One points out that the reason we don't do anything in North Korea is because, even without WMDs, they have a hell of a lot of conventional firepower within immediate firing range of, er, a friendly capital. (Not to mention an absolutely bugnuts dictator.) Not particularly a threat to the US deployment there, certainly not something our armed forces couldn't handle if it came to a confrontation, but at the same time, there's essentially nothing we could do to prevent massive damage to Seoul, short of a time-on-target saturation strike of the northern half of the peninsula. (Which would dump fallout more or less all over Seoul anyway. Destroy the city to save it, and all that? Ick.)
Pakistan is a little different, but there's no denying that they and we are strange bedfellows indeed.
So long as you're talking about a military foothold, though, the question is, do we really need one? We're not talking about the 1900s, where we needed coaling stations to project naval power; we're not talking about the 1930s, where amphibious landings against opposition were considered little more than suicide. It's 2007, and our bases go where we want them to. ;p
As far as Iran goes, it's a tough call. The real question is whether they can be deterred in the conventional sense - or rather, if they are the type of country to get a few nukes and be quiet about them (Pakistan, more or less) or if they start waving around burning American and Israeli flags and talking about killing millions of people in those countries. I'd hate to have to go to the President and say "our only option is to submit the Middle East to them, or to bomb the hell out of them all, today," after all...
To snood's initial question,
nemmee.
Quote:
So long as you're talking about a military foothold, though, the question is, do we really need one? We're not talking about the 1900s, where we needed coaling stations to project naval power; we're not talking about the 1930s, where amphibious landings against opposition were considered little more than suicide. It's 2007, and our bases go where we want them to. ;p
Haha, you need something there to protect that strategic resource which we all looooove to burn so much - oil!
Cycloptichorn
Setanta wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Setanta wrote:Do you still refuse to visit the web site of
The Project for a New American Century, Brandon? Even if you do, others can go there and see that this administration, which employs a great many of the founding members of the PNAC has planned this all along, before they even had an excuse to frighten the American people into accepting the invasion of Iraq.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
I was ardently
hoping for an invasion of Iraq years before it happened, simply because I was afraid that Saddam Hussein was secretly continuing development of WMD, and that if he did attain them, something terrible might happen. How is that immoral?
We have to take your word for that, but granting that it is true, i would point out to you that i do not question the morality of the invasion,
if it had been a sincere action based on sincere motives. What i question is the sincerity of the motives of this administration......Have you called for years for an invasion of North Korea? They have womds, and the means and will to use them. Have you called for years for an invasion of Pakistan? Have you called for years for an invasion of India? Have you called for years for and invasion of Israel? All of those nations have nuclear weapons. It's nice to see that you are so naively willing to expose yourself as a dupe to conservative propaganda. But your personal morality and credulity are not at issue.
Those other countries are entirely different situations. I haven't called for the invasion of North Korea because they already have the bomb, and could use it if an invasion were tried. It's too late. That's the whole point, actually. It was to prevent Saddam Hussein from achieving this immense power for destruction that we did invade. Pakistan is a nominal ally. I certainly have never advocated invading every nuclear power in the world. Saddam Hussein was a dictator who had attempted to annex neighbors, had destroyed an entire town with nerve gas, and who seemed to be well on the road to developing WMD based on hidden programs.
I have certainly not "exposed yourself as a dupe to conservative propaganda," since you have supplied no information to suggest that I hold my opinions based on hearing propaganda, as opposed to holding them based on my own logic.
Brandon9000 wrote:Pakistan is a nominal ally.
Brandon9000 wrote:Saddam Hussein was a dictator who had attempted to annex neighbors, had destroyed an entire town with nerve gas, and who seemed to be well on the road to developing WMD based on hidden programs.
You might as well add that, at the time Saddam Hussein had attempted to annex neighbours, had gassed that Kurdish town and
was developing WMD (though not nuclear ones), he actually was an ally of the United States, too.
A nominal ally.
why is it ok for america to have nukes and other countries not to have nukes? hypocritical? abosolutely, how do you defend this?
once again,the question was, why can we have nukes but they cant?
i doubt anyone has a real answer, other than question evasion.
OGIONIK wrote:why is it ok for america to have nukes and other countries not to have nukes? hypocritical? abosolutely, how do you defend this?
once again,the question was, why can we have nukes but they cant?
i doubt anyone has a real answer, other than question evasion.
Because we have a large stock pile of them due to the fact we had to protect the free world from the Communists in decades past, because we have lots and lots of money, because we have a stable government, because we have a strong conventional military, because we already have them.
how did we protect the world from communism?
Yea, we are the world's big protector. We are the saviors of the world and that is why we deserve the weapons.
We're doing so well in Iraq, we saved the world from the evil man who had the world's most dangerous weapons. We should all be proud and sleep easy in our beds knowing we alone can keep the world a safe place. Let freedom reign.
25 killed in suicide bombing in Fallujah
I dont affiliate with any form of government, i just happen to have been born in the united states.
McGentrix wrote:OGIONIK wrote:how did we protect the world from communism?
Are you a communist?
Who are you, McCarthy? Answer the question. Have we protected the world from communism?
lol after thinking about it for a few , err minutes, it seems the world doesnt need protection from communism my friend, but, the corruption of communism.
id like to see someone prove me wrong , i doubt it will happen.
McGentrix wrote:
Because we have a large stock pile of them due to the fact we had to protect the free world from the big pink polka dotted Squirrels in decades past.
how did they protect us from big pink polka dotted Squirrels?
McGentrix wrote:
Are you a big pink polka dotted Squirrel?
The logic is impeccable there McG.
old europe wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Pakistan is a nominal ally.
Brandon9000 wrote:Saddam Hussein was a dictator who had attempted to annex neighbors, had destroyed an entire town with nerve gas, and who seemed to be well on the road to developing WMD based on hidden programs.
You might as well add that, at the time Saddam Hussein had attempted to annex neighbours, had gassed that Kurdish town and
was developing WMD (though not nuclear ones), he actually was an ally of the United States, too.
A nominal ally.
And therefore, what? By the time we invaded, he absolutely was not our ally. What's your point?
Brandon9000 wrote:
I was ardently hoping for an invasion of Iraq years before it happened, simply because I was afraid that Saddam Hussein was secretly continuing development of WMD, and that if he did attain them, something terrible might happen. How is that immoral?
Quote:
Those other countries are entirely different situations. I haven't called for the invasion of North Korea because they already have the bomb, and could use it if an invasion were tried. It's too late. That's the whole point, actually.
I'm not sure how North Korea was an entirely different situation before they tested their first nuke just last year. Are you saying you weren't hoping for an invasion of North Korea for YEARS before they tested their nuke? How was North Korea different from Iraq before they tested their device in October?
Hoping for an invasion of Iraq - Immoral? Hard to say. Consistent and based on well thought out principles? Not based on your answer it wasn't.
revel wrote:McGentrix wrote:OGIONIK wrote:how did we protect the world from communism?
Are you a communist?
Who are you, McCarthy? Answer the question. Have we protected the world from communism?
The fact that he is not a communist, and neither are you, or most people in Europe, Africa, North America, South America, most of Russia now, Australia, etc... is proof that we defended the world against communism.
If you doubt our build up nuclear weapons had no role in that, then you are just an idiot.
OGIONIK wrote:lol after thinking about it for a few , err minutes, it seems the world doesnt need protection from communism my friend, but, the corruption of communism.
id like to see someone prove me wrong , i doubt it will happen.
We don't need protection from communism
now.
Perhaps you should think about that for a few more minutes and figure out why that is.
Maybe the world needs defending from democracy, if america is defining it.
