Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

348 | 349 | 350

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

jholtsnider

jholtsnider

I'm lost
February 2004

JUL 31, 2004 02:30 PM

Iran has declared that it will go back to building nuclear centrifuges.

Discuss.

stockula

stockula

Anchorage, AK
May 2003

JUL 31, 2004 04:00 PM

Another triumph for the UN and diplomatic multilateralism. I'm sure Bush is learning some hard lessons about how foolish it is not to trust totalitarian governments, and how they can be depended on to cooperate in good faith with entities that epitomize moral legitimacy, like the UN and France.

Trevallion

Trevallion

Murfreesboro, TN
February 2004

JUL 31, 2004 04:04 PM

how dare a third world country attempt to provide electricity to itself!

Helter

Helter

Chester, PA
OLD SKOOL

JUL 31, 2004 04:22 PM

Trevallion said:
how dare a third world country attempt to provide electricity to itself!



Yeah, that's *exactly* what they're after... whatever

troglodyte

troglodyte

Victoria, BC
May 2003

JUL 31, 2004 04:39 PM

Well of course they are. The US only invades countries that don't have WMDs, silly.

jholtsnider

jholtsnider

I'm lost
February 2004

JUL 31, 2004 04:50 PM

Trevallion said:
how dare a third world country attempt to provide electricity to itself!



Seriously?

jholtsnider

jholtsnider

I'm lost
February 2004

JUL 31, 2004 04:52 PM

troglodyte said:
Well of course they are. The US only invades countries that don't have WMDs, silly.



The idea, of course, being to get the country on the right track _before_ they do have loads of WMD's and delivery mechanisms. While I personally believe that we should move on N. Korea, that's not politically feasible as tens of thousands will be killed (minimum).

RACER_X

RACER_X

Philadelphia, PA
February 2003

JUL 31, 2004 04:52 PM

Trevallion said:
how dare a third world country attempt to provide electricity to itself!



Considering the vast wealth of oil resources Iran is blessed with, it's a pretty wan argument that generating electricity is the main focus of their nuclear program.



wink

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

JUL 31, 2004 04:53 PM

so, since all the pro-war conservatives were trumpeting libya's announcement as a success of the war on terror, clearly this should get filed under "failure". along with north korea. (and someday, pakistan.)

[Edited on Jul 31, 2004 by s5]

RACER_X

RACER_X

Philadelphia, PA
February 2003

JUL 31, 2004 04:55 PM

The first person that calls Iran an Arab nation is getting smacked with a fish.

wink

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

JUL 31, 2004 04:55 PM

Trevallion said:
how dare a third world country attempt to provide electricity to itself!



that's about as likely as a country producing anthrax for birth control purposes.

jholtsnider

jholtsnider

I'm lost
February 2004

JUL 31, 2004 04:59 PM

Racer_X said:
The first person that calls Iran an Arab nation is getting smacked with a fish.

wink



Only because I like fish... wink

troglodyte

troglodyte

Victoria, BC
May 2003

JUL 31, 2004 05:02 PM

slimjim said:

troglodyte said:
Well of course they are. The US only invades countries that don't have WMDs, silly.



The idea, of course, being to get the country on the right track _before_ they do have loads of WMD's and delivery mechanisms. While I personally believe that we should move on N. Korea, that's not politically feasible as tens of thousands will be killed (minimum).



An even better idea would be to deal with countries that are greater nuclear menaces, such as Pakistan, Iran, or North Korea in the first place instead of going after one that doesn't have any. It just shows them that if they've got nukes, they'll be left alone. You can be sure every rogue nation on the planet's clamouring for nukes right now. All thanks to Bush & co.

jholtsnider

jholtsnider

I'm lost
February 2004

JUL 31, 2004 05:04 PM

s5 said:
so, since all the pro-war conservatives were trumpeting libya's announcement as a success of the iraq war, clearly this should get filed under "failure". along with north korea. (and someday, pakistan.)



In my opinion, Libya's surrender of its nuclear program and subsequent reentry into global politics _is_ a direct consequence of US actions in Iraq; it's also, in my opinion, a good thing.

All of the above mentioned countries have stability issues, which is one of the reasons why the US has been trying to work for change slowly. In Iran, it seems to working on the people, if not the government. Recently, there have been pro-US protests in Tehran. North Korea had a record defection within this last week.

Aggressive foreign policy is working. Should it be tempered at times? Sure. But overall, showing that corrupt governments cannot take advantage of their people or they will be held accountable is a good thing.

RACER_X

RACER_X

Philadelphia, PA
February 2003

JUL 31, 2004 05:06 PM

Unless of course ,the corrupt government in question happens to be headed in Washington D.C.

wink

stockula

stockula

Anchorage, AK
May 2003

JUL 31, 2004 05:06 PM

Trevallion said:
how dare a third world country attempt to provide electricity to itself!



I suppose they're buying intermediate range ballistic missiles from North Korea to go along with their energy program. It's almost like an axis of some kind.

BTW, why does a country sitting on such a huge resevoir of petroleum feel the need to go nuclear for their energy needs?



[Edited on Jul 31, 2004 by stockula]

jholtsnider

jholtsnider

I'm lost
February 2004

JUL 31, 2004 05:08 PM

troglodyte said:

slimjim said:

troglodyte said:
Well of course they are. The US only invades countries that don't have WMDs, silly.



The idea, of course, being to get the country on the right track _before_ they do have loads of WMD's and delivery mechanisms. While I personally believe that we should move on N. Korea, that's not politically feasible as tens of thousands will be killed (minimum).



An even better idea would be to deal with countries that are greater nuclear menaces, such as Pakistan, Iran, or North Korea in the first place instead of going after one that doesn't have any. It just shows them that if they've got nukes, they'll be left alone. You can be sure every rogue nation on the planet's clamouring for nukes right now. All thanks to Bush & co.



Those countries have long been seeking nuclear weapons. Sure, we could invade those countries that admit that they have nuclear weapons, but it'll make Iraq look like a game of checkers - there will be massive casualties.

The real question is who dies?

If we use force on N. Korea, Americans die. If we don't use force, N. Korean civilians die. It's a lose-lose situation, but the use of force is not politically possible; no one in Congress is going to vote to kill tens of thousands of Americans.

Trevallion

Trevallion

Murfreesboro, TN
February 2004

JUL 31, 2004 05:09 PM

Yeah, on second thought, I don't think that any desert nations have the capability to support a nuclear power plant. Iran has a few lakes and rivers, and the caspian sea to the north, so it's kinda feasible, but all Libya has is the mediterranean. So I change my mind, they probably are going after weapons.

Trevallion

Trevallion

Murfreesboro, TN
February 2004

JUL 31, 2004 05:10 PM

stockula said:

Trevallion said:
how dare a third world country attempt to provide electricity to itself!



I suppose they're buying intermediate range ballistic missiles from North Korea to go along with their energy program. It's almost like an axis of some kind.

BTW, why does a country sitting on such a huge resevoir of petroleum feel the need to go nuclear for their energy needs?



[Edited on Jul 31, 2004 by stockula]



Maybe they want to conserve oil? tongue

jholtsnider

jholtsnider

I'm lost
February 2004

JUL 31, 2004 05:10 PM

Racer_X said:
Unless of course ,the corrupt government in question happens to be headed in Washington D.C.

wink



I suppose you could look at it that way. But I personally cannot compare the governments of Iran/N.Korea to the US; whatever mistakes this administration has made are dwarfed by the atrocities that those governments commit daily.

jholtsnider

jholtsnider

I'm lost
February 2004

JUL 31, 2004 05:11 PM

Trevallion said:

Maybe they want to conserve oil? tongue



Then let them ride bikes!* biggrin







*if you miss the "let them eat cake" reference... well...

RACER_X

RACER_X

Philadelphia, PA
February 2003

JUL 31, 2004 05:15 PM

slimjim said:

Racer_X said:
Unless of course ,the corrupt government in question happens to be headed in Washington D.C.

wink



I suppose you could look at it that way. But I personally cannot compare the governments of Iran/N.Korea to the US; whatever mistakes this administration has made are dwarfed by the atrocities that those governments commit daily.



True enough, but that response was more tongue in cheek than anything....except for them not being held accountable for screwing the people daily.

troglodyte

troglodyte

Victoria, BC
May 2003

JUL 31, 2004 05:18 PM

slimjim said:
Those countries have long been seeking nuclear weapons. Sure, we could invade those countries that admit that they have nuclear weapons, but it'll make Iraq look like a game of checkers - there will be massive casualties.

The real question is who dies?

If we use force on N. Korea, Americans die. If we don't use force, N. Korean civilians die. It's a lose-lose situation, but the use of force is not politically possible; no one in Congress is going to vote to kill tens of thousands of Americans.



Well, Pakistan has had nukes for quite some time now and is generally considered the world's greatest nulear threat by many IR analysts. But they're an *ally* right now, so they don't get much attention. Iran and North Korea are only trying to get their hands on them, and if we had been serious about preventing their spread, we would have gone after them. But no, we went after a country that doesn't have them but does have a lot of oil.

The moral of the story for the world's dictators: get yourself some nukes and get 'em fast. The Iraq war may just have encouraged nuclear proliferation.

jholtsnider

jholtsnider

I'm lost
February 2004

JUL 31, 2004 05:18 PM

Racer_X said:

slimjim said:

Racer_X said:
Unless of course ,the corrupt government in question happens to be headed in Washington D.C.

wink



I suppose you could look at it that way. But I personally cannot compare the governments of Iran/N.Korea to the US; whatever mistakes this administration has made are dwarfed by the atrocities that those governments commit daily.



True enough, but that response was more tongue in cheek than anything....except for them not being held accountable for screwing the people daily.



Ok. smile

jholtsnider

jholtsnider

I'm lost
February 2004

JUL 31, 2004 05:23 PM

troglodyte said:

slimjim said:
Those countries have long been seeking nuclear weapons. Sure, we could invade those countries that admit that they have nuclear weapons, but it'll make Iraq look like a game of checkers - there will be massive casualties.

The real question is who dies?

If we use force on N. Korea, Americans die. If we don't use force, N. Korean civilians die. It's a lose-lose situation, but the use of force is not politically possible; no one in Congress is going to vote to kill tens of thousands of Americans.



Well, Pakistan has had nukes for quite some time now and is generally considered the world's greatest nulear threat by many IR analysts. But they're an *ally* right now, so they don't get much attention. Iran and North Korea are only trying to get their hands on them, and if we had been serious about preventing their spread, we would have gone after them. But no, we went after a country that doesn't have them but does have a lot of oil.

The moral of the story for the world's dictators: get yourself some nukes and get 'em fast. The Iraq war may just have encouraged nuclear proliferation.



I agree that Pakistan is a problem. Heck, just a few years ago they were listed as a "rogue nation." Islamabad is still a _very_ dangerous place for Americans... But we have to contend with keeping the balance between Pakistan and India. If we were to use force in Pakistan, they would no doubt nuke India, who would nuke them back; bam! WW3.

Whether or not N. Korea has nukes is debatable. What isn't is that they have a massive well equiped army with miles of land mines between N and S Korea. If we use force on N. Korea, S. Korea will be wiped off the map. Then... bam! WW3.

Currently, there is a friendly adminstration running the show in Pakistan. We will have to get involved there in the next 10 years, without a doubt. The question is merely one of timing.

[Edited on Jul 31, 2004 by slimjim]

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next