Fair enough Headrock lets agree that the Taliban were evil incarnate. Lets also put the turmoil in Afghanistan down to their uncertanties with their new found freedom.
- Status
Theres a first..I dont think Ive ever had anyone agree with me
..Im sure there are a few who miss the Talibans rule as I know there are Iraqis who will long for Saddam to be back on his throne...Cant please everyone now can we??
..Im sure there are a few who miss the Talibans rule as I know there are Iraqis who will long for Saddam to be back on his throne...Cant please everyone now can we??
Lets see if we can keep this going a bit longer....
North Korea announces today that thier reprocessing nuclear fuel rods so that they have enough to produce 12 nukes by soemtime next year..
Now it seems were headed down the path of war again,will it be legitimate to attack North Korea based on the fact that they have nukes,they can reach us,Japan,and South Korea,they export missiles already,and are extremely hostile to us at the moment..Or do we need to see Los Angeles,Seoul,or Tokyo smoldering before we take action??And if we impose sanctions they will declare war...
And do you think that making deals with them is wise as the last time we gave them 500,000 gallons of fuel and food,and 2 billion dollars a year to keep thier reactors producing energy,6 seconds after the deal was signed they were producing nukes again by thier own admission??
Sounds like more of this preemptive crap again..What do you guys on the other side of the ocean think??
Me personally,im against feeding 2 million soldiers on the DMZ and fattening thier bellies so when they attack South Korea they're well fed..So how do we solve this problem??
North Korea announces today that thier reprocessing nuclear fuel rods so that they have enough to produce 12 nukes by soemtime next year..
Now it seems were headed down the path of war again,will it be legitimate to attack North Korea based on the fact that they have nukes,they can reach us,Japan,and South Korea,they export missiles already,and are extremely hostile to us at the moment..Or do we need to see Los Angeles,Seoul,or Tokyo smoldering before we take action??And if we impose sanctions they will declare war...
And do you think that making deals with them is wise as the last time we gave them 500,000 gallons of fuel and food,and 2 billion dollars a year to keep thier reactors producing energy,6 seconds after the deal was signed they were producing nukes again by thier own admission??
Sounds like more of this preemptive crap again
..What do you guys on the other side of the ocean think??Me personally,im against feeding 2 million soldiers on the DMZ and fattening thier bellies so when they attack South Korea they're well fed..So how do we solve this problem??
The problem with pre emptive strikes are that you are becoming the threat to the world at large. What happens when other nations decide that they may be looking at pre emptive strikes by America? Do they then decide to attack the US first? Sort of a pre pre emptive strike. All this will do is create global paranoia.
A country doesnt bow down to the dictates of the US can well expect to be bombed under the pretence of a pre emptive strike?
A country doesnt bow down to the dictates of the US can well expect to be bombed under the pretence of a pre emptive strike?
Forget preemption for a second..I can name 200 countries that right now would never have to worry about the US premptively striking them..I have a short list of about 2 or 3 who fit the criteria that Bush has laid out...But thats not my question..
We have Saddam part 2 with Kim Jong Ill who doesnt even deny he hates us as has nukes so im wondering what you all would think if we went to war with them??
As Stephen said brilliantly in Braveheart"Just Answer The Fookin Question"
No it's much more simple than that. If you threaten the US with WMDs or other weapons, be prepared to have your arse handed to you. Seems like a relatively easy concept to comprehend.
1--heartfelt in the sense I thought it expressed 6's point of view pretty well. Not heartfelt in the sense that I didn't make any judgements about the viability of that course or my very large misgivings about the potential for success in dragging pre-20th century societies into the modern world without the transitional periods everyone else has gone through. (Of course, the transitional phases brought all of us nothing but war and chaos repeatedly, too--so maybe natural transitions ain't so great either.) Damned if you do, damned if you don't.Originally posted by duffistuta
1--Indeed, eloquent and heartfelt
2--Right now the United States is trying to change the paradigm in the Islamic world believing that free people will choose peace.
3--However, try saying the same thing using the words 'The US Govt is determined to remove what it perceives to be a threat by using a doctrine of pre emptive strikes which will result in the loss of life of thousands of innocent people and may in fact contribute to further US deaths at home and abroad'.
2--that speaks to a goal and a hope. If you object to the idea please say so. If you object to the methods--I'm not sure I blame you but my reasons are probably different from yours.
3--Your "re-wording" is just the usual lefty hand-wringin' and wishy-washy moral equivalence dressed up as pre-emptive condemnation.
"Doctrines" don't last any longer these days than the administrations that promote them and if you want to try and balance possible future deaths on some grand teetering scale of 'Do Something' or 'Do Nothing' then your magic 8-ball works better than mine. Of course, if you have an alternative that would be even better.
OK I stop ranting about the world in general.
Apart from N Korea not liking the US and owning nukes, what reason would you have for attacking them? I ask because I am not fully up to date with the situation.
If you had good reason then fair enough go for it and I hope the UK would back you 100%
But as it stands then I dont think that there is enough reason to wage war.
pgaglio
Are you saying that you can wage war on anyone you want without conclusive proof that they pose a threat? If you do then you must agree with the 9/11 attacks. The scum that did that thought that the US was a threat and decided to attack without any thoughts about consequences
Apart from N Korea not liking the US and owning nukes, what reason would you have for attacking them? I ask because I am not fully up to date with the situation.
If you had good reason then fair enough go for it and I hope the UK would back you 100%
But as it stands then I dont think that there is enough reason to wage war.
pgaglio
Are you saying that you can wage war on anyone you want without conclusive proof that they pose a threat? If you do then you must agree with the 9/11 attacks. The scum that did that thought that the US was a threat and decided to attack without any thoughts about consequences
That's hardly what I'm saying. If a country has sophisticated weapons and demonstrates a willingness to use them against the US and its allies, I believe we have both a moral right and perhaps even an obligation to counter that threat. If the only feasible way to answer such a threat is through the use of military force, then so be it.
We are no longer in an age where we have the luxery of waiting for someone to fire a warning shot over our bow. These types of attacks don't come with warnings, just with thousands of dead civillians.
So where were Iraq's sophisticated weapons? Where were Afghanistans? In fact since WW2 every nation you have gone to war with has been technoligically backwards.
- Status