Subject:
|
Re: To change the tune...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:27:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
684 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
| |
Exactly why can’t a nation with oil resources seek nuclear capabilities?
|
(talking about Iraq here) It’s not that they can’t, it’s why would they?
|
Because it is ultimately their prerrogative. You are aware of that basic notion
of sovereignty, aren’t you?
| |
It costs billions of dollars for such a venture, where the oppotunity cost
may never be made up.
|
That is their problem. As a non iraqi, you have no vote on the matter - do you?
| |
Unless there is something else about the nuclear
plant that one is interested in...
|
That is your problem, granted. But it’s up to you to prove that before making a
move (a la Adlai Stevenson, showing photos of the cuban missiles)
| |
| |
Then why did your country require inspections in the first place? That is,
if they were so pointless, why bother?
|
Not that they were pointless, just impotent. SH had been giving the UN the
run-around for 10 years. Even Blix was frustrated. That’s not a good sign.
|
Blix was frustrated that he sould not inspect everything he wanted to in the
given deadline. AFAIK, he’s being very critical of the whole process leading to
war regarding WMD.
As for that not being a good sign, you may be right, but I’d like you to
acknowledge it just might be a good sign as well. What does not exist can’t be
found...
| |
| |
| |
You’ve got it all figured out, eh? What makes you think that the
intelligence upon which you base your assertions is any more reliable
than that upon which Bush and Blair relied?
|
What exactly are Scott’s interests in Iraq? I can figure out B & B’s
interest.
|
I can’t speak for Scott; what do you think was Bush and Blair’s motivation?
(please don’t say “Oil”)
|
Distraction from internal policy. Both are fully aware they’d face tough
opposition to many of their proposed measures, so what better way to divert the
masses attentions? Bush is dealing with a not-so-strong economy, looking for a
justification to his pre-election promises of military spending, and also
intends to curb down on (legitimate) protest - some of the clauses on the
Patriot Act did not deserve the proper attention given the permanent bellicose
status of the USA in the last 4 years. As for Blair... I get the feeling his own
party is now regarding him as a trojan, and are merely tolerating his presence
due to lack of credible options to his left. He’s been steadily losing
momentum since last being elected. Plus, I get the feeling he’s to afraid to say
“no” and lose GWB to the Conservatives’ side. Which would be a bummer. Then
again, this may well work against him in case JFK-2 wins office. Stay tuned!
Are these enough? I didn’t mention oil once, as requested.
| |
| |
| |
And yeah, you’d better set off “the
West” in quotations. What is clear is that SH had private deals with many
European countries, including Russia.
|
Bearing in mind both are colser to Iraq, I wonder why none felt threatened.
|
The US is the main target for terrorists (after Israel, of course). SH and
Iraq weren’t the problem; it was his sympathy with US enemies that was
threatening.
|
That is abstract. If you follow that road, some billion muslims are
“sympathetic” towards the palestinians (hence, antagonist towards Israel and
US). Do you wish to face them all on that ground? One’s sympathies or
ideologies aren’t by themselves a good ground for conflict (on this regard,
please notice Richelieu’s alliance with the Ottomans, which appears
contra-natura)
| |
| |
| |
Was SH “cooperating” in the same way
North Korea cooperated in completing her apparent nuclear program?
|
Well, NK has nukes already, but none was found in Iraq.
|
Exactly Pedro! And why is that? Because NK built them secretly, all the
while agreeing not to! We trusted them, and got burned! The exact same
thing was going to happen in Iraq under SH!
|
I read things different: NK has a big, protective neighbor who is match for the
US. Iraq is surrounded by antagonists (much to their own fault, granted). If you
can convince me it wasn’t fear of the chinese that prevented a tougher stance
against NK, be my guest!
| |
| |
Of course NK doesn’t
have oil, and the US already have reliable bases in that part of the world
(read SK, Japan, Taiwan). So strategically, yes, this was a great move.
Ethically, it’s foggy.
|
But at least KJ isn’t chummy with Islamo-Facists, so while he is a threat to
the world by possessing nukes, he isn’t a direct threat to the US (yet).
|
Oh? I once thought that myself, but looking back...
Where do you think KJI got his nukes from? And, more importantly, under whose
influence?
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
If you look at us the wrong way waving a nuke or other WMD that is...
|
lol. That does not explain North Korea. Nor dose it explain Saudi Arabia!
|
Look, the governments of NK and SA are not direct threats to the US.
|
Riiiiiiiiiiight... as opposed to Saddam? What exactly made Saddam a bigger
threat than Kim Jong Il?
|
See above. He was sympathetic to Islamic terrorists; our sworn enemies.
|
Adressed before as well.
| |
| |
| |
NK is a
problem for world security, and every effort should be made to disarm them
before rolling in the tanks.
|
Two comments:
- why wasn’t this made in Iraq? (I say because they were already
disarmed...)
|
Weapons inspections went on for 10 years and questions still remained.
That’s a lot of effort.
|
And again I ask: can one find what does not exist? I mean, it’s one thing to
have faith in God (and I’m fine with that), but have faith in WMD hidden
somewhere in Iraq? I say that’s too much. My current oppinion is that SH
destroyed his WMD during those 10 years; unwillingly, but he did. Which would
put him in compliance with the UN’s resolutions.
| |
| |
- why do you say roll in tanks? What’s with the need of invasion?
|
That is the proverbial “last resort”
|
Not really. I said last year that assassination is an option, and much cleaner
for that matter. If the purpose was to oust SH, then your president should have
declared that and made sure he got “sniped” or something. The tank option
reveals there was more to it than to “depose a brutal dictator”, to use the
common verbiage.
| |
| |
| |
But now that KJ has a nuke, there is a big
problem, because he is crazy enough to use them (in the event of an
attack).
|
Somehow, I don’t feel threatened. Not one bit.
|
Why would you?
|
Theoretically because my nation, which does not have natural enemies, is allied
to yours. Now, being myself eligible for conscription, I could end up fighting
your war, whilst you get the chance to stay home and read about it on the
papers (notice how I don’t put you on the couch watching TV, you’ve repeatedly
said you don’t do it! ;-)
Get my fears? It is not “they” who threaten me the most, it is “my own side”.
| |
| |
| |
SA definitely has some enemies within her kingdom that are threats to the
US, but I think she is dealing with them, because they are also a threat to
the royal family as well.
|
Ahh, the joys of autocracy. It’s alright to like those guys when they do as
they’re told, isn’t it?
|
Actually, I have a deep distrust of Saudi Arabia. I think that they play
both sides, which makes them one of the most dangerous players of all. The
royal family will do what’s best for them, never us. And they certainly do
not “do as they’re told”!
|
I’ll change the verb, then. They do “what they’re allowed to”.
| |
| |
But in Saddam’s case, you were so adamant in saying
he was brutal against opponents... why the change of heart?
Who chose to go to war?
|
There would not have been a war had SH chosen exile.
|
Where? In SA, which he had bombed in ‘91? Iran? Turkey? Give me a viable
alternative, which he could accept (whilst retaining some freedom, which is the
difference between exile and house arrest).
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
What was the cost of the terrorist attack on 9-11?
|
Nothing compared to the cost of the War on Terror.
|
Really? How about in terms of US lives?
|
Your indignation regarding the loss of US lives is comprehensible.
You using
those as justification for Iraquis dying isn’t. This isn’t a football match,
where both sides are allowed to score!
|
I understand your point Pedro. My point was that, although many 1,000s of
Iraqis died in the liberation of their country, many 1,000s would also have
died had SH remained in power. At least now they are free of totalitarian
rule.
|
Not yet, no. They are just living a temporary state of anarchy before some other
Dick Tator gets enough foreign support to seize power.
| |
| |
Gee... I guess that Pakistani scientist played safe, asking for pardon
before being accused of leaking stuff to OBL... That would render Saddam
not guilty in this regard, wouldn’t it?
|
In that regard perhaps. There are also issues of chemical WMDs, financing,
harboring and abetting...
|
As for finance, someone once said “money has no smell” - we can never be sure
we’re not being source to some of the money. As for chemical WMD, none was found
thus far. As for harboring, I say “bah!”. Terrorists move around so easily, that
every country can be home to some and not know it. The joke going on in here for
quite some time now is that OBL is hiding in the US... :-P As for abetting (had
to look this one up :-), you have that sort of stuff going on in the UK and
other friendlies. Heck, I remember being in Speaker’s Corner listening to a
bloke bashing on Israel and preaching Arab revolt 8 years ago, and I sincerely
doubt he has been thrown out of the soapbox ever since... will you acuse the
Crown of abetting terrorism?
| |
| |
| |
You misunderstand. Add in the 100,000s of innocent Iraqis who died and
would have continued to die under a SH dictatorship.
|
I suppose it’s easy to lead them to it. Remember Shiites in ‘91? It’s not as
if that carnage would have happened if someone hadn’t incited them to
rebel and then ditched them. Some paragraphs above you’ve implictly accepted
the combat against inner threats to rulers...
|
That kind of meddling in affairs of foreign states seems to go awry often.
One day you are supporting OBL against your cold war enemy, and the next he
is your enemy. Messy stuff.
|
Indeed. Ingerence sucks.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
And look at Iraq today-- emancipated, and full
of hope for a bright future. Her only fear being that the US and the
world leaves before she can find her feet.
|
I think many fear that the US will not leave!
|
They are wrong.
|
He is.
I think many fear the US will run. That place is already in civil war,
have you noticed?
|
No, they are most definitely not in civil war. The amount of resistors
compared to overall population is miniscule. Don’t be fooled by Liberal
media reports. Great progress is being made in Iraq. Many resistors in
Iraq aren’t even Iraqis.
|
Irrelevant. Bombs explode and kill and cause havoc no matter the nationality of
whomever plants them. The fact is the country is unstable and not cooling down
anytime soon.
| |
The US would only run if we elect the anti-war weenie John Kerry to office.
|
:-)
Possible. Then again, would you have preferred that Clinton would have kept US
forces in Somalia?
| |
| |
Does your concept of national security know any limits? What exactly doesn’t
threaten your NS, if anything?
|
This phenomenon of world terrorism is a new one and we are still getting a
hold on how to most effectively deal with the threat. Right now
hyper-vigilance seems to be working, but we are always in danger of resorting
to complacency.
|
Hypervigilance is unaffordable, and the very basis in which terrorism relies to
be effective: no government can protect the population from terrorist action
(hence, its name: it relies on fear rather than actual damage). So you have to
go after terrorists actively rather than hope to protect the citizens - that is
plain impossible to achieve, too many citizens for too little “guardians”. The
sad bit is, to chase terrorists eficiently you must resource to “dirty war”. I’m
not going to ask you if you can withstand that (you obviously can), but I ask if
your fellow citizens can. Are they prepared? What about those who “sympathize”
with the terrorists stated goals - how will they react upon such repression?
Thus far, the terrorists are winning: it’s been over two years since 9/11 and
terrorism is still affair du jour in America. They have you in fright. And I
don’t see the invasion of Iraq has changed things in that regard.
| |
Right now I personally think that the greatest threat to my culture is
television, so go figure. Maybe we should bomb the networks? Except Fox;-)
|
If anything, TV is keeping kids with too much spare time from joining terrorist
organizations... think about that! ;-)
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: To change the tune...
|
| (...) (talking about Iraq here) It's not that they can't, it's why would they? It costs billions of dollars for such a venture, where the oppotunity cost may never be made up. Unless there is something else about the nuclear plant that one is (...) (20 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
55 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
