the oil cartel, Opec, had not been abandoned.

During his stay in Russia, Mr Chavez also held warm talks with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, focusing on economic and military co-operation.
Interesting...I can see a few reasons why Russia might be interested, for the sake of resources, but I'm not sure they'd go for it, if only because the U.S. might have a problem with it.

There's more of that "US wants to invade Venezuela" crap...

I think Russia just likes making money. Weapons purchased to defend against imaginary boogeymen are still weapons purchased...

america has been know to enter coutrys which it wants why sode it be differenth and i suits the russians jsut fine

Russia's doing this just so that the US gets irritated. For some reason, they seem to have this new "WE ARE LEET UBERPOWERFULZOR!!1!11!" complex that's really just starting to piss me off--the Cold War's over, boys. And why would the US ever want to invade Venezuela? Just assassinate the fat man!

There's more of that "US wants to invade Venezuela" crap...

People in this country are pissing their pants because they imagine some kind of reds-under-the-be (and look how that turned out) revisionism with towels on it's head. Indeed, our current government has based half a decade of constitutional suspensions, claims of executive privilege, and abuses of power explicitly upon that fear.

National paranoia is hardly peculiar to the south americas.

And - let's be serious. The US does want to invade Venezuela.

Russia's doing this just so that the US gets irritated. For some reason, they seem to have this new "WE ARE LEET UBERPOWERFULZOR!!1!11!" complex that's really just starting to piss me off--the Cold War's over, boys. And why would the US ever want to invade Venezuela? Just assassinate the fat man!

You might want to review some of our own foreign policy of recent years. (Not least being our current "Cuba 2" scenario).

Fuck Mr Chavez, let him buy all the arms he wishes, more arms for the counter-coup against this marxist wanna-be pissant.

"Hey, hey, Mr. Putin! Look at us! We can say stuff about the US too! We're like Iran! Lets be friends! Can I haz gunz plz?"

Good to see nations banding together against Yankee imperialism.

Hmm.. I'm tempted to enlist again if this happens xD



South America seems nice.

Good to see nations banding together against Yankee imperialism.
I didn't realise Russia was such a stalwart bastion of anti-capitalist, peaceful governance.

I didn't realise Russia was such a stalwart bastion of anti-capitalist, peaceful governance.
I said anti-imperialist, not socialist.

I think Russia just likes making money. Weapons purchased to defend against imaginary boogeymen are still weapons purchased...

Classic sales tactic. The what if scenerio is gold in sales of any kind.

Good to see nations banding together against Yankee imperialism.

Nah, this is just Russia being capitalistic.

Well, Chávez does need a new angle. The past year or so hasn't exactly been kind to him - Morales had his dreams ended for him because the states don't want to play his games, FARC is pretty much finished and railing against Colombia doesn't excite anymore and at home things aren't all going his way. Apparently Caracas is now second in line for murder capital of the world and Venezuela is worse than Colombia.

I think when he means "Venezuela's sovereignty", he means "my government".

I said anti-imperialist, not socialist.
And how is Russia not 'imperialist'?

Chechnya... anyone?

And how is Russia not 'imperialist'?

Chechnya... anyone?

shhhhh..... :$

"Hey, hey, Mr. Putin! Look at us! We can say stuff about the US too! We're like Iran! Lets be friends! Can I haz gunz plz?"

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk294/Tombombadil9/kthx.jpg

And how is Russia not 'imperialist'?

Chechnya... anyone?


Chechnya is a part of Russia.

Chechnya is a part of Russia.

Ahh yes, they only wanted independence.

And - let's be serious. The US does want to invade Venezuela.

Uh no we do not.

And - let's be serious. The US does want to invade Venezuela.

I've been using this WAY too much, but if it fits...
http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk294/Tombombadil9/laugh_up_one__s_sleeve_by_DavedeHaa.gif

Chechnya is a part of Russia.
Ooooh, I like where this is going.

Seriously though (and this applies to the other side as well), what difference does it make what your country looks like on a map? I mean, my native country has taken its fair share of...border corrections over the 20th century, but I can honestly say that my life hasn't changed one bit because of it.

I don't really think that's one of those things that are worth getting excited enough about to start throwing explosives.

Uh no we do not.

Oh sure we do. Chavez says it's so. :)

Nah, this is just Russia being capitalistic.

Agreed.

I think Russia just likes making money. Weapons purchased to defend against imaginary boogeymen are still weapons purchased...

Exactly. If Chavez is going to spend all of Aelosia's money on fighter planes to fly against a US invasion that will never come, the Russians aren't about to tell him he's a stupid fuck.

Ahh yes, they only wanted independence.

And invading Dagestan, blowing up that school in Beslan, bombing markets and apartment blocks caused them to lose their chance at it completely.

Seriously though (and this applies to the other side as well), what difference does it make what your country looks like on a map? I mean, my native country has taken its fair share of...border corrections over the 20th century, but I can honestly say that my life hasn't changed one bit because of it.

If we invested a pretty significant amount of money in to a given region and lost a lot of lives defending it during a major world war, I'd be pretty likely not to want to give it up. Much like I wouldn't want to give up any portion of the United States to any other nation or to give it any kind of independence away from the rest of the country.

Usually, if you can't hold on to one region, it's not long before others start breaking away.

Exactly. If Chavez is going to spend all of Aelosia's money on fighter planes to fly against a US invasion that will never come, the Russians aren't about to tell him he's a stupid fuck.

Nope, they'll be laughing all the way to the bank. Especially if Chavez's cronies lack the skills to keep them in good shape and have to keep replacing them.

And invading Dagestan, blowing up that school in Beslan, bombing markets and apartment blocks caused them to lose their chance at it completely.

They paid for that action or was that a result of Russia's actions in the first place? Either way the Chechen's took it in the ass.

Chechnya is a part of Russia.
Only after two brutal wars.

Just making the point that Russia isn't a good example of how a nation's government should conduct itself.

Ooooh, I like where this is going.

Seriously though (and this applies to the other side as well), what difference does it make what your country looks like on a map? I mean, my native country has taken its fair share of...border corrections over the 20th century, but I can honestly say that my life hasn't changed one bit because of it.

I don't really think that's one of those things that are worth getting excited enough about to start throwing explosives.
What exactly is your native country?

Nope, they'll be laughing all the way to the bank. Especially if Chavez's cronies lack the skills to keep them in good shape and have to keep replacing them.
Much like what happened with the Iranians :D

Only after two brutal wars.

Just making the point that Russia isn't a good example of how a nation's government should conduct itself.

And a good example would be? Every country has a reason why it's "bad". Except Switzerland/Madagascar. They don't do anything o.O

And - let's be serious. The US does want to invade Venezuela.

What sort of crazy fucking crack are you smoking?

What exactly is your native country?

Germany.

What exactly is your native country?

Germany.

Germany.

Germany.

Thank you. Assuming you're answering for him, and not yourselves.

Thank you. Assuming you're answering for him, and not yourselves.
You are welcome

What sort of crazy fucking crack are you smoking?

Anyone who thinks we're going to invade Venezuela needs to get back to the psychiatric hospital. They're looking for you.

Only after two brutal wars.

Only two?

I daresay the Caucasian Wars (all of them) of the Imperial Era, plus the 1940-44 Chechen Revolt ought to count too! Chechnya is not a part of Russia by any means other than force, and that's damn true.

And a good example would be? Every country has a reason why it's "bad".
As an anti-statist, I don't believe any nation is a perfect solution, but some countries are better than others. However, this was not my argument. All I was doing was showing to Andaras why supporting Russia as an opponent to an 'imperialist' country is a little weak.

Only two?
Since we're talking about Russia and not the USSR, then two is correct. Though you're right in the respect that there has been almost constant violence in Chechnya.

Anyone who thinks we're going to invade Venezuela needs to get back to the psychiatric hospital. They're looking for you.

More ad hominem bullshit, and not one actual reasoned response. Four posters, no rational counter.

8 years ago I said the US wanted to invade Iraq. 5 years ago I said the US wanted to invade Iran. Venezuela has oil, and a government we're not sympathetic to. If you think American foreign policy DOESN'T have a prepared plan for Venezuelan occupation, YOU need that padded room much more than I would.

More ad hominem bullshit, and not one actual reasoned response. Four posters, no rational counter.

8 years ago I said the US wanted to invade Iraq. 5 years ago I said the US wanted to invade Iran. Venezuela has oil, and a government we're not sympathetic to. If you think American foreign policy DOESN'T have a prepared plan for Venezuelan occupation, YOU need that padded room much more than I would.

There are OPLANs for every nation on the planet. Having a plan doesn't mean you're going to do it, or want to do it. Having a large military doesn't mean you're going to do it, or want to do it.

By your logic, every woman is a prostitute, because they're walking around with vaginas.

More ad hominem bullshit, and not one actual reasoned response. Four posters, no rational counter.

As opposed to you who have posted no evidence that we want to invade Venezuela?

8 years ago I said the US wanted to invade Iraq. 5 years ago I said the US wanted to invade Iran.

Except that we do not want to invade Iran.

Venezuela has oil, and a government we're not sympathetic to. If you think American foreign policy DOESN'T have a prepared plan for Venezuelan occupation, YOU need that padded room much more than I would.

Of course we do. We would be fucking stupid if we did not have a plan for pretty much any nation on earth that is not an ally with the US. And even then I would say that we do in case things change.

If we invested a pretty significant amount of money in to a given region and lost a lot of lives defending it during a major world war, I'd be pretty likely not to want to give it up.
The question is: would your actual, real life change because of it? If it does, it's likely to be a very small effect compared to the outrage people usually express on these issues.

We can talk about wasted tax money, but to be honest, there are probably bigger waste items already going on without people getting all martial about it.

8 years ago I said the US wanted to invade Iraq. 5 years ago I said the US wanted to invade Iran.
To be fair, that's just like an adhominem argument.

Venezuela has oil, and a government we're not sympathetic to.
Look, there has been so much investigating and researching into the reasons for the Iraq war and the individuals who pushed for it...why do you still insist to talk about oil?

If you think American foreign policy DOESN'T have a prepared plan for Venezuelan occupation, YOU need that padded room much more than I would.
Having a plan doesn't mean that you actually want to put it in place. Remember those plans for a US invasion of Canada in the 30s? It's not like they wanted to take over Canada, it's just that in whatever unlikely scenario might actually require it, they'd already have some basics worked out that can then be refined in a much shorter time.

There are OPLANs for every nation on the planet. Having a plan doesn't mean you're going to do it, or want to do it. Having a large military doesn't mean you're going to do it, or want to do it.


I think you're being deliberately obtuse. You and I both know that Venezuela and Belgium are probably not being considered in the same strategic light.


By your logic, every woman is a prostitute, because they're walking around with vaginas.

Not at all. You clearly fail at parallels.

In this case, we were talking about 'intent', and 'intent' was being described in terms - not just of having the resources, as well you know (which is why you know while you were writing it that this parallel was bullshit), but of also having motivations (oil, unstable or inimical government) and desire (plans to remove, gain control of, etc).

If you had said "By your logic, every woman who has a vagina, desires the money of punters, and has an established plan for using her vagina to take control of that money... wants to be a prostitute", you MIGHT have been in the right ballpark.

As it is, you failed to even identify the sport.

Except that we do not want to invade Iran.


What's this I found in my sand? Corny, is this your head, again?

Clearly - you haven't been keeping up.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse. You and I both know that Venezuela and Belgium are probably not being considered in the same strategic light.

You misunderstood the statement.

What's this I found in my sand? Corny, is this your head, again?

Clearly - you haven't been keeping up.
Do you believe the current US administration actively wishes to invade Iran?

What's this I found in my sand? Corny, is this your head, again?

Clearly - you haven't been keeping up.
Nice Ad homin attack.

Do you have a rebuttal? We do no want to invade Iran. We do not want to invade Venezuela.

More ad hominem bullshit, and not one actual reasoned response. Four posters, no rational counter.

Invading Venezuela would transcend irrational. The disruption to the US oil supply would permanently cripple our economy, the cost would be immense, and the potential for a regional meltdown, and reprisals against our allies in the region is too great. How about that?

How about the further alienation from our Western European and Asian allies that would result from such a behavior?

Invasions don't magically beget oil and petroleum, the defense establishment knows that fact. Because of these basic considerations, I daresay that the US does not, after all, want to invade Venezuela.

8 years ago I said the US wanted to invade Iraq.

And that somehow makes you prescient? The existing animosity between the US and Iraq, and the collapse of the Iranian pillar in 1979, had set the stage for a virtually inevitable conflict to regain regional stability. Iraq has been in our gunsights since Carter, and what Bush did is nothing more than the ultimate culmination of the deteriorated strategic situation.

5 years ago I said the US wanted to invade Iran.

And? It hasn't happened, and in all reality, the most significant warming of relations with US-Iran since 1979 has just recently happened.

Venezuela has oil, and a government we're not sympathetic to. If you think American foreign policy DOESN'T have a prepared plan for Venezuelan occupation, YOU need that padded room much more than I would.

First, having worked in the defense establishment in Washington, I can confirm that the US has contingency plans for an invasion of Venezuela. Of course, the DOD also has contingency plans for an invasion of every one of our NATO allies, so this shouldn't surprise. Military planners, as a rule, plan for the worst.

Given that, these plans are nothing extraordinary, and because of the reasons I outlined earlier in the post, invading Venezuela is an entirely undesirable, and near impossibly unlikely, course of action.

Further, such a course of action would seem to run contrary to the current US policy of ignoring Chavez, as the loudmouthed blowhard that he is. His talk of a threat from the US is designed solely for domestic consumption.

You misunderstood the statement.

Not at all - the premise is that, plan doesn't equate to desire - since there are plans for everyone... apparently. The simple fact is - while there ARE plans for a variety of situations, they are most assuredly not equal.

Belgium isn't likely to have to worry about the rumbling of yank tanks any time soon. Venezuela, on the other hand, has cause (at least) to worry.

Do you believe the current US administration actively wishes to invade Iran?

If they don't, they're playing a shocking game of brinkmanship.

Flip back through this years news, looking for keywords like 'US' and "Iran'...

Not at all - the premise is that, plan doesn't equate to desire - since there are plans for everyone... apparently. The simple fact is - while there ARE plans for a variety of situations, they are most assuredly not equal.

True.

Belgium isn't likely to have to worry about the rumbling of yank tanks any time soon. Venezuela, on the other hand, has cause (at least) to worry.

No they do not.

If they don't, they're playing a shocking game of brinkmanship.

That would be Iran.

Flip back through this years news, looking for keywords like 'US' and "Iran'...

Means nothing and you know it.

Invading Venezuela would transcend irrational. The disruption to the US oil supply would permanently cripple our economy, the cost would be immense, and the potential for a regional meltdown, and reprisals against our allies in the region is too great. How about that?


See: Iraq.


How about the further alienation from our Western European and Asian allies that would result from such a behavior?


See: Iraq.


Invasions don't magically beget oil and petroleum, the defense establishment knows that fact. Because of these basic considerations, I daresay that the US does not, after all, want to invade Venezuela.


See: Iraq.


And that somehow makes you prescient?


Prescience wasn't the point.


The existing animosity between the US and Iraq, and the collapse of the Iranian pillar in 1979, had set the stage for a virtually inevitable conflict to regain regional stability. Iraq has been in our gunsights since Carter, and what Bush did is nothing more than the ultimate culmination of the deteriorated strategic situation.


Instability. Inevitable.


First, having worked in the defense establishment in Washington, I can confirm that the US has contingency plans for an invasion of Venezuela. Of course, the DOD also has contingency plans for an invasion of every one of our NATO allies, so this shouldn't surprise. Military planners, as a rule, plan for the worst.


Since I am Queen of Alpha Centuri, I can confirm that, not only are you right, but that certain nations are more likely - on that list - to be invaded, than others.


Given that, these plans are nothing extraordinary, and because of the reasons I outlined earlier in the post, invading Venezuela is an entirely undesirable, and near impossibly unlikely, course of action.


See: Iraq.


Further, such a course of action would seem to run contrary to the current US policy of ignoring Chavez, as the loudmouthed blowhard that he is. His talk of a threat from the US is designed solely for domestic consumption.

Maybe the talk of a current US policy of ignoring Chavez is designed solely for domestic consumption....

Oh, my clock stopped. I wonder when?

No they do not.

Because you say so?

Look at our foreign policy. Our relations with Iran, North Korea. Russia.

You honestly think Venezuela has no reason to, at least, worry?

If they don't, they're playing a shocking game of brinkmanship.

Flip back through this years news, looking for keywords like 'US' and "Iran'...

Basic tenet of international relations. If you want to intimidate someone into doing what you want, you need to be perceived by the target as as crazy and irrational as possible.

A good reader on the matter is entitled The Perils of Anarchy: Contemporary Realism and International Security. The editors are Michael E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Steven E. Miller.

Because you say so?

Look at our foreign policy. Our relations with Iran, North Korea. Russia.

You honestly think Venezuela has no reason to, at least, worry?

Since the situation with North Korea seems to be getting better and that we are talking with Iran (though it seemed to have stalled)....

They have nothing to worry about.

That would be Iran.


Solitaire Brinkmanship?


Means nothing and you know it.

The news means nothing? You prefer I listen to what? "Corny's expert opinion hotline"?

Since the situation with North Korea seems to be getting better and that we are talking with Iran (though it seemed to have stalled)....

They have nothing to worry about.

By which token, Americans have nothing to worry about, vis-a-vis terrorism, yes?

If they don't, they're playing a shocking game of brinkmanship.

Flip back through this years news, looking for keywords like 'US' and "Iran'...
Oh sure, there's posturing and wagging of fingers, vague threats of 'further action' and sanctions, but the same is said to North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma, etc., rather frequently and I doubt we'll see Kim Jong-il, Robert Mugabe or Than Shwe on the receiving end of a US marine's boot anytime soon.

On a purely strategic level, the US is far too stretched to deal with getting stuck into Iran.

Solitaire Brinkmanship?

It is a two way street. The problem is though, things are slowly getting better.

The news means nothing? You prefer I listen to what? "Corny's expert opinion hotline"?

I suggest you stop trying to blow things out of proportion and that you also stop believing in conspiracy theories.

Basic tenet of international relations. If you want to intimidate someone into doing what you want, you need to be perceived by the target as as crazy and irrational as possible.


Which is an excellent cover for nations where the foreign policy IS 'crazy and irrational'.

It is a two way street. The problem is though, things are slowly getting better.


You think that's a problem?


I suggest you stop trying to blow things out of proportion and that you also stop believing in conspiracy theories.

Blowing things out of proportion? Yes - I'm sure the thousands of US dead in Iraq think that I'm blowing things out of proportion. The tens of thousands of Iraqi dead think I'm blowing things out of proportion.

Your problem here is, you're too comfortable.

It's out of proportion. It's not a real threat - because it's not YOUR life that's on the line.

So many Americans feeling so free to sit here and make judgements about the paranoid reactions of Venezuelans, and yet you're so paralysed by your own fear that it takes me an hour to go through an airport terminal.

You think that's a problem?

For your premise. Yes.

Blowing things out of proportion? Yes - I'm sure the thousands of US dead in Iraq think that I'm blowing things out of proportion. The tens of thousands of Iraqi dead think I'm blowing things out of proportion.

Your problem here is, you're too comfortable.

It's out of proportion. It's not a real threat - because it's not YOUR life that's on the line.

So many Americans feeling so free to sit here and make judgements about the paranoid reactions of Venezuelans, and yet you're so paralysed by your own fear that it takes me an hour to go through an airport terminal.

Yep...that must be it. NOT!! :rolleyes:

BTW: Stop listening to conspiracy theories.

See: Iraq.

Iraqi oil imports to the United States in 2003 were a fraction of what Venezuelan oil imports to the US are now. Currently, the US imports over three times as much oil from Venezuela, as it did from Iraq in 2002. The situations are not comparable.

See: Iraq.

Following Iraq, the US government, and especially the diplomatic corps, have come to the realization of what damage was done in 200, 2003 and 2004. Ever since then, our government has been working to regain the standing it lost. To blow that to hell with an invasion of Venezuela would transcend insane. The situations are not comparable.

See: Iraq.

See: Iraq, lessons learned. The situations are not comparable.



Prescience wasn't the point.

Then I see you had none.

Instability. Inevitable.

No. Not at all. As I have said, the strategic situation is entirely non-comparable. Venezuela is not a significant threat to the stability of Latin America, and it hasn't altered the strategic balance one whit.

that certain nations are more likely - on that list - to be invaded, than others.

There are, indeed, some countries that are more likely, yes. Places like Lebanon, for instance. Venezuela, though, is right about on par with Belgium. Virtually inconceivable in any rational context.

Maybe the talk of a current US policy of ignoring Chavez is designed solely for domestic consumption....

That doesn't even make sense, but I shall pose two questions:

What domestic benefit does the US derive by making people think that we are not preparing to invade Venezuela, while secretly preparing to do so? (Hint: None)

What benefit does Chavez derive from attempting to make people think that the US is going to invade Venezuela? (Hint: "Rally round the flag!", seeming especially probable given his increasingly flagging public support)

Beyond that, the US actively made its hostilities with the Iraqis quite public, and regularly brought them to the political forefront.

Oh, my clock stopped. I wonder when?

A time beyond the running of all clocks.

Which is an excellent cover for nations where the foreign policy IS 'crazy and irrational'.

It's how the superpowers waged the Cold War, I suggest you read up on it.

that crazy president me chaves wants war with us americans i say give him war if thats what he wants we shall crush him like a rotten tomatoes with our iron hand

Solitaire Brinkmanship?

Specifically, the development of hardened nuclear facilities, whether they are civilian or otherwise, the continued obfuscation towards the IAEA and the rhetoric from the Iranian government.

They're trying to milk the current Middle East strategic situation to their maximum advantage. Iran is the prime example of a crazy-acting, rational state.

that crazy president me chaves wants war with us americans i say give him war if thats what he wants we shall crush him like a rotten tomatoes with our iron hand
Do us all a favor. Stop being a troll.

i will not live in fear what will be will be but meanwhile lets live life to the fullest and forget venesuela fears and look out after our nation together

a troll are you watching cartoons or what ha ha ha

i will not live in fear what will be will be but meanwhile lets live life to the fullest and forget venesuela fears and look out after our nation together

*Sings White unicorn (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZajUzLY--iQ)*

a troll are you watching cartoons or what ha ha ha

Actually...

I am watching Hogan's Heros.

And learn to use proper grammer.

a troll are you watching cartoons or what ha ha ha

Troll, as in fishing. Putting forth bait designed to lure another user into an irrational response.

And learn to use proper grammer.
On the other hand, his spelling was virtually faultless. ;)

BTW: Stop listening to conspiracy theories.

That's not even an answer.

Unles you honestly believe that the current 'war in Iraq' is actually some elaborately staged conspiracy scenario?

It's how the superpowers waged the Cold War, I suggest you read up on it.

Ah, being patronising. That's a sure sign of a bulletproof argument. Well, that or...

Iraqi oil imports to the United States in 2003 were a fraction of what Venezuelan oil imports to the US are now. Currently, the US imports over three times as much oil from Venezuela, as it did from Iraq in 2002. The situations are not comparable.


Of course they're comparabel. Three times as much, eh? Okay - and by that token there's no way... because, what? There's a special statute of limitations on war that says you're only allowed to invade countries producing two-and-a-half times as much oil as Iraq?

Your opinion, like everyone else's, is worth fuck-all.


Following Iraq, the US government, and especially the diplomatic corps, have come to the realization of what damage was done in 200, 2003 and 2004. Ever since then, our government has been working to regain the standing it lost. To blow that to hell with an invasion of Venezuela would transcend insane. The situations are not comparable.


And I think you're wrong. I think that our foreign policy is still in the shitter, and that our posturing with other nations like North Korea, and Iran is an example - not of some elaborate shadow puppetry - but of the fact that American foreign policy is still batshit imperialism.


See: Iraq, lessons learned. The situations are not comparable.


Of course the situation is comparable. Iraq: lesson learned holds as much promise as Vietnam: lesson learned. i.e. probably none, overall.

"We've invaded this sovereign power, and the natives are shooting at us from cover, and not clearly marking themselves as an easily targetted enemy army? What kind of a crazy original idea is THAT? Damn - I wish we'd seen that one coming".


Then I see you had none.


Your failure to grasp even simple concepts is not a weakness in my response.

You don't have to be prescient to see that posturing in Iraq eventually became war in Iraq. That posturing with Iran a number of years ago, has come to open threats this year.

That's not prescience - that's just paying attention.


No. Not at all. As I have said, the strategic situation is entirely non-comparable. Venezuela is not a significant threat to the stability of Latin America, and it hasn't altered the strategic balance one whit.


Iraq wasn't a significant threat to the Middle East. Venezuela presents economic and political threats, at least.


There are, indeed, some countries that are more likely, yes. Places like Lebanon, for instance. Venezuela, though, is right about on par with Belgium. Virtually inconceivable in any rational context.


But Lebanon is way up the list? I think this particular list is in your head.


That doesn't even make sense, but I shall pose two questions:

What domestic benefit does the US derive by making people think that we are not preparing to invade Venezuela, while secretly preparing to do so? (Hint: None)


Are you kidding me?


What benefit does Chavez derive from attempting to make people think that the US is going to invade Venezuela? (Hint: "Rally round the flag!", seeming especially probable given his increasingly flagging public support)


On the other hand, what benefit does Chavez derive from the situation if the US really IS possibly going to invade? Maybe enough force of support to change the minds of the powers that be. We've already seen that we back down from anyone who actually might have the capacity to fight back.


Beyond that, the US actively made its hostilities with the Iraqis quite public, and regularly brought them to the political forefront.


Like with Iran, you mean?


A time beyond the running of all clocks.

Where every clock is right twice a day?

Good to see nations banding together against Yankee imperialism.

To support Russian Imperialism.

I think that our foreign policy is still in the shitter, and that our posturing with other nations like North Korea, and Iran is an example - not of some elaborate shadow puppetry - but of the fact that American foreign policy is still batshit imperialism.
Wait, so North Korea, where the US was driving forward the 6-party talks was batshit imperialism? Or Iran, where the US is pushing to get them to comply with the UN treaty it signed by lending its support to the current talks on the issue?

You made your mind up years ago, and the reason that everything looks to you like you're right is that you've developed a bit of selective hearing.

Because Russia gave better prices on weapons than USA.

That's not even an answer.

Unles you honestly believe that the current 'war in Iraq' is actually some elaborately staged conspiracy scenario?

Oh I do not believe it is but your assertion that we want to invade Iran is Conspiracy just like your assertion that we want to invade Venezuela.

You never used to be this thick headed Grave.

Ah, being patronising. That's a sure sign of a bulletproof argument. Well, that or...
When a person has no rebuttal, this is the response you get.

Wait, so North Korea, where the US was driving forward the 6-party talks was batshit imperialism? Or Iran, where the US is pushing to get them to comply with the UN treaty it signed by lending its support to the current talks on the issue?

You made your mind up years ago, and the reason that everything looks to you like you're right is that you've developed a bit of selective hearing.
And the truth comes out.

Well said Neu.

Wait, this are the news you get?

We already have Sukhoi planes, we already have HIND helicopters. We already have 100 thousand AK-103 rifles.

"Venezuela and Russia looking for military cooperation", please. That's not new.

By the way, Venezuela did not agree with Russia anything regarding placing russian military bases on venezuelan soil. Big journalim mistake there. You need to learn to love Interfax.

The rest of the thread is heavily derailed, of course. As usual, I might add.

By the way, even BEFORE Chávez rise to power, there was plans in the venezuelan military high command regarding ways to resist an invasion of the Unaited States. (I will keep writing Unaited States, given the constant inability of people to write Venezuela correctly, I mean. Stop the "Venezuala" typo already, it isn't written that way, and it isn't even pronounced that way. If you don't make the effort to try to get the name of the country right even in writing, why should I learn to write "Connecticut", or even pronounce the damn word). So I wouldn't be surprised if there has been a plan in the Unaited States military to invade Venezuela for like...50 years. It's common military strategy.

You are a bit late Aelosia on the last part.

You are a bit late Aelosia on the last part.

Which part?

The part about the US having invasion plans for Venezuela. We already established that. Grave_in_idle took that to mean that we want to invade Venezuela which we do not.

Actually, I believe you both are wrong on that part. Neither of you has any tool or way to determine "intent". YOu can suppose and argue all that you want, but none of you can actually present a standing argument that is valid to supress the assumptions of the other.

The part about the US having invasion plans for the US.

The US wants to invade itself? :confused: :D

I am sure we have contigency plans :D

Wait, so North Korea, where the US was driving forward the 6-party talks was batshit imperialism? Or Iran, where the US is pushing to get them to comply with the UN treaty it signed by lending its support to the current talks on the issue?

You made your mind up years ago, and the reason that everything looks to you like you're right is that you've developed a bit of selective hearing.

On the contrary. It just takes more than a bit of shadowpuppetry to impress me.

But I notice you're using the 'American policy is licking it on with kittens' approach, so we're not likely to agree with the conclusions.

Oh I do not believe it is but your assertion that we want to invade Iran is Conspiracy just like your assertion that we want to invade Venezuela.

You never used to be this thick headed Grave.

I didn't say 'we want to invade Iran is conspiracy'. Hell, I'm not even sure what that would be in English.

I'm not talking about conspiracy - I'm talking about the fact that US foreign policy - especially over the last year - toward Iran has been threat after threat.

If that's a conspiracy, it's a hell of a double-bluff. We're hiding our real intent to do violence, behind a charade of wanting to do violence.

You are a bit late Aelosia on the last part.

But you don't comment on the earlier part of the post, about the Venezuelan suspicions that the US has militaristic ambitions towards them... that stretch back pre-Chavez...

The part about the US having invasion plans for Venezuela. We already established that. Grave_in_idle took that to mean that we want to invade Venezuela which we do not.

That's your opinion.

Given that mine is based on the foreign policy we've actually employed over the last 8 years (hell, no change since Vietnam), and yours is based on oh-nice-waistcoat-you're-wearing, I think my opinion is worth more than yours.

The US wants to invade itself? :confused: :D

Wouldn't be the first time...

I think my opinion is worth more than yours.

I think that neither of you can say for sure as neither of you have evidence or can claim to be knowledgable in such matters, and that opinion is worth more than your opinion and Corneliu's combined.

I think that neither of you can say for sure as neither of you have evidence or can claim to be knowledgable in such matters, and that opinion is worth more than your opinion and Corneliu's combined.

Is it? Based on what?

At least my opinion is based upon a recorded history.

Is it? Based on what?

At least my opinion is based upon a recorded history.

Based on the fact that neither you or Corneliu are foreign policy or military experts*. Also past performance does not guarantee future actions, or France would be bracing itself for an invasion from Germany.

*this is an assumption but I'm going to risk it.

Is it just me or is Hugo Chaves a real attention seeker?

Is it? Based on what?

At least my opinion is based upon a recorded history.

And my opinion is based on reality.

Is it just me or is Hugo Chaves a real attention seeker?

Nope. It is not just you. He is an attention seeker.

And my opinion is based on reality.

Really? Show me that evidence?

I can point to literally decades of US foreign policy based on threat and brinkmanship, and often resulting in direct or indirect violence.

You can show me... what? Opinion?

Is it just me or is Hugo Chaves a real attention seeker?

I know, right? And every other elected official in the world is elected against their will, while just trying to get on with their own business!

Really? Show me that evidence?

I can point to literally decades of US foreign policy based on threat and brinkmanship, and often resulting in direct or indirect violence.

You can show me... what? Opinion?

Despite the fact that we do not have the ability to invade either Iran or Venezuela. Despite the fact that it will hurt our international standing far more than the invasion of Iraq did if we invade Venezuela. The populace of the US would be in an uproar if we invade Venezuela.

Yep. My opinion is based in reality.

Despite the fact that we do not have the ability to invade either Iran or Venezuela. Despite the fact that it will hurt our international standing far more than the invasion of Iraq did if we invade Venezuela. The populace of the US would be in an uproar if we invade Venezuela.

Yep. My opinion is based in reality.

Put it this way, the republicans are stupid, but not insane.

Put it this way, the republicans are stupid, but not insane.

Hehe :D

Despite the fact that we do not have the ability to invade either Iran or Venezuela. Despite the fact that it will hurt our international standing far more than the invasion of Iraq did if we invade Venezuela. The populace of the US would be in an uproar if we invade Venezuela.

Yep. My opinion is based in reality.

We totally have the ability to invade Iran or Venezuela. Or both. Whether or not we could easily recover from it afterwards, is another question.

Hurting our international standing has never been a big brake on the US war machine.

The US populace being in uproar has never been a big brake on the US war machine.

Your version of reality is all speculation (and mostly, rubbish). Which is why I'll favour the recorded history, over your projections of fluffy-bunnyness.

We totally have the ability to invade Iran or Venezuela. Or both.

No we do not have the ability to do so.

Whether or not we could easily recover from it afterwards, is another question.

Indeed.

Hurting our international standing has never been a big brake on the US war machine.

The US populace being in uproar has never been a big brake on the US war machine.

Your version of reality is all speculation (and mostly, rubbish). Which is why I'll favour the recorded history, over your projections of fluffy-bunnyness.

I will favor reality over you anyday.

No we do not have the ability to do so.


Here's the funny thing. Just saying we don't, doesn't mean we don't.

We have plenty of personnel that could be in Iran or Venezuela. We have plenty of equipment that could be in Iran or Venezuela. We could run into a budget block over paying for it, but that hasn't stopped the ongoing Iraq fiasco - all you have to do is pretend that the objections of your opponents are "because you hate America", and they'll vote to support any budget.

Like I said - the problem isn't starting a war in Iran or Venezuela - it's what comes after. But hey - that'll be a problem for a different government.

I will favor reality over you anyday.

Since your definition of 'reality' is 'what I choose to believe', and I keep talking about boring and unpopular actual recorded history, I can see why this would be.

Good to see nations banding together against Yankee imperialism.

I agree

On the contrary. It just takes more than a bit of shadowpuppetry to impress me.
Whether or not these talks constitute puppetry depends primarily on the offending side. If North Korea properly finishes dismantling its facilities and leaves it at that, do you really expect any of the other parties and particularly the US to break the deal, stop delivering the aid or even bomb North Korea?

If these talks don't lead to lasting peace, it would be because the Koreans or Iranians don't end up doing what they're supposed to do, not because the Americans say it, but because the Americans happen to be standing on the side of world or at least IAEA opinion.

But I notice you're using the 'American policy is licking it on with kittens' approach, so we're not likely to agree with the conclusions.
Of course kittens aren't involved, because kittens aren't going to convince the other side of anything. The reason the Americans are so important in handling these crises is that no matter how much diplomacy there is, relations between governments are always also about force and violence due to the nature of their being. The Americans are the elephant in the room that makes a "rogue state" want to come to the table at the very least. Do you really think the Iranians would have bothered to even show up if there hadn't been the odd comment coming out of Washington?

The problem with the Iran thing is that this time the actual force wouldn't come from the US but from Israel. And the problem with that, and what I really don't understand why they don't see it, is that many Iranians when thinking about an Israeli attack wouldn't be worried about the damage it causes, but about the shame it brings and an over-the-top military response. I would have handled this differently, because the threat of an Israeli attack is never going to be as effective in trying to get Iran to back down as for example a US attack would be (though even that wouldn't be ideal, but we run out of options at that point).

Anyways, you see that there is no issue to be sorted out with Venezuela. What you hear in inappropriate comments from circles in Washington (not from the really higher-ups, of course) is basically old Cold Warriors not quite reaching the 21st century yet. They don't reflect official policy, and indeed hinders it if it means Chávez gets set off for another, domestically popular rant against the gringos threatening Latin America.

Whether or not these talks constitute puppetry depends primarily on the offending side. If North Korea properly finishes dismantling its facilities and leaves it at that, do you really expect any of the other parties and particularly the US to break the deal, stop delivering the aid or even bomb North Korea?


In other words, it's North Korea's peace efforts that are stopping the US ramping up to war.


If these talks don't lead to lasting peace, it would be because the Koreans or Iranians don't end up doing what they're supposed to do,


Supposed to? Based on what? The American belief that we own the world?


The problem with the Iran thing is that this time the actual force wouldn't come from the US but from Israel.


Yes - that is a problem. Our brinkmanship is allowing a dangerous game to escalate between Iran and a third party.

old Cold Warriors not quite reaching the 21st century yet. They don't reflect official policy,

Or, maybe they do.

In other words, it's North Korea's peace efforts that are stopping the US ramping up to war.

You mean resuming war, right Gni?

Supposed to? Based on what? The American belief that we own the world?

They do not call it breaking an agreement for nothing.

Yes - that is a problem. Our brinkmanship is allowing a dangerous game to escalate between Iran and a third party.

Iran did that on their own.

You mean resuming war, right Gni?


I know you're smarter than that, Corny. Let's not play those kind of semantic games, shall we?

We've been using a specific scenario here that basically involves exchange of fire or occupation. You know this. I know this. Let's not fool ourselves, eh?


They do not call it breaking an agreement for nothing.


Missing the point? Deliberately, I wonder?


Iran did that on their own.

Iran created an artifact state in the Middle East? Oh - you mean they've been supplying Israel with military technology? No - you must mean they've been giving Israel access (and complicity) to nuclear technology?

No... I'm confused. Iran did what with how many cookies?

I know you're smarter than that, Corny. Let's not play those kind of semantic games, shall we?

What game? The Korean War is still going on last time I checked International Law.

We've been using a specific scenario here that basically involves exchange of fire or occupation. You know this. I know this. Let's not fool ourselves, eh?

Exchange of fire means war. When a war is still going on, it is called a resumption of war. I assume you know this?

Missing the point? Deliberately, I wonder?

You are thick headed. I missed no point. I pointed something out that is quite obvious.

Iran created an artifact state in the Middle East? Oh - you mean they've been supplying Israel with military technology? No - you must mean they've been giving Israel access (and complicity) to nuclear technology?

No... I'm confused. Iran did what with how many cookies?

Iran created the mess that is currently going on now. Maybe you should like keep up?

Interesting...I can see a few reasons why Russia might be interested, for the sake of resources
I can't.

The Russians aren't doing badly for oil and gas by any means, and backing up a country whose leader deserves a clip 'round the ear for his brinksmanship when Russia's position in the world is already somewhat threatened by its neighbours largely being in, or about to be in NATO, or China, which is not a friend of Russia's by any means is not a good plan.
but I'm not sure they'd go for it, if only because the U.S. might have a problem with it.
Also because they have no need for Venezuelan gas or oil.

What game? The Korean War is still going on last time I checked International Law.

Exchange of fire means war. When a war is still going on, it is called a resumption of war. I assume you know this?


Done?

Now you have that out of your system, casually review what was written.


You are thick headed.


If you can't debate without resort to ad hominem, I suggest you take a wee time out.

I'm being lenient, I'll report you next time.

I missed no point.


On the contrary. The point was that Neo was discussing what North Korea 'should do'.

I pointed something out that is quite obvious.


You did. Well done. Of course, that wasn't the point.


Iran created the mess that is currently going on now. Maybe you should like keep up?

They did? By the construction of Israel? Arming Israel? Backing Israel in local conflicts?

No wait... that wasn't Iran, was it?

In other words, it's North Korea's peace efforts that are stopping the US ramping up to war.
Well, first of all Corneliu is right, North Korea is still at war with the US. And secondly if building nukes and then stopping it is a "peace effort" to you, you may have the wrong outlook on life.

Supposed to? Based on what? The American belief that we own the world?
No. On North Korea, it was basically the entire international community, particularly all of North Korea's neighbours who pointed out that the DPRK and nukes aren't a good combination. Sharing that view, being a very important signatory to the paperwork surrounding Korea and one of the major powers in the region, the US joined the talks and became a very instrumental party to them.

As for Iran, you may have noticed that it was the IAEA who are unhappy with the level of cooperation that's coming from there. They keep referring that to the UN, which the EU and US then put on the agenda for the UNSC to sort out. But the UNSC keeps rejecting sanctions and calls for more negotiations, which the EU then does, with US backing.

Not wanting another country to do something doesn't mean you think you own the world. If it did, all countries throughout history thought they owned the world. If they didn't, there'd be no grounds for diplomacy or any form of international relations. The US, EU, most of Iran's regional neighbours and Russia all don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. And as a result, they're trying to convince them not to build it. That's not imperialism, that's what countries do.

Yes - that is a problem. Our brinkmanship is allowing a dangerous game to escalate between Iran and a third party.
Exactly what brinkmanship are you talking about? What did Washington do that made Israeli politicians call Iranian nukes an existential threat that should be dealt with preemptively?

Or, maybe they do.
And you base that on...

Fact of the matter is that US foreign policy in Latin America is aimed at the elimination of drugs and crime that get into the US and building trade relationships, particularly with regards to resources. That's most obvious in Colombia. It was Chávez who attacked both of those pillars first, by attacking Colombian efforts to get rid of FARC, other militias and the drug cartels with US help and by attacking the oil industry operating in Venezuela.

The Colombia issue is virtually resolved now, and the oil companies have by en large left Venezuela, to come back when the Chávistas are gone. There really is no actual issue to be resolved between the US and Venezuela at this point, other than the continued comments from Chávez, and now his attempt to somehow change the geostrategic landscape in Latin America (not that this will succeed, but that's obviously part of the reason he wants the Russians to get more involved). Whatever beef there is between Venezuela and the US, he started it. And the reason is simply that it allows him to use anti-American sentiment at home to improve his political standing.

The same may be true for some US politicians, but overall the benefit they can get from saying stuff about Chávez pales in comparison when US voters are more concerned about the economy, Iraq, climate change and so on. Hell, Venezuela's voters are also more concerned about the economy and crime than the US, but those aren't things Chávez can easily fix by decree or press conference.

Here's the funny thing. Just saying we don't, doesn't mean we don't.

We have plenty of personnel that could be in Iran or Venezuela. We have plenty of equipment that could be in Iran or Venezuela. We could run into a budget block over paying for it, but that hasn't stopped the ongoing Iraq fiasco - all you have to do is pretend that the objections of your opponents are "because you hate America", and they'll vote to support any budget.
Uhu...

The issue is one of logistics and how stretched you guys already are. You would not be able to deploy anything like as sizeable a force to Iran as you have in Iraq with the current troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to others spread across the world. You would hardly be able to get the supplies in.

Going into Venezuela is also not particularly feasible, because you either have to go via the sea (hurricanes for the lose), or through Mexico and a bunch of lame-arsed states which are full of banditos. This is a Bad Thing again.

I don't think the public of the US would go into "uproar", I think the more intellectual end of the public would be kinda pissed off in that impotent way that all of the intelligentsia around the world are, but there we go.

Uh no we do not.

The CIA already organized a coup which briefly ousted Chavez, I wouldn't put it past them.

Iran created this mess by refusing to cooperate with the IAEA. This has nothing to do with the creation of Israel in all reality though Iran is using Israel as a means to get uppity.

You really do need to get a life GnI. That or better facts.

The CIA already organized a coup which briefly ousted Chavez, I wouldn't put it past them.
That has about as much evidence going for it as the theory that Chávez was equipping FARC.

Sans those laptops.

The CIA already organized a coup which briefly ousted Chavez, I wouldn't put it past them.
Indeed, although I think they're just waiting for the Venezuelan public to get tired of Chavez now.

Indeed, although I think they're just waiting for the Venezuelan public to get tired of Chavez now.

Venezuelan people =/= right-wing trade unions and business chambers

Well... <SNIP>

I think I love you :fluffle:

Venezuelan people =/= right-wing trade unions and business chambers
What about the students, who have largely turned against him after he put forwards his new constitution which would restrict their rights?

Yeah, it fell at referendum, but that doesn't make the issue simply disappear.

Also, I believe a while ago I stated my stance on Chavez. I still see him as a radical social-capitalist and anti-imperialist, but I hold that under him real Marxist revolutionaries have a better environment to organize than under the previous far-right dictatorships.
, certainly not under the previous government of transnational elite-turned politician Pedro Carmona who briefly ousted Chavez.

Their is a real class war going on inside Venezuela, between the comprador bourgeois who have economic interests linked to Miami and the imperialist Yankee's and the working class.

What about the students, who have largely turned against him after he put forwards his new constitution which would restrict their rights?

Yeah, it fell at referendum, but that doesn't make the issue simply disappear.
lol @ rich kids

lol @ rich kids
They're the leaders of tomorrow ;)

Well, first of all Corneliu is right, North Korea is still at war with the US.


I realise that Corneliu being right for a change is worthy of mention, but the factis - I didn't disagree with that. I talked about 'ramping up' to war, in the context we've been talking about.

I didn't mention 'declaring' one.


And secondly if building nukes and then stopping it is a "peace effort" to you, you may have the wrong outlook on life.


So, the end of the Cold War wasn't a peace effort? Tearing down The Wall wasn't a peace effort? Disarmament isn't a peace effort? Bringing peace to the Balkan states hasn't been a peace effort? Brokering peace in the Middle East isn't a peace effort?

If I have the 'wrong outlook on life', so does everyone else. Except you. ANd Corny. Maybe.


No. On North Korea, it was basically the entire international community, particularly all of North Korea's neighbours who pointed out that the DPRK and nukes aren't a good combination. Sharing that view, being a very important signatory to the paperwork surrounding Korea and one of the major powers in the region, the US joined the talks and became a very instrumental party to them.


Wait... we were just some passers-by now? No - the whole escalation came about (largely) because of our relationship with North Korea.


As for Iran, you may have noticed that it was the IAEA who are unhappy with the level of cooperation that's coming from there.


It wasn't the IAEA that was threatening military intervention. Or am I wrong?


They keep referring that to the UN, which the EU and US then put on the agenda for the UNSC to sort out. But the UNSC keeps rejecting sanctions and calls for more negotiations, which the EU then does, with US backing.


The UNSC is split on the issue because some of the UNSC sees this as just more American Imperialism.


Not wanting another country to do something doesn't mean you think you own the world.


No, but threatening to bomb them back to the stone age, and making that your universal policy (until someone gets weapons that mean they can fight back) suggests it.


If it did, all countries throughout history thought they owned the world. If they didn't, there'd be no grounds for diplomacy or any form of international relations. The US, EU, most of Iran's regional neighbours and Russia all don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. And as a result, they're trying to convince them not to build it. That's not imperialism, that's what countries do.


Didn't mommy tell you, "I want" isn't necessarily a good enough reason? Why should Iran NOT have nuclear technology? They've never used nuclear technology in anger - only one nation has. They've not proliferated technology in violation of the NPT, that was us.


Exactly what brinkmanship are you talking about? What did Washington do that made Israeli politicians call Iranian nukes an existential threat that should be dealt with preemptively?


Israeli responses to Middle Eastern situations might be a little less inflammatory if they didn't expect daddy-America to bail them out.


And you base that on...


The same thing you do.


Fact of the matter is that US foreign policy in Latin America is aimed


At keeping them poor.


...at the elimination of drugs and crime that get into the US and building trade relationships, particularly with regards to resources.


...at elimination of trade that isn't advantageous to us, and creating a mechanism to make trade profitable to us, and unprofitable to them.


That's most obvious in Colombia. It was Chávez who attacked both of those pillars first, by attacking Colombian efforts to get rid of FARC, other militias and the drug cartels with US help and by attacking the oil industry operating in Venezuela.

The Colombia issue is virtually resolved now, and the oil companies have by en large left Venezuela, to come back when the Chávistas are gone. There really is no actual issue to be resolved between the US and Venezuela at this point, other than the continued comments from Chávez, and now his attempt to somehow change the geostrategic landscape in Latin America (not that this will succeed, but that's obviously part of the reason he wants the Russians to get more involved).


It's hardly surprising that South American states sometimes feel the want to unite with sympathetic powers. With the break-up of the USSR, we really are the bad guy, now.


Whatever beef there is between Venezuela and the US, he started it.


Well, obviously. Welcome to the playground.


And the reason is simply that it allows him to use anti-American sentiment at home to improve his political standing.


Except that we've heard here that what Chavez is saying existed before he came to power. Venezuela is hardly the only group of people suggesting that the US is a gunhappy imperialist.

They're the leaders of tomorrow ;)
No doubt, but I am referring to the tiny minority of kids in Venezuela urged on by their petite-bourgeois parents to these rallies, not to the vast majority of poor urban kids who support Chavez and the construction of socialism in Venezuela.

Rich student kids do not concern me.

Iran created this mess by refusing to cooperate with the IAEA.


'This mess' isn't as simple as one issue, of nuclear technology, my friend.


This has nothing to do with the creation of Israel in all reality though Iran is using Israel as a means to get uppity.


What YOU are talking about has nothing to do with the creation of Israel, etc.

Which is why I keep telling you you're missing the point.


You really do need to get a life GnI. That or better facts.

Wow. Another ad hominem?

Go take a nap or something, Corny - you clearly can't debate civilly, right now.

No doubt, but I am referring to the tiny minority of kids in Venezuela urged on by their petite-bourgeois parents to these rallies, not to the vast majority of poor urban kids who support Chavez and the construction of socialism in Venezuela.

Rich student kids do not concern me.
I'm sure that the only highly-educated young people being largely against the Chavez government does concern him, though.

Exactly what brinkmanship are you talking about? What did Washington do that made Israeli politicians call Iranian nukes an existential threat that should be dealt with preemptively?
Blatantly support Israel (http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=16594) over any amount of non-jews?

A policy that is not about to change (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/826665.html) in near future.

:p

I'm sure that the only highly-educated young people being largely against the Chavez government does concern him, though.
Well I am not Chavez, but from my perspective he is being too soft, I would have them all thrown in jail.

Well I am not Chavez, but from my perspective he is being too soft, I would have them all thrown in jail.
I'm pretty sure that Venezuelan prisons are close to full.

Well I am not Chavez, but from my perspective he is being too soft, I would have them all thrown in jail.

Which is why Hugo Chavez is running Venezuela, and you're sitting at the keyboard wishing you could run a psuedo-socialist dictatorship into the ground.

It seems like Venezuela's starting to have some troubles of its own. If oil prices rise 40% in an economy that's about 80% dependent on oil and your GDP only grows a little over 4%...that's not good at all.

I just don't see why Chavez couldn't stop at using his oil money to provide good services and development aid to his people and leave the economic management side of things to the professionals. The kind of economic policy he's attempting has been dead for 30 years and will probably end up undoing many of the good things he's accomplished. Damaging your economic base inevitably threatens all of the social services and infrastructure built up over the past several years...it's nonsensical, no doubt at least as nonsensical as completely throwing open the country's gates for a free-market free-for-all such has been the case in many developing countries, with predictably bad consequences.

I talked about 'ramping up' to war, in the context we've been talking about.
I believe things were going quite swimmingly for some time, until the North Koreans decided they really wanted nukes. US policy before that seemed to be to basically ignore North Korea and be happy with that.

So, the end of the Cold War wasn't a peace effort? Tearing down The Wall wasn't a peace effort? Disarmament isn't a peace effort? Bringing peace to the Balkan states hasn't been a peace effort? Brokering peace in the Middle East isn't a peace effort?
It's not really a peace effort if you end the conflict you start yourself, for the sake of creating conflict. North Korea figured they were running out of fuel, food and any relevance, so they built themselves a bargaining chip. Lo and behold, the bargaining began and now they got themselves fuel, food and a bit of relevance.

You can admire that as a piece of good negotiating, but it's not what I'd call a peace effort.

Wait... we were just some passers-by now? No - the whole escalation came about (largely) because of our relationship with North Korea.
How do you figure? What did the US do that made the DPRK suddenly build nukes?

It wasn't the IAEA that was threatening military intervention. Or am I wrong?
No, it was the IAEA that said "we have a problem here and someone better sort it out". As you may be aware, it's not a body that solves these things all by itself, or is in a position to make threats of any kind.

The UNSC is split on the issue because some of the UNSC sees this as just more American Imperialism.
I would say that the Russians and Chinese are somewhat more measured and rational in how they see these things. They're making big money in Iran, and don't want to risk that. The Russians want to solve it by negotiations without sanctions (and good luck to them, I don't see it) and the Chinese don't really seem to care who has nukes.

They have their own reasons for opposing UNSC action, they don't need "opposing America" for that.

No, but threatening to bomb them back to the stone age, and making that your universal policy (until someone gets weapons that mean they can fight back) suggests it.
Would you be so kind as to find me that particular policy document?

Didn't mommy tell you, "I want" isn't necessarily a good enough reason? Why should Iran NOT have nuclear technology?
Iran can have nuclear technology. That was said time and time again. But they are signatories to the NPT, which means that this technology comes attached to a policy of openness and full investigations by the IAEA. That is not happening, and the Iranians rejected multiple deals aimed at allowing them nuclear technology in a way that cannot be used to build weapons.

Even if the reasoning was nothing but "I want", it would still be validated by the various treaty provisions and the judgement of the IAEA.

As for the deal with India, I for one was never in favour of it. Even if it has no practical implications, it was still stupid because it weakened the framework for dealing with nuclear technology that is so important to the world in general and US policy in particular. It was a typical Bush policy.

Israeli responses to Middle Eastern situations might be a little less inflammatory if they didn't expect daddy-America to bail them out.
Perhaps. But on the other hand, they don't strike me as the type who would back down if they stand with the backs against the wall. Paranoid it might be, but they're honestly concerned that Iran is a country that cannot be relied upon to handle nukes responsibly with regards to Israel. US help or not, Israeli politicians know that you score domestic points if you, when in doubt, shoot first and ask questions later.

At keeping them poor.
Wait, what? Is this going to be followed by an argument?

...at elimination of trade that isn't advantageous to us, and creating a mechanism to make trade profitable to us, and unprofitable to them.
You know what, I think that if you take the entire supply chain of the cocaine trade from Latin America to the US consumer, I'm not 100% sure "the US" doesn't make just as much money from it as Latin Americans do. Either way, I don't think that's really the reason they want to stop it...

So what did you actually have in mind when you wrote this?

It's hardly surprising that South American states sometimes feel the want to unite with sympathetic powers. With the break-up of the USSR, we really are the bad guy, now.
Yeah, but as it is with "bad guys", more often than not they turn out to be made up for the purpose of scaring people.

Latin America's greatest problem at the moment are domestic issues: trying to spread development beyond certain regions, getting a hold of crime and corruption and doing it without upsetting economies to the point of another financial collapse. If anything, the US can help with that, being a major trade partner and usually happy to give development aid.

Except that we've heard here that what Chavez is saying existed before he came to power. Venezuela is hardly the only group of people suggesting that the US is a gunhappy imperialist.
No, but Chávez is the only one who is in such an important position of power that he should know better.

Blatantly support Israel (http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=16594) over any amount of non-jews?
Well, I'd wager that there would have been saber-rattling from the Israelis even without any US support for it. They're backing themselves militarily, and I don't think they'd compromise because of US opinion if they really felt the country's future was on the line.

But I already said, the way US negotiating strategists have apparently selected Israel as the stick to lend weight to EU proposals wasn't a good choice. Rather than be worried about an Israeli attack, the Iranian response to that particular threat would be a "bring it on".

A policy that is not about to change (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/826665.html) in near future.
The question is whether he's really wrong. I mean, no one can really doubt that Israel is a society that is particularly threatened by people who want to destroy it, regardless of the reasons. The government of Israel exists in order to prevent this from happening, that is to allow the members of that society to live their lives in the way they want to.

To the extent that it takes measures that are actually aimed at defense (and the way the incursion into Lebanon turned out for example went beyond that, though the initial cause was valid), those measures should be supported, unless you actually don't want Israel's society defended. Few people would go so far, and so the basic principle should probably be widely accepted.

The problem is that the way Israel has handled its self-defense in recent times just wasn't very good, and something that is sound in principle has bad connotations at this point. US policy should be aimed at making sure the Israelis measure their responses properly and promoting non-violent solutions. But you're not going to be able to do that if you don't first accept the basic premise that Israel, being a government in charge of a sovereign state, does have a right to self-defense.

lol @ rich kids

With all due respect, sire. Rich kids my largely beaten, hardened and working ass.

WHAT DO YOU DO FOR A LIVING?

No doubt, but I am referring to the tiny minority of kids in Venezuela urged on by their petite-bourgeois parents to these rallies, not to the vast majority of poor urban kids who support Chavez and the construction of socialism in Venezuela.

Rich student kids do not concern me.

What do you do for a living?

Could you answer the question?

Let me tell you something. You, saying this, for me, is flamebaiting, ok?

I have worked my ass off for years, trying to study at the same time. No family payed my studies. I had to do it myself, as many others. People I know, on those rallies, worked their ass off trying to study and WORK at the same time, so please, for comparative purposes, answer the motherfucking question, or shut the fuck up already with your stupid ideological rhetoric.

You have no idea what is to waste your infancy and your youth here in this country trying to survive, you have no idea, ok? When you finally grow up and compare yourself with oh so many countries, and you realize that you could had a lot of better chances with just a tiny more effort from your goverment.

So stop making stupid opinions, please answer the fucking question, and drop it. Are we clear?

What do you do for a living?

snip

More personalized and individualist rhetoric that I do not care for.

I can't.

The Russians aren't doing badly for oil and gas by any means, and backing up a country whose leader deserves a clip 'round the ear for his brinksmanship when Russia's position in the world is already somewhat threatened by its neighbours largely being in, or about to be in NATO, or China, which is not a friend of Russia's by any means is not a good plan.

Also because they have no need for Venezuelan gas or oil.

Well, yeah. I didn't say they were good reasons.

US policy should be aimed at making sure the Israelis measure their responses properly and promoting non-violent solutions. But you're not going to be able to do that if you don't first accept the basic premise that Israel, being a government in charge of a sovereign state, does have a right to self-defense.
A quote from the latter link:
WASHINGTON - United States Senator Barack Obama, a Democrat from Illinois who is competing for his party's presidential nomination, told Haaretz on Thursday that the United States should help protect Israel from its "dangerous" enemies.

"My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," he said.

It's hard for me to see that kind of speech promoting appropriate, restraining, self-defense.

To me, that kind of language feels like it tries to promote us-and-them feel, so much so it could almost be simplified to a good vs evil battle between the God's chosen people and their enemies...who usually also happen to have huge loads of oil on their turf.

All it is doing G3N13 is assure Israel that we will help protect them if they are attacked.

All it is doing G3N13 is assure Israel that we will help protect them if they are attacked.
Israel isn't a country, it's a military base dropped from Europe on the middle-east to be a base for US-European geostrategic imperialism.

All it is doing G3N13 is assure Israel that we will help protect them if they are attacked.
But why?

Why Israel and not, say, Iran - which has smaller defence budget than Israel or Sweden for that matter?

Israel isn't a country, it's a military base dropped from Europe on the middle-east to be a base for US-European geostrategic imperialism.
Oh brother. Now I remember why I keep ignoring you.

But why?

Why Israel and not, say, Iran - which has smaller defence budget than Israel or Sweden for that matter?
Well let us look at a few things.

Iran overthrew a US backed leader. Stormed our embassy in said overthrow. Took Americans hostage for over 400 days. Has made statements about wiping Israel off the map. Antagonizing the situation in Iraq. Started up Hezbollah and has funded them and supplied them.

Well let us look at a few things.

Iran overthrew a US backed leader. Stormed our embassy in said overthrow. Took Americans hostage for over 400 days. Has made statements about wiping Israel off the map. Antagonizing the situation in Iraq. Started up Hezbollah and has funded them and supplied them.
As far as I can see Iran as a capitalist state is just learning from the master about imperialism and proxy wars = America.

Wars are just the natural extension of the capitalist competition between states.

Well let us look at a few things.

Iran overthrew a US backed leader. Stormed our embassy in said overthrow. Took Americans hostage for over 400 days. Has made statements about wiping Israel off the map. Antagonizing the situation in Iraq. Started up Hezbollah and has funded them and supplied them.

Look at the picture without US support of Israel.

What would be the relevance of those events to USA and would the first few events even have happened?

Is unilateral support of Israel by USA good or bad for USA as a whole? What does USA gain that makes the deal beneficial? Aside from good vs evil aspect of defending the rightful owners of Holy Land, that is.

Well let us look at a few things.

Iran overthrew a US backed leader.

An unpopular and oppressive U.S. backed tyrant who was installed after the overthrow of a legitimately elected leader just to keep the oil fields from becoming nationalized.

Stormed our embassy in said overthrow. Took Americans hostage for over 400 days.

A backlash from the forementioned installation of an oppressive U.S. backed tyrant.

Has made statements about wiping Israel off the map.

And Hugo Chavez has about the same chance of turning South America completely red.

Antagonizing the situation in Iraq.

As if it's the Iranian's fault that Dear Leader half-assed Afghanistan in an attempt to one-up Daddy and overextended as well as underequipped our troops. They know the U.S. would love to overthrow them if given the chance and with the Coke-Snorting Chimp in charge, who could blame them?

Started up Hezbollah and has funded them and supplied them.

Started up in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon... which happened to repeat itself fairly recently.

dont think states will be in position to invade... unless they sell iraqs oil and invade kuwait first.... re-elect bush!
j/k

Look at the picture without US support of Israel.

What would be the relevance of those events to USA and would the first few events even have happened?

Actually...yes since we supported an Iranian Dictator.

An unpopular and oppressive U.S. backed tyrant who was installed after the overthrow of a legitimately elected leader just to keep the oil fields from becoming nationalized.

Yep

A backlash from the forementioned installation of an oppressive U.S. backed tyrant.

Yep

And Hugo Chavez has about the same chance of turning South America completely red.

Probably true.

As if it's the Iranian's fault that Dear Leader half-assed Afghanistan in an attempt to one-up Daddy and overextended as well as underequipped our troops. They know the U.S. would love to overthrow them if given the chance and with the Coke-Snorting Chimp in charge, who could blame them?

The Iraqis?

Started up in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon... which happened to repeat itself fairly recently.

Yea but as to the "recent" invasion (which was what? 2 years ago now?), that was started by Hezbollah attacking Israel, crossing over the international boundary and kidnapping an IDF soldier. That can be laid at Hezbollah's feet.

This is all about Hugo's ego. Like an angry toddler he is desperate for the US to pay attention to him, and the more he is ignored - which he is doomed to be since the US has problems of its own right now - the more he will jump up and down shouting.

This latest attempt for attention is purely because he the whole Colombia thing fell through for him.

Though I stand by my prediction, he will invade someone before this is all over. And that too will be ignored.

This is all about Hugo's ego. Like an angry toddler he is desperate for the US to pay attention to him, and the more he is ignored - which he is doomed to be since the US has problems of its own right now - the more he will jump up and down shouting.

This latest attempt for attention is purely because he the whole Colombia thing fell through for him.

Though I stand by my prediction, he will invade someone before this is all over. And that too will be ignored.

Since when did Venezuela get a standing army?

The Iraqis?

You were the one referring to the Iranians training and supplying the insurgency, or part of it at least. If Afghanistan had been thoroughly dealt with in a good and proper manner there wouldn't even be an insurgency to deal with, and with a Hussein Iraq still active Iran would still have pressure against its backside that would have put a lid on Ahmedinejad's rhetorics.

It's hard for me to see that kind of speech promoting appropriate, restraining, self-defense.
Well, I assume there's a difference these sorts of public statements in the media which are aimed at voters, and the talks these politicians actually have with each other in private. I don't think unconditional support regardless of what's going on fits Obama's view of the world or the Middle East. Whether that translates into him trying to put into place meaningful restraints on Israeli policies, I don't know. I suppose we'll see.

Since when did Venezuela get a standing army?

It's had one forever. Right now it has 100,000 active and an armed reserve (called up in 2008) of 600,000. It's also in the process of a huge modernization (YAY high oil prices) buying helicopters, self propelled artillery and shopping for main battle tanks.

In March, Hugo was rattling his saber at Colombia, threatening it with war. He even went so far as to send tanks and troops to the border. But that fell through 'cos everyone ignored him.

I believe things were going quite swimmingly for some time, until the North Koreans decided they really wanted nukes. US policy before that seemed to be to basically ignore North Korea and be happy with that.


So... what, wait? We weren't at war?


It's not really a peace effort if you end the conflict you start yourself,


Like the end of the cold war? Or the progress towards disarmament in this country? Pulling troops out of Iraq qouldn't be a peace effort?


Iran can have nuclear technology. That was said time and time again. But they are signatories to the NPT,


I've seen the argument made that, since the current government is a revolutionary one, they actually aren't signatories to the NPT.

Regardless of which, they haven't breached the NPT. But we have. Cutrious position for us to be sitting here bitching about them.


...they're honestly concerned that Iran is a country that cannot be relied upon to handle nukes responsibly


There are a whole lot of people with the same concerns about the US. We are, after all, the only people to have used nuclear weapons in anger.


Yeah, but as it is with "bad guys", more often than not they turn out to be made up for the purpose of scaring people.


Like Saddam? The Russians. Iranians. North Korea. etc.


that is to allow the members of that society to live their lives in the way they want to.


Unfortunately, what they want to do is illegal occupation and military expansionism. It's weird, but some people don't like that.


To the extent that it takes measures that are actually aimed at defense


That is a subject for debate.


unless you actually don't want Israel's society defended.


Seems fair enough. Let them make their own peace in the Middle East without the spectre of the US threatening to spank all the other kids.


But you're not going to be able to do that if you don't first accept the basic premise that Israel, being a government in charge of a sovereign state, does have a right to self-defense.

But Iran doesn't. Obviously. Because we don't like them, eh?

Oh brother. Now I remember why I keep ignoring you.

Because then you don't have to actually come up with any responses?

So... what, wait? We weren't at war?
The paperwork says that the Korean War isn't over. But if you check, you'll notice that the US happily ignored what the DPRK was doing until the nuke issue.

Like the end of the cold war? Or the progress towards disarmament in this country? Pulling troops out of Iraq qouldn't be a peace effort?
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I've seen the argument made that, since the current government is a revolutionary one, they actually aren't signatories to the NPT.
They seem to see it differently.

Regardless of which, they haven't breached the NPT. But we have. Cutrious position for us to be sitting here bitching about them.
I think there is a difference in the severity of the breaches we are talking about here. But even besides that, it isn't you bitching about them, it's the international community trying to figure out a way to resolve this situation. The US is just one party in this effort. It happens to be a powerful and important party, but that doesn't change the fact that without the US, the EU, Russia and Iran's neighbours would still be trying to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes.

There are a whole lot of people with the same concerns about the US. We are, after all, the only people to have used nuclear weapons in anger.
This is of course irrelevant, apart from being silly.

Like Saddam? The Russians. Iranians. North Korea. etc.
Yeah, like those. What do you expect me to say? You make no arguments, you insert silly comments into my posts and that's it.

I wasn't in favour of the Iraq war. I don't like Bush's policies. But that doesn't mean I have to forsake all attempts at rational thought when talking about US policies. Fact of the matter is that Iraq taught the establishment in the State Department and Pentagon something they should have recognised as self-evident and ethically questionable. As a result, they have changed their approach, and we'd be making an error if we refused to recognise this.

Unfortunately, what they want to do is illegal occupation and military expansionism. It's weird, but some people don't like that.
Wait, are you confusing defense with the expansion of settlements? What part of my post made you think I was one of those "Israel good, everybody else bad" types?

Seems fair enough. Let them make their own peace in the Middle East without the spectre of the US threatening to spank all the other kids.
The US isn't threatening jack. You may have noticed that in all the wars Israel fought, US involvement tended towards zero, apart from the odd weapons shipment.

The thing about the US on this issue is that it is powerful and important enough to all parties to be able to get them on the same table. Nobody else has been able to do this, for whatever reason. It's one of those things that come with being the global superpower.

So are you proposing isolationism? If so, then fine, say it. Don't hide it in long, round-about attacks on individual pieces of US policy and then generalising them to "imperialism".

But Iran doesn't. Obviously. Because we don't like them, eh?
Funnily enough, Iran's right to self-defense isn't questioned by anyone. Iran also isn't under attack from anyone. And if Iranian money and weapons weren't being found blowing up Israelis, Israel could quite happily ignore Iran completely.

That has absolutely nothing to do with nukes.

The paperwork says that the Korean War isn't over. But if you check, you'll notice that the US happily ignored what the DPRK was doing until the nuke issue.


WHich is irrelevent. How WE felt about the situation isn't likely to be the motivation.


Are you being deliberately obtuse?


No. You're being oblique - either deliberately or otherwise. You keep making ridiculous claims - in this case, what 'counts' as a peace effort. And, when I present illustrations of what YOU claim doesn't count, it's being silly.


They seem to see it differently.


Hence the comment continues...


I think there is a difference in the severity of the breaches we are talking about here.


Yes. There is NO proliferation breach on their part, and WE'VE proliferated nuclear technology calmly and deliberately - and as part of national policy, no less.


But even besides that, it isn't you bitching about them, it's the international community trying to figure out a way to resolve this situation. The US is just one party in this effort.


The part, specifically, that keeps talking about blowing shit up.


This is of course irrelevant, apart from being silly.


How is it irrelevent? We're a threat. Not only A threat - THE threat. We have nukes, we don't want anyone except our buddies to have them too, and we're STILL the only ones that have used them.

You all it silly - that's because WE have the technology. What you don't realise is that, while everything changed for US (the nuclear club), everyone else still lives under the shadow of the Cuban crisis.


Yeah, like those. What do you expect me to say? You make no arguments, you insert silly comments into my posts and that's it.


You were the one talking about how threats are made up to scare the children. I'm pointing out that we're using those same threats, right now. Well - you are.


As a result, they have changed their approach,


That really remains to be seen. They're still talking the same dumb redneck shit.


So are you proposing isolationism? If so, then fine, say it. Don't hide it in long, round-about attacks on individual pieces of US policy and then generalising them to "imperialism".


No. I'm not proposing isolationism. I'm not sure why you'd imagine "Hey, let's not blow shit up for a while, see how THAT feels" could only equate to isolationism...?


Funnily enough, Iran's right to self-defense isn't questioned by anyone. Iran also isn't under attack from anyone. And if Iranian money and weapons weren't being found blowing up Israelis, Israel could quite happily ignore Iran completely.

That has absolutely nothing to do with nukes.

On the contrary, it has everything to do with nukes. We have them, and we're sponsoring an imbalance of power. We won't let Iran have even peaceful nuclear technology, but we'll hand it to our allies, and we'll look the other way over Israel. And Iran has seen how we deal with North Korea now... It's ALL about nukes.

WHich is irrelevent. How WE felt about the situation isn't likely to be the motivation.
If there was no conflict being ramped up to, and then the North Koreans build weapons and as a result the ramping up starts, then it's the North Koreans' fault.

No. You're being oblique - either deliberately or otherwise. You keep making ridiculous claims - in this case, what 'counts' as a peace effort. And, when I present illustrations of what YOU claim doesn't count, it's being silly.
What matters is what the status quo looks like. If we're just sitting there and I punch you in the face, I created all the conflict. If I then proclaim that I'll stop punching you, it's not that I created peace rather than that I restored the status quo.

The Cold War for example had been lasting for so long, it was the status quo. Ending the conflict was to initiate a change, rather than simply reverse an action one side only just took.

Yes. There is NO proliferation breach on their part, and WE'VE proliferated nuclear technology calmly and deliberately - and as part of national policy, no less.
The NPT doesn't just cover giving away nuclear technology, but is really aimed at restricting the availability of nuclear weapons. The US, while breaching a treaty provision by trading nuclear technology for civilian purposes with a non-signatory (though admittedly one that has allowed inspections Iran is refusing), isn't trying to increase the number of nukes in the world, or spreading them around. If Iran is building nukes (which the inspections are meant to refute or verify), they are violating the fundamental purpose of the treaty.

How is it irrelevent? We're a threat. Not only A threat - THE threat. We have nukes, we don't want anyone except our buddies to have them too, and we're STILL the only ones that have used them.
It's irrelevant because what the US does and doesn't do has no effect on what Iran can or should be doing. It would for example be possible that both are wrong, which wouldn't diminish Iran's wrongness, or even the US' pursuit of righting this wrongness in the least.

You all it silly - that's because WE have the technology. What you don't realise is that, while everything changed for US (the nuclear club), everyone else still lives under the shadow of the Cuban crisis.
Clearly. Everyone is living in fear of an imminent nuclear strike from the US.

Actually, now that I think of it, that's not true in the slightest.

You were the one talking about how threats are made up to scare the children. I'm pointing out that we're using those same threats, right now. Well - you are.
I'm not trying to scare you or anyone else. In fact, I haven't really talked about anyone but the parties involved and their likely motives.

The thing is, I'm trying to talk about a few very specific issues here. You keep introducing new bits out of left-field that really don't advance any case either way. And I think the reason is that if we're talking about specific problems, you'd have to notice that various US policies and actions were actually somewhat rational and had a point to them. If we can generalise everything and talk about nothing in particular, it's much easier to keep going on about imperialism, rednecks and blowing stuff up.

That really remains to be seen. They're still talking the same dumb redneck shit.
Not at all. There are very significant differences in the intensity and the phrases that they use to get their message across.

No. I'm not proposing isolationism. I'm not sure why you'd imagine "Hey, let's not blow shit up for a while, see how THAT feels" could only equate to isolationism...?
Because the US involvement in the middle east peace process doesn't involve any blowing up of anything, yet you still seem opposed to it.

On the contrary, it has everything to do with nukes. We have them, and we're sponsoring an imbalance of power. We won't let Iran have even peaceful nuclear technology, but we'll hand it to our allies, and we'll look the other way over Israel. And Iran has seen how we deal with North Korea now... It's ALL about nukes.
That's because you jumped from the right to self-defense to the situation in general. Iran doesn't need nukes to defend itself, and without nukes it wouldn't be under threat from anyone.

Hence whether or not Iran has a right to self defense isn't really something that involves talking about nukes. The US can oppose Iran acquiring nukes without questioning its right to self defense.

Because then you don't have to actually come up with any responses?
Nope. He spouts rubbish that falls flat on its face.

If there was no conflict being ramped up to, and then the North Koreans build weapons and as a result the ramping up starts, then it's the North Koreans' fault.


1) 'no conflict'. I thought you said we were at war?

2) 'then the North Koreans build weapons, and as a result the ramping up starts'. Because, what? The US doesn't have WMDs?

This persepctive of yours is getting in the way of debate, because you lack (or choose to not see?) perspective outside of US borders. We HAVE nuclear weapons - but you don't consider that part of the 'ramping'. It's another example of the imbalance of power - we've been sitting there as a very real threat, with WMD's no less. And we ARE at war with them. And we HAVE a history (the only one) of usign them.

North Korea developing nuclear technology is self-defence. And what's more - it worked.


What matters is what the status quo looks like. If we're just sitting there and I punch you in the face, I created all the conflict. If I then proclaim that I'll stop punching you, it's not that I created peace rather than that I restored the status quo.

The Cold War for example had been lasting for so long, it was the status quo. Ending the conflict was to initiate a change, rather than simply reverse an action one side only just took.


Ah. So the problem is that they just didn;t have nukes long enough. If they'd had them longer, you'd consider this a peace effort?

No - because this is another one of your generalisations that is meaningless.


The NPT doesn't just cover giving away nuclear technology, but is really aimed at restricting the availability of nuclear weapons.


But it's core tenet is non-proliferation, right? Hence the name?


The US, while breaching a treaty provision by trading nuclear technology for civilian purposes with a non-signatory (though admittedly one that has allowed inspections Iran is refusing), isn't trying to increase the number of nukes in the world, or spreading them around.


The US is, however, the one of the parties involved that has proliferated nuclear technology. Oh, if only there was a treaty that was designed to stop that!


If Iran is building nukes (which the inspections are meant to refute or verify), they are violating the fundamental purpose of the treaty.


Who said Iran was building nukes? Iran says they are pursuing peaceful nuclear technology. The fundamental purpose of the treaty is to stop people sharing nuclear technology - not to stop people investigating it for themselves. The US - therefore, has breached the most central tenet, and Iran hasn't.


Clearly. Everyone is living in fear of an imminent nuclear strike from the US.


Not everyone, and not imminent, but yes.


Actually, now that I think of it, that's not true in the slightest.


Because of your curiously egocentric view of the world.


The thing is, I'm trying to talk about a few very specific issues here. You keep introducing new bits out of left-field that really don't advance any case either way.


You keep introducing alleged 'rules'.... that simply don't hold up if I try to apply them. External threats aren't just inventions to keep the kids quiet, peace processes CAN be peace-processes no matter who 'started it'.


Because the US involvement in the middle east peace process doesn't involve any blowing up of anything, yet you still seem opposed to it.


Yep, we ain't been involved in a blowing-things-up scenario in the Middle East in.... oh, wait... no, we're still embroiled in the latest one, aren't we?


That's because you jumped from the right to self-defense to the situation in general. Iran doesn't need nukes to defend itself,


1) Nuclear power isn't about defence, and that's what they claim they're after.

2) Apparently they do. Israel has them, and is an immediate threat. The US has them and is a manifest threat. And- perhaps most importantly - the lesson of North Korea is that the US will stop fucking with you if they think you can nuke them back.

And- perhaps most importantly - the lesson of North Korea is that the US will stop fucking with you if they think you can nuke them back.

Looks like we didn't back down on our demand for them to disarm.

And it looks like, if the US thinks you're a nuke threat, they engage your neighbors in fucking with you diplomatically. Then they station ships that can actually shoot down ballistic missiles outside of your country.

Then the US makes public the OPLAN for nuking your country with 85 200-kiloton warheads in about an hour's time.

Then North Korea said, "oh, here's our nuclear program, we didn't want it anyway".

Takes some time - you don't run in and nuke them right off. But eventually they get the hint that a nuke on top of a 1950s technology rocket isn't going to make it to the target if the US has an SM-3 equipped ship laying around, and the result of firing a live nuke (even if it doesn't reach its target) may, just may result in turning your nation into a 6000-rad per hour hot zone.

Looks like we didn't back down on our demand for them to disarm.

And it looks like, if the US thinks you're a nuke threat, they engage your neighbors in fucking with you diplomatically. Then they station ships that can actually shoot down ballistic missiles outside of your country.

Then the US makes public the OPLAN for nuking your country with 85 200-kiloton warheads in about an hour's time.

Then North Korea said, "oh, here's our nuclear program, we didn't want it anyway".

Takes some time - you don't run in and nuke them right off. But eventually they get the hint that a nuke on top of a 1950s technology rocket isn't going to make it to the target if the US has an SM-3 equipped ship laying around, and the result of firing a live nuke (even if it doesn't reach its target) may, just may result in turning your nation into a 6000-rad per hour hot zone.

We didn't have a demand for them to disarm... until after they armed.

We had a 'status quo' situation where North Korea had no leverage, which suddenly turned into an entirely different situation once (We even thought) they had nuclear technology.

The status quo has now shifted, a long way in North Korea's favour.

You're fooling yourself if you think North Korea ever thought they'd entered the arms race - they KNEW we had the potential to glass their landscape... they've known it for 50 years. But, they did prove that even (the threat of!) one nuke is enough to totally change how the US deals with you.

We didn't have a demand for them to disarm... until after they armed.

We had a 'status quo' situation where North Korea had no leverage, which suddenly turned into an entirely different situation once (We even thought) they had nuclear technology.

The status quo has now shifted, a long way in North Korea's favour.

You're fooling yourself if you think North Korea ever thought they'd entered the arms race - they KNEW we had the potential to glass their landscape... they've known it for 50 years. But, they did prove that even (the threat of!) one nuke is enough to totally change how the US deals with you.

Yes, it put anti-ballistic missile warships off their coast (it was the driver for us to perfect them). And put PAC-3 in South Korea and Japan (also perfected and tested in combat). And for us to get China, Japan, and other regional powers to lean on North Korea so they went from starving to fucking starving.

Yes, that went in North Korea's favor - now they're going to get some aid (a paltry amount, but at least they might not starve to death).

They could have easily negotiated the end to the Korean War without wasting all of this time and money on trying to build nukes.

Yes, it put anti-ballistic missile warships off their coast (it was the driver for us to perfect them). And put PAC-3 in South Korea and Japan (also perfected and tested in combat). And for us to get China, Japan, and other regional powers to lean on North Korea so they went from starving to fucking starving.

Yes, that went in North Korea's favor - now they're going to get some aid (a paltry amount, but at least they might not starve to death).

They could have easily negotiated the end to the Korean War without wasting all of this time and money on trying to build nukes.

What it really did, was make their leader look invincible, and make North Korea look like something that matters on the world stage. What it really did was to change the diplomatic situation so that North Korea doesn't have to look weak, and come begging for scraps - which seems to be what you're suggesting. What it really did was change the dynamics of the region.

Yes yes, we put ever so many guns there. Look we can blow up SOmuch stuff. And? The legacy is that the US looks scared, and drastically over-reacted, considering we're talking about a tiny nation with nascent nuclear potential, and we (with more arms than everyone else put together) are seen to be shitting our pants in response.

The legacy is that we're looking like the Hollywood stereotype gung-ho, guns-blazing neo-barbarian, and North Korea comes out of it looking rational and reasonable. We've reinforced our post-Iraq (post-Vietnam) image, and we've changed the world's approach to diplomacy with us - in favour of nuclear diplomacy.

What it really did, was make their leader look invincible, and make North Korea look like something that matters on the world stage. What it really did was to change the diplomatic situation so that North Korea doesn't have to look weak, and come begging for scraps - which seems to be what you're suggesting. What it really did was change the dynamics of the region.

Yes yes, we put ever so many guns there. Look we can blow up SOmuch stuff. And? The legacy is that the US looks scared, and drastically over-reacted, considering we're talking about a tiny nation with nascent nuclear potential, and we (with more arms than everyone else put together) are seen to be shitting our pants in response.

The legacy is that we're looking like the Hollywood stereotype gung-ho, guns-blazing neo-barbarian, and North Korea comes out of it looking rational and reasonable. We've reinforced our post-Iraq (post-Vietnam) image, and we've changed the world's approach to diplomacy with us - in favour of nuclear diplomacy.

And now the US has three types of missiles that can shoot down ballistic missiles.

And now the US has three types of missiles that can shoot down ballistic missiles.

Which is SO impressive, they must have HUGE cocks.

Which is SO impressive, they must have HUGE cocks.

PAC-3 worked, and proved hit-to-kill in combat during OIF against ripple-fired ballistic missiles.

So having ballistic missiles isn't going to do much good, since there are now three missiles that use that technology.

Two, the SM-3 and PAC-3 are operational and deployed.

Far more impressive than a ballistic missile with a nuke on the end. It won't get to the target if either of these is in range.

PAC-3 worked, and proved hit-to-kill in combat during OIF against ripple-fired ballistic missiles.

So having ballistic missiles isn't going to do much good, since there are now three missiles that use that technology.

Two, the SM-3 and PAC-3 are operational and deployed.

Far more impressive than a ballistic missile with a nuke on the end. It won't get to the target if either of these is in range.

Yes, I'm really impressed. We have so many weapons now. Gosh, we really came out of that the winners, we've got 9 new guns and a bomb!

The rest of the world isn't impressed by any of this. We were already the most lethal single entity.

What the message has been to the rest of the world is 'the best negotiation with the US, is the threat of violence'.

Don't you see how this could be considered a bad thing?

Yes, I'm really impressed. We have so many weapons now. Gosh, we really came out of that the winners, we've got 9 new guns and a bomb!

The rest of the world isn't impressed by any of this. We were already the most lethal single entity.

What the message has been to the rest of the world is 'the best negotiation with the US, is the threat of violence'.

Don't you see how this could be considered a bad thing?

You're missing the point.

These missiles are defensive, not offensive.

They completely neutralize your ICBM force, unless you have 10,000 missiles.

If all you can afford is a few hundred nukes, you just wasted your money.

That brings you back to the table.

You're missing the point.

These missiles are defensive, not offensive.

They completely neutralize your ICBM force, unless you have 10,000 missiles.

If all you can afford is a few hundred nukes, you just wasted your money.

That brings you back to the table.

No - you're missing the point!

The lesson learned, by the rest of the world is: The US doesn't care for diplomacy, the only way to reason with them is to hurt them.

Do you really not get that? North Korea was seen to 'win'. It doesn't matter what new weapons-blah-blah we made, perfected, found-in-a-cabbage - the important thing is what the world saw. We were ALREADY an all-but-unassailable threat, that's not changed.

The worst thing is - this isn't news. This is the lesson that America should have learned from English history.

Being the military 'power' and trying to rule the roost just makes war assymetric. But, as it's been said - those who refuse to learn the lessons of history...

No - you're missing the point!

The lesson learned, by the rest of the world is: The US doesn't care for diplomacy, the only way to reason with them is to hurt them.

Do you really not get that? North Korea was seen to 'win'. It doesn't matter what new weapons-blah-blah we made, perfected, found-in-a-cabbage - the important thing is what the world saw. We were ALREADY an all-but-unassailable threat, that's not changed.

The worst thing is - this isn't news. This is the lesson that America should have learned from English history.

Being the military 'power' and trying to rule the roost just makes war assymetric. But, as it's been said - those who refuse to learn the lessons of history...

Explain how being forced to give up your nuclear weapons program is "winning".

We had no defense against ICBMs before - therefore, their weapons development was an actual regional threat. Now, even if they had them, it isn't.

So they had to give up. That's called "losing".

Explain...

Re-read the post. Rehashing your 'America has the biggest balls' posturing isn't helping.

Hell, hit the history books. Texts that deal with the 'British Empire', "Rorke's Drift" and "the IRA" might be good places to start.

North Korea was seen to 'win'.
??? "Seen" to "win" by whom?

Re-read the post. Rehashing your 'America has the biggest balls' posturing isn't helping.

Hell, hit the history books. Texts that deal with the 'British Empire', "Rorke's Drift" and "the IRA" might be good places to start.

North Korea lost. They're the ones who gave up something.

The US didn't give up anything. Did we leave the Korean Peninsula as they demanded? No. Did we promise in writing that we would never attack them, as they demanded? No. We are giving them food aid, which we would have given them anyway if they were halfway reasonable in the first place.

You haven't given me one instance or bit of evidence as to how North Korea "won". And I'm not the only poster in the thread who thinks that you're daft.

North Korea lost. They're the ones who gave up something.

The US didn't give up anything. Did we leave the Korean Peninsula as they demanded? No. Did we promise in writing that we would never attack them, as they demanded? No. We are giving them food aid, which we would have given them anyway if they were halfway reasonable in the first place.

You haven't given me one instance or bit of evidence as to how North Korea "won". And I'm not the only poster in the thread who thinks that you're daft.

Oh noes! Everyone thinks I'm daft!!! (And what... that means anything? Einstein was a patent clerk....) Sounds like a logical fallacy, to me. Another one, eh?

North Korea was seen, in this last year, on the world stage, to be more 'reasonable' than the US. North Korea has been seen to stand up to the US and actually force some small display of respect. You really think Iran wants nuclear technology so it can turn Israel into glass? No - Iran will pursue nuclear technology (whether or not they want bombs), because it's been seen that it scares the shit out of the US.

That's how North Korea has been 'seen to win'.

And the really really galling thing about it is - this isn't the first, or worst example of the US repeating mistakes they should have spotted a mile off, if anyone bothered to keep up woth history. The response to 9/11 was bad enough, the pretended response (Iraq, et al) just compounded the mistake.

Superheroes get the villains they create. Well, Superpowers do, too.

Oh noes! Everyone thinks I'm daft!!! (And what... that means anything? Einstein was a patent clerk....) Sounds like a logical fallacy, to me. Another one, eh?

North Korea was seen, in this last year, on the world stage, to be more 'reasonable' than the US. North Korea has been seen to stand up to the US and actually force some small display of respect. You really think Iran wants nuclear technology so it can turn Israel into glass? No - Iran will pursue nuclear technology (whether or not they want bombs), because it's been seen that it scares the shit out of the US.

That's how North Korea has been 'seen to win'.

And the really really galling thing about it is - this isn't the first, or worst example of the US repeating mistakes they should have spotted a mile off, if anyone bothered to keep up woth history. The response to 9/11 was bad enough, the pretended response (Iraq, et al) just compounded the mistake.

Superheroes get the villains they create. Well, Superpowers do, too.

We've had the North Korea problem for decades. Bush solved it when Clinton couldn't, eh?

We've had the North Korea problem for decades. Bush solved it when Clinton couldn't, eh?

Surely Kim Jong-Il solved it?

Surely Kim Jong-Il solved it?
Not really Gni. He got only aid, nothing else. The other parties got what they wanted. Now wether or not the Koreans actually keep their word...

Not really Gni. He got only aid, nothing else. The other parties got what they wanted. Now wether or not the Koreans actually keep their word...

Missed the point, again.

What do you think 'the North Korean problem' was?

I missed no point Gni.

Of course they're comparabel. Three times as much, eh? Okay - and by that token there's no way... because, what? There's a special statute of limitations on war that says you're only allowed to invade countries producing two-and-a-half times as much oil as Iraq?

Are you being thick? There's no written rule, sure, but reality dictates that the impact of such an action would be catastrophic. Especially with oil prices being so radically higher than they were in 2002.

Your opinion, like everyone else's, is worth fuck-all.

Actually, it isn't. But because you're a smarmy ass I'm not going to bother to present my professional credentials. You, on the other hand, are a second-rate, amateur hack.



And I think you're wrong. I think that our foreign policy is still in the shitter, and that our posturing with other nations like North Korea, and Iran is an example - not of some elaborate shadow puppetry - but of the fact that American foreign policy is still batshit imperialism.

How on Earth is engaging in active diplomacy with North Korea, and demanding that Iran adhere to fully applicable IAEA regulations for their nuclear program, whether it is civilian or otherwise, imperialism?

Calling a goose a duck does not make a goose a duck.

Of course the situation is comparable. Iraq: lesson learned holds as much promise as Vietnam: lesson learned. i.e. probably none, overall.

Vietnam and Iraq bear virtually no similarities. Limited tactical comparisons exist, but the strategic situation, both regionally and in the world, and the outcomes are significantly different.

Let alone technical differences, such as force levels, US tactics, regional spread and the endlessly complex ethnic challenges of Iraq.


Your failure to grasp even simple concepts is not a weakness in my response.

I was merely overwhelmed by the absurd degree of generalization that you utilized in your post.

You don't have to be prescient to see that posturing in Iraq eventually became war in Iraq. That posturing with Iran a number of years ago, has come to open threats this year.

That's not prescience - that's just paying attention.

The degree of generalization in your post is absurd. The US has had several key instances to utilize extremely legitimate casus belli, including the kidnapping of British Sailors, and harassment of US Naval Shipping, as well as the continued violation of the will of the UN.

The fact that over the past year, the US has actually taken steps back from the brink seems to have blown right by you. Publicly releasing an intelligence estimate that argues Iran has given up nuclear weapons ambitions, including an American diplomat in discussions with the Iranian government, and opening up the possibility for installing a US Interest Section in Tehran. The first real potential for US-Iran diplomatic contact since Iran violated the sovereignty of our embassy in 1979!



Iraq wasn't a significant threat to the Middle East. Venezuela presents economic and political threats, at least.

The reason why Iraq was perceived to be a threat to the Middle East was due to the fact that the US perceived the political will to keep the sanctions and punitive regime in place on the Hussein regime was rapidly decreasing. The threat was not immediate: It was perceived as a horizon threat, once Iraq had its post-Gulf War chains removed.

Venezuela does not pose any sort of regional threat, neither economic or political. Chavez's movement, his "revolution" is not a long term effect, nor is it a regional effect. Given his inability to maintain his position in office beyond the end of this term, what feeble elements had been constructed will likely recede without his personality to drive them forward.

But Lebanon is way up the list? I think this particular list is in your head.

Actually, Lebanon is a very likely candidate for American intervention. There is a significant UN force deployed to the country, composed of troops from US allied countries. There is also the internationally recognized government that is faced with significant internal and external threats. Should Hiz'bo'allah or Syria move against either one of these forces, a US rapid response force would be likely one of the first units to come to its aid.

If you can't see that, then you are a fool.



Are you kidding me?

Do tell. What are the benefits?

On the other hand, what benefit does Chavez derive from the situation if the US really IS possibly going to invade? Maybe enough force of support to change the minds of the powers that be. We've already seen that we back down from anyone who actually might have the capacity to fight back.

Or, perhaps given that the US was unwilling to go to war in the first place, when the brink is suddenly brought radically closer, the US does the rational thing and steps back. The goal of a brinksman's policies are not to actually go to war, but to try to get the other party to do what they want at the lowest cost to themselves.

If war was what was desired, then the state would merely plow ahead, as if the situation had not changed.



Like with Iran, you mean?

Nothing at all like Iran.



Where every clock is right twice a day?

In Siberia on a Tuesday?

I missed no point Gni.

Really?

Okay - explain to me what the 'point' was - then we'll discuss why you missed it, or didn't.

Missed the point, again.

What do you think 'the North Korean problem' was?

To the US, the "North Korean Problem" was the fact that that nation maintained the ability to produce the raw materials for a nuclear weapon, and to a lesser degree, humanitarian concerns pertaining to the inability of that state to feed its own people, and what sort of consequences that might have inside and outside of that country.

Further, reducing the military threat to the ROK from Pyongyang has been another concern.

For China, for instance, the problem was the danger that the DPRK government might collapse, and chaos might erupt right across the Yalu.

As in all forms of diplomacy, all participants in the Six Party Talks played key roles in "answering" the questions, of which there were several for each party.

Imagine that, compromise in diplomacy. Holy smokes!

Really?

Okay - explain to me what the 'point' was - then we'll discuss why you missed it, or didn't.
I am no longer going to play your games Gni. The evidence has been presented and the fact that you choose to ignore it shows that you are not interested in a full honest debate but for you to denigrate all who dare oppose you.

Are you being thick?


Ad hominem, always a good start.

I'll let it slip, you're only one example of an apparent upsurge of incredibly bad manners at the moment.


There's no written rule, sure, but reality dictates that the impact of such an action would be catastrophic. Especially with oil prices being so radically higher than they were in 2002.


There'll never be a war again, given how expensive oil is.

Or... just maybe, that's not the only deciding factor.


Actually, it isn't. But because you're a smarmy ass


Another ad hominem? Cry myself to sleep, or respond with the full merit it deserves? Oooh, I'm torn.


...I'm not going to bother to present my professional credentials.


Which you claim to have.


You, on the other hand, are a second-rate, amateur hack.


On the contrary, I'm actually a first rate, professional, hack. I have the licensing from the state to prove it.


How on Earth is engaging in active diplomacy with North Korea, and demanding that Iran adhere to fully applicable IAEA regulations for their nuclear program, whether it is civilian or otherwise, imperialism?


Engaging in 'active diplomacy' with North Korea AFTER they presented their credentials, so to speak.


Calling a goose a duck does not make a goose a duck.


No - but since it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I'm starting to doubt your diagnosis.


Vietnam and Iraq bear virtually no similarities. Limited tactical comparisons exist, but the strategic situation, both regionally and in the world, and the outcomes are significantly different.


The big comparisons would be: 'unpopular', 'bad reasons for engagement' and... I don't know 'asymmetic war'?


The fact that over the past year, the US has actually taken steps back from the brink seems to have blown right by you. Publicly releasing an intelligence estimate that argues Iran has given up nuclear weapons ambitions,


Not at all - it hasn't blown by me that the US has actually taken steps back from the brink in two arenas, both where nuclear capabilities are being demonstrated or alluded to.

And, your idea of us taking a step back, is revealing that we've actually KNOWN for half a decade that the Iran research was harmless?

...including an American diplomat in discussions with the Iranian government, and opening up the possibility for installing a US Interest Section in Tehran. The first real potential for US-Iran diplomatic contact since Iran violated the sovereignty of our embassy in 1979!


Yes, they violated our sovereignty... I wodner why they might have done that? And we pouted about that for what - three decades?


The reason why Iraq was perceived to be a threat to the Middle East was due to the fact that the US perceived the political will to keep the sanctions and punitive regime in place on the Hussein regime was rapidly decreasing.


That doesn't make it a threat. There are no sanctions on Wales (that I no of), so - are they a threat now, too? Should we be worrying about the imminent arrival of US tanks in Cardiff?


Venezuela does not pose any sort of regional threat, neither economic or political.


You're cake, sir. You might not want to eat that now, since you appear to be... having... it.


Actually, Lebanon is a very likely candidate for American intervention. There is a significant UN force deployed to the country, composed of troops from US allied countries. There is also the internationally recognized government that is faced with significant internal and external threats. Should Hiz'bo'allah or Syria move against either one of these forces, a US rapid response force would be likely one of the first units to come to its aid.

If you can't see that, then you are a fool.


I haven't seen that defence since Mike Myers in the "Cat in the Hat". HE phrased it better, of course: "you're not just wrong, you're stupid". Much catchier.

I am no longer going to play your games Gni.


You haven't played yet, Corny - you keep doing the same thing you're doing right now - evasion.


The evidence has been presented


You presented what? You haven't even answered the questions I've asked you, directly.


and the fact that you choose to ignore it shows that you are not interested in a full honest debate but for you to denigrate all who dare oppose you.

On the contrary - I'm the one who has been told I'm 'a fool', 'daft', a smarmy ass', 'thick'... and that's all within the last page.

You're actually part of the mob doing the denigrating.

And yet you have the temerity to accuse ME of not being interested in honest debate. For shame!

Ad hominem, always a good start.

I'll let it slip, you're only one example of an apparent upsurge of incredibly bad manners at the moment.

Asking you if you are being thick, or obtuse, is perfectly legitimate, when you so blatantly refuse to address evidence, except by, essentially, saying "it doesn't matter".

There'll never be a war again, given how expensive oil is.

Or... just maybe, that's not the only deciding factor.

In the case of Venezuela, though, it is an extremely significant deterrent factor. The impact on the US economy would be devastating, agriculture and manufacturing would grind to a halt. Demand for oil in the US is fairly inelastic, and to remove over ten percent of our supply would destroy the economy.



Another ad hominem? Cry myself to sleep, or respond with the full merit it deserves? Oooh, I'm torn.

On the contrary, I'm actually a first rate, professional, hack. I have the licensing from the state to prove it.

Smarmy ass, precisely.



Which you claim to have.

There's a reason my name is on that degree, that I'm paid to do what I do, and that I'm certified by two professional organizations.

Engaging in 'active diplomacy' with North Korea AFTER they presented their credentials, so to speak.

The Six Party Talks had been ongoing since 2003, well before North Korea proved they could make a nuclear device that really didn't work all that well. Results were achieved prior to the fifth round and compromises beneficial to all parties were achieved.

No - but since it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I'm starting to doubt your diagnosis.

Except, it doesn't. Unless you're wearing beer goggles, in which case, a goose does, indeed, resemble a duck.



The big comparisons would be: 'unpopular', 'bad reasons for engagement' and... I don't know 'asymmetic war'?

You like painting with a broad brush, don't you? I don't disagree that the US should never have gone into Iraq, and I don't disagree that t

The dissimilarities would be:

-Iraqi insurgents have no superpower patron.
-There is no equivalent to the NVA engaged in Iraq.
-Nationalist sentiment is virtually non-existent in Iraq.
-Resistance to the US is highly localized. There is no core to the insurgency that can coordinate strategy.
-Environmental differences.
-Size of US force deployment, composition and quality of US forces.
-Composition and quality of Iraqi vs. ARVN forces.
-Intensity of Conflict.




Not at all - it hasn't blown by me that the US has actually taken steps back from the brink in two arenas, both where nuclear capabilities are being demonstrated or alluded to.

And, your idea of us taking a step back, is revealing that we've actually KNOWN for half a decade that the Iran research was harmless?

The concern is that Iran is not in compliance with the IAEA, and that they are developing the capability to make a weapon on short order, should they desire to do so. That is why our European allies are engaging Iran aggressively.



Yes, they violated our sovereignty... I wodner why they might have done that? And we pouted about that for what - three decades?

Iran violated the most rigorously adhered to element of international diplomacy: that embassies are to be held inviolate. Iran is the one who obliterated the US diplomatic mission to their country, and the onus for this situation rests squarely on their shoulders.

That doesn't make it a threat. There are no sanctions on Wales (that I no of), so - are they a threat now, too? Should we be worrying about the imminent arrival of US tanks in Cardiff?

The concern is based off of what Iraq has done in the past, Hussein's antipathy to a significant portion of his own people, and his proven ambition to develop regional dominance. Wales, on the other hand, has no such record. Even if the locals do like sheep a little bit too much.



You're cake, sir. You might not want to eat that now, since you appear to be... having... it.

Any evidence that his "revolution" has spread? Almost all of the leftish governments in the region are the moderated type that Da Silva exemplifies.

I haven't seen that defence since Mike Myers in the "Cat in the Hat". HE phrased it better, of course: "you're not just wrong, you're stupid". Much catchier.

And you talk about not addressing the issue. :rolleyes:

*snip*

You know full well he will ignore this with some off the wall comment. Hence why I stopped engaging in debate with him. He ignores everything and engages in dishonest debate.

I don't see how two countries with different ideology - Chavez's Venezuela being left-leaning and internationalist and Russia being right-winged and nationalist - and conflict of interests - both wanna sell oil, becomes trust-worthy allies.

On the contrary - I'm the one who has been told I'm 'a fool', 'daft', a smarmy ass', 'thick'... and that's all within the last page.

I called you a "smarmy ass" because of your little commentary Alpha Centauri comment, and I called you a fool because you couldn't even recognize the plausible reasons for a US intervention in Lebanon.

Your use of tired and absurd generalizations in comparing Iraq to Vietnam.

You have also shown a significant degree of ignorance in regards to what, exactly, is imperialism. Specifically, your claims that the US role in an international effort to restrain the development of nuclear weapons is such.

You have not shown any evidence that you understand international relations in any more than a most cursory knowledge, and that using that you have developed a bizarre dichotomy, of the US versus the World. Or, more precisely, a Manichean struggle between big, bad America, and the rest of the world.


And yet you have the temerity to accuse ME of not being interested in honest debate. For shame!

This isn't a formalized debate, this is an online discussion forum. I have questioned your capability of actually understanding this situation, based off of what you have demonstrated you lack in regards to other areas of foreign policy.

You know full well he will ignore this with some off the wall comment. Hence why I stopped engaging in debate with him. He ignores everything and engages in dishonest debate.

Stopped engaging?

My friend, you've yet to start.

Don't mistake lack of ability for lack of incentive. You were never 'in' the debate. You're an interloper.

Your use of tired and absurd generalizations in comparing Iraq to Vietnam.


Yeah yeah. Everything you don't agree with is 'absurd'. Got it.


You have also shown a significant degree of ignorance in regards to what, exactly, is imperialism. Specifically, your claims that the US role in an international effort to restrain the development of nuclear weapons is such.


I'm not sure you're really representing my argument accurately, there. Or... at all.

I said "the US role in an international effort to restrain the development of nuclear weapons is" imperialism?

I think you're conflating different parts of my argument.


You have not shown any evidence that you understand international relations in any more than a most cursory knowledge, and that using that you have developed a bizarre dichotomy, of the US versus the World. Or, more precisely, a Manichean struggle between big, bad America, and the rest of the world.


You have not shown any evidence that you understand international relations. At all.

Oooh, that's really easy! So much easier than having to make a point - I can see why you'd do it.

The dichotomy is not mine - I'm not sure if I haven't been clear about that - I really rather thought I had. The dichotomy is in how we are being seen.


This isn't a formalized debate, this is an online discussion forum. I have questioned your capability of actually understanding this situation, based off of what you have demonstrated you lack in regards to other areas of foreign policy.

"I have questioned" my ass. You've flat out said that you think I'm a fool and a smarmy ass, at least have the courage of your convictions. I think you're missing half the picture, you think I'm missing half the picture.

The difference is, I can do that with a civil tongue in my head.

Stopped engaging?

My friend, you've yet to start.

Don't mistake lack of ability for lack of incentive. You were never 'in' the debate. You're an interloper.
See what I mean?

See what I mean?

More importantly, I see what you are.

That's your crime. It is also your punishment.

Actually my punishment is having to put up with teenage girls tomorrow afternoon and their coaches and fans. That is beside the point however.

You have ignored evidence that many posters have presented! You stated that we want to invade Venezuela and you have yet to back up that claim. You have stated that we want to invade Iran. You have yet to back up that claim. You ignored all the diplomacy that is going on and has occured with Iran and North Korea.

I am not the one missing a point. You are.

Yeah yeah. Everything you don't agree with is 'absurd'. Got it.

Quite to the contrary, there are things I disagree with that I do not view as being absurd.

I've laid out quite clearly the significant and overwhelming differences between Iraq and Vietnam. You've only provided three similarities, one of which is a moral judgement, the other is so general as to have virtually no meaning. Hence: Absurd.

I'm not sure you're really representing my argument accurately, there. Or... at all.

I said "the US role in an international effort to restrain the development of nuclear weapons is" imperialism?

I think you're conflating different parts of my argument.

You've said that the aims of the US in the situations in Iran and North Korea is imperialism.

You have not shown any evidence that you understand international relations. At all.

Oooh, that's really easy! So much easier than having to make a point - I can see why you'd do it.

Except I have made a point. I have presented a significant degree of evidence, and provided a rational chain of thought. You seem to prefer to ignore such things in favor of the "Oooh! It looks vaguely similar" vein of thought.

The dichotomy is not mine - I'm not sure if I haven't been clear about that - I really rather thought I had. The dichotomy is in how we are being seen.

By you, chiefly.

"I have questioned" my ass. You've flat out said that you think I'm a fool and a smarmy ass, at least have the courage of your convictions. I think you're missing half the picture, you think I'm missing half the picture.

Once again, there is not doubt that you are a smarmy little ass. Your comments about Alpha Centauri, being a first-rate, professional hack and such are clearly indicative. As far as being a fool, I said that if you couldn't see the reasons behind a potential US intervention in Lebanon, you were a fool.

Given that you didn't respond to my listing of the reasons for an intervention, I take it that you accept them, and are thus, not a fool.

The difference is, I can do that with a civil tongue in my head.

Debate is rarely civil. People interrupt each other, they throw insults, they make fun.

1) 'no conflict'. I thought you said we were at war?
Yeah, but as far as I could tell, there was no shooting, or talking about shooting going on. So there was a war on paper, but no talk of fighting.

2) 'then the North Koreans build weapons, and as a result the ramping up starts'. Because, what? The US doesn't have WMDs?
The US has had WMDs from before the Korean War. They never used them, and they didn't suggest using them. They weren't a factor (nor do they actually change the outcome if there was to be a full-blown piece of combat going on).

This persepctive of yours is getting in the way of debate, because you lack (or choose to not see?) perspective outside of US borders.
I have never in my life set a foot into the United States. I only have one perspective, and that's my own which happens to be from outside US borders.

North Korea developing nuclear technology is self-defence. And what's more - it worked.
I think given the nature of the discussion below, you may want to make sure you don't confuse nuclear technology with nuclear weapons.

And you may also have noticed that the development of these nukes actually concerned countries other than the US much more. North Korea does not have the technology to deliver nukes to the US in a reliable fashion. Its missiles aren't at the stage yet where they can put a nuke on top of them and send them half-way across the globe without getting lost on the way.

The threat was to South Korea and Japan. Are they particularly worthy of North Korean "self-defense"?

Ah. So the problem is that they just didn;t have nukes long enough. If they'd had them longer, you'd consider this a peace effort?
Basically.

No - because this is another one of your generalisations that is meaningless.
Look, if I create a situation in which there is conflict, or additional conflict, for the sake of then solving it and looking like a peacemaker, then that's different to genuinely wanting to create peace that is superior to the status quo. If Bush pulled out of the invasion of Iraq a few days after starting it, that doesn't make him eligible for any peace prizes in my book.

But really there is little point to bickering about this. You're intelligent enough to know what my point is, even if you don't want to agree with it. So any more explanations would really be wasting our time.

But it's core tenet is non-proliferation, right? Hence the name?
Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. It explicitly covers the terms under which nuclear technology not simply can be made available for trade, but should be, since the treaty exists in the spirit that all of humanity has a right to enjoy the benefits of the peaceful use of nuclear technology.

The US is, however, the one of the parties involved that has proliferated nuclear technology. Oh, if only there was a treaty that was designed to stop that!
There isn't, and why should there be?

Who said Iran was building nukes? Iran says they are pursuing peaceful nuclear technology. The fundamental purpose of the treaty is to stop people sharing nuclear technology - not to stop people investigating it for themselves. The US - therefore, has breached the most central tenet, and Iran hasn't.
The point is that NPT signatories agree not to develop or trade nuclear technology that will be used for weaponry. To make sure that this is the case, they agree to inspections of their nuclear facilities. And since countries that don't sign up can't be monitored in this way, the signatories also agree not to proliferate any nuclear technology (not sure about raw materials) to non-signatories. That's the bit the US violates when it trades this stuff with India (a non-signatory), though they probably have a point when they say it doesn't make a whole lot of difference as far as the proliferation of nuclear weapons is concerned.

The problem with Iran is not that they're researching nuclear technology: as everyone isn't tiring of point out, that's their right as a sovereign signatory to the NPT. The problem is that they're not allowing the inspections that would confirm that they're not trying to build weapons. And as if that weren't enough, repeated deals that would allow them access to nuclear energy without the parts of the technology with dual use (such as the one where Russia would deliver and take away pre-manufactured reactor fuel elements for use in Iranian power plants) were rejected by them.

That's why the IAEA is concerned and why so many are sceptical of Iran's intentions.

Because of your curiously egocentric view of the world.
As I said, there is nothing particularly egocentric about my view of the world. I try to remain on the sidelines where possible, assuming some basic level of rationality from all parties and trying to stay informed about the legal and diplomatic situation.

And as such, yes, I think it is rather paranoid for any country in the world to assume that the US is going to launch a nuclear first strike against them. If the US wanted to attack someone, they wouldn't be doing it with nukes, because that's overkill and political suicide.

Yep, we ain't been involved in a blowing-things-up scenario in the Middle East in.... oh, wait... no, we're still embroiled in the latest one, aren't we?
We were talking Israel, not Iraq. I don't have to repeat my asking you to try and stay focused, do I?

Again: on the issue of Israel trying to find a peace deal with the Palestinians and its neighbours, the US is involved not as someone who blows stuff up, but as someone who is using their rather abstract ability to do so (and a lot of money as well) to get the parties to talk to each other.

1) Nuclear power isn't about defence, and that's what they claim they're after.
And if that is the case, I really don't see what they'd be losing by simply complying with the IAEA, letting the inspections get done properly or indeed taking the much more economical option and letting the Russians handle all the dirty, expensive and difficult parts for them.

Look, I don't know whether they actually want to build bombs or whether they simply have some paranoid ideas about not wanting to give away state secrets to "western agents" (maybe those actually came as caveats in the agreements with Dr. Khan and the DPRK that got them the necessary technology in the first place...). There is some half-decent evidence, from the CIA among other things, that at least until relatively recently it was the latter. Maybe they simply want to have the infrastructure to quickly build them if they ever felt like they needed to.

As it is I just don't think more nukes in the Middle East are going to benefit anyone, including the Iranians or Palestinians. And if Iranian nukes inspire Saudi nukes, Egyptian nukes, Turkish nukes and Syrian nukes, it seems rather more likely that a lot of people might end up a lot worse off. So I just want to see the Iranians comply by the rules and quit being so stubborn about this.

2) Apparently they do. Israel has them, and is an immediate threat. The US has them and is a manifest threat.
And why are those two talking about doing anything? Because they want to prevent Iranian nuclear facilities producing bombs.

Make sure they're not, and there is no need for anyone to threaten anyone. That seems to me like a much more cost-effective way of defending Iran from outside aggression.

And- perhaps most importantly - the lesson of North Korea is that the US will stop fucking with you if they think you can nuke them back.
Outside the boulevard press, I don't think anyone in the US actually thinks the DPRK can nuke them. And really, prior to the DPRK starting with the nukes, no one was fucking with them in the first place. The world was quite happy feeling sad about the famines there and otherwise watching South Korean politicians desperately setting up friendship events.

So really, if the same thing happens with Iran, they end up building a dozen or so nukes and then agreeing to shut the program down...what has changed? Israel, the US and everyone else will go back to doing what they did before with regards to Iran, namely nothing, and Iran will have wasted a lot of taxpayer money on a dick-swinging contest.

What they should have done was continue to laugh at America's equipment having gotten stuck in inappropriate and painful places after its own such contest.

You've said that the aims of the US in the situations in Iran and North Korea is imperialism.


No, I didn't. But why should you let facts get in the way of your enjoyment.


Once again, there is not doubt that you are a smarmy little ass. Your comments about Alpha Centauri,


You mean, my nebulous unsupportable claim, made after you made a nebulous unsupportable claim?

I know, I'm just a bad person, right?


being a first-rate, professional hack


I am both first rate, and professional - contrasting the second rate and amateur status you claimed for me. As - like I said - I have the state licensing to prove.

Apparrently you didn't like me responding to your insults by one-upping you.

As they say down our way, tough tits.


Given that you didn't respond to my listing of the reasons for an intervention, I take it that you accept them, and are thus, not a fool.



You bore me. I was going to discuss how internal conflicts to sovereignty in Lebanon are internal problems, and describe similar situations in Palestine... but I just can't be bothered.

Your assertion that I would be 'a fool' if I didn't agree with you just highlights your own weakness.


Debate is rarely civil. People interrupt each other, they throw insults, they make fun.

You do.

Which, I guess, makes me a better person than you.

I think given the nature of the discussion below, you may want to make sure you don't confuse nuclear technology with nuclear weapons.


Why? The whole situation is about how nuclear technology and nuclear weapons are apparently interchangable.


That's the bit the US violates


Yep. The US is a violator of the NPT.


...when it trades this stuff with India (a non-signatory), though they probably have a point when they say it doesn't make a whole lot of difference as far as the proliferation of nuclear weapons is concerned.


Sure. Because they're our allies.


The problem with Iran is not that they're researching nuclear technology: as everyone isn't tiring of point out,


You keep saying that, but then you do exactly what you were talking about above - you conflate nuclear technology with a nuclear threat.


And as such, yes, I think it is rather paranoid for any country in the world to assume that the US is going to launch a nuclear first strike against them.


The US is the only nation to have launched nuclear strikes. And they did it twice. They also have a bad habit of random incursion.

It might be paranoid, but it's not even close to unreasonable.


I don't know whether they actually want to build bombs... As it is I just don't think more nukes in the Middle East are going to benefit anyone,


Bombs, more nukes.... apparently, nuclear technology and nuclear weapons ARE the same thing...


And if Iranian nukes inspire Saudi nukes, Egyptian nukes, Turkish nukes and Syrian nukes, it seems rather more likely that a lot of people might end up a lot worse off.


There's already a nuclear arms race.


So I just want to see the Iranians comply by the rules and quit being so stubborn about this.


Yes, they're so stubborn. Not like the US who are being ever so flexible. See what I mean about America-centric?


And why are those two talking about doing anything? Because they want to prevent Iranian nuclear facilities producing bombs.


There we go again...

The US is the only nation to have launched nuclear strikes. And they did it twice.
Correct. That was when they were the only people in the world with them, to destroy an enemy whose leadership would not capitulate even after the destruction of 90% of its capital.

Slightly different circumstances now, to say the least.

Correct. That was when they were the only people in the world with them, to destroy an enemy whose leadership would not capitulate even after the destruction of 90% of its capital.

Slightly different circumstances now, to say the least.

Yes, and things never happen under different circumstances.

The excuses the US made to test out it's new technology on live targets is only really relevent in salving the consciences of Americans.

Not to mention, what you're basically saying is - if we go to war with someone, and they don't roll over, we feel justified in turing thier nation to glass.

Yes, and things never happen under different circumstances.
Things like dropping nukes on people are obviously affected massively by context, GnI, come on.
The excuses the US made to test out it's new technology on live targets is only really relevent in salving the consciences of Americans.
Uhu... seriously, nukes will not be fired at Iran ;)
Not to mention, what you're basically saying is - if we go to war with someone, and they don't roll over, we feel justified in turing thier nation to glass.
No, that's not what I'm saying...

What I'm saying is that nukes are not going to be fired upon the Persians because there are other countries out there now which could well strike the US with extremely deadly force and the situation doesn't merit the use of nuclear weapons in the slightest regardless.

If the US wants the Persians' nuclear site destroyed, it'll just send the word to the Israeli Air Force which has, after all, been practising for such an event. China and Russia are not all that important to the future of Israel. They certainly are important to the future of the US, and hence the world economy, which is why it might as well get some work out of its client state on its behalf for once.

GnI doesn't do well with recognizing differences.

Further, at GnI, the situation is Lebanon is hardly an internal issue, given the close involvement of the United Nations and US government in supporting and backing the government. Further, the actions of Hiz'bo'allah have crossed national boundaries, and have led to a significant degree of regional destabilization. I assert that the case of Lebanon is a fundamentally international issue, in which the US is and should be involved.

Parallels to the Palestinian situation would seem shockingly weak, at best.

As far as nebulous, unsupportable claims, GnI, there's a significant difference between having been employed in Washington in the Defense Community. While I'm unwilling to reveal the specific details of my personal life, such as who my employer is, it is entirely plausible. Being the queen of Alpha-Centauri, a star that doesn't even have any planets, is not. Once again, you've not shown yourself to be overly capable of recognizing differences, so I don't expect this to make any sense to you, whatsoever.

Finally, my profession requires that I maintain a civil tone in what I write and discuss, on matters very similar to what we are looking at here. NSG has served as an uninhibited outlet, both through my college years and now in my professional life, by which to vent. If I want to leave the workplace tone at work, then I most certainly will.

Things like dropping nukes on people are obviously affected massively by context, GnI, come on.


Yeah, that was the point.


Uhu... seriously, nukes will not be fired at Iran ;)


Probably not. But neither your opinion, nor mine, is worth dollars. And neither is going to cause the Iranian regime to sit back in their chairs and say 'phew!'


No, that's not what I'm saying...


It kind of is, really - you were talking about Japan needing to be nuked because they wouldn't capitulate even with 90% of the capital destroyed, etc.

In terms of precendece...


If the US wants the Persians' nuclear site destroyed, it'll just send the word to the Israeli Air Force which has, after all, been practising for such an event.


Think about what you just said...

Yeah, that was the point.
... indeed.
Probably not.
Certainly not.
But neither your opinion, nor mine, is worth dollars. And neither is going to cause the Iranian regime to sit back in their chairs and say 'phew!'
Quite.
It kind of is, really - you were talking about Japan needing to be nuked because they wouldn't capitulate even with 90% of the capital destroyed, etc.
I was talking about the importance of context in the usage of nuclear weapons. This is Very Important.
In terms of precendece...
Precedence my arse.

If Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed any level of precedence, then the US would have complied with MacArthur's demand to nuke China when they got involved in the Korean War, instead of sacking him.
Think about what you just said...
I did at the time, and I know I'm right. The US will not destroy the Persians' nuclear site(s), the IAF will. The US will vaguely condemn it like they did with the bombing of Tobruk. And the whole thing will blow over.

Why? The whole situation is about how nuclear technology and nuclear weapons are apparently interchangable.
Is this how you do these things? You annoy others until they quit talking to you?

Nuclear technology can be used to make nuclear weapons. Hence the NPT says:

Nuclear Weapons = Bad
Nuclear Technology without Inspections = Bad
Nuclear Technology with Inspections = Good

Yep. The US is a violator of the NPT.
Isn't it funny how you somehow manage not to talk about the central point of my post at all? Iran is also a violator of the NPT, because it will not allow the inspections that could convince the world that it is not trying to build nuclear weapons. And in terms of the number of nukes in the world, that is more serious.

You keep saying that, but then you do exactly what you were talking about above - you conflate nuclear technology with a nuclear threat.
My post actually makes it extremely clear that there is a difference and where the Iranians are going wrong. I suggest you go back to read it again.

The US is the only nation to have launched nuclear strikes. And they did it twice. They also have a bad habit of random incursion.
1) Not random.
2) WWII =/= now.

It might be paranoid, but it's not even close to unreasonable.
par·a·noi·a

1. Psychiatry. a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission.
2. baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.

There's already a nuclear arms race.
And now you're going to expand on that, I'm certain...

Yes, they're so stubborn. Not like the US who are being ever so flexible. See what I mean about America-centric?
Actually, it seems like you're particularly America-centric here. As I pointed out several times, it's the IAEA (=/= America) which has a problem with the way Iran is handling its nuclear technology. They're the ones Iran should be making sure it's flexible for. So are you suggesting the IAEA shouldn't be so stubborn? Or maybe that the international law on the issue should be more flexible to make sure Iran's new fancies are accommodated?

Is this how you do these things? You annoy others until they quit talking to you?


If it annoys you to be shown your flaws, then that's your problem, not mine.

If that means you quit talking to me, so be it.

You made something of a production about how 'nuclear technology' and 'nuclear weapons' are not the same thing... and then proceded (throughout that post - and I notice you actually magnify upon it in this one) to suggest the two things ARE interchangable.


Isn't it funny how you somehow manage not to talk about the central point of my post at all?


Not really.

I said that the US is in clear violation of the NPT. You opened up a can of semantic quibbling about Iran, India, makes no difference, etc... and then admitted that, yes, I was right. The US is in clear breach of the NPT.

So - you say I "manage not to talk about the central point of my post"...

But I see it as "Wow, you used a LOT of words to say "yes"".


And in terms of the number of nukes in the world, that is more serious.


Yeah, because another nuke in Iran is going to totally unbalance the tens of thousands we have...


1) Not random.


From which perspective?


2) WWII =/= now.


Good job! There's some hope. And... relevence? What, no one can use nuclear weapons since that war ended? All those silly people worrying during the Cuba crisis.


And now you're going to expand on that, I'm certain...


Serious? You need expansion on 'arms race'?


Actually, it seems like you're particularly America-centric here. As I pointed out several times, it's the IAEA (=/= America) which has a problem with the way Iran is handling its nuclear technology.

The IAEA isn't the one talking about putting their ground troops in Iran.

You made something of a production about how 'nuclear technology' and 'nuclear weapons' are not the same thing... and then proceded (throughout that post - and I notice you actually magnify upon it in this one) to suggest the two things ARE interchangable.
Then read again. Very slowly. Take the afternoon off, if you need.

Nuclear technology, such as uranium enrichment plants, can be used both for civilian purposes and for military purposes. The former is okay, the latter is not. In order to make sure that they aren't used for the latter, the NPT and IAEA require signatories to undergo inspections. If such inspections do not occur, it is quite possible for nuclear technology to yield nuclear weapons.

Do you follow me so far?

I said that the US is in clear violation of the NPT. You opened up a can of semantic quibbling about Iran, India, makes no difference, etc... and then admitted that, yes, I was right. The US is in clear breach of the NPT.
You're shadowboxing. I never disagreed that the US broke the NPT. I said that this break is less severe than Iran's, and that even if this were not the case, that wouldn't make Iran's break any less severe and any less condemnable or actionable.

If you agree, say so. If you don't, make an argument that consists of more than two sentences.

Yeah, because another nuke in Iran is going to totally unbalance the tens of thousands we have...
Yeah, because location, timing and who happens to sit at the trigger makes a difference.

From which perspective?
From anybody's. You can disagree with the motivations or the justifications for various US wars, but that doesn't mean that they were random.

Good job! There's some hope. And... relevence? What, no one can use nuclear weapons since that war ended? All those silly people worrying during the Cuba crisis.
Can you paint a reasonable scenario in which the US would launch a nuclear strike against anyone?

Serious? You need expansion on 'arms race'?
Yep. So give it a shot.

The IAEA isn't the one talking about putting their ground troops in Iran.
So?

Again, I'm going to have to ask you to go back and read what I wrote. I don't care what the Americans say or do. It's not relevant to what Iran should or should not do under the treaty obligations. And when it comes to preventing the spread of nukes in the Middle East, I don't care whether the Americans, the Chinese, the Russians or the Martians are pushing for it, as long as someone is.

Then read again. Very slowly. Take the afternoon off, if you need.


You're so cute. I could just reach across the table and squeeze your cheeks.


Nuclear technology, such as uranium enrichment plants, can be used both for civilian purposes and for military purposes. The former is okay, the latter is not. In order to make sure that they aren't used for the latter, the NPT and IAEA require signatories to undergo inspections. If such inspections do not occur, it is quite possible for nuclear technology to yield nuclear weapons.

Do you follow me so far?


Okay - so the two thigs are different AND the two things are the same.

If I leave you alone, you'll take both sides, apparently.


You're shadowboxing. I never disagreed that the US broke the NPT.


To be honest, it's been a long day, and I really can't be arsed to go back and check your wording. So, I'll settle for what I'm sure of - you equivocated, at the very least.


I said that this break is less severe than Iran's,


Yes, because Iran might or might not be doing... something, we're not sure what. And our only violation of the non-proliferation-treaty has been a little bit of proliferation.


Yeah, because location, timing and who happens to sit at the trigger makes a difference.


We managed to survive the last 8 years.


From anybody's. You can disagree with the motivations or the justifications for various US wars, but that doesn't mean that they were random.


The word "perspective". I do not think it means what you think it emans.


Can you paint a reasonable scenario in which the US would launch a nuclear strike against anyone?


Yes.


Yep. So give it a shot.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race


So?


I've seen it when my daughter was watching Hannah Montana, but I never really understood it's application until just now.

In response to your question, I humbly offer:

D'uh!


Again, I'm going to have to ask you to go back and read what I wrote. I don't care what the Americans say or do. It's not relevant to what Iran should or should not do under the treaty obligations. And when it comes to preventing the spread of nukes in the Middle East, I don't care whether the Americans, the Chinese, the Russians or the Martians are pushing for it, as long as someone is.

blah blah obligations blah.

I get it, you don't care what the Americans say or do. I get it, you're all hot for the IAEA. I get that.

But, that's not what I'm talking about.

You might want to go back and read my earlier posts, so you can actually address what I was talking about, rather than hopping back and forth from boxing shadows to fighting strawmen.

Yes, because Iran might or might not be doing... something, we're not sure what. And our only violation of the non-proliferation-treaty has been a little bit of proliferation.
You must realise by now that proliferation in "non-proliferation" refers to nuclear weapons. The rules regarding the proliferation of nuclear technology are aimed at stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, since one can be used to make the latter.

The US violating the rules of the NPT and giving India access to some nuclear trade weakens the treaty because it makes it less credible. To that extent it's a typical Bush-policy, because it's counter-productive and against US interests in anything but the shortest of time frames. But it will not lead to the spread of nuclear weapons: India already has them, and already has all the materials and technology it needs to build more if it felt the need.

Iran building nukes would obviously be spreading these weapons. If Iran is not building nukes, it would not be. And in order to make sure of that, the NPT requires Iran undergo some sort of inspection. And if they don't want to do that, there have been the aforementioned deals with Russia that they could take advantage of.

I wasn't in favour of the deal with India back when it was announced, and I'm still not in favour now - not because I think it will change anything materially as far as nuclear weapons are concerned, but because I don't like the implications on international law and therefore situations in which nuclear weapons would actually be spread.

We managed to survive the last 8 years.
Yep. Now, do you really think that the other half-witted religious nut on the other side of the fence should also get a turn at the button?

The word "perspective". I do not think it means what you think it emans.
I know what "random" means. And that's all that matters in this case, because if something is caused by something non-random, even if I don't know about it, the event is also non-random.

And besides, it's not like the US is ever particularly quiet about why it starts bombing people.

Yes.
Then please do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race
So one of those is going on in the middle east? Explain.

I've seen it when my daughter was watching Hannah Montana, but I never really understood it's application until just now.

In response to your question, I humbly offer:

D'uh!
Not humble enough, I'm afraid.

You might want to go back and read my earlier posts, so you can actually address what I was talking about, rather than hopping back and forth from boxing shadows to fighting strawmen.
You haven't talked about a whole lot. I've been doing the talking, you've responded with one-liners.

But I'll try to summarise. You went on various rants about how Venezuela is under threat from the US. As evidence you used among other things the fact that the US is threatening Iran. In order for this to make any sense, you had to make this look as though the US was initiating this threat and doing it without reason, because if there was a reason, none of this would apply to Venezuela.

So I went ahead and explained to you the context within these threats came from the US. That context contained the reason for the US threats, which is the concern the IAEA has about the Iranians not living up to the commitment they made to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

So both the IAEA, Iran's neighbours, Israel, EU, Russia and the US are concerned about Iran potentially building nukes. The UNSC can't be convinced to get involved, so these countries are trying to mount a joint effort to get the Iranians to share just what it is they're doing and refrain from building weapons. So there is a sound justification for these efforts.

Now, there are also no particular rules on this, since it's all happening without the official channels of the UN. It's a free-for-all, and given that the Iranians have been utterly unwilling to react to the carrot, the US is providing the stick by threatening military action, concretely through Israel (who may also turn out to be a bit of a rogue element if they snap before the diplomacy has been exhausted). That's realpolitik, well-justified and so far there hasn't been anything particularly offensive or wrong about it.

Therefore this is not US aggression coming without reason or delivered in an unreasonable way. And as a result, there is no way this situation can be transferred to other countries like Venezuela.

You haven't really provided any counter to this train of thought. Everyone reading this thread is aware of that. Prove them wrong and show that you actually have something to say.

You must realise by now that proliferation in "non-proliferation" refers to nuclear weapons.


Which, you keep saying, is synonymous with nuclear technology. Then it's not. Then it is.

Depending which side of the argument you want it to be on.


...The US violating the rules of the NPT and giving India access to some nuclear trade weakens the treaty because it makes it less credible.


And, more importantly, means they have given them the technology to make weapons.


Yep. Now, do you really think that the other half-witted religious nut on the other side of the fence should also get a turn at the button?


No. A half-witted religious nut on this side of the fence was enough for me.

However, no one has yet shown that Iran wants those weapons. More to the point, if Iran DID manage to come buy a nuclear weapon - they'd still have something like only one fifteen-thousandth of the armament of just the US alone, and that's not even talking about throw-weight.

'The button' isn't equal. The hysteria about Iran is hysteria.


And besides, it's not like the US is ever particularly quiet about why it starts bombing people.


'Random' wasn't the important word there, though - 'perspective' was.

And, to be honest, from the outside, the 'reason' why the US starts bombing people seems to be something along the lines of 'because they are not US allies'.


You haven't talked about a whole lot. I've been doing the talking, you've responded with one-liners.


Which is funny - because I trim your posts into small bites so I can reply succinctly (which you now seem to be saying is bad).


But I'll try to summarise. You went on various rants about how Venezuela is under threat from the US.


No, I didn't. From the point of view of Venezuela, or a variety of other global perspectives, Venezuela is under threat from the US.

If Chavez is paranoid, it's not unreasonable.


That context contained the reason for the US threats,


See your wording there? 'US threats'? See that?


...through Israel (who may also turn out to be a bit of a rogue element if they snap before the diplomacy has been exhausted). That's realpolitik, well-justified and so far there hasn't been anything particularly offensive or wrong about it.


You don't see anything wrong or offensive about the fact that we are backing a rogue element? Youc an't see why that behaviour - on it's own - might make people antsy?


Therefore this is not US aggression coming without reason or delivered in an unreasonable way. And as a result, there is no way this situation can be transferred to other countries like Venezuela.


Then, you are completely missing the point.


You haven't really provided any counter to this train of thought.


To the idea that you've completely missed my argument up till now, by getting yourself bogged down in the IAEA, and your various discussions of how x, y or z is justified by etc...?


Everyone reading this thread is aware of that.


Everyone? Uh oh? An appeal to the consensus? I feel a logical fallacy coming on.


Prove them wrong and show that you actually have something to say.

I have said what I had to say. The fact that you have constantly failed to deal with the core issue of 'perspective', is hardly a fault in my argument.

The IAEA isn't the one talking about putting their ground troops in Iran.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Who is talking about putting ground troops in Iran?

The Cold War for example had been lasting for so long, it was the status quo. Ending the conflict was to initiate a change, rather than simply reverse an action one side only just took.

The cold war took place in only one century, while the universe has been around for almost 14 billion years. The cold war isn't even a footnote in time.



It's irrelevant because what the US does and doesn't do has no effect on what Iran can or should be doing.

Just like how pulling the trigger on a gun has no effect on whether or not the gun will fire.



Clearly. Everyone is living in fear of an imminent nuclear strike from the US.

Actually, now that I think of it, that's not true in the slightest.

The US has over 4000 nuclear weapons, all Bush has to do is press the big red button. Even living in Canada, a supposed ally of America, I'm fearful of what can happen.



Iran doesn't need nukes to defend itself, and without nukes it wouldn't be under threat from anyone.

Except America and Israel.



The US has had WMDs from before the Korean War. They never used them, and they didn't suggest using them

So if the US has never used WMDs, what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The cold war took place in only one century, while the universe has been around for almost 14 billion years. The cold war isn't even a footnote in time.

In modern history, though, the Cold War is extremely significant. Saying it is cosmically insignificant is one thing, and thus irrelevant. Saying it is temporally significant, though, is entirely true.






The US has over 4000 nuclear weapons, all Bush has to do is press the big red button. Even living in Canada, a supposed ally of America, I'm fearful of what can happen.

Yes, nuclear weapons are loathsome devices, and the US should rapidly eliminate what remains of its stockpile, but you need not be fearful of the US launching anytime soon, especially against Canada.

Further, once upon a time, the US had 15,000 nuclear weapons. I daresay a reduction of 11,000 warheads is a quite significant move.



Except America and Israel.

Why on Earth would either care about Iran, if Iran were to prove with finality that they were not developing atomic weapons? Randomly blasting said country to hell would not achieve a single strategic goal.

So if the US has never used WMDs, what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

When MacArthur essentially tried to force the Truman administration into authorizing the release of nuclear weapons for their use against Chinese supply bases is what he's referring to.

That's the end-result when America ceases f-16 spare parts from Venezuela. (That and the failed coupe attempt on Chavez which everybody suspects America was behind)

That's the end-result when America ceases f-16 spare parts from Venezuela.

There's a significant difference between refusing to sell further weapons systems to a government and plotting an invasion of that country.

(That and the failed coupe attempt on Chavez which everybody suspects America was behind)

Is there any evidence of US involvement, or is it just Chavez's fearmongering that spawns this suspicion?

but you need not be fearful of the US launching anytime soon, especially against Canada.


Wow. That's all it took to make me feel safer. Some random internet nobody saying it was all going to be okay, really.

Is there any evidence of US involvement, or is it just Chavez's fearmongering that spawns this suspicion?
Other than a long history of such things and cowboy war hawks in the White House, I doubt it.

'Random' wasn't the important word there, though - 'perspective' was.
Right.

I already posted a definition of 'paranoid', which basically excludes rational behaviour. So it's not possible for paranoia to be rational.

But that's a side note, the important thing here is that perspective doesn't justify anything. A schizophrenic can think his neighbour is out to kill him with a hacksaw, and that may feel perfectly reasonable from his point of view, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen, and it doesn't mean that he'd be justified in killing his neighbour before it might.

You cannot talk about subjects like this if you are liable to get lost in perspectives. More vitally, remember when I said I assume a basic level of rationality by all parties? That includes the ability to realise that the US is not going to attack for no reason, is not going to launch nuclear strikes and so on. The basic prerequisites for doing diplomacy, if you like. Even when I talked about the Israelis I made clear why their politicians are doing it and that I don't think they are acting as they should be.

So we can talk about perspectives, but it doesn't change the material facts of the cases of Chávez, Israel and Iran. It's those that matter and those we have to use to judge what is going on. The schizophrenic is wrong, and so is Chávez.

The cold war took place in only one century, while the universe has been around for almost 14 billion years. The cold war isn't even a footnote in time.
As fas as international relations, diplomacy and peace are concerned, it wasn't.

Just like how pulling the trigger on a gun has no effect on whether or not the gun will fire.
Are you trying to say the Iranians are a loaded gun, a mindless object that is predetermined by the nature of its existence to perform a mechanical operation if a certain input comes?

I think rather more highly of them.

The US has over 4000 nuclear weapons, all Bush has to do is press the big red button. Even living in Canada, a supposed ally of America, I'm fearful of what can happen.
The worst thing that happened with regards to US nuclear weapons throughout his term was a bunch of idiots in the air force taking some on a round trip without knowing it. That's not Bush's fault.

Except America and Israel.
Of course, Israel was always keen to try and somehow manuevre its pilots and troops across the entire middle east and a lot of hostile territory to attack Iran. No, the difficulty and risk of such a mission are only worth it if you think the pay-off is worth it - which in turn is really just if there is an existential threat. Iran can only be that with nukes (not to mention that without nuclear facilities as targets, Israel couldn't actually spread a bombing campaign far enough to actually achieve anything), and without it, Israel is never going to try to attack the place.

As for the US, they really have bigger fish to fry. And as far as I recall, before this nuclear issue came up, there hadn't been anyone threatening Iran for a long time, since things cooled down from shortly after the revolution and the hostage crisis.

So if the US has never used WMDs, what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
They haven't used them since, and as far as the debate is concerned, they haven't used them in the context of North Korea. They had the chance in the war, but they didn't, and that basically means that they're off the table. Nuking North Korea would remove any shred of support for the US from its allies in the region and would likely be the end of the Presidency of whoever happens to give the order. It also wouldn't really achieve a whole lot, given how North Korea functions.

The North Korean nukes couldn't have been used to cancel out or provide a counter to American nukes. They were a bargaining chip, because of the name and its connotations, because they add the potential to kill hundreds of thousands more civilians in the region and because they don't play by the rules and thus make nuke ownership even more dangerous. If the US wanted to bring down the North Korean government, materially the nukes don't change a thing.

Right.

I already posted a definition of 'paranoid', which basically excludes rational behaviour. So it's not possible for paranoia to be rational.

But that's a side note, the important thing here is that perspective doesn't justify anything. A schizophrenic can think his neighbour is out to kill him with a hacksaw, and that may feel perfectly reasonable from his point of view, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen, and it doesn't mean that he'd be justified in killing his neighbour before it might.

You cannot talk about subjects like this if you are liable to get lost in perspectives.


You live in some kind of bubble world, then - because, in the real world, perspective makes all the difference.

Infrastructure all across America is entirely different now, to how it was even half a decade ago. Public works, transport industries... airports - everything is different.

Why do you think that is?

Paranoia?

Perspective?

Right.
More vitally, remember when I said I assume a basic level of rationality by all parties? That includes the ability to realise that the US is not going to attack for no reason,

So you say. But - who hears you.

Wow. That's all it took to make me feel safer. Some random internet nobody saying it was all going to be okay, really.

Isn't it obvious to any rational person that the US has no vendetta, whatsoever, against Canada?

-Canada is one of the most significant economic partners the US has. Our mutual trade is in the billions of dollars, with American and Canadian goods and services providing a high degree of benefit in both countries.
-Canada exports more oil to the US than does any other country. To ruin that sweet deal would be insane.
-The US and Canada have the longest unmilitarized border in the world.
-The US and Canada have not engaged in hostilities for nearly two centuries, and then Canada wasn't really a country, it was only a colony.
-American 19 year olds would be devastated if they couldn't take a hearty jaunt up to Canada if they couldn't get drunk, because Canada was glassed.
-Canada is part of NORAD.

And all I need to feel paranoid is some random internet nobody telling me that America is going to attack Venezuela.

You live in some kind of bubble world, then - because, in the real world, perspective makes all the difference.

Perspective, though, doesn't justify claims that the US is plotting to invade Venezuela. To do so, you have to rely on the most broad generalizations, so broad that they mean virtually nothing.

Beyond that, Chavez has proven that he's willing to say darn near anything to get a positive public response, even outright lie to the world that he's of even minor interest to Oli Stone.

Infrastructure all across America is entirely different now, to how it was even half a decade ago. Public works, transport industries... airports - everything is different.

Why do you think that is?

Paranoia?

Perspective?

Mainly paranoia. The US remains largely invulnerable to terrorists because of what happens at the borders, and outside of our country.



So you say. But - who hears you.

Clearly you don't.

Other than a long history of such things and cowboy war hawks in the White House, I doubt it.

Provide me a list, of these cowboy war hawks.

We've got Bush and his awful little war in Iraq. What else?

Isn't it obvious to any rational person that the US has no vendetta, whatsoever, against Canada?


No.

What is obvious to everyone is that the US has long acted like they thought they owned the world. The SoViet Bloc, while often considered an evil, has also been considered a necessary evil, because the superpowers kept one another in check.

The view of America since the dissolution of the USSR, is that it has thought itself to be - not only above the law, but actually the arbiters of the law.

No one really feels safe. Hell, even a lot of people IN the US no longer feel safe.

And you'd have to have your head buried pretty deeply in the sand not to have noticed that.

Perspective, though, doesn't justify claims that the US is plotting to invade Venezuela. To do so, you have to rely on the most broad generalizations, so broad that they mean virtually nothing.

Beyond that, Chavez has proven that he's willing to say darn near anything to get a positive public response, even outright lie to the world that he's of even minor interest to Oli Stone.


Perspective does explain why someone LIKE Chavez might think it, though.

And hell, they HAVE oil. Maybe we are.


Mainly paranoia. The US remains largely invulnerable to terrorists because of what happens at the borders, and outside of our country.


In dreamland. Anyone with any clue knows that's not true.


Clearly you don't.

I hear. I don't necessarily buy it, but I hear. But then - I'm not the people that I'm talking about. As you know.

Perspective does explain why someone LIKE Chavez might think it, though.

And hell, they HAVE oil. Maybe we are.

As so many administration insiders have pointed out (especially folks like Scott McClelland), while oil was part of the equation in Iraq, it was only part. Iraq was a massive ideological gamble, relating to the neoconservative ideology (I spit upon its grave), resource issues and poorly thought out geopolitical strategy.

Oil, alone, relates to Venezuela. And oil is what makes the probabilities of such a confrontation most unlikely.



In dreamland. Anyone with any clue knows that's not true.

Why do you think that there have been no attacks against the US transportation system since 2001? It's because we've insulated this country so well, and because Al Qaeda really isn't that much of a threat. Even as these internal restrictions lessen, we will likely experience no such attacks. We needed a picket fence, instead we built a forty foot tall, twenty foot wide reinforced concrete wall with machine guns.



I hear. I don't necessarily buy it, but I hear. But then - I'm not the people that I'm talking about. As you know.

It's not just NL and I who assume a basic level of rationality in US actions, it is widely assumed in academic and professional circles as well.

The CIA already organized a coup which briefly ousted Chavez, I wouldn't put it past them.

You mean the coupthat overthrew Chavez for a toal of 3 days? That one? If we were behind it Chavez would have been gone for longer than three days.

More personalized and individualist rhetoric that I do not care for.

And that is anymore diferent that the failed Communist ideology you preach about?

You live in some kind of bubble world, then - because, in the real world, perspective makes all the difference.
Obviously, it tells you what people might do. But if were to judge who is right and wrong, or who is justified, then perspective ceases to matter. Chávez might want to get Russian help if he really is deluded enough to think the US is trying to attack Venezuela. But, as we've argued about for the past few days, that belief is not necessarily justified, and whatever negatives might come of this move (though I'm not convinced it's going to be a lot other than the waste of Venezuelan taxpayers' money) aren't justified either.

By the same token, Iran may be deluded enough to think they need nukes to defend the country (I think they're smarter (?) than that and want them as status symbols and bargaining chips). But I also think they're wrong about that and that no one actually wants to attack Iran if it wasn't for the nukes. Again, they are wrong if they plan to build them, and wrong if they don't want to let the IAEA confirm that they don't.

Their perspective doesn't matter a whole lot. Even the old story about right and wrong being subjective has to break down here, because either you hold your own perspective as being right, therefore requiring you to make your own judgements and ignore those of the Iranians for example, or you don't, in which case right and wrong are meaningless and can't guide or judge anyone's behaviour.

Infrastructure all across America is entirely different now, to how it was even half a decade ago. Public works, transport industries... airports - everything is different.

Why do you think that is?
Paranoia and perspective aren't interchangable terms. Part of it was a legitimate attempt to improve public safety, and on airlines that has already worked once or twice. Part of it was paranoia, which is unreasonable regardless of who happens to be gripped by it.

So you say. But - who hears you.
The idea is that you do, because if you don't we can't develop a common ground to analyse what is going on and what should happen next.

No.

What is obvious to everyone is that the US has long acted like they thought they owned the world. The SoViet Bloc, while often considered an evil, has also been considered a necessary evil, because the superpowers kept one another in check.

The view of America since the dissolution of the USSR, is that it has thought itself to be - not only above the law, but actually the arbiters of the law.

The US is the only country in the world with the resources and political will to enforce the post-War international framework that has been put in place. I daresay, giving credibility to the UN, the IMF and the World Bank, as well as nearly doubling the defensive force available to Western Europe, has been quite a boon to global peace and stability.

Has the US targeted a handful of international assclowns for termination? Yes, yes it has. Hussein foremost amongst them. But this has been done in order to enforce a greater peace, and a greater stability. Something that other countries have willingly signed off on.

No one really feels safe. Hell, even a lot of people IN the US no longer feel safe.

Yeah, who? Paranoiacs?

And you'd have to have your head buried pretty deeply in the sand not to have noticed that.

This is the exact same question I asked when I asked you if you were a fool. You hypocrite.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Who is talking about putting ground troops in Iran?
Apparently the US according to Gni.

Why on Earth would either care about Iran, if Iran were to prove with finality that they were not developing atomic weapons? Randomly blasting said country to hell would not achieve a single strategic goal.

Either would care because both are full of racist people. The US is mainly Christian, Israel is Jewish, and Iran is Muslim. For the almost two thousand years these religions have been around, nearly every war was started by one religion attacking another.

Ever heard of the Crusades?

Isn't it obvious to any rational person that the US has no vendetta, whatsoever, against Canada?

-Canada is one of the most significant economic partners the US has. Our mutual trade is in the billions of dollars, with American and Canadian goods and services providing a high degree of benefit in both countries.
-Canada exports more oil to the US than does any other country. To ruin that sweet deal would be insane.
-The US and Canada have the longest unmilitarized border in the world.
-The US and Canada have not engaged in hostilities for nearly two centuries, and then Canada wasn't really a country, it was only a colony.
-American 19 year olds would be devastated if they couldn't take a hearty jaunt up to Canada if they couldn't get drunk, because Canada was glassed.
-Canada is part of NORAD.

And all I need to feel paranoid is some random internet nobody telling me that America is going to attack Venezuela.

America doesn't have to attack Canada, all we need is to launch a few nukes, then 'hello nuclear winter!'

As so many administration insiders have pointed out (especially folks like Scott McClelland), while oil was part of the equation in Iraq, it was only part. Iraq was a massive ideological gamble, relating to the neoconservative ideology (I spit upon its grave), resource issues and poorly thought out geopolitical strategy.

Oil, alone, relates to Venezuela. And oil is what makes the probabilities of such a confrontation most unlikely.


We both know this isn't true. Red-under-the-bed fear of the communist planet still motivates America at a base level. It wouldn't take much to stir up a movement against these 'socialists' in the South - and the average merican would actually feel better about that than they do about bombing the shit out of Arab's just because they follow a different god.


Why do you think that there have been no attacks against the US transportation system since 2001? It's because we've insulated this country so well, and


This little comment, paired with:


because Al Qaeda really isn't that much of a threat.


This one, tell me all I need to know about your alleged qualifications.


It's not just NL and I who assume a basic level of rationality in US actions, it is widely assumed in academic and professional circles as well.

And is still entirely irrelevent.

Obviously, it tells you what people might do.


More imortantly, it tells you what they SEE.


But if were to judge who is right and wrong, or who is justified, then perspective ceases to matter.


Which is why your moralistic no-shades-of-gray approach is actually a handicap to you. The fact that it's hard to convince people you're IN that kind of 'we're the good guys, and they're all badguys' conflict any more, is something you're apparntly failing to understand.

People don't buy your paragons of light bullshit any more. Get over it already.


Chávez might want to get Russian help if he really is deluded enough to think the US is trying to attack Venezuela. But, as we've argued about for the past few days, that belief is not necessarily justified,


Which is irrelevent.

Russia are somewhat paranoid about US motivations and plans at the moment, too - remember?


Iran may be deluded enough to think they need nukes to defend the country


They have a nuclear neighbour with a twitchy triggerfinger, and an even more nuclear shadow lurking behind that one. It's not a delusion.


...no one actually wants to attack Iran if it wasn't for the nukes.


Which is why Iran has never had a war.


The idea is that you do, because if you don't we can't develop a common ground to analyse what is going on and what should happen next.

The people who would have to hear your message, won't hear it, and wouldn't believe you, anyway. Hell, I don't even buy half the crap you spout - why would they?

The US is the only country in the world with the resources and political will to enforce the post-War international framework that has been put in place.


Who said it had to be one country?


I daresay, giving credibility to the UN, the IMF and the World Bank, as well as nearly doubling the defensive force available to Western Europe, has been quite a boon to global peace and stability.


Utter monkeyspank, as you know. One has only to look at recent appointments, and at the attitudes (especially in the rightwing) towards the UN to see that the US is as supportive of the UN as a jockstrap is of 36DDs.


Has the US targeted a handful of international assclowns for termination? Yes, yes it has. Hussein foremost amongst them. But this has been done in order to enforce a greater peace, and a greater stability. Something that other countries have willingly signed off on.


This would be 'assclowns' as defined by the US? Warcriminals like Bush, on the other hand, will be protected.


Yeah, who? Paranoiacs?


If that's your definition of anyone who objects to constitutional rape like suspension of habeus corpus, or illegal wiretapping, then sure.

The fact that you'll happily wipe your ass on the constitution in the name of political expedience, doesn't mean everyone is so eager.


This is the exact same question I asked when I asked you if you were a fool. You hypocrite.

Wasn't your 'question' actually about whther it was okay for us to invade someone for an internal dispute?

And - didn't you pretend it wasn't intended to be an insult?

If you're now recanting that, to make me a hypocrite, you make yourself a liar.

We both know this isn't true. Red-under-the-bed fear of the communist planet still motivates America at a base level. It wouldn't take much to stir up a movement against these 'socialists' in the South - and the average merican would actually feel better about that than they do about bombing the shit out of Arab's just because they follow a different god.

It would take a whole lot more than you seem to think. The American people aren't a pack of blood-thirsty animals, willing to slaughter brown people at the slightest provocation. There would have to be a catalyzing event for this sort of Red-Hunting, just like September 11 proved the catalyzing event for the Iraq War.

This little comment, paired with:

This one, tell me all I need to know about your alleged qualifications.

I would strongly advise that you read Mueller's Overblown. It is absolutely fascinating.



And is still entirely irrelevent.

No, no it isn't. Realism has been subscribed to as the dominant mode of thought in the theory of International Relations since the fifties. Even the neo-conservative interlude, farce that it was, failed to do anything but reinforce the power of realism. Look at who has come into positions of authority in the Administration: Rice and Gates, both creatures of the realist school. Look at who's out of the administration: Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and Perl.

Who said it had to be one country?

Who else, then? The Europeans? The Democratic East Asians? Magical Thinking Socialist Alliance of Latin America?

Utter monkeyspank, as you know. One has only to look at recent appointments, and at the attitudes (especially in the rightwing) towards the UN to see that the US is as supportive of the UN as a jockstrap is of 36DDs.

A temporary violation in a continuing history of American support for the UN. Just as neo-conservatism was a temporary violation of the realist paradigm in American foreign policy.

This would be 'assclowns' as defined by the US? Warcriminals like Bush, on the other hand, will be protected.

And you're going to argue that Hussein and the Taliban were worth keeping in place? I daresay the incompetence of the Bush administration doesn't even remotely measure up to their crimes.

If that's your definition of anyone who objects to constitutional rape like suspension of habeus corpus, or illegal wiretapping, then sure.

The fact that you'll happily wipe your ass on the constitution in the name of political expedience, doesn't mean everyone is so eager.

Once again, you somehow seem to think that I support the current administrations actions. What they have done in these arenas is entirely unacceptable, but it is extremely limited in scope, and has not done significant damage to our democratic institutions.



Wasn't your 'question' actually about whther it was okay for us to invade someone for an internal dispute?

To begin with, the situation in Lebanon is hardly an internal dispute, given the massive involvement of both international and regional forces in the country. The role that Syria has played, as well as Iran, in addition to UNIFIL is significant.

And - didn't you pretend it wasn't intended to be an insult?

If you're now recanting that, to make me a hypocrite, you make yourself a liar.

What I said wasn't intended as an insult. It is merely a rhetorical tactic. Essentially, impugning your overall capability if you cannot see a basic fact. "If you don't believe in x, then you're daft."

Either would care because both are full of racist people. The US is mainly Christian, Israel is Jewish, and Iran is Muslim. For the almost two thousand years these religions have been around, nearly every war was started by one religion attacking another.

Ever heard of the Crusades?

And this clash of cultures bullshit too. Gawd.



America doesn't have to attack Canada, all we need is to launch a few nukes, then 'hello nuclear winter!'

But, since the US began to develop a sufficient nuclear arsenal to actually make that sort of stuff happen, it hasn't.