ex Sec of Defense Robert McNamara: "US nuclear policy is immoral"

[jay gw]

Robert McNamara, who served as US secretary of defence under President John F Kennedy and President Lyndon B Johnson from 1961 to 1968 and as president of the World Bank from 1968 to 1981, and who is the author of several books including "Blundering Into Disaster: Surviving the First Century of the Nuclear Age" (1986) and "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" (1999), has characterised current US nuclear weapons policy as "immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous."

Writing in the May/June 2005 issue of Foreign Policy, an American bi-monthly journal, McNamara says in an article titled "Apocalypse Soon": "It is time, well past time, in my view, for the United States to cease its Cold War-style reliance on nuclear weapons as a foreign-policy tool...The risk of an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high.

Far from reducing these risks, the Bush administration has signaled that it is committed to keeping the US nuclear arsenal as a mainstay of its military power, a commitment that is simultaneously eroding the international norms that have limited the spread of nuclear weapons and fissile materials for 50 years."

McNamara, whose counsel as secretary of defence helped the Kennedy administration avert nuclear catastrophe during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, says: "Much of the current US nuclear policy has been in place since before I was secretary of defence, and it has only grown more dangerous and diplomatically destructive in the intervening years."

http://jang.com.pk/thenews/may2005-daily/14-05-2005/world/w8.htm

[Ralph]

Ha talks a lot about what we did,what we're doing, and the usual Bush/WMD bashing..........but I didn't see any suggestions offered as to what we should do differently.

I was hoping he'd have some constructive solutions to go along with the criticism......

[Ralph]

Anybody??

Mr. McNamara says the US nuke policy is immoral.

For those that agree with this....what specific actions should we take to improve our level of morality?

[Richard G]

Hes the pinhead that lost the Vietnam war. I wouldn't take his advice on anything of strategic importance.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Richard G
Hes the pinhead that lost the Vietnam war. I wouldn't take his advice on anything of strategic importance.


Well--the article clearly mentions that he's under the influence of the US Jewish lobby.

I think you should cut him some slack. This is all the Jews fault.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Ralph
Well--the article clearly mentions that he's under the influence of the US Jewish lobby.

I think you should cut him some slack. This is all the Jews fault.


Yup: "His failure to mention this fact cannot be an oversight. Which only goes to show just how powerful is the influence of the Jewish lobby in the US, making even the likes of McNamara tread warily when it comes to saying anything that could be construed as criticism of Israel."

(Evil laughter)

Muhahahahaha!!!! We control the world!!!!

Nice, objective sources you've got there, jay.

Mind you, I don't think you deliberately seek out jew-hating "news" sites. But admit it: you just plug in "US policy AND bad AND disaster" into google and post whatever pops up without checking what or who the hell it's from, don't you?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ralph
Anybody??

Mr. McNamara says the US nuke policy is immoral.

For those that agree with this....what specific actions should we take to improve our level of morality?

I say that McNamara is quite right and as for specific actions I can think of a few right off hand. To wit:

1) Have the USA sign on to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,
2) Not have the USA opt out of the ABM Treaty,
3) Not have the USA develop Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs,
4) Not have the USA develop its ABM System,

and so on.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Crossbow
I say that McNamara is quite right and as for specific actions I can think of a few right off hand. To wit:

1) Have the USA sign on to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,
2) Not have the USA opt out of the ABM Treaty,
3) Not have the USA develop Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs,
4) Not have the USA develop its ABM System,

and so on.

I think the US recently stated that it would no longer develop nuclear bunker busters.

As far as not developing an ABM system goes......how does that change any of the things McNamara was pointing out as reasons why the US was immoral & dangerous?

We'll still have thousands of warheads..as will Russia.

We'll still have an avg. kilotonnage of 18 times the Hiroshima bomb on each warhead.....whatever that means.

We'll still have a portion of our missles on "hair-trigger" status ready to launch in 15 minutes.


The CTBT will prevent us from furthur testing nuclear weapons-----but I don't see how that would really defuse the existing situation all that much.

The US stands to lose some things from these actions but I don't see where it would help solve the very dangerous threat od nuclear proliferation.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Yup: "His failure to mention this fact cannot be an oversight. Which only goes to show just how powerful is the influence of the Jewish lobby in the US, making even the likes of McNamara tread warily when it comes to saying anything that could be construed as criticism of Israel."

(Evil laughter)

Muhahahahaha!!!! We control the world!!!!

Nice, objective sources you've got there, jay.

Mind you, I don't think you deliberately seek out jew-hating "news" sites. But admit it: you just plug in "US policy AND bad AND disaster" into google and post whatever pops up without checking what or who the hell it's from, don't you?


Actually..the Jews have nothing to do with this but nobody was responding to the thread.

I knew if we brought the jews into it things would start moving.

[Skeptic]

Actually..the Jews have nothing to do with this

Actually... according to jay's "news" source, they have everything to do with this.

[Crossbow]

Ralph:

You address several points, so let me try to adress them one by one.

Originally posted by Ralph
I think the US recently stated that it would no longer develop nuclear bunker busters.

Well, I am not so sure about that!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/108-2/hr4614sap-h.pdf

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY (June, 2004)

...

National Security. The Administration strongly opposes the elimination of funding for the Advanced Concepts Initiative, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator study, and planning for the Modern Pit Facility. These reductions, if sustained, would diminish the Nation's ability to respond to future national security threats. Once again, this reduction could be restored by redirecting some of the funds from the Corps of Engineers or DOE's nuclear energy research and development program.

...



As far as not developing an ABM system goes......how does that change any of the things McNamara was pointing out as reasons why the US was immoral & dangerous?


Well, the thing is, that an ABM system, will likely involve a great deal of nuclear testing and nuclear development.


We'll still have thousands of warheads..as will Russia.


True, and that is one of the things that should have been addressed many years ago when Reagan had a chance to do so. But alas, his ideas about the "Evil Empire" would not permit it.


We'll still have an avg. kilotonnage of 18 times the Hiroshima bomb on each warhead.....whatever that means.


That means that nuclear weapon technology has gotten pretty good in the last 60 years. It also points out how important it is to get a better handle on the problem.


We'll still have a portion of our missles on "hair-trigger" status ready to launch in 15 minutes.


Well, hair-trigger is a bit overstating it, but it does serve to illustrate how vast and expensive the nuclear infrastructure really is.


The CTBT will prevent us from furthur testing nuclear weapons-----but I don't see how that would really defuse the existing situation all that much.


Well, in order to develop new nuclear weapons, it generally takes a certian amount of testing. Therefore a test ban does a good job of preventing further development of nuclear weapons.


The US stands to lose some things from these actions but I don't see where it would help solve the very dangerous threat od nuclear proliferation.

Try looking at it this way.

If nation 'A' wants nuclear weapons,
and if nation 'B' already has nuclear weapons,
and if nation 'B' is developing new nuclear weapons,
and if nation 'B' is continues to maintain its stock of old nuclear weapons,
and if nation 'B' is wanting to put nuclear weapons into space,

Then why should nation 'A' even care aobut the concerns raised by nation 'B' about the nuclear weapon program of nation 'A'?

By the way, the preamble of the Non-Profileration Treaty states that nations that already have the bomb should work out a Test Ban among themselves.

How is that?

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Ralph:

You address several points, so let me try to adress them one by one.



Well, I am not so sure about that!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/108-2/hr4614sap-h.pdf

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY (June, 2004)

...

National Security. The Administration strongly opposes the elimination of funding for the Advanced Concepts Initiative, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator study, and planning for the Modern Pit Facility. These reductions, if sustained, would diminish the Nation's ability to respond to future national security threats. Once again, this reduction could be restored by redirecting some of the funds from the Corps of Engineers or DOE's nuclear energy research and development program.

...




Well, the thing is, that an ABM system, will likely involve a great deal of nuclear testing and nuclear development.

[/B]

True, and that is one of the things that should have been addressed many years ago when Reagan had a chance to do so. But alas, his ideas about the "Evil Empire" would not permit it.

[/B]

That means that nuclear weapon technology has gotten pretty good in the last 60 years. It also points out how important it is to get a better handle on the problem.

[/B]

Well, hair-trigger is a bit overstating it, but it does serve to illustrate how vast and expensive the nuclear infrastructure really is.

[/B]

Well, in order to develop new nuclear weapons, it generally takes a certian amount of testing. Therefore a test ban does a good job of preventing further development of nuclear weapons.



Try looking at it this way.

If nation 'A' wants nuclear weapons,
and if nation 'B' already has nuclear weapons,
and if nation 'B' is developing new nuclear weapons,
and if nation 'B' is continues to maintain its stock of old nuclear weapons,
and if nation 'B' is wanting to put nuclear weapons into space,

Then why should nation 'A' even care aobut the concerns raised by nation 'B' about the nuclear weapon program of nation 'A'?

By the way, the preamble of the Non-Profileration Treaty states that nations that already have the bomb should work out a Test Ban among themselves.

How is that? [/B]


We've know how to make a working rifle & ammo without actually resorting to testing. We can keep producing what we've allready perfected without the need to actually test them.

I think the same can apply to nukes. Even our present weapons have enormous destructive power. Most improvements have actually come in the delievery systems.....not in the warhead itself. I'm sure it's possible to make improvements in various delivery systems without breaking any rules....assuming one even obeys the rules of course.

Banning testing will not help.

I think efforts have to be made to secure what the "haves" presently possess----and to keep any additional countries--esp rogue states like Iran--from acquiring them.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ralph
We've know how to make a working rifle & ammo without actually resorting to testing. We can keep producing what we've allready perfected without the need to actually test them.

I think the same can apply to nukes. Even our present weapons have enormous destructive power. Most improvements have actually come in the delievery systems.....not in the warhead itself. I'm sure it's possible to make improvements in various delivery systems without breaking any rules....assuming one even obeys the rules of course.

Banning testing will not help.

I think efforts have to be made to secure what the "haves" presently possess----and to keep any additional countries--esp rogue states like Iran--from acquiring them.

Er, I take it you are only addressing the nuclear testing issue.

Anyway, if you do not think that banning nuclear testing will not help then I suppose that you have no problem if North Korea tests on, or more, of its nukes.
Or if Iran were to start testing nukes.
Or if Pakistan and India go back to tit-for-tat nuke testing.

Are you still so sure banning testing will not help?

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Crossbow
I say that McNamara is quite right and as for specific actions I can think of a few right off hand. To wit:

1) Have the USA sign on to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,
2) Not have the USA opt out of the ABM Treaty,
3) Not have the USA develop Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs,
4) Not have the USA develop its ABM System,

and so on.

I'm wit Scotty on this one.

How can the US demand that other nations restrict the development of their nuclear weapons if the US doesn't do anything about its own arsenal? Blatant double standards tend to make people cynical, you know?

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Er, I take it you are only addressing the nuclear testing issue.

Anyway, if you do not think that banning nuclear testing will not help then I suppose that you have no problem if North Korea tests on, or more, of its nukes.
Or if Iran were to start testing nukes.
Or if Pakistan and India go back to tit-for-tat nuke testing.

Are you still so sure banning testing will not help?


I don't see where Iran or NK are real concerned about treaties.

They both seem to be saying "F you--".....we're going to have nukes in our arsenal whether you like it or not.

Do you think if the US does as McNamara seems to be suggesting
--reducing our own arsenal---that will help the situation?

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
I'm wit Scotty on this one.

How can the US demand that other nations restrict the development of their nuclear weapons if the US doesn't do anything about its own arsenal? Blatant double standards tend to make people cynical, you know?


So in the interest of fairness and to avoid being guilty of applying a double standard........do you think we should disarm?

If we tell Iran they can't have them---then it seems only fair that we not have them either.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ralph
I don't see where Iran or NK are real concerned about treaties.

They both seem to be saying "F you--".....we're going to have nukes in our arsenal whether you like it or not.

Do you think if the US does as McNamara seems to be suggesting
--reducing our own arsenal---that will help the situation?

Yes, I do think that it will help the situation.

We already have far, far more nukes than would be needed to flatten Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, North Korea, Syria, et al so cutting the amount of US nukes will not really hurt. Also, the US will still have the tools and skills needed in to make more nukes if they are needed.

On the other hand, cutting the number of US nukes and promising not to develop any new ones will do a great deal to show the US in a positive way and be useful in getting the support that is needed to deal with the nuke wannabes.

OK now?

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Yes, I do think that it will help the situation.

We already have far, far more nukes than would be needed to flatten Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, North Korea, Syria, et al so cutting the amount of US nukes will not really hurt. Also, the US will still have the tools and skills needed in to make more nukes if they are needed.

On the other hand, cutting the number of US nukes and promising not to develop any new ones will do a great deal to show the US in a positive way and be useful in getting the support that is needed to deal with the nuke wannabes.

OK now?

So the US agrees to reduce the # of warheads it has from 4000 to 3000.

Do you really think that all of a sudden the rest of the world will
"support" us.

What kind of "support" are we talking about when dealing with country's like Iran or NK?

More threats? .... More diplomatic pressure??


They just don't seem to be responding to that and I really don't think whether we have 1000 warheads or 4000 warheads in our arsenal is going to matter.

[Orwell]

Well, the rest of the world might not yet "support" you. But at least the rest of the world might stop the cynical laughing each time the US gov. talks about nuclear non-proliferation. Gotta start somewhere.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ralph
So the US agrees to reduce the # of warheads it has from 4000 to 3000.

Do you really think that all of a sudden the rest of the world will
"support" us.

What kind of "support" are we talking about when dealing with country's like Iran or NK?

More threats? .... More diplomatic pressure??

They just don't seem to be responding to that and I really don't think whether we have 1000 warheads or 4000 warheads in our arsenal is going to matter.

Just to keep to the facts for a moment ...

The current summary of US Nuclear Weapons is thus:

Strategic Nuclear Weapons: ~4,530
Non-strategic Nuclear Weapons: ~780
Total Nuclear Weapons: ~5,300

Source --

The Center for Defense Information - U.S. Nuclear Arsenal
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=2971&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=32&from_page=index.cfm

So if you are really worried about the US having enough nukes do totally destroy about two dozen nations the size Iran, then you do not have anything to worry about.

On the other hand, if you are worried about getting into an actual shooting war with Iran and/or North Korea, then you do have something to worry about. Not to long ago, the Department of Defense all but admitted that they do not have enough resources to get into another war so you just might want to reconsider the importance of having allies that you can count on.

[AmateurScientist]

The nuclear arms race of the Cold War era was mostly about posturing. Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was the strategic policy the US developed and employed. It worked as a deterrent because the prospect of actually using nukes on the enemy and being on the receiving end of their nukes in reply was so horrifying. MAD was premised on each side's being able to wipe the other from the face of the earth, and making sure the other side knew it.

With the Soviet Union gone, and no other nuclear superpower remaining but the US, a MAD-style arms race makes little sense as a strategic policy. Just who is it that we're supposed to be deterring by maintaining a large stockpile? If anything, nuke envy encourages non-members of the nuke club to develop and/or acquire nukes just for the sake of having them as a threat deterrent against possible enemies. Possessing nukes is still mostly about posturing.

Given that our nuclear arsenal vastly outweighs what any other single nuclear player possesses, our having 1,000 versus 5,000 nukes makes little practical difference as a deterrent or to our practical ability to defend ourselves from attack (It is still US policy not to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively ever again).

Weigh the costs versus the benefits of partial but substantial disarmament. Disarming and destroying a substantial portion of our arsenal would not harm our ability to deter other players from employing nukes on the battlefield or from using them in a pre-emptive strike. It might act as a nice show of good faith and effort on our part in committing to non-proliferation, however. It is hypocritical of the US to maintain such a large stockpile but also to call for non-proliferation by other nations. That's simply self-serving and not what a good world citizen should do.

The security of the US would not be harmed by our destroying a very substantial portion of our nuclear arsenal. Indeed, it is very likely that the rest of the world would be more secure as a result.

AS

[Ralph]

I agree that we don't need to have 5000 warheads in our arsenal.

What I don't agree on is that reducing this level will somehow make the world safer and make the US less "immoral" as Mr McNamara contends.

How will reducing our arsenal--say by 50%--make the world safer?

What will Iran & NK do differently as a result of our reducing the # of warheads in our arsenal.

What actions will other countrys take when they see that the US has scrapped a few thousand nukes that will result in a safer world?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Ralph

What I don't agree on is that reducing this level will somehow make the world safer and make the US less "immoral" as Mr McNamara contends.


I don't see how it's "immoral" either. I do think it might make the world more secure by possibly inducing at least one other nuclear power to cease development of additional nukes or to reduce its arsenal. It might also give pause to a nation who is not yet a nuclear power, but is trying to develop nukes. I was thinking in terms of international peer pressure, if there is such a thing.

It might not induce any other nation to do or to refrain from doing anything, but at the very least it will make the US less hypocritical in seeking non-proliferation in others.

I can't help but think that fewer nukes in the world (even just by reducing our supply) means a more stable, and thus more secure, world.


How will reducing our arsenal--say by 50%--make the world safer?


There's no way to quantify it, and 50% or any other number is simply arbitrary. The point is to make a substantial reduction as a show of good faith to the rest of the world. Good international relations rely on trust. Increasing other nations' trust in the US and its good intentions requires a demonstration of good faith on our part, in my opinion.


What will Iran & NK do differently as a result of our reducing the # of warheads in our arsenal.


Maybe something, maybe nothing. No one knows. They are not the only players here. Good faith is something we ought to seek to demonstrate with other international actors, not just with Iran and North Korea.


What actions will other countrys take when they see that the US has scrapped a few thousand nukes that will result in a safer world?

Again, there's no way to know. Turn that around. How is our maintaining such a large arsenal maintaining our national security? What purpose do they serve? What is the risk versus the reward of keeping them?

AS

Edited for spelling

[Ralph]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AmateurScientist


It might not induce any other nation to do or to refrain from doing anything, but at the very least it will make the US less hypocritical in seeking non-proliferation in others.

I can't help but think that fewer nukes in the world (even just by reducing our supply) means a more stable, and thus more secure, world.






It's my understanding that some EU nations have been starting to lean a little harder on Iran...........even though the US continues on with it's present "immoral" policies.

Iran as expected---continues with it's FU attitude.


Perhaps some of the EU nations are begininning to realize that it's not the US that poses the greatest danger. It's rogue states like Iran & NK that are the treal threat.

They care as much about treaties & diplomacy as a violent psychopath cares about laws restricting handguns.

They don't care about us showing good faith. They don't care about nice polite requests to please stop what they're doing.
They don't care how many warheads we have (though I'm sure reducing the # would just be taken as a sign of weakness) and they don't care about diplomacy.


I'm not worried about an Israeli nuke going off in a US city.

I AM worried about an Iranian nuke getting "lost" and finding it's way onto a NYC bound container ship.


You want a safer world-----we can start by doing whatever needs to be done to keep the mullahs from completing their "peaceful" nuclear program.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
I don't see how it's "immoral" either. I do think it might make the world more secure by possibly inducing at least one other nuclear power to cease development of additional nukes or to reduce its arsenal. It might also give pause to a nation who is not yet a nuclear power, but is trying to develop nukes. I was thinking in terms of international peer pressure, if there is such a thing.

It might not induce any other nation to do or to refrain from doing anything, but at the very least it will make the US less hypocritical in seeking non-proliferation in others.

I can't help but think that fewer nukes in the world (even just by reducing our supply) means a more stable, and thus more secure, world.



There's no way to quantify it, and 50% or any other number is simply arbitrary. The point is to make a substantial reduction as a show of good faith to the rest of the world. Good international relations rely on trust. Increasing other nations' trust in the US and its good intentions requires a demonstration of good faith on our part, in my opinion.



Maybe something, maybe nothing. No one knows. They are not the only players here. Good faith is something we ought to seek to demonstrate with other international actors, not just with Iran and North Korea.



Again, there's no way to know. Turn that around. How is our maintaining such a large arsenal maintaining our national security? What purpose do they serve? What is the risk versus the reward of keeping them?

AS

Edited for spelling

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Ralph
[QUOTE]

Perhaps some of the EU nations are begininning to realize that it's not the US that poses the greatest danger. It's rogue states like Iran & NK that are the treal threat.


Oh, absolutely. I agree.


They care as much about treaties & diplomacy as a violent psychopath cares about laws restricting handguns.

They don't care about us showing good faith. They don't care about nice polite requests to please stop what they're doing.
They don't care how many warheads we have (though I'm sure reducing the # would just be taken as a sign of weakness) and they don't care about diplomacy.


I agree again. It's not them to whom we're showing good faith. It's our allies and other larger powers, like China.



I'm not worried about an Israeli nuke going off in a US city.

I AM worried about an Iranian nuke getting "lost" and finding it's way onto a NYC bound container ship.


Same here.


You want a safer world-----we can start by doing whatever needs to be done to keep the mullahs from completing their "peaceful" nuclear program.

Well, there's no reason both can't be pursued as worthy US policies. Neither one precludes the other.

AS

[joe1347]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the emergence of China as a rival to the U.S. as a reason to maintain a large nuclear-related deterence. I would think that only a handful of nuclear weapons would be required to "wipe out" Iran or NK - justifying the arguement that a smaller U.S. arsenal is adequate. But, given Chinas vast geographic size and population - isn't a larger arsenal required for deterence?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by joe1347
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the emergence of China as a rival to the U.S. as a reason to maintain a large nuclear-related deterence. I would think that only a handful of nuclear weapons would be required to "wipe out" Iran or NK - justifying the arguement that a smaller U.S. arsenal is adequate. But, given Chinas vast geographic size and population - isn't a larger arsenal required for deterence?

It depends. Upon what is deterrence based? Our Cold War Era MAD policy doesn't apply so much any more. Furthermore, the Cold War was also about "containment" of the spread of Communist Totalitarianism in Eastern Europe, in the Caribbean, in Central America, and in Southeast Asia. Modern day China doesn't seem to be trying to expand its empire much beyond the present borders (Hong Kong and Taiwan notwithstanding), so containment isn't a serious problem at the moment.

China has only about 250 strategic (long range) nukes out of about 400 total. They do have plans for more ICBMs and more submarine-based strategic nukes in the future, however. Right now, our having even just 1,000 strategic nukes would still vastly outnumber theirs.

Source=Center for Defense Information (http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/nukearsenals.cfm)

Would our keeping even larger stockpiles of nukes make it more likely or less likely for China to feel pressure to keep developing and increasing its numbers of strategic nuclear weapons? I suppose no one really knows, but I can't help but think that our reducing our numbers would give even China a reason to ponder whether it's worth it to them to engage in a long-term arms race with us.

The whole nuclear arms race thing is riddled with paradoxes, so it's mostly psychological posturing on the world stage. Few, if any, nations develop nukes with the sincere hope that they'll actually use them against another nuclear power someday. Since the former Soviet Union became the second nuclear power in the 1940s, deterrence has succeded. No one has been willing to risk using nukes in combat for fear of having them used on themselves in retaliation. With the unspeakable horrors nuclear weapons can visit upon cities and regions, does it really make a big difference in deterring others' use of them against us if we have 1,000 nukes versus having 8,000 to 10,000?

AS

[joe1347]

Agree that the still unfathomable magnitude of destruction with even a handful of nuclear warheads makes it impossible to define a coherent deterence policy even with the end of the Cold War.

But since C students rule the world - maybe a simple "having a lot more nukes than the other guy" policy and an insane willingness to use them is something that everyone can understand (i.e., ensuring that any potential or existing enemies fear us - as in fear our unquestioned ability to wipe them off of the face of the planet with massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons) :(

[President Bush]

Originally posted by joe1347
Agree that the still unfathomable magnitude of destruction with even a handful of nuclear warheads makes it impossible to define a coherent deterence policy even with the end of the Cold War.

But since C students rule the world - maybe a simple "having a lot more nukes than the other guy" policy and an insane willingness to use them is something that everyone can understand (i.e., ensuring that any potential or existing enemies fear us - as in fear our unquestioned ability to wipe them off of the face of the planet with massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons) :(
http://www.dailybeast.org/bloggy/babs00.jpg
First his father. Now George. Gives a whole new meaning to the expression terrible two's. (http://www.dmoma.org/lobby/exhibitions/presidentially_speaking/images/potusboom.jpeg)

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ralph
I agree that we don't need to have 5000 warheads in our arsenal.

Well good!

I am pleased to see that you have the ability to accept facts.



What I don't agree on is that reducing this level will somehow make the world safer and make the US less "immoral" as Mr McNamara contends.

How will reducing our arsenal--say by 50%--make the world safer?

What will Iran & NK do differently as a result of our reducing the # of warheads in our arsenal.

What actions will other countrys take when they see that the US has scrapped a few thousand nukes that will result in a safer world?

I think that your problem is that you view the entire world in rather monolithic terms. Just because the one or two places that you do not like are currently grabbing the news headlines does not mean that all of the other nations in the world do not want to be that way as well.

First, very few nations in the world really want to get into an arms race of any sort. Such things are quite expensive and the advantages they provide tend to be rather short-term solutions.

Second, as for Iran, I do think that if Iran was approached calmly, logically, and fairly then they would not try to develop nuclear weapons. I expect that they would continue work on there nuclear power programs, but not actual nuclear weapons. But alas, this sort of approach has not been taken so it is difficult to say if it would work or not.

Third, as for North Korea, I doubt if there is much of anything that an outside nation can do to influence events inside of that country since everything seems to be in the head of Kim Jong Il. Since does not seem to care when his own citizens are starving, it would be prudent to at least think about military action in this area.

Do you notice a pattern here? A case-by-case evaluation is needed as opposed to one policy for all the nations of the world.

Fourth, in terms of international morality it does not matter if there are two bad nations in the bunch. I mean, do you do not throw the legal system out the window just because people continue to commit crimes. In fact, the criminal elements show just how important the system is for dealing with the violaters of the law and providing a high level of protection for the vast majority that live within the law.

I hope this helps!

[Mephisto]

Gosh! You mean WE have WMD, but don't allow anyone else to have them? I wonder why?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Second, as for Iran, I do think that if Iran was approached calmly, logically, and fairly then they would not try to develop nuclear weapons. I expect that they would continue work on there nuclear power programs, but not actual nuclear weapons. But alas, this sort of approach has not been taken so it is difficult to say if it would work or not. I'm curious, why do you suppose this? Do you have any evidence or is this purely supposition?

I have seen little from Iran to suggest that they are a reasonable and rational bunch. Not as bad as North Korea but this is a group that actively supports terrorism, the destruction of Israel and the United States. Their rhetoric, that I have seen, is always incendiary and never conciliatory.

These are the folks who decorated their missiles with messages such as "crush America." (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003470.php)

Iran vows to "crush America" and "wipe Israel off the map" (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003360.php)

The argument seems to be that if America will act nice and reduce its arsenal that the rest of the world will look favorably at America and some regimes will give up their plans to acquire nuclear weapons. The problem is that I don't think that there is any precedent for such a response but I would gladly entertain any suggestions of one. This simply has not thus far been and is not now how the world works. Someone please look at history and tell me that the world is populated by kids in a sandbox who only want everyone to play fair. This is a naive and ignorant view of the world and history IMO. The sad fact is that the world is a dangerous place where many of the kids want the sandbox to themselves and would gladly sacrifice their own citizens, resources and anything that gets in their way to achieve their objectives.

The United States should do its best to balance the following, often conflicting goals.

Act in its best interest.
Act in good faith.
Use diplomacy.
Influence the spread of Democracy.

The United States should not fall for the notion that other governments simply want us to be the kind older brother.

Do we need 5000 warheads? I'm not an expert but I'm guessing no. Will getting rid of a substantial number of our warheads buy us any respect. I don't see how. 1 warhead is enough justification for Iran or any nation to join the nuclear club. Would that be rational? It would be wrong to see these folks as significantly reasonable or rational in my estimation.

These are just my opinions. I'm not an expert. I concede that. Feel free to take my opinions or dismiss them.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by joe1347
But since C students rule the world -

:D

[jay gw]

Second, as for Iran, I do think that if Iran was approached calmly, logically, and fairly then they would not try to develop nuclear weapons. I expect that they would continue work on there nuclear power programs, but not actual nuclear weapons.

The government of Iran has never said they want nuclear weapons. That's propaganda being put out by the Bush group as a pretext to attack.

[Ralph]

Second, as for Iran, I do think that if Iran was approached calmly, logically, and fairly then they would not try to develop nuclear weapons. I expect that they would continue work on there nuclear power programs, but not actual nuclear weapons. But alas, this sort of approach has not been taken so it is difficult to say if it would work or not.





You're joking of course.:D

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mephisto
Gosh! You mean WE have WMD, but don't allow anyone else to have them? I wonder why?


What would you suggest?

Just sit back & do nothing and allow any country that wants nukes to have them....

or should we just disarm totally?

Then nobody could say we weren't being "fair".

[Ralph]

Originally posted by jay gw
The government of Iran has never said they want nuclear weapons. That's propaganda being put out by the Bush group as a pretext to attack.


You guys are killing me here......but I was really hoping for some serious solutions to US "immorality".

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jay gw
The government of Iran has never said they want nuclear weapons. That's propaganda being put out by the Bush group as a pretext to attack. Riiiight!!! Well, Iran would never lie would they? If it is a choice between a tyrannical theocracy and America then you automatically assume that Iran is telling the truth and America is lying. Come-on, is this critical thinking?

There is evidence outside of the Bush administration. Do you dismiss everyone other than the leaders of Iran? Has America's free press gone to bed with the Bush Administration?

Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html)

Oh, and why does a nation rich in oil reserves need nuclear power plants?

Nuclear Threat Initiative (http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/)

During the IAEA's visit to Iran, Iranian officials indicated that Iran would honor its safeguards agreement with the IAEA, but did not clearly indicate Iran's willingness to accept the Additional Protocol. This means that Iran will place the Natanz facility, and any enriched uranium it produces, under IAEA inspection but that, as long as no nuclear materials are present, the IAEA would have no ability to examine locations in Iran where it believed nuclear weapons design research might be under way. The United States is concerned that if Iran stockpiled enriched uranium, it might, in the future, withdraw from the NPT (as North Korea has) and then build nuclear weapons rapidly, perhaps even in a matter of months. This reminds me of the time my 4 year old son told me not to look in his closet. My first thought was, what did he hide in there?

Don't drink the Kool-Aid.

[Ralph]

Believing that Irans nuke program is "for peaceful purposes only" is not only naive...but dangerous. Far more dangerous than Mr Mc Namaras suggestion that it's the US that poses the greatest danger.

I think I'd prefer to see C students with some common sense calling the shots rather than A students with none.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ralph
What would you suggest?

Just sit back & do nothing and allow any country that wants nukes to have them....

or should we just disarm totally?

Then nobody could say we weren't being "fair".

Simplistic, manichaean, world view... Think two minutes about what you just said, and then come back to the discussion, 'k?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Simplistic, manichaean, world view... Think two minutes about what you just said, and then come back to the discussion, 'k? "Manichaean"? I'm not sure. Perhaps Ralph is saying that it is simply in our best interest to act rather than sit back and do nothing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending his logic. In fact I do see some problems with it. But I don't see the deliniation between good and bad. Perhaps that is his motivation but I don't think we can decern it from this post. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Hey, get these things wrong all the time. That is why I like it here. It's an opportunity to sharpen the grey cells.

RandFan

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Simplistic, manichaean, world view... Think two minutes about what you just said, and then come back to the discussion, 'k?


Why don't you just answer my initial question?

The premise was made that US nuke policy was dangerous & immoral.

What specifically should the US do to lessen the danger it supposedly poses to world stabilty?

The only real suggestion offered was to reduce the # of warheads
and limit furthur testing. I don't see where that really helps much at all.

There was the usual whining about the US not being fair----but that really doesn't address the problems involved with dealing with states like Iran.

Since my own ideas are flawed & simplistic--perhaps you can offer up some better ideas rather than just throwing out criticism.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ralph
Why don't you just answer my initial question?

The premise was made that US nuke policy was dangerous & immoral.

The US nuke policy is dangerous and immoral because it demands that certain states do not build nukes while allowing others to do so. States considered to be "friendly" are allowed to have nukes, while other states are routinely threaten with bombings if they go ahead with their nuclear program.

Originally posted by Ralph

What specifically should the US do to lessen the danger it supposedly poses to world stabilty?

Cut it with the blatant double standards, reduce it's nuclear capacity, stop testing, don't develop new nuclear weapons, put an end to antimissile defence, encourage other states, regardless of their relation with the US, to reduce their nuclear capabilities (by, for instance, giving the example), stop acting like the lone cowboy who gets to push people around and start acting within international institutions and laws. Aggressive unilateral US foreign policy is the best motivation there is for nuclear proliferation! A country afraid of a US invasion will have every reason to want the bomb.

Originally posted by Ralph

There was the usual whining about the US not being fair----but that really doesn't address the problems involved with dealing with states like Iran.

Let's imagine that you're Iranian. The US just invaded two neighbouring countries. Pakistan, another neighbour, has the bomb. Israel, a long time enemy, has the bomb. Several ex-soviet republics to the north seem not to have the bomb, but no one is quite sure. I'm worried about US interference, and I still remember US support of the Sha, a bloody dictator that everyone still hates. Yeah, my country is ruled by a bunch of ********, but they're my ********, and there's a vigourous reform movement that may eventually change things. The problem is, US rhetoric about Iran is actually reinforcing the ******** in power and weakening the reform movement. What do you think a patriotic Iranian will want?

Once a state has the bomb, it becomes extremely dangerous to attack it. The US knows this, the Iranians know this... I've actually argued, as a joke, with some very anti-american pacifists that the best thing canadians could do to prevent US involvement in Canada is to get the bomb!

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
The US nuke policy is dangerous and immoral because it demands that certain states do not build nukes while allowing others to do so. States considered to be "friendly" are allowed to have nukes, while other states are routinely threaten with bombings if they go ahead with their nuclear program.

Umm... no. We demand that states that signed the NPT as non-nuclear powers remain so, because THAT'S WHAT THEY AGREED TO. We made NO demands on states that were already nuclear powers to give up their nuclear weapons. States that did NOT sign the treaty we are unable to make demands on. The SOLE exception to the US demanding compliance with the NPT and nothing more is North Korea, which withdrew from the NPT (but was violating it even before their withdrawl). But are you saying it's a BAD thing to demand that North Korea not become a nuclear power? Because if THAT is your idea of stability, you've lost connection to reality.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
The US nuke policy is dangerous and immoral because it demands that certain states do not build nukes while allowing others to do so. States considered to be "friendly" are allowed to have nukes, while other states are routinely threaten with bombings if they go ahead with their nuclear program.



Cut it with the blatant double standards, reduce it's nuclear capacity, stop testing, don't develop new nuclear weapons, put an end to antimissile defence, encourage other states, regardless of their relation with the US, to reduce their nuclear capabilities (by, for instance, giving the example), stop acting like the lone cowboy who gets to push people around and start acting within international institutions and laws. Aggressive unilateral US foreign policy is the best motivation there is for nuclear proliferation! A country afraid of a US invasion will have every reason to want the bomb.



Let's imagine that you're Iranian. The US just invaded two neighbouring countries. Pakistan, another neighbour, has the bomb. Israel, a long time enemy, has the bomb. Several ex-soviet republics to the north seem not to have the bomb, but no one is quite sure. I'm worried about US interference, and I still remember US support of the Sha, a bloody dictator that everyone still hates. Yeah, my country is ruled by a bunch of ********, but they're my ********, and there's a vigourous reform movement that may eventually change things. The problem is, US rhetoric about Iran is actually reinforcing the ******** in power and weakening the reform movement. What do you think a patriotic Iranian will want?

Once a state has the bomb, it becomes extremely dangerous to attack it. The US knows this, the Iranians know this... I've actually argued, as a joke, with some very anti-american pacifists that the best thing canadians could do to prevent US involvement in Canada is to get the bomb!




Do you think we SHOULDN'T differentiate between which countrys have the bomb?

Is your arguement that since we "allow" Israel to posses nukes we should also allow Iran to?

Should we differentiate between a law-abiding citizen and a psychotic with a history of violent crime when it comes to handing out concealed weapon permits?

If you can't see the difference between Israel having nukes and Iran then you're being as naive as the group that's saying "we can trust Iran".


As far as reducing our arsenal goes......I'm still trying to see how that will help reduce the dangers of nuclear proliferation.

I agree--we don't need 5000 warheads. Having 10000 warheads will not make us twice as safe..........but cutting back to 2000 warheads will not make us safer.

Will you feel safer if we cut back to only 1000? How about 500?

Unless we have zero----other countrys will be justified in saying "I want one too". Explaining how the Iranians are justified to feel the way they do does nothing to make the world safer.

As far as weapons testing goes---how would it help if we "froze" our arsenal at it current level of technology?

Even without any furthur refinements---it's still capable of ruining the world.

I do agree that things like miniaturization is dangerous and the thought of these things being made even smaller than they are now is truly frightening.

I am also afraid of any technological developments that would make the production of weapons grade material easier than it is now.

As far as I know though.....the US isn't doing any active research in either of those areas anyway.


Unless you really believe that we just have to be "nice" and everybody will do the same-----we're back to the same dilemma.

How do you stop the real threat to world stabilty---the proliferation of weapons by rogue states/dictators who aren't interested in the rules.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Umm... no. We demand that states that signed the NPT as non-nuclear powers remain so, because THAT'S WHAT THEY AGREED TO. We made NO demands on states that were already nuclear powers to give up their nuclear weapons. States that did NOT sign the treaty we are unable to make demands on. The SOLE exception to the US demanding compliance with the NPT and nothing more is North Korea, which withdrew from the NPT (but was violating it even before their withdrawl). But are you saying it's a BAD thing to demand that North Korea not become a nuclear power? Because if THAT is your idea of stability, you've lost connection to reality.

That is not quite right. The USA is in violation of the treaty so it is difficult for the USA to preach to the non-nuclear powers why they should not develop there own nuclear weapons.

The NPT clearly states that the nuclear powers must work towards nuclear disarmament.

Specifically,

...

Recalling the determination expressed by the Parties to the 1963 Treaty banning nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water in its Preamble to seek to achieve the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all time and to continue negotiations to this end,

Desiring to further the easing of international tension and the strengthening of trust between States in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery pursuant to a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,

...

And for those who think that Iran may be in violation of the NPT due to there civilian nuclear power program, then that is wrong to.

...

Article IV

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

...

A copy of the treaty can be found at:

http://disarmament.un.org:8080/wmd/npt/npttext.html

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Crossbow
And for those who think that Iran may be in violation of the NPT due to there civilian nuclear power program, then that is wrong to.

[I]...

Article IV

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty. Yeah, Iran is in dire need of nuclear energy. Any evidence to the contrary that they re devoping nuclear energy for peaceful purposes should just be ignored. Which is what you did with my last post so I will expect the same for this one.

Time Magazine: Iran's Nuclear Threat (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html)

[Orwell]

The thing is, after the WMD debacle in Iraq, I have no trust whatsoever on "information" given by the US (or any big US media source) or Iran's alleged nuclear program.

I suppose that they want the bomb 'cause that's what I would want if I was an Iranian mullah... But that's about it, nothing but a supposition.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ralph
Do you think we SHOULDN'T differentiate between which countrys have the bomb?

Yes. You shouldn't differentiate, specially if you want to be taken seriously when you talk about non-proliferation.

Originally posted by Ralph
Is your arguement that since we "allow" Israel to posses nukes we should also allow Iran to?

My argument is that it is hypocritical to denounce Iran while not denouncing Israel or Pakistan.

Originally posted by Ralph
Should we differentiate between a law-abiding citizen and a psychotic with a history of violent crime when it comes to handing out concealed weapon permits?

If you can't see the difference between Israel having nukes and Iran then you're being as naive as the group that's saying "we can trust Iran".

I can't see the difference between Israel having nukes and Iran having nukes. Nuclear weapons are essentially dissuasive weapons. They are useless for anything else. If Iran used its bombs, it would be pulverised by the US or by the nukes of one of its neighbours. And Iran is not "psychotic". It,s a country with its own problems and politics. America's aggressive posture will only encourage Iran's gov. to get nukes asap.

Originally posted by Ralph
As far as reducing our arsenal goes......I'm still trying to see how that will help reduce the dangers of nuclear proliferation.

It will decrease the amount of nuclear weapons, it will be interpreted as a show of good will, and it will make nations more willing to negotiate.

Originally posted by Ralph
I agree--we don't need 5000 warheads. Having 10000 warheads will not make us twice as safe..........but cutting back to 2000 warheads will not make us safer.

Will you feel safer if we cut back to only 1000? How about 500?

The less the merrier! 500 nuclear warheads can be interpreted as dissuasion, while 5000 is impossible to justify rationally.

Originally posted by Ralph
Unless we have zero----other countrys will be justified in saying "I want one too". Explaining how the Iranians are justified to feel the way they do does nothing to make the world safer.

Why do so many countries (like Canada) don't feel the need to have nuclear weapons, in spite the fact that they have the technology to build them? Because they don't feel threatened. Cut back on your weapons programs (all of them) and start working with the international community instead of against it, encourage peaceful solutions all around the world, negotiation and foreign aid, and Iran (and other countries) will feel less of a need to own nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by Ralph
As far as weapons testing goes---how would it help if we "froze" our arsenal at it current level of technology?

Unless you really believe that we just have to be "nice" and everybody will do the same-----we're back to the same dilemma.

How do you stop the real threat to world stabilty---the proliferation of weapons by rogue states/dictators who aren't interested in the rules.

The way I see it, right now, the biggest threat to world stability isn't Iran, it's US foreign policy.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yeah, Iran is in dire need of nuclear energy. Any evidence to the contrary that they re devoping nuclear energy for peaceful purposes should just be ignored. Which is what you did with my last post so I will expect the same for this one.

Time Magazine: Iran's Nuclear Threat (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html)

Well, if that article in Time is your idea of evidence, then I am not surprised that it is ignored.

The Administration says that Iran was in breach of NPT.
Iran says that it is not in breach of NPT.
While the IAEA people are not really saying one way or the other.

Given the all of the lies that the Bush & Co gave about Iraq, I am rather skeptical of their statements about Iran.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Iran says that it is not in breach of NPT. I will concede that I assumed the "experts" referenced in the article were outside of the administration but I do not know that for sure. I withdraw the article as proof of anything. I agree that the world should be skeptical of the Bush administration.

Questions:

1.) Why does Iran need nuclear power?

The following is a great source that discusses both sides of the issues and raises some very serious issues.

Does Iran Need Nuclear Power? (http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000078.htm)

It is certain that Iranian energy consumption has been increasing, and that there is a serious pollution problem in Iran, but it is far from clear that development of nuclear energy is the best and most economical and most urgent alternative to be pursued. Iran has 9% of the world's proven oil reserves, and almost 16 percent of the world's gas reserves (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table81.html) , second only to Russia. Iran also has considerable quantities of coal. Their energy consumption is about the same as that of Saudi Arabia, and far less per capita. Gas is a clean burning fuel that can be used for generating electricity and nuclear power. It is cheaper than nuclear power.

2.) Why did Iran make the following point?

Iran a Nuclear Threat, U.S. Says (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9726-2004Aug17.html)

Iran told British, French and German officials last month that it could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb within a year, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton said yesterday in arguing the case for international pressure on the Islamic Republic. Thank you for responding.

[Skeptic]

The US nuke policy is dangerous and immoral because it demands that certain states do not build nukes while allowing others to do so. States considered to be "friendly" are allowed to have nukes, while other states are routinely threaten with bombings if they go ahead with their nuclear program.

There isn't the slightest reason to tink it's immoral to allow Britian to have nuclear weapons while not allowing North Korea. One is a democratic, free country; the other is an enormous gulag run by madmen. If anything, treating them equally would be immoral, for obvious reasons.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Simplistic, manichaean, world view... Think two minutes about what you just said, and then come back to the discussion, 'k?

Pompous, pseudo-"sophisticated", naive, world view... think two minutes about what you said--that it's somehow bad to stop NK from having nukes because Britian has them--and then come back to the discussion, 'k?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by RandFan
I will concede that I assumed the "experts" referenced in the article were outside of the administration but I do not know that for sure. I withdraw the article as proof of anything. I agree that the world should be skeptical of the Bush administration.


Thanks for the concession!


Questions:

1.) Why does Iran need nuclear power?

The following is a great source that discusses both sides of the issues and raises some very serious issues.


Well, first of all, if you really want to know why Iran would like to develop a nuclear power program, then you may want to start with data that is a bit more current. The article you cited is from October, 2003.

Perhaps, one such as this will help.

Iran's need for nuclear engagement
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FG14Ak02.html

Second of all, simply sitting on top of a large supply of crude oil and gas does not mean the same thing thing as having a reliable energy supply. These products need a good deal of refinement and processing before they can be turned into useful fuels.

Third, Iran has a very rapidly expanding population,
there hydroelectric capabilities are just about maxed out,
they are not well situated for solar or wind or geothermal power,
there is very little in the way of coal,
and they are under constant threat from the USA.

However, nuclear power will provide energy quickly and help the Iranian economy become one where they are far less dependent upon other nations for finished products and technology.


2.) Why did Iran make the following point?


As for the Bolton comments you hold in such high regard, again I think that it would be most helpful if you applied a bit of time indexing to your data and that you read the whole article instead of just the bit that interested you.

Specifically, that article in the Washington Post was from August 18, 2004. Well, that was about 9 months ago, so according to Bolton (the same Bolton who has been so roundly critized for his creative interpetations of intelligence data) Iran should just about have enough bomb grade uranium.

So where is all this uranium? Nobody seems to know.

Further, the article goes on to say ...
It remains unclear whether Iran is capable of carrying out its threat. U.S. officials say Iranian diplomats may have been bluffing when they met with European officials in Paris in July. And there were discrepancies between Bolton's account and those of European and U.S. diplomats, who said that Iran's deputy negotiator, Hoseyn Moussavian, said Iran could start enriching uranium within a year, but it would take longer to enrich enough for a weapon.

Well I say, that Bolton is just another Bush Administration lying flunkie who is trying to drum up support for the latest enemy and as such, (just like the Iraqi WMDs) the reason why no one can find all of this bomb grade uranium, is that it does not exist.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Well, first of all, if you really want to know why Iran would like to develop a nuclear power program, then you may want to start with data that is a bit more current. The article you cited is from October, 2003. I don't see how time affects the logical arguments made. I don't think the issues have changed. Simply dismissing it based on time is not a valid reason.

Iran's need for nuclear engagement
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FG14Ak02.html The article makes the same "pro" arguments mine did but it clearly paints a one sided picture. Why should I dismiss the counter points from the other article?

I think that it would be most helpful if you applied a bit of time indexing to your data and that you read the whole article instead of just the bit that interested you. I did read the entire article. The other "bits" don't invalidate the point that which was of interest to me. You have not answered the question. Why did the Iranians make the claim?

Dismissing the quote because Bolton is part of the article is ad hominem and fallacious.

1.) Did the Iranians make the claim?

2.) If yes then why did they make it?

Being skeptical of the Bush administration should NOT mean that you should assume the opposite as true. Please don't go drinking the Kool-Aid on me.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The US nuke policy is dangerous and immoral because it demands that certain states do not build nukes while allowing others to do so. States considered to be "friendly" are allowed to have nukes, while other states are routinely threaten with bombings if they go ahead with their nuclear program.

There isn't the slightest reason to tink it's immoral to allow Britian to have nuclear weapons while not allowing North Korea. One is a democratic, free country; the other is an enormous gulag run by madmen. If anything, treating them equally would be immoral, for obvious reasons.

Ok, so you can read. But you obviously have a little trouble understanding what you read. See, if you want to specifically address the North Korean case, weel, I can tell you that in this case, it doesn't make a lick of difference what you or I or your gov. thinks of the way how N. Korea is run. If the N. Koreans want nukes, they will probably get them. Heck, it's quite probable that they have them already!

So now what do you do? Go around saying that "them tar commies are sure evil so we gots to nip this thing in the bud"? That ain't gonna work. You can't invade (too busy elsewhere, eh?), and there's a good chance that bombing won't work and even could cause a dangerous escalade. Seoul is, what, sixty km from the border with N. Korea? So you need to negotiate and negotiate credibly. If you don't want the N. Koreans (or other nations) to laugh at the US when they talk about the dangers of nuclear proliferation, you have to make some kind of conciliatory gesture. That has been my point all along. Right now, thanks to its tendency to go at it alone, missile defence initiatives and abandonment of nuclear treaties, your gov. has zero credibility regarding nuke control. And the North Koreans can easily tell chinese (the only country that has any influence on them) that they have good reasons to want the bomb.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Pompous, pseudo-"sophisticated", naive, world view... think two minutes about what you said--that it's somehow bad to stop NK from having nukes because Britian has them--and then come back to the discussion, 'k?

Jingoistic, blindly nationalistic, ignorant, self-righteous, selfish, hypocritical world view... Why don't you get your head out of your ass and start thinking for yourself instead of just repeating government's bad rhetoric like a scratch record?

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Yes. You shouldn't differentiate, specially if you want to be taken seriously when you talk about non-proliferation.



My argument is that it is hypocritical to denounce Iran while not denouncing Israel or Pakistan.



I can't see the difference between Israel having nukes and Iran having nukes. Nuclear weapons are essentially dissuasive weapons. They are useless for anything else. If Iran used its bombs, it would be pulverised by the US or by the nukes of one of its neighbours. And Iran is not "psychotic". It,s a country with its own problems and politics. America's aggressive posture will only encourage Iran's gov. to get nukes asap.



It will decrease the amount of nuclear weapons, it will be interpreted as a show of good will, and it will make nations more willing to negotiate.



The less the merrier! 500 nuclear warheads can be interpreted as dissuasion, while 5000 is impossible to justify rationally.



Why do so many countries (like Canada) don't feel the need to have nuclear weapons, in spite the fact that they have the technology to build them? Because they don't feel threatened. Cut back on your weapons programs (all of them) and start working with the international community instead of against it, encourage peaceful solutions all around the world, negotiation and foreign aid, and Iran (and other countries) will feel less of a need to own nuclear weapons.



The way I see it, right now, the biggest threat to world stability isn't Iran, it's US foreign policy.



So my world view is simplistic &"manichaean". (nice word btw--VERY impressive).

Your view is that letting a middle-eastern Islamic theocracy that has sworn to destroy Israel & the US have nukes is far less dangerous & de-stabilizing than the current situation.

If the US reduces it's arsenal--all the countrys that would like to have a few nukes on hand "just in case"....will just say "OK--since the US is setting such a fine example---we will too."





Let me guess.......you're under 25--- single--a college student---and you live at home with your parents.



oh--and I think the reason Canada doesn't feel threatened has something to do with the big nuclear-armed country to the south.

Far from feeling threatened by the evil US---I think they they kind of like the idea that we have all those guns & bombs......

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Jingoistic, blindly nationalistic, ignorant, self-righteous, selfish, hypocritical world view... Why don't you get your head out of your ass and start thinking for yourself instead of just repeating government's bad rhetoric like a scratch record?

I AM thinking for myself. I am just disagreeing with you and agreeing with the government. Of course you see this as "brainswashing", since your (real) definition of "independent thought" is "coming to the same conclusion as I did". But that's hardly my concern, now is it?

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I AM thinking for myself. I am just disagreeing with you and agreeing with the government. Of course you see this as "brainswashing", since your (real) definition of "independent thought" is "coming to the same conclusion as I did". But that's hardly my concern, now is it?

Mmm, I've been reading your posts for a while now, and you pretty much seem to typically agree with the typically right-wing jingo crap that's coming out of Washington these days, specially when it comes to foreign policy. You sure do spend quite a lot of time defending it anyway!

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ralph
So my world view is simplistic &"manichaean". (nice word btw--VERY impressive).

Your view is that letting a middle-eastern Islamic theocracy that has sworn to destroy Israel & the US have nukes is far less dangerous & de-stabilizing than the current situation.

If the US reduces it's arsenal--all the countrys that would like to have a few nukes on hand "just in case"....will just say "OK--since the US is setting such a fine example---we will too."

As I already told you, nukes are dissuasive weapons. They're useless has offensive weapons. I have no sympathy for Iran's gov., but it seems to me that it's actions in the region are less "destabilising" than those of Israel and the US. They haven't invaded anyone, and they don't occupy contested land.

Now, before you start stupidly arguing that I'm supporting Iran, let me remind you that the word "destabilising" doesn't imply approval or disapproval. I'm not supporting Iran. I'm saying that I understand their paranoia and their wish to have nukes. That doesn't mean that I approve of their paranoia or of their wish to have nukes or even of their particular way of running their country.

But I'm sure your simplistic, black and white world view will probably keep you from understanding my point, so I won't over-stress it.


Originally posted by Ralph


Let me guess.......you're under 25--- single--a college student---and you live at home with your parents.



oh--and I think the reason Canada doesn't feel threatened has something to do with the big nuclear-armed country to the south.

Far from feeling threatened by the evil US---I think they they kind of like the idea that we have all those guns & bombs......

Wrong on all counts! And it's particularly stupid of you to try this kind of attack. It sure doesn't make you sound any smarter!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Mmm, I've been reading your posts for a while now, and you pretty much seem to typically agree with the typically right-wing jingo crap that's coming out of Washington these days, specially when it comes to foreign policy. You sure do spend quite a lot of time defending it anyway! And I've been reading yours. You seem to typically agree with the propaganda coming from the left these days. You sure do spend a lot of time spouting it anyway!

Edited to add: I really resent this attitude. As if it is ok to be a true believer of the left and still be objective but one who typically agrees with right wing ideas is blind. Look in the mirror. Just because the left says things that fit your world view does not make it correct.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
As I already told you, nukes are dissuasive weapons. They're useless has offensive weapons. I have no sympathy for Iran's gov., but it seems to me that it's actions in the region are less "destabilising" than those of Israel and the US. They haven't invaded anyone, and they don't occupy contested land.

Now, before you start stupidly arguing that I'm supporting Iran, let me remind you that the word "destabilising" doesn't imply approval or disapproval. I'm not supporting Iran. I'm saying that I understand their paranoia and their wish to have nukes. That doesn't mean that I approve of their paranoia or of their wish to have nukes or even of their particular way of running their country.

But I'm sure your simplistic, black and white world view will probably keep you from understanding my point, so I won't over-stress it.




Wrong on all counts! And it's particularly stupid of you to try this kind of attack. It sure doesn't make you sound any smarter!


So it's your opinion my views are simplistic.

It's my opinion that your views are typical of under 25 college students who live at home. If I was wrong--I apologize----you do sound like one---- only in my humble & simplistic opinion of course.


Another question though if you don't mind.

You mentioned how Canadians don't feel threatened at all.

Considering that you live right next to a country as dangerous & as immoral as the US-----don't you think this is a little odd?


My own theory is that most Canadians have enough common sense to do what you say they shouldn't.......differentiate.

I think most Canadians recognize that there's a huge difference between Israel or the US or GB having nukes and Iran having them.

Do you think Canadians would feel even LESS threatened if instead of bordering the US with it's 5000 warheads & a lying George Bush --they bordered a country run by the mullahs---with only a "sensible" # of warheads-----say 500 or so?

[Orwell]

Originally posted by RandFan
And I've been reading yours. You seem to typically agree with the propaganda coming from the left these days. You sure do spend a lot of time spouting it anyway!

Edited to add: I really resent this attitude. As if it is ok to be a true believer of the left and still be objective but one who typically agrees with right wing ideas is blind. Look in the mirror. Just because the left says things that fit your world view does not make it correct.

Sorry, did I say that right wingers were necessarily blind? No.

But I'm pretty sure that right wingers that agree and defend the Bush administration's foreign policy are, well, probably blind.

[Skeptic]

Oh, I see. So it's not right-wingers as such that are "blind" and "brainwashed", it's only right-wingers whom you strongly disagree with that are so.

The old saying is that every right-winger considers himself morally superior, while every left-winger considers himself intellectually superior. Obviously this needs updating: you're a left-winger who considers himself morally superior because of your enormous intellectual superiority.

Your idea is that, if only the stupid people who disagree with you would come to have your views, they too would no longer follow such immoral policies you disagree with.

Ah well.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Sorry, did I say that right wingers were necessarily blind? No.

But I'm pretty sure that right wingers that agree and defend the Bush administration's foreign policy are, well, probably blind. You ignored my point completely. Thanks though. I note the arrogance of one who drinks the Kool-Aid of the left. You don't need to think just take a contrary position to the Bush administration and regurgitate left wing propaganda. Life is nice when it is easy, wouldn't you agree?

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ralph
So it's your opinion my views are simplistic.

It's my opinion that your views are typical of under 25 college students who live at home. If I was wrong--I apologize----you do sound like one---- only in my humble & simplistic opinion of course. �_

Well, in my opinion, your views are typical of a white, ignorant middle age redneck with a tiny prick and masculinity issues who overcompensates by trying to sound mean and tough. See, this is why it is a good idea to keep the ad hominen stuff out of arguments.


Originally posted by Ralph
Another question though if you don't mind.

You mentioned how Canadians don't feel threatened at all.

Considering that you live right next to a country as dangerous & as immoral as the US-----don't you think this is a little odd?

I've never said that the US were always dangerous and immoral. I said that foreign policy (specially in the middle east) is dangerous, and that its nuclear policies are useless and, well, even immoral (although the word immoral, which I don't typically use, was introduced into the discussion by McNamara)

Originally posted by Ralph
My own theory is that most Canadians have enough common sense to do what you say they shouldn't.......differentiate.

I think most Canadians recognize that there's a huge difference between Israel or the US or GB having nukes and Iran having them.

Do you think Canadians would feel even LESS threatened if instead of bordering the US with it's 5000 warheads & a lying George Bush --they bordered a country run by the mullahs---with only a "sensible" # of warheads-----say 500 or so?

First, Canada doesn't border Iran. Second, the US doesn't border Iran either. And no, Canadians typically don't feel threatened, probably because they don't have a gov. that routinely fosters fear and paranoia for political reasons. But I don't speak for them, and you don't either. And the question here is not who deserves to have nukes and who doesn't. The question here is: what would serve non-proliferation better? Less nukes all around, or more nukes all around? Ideally, I would like it if no one had nukes, or if very few countries had them. And right now, I believe that US nuclear policy, with it's stupid double standards and brinkmanship, is in the way.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Oh, I see. So it's not right-wingers as such that are "blind" and "brainwashed", it's only right-wingers whom you strongly disagree with that are so.

I strongly disagree with most US foreign policy. I've been strongly disagreing with most US foreign policy even before Dubya got elected.

Originally posted by Skeptic
The old saying is that every right-winger considers himself morally superior, while every left-winger considers himself intellectually superior. Obviously this needs updating: you're a left-winger who considers himself morally superior because of your enormous intellectual superiority.

Mmm, now were did I say this? That's right, nowhere! You're imagining things.

Originally posted by Skeptic
Your idea is that, if only the stupid people who disagree with you would come to have your views, they too would no longer follow such immoral policies you disagree with.

Ah well.

No, see, I have had other arguments with people around here, and I they were smart arguments. Randfan was one of them, actually. I never called him stupid, because he usually doesn't make stupid points. And he usually restrains from ad hominem attacks. I didn't call Ralph stupid either. I said his opinion was simplistic and manichaean, which it was. And then he took it personally.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by RandFan
You ignored my point completely. Thanks though. I note the arrogance of one who drinks the Kool-Aid of the left. You don't need to think just take a contrary position to the Bush administration and regurgitate left wing propaganda. Life is nice when it is easy, wouldn't you agree?

I don't think I ignored your point (if there was one).

And my position on nukes is not "left-wing" per se, it also happens to be a position shared by other right wingers around the world. Both Nixon and Reagan signed armament reduction treaties. Also, I don't consider McNamara to be "left-wing". See, most democrats are pretty right-wing when compared to the politics of others around the world.

And since this thread is getting pretty hot, I suggest we take some time off to cool down.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
I don't think I ignored your point (if there was one). My point is that you hypocritically accuse others of doing what you do.

And my position on nukes is not "left-wing" per se, it also happens to be a position shared by other right wingers around the world. Show me a position that is exclusively shared by any group. Lot's of liberals and those on the left disagree with you. So what?

Both Nixon and Reagan signed armament reduction treaties. And this proves what?

Also, I don't consider McNamara to be "left-wing". I don't care what you consider McNamara to be. Your opinions do not reflect objective and fair minded opinions. You don't have to agree with Bush but it would be nice if you could demonstrate some objectivity IF (note I said "if") you are going to attack others of being partisan.

See, most democrats are pretty right-wing when compared to the politics of others around the world. My point is NOT about the relative leftness (made up word) of your views only that you make partisan arguments and it is obvious that your views mirror those on the left who only see the world in a very limited black and white way in which Bush is ALWAYS wrong and that there is NO reason to those with opposing views. Which is fine if you aren't self righteously attacking others for their views.

And since this thread is getting pretty hot, I suggest we take some time off to cool down. I suggest you get off of your high horse and stick to objective arguments and not hypocritically accusing others of the self same thing you are guilty of.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
And my position on nukes is not "left-wing" per se, it also happens to be a position shared by other right wingers around the world. Both Nixon and Reagan signed armament reduction treaties.

Can't say I know much about Nixon's treaties, but Reagan signed armament reduction treaties because he GOT something in return for reducing American armaments. What you seem to be advocating is essentially unilateral American arms reduction in return for what, exactly? Nothing, as far as I can see. No, your approach is hardly the same as Reagan's.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Can't say I know much about Nixon's treaties, but Reagan signed armament reduction treaties because he GOT something in return for reducing American armaments. What you seem to be advocating is essentially unilateral American arms reduction in return for what, exactly? Nothing, as far as I can see. No, your approach is hardly the same as Reagan's.

You will get the good will of the international community, and a more legitimate stance concerning nuclear non-proliferation. It will make negotiations easier. Your nuclear arsenal is useless, you could profit from reducing it.

When it comes to nukes, it is quite pointless to go around saying "bad country, no nukes for you". I believe that calling Iran and North Korea "members of the axis of evil" did more for these countries nuclear program than anything else you government did. In the case of Iran, it clearly helped the more extreme factions of their government, and it clearly increased their fears of US intervention.

Is this being partisan and "left-wing"? If it is, well, so be it.

[Orwell]

And Randfan, the Bush administration isn't always wrong. I think they're rarely right, because they tend to see things through the perspective of narrow self interest and they are usually unconcerned by any long term views. And I do believe that Bush & co. are wrong concerning nuclear non-proliferation and I've already explained why, in between defending myself from personal attacks.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
You will get the good will of the international community, and a more legitimate stance concerning nuclear non-proliferation. It will make negotiations easier.

I can do without the good will of the "international community". To the extent that such a thing exists, as anything that has a will at all, it seems like it's just corrupt tyrant-enabling diplomats with no accountability.

And why on earth would you think it would make negotiations easier? Which negotiations, exactly? If that's something that the people we're negotiating with want, then wouldn't it make those negotiations easier to only give up our nukes in exchange for what we want in those negotiations? Wouldn't unilaterally giving in to what they want make it HARDER for us to get what we want in exchange, since they no longer have to give up anything to achieve what they want? If it's NOT something they want, why would our giving up nukes make any difference?

I see nothing in your argument but blind faith.

[Ralph]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
[B]?_

Well, in my opinion, your views are typical of a white, ignorant middle age redneck with a tiny prick and masculinity issues who overcompensates by trying to sound mean and tough. See, this is why it is a good idea to keep the ad hominen stuff out of arguments.



You did well---2 right................I'm white & in my 50s.

I'm not sure about the redneck part though.

My political leanings probably are conservative and I also own firearms. While I don't believe everything the govt. says--I also don't believe that Bush lied about the WMDs.

On the other hand---I've lived in New England all my life, I live in a house (without wheels), I have TWO college degrees (Magna cum laude--Mass Coll. of Pharmacy), and there are TWO honda accords in my garage.

I'm also an atheist, I could care less about what other consenting adults do in bed, and I'm pro legalization of drugs.


You seem to have this simplistic almost Manichaean view of things---high-minded liberal thinkers like yourself vs. intolerant fag-hating,redneck conservatives and nothing in between.

As far as your interest in my anatomy goes---I've always felt that when you've reduced the other guy to the "you're compensating for a small prick" defense-----you've pretty much won.

At any rate--it says a lot about your level of maturity.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by RandFan
I don't see how time affects the logical arguments made. I don't think the issues have changed. Simply dismissing it based on time is not a valid reason.

Well if you are so sure of your facts, then kindly explain to me how one can make logical arguments about a current political situation based on old data.

Besides, you were the one who kept asking why Iran needed a nuclear power program since they have such a large oil and gas reserve. I simply attempted to provide the answer and some back up data for your request.


The article makes the same "pro" arguments mine did but it clearly paints a one sided picture. Why should I dismiss the counter points from the other article?

I am not sure what you are talking about here. How does this article validate your arguments that since Iran already has a large oil and gas reserve, therefore Iran does not need a nuclear power program?


I did read the entire article. The other "bits" don't invalidate the point that which was of interest to me. You have not answered the question. Why did the Iranians make the claim?

Dismissing the quote because Bolton is part of the article is ad hominem and fallacious.

1.) Did the Iranians make the claim?

2.) If yes then why did they make it?

Being skeptical of the Bush administration should NOT mean that you should assume the opposite as true. Please don't go drinking the Kool-Aid on me.

You seem awfully hung up on this 'claims' issue.

The Washington Post article that you posted states that the claim you are so concerned about was made by one person, and that it may have been a bluff.

This same article goes on to say, that Bolton account does not jibe with another account of the claim. In any case, the claim was made nearly one year ago and Iran has made no further mention has been of it since then.

Futhermore, I do not make assumptions of the truth based on my like/dislike of the Bush Administration.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Can't say I know much about Nixon's treaties, but Reagan signed armament reduction treaties because he GOT something in return for reducing American armaments. What you seem to be advocating is essentially unilateral American arms reduction in return for what, exactly? Nothing, as far as I can see. No, your approach is hardly the same as Reagan's.

I just have to step in here because this statement is just so wrong.

Reagan did a great deal to violate and trash all sorts of treaties that the USA had signed on.

Mining of harbors in order to support the Contras.
Violation of the ABM Treaty with the SDI program.
Violation of the START Treaty by putting more nukes in bombers.
Building new SSBN submarines, building new ICBMS, developing new NALCMS.
Oh yeah, into his second term he entered into an Arms Control Treaty with the USSR in order to avoid the title of being first president who did not come to some sort of formal arrangement with them so that he can take the title of 'peace maker'.

Just because you are unable to view the world in anything else other than your narrow context that does not mean that everyone else has the same limitations.

Or put another way, no one has been advocating unilateral disarmament.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Crossbow
I just have to step in here because this statement is just so wrong.

Reagan did a great deal to violate and trash all sorts of treaties that the USA had signed on.

Which has nothing to do with my point, and doesn't contradict my claim in any way. Try to stay on topic: my point wasn't that Reagan was a good guy, or even that he made the right choices, but simply that Reagan's policies in no way parallel, mirror, or even resemble what ExLionTamer is actually advocating, contrary to his claim. The problem here isn't my narrow world view (which I doubt you actually understand), it's your inability to follow the logic of an argument.

Or put another way, no one has been advocating unilateral disarmament.

Umm... Ralph asked "What specifically should the US do to lessen the danger it supposedly poses to world stabilty?" and ExLionTamer responded that the US should "reduce it's nuclear capacity", without mentioning any preconditions on that reduction. He then said that doing so would make it easier for us to negotiate (for what, or with whom, he would not specify - likely because his claim makes no sense). I made no claim about what YOU are advocating, but unilateral disarmament seems to pretty damned well describe what ExLionTamer is advocating.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ralph
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
[B]?_

Well, in my opinion, your views are typical of a white, ignorant middle age redneck with a tiny prick and masculinity issues who overcompensates by trying to sound mean and tough. See, this is why it is a good idea to keep the ad hominen stuff out of arguments.



You did well---2 right................I'm white & in my 50s.

I'm not sure about the redneck part though.

My political leanings probably are conservative and I also own firearms. While I don't believe everything the govt. says--I also don't believe that Bush lied about the WMDs.

On the other hand---I've lived in New England all my life, I live in a house (without wheels), I have TWO college degrees (Magna cum laude--Mass Coll. of Pharmacy), and there are TWO honda accords in my garage.

I'm also an atheist, I could care less about what other consenting adults do in bed, and I'm pro legalization of drugs.


You seem to have this simplistic almost Manichaean view of things---high-minded liberal thinkers like yourself vs. intolerant fag-hating,redneck conservatives and nothing in between.

As far as your interest in my anatomy goes---I've always felt that when you've reduced the other guy to the "you're compensating for a small prick" defense-----you've pretty much won.

At any rate--it says a lot about your level of maturity.

Boy, you really didn't get my point! You were the one who started with this "caricature" stuff, and I was making fun of that kind of rhetoric by using it on you. What I said was a parody, an imitation of your style of attack. See, even if what you had said about me was true, that wouldn't have made a lick of difference regarding what I was saying.

Anyway, I have no wish to go into those kinds of silly attacks, but if you do go that way, I will make fun of it and I will return the insult in kind!

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Which has nothing to do with my point, and doesn't contradict my claim in any way. Try to stay on topic: my point wasn't that Reagan was a good guy, or even that he made the right choices, but simply that Reagan's policies in no way parallel, mirror, or even resemble what ExLionTamer is actually advocating, contrary to his claim. The problem here isn't my narrow world view (which I doubt you actually understand), it's your inability to follow the logic of an argument.



Umm... Ralph asked "What specifically should the US do to lessen the danger it supposedly poses to world stabilty?" and ExLionTamer responded that the US should "reduce it's nuclear capacity", without mentioning any preconditions on that reduction. He then said that doing so would make it easier for us to negotiate (for what, or with whom, he would not specify - likely because his claim makes no sense). I made no claim about what YOU are advocating, but unilateral disarmament seems to pretty damned well describe what ExLionTamer is advocating.

I never argued for complete unilateral disarmament. I did argue for a reduction, though, as a sign of good will, mostly because you don't need all these nukes. And hell, just having less nukes around is a good idea regardless of the reasons used to justify it.

Which negotiations could this gesture help? Why, these negotiations:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/10/nkorea.talks/

http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/slot3_051605.html

[Ralph]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
[B]As I already told you, nukes are dissuasive weapons. They're useless has offensive weapons.





Care to give a few minutes thought to that statement?

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ralph
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
[B]As I already told you, nukes are dissuasive weapons. They're useless has offensive weapons.





Care to give a few minutes thought to that statement?

Are you going to argue that they can be used offensively by a state, without the state risking obliteration?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Which negotiations could this gesture help? Why, these negotiations:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/10/nkorea.talks/

http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/slot3_051605.html

How do you figure? You seriously think that our reducing our nuclear stockpile would present ANY kind of incentive to North Korea, or even Iran? On the basis of what logic?

As I said, either they want us to reduce our stockpile, or they don't. If they want us to, then it's a complete mistake to do so without getting anything in return, because they WON'T give us anything in return if they don't have to to get what they want, and it reduces what we can offer going forward. It weakens our bargaining position, it doesn't strengthen it.

And if they don't care (my personal bet), then how in the world does that actually help? Are our negotiations with North Korea and Iran somehow contingent on whether or not Canadian pacifists LIKE us? Your logic escapes me.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Are you going to argue that they can be used offensively by a state, without the state risking obliteration?


I think if the US wanted to use nukes offensively---we could do so against all but maybe Russia. We'd have to be a little ruthless with a few places of course--China for example--but I think with a surprise first strike the US could eliminate Chinas ability to retaliate.

If Israel wanted to use it's weapons against Iran I think it could do so without fear of obliteration....at least now.

If the US was willing to not get involved - a country with only a handfull of nukes could destroy a country with none----without fear of obliteration.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ralph
I think if the US wanted to use nukes offensively---we could do so against all but maybe Russia. We'd have to be a little ruthless with a few places of course--China for example--but I think with a surprise first strike the US could eliminate Chinas ability to retaliate.

If Israel wanted to use it's weapons against Iran I think it could do so without fear of obliteration....at least now.

If the US was willing to not get involved - a country with only a handfull of nukes could destroy a country with none----without fear of obliteration.

Even you you somehow managed to avoid immediate retaliation, how do you think other countries around the world would react? I think everybody would be horrified, and there's a good chance that the hatred generated by such an attack would eventually lead to a nuclear revenge attack against the aggressor. For instance, it's easy to speculate that Israel would eventually be in deep **** if they dared to pre-emptively use nukes against an arab state.

Any state that uses nukes offensively will be hated and despised for centuries to come. In the minds of amny, nukes are almost like tabu weapons, civilised nations are not suppose to use them offensively.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
How do you figure? You seriously think that our reducing our nuclear stockpile would present ANY kind of incentive to North Korea, or even Iran? On the basis of what logic?

As I said, either they want us to reduce our stockpile, or they don't. If they want us to, then it's a complete mistake to do so without getting anything in return, because they WON'T give us anything in return if they don't have to to get what they want, and it reduces what we can offer going forward. It weakens our bargaining position, it doesn't strengthen it.

And if they don't care (my personal bet), then how in the world does that actually help? Are our negotiations with North Korea and Iran somehow contingent on whether or not Canadian pacifists LIKE us? Your logic escapes me.

As I already said about, oh, a dozen times or so, you can't ask countries to do something that you won't do yourself, even partially. You have zero legitimacy when it comes to nuclear disarmament.

Diminishing your stockpile will at least make you look a bit more serious. If you're armed to the teeth, everyone (and specially paranoid leaders of oppressive states) will assume that you don't really want peace and non-proliferation by themselves. They will assume that you want peace on your terms and non-proliferation just because it makes it easier to push people around. And a diminished stockpile would be a good step towards an overall decrease in nuclear capabilities around the world. It's not that hard to understand now, is it?

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Even you you somehow managed to avoid immediate retaliation, how do you think other countries around the world would react? I think everybody would be horrified, and there's a good chance that the hatred generated by such an attack would eventually lead to a nuclear revenge attack against the aggressor. For instance, it's easy to speculate that Israel would eventually be in deep **** if they dared to pre-emptively use nukes against an arab state.

Any state that uses nukes offensively will be hated and despised for centuries to come. In the minds of amny, nukes are almost like tabu weapons, civilised nations are not suppose to use them offensively.

Would other countries be horrified by a US use of nukes on another country?....Some would---and some would be cheering us on (depending on which country was nuked-----I think if the US decided to nuke Israel for example---we'd make a lot of new friends in the Middle East).

What would the rest of the world do about it though. Retaliate in kind and also guarantee their own destruction?

What about a joint US/Israeli strike to negate Irans nuke program?

I'm sure outwardly there will be no lack of condemnation.

Inwardly I suspect a lot of countries will breathe a sigh of relief.


Anyway--I'm not arguing that we should go around nuking people we don't like. I simply disagree with your statement that nukes can't be used as offensive weapons. They can if one has the will to.

Of course neither country has other than against Japan to end WW2.

Now we're back to differentiating again of course. Israel which has been attacked several times by Arab countries which have sworn to destroy it. They have the military might to solve a lot of their problems----but have chosen not to.


I'm not convinced Iran would show the same restraint.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer


Diminishing your stockpile will at least make you look a bit more serious. If you're armed to the teeth, everyone (and specially paranoid leaders of oppressive states) will assume that you don't really want peace and non-proliferation by themselves. They will assume that you want peace on your terms and non-proliferation just because it makes it easier to push people around. And a diminished stockpile would be a good step towards an overall decrease in nuclear capabilities around the world. It's not that hard to understand now, is it? [/B]


I'd be willing to that that 9 out 10 paranoid leaders of oppressive states would prefer to see it's opposition in a weaker--not stronger military position.

Schickelgruber comes to mind but I'm sure there are others.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Well if you are so sure of your facts, then kindly explain to me how one can make logical arguments about a current political situation based on old data. It is NOT data it is a logical argument.

Besides, you were the one who kept asking why Iran needed a nuclear power program since they have such a large oil and gas reserve. I simply attempted to provide the answer and some back up data for your request. I've already dealt with this. Please pay attention. Your article is one sided. My article deals with your issues and rebuts them. Did you bother to read the article?

I am not sure what you are talking about here. How does this article validate your arguments that since Iran already has a large oil and gas reserve, therefore Iran does not need a nuclear power program? So you DIDN'T read the article?

There are real serious problems with shifting from oil to nuclear. The cost to build a nuclear infrastructure could easier be spent on developing Coal and oil.
Investment in a nuclear infrastructure will increase energy output but it will not increase over all revenue.
An investment in oil will bring significant returns especially at $50 a barrel. The nuclear program was started back when Oil was still high.
Nuclear energy cannot power cars, trucks, boats, planes, etc.
Nuclear energy is very problematic (see three Mile Island and Chernobyl)
If it is so great why is America turning away from nuclear rather than away towards nuclear Finally the article you cite is light on "data". It is largely claims without any supporting evidence.

It is certain that Iranian energy consumption has been increasing, and that there is a serious pollution problem in Iran, but it is far from clear that development of nuclear energy is the best and most economical and most urgent alternative to be pursued. Iran has 9% of the world's proven oil reserves, and almost 16 percent of the world's gas reserves (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table81.html) , second only to Russia. Iran also has considerable quantities of coal. Their energy consumption is about the same as that of Saudi Arabia, and far less per capita. Gas is a clean burning fuel that can be used for generating electricity and nuclear power. It is cheaper than nuclear power.

Furthermore, I do not make assumptions of the truth based on my like/dislike of the Bush Administration. Right. Sure. There is lots of examples...well there are some examples...are there any examples of you ever supporting anything from anyone who does not jive with your world view? If you have then I apologize in advance. I just don't ever remember it which makes it difficult to accept the above claim.

Are you at all skeptical of the article you cite? Did you question any of the assumptions? Did you consider the points raised in my article or did you simply dismiss it because you saw a date and thought you could exploit a perceived weakness.

I didn't see any evidence that you are willing to think critically about data and arguments that support your point of view. You simply cite it because it conforms with your world view.

Don't blow smoke up my a$$. Claims are not proof. Don't tell me you are honest, prove it.

If it is true what you say then be willing to look at your own evidence with a skeptical eye, 'k?

Furthermore, I do not make assumptions of the truth based on my like/dislike of the Bush Administration. I'd like to believe you, I really would, but I'm going to need more than an empty assertion.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ralph
Would other countries be horrified by a US use of nukes on another country?....Some would---and some would be cheering us on (depending on which country was nuked-----I think if the US decided to nuke Israel for example---we'd make a lot of new friends in the Middle East).

What would the rest of the world do about it though. Retaliate in kind and also guarantee their own destruction?

What about a joint US/Israeli strike to negate Irans nuke program?

I'm sure outwardly there will be no lack of condemnation.

Inwardly I suspect a lot of countries will breathe a sigh of relief.


Anyway--I'm not arguing that we should go around nuking people we don't like. I simply disagree with your statement that nukes can't be used as offensive weapons. They can if one has the will to.

Of course neither country has other than against Japan to end WW2.

Now we're back to differentiating again of course. Israel which has been attacked several times by Arab countries which have sworn to destroy it. They have the military might to solve a lot of their problems----but have chosen not to.


I'm not convinced Iran would show the same restraint.

You're nuts. I'm terminating this discussion, there's no point to it. I'm disgusted that you are saying these things. You are talking about the needless destruction of millions of people, most of them innocent, without a even vaguely good reason, just because their leaders scare you a bit. Who would have guessed that you, Ralph, would be so ***********? You're the living embodiment of why so many have become so anti-american.

Frankly it's people like you that make me wonder about were the US is going. If there are many more of your kind, you're heading straight into fascism. I *********** hope you're the minority.

[Skeptic]

The idea that unilateral, unconditional reduction in US nuclear power will cause Iran or NK to do anything except to see it as a sign of US weakness and another excuse to stall (e.g.,by demanding that, since the US itself "agrees" nukes are bad, they will agree to disband their program if the US further reduces its stocks to some unacceptably low number), shows a shocking naivete on ELT's part.

Which of course doesn't stop him from thinking that his hare-brained idea is the height of sophistication and moral authority, the only right one, and that everybody who disagrees is stupid and immoral.

Ah well.

As you said, Ralph, this sort of utter ignorance coupled with insufferable arrogance is quite typical of insular groups with no experience with the real world. There are various such groups: creationists, fundamentalists, college students in their required "radical" (read: "dad still pays the bills") phase, mainstream media journalists, DC lobbyists, scientologists, etc.

Judging by the left-leaning version on ELT's part, and the general composition of this forum, it's a good guess ELT is probably of the "college radical" group, but you never know.

[Orwell]

Well, Ralph is a nut case. I dunno about you, you are sure sounding like one. Do you really think that Iran's leaders can't figure out that all the other US weapons that the US has would screw them up pretty bad if they were up to something?

Buncha paranoid morons. Even a third world nation of the other side of the world with an **** army and a military a small fraction of yours scares you.

***********!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
You're nuts. I'm terminating this discussion, there's no point to it. I'm disgusted that you are saying these things. You are talking about the needless destruction of millions of people, most of them innocent, without a even vaguely good reason, just because their leaders scare you a bit. Who would have guessed that you, Ralph, would be so ***********? You're the living embodiment of why so many have become so anti-american.

Frankly it's people like you that make me wonder about were the US is going. If there are many more of your kind, you're heading straight into fascism. I *********** hope you're the minority. You've gone over the edge. I've re-read both posts that lead to this exchange and I can't see any real substantive difference in the rhetoric.

You ask a question and Ralph answers it. Just because you don't like his answer is not a reason to make a bunch of unwarranted accusations. Disgusted that he said "what things"?

You asked him what he thought would happen in the event of someone using nuclear weapons. He ANSWERED the question in a reasonable way and you attack him for it. What I really find odd is that he says:

Anyway--I'm not arguing that we should go around nuking people we don't like. I simply disagree with your statement that nukes can't be used as offensive weapons. And you accuse him of "talking". Look he made clear that he is not advocating he is telling you what would happen "if". Just what is it that you don't get about his statement?

You talk about credibility, if you want to have any climb down off of your high horse and don't accuse people of something that they did not do. If you don't like rhetoric don't engage in it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
If you're armed to the teeth, everyone (and specially paranoid leaders of oppressive states) will assume that you don't really want peace and non-proliferation by themselves. They will assume that you want peace on your terms and non-proliferation just because it makes it easier to push people around. And a diminished stockpile would be a good step towards an overall decrease in nuclear capabilities around the world. It's not that hard to understand now, is it? First some facts. The United States has reduced arms since the peak of the arms race. I will concede that George W. Bush has reversed the trend to reduce weapons and has abandoned some key treaties.

See an honest and two sided account of the history of disarmament. (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0857772.html)

The number of arms is not static. Your post suggests that it is.

Your post is rhetorical. There is no reason that I can see to agree that iyou are correct. History shows that paranoid leaders of oppressive states are not motivated by reductions in arms.

I don't at all think there is any reason to suppose that a reduced stockpile will do anything. Nations like India, Pakistan and North Korea don't seem to be affected at all by such efforts. Bill Clinton's attempts to substantially reduce arms didn't bear any real fruit. The same nations were quietly developing nuclear weapons. The world was just as dangerous then as it is now. Your argument is specious and a bit presumptuous in the face of history.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
You're nuts. I'm terminating this discussion, there's no point to it. I'm disgusted that you are saying these things. You are talking about the needless destruction of millions of people, most of them innocent, without a even vaguely good reason, just because their leaders scare you a bit. Who would have guessed that you, Ralph, would be so ***********? You're the living embodiment of why so many have become so anti-american.

Frankly it's people like you that make me wonder about were the US is going. If there are many more of your kind, you're heading straight into fascism. I *********** hope you're the minority.







Uh.....I believe I clearly stated that I was not suggesting we go out and nuke a few million people.

I was just responding to your brilliant statement that nukes can't be used as offensive weapons.

I grew up in a time when we had air raid drills at school. We weren't worried about a few nukes going off in American cities. We were worried about a few thousand coming in over the north pole & incinerating the whole country.

This wasn't being paranoid.......it was being realistic.

That nightmare never happened and I hope it never will.

In your view of things though all that needs to be done is we make a few concilatory gestures and everything will fall into place.
Rogue states should be allowed WMD because after all---it's only fair. Give me a break.

Maybe Canada's headed toward fascism-----I don't know--I don't live there.

Suggesting that the US is headed towards fascism though kind of makes you sound like a paranoid nut-case yourself though.

[Skeptic]

If there are many more of your kind, you're heading straight into fascism

Translation from "Radicalese":

"Fascist": someone who disagrees with me.
"Fascism": the people who disagreed with me won the election.
"Headed straight into fascism": the people who disagreed with me STILL voted for the other guy even after I TOLD them how wrong they are.

Frankly, Ralph, your guess that ELT is a "radical" college student is looking better and better. Using the word "fascist" and "insane" to describe those Americans you disagree with (but not, of course, the REAL insane fascists, like the leaders of NK or Iran...) is a dead giveaway. Just about the only people who talk like that are the college radicals.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Frankly it's people like you that make me wonder about were the US is going. If there are many more of your kind, you're heading straight into fascism. I *********** hope you're the minority.

Two quotes for you:

"Fascism is forever descending on the United States, but somehow it always lands on Europe."

"Every time I think you've said the stupidest thing, you keep on talkin'."

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Skeptic
If there are many more of your kind, you're heading straight into fascism

Translation from "Radicalese":

"Fascist": someone who disagrees with me.
"Fascism": the people who disagreed with me won the election.
"Headed straight into fascism": the people who disagreed with me STILL voted for the other guy even after I TOLD them how wrong they are.

Frankly, Ralph, your guess that ELT is a "radical" college student is looking better and better. Using the word "fascist" and "insane" to describe those Americans you disagree with (but not, of course, the REAL insane fascists, like the leaders of NK or Iran...) is a dead giveaway. Just about the only people who talk like that are the college radicals.




He reminds me a lot of Mr What's his name.........the Aussie high school student.

Whatever happened to him anyway?

[Orwell]

It's not just that I don't agree with you, it's also that I simply don't have your values. I'm not a selfish paranoid nationalist who believes that everyone in the world is out to get him. The world has changed, but you haven't, you need enemies, and now that the russkies are no longer a threat, you find them wherever you can. You, and the gov. you support, have squandered most, if not all, of the sympathy and empathy people felt for you after the september 11 incidents.

Fortunately, I have enough US friends to know that you america first jingos are not representative of all US citizens.

So **** you.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
It's not just that I don't agree with you, it's also that I simply don't have your values. I'm not a selfish paranoid nationalist who believes that everyone in the world is out to get him. The world has changed, but you haven't, you need enemies, and now that the russkies are no longer a threat, you find them wherever you can. You, and the gov. you support, have squandered most, if not all, of the sympathy and empathy people felt for you after the september 11 incidents.

Fortunately, I have enough US friends to know that you america first jingos are not representative of all US citizens.

So **** you. Translation: I can't support my argument so I will simply respond in an emotional fashion and launch a personal attack.

Thank you for that.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by RandFan
Translation: I can't support my argument so I will simply respond in an emotional fashion and launch a personal attack.

Thank you for that.


I have the right to be emotional when I profoundly disagree with someone, specially when I disagree with a bunch of paranoid dickheads who can only listen to bottom feeder arguments that satisfy their own aggressive impulses and their nationalism.

And Randfan, once again, the deal here is the difference betwen what the US gov. says about its motives and morality, and the way it acts. By not reducing your nukes, you are behaving exactly like a bigger version of the dictators you are suppose to be fighting i.e. preserving any real or imagined advantage you have to gain the upper hand. Your government talks the talk, but it doesn't walk the walk. It hypocritical to talk about peace and democracy while preserving and even increasing every means at your disposal to wage war. Nobody believes your gov. and everyone cynically laughs when it talks about disarmament.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
By not reducing your nukes, you are behaving exactly like a bigger version of the dictators you are suppose to be fighting i.e. preserving any real or imagined advantage you have to gain the upper hand.

Gee, and I always thought the problem with dictatorships is that they breed violence. Thank you SO much for the enlightenment.

Your government talks the talk, but it doesn't walk the walk. It hypocritical to talk about peace and democracy while preserving and even increasing every means at your disposal to wage war. Nobody believes your gov. and everyone cynically laughs when it talks about disarmament.

Once again, we see the belief that weakness is a moral virtue. Not surprising to hear from a Canadian: your country chose to become weak and ineffectual, and now you try to rationalise that decision by assigning it some value. Well, don't expect us to buy into that idea. Voluntary weakness has always been the path to victimhood, not peace. But then again, there's a lot of victim-worship among the "peace" camp, so I guess that makes it OK.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
I have the right to be emotional when I profoundly disagree with someone, specially when I disagree with a bunch of paranoid dickheads who can only listen to bottom feeder arguments that satisfy their own aggressive impulses and their nationalism. Hey, I get emotional all of the time. Of course you have a right. I don't agree with you but I'm the last to say you don't have the right.

And Randfan, once again, the deal here is the difference betwen what the US gov. says about its motives and morality, and the way it acts. By not reducing your nukes, you are behaving exactly like a bigger version of the dictators you are suppose to be fighting i.e. preserving any real or imagined advantage you have to gain the upper hand. Your government talks the talk, but it doesn't walk the walk. It hypocritical to talk about peace and democracy while preserving and even increasing every means at your disposal to wage war. Nobody believes your gov. and everyone cynically laughs when it talks about disarmament. I don't cynically laugh and I don't know who does.

How many nukes should we reduce? Do you have a specific amount or are you only angry/frustrated/whatever that W. has reversed a long tradition of nuclear disarmament? In otherwords, what is it exactly you have a problem with?

I will butt out of your other discussions and lay off the scolding, emotion, sanctimony and rhetoric for the time being. Tell me what it is you think we should do? And I don't mean "do something". Or do what other nations want us to do that is in their best interest. Both are non-starters and ignore reality.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
It's not just that I don't agree with you, it's also that I simply don't have your values. I'm not a selfish paranoid nationalist who believes that everyone in the world is out to get him. The world has changed, but you haven't, you need enemies, and now that the russkies are no longer a threat, you find them wherever you can. You, and the gov. you support, have squandered most, if not all, of the sympathy and empathy people felt for you after the september 11 incidents.

Fortunately, I have enough US friends to know that you america first jingos are not representative of all US citizens.

So **** you.



You don't have the slightest idea what my values are.


Your "**** you" comment like the other childish temper tantrums you've been throwing are making you a laughingstock here though.

Maybe you should take your own advice---cool down a little & start behaving like an adult.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Skeptic
If there are many more of your kind, you're heading straight into fascism

Translation from "Radicalese":



Frankly, Ralph, your guess that ELT is a "radical" college student is looking better and better. Using the word "fascist" and "insane" to describe those Americans you disagree with (but not, of course, the REAL insane fascists, like the leaders of NK or Iran...) is a dead giveaway. Just about the only people who talk like that are the college radicals.


I was a student in the 60s-70s when Nixon & Agnew were in office.

I don't think I could get through the day without saying "Nixon's a fascist" or "Agnew's a fascist" .

These kids today----they think Bush is a fascist.... HA....he's a minor-league bench sitter compared with Nixon & Agnew when it comes to being a fascist.

Actually---I didn't care much about politics. I just wanted to get my damn degree,get laid, and score some good weed for the weekend.


Of course like you said---saying "fascist" was cool......as much so in 69 as it today and it would help you out with the above mentioned item #2.

Some things are just timeless I guess.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Gee, and I always thought the problem with dictatorships is that they breed violence. Thank you SO much for the enlightenment.



Once again, we see the belief that weakness is a moral virtue. Not surprising to hear from a Canadian: your country chose to become weak and ineffectual, and now you try to rationalise that decision by assigning it some value. Well, don't expect us to buy into that idea. Voluntary weakness has always been the path to victimhood, not peace. But then again, there's a lot of victim-worship among the "peace" camp, so I guess that makes it OK.

Might is right, eh? The ends justify the means, eh?

you know, one of the defining characteristic of fascism is a policy of belligerent nationalism!

Congratulations, Zig, you have sided with ********. You even talk like one!

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Skeptic
If there are many more of your kind, you're heading straight into fascism

Translation from "Radicalese":

"Fascist": someone who disagrees with me.
"Fascism": the people who disagreed with me won the election.
"Headed straight into fascism": the people who disagreed with me STILL voted for the other guy even after I TOLD them how wrong they are.

Frankly, Ralph, your guess that ELT is a "radical" college student is looking better and better. Using the word "fascist" and "insane" to describe those Americans you disagree with (but not, of course, the REAL insane fascists, like the leaders of NK or Iran...) is a dead giveaway. Just about the only people who talk like that are the college radicals.

Typical ******** distortion made in bad faith. I never sided with Iran or North Korea. The fact that NK and Iran leaders are "insane fascists" doesn't exclude that the US is presently ruled by a bunch of people who support policies as awful as the stuff pushed forward by the nutters in charge of Iran and NK.

Congratulations, "Skeptic" (ah ah, never a name as been so misappropriated), you have sided with ********.

[Orwell]

The only thing this forum is good for is "engaging in rhetoric". There are so many members here that have their heads so far up their ass that any sensible discussion is literally impossible, since it always degenerates into personal attacks. I'm too hot headed to stay cool when the jingos start with their crap, and I tend to not take insults too well, so this ends up getting pretty nasty.

This isn't a sceptics forum. There are too many american conservatives and "libertarians" that treat it like if it was their little club.

I find it amazing that you so called "sceptics" continuously side with the policies of a born again christian president! You're the Log Cabin republicans of the "sceptical" world!

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
The only thing this forum is good for is "engaging in rhetoric". There are so many members here that have their heads so far up their ass that any sensible discussion is literally impossible, since it always degenerates into personal attacks. I'm too hot headed to stay cool when the jingos start with their crap, and I tend to not take insults too well, so this ends up getting pretty nasty.

This isn't a sceptics forum. There are too many american conservatives and "libertarians" that treat it like if it was their little club.

I find it amazing that you so called "sceptics" continuously side with the policies of a born again christian president! You're the Log Cabin republicans of the "sceptical" world!




I hope this doesn't mean you're leaving.


I love it when peaceniks lose it & throw temper tantrums.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
This isn't a sceptics forum. There are too many american conservatives and "libertarians" that treat it like if it was their little club. Odd, I always thought it was the liberals. Why do you think it is only the Conservatives? Are you blind to the BS flowing from the left?

[Skeptic]

you know, one of the defining characteristic of fascism is a policy of belligerent nationalism!

You know, ELT, you really should stop calling everybody you dislike a "fascist". Obviously you don't really know what the real fascists--today or in the past--are like, but merely use the word to shock.

[Skeptic]

ELT seems to require a running translation from "radicalese" into English.

There are so many members here that have their heads so far up their ass

"They disagree with me"

that any sensible discussion is literally impossible,

"I didn't find a way to convince them how correct I am"

since it always degenerates into personal attacks.

"They dared to suggest my ideas are stupid"

I'm too hot headed to stay cool when the jingos start with their crap, and I tend to not take insults too well,

"My ego is as fragile as an 18th century Chinese vase; the slightest hint of criticism or ridicule and I explode in torrents of rage."

This isn't a sceptics forum.

"This isn't a forum where everybody worships me"

There are too many american conservatives and "libertarians" that treat it like if it was their little club.

"The expected mass conversion of everybody on the forum to my position failed to materialize for some reason."

I find it amazing that you so called "sceptics" continuously side with the policies of a born again christian president!

"I find it amazing that people who called themselves 'Skeptics' disagree with me."

You're the Log Cabin republicans of the "sceptical" world!

"I use the word 'conservative' as an insult and wonder why the conservatives aren't insulted."

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Skeptic
ELT seems to require a running translation from "radicalese" into English.


He chose Spock as his avatar. That proves how logical, rational and correct he is.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Mycroft
He chose Spock as his avatar. That proves how logical, rational and correct he is.

If he's so logical, how come he is so full of rage? After all, many people in this forum have their ideas and beliefs contradicted every day and don't react like this.

Ever noticed that that most obvious quality of the peace-and-friendship, why-can't-we-all-get-along crowd is their anger and contempt for everybody who disagrees with them? They seem not to realize how their behavior disproves their claims. It's in essence, "All men are brothers and despite all our difference we should love one another--EXCEPT for those BASTARDS who disagree with ME!". It never occurs to them that just as they cannot stand whole nations and people irrationally, it might be that other nations and people cannot stand other nations and people irrationaly as well--which is why they are a living proof of why we cannot all just get along.

I wish to suggest to you that this sort of belief comes from insular safety. They have no problem suggesting that the USA appease and get along with Iran or (in the past) the USSR and that the fear of those countries is "irrational" and "emotional"... because those countries never harmed them personally. That those countries killed millions or engaged in international terrorism was irrelevant to the "why we can't get along" theory because they personally were not harmed by it.

Judging by the way the react when anybody so much as harms their precious self-esteem, let alone actually harm them in some other way, we can see that this is all a sham. In reality, they are not forgiving and understanding in the interest of peace and justice; they are merely instantly quick to forgive and dismiss harm done to other people in the name of a utopian ideal that they happen to like.This isn't being "reasonable"; this isn't even being pacifist--if they thought they were in danger they would clamour for protection and demand war be waged for their safety in a minute. It's mere narcissism.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Ever noticed that that most obvious quality of the peace-and-friendship, why-can't-we-all-get-along crowd is their anger and contempt for everybody who disagrees with them?

I think it comes from being in an environment where you get a lot of positive reinforcement for lefty thinking, then moving to an environment where there is a mix of viewpoints and not everybody gives you the automatic atta-boy just for saying the most liberal thing that comes to mind. Maybe his girlfriend is the granola type and she’s got a lot of uber-liberal friends and he’s just grown used to getting the nods and kudos for saying how bad the USA and my isn’t the chimp a lot like Hitler?

In a sense it’s a lot like hanging out with the fundamentalist Christian crowd. I remember what it was like when I was a teenager with the local youth group, the girls were all really pretty and all the hormone-driven Christian teenagers would hang together, sing songs, pray, talk about how great it was not to have sex or do drugs, and then talk about your "relationship" with Jesus. When you had these talks the one who could relate Jesus to their lives in the dumbest most improbable way got the most approval from the crowd, and that gets addictive. Of course, later on when you’re not in that crowd and you get the blank stare or the awkward silence when you bring up Jesus, it can feel like an attack even though it’s not.

Liberalism, or at least extreme liberalism, is a lot like that. You become attached to a group, you start obsessing over all the PC rules and work yourself into knots in being accepting of as many different kinds of people as you can (including some that aren’t so nice) and you get that positive reinforcement every time you say something negative about western civilization or find some new hypocrisy in government or big business, and it’s addictive in very much the same way it is for the fundy Christians.

The parallels are very close, really. Except the liberal girls are easier to sleep with than the Christian girls.

[a_unique_person]

I think it went off the rails about here


Originally posted by Ralph
What would you suggest?

Just sit back & do nothing and allow any country that wants nukes to have them....

or should we just disarm totally?

Then nobody could say we weren't being "fair".



Ralph was called on this as not a rational response to reasonable questions, which it isn't. No one claimed anything of the sort.

There are many ways to influence the nuclear policies of countries besides just building more nukes.
No one ever suggested the US should totally disarm.

Just because you say the US should do something other than what it is doing, doesn't mean you are saying the US should do nothing. All it is claiming is, you want the US to do something else.

[Skeptic]

The parallels are very close, really. Except the liberal girls are easier to sleep with than the Christian girls.

Yup. I, for one, am not at all sure that the "breaking of taboos" sexually was such a great idea. If the past sex before marriage was considered the action of a whore, today the social behavior of young girls in wide swaths of society--essentially, sex as recreation with whomever passing guy the met tonight at the bar--is indistinguishable (morally speaking) from that of a whore.

To destroy the sometimes (or often) unjust stigma of calling some young women "postitutes" by encouraging as many young women as possible to behave as ones doesn't seem like much of a moral victory to me.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think it went off the rails about here



Ralph was called on this as not a rational response to reasonable questions, which it isn't. No one claimed anything of the sort.

There are many ways to influence the nuclear policies of countries besides just building more nukes.
No one ever suggested the US should totally disarm.

Just because you say the US should do something other than what it is doing, doesn't mean you are saying the US should do nothing. All it is claiming is, you want the US to do something else.



"Reasonable questions"...........What reasonable questions?

My answer was a response to Mephistos sugestion that it's not fair" for the US to have nukes and yet tell other nations they can't have them.

I never suggested building more nukes as a solution.

I did suggest there will be nations run by madmen like KIJ or religious fanatics who hang "Death to the Jews" banners out in the town square.

There's the distinct possibility that they will not respond to diplomacy or conciliatory gestures or lots of "pretty pleases with sugar on it "requests and will simply continue to pursue their goals.

The only option left to prevent this may be military action and I think we need to weigh the consequences of this vs allowing every tin-pot dictator in the world with a few bucks in the bank to have these things.

I also noticed that ELT seemed to be saying either the US makes concessions-----or it just shuts up & does nothing.

As mentioned above--there are other options.

[a_unique_person]

Does the phrase "My Country Right or Wrong" mean anything to you?

The Iranian nuclear facilities are under international inspection. I don't want any more nukes in the world any more than you do.

Is it a fact that the US has more nukes than it has any reasonable use for? Can that be a simple point to debate?

[Ralph]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Does the phrase "My Country Right or Wrong" mean anything to you?

The Iranian nuclear facilities are under international inspection. I don't want any more nukes in the world any more than you do.

Is it a fact that the US has more nukes than it has any reasonable use for? Can that be a simple point to debate?


Didn't Midnight Oil (great band btw)----do a song called "My Country".


Nobody disputes the fact the the the US has lots of nukes.

The debate is whether or not the large # of warheads in the US arsenal is what constitutes the greatest danger to world stabilty.

People seem to keep arguing that the greater the number--the greater the danger.

Fine--if that's true than what level should we reduce our arsenal to that would make us safer.

Please suggest some specific numbers.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Might is right, eh? The ends justify the means, eh?

Strawman - I never made any argument of the sort. Might makes might, nothing more. Weakness doesn't make right either. But if you ARE on the side of right, it is wisdom, not folly, to make sure you have might on you side as well. Those who would do evil in the world will never be disuaded from that because you are good, but only, ONLY, because you are strong. That is how it has ALWAYS been, and you are a fool to think that it can ever be otherwise.

Congratulations, Zig, you have sided with ********. You even talk like one!

Such foul language. Really, ELT. If you want to insult me, show a little creativity. You can get much more insulting without even using profanity. Allow me to demonstrate:

You, ELT, are the mongoloid offspring of a syphalitic, one-legged French prostitute and a pederast Canadian logger with leprosy. You fantasize about wrestling Micheal Moore and Noam Chomsky in a vat of mayonnaise while wearing lingere embroidered with Che Guevara's likeness. You are a socialist twit who wants to suckle at the teet of a nanny state that infantilises you because you can't accept responsibility for your own life, and you resent your betters because they haven't chosen to wallow in pathetic irrelevance along with you.

See? No obscenities. Obscenities are a crutch for those of weak intellect, and while I know that this might suggest you're well-qualified to use them, might I suggest you aspire to more?

[Skeptic]

Does the phrase "My Country Right or Wrong" mean anything to you?

It is undoubtable that the USA is more right, morally, than Iran or North Korea.

The Iranian nuclear facilities are under international inspection.

And we all know what those are worth.

Is it a fact that the US has more nukes than it has any reasonable use for?

You seem to believe, strangely, that it is the number of nukes that is the cause of the danger, and not who has them.

It doesn't matter how many nukes the US has--what matters is that it is a democratic, free country which will not use them except in the direst emergency, if then.

One nuke at the hands of the Mullahs or Kim Jong Il is more dangerous than ten thousand in the hand of the USA, for the same eason that one knife in the hand of a homocidal maniac is more dangerous than a hundred knives in the hand of a professional chef.

For this rather obvious reason, whether the USA has 10 or 100 or 10,000 has has little effect on world peace--while it is of cardinal importance to prevent NK and Iran of having a single one.

[Skeptic]

You fantasize about wrestling Micheal Moore and Noam Chomsky in a vat of mayonnaise while wearing lingere embroidered with Che Guevara's likeness.

I can see ELT's reaction on reading this now: "he says that as if it's a bad thing..."

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ralph
Fine--if that's true than what level should we reduce our arsenal to that would make us safer.

Please suggest some specific numbers. Less than we have now, and then less and then less.

I have asked this question from many freinds and associates and no one has ever given me an answer. Somehow I doubt anyone ever will.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by RandFan
Less than we have now, and then less and then less.

I have asked this question from many freinds and associates and no one has ever given me an answer. Somehow I doubt anyone ever will.


Well----I think ELT said "the fewer the better".

If that's the case then it sounds like the best thing to do is we just all disarm totally.

I'm sure that won't have any effects at all on the existing balance of power in the world. At least I really really hope it doesn't.

Of course once the world is completely disarmed......it will never occur to anybody to "cheat".................I hope.

[Orwell]

The US nuclear policy is a relic of the cold war: it should change. In terms of deterrence, 500 nukes are as effective as 5000. In addition, 500 nukes are, from a security point of view, a smaller risk. Less nukes will also favour an attitude of good faith from other countries around the world. Remember, it's not only the so called "rogue states" that want nukes. That was McNamara's point, and that's my point. It is absolutely appalling to me that you are so full of **** that you can't get your heads around this simple idea. And I'm profoundly annoyed at your bad faith! Get this into your thick heads: the cold war is over! The US has no major enemies. The only state now left that can eventually become a superpower (China) is your biggest commercial partner. All the sates that now oppose the US are impoverished third world nations. Terrorism can't be stopped with nukes. Stop being so damn paranoid!

We are talking here about the most powerful and deadly weapons ever built by man, and you implicitly support the policies of a president that has gone back on disarmament initiatives. There is no way to rationally justify current US nuclear policy.

Quoting McNamara:

" The Bush administration’s nuclear program, alongside its refusal to ratify the CTBT, will be viewed, with reason, by many nations as equivalent to a U.S. break from the treaty. It says to the nonnuclear weapons nations, “We, with the strongest conventional military force in the world, require nuclear weapons in perpetuity, but you, facing potentially well-armed opponents, are never to be allowed even one nuclear weapon.�

If the United States continues its current nuclear stance, over time, substantial proliferation of nuclear weapons will almost surely follow. Some, or all, of such nations as Egypt, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Taiwan will very likely initiate nuclear weapons programs, increasing both the risk of use of the weapons and the diversion of weapons and fissile materials into the hands of rogue states or terrorists. "

I'm outta here for now.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
The US nuclear policy is a relic of the cold war: it should change. In terms of deterrence, 500 nukes are as effective as 5000. In addition, 500 nukes are, from a security point of view, a smaller risk. Less nukes will also favour an attitude of good faith from other countries around the world. Remember, it's not only the so called "rogue states" that want nukes. That was McNamara's point, and that's my point. It is absolutely appalling to me that you are so full of **** that you can't get your heads around this simple idea. And I'm profoundly annoyed at your bad faith! Get this into your thick heads: the cold war is over! The US has no major enemies. The only state now left that can eventually become a superpower (China) is your biggest commercial partner. All the sates that now oppose the US are impoverished third world nations. Terrorism can't be stopped with nukes. Stop being so damn paranoid!

We are talking here about the most powerful and deadly weapons ever built by man, and you implicitly support the policies of a president that has gone back on disarmament initiatives. There is no way to rationally justify current US nuclear policy.

Quoting McNamara:

" The Bush administration’s nuclear program, alongside its refusal to ratify the CTBT, will be viewed, with reason, by many nations as equivalent to a U.S. break from the treaty. It says to the nonnuclear weapons nations, “We, with the strongest conventional military force in the world, require nuclear weapons in perpetuity, but you, facing potentially well-armed opponents, are never to be allowed even one nuclear weapon.�

If the United States continues its current nuclear stance, over time, substantial proliferation of nuclear weapons will almost surely follow. Some, or all, of such nations as Egypt, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Taiwan will very likely initiate nuclear weapons programs, increasing both the risk of use of the weapons and the diversion of weapons and fissile materials into the hands of rogue states or terrorists. "

I'm outta here for now.

Now we're getting somewhere.

The world will be a much safer place if we reduce our arsenal to only 500 weapons.

Anybody else have to make any cuts?

What about Russia? They actually have more warheads than the US does--------over 7000 I believe.

Why is the the US having 5000 warheads a grave danger but Russias 7000 is not?

How can you be sure Egypt, SA,Syria,Taiwan or hell--how about Zimbabe.....will act as you say they will and not seek their own nukes?


How much safer is 500 than 5000? As you said---they are the the most devastating weapons ever devised----as they exist now---without furthur testing & refinements.

Any idea how much death & destruction "only" 500 nukes would cause?

Of course since we can have 500 nukes---all the other countrys will feel they should have 500 too.

For some reason I don't feel any safer with 500 than I did with 5000.

[Jocko]

I only endure lecturing from two types of people, ELT.

1. My elders.
2. My betters.

You are clearly neither, so you have joined the other category:

3. My ignored.

[Orwell]

They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say it’s all
Just wind in sails
Are we not men?
We are devo!
We’re pinheads now
We are not whole
We’re pinheads all
Jocko homo
Are we not men?
D-e-v-o
Monkey men all
In business suit
Teachers and critics
All dance the poot
Are we not men?
We are devo!
Are we not men?
D-e-v-o
God made man
But he used the monkey to do it
Apes in the plan
We’re all here to prove it
I can walk like an ape
Talk like an ape
I can do what a monkey can do
God made man
But a monkey supplied the glue
We must repeat
O.k. let’s go!

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
It is absolutely appalling to me that you are so full of **** that you can't get your heads around this simple idea.

I thought I already went over this: profanity is the sign of a feeble mind. If you can't say it without profanity, you really shouldn't be saying it at all.

And anyways, it's really not hard. Allow me to demonstrate, again:

You, ELT, have the cranial capacity of a glue-sniffing goat that has been bludgeoned into unconciousness with a sledgehammer. Your mental processes are so filled with regurgitated stool that you cannot grasp even the most simple of concepts, but instead you merely hemmorhage the latest partially-digested claptrap from an equally ignorant and increasingly irrelevant political fringe and call it an argument.

See? More or less the same sentiment, with much more flavor and no obscenities (though I do admit to a scatalogical reference). Now, being a little slow with the whole brain function thing, I don't expect you to reach this level of proficiency right away. Baby steps, baby steps. But start off with not using swear words, I promise your arguments won't suffer for it.

[Orwell]

You can't demand anyone to make cuts if you don't make them yourself. And since you're the ones with the biggest military expenses, and the ones who are always going on about peace, security and democracy, why don't you give the example, put your mouth where your money is? It will have zero impact on the deterrence value of your nukes, and on your security.

[Orwell]

I like to use obscenities to annoy people who support obscene policies.

And since I have no hopes of getting through to your paranoia and your bad faith, and I just realised that I never had a prayer, I don't really give a **** anymore!

I'm wondering: what does it takes to get banned around here?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
I like to use obscenities to shock people who support obscene policies.

But no one here is shocked. All obscenities reveal is your own infantilism, your own inability to express yourself in a manner more sophisticated than a 6 year old child who revels in the imagined power of their first swear word. As far as I know, no one is actually offended or shocked by your obscenities. It's like getting offended at monkeys for flinging their own stool, that's just what they do. I'm just prodding you about it to see if you're actually able to control yourself well enough to rise above your own reflexes and actually show some intelligence.

So go on, give it a shot: throw some insults my way without using obscenities. Insult my parentage, my appearance, my mental accuity, whatever strikes your fancy, so long as you don't use swear words. Consider it an excercise in creative writing.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
I like to use obscenities to annoy people who support obscene policies.

And since I have no hopes of getting through to your paranoia and your bad faith, and I just realised that I never had a prayer, I don't really give a **** anymore!

I'm wondering: what does it takes to get banned around here?


Paranoia???

You seem to be the one that's paranoid. Fascist US & it's 5000 warheads seems to bother you quite a bit.

It doesn't bother me at all.....and within reason----neither does the fact that Russia,China,GB,France, or Israel have them either.

I don't think it's being paranoid however to be concerned about countrys like Iran,NK, or Zimbabwe having nukes. It's just being realistic.


You don't have to get banned if you don't like it here although I'm sure you'll score some points with someone if you can say "those
damned jingoistic,flag-waving,Rooskie-hatin,terbacky-chewin,ignorant,redneck imperialist stooges banned me.

You can just leave.

[mr rosewater]

Or stay.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
But no one here is shocked. All obscenities reveal is your own infantilism, your own inability to express yourself in a manner more sophisticated than a 6 year old child who revels in the imagined power of their first swear word. As far as I know, no one is actually offended or shocked by your obscenities. It's like getting offended at monkeys for flinging their own stool, that's just what they do. I'm just prodding you about it to see if you're actually able to control yourself well enough to rise above your own reflexes and actually show some intelligence.

So go on, give it a shot: throw some insults my way without using obscenities. Insult my parentage, my appearance, my mental accuity, whatever strikes your fancy, so long as you don't use swear words. Consider it an excercise in creative writing.

Oooo, being called infantile by a navel gazing jingo who objects to potty language! You must be pretty rigid, if you can't take a few scatological references! Heck, your opinions seem to indicate that your mental processes seem to have come to a standstill sometime during the Nixon administration! Or is it the Eisenhower administration? Oh boy, how you must miss old Joe McCarthy! Anyway, I digress! Maybe you should get off the net and go watch reruns of the Lawrence Welk show or something, you know, something quiet, inoffensive and safe! Something very white, clean and wholesomely american, darn it! A little vanilla ice cream with that?

I mean, it would sure spare many people from being exposed to your paranoid foreigner bashing, your galloping ethnocentrism and your reactionary neo-conservatism!

So, how am I doing?

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ralph
Paranoia???

You seem to be the one that's paranoid. Fascist US & it's 5000 warheads seems to bother you quite a bit.

It doesn't bother me at all.....and within reason----neither does the fact that Russia,China,GB,France, or Israel have them either.

I don't think it's being paranoid however to be concerned about countrys like Iran,NK, or Zimbabwe having nukes. It's just being realistic.


You don't have to get banned if you don't like it here although I'm sure you'll score some points with someone if you can say "those
damned jingoistic,flag-waving,Rooskie-hatin,terbacky-chewin,ignorant,redneck imperialist stooges banned me.

You can just leave.

Still missing the point by a wide margin... :rolleyes:

What part of "you can't ask people to renounce to nukes when you're armed to the teeth with them" don't you understand? I'm sure a small kid in a playground would get this, but your apparent inability to understand this simple point completely baffles me.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Oooo, being called infantile by a navel gazing jingo who objects to potty language! You must be pretty rigid, if you can't take a few scatological references!

That has never been the question. Rather, it's if you've got the mental capacity to insult without using them. It's quite beyond me why you think I would be offended by what are your failings and inadequancies.

Heck, your opinions seem to indicate that your mental processes seem to have come to a standstill sometime during the Nixon administration!

That would be quite the feat, since I wasn't born at the time. Logic was never your strong suit, thought, so never mind.

I mean, it would sure spare many people from being exposed to your paranoid foreigner bashing, your galloping ethnocentrism and your reactionary neo-conservatism!

Getting there. No creative flair, no originality, quite cliched, but by george, you did it without an obscenity! Really, was that so hard?

But I must say, I'm a little curious how you arrived at this idea of ethnocentrism: you don't know my ethnicity, only my nationality (likewise, I do not know yours, only your nationality). But I suppose that's OK, since I mocked your parentage without knowing that either. Of course, you probably don't know who your real father is either...

See? Insults without obscenities. So much more enjoyable.

[Orwell]

ETHNOCENTRISM: The belief that one's culture is superior to all others. By Jove, it sure does sound like you, eh, Zig? 'cause you know, I'm absolutely sure that you are, thoroughly and annoyingly, a pure breed of Ignoramus Americanus, the most dangerous parasitic species now menacing the ecological equilibrium of the planet!

See, this is what you can do with a little vocabulary. You could also have used a dictionary, but I doubt you know how to use one.

Hey, maybe I should call you Mr. Zig Heil!

How's that for creative fair, you french bashing gibbering maroon!?

To quote Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

I'm sure he was talking about your kind, Zig!

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
How's that for creative fair, you french bashing gibbering maroon!?

Now you're getting the hang of it!

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Now you're getting the hang of it!

Getting a Canadian to cuss creatively is no less an achievement than teaching Koko to use sign language. Your efforts are to be commended, Ziggurat.

With progress like this, a better-than-50% housebroken rate among the Quebecois seems close enough to touch, doesn't it?

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Still missing the point by a wide margin... :rolleyes:

What part of "you can't ask people to renounce to nukes when you're armed to the teeth with them" don't you understand? I'm sure a small kid in a playground would get this, but your apparent inability to understand this simple point completely baffles me.


What part of "yes you can" don't you understand?

I'm sure a small kid in a playground would get this, but your apparent inability to understand this simple point completely baffles me.

[Skeptic]

What part of "you can't ask people to renounce to nukes when you're armed to the teeth with them" don't you understand?

The part that says that this is nonsense. The police is armed, yet it demands that criminals not be legally given guns. Doctors are allowed to perscribe all kinds of drugs, yet they quite rightly demand that laymen not abuse drugs or give them to others. Parents have their sex lives, but they correctly demand of their teenage children not to engage in sex.

Some nations--democratic ones with a stable government--should be allowed to keep nukes if they so choose; tyrants and madmen should not, regardless of how many nukes other have--for the same reason that teenagers should not be having sex regardless of what their parents are doing.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
You can't demand anyone to make cuts if you don't make them yourself.

Why not?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
What part of "you can't ask people to renounce to nukes when you're armed to the teeth with them" don't you understand?

The part that says that this is nonsense. The police is armed, yet it demands that criminals not be legally given guns. Doctors are allowed to perscribe all kinds of drugs, yet they quite rightly demand that laymen not abuse drugs or give them to others. Parents have their sex lives, but they correctly demand of their teenage children not to engage in sex.

Some nations--democratic ones with a stable government--should be allowed to keep nukes if they so choose; tyrants and madmen should not, regardless of how many nukes other have--for the same reason that teenagers should not be having sex regardless of what their parents are doing.

It's the white man's burden, isn't it?

[Orwell]

Because if you don't make a positive gesture, you will give your adversaries an extremely powerful motive to get nukes, or to keep them. If you maintain or even increase your nuclear stockpile, many won't listen to your non-proliferation attemps since you won't have neither the legitimacy nor the morality to ask for such a thing. And if you forcr countries to abandon their arms programs unwillingly, public opinion in the countries forced into abandoning nukes will perceive it as an humiliating limitation and will resist it. It is much easier to sell a fair deal. If you want a true commitment to disarmament, everything has to be done willingly, otherwise countries will cheat at the first opportunity. It is cheaper, more humane and simpler, in the long run, to be in good faith and fair than to have to constantly bully and push smaller countries around. Also, bullying countries into compliance creates hatred, and hatred engenders wars and terrorism. If you make yourself hated by being unfair, your security problems will increase, not decrease. Many countries will be more willing to listen to you and help you if you are seen as benevolent. If you antagonise everyone, including your historical allies, you will have to deal alone with all the security problems in the world. The US is not as powerful as you think: if right now another crisis similar to the one you created in Iraq developed, the US armed forces alone would be incapable of doing much about it. Think about that if you can. Continuing this lonesome cowboy routine will be disastrous in the long term. It might even be disastrous sooner than you think! You need international institutions, and you need to keep your allies. It is much easier to get the collaboration of everyone if you are seen to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. And finally, simply because might isn't right.

But I don't believe you will take any of this seriously. You seem to be determined to follow a leader that constantly appeals to the worse in you and is incapable of thinking in any ways involving the long term, so screw it! Just don't be surprised next time thousands of americans die because of a terror attack, or because they were sent to some faraway place to force people into doing something because your gov., in its arrogance, was unwilling to negotiate.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Jocko
Getting a Canadian to cuss creatively is no less an achievement than teaching Koko to use sign language. Your efforts are to be commended, Ziggurat.

With progress like this, a better-than-50% housebroken rate among the Quebecois seems close enough to touch, doesn't it?


Mmmm, this could be my new avatar!

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ralph
What part of "yes you can" don't you understand?

I'm sure a small kid in a playground would get this, but your apparent inability to understand this simple point completely baffles me.

Good grief, man, can't you say anything original? Why don't you try to use your own words instead of just lazily pilfering mine eh?

I'm sure that if you make a reeeeally big effort, you might come up with an original thought or two! Come on, you can do it!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ralph
What part of "yes you can" don't you understand?

I'm sure a small kid in a playground would get this, but your apparent inability to understand this simple point completely baffles me.

You can in reality, that doesn't make it moral. Don't forget, this is all being played out to an audience that is much larger than the dictators you are dealing with.

An excellent example is Iran, where a democratic movement is large and powerful, but reigned in by a theocracy. Those who maintain the theocracy can quite easily point out the US hypocrisy as a reason to not trust the US at all. If the US were to act more genuinely in a spirit of disarmament, (and note, I am NOT saying the US should totally disarm), then the legitimacy swings more to those in Iraq who say the US can be trusted.

Iraq is at a critical point at the moment. Anything the US can do to help rational change is vital.

Don't forget a large part of the reason the US won the Cold War is that the people of the USSR were able to trust it more than the dictators, to the point where those in power did not believe in their legitimacy any more.

[Ralph]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
[

This isn't a sceptics forum. There are too many american conservatives and "libertarians" that treat it like if it was their little club.


I'm sure you've been on this board long enough to realize that there's actually a pretty balanced mix of conservative/liberal thinking here.

In any given thread you can usually expect 4-5 people on each side of the table and the "righties" will support other "righties" and the "lefties" will support other "lefties"

Other than AUP though......you seem to be on your own here.

Do you think that maybe they're embarrassed to be associated with you?

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ralph
I'm sure you've been on this board long enough to realize that there's actually a pretty balanced mix of conservative/liberal thinking here.

No there isn't. In the politics section (the only one I know relatively well) there's two long time "liberal" members that post often, and more than a dozen neocons that post all the time. And the level of bad faith in the arguments of the neocons is mind-boggling!

Originally posted by Ralph

In any given thread you can usually expect 4-5 people on each side of the table and the "righties" will support other "righties" and the "lefties" will support other "lefties"

False. There's a lot more neocons. Most of you guys are not even honest small government, mind your own business traditional libertarian conservatives, which is a position that I can understand! Most of you are right wingers that have been tricked by your own worse instincts into supporting a bunch of militaristic big business neocons allied with religious right extremists.

Originally posted by Ralph

Other than AUP though......you seem to be on your own here.

Do you think that maybe they're embarrassed to be associated with you?

So what? Maybe they don't know what's going one here, or they figured that I can defend myself alone. Unlike you, I don't need other people's support to defend my own opinions. It's even possible that they don't agree with me, but that doesn't make my views irrelevant.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
No there isn't. In the politics section (the only one I know relatively well) there's two long time "liberal" members that post often, and more than a dozen neocons that post all the time. And the level of bad faith in the arguments of the neocons is mind-boggling! BS, I'm so damn sick of this. I have been coming to this Forum for 3+ years and there is no question that the forum ebbs and flows from one side to the next. There are times the Forum is simply a child's playground to attack bush and post all sorts of derogatory and mean things about him. Many are quite funny. I used to spend my time trying to correct these ills and then I realized the forum was in part a place for people to express their dissatisfaction with their elected leaders.

False. There's a lot more neocons. Most of you guys are not even honest small government, mind your own business traditional libertarian conservatives, which is a position that I can understand! Most of you are right wingers that have been tricked by your own worse instincts into supporting a bunch of militaristic big business neocons allied with religious right extremists. You just look like a child is a sand box who got sand thrown in his eyes. Grow up or go away. The people here are just as entitled to their opinions as you are. If you are not adept enough to ignore them, debate them or flame them then go away. No one cares about your incessant whining. If the mean bad boys won't let you express your opinion without challenge then maybe you should try another forum.

There's always www.mylittlepony.com

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It's the white man's burden, isn't it?

Well, not exactly--people don't mind nearly as much that, say, democratic India has nuclear weapons; and if Japan were to "go nuclear" tomorrow, that might be opposed on general non-proliferation principles, but surely not considered nearly as problematic as NK arming itself. And, on the opposite side, the USSR's weapons--a far "whiter" country than the USA--was a problem because of its dictatorial government.

As usual, AUP, there are two camps here: those who try to stop the North Koreans & Iranians from getting nuclear weapons, thus keeping the world safer, and those who would enjoy the full benefits of the success of such an effort (if it were to succeed), while at the same time wagging their fingers accusingly at those insensitive racist ethnocentric white males who try to do the real work to stop the mullahs going nuclear.

You quoted Kipling's (approving) description of the soldiers of the British empire as those who bear the "white man's burden". Here is another quote from him, put in the mouth of "Tommy Atkins", the average British soldier, as he speaks about how civilians treat him. It describes your attitude perfectly:

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap.

That's you in a nutshell.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Because if you don't make a positive gesture, you will give your adversaries an extremely powerful motive to get nukes, or to keep them.

Even more powerful reasons for Iran to acquire nukes:
1. Incinerate the Jews.
2. Incinerate the infidels.
3. Bully their neighbors.

Reasons for N. Korea to acquire nukes:
1. Incinerate Japan.
2. Incinerate, then "reunite" with, S. Korea.
3. They look absolutely smashing in those Soviet-style military parades.

"Because the USA has them" isn't even likely to be in their top 10, IMHO. And in Iran's case, if 15 million Iranians get martyred in a retaliatory strike that's just the icing on the cake in the name of defending Islam. MAD doesn't apply to a radical Islamist.

No, I don't think 5000 nukes in US hands makes the world a more dangerous place, but if it were reduced to zero the world would be much more dangerous.

[Otther]

You can't demand anyone to make cuts if you don't make them yourself.

The thing is ELT, we're not asking for cuts. We're not gonna be satisfied with North Korea or Iran having only one or two nukes. You're position that we should make cuts makes sense in only one scenario... where we want another country to make cuts. "Hey Iran! We're kinda nervous about you having 10 nukes. If you destroy 8 of them, we'll go ahead and destroy and eigth of our arsenal." But that's not what we're saying. Our position is that they cannot have any. And when when we're saying YOU CANNOT HAVE ANY, us cutting ours by a fraction is of no value to them. Yes, the US could easily cut it's arsenal in half a few times, without really affecting it's world position. But completely disarming? Never. The same is true of any other country. If Iran has 20 nukes right now, there's a decent chance they could be brought to part with 10 of them. But completely disarming? Why would they? The point of nukes is to have them so other's can't use them on you. There is simply no advantage to getting rid of your nukes so your enemy will reduce his ability to destroy you by a tiny fraction.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by RandFan
BS, I'm so damn sick of this. I have been coming to this Forum for 3+ years and there is no question that the forum ebbs and flows from one side to the next. There are times the Forum is simply a child's playground to attack bush and post all sorts of derogatory and mean things about him. Many are quite funny. I used to spend my time trying to correct these ills and then I realized the forum was in part a place for people to express their dissatisfaction with their elected leaders.

You just look like a child is a sand box who got sand thrown in his eyes. Grow up or go away. The people here are just as entitled to their opinions as you are. If you are not adept enough to ignore them, debate them or flame them then go away. No one cares about your incessant whining. If the mean bad boys won't let you express your opinion without challenge then maybe you should try another forum.

There's always www.mylittlepony.com

What's the matter Randfan, you only like right wing loud mouths, is that it?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
What's the matter Randfan, you only like right wing loud mouths, is that it? Is this your idea of logical argument? Have you ever taken a course in critical thinking? Do you know what fallacy is?

[Roadtoad]

I'm still reading through this thread, so if I'm repeating what others have said, my apologies:

1.) McNamara lied through the 60's and into the 70's. I wouldn't trust a single word he had to say, including "and," "if," and "the."

2.) The United States has for years been dismantling nuclear weapons, starting in the 1980's, and has continued to do so since then. Much of the dismantlment has been because the weapons were obsolete, part of it has been because the U.S. was reducing stockpiles of weapons which were unnecessary. A significant portion of this has been because of a decision to unilaterally disarm to a particular level. We simply don't have the tonnage we used to have because we don't need it.

3.) Until and unless someone does something about Iran, North Korea, and a handful of other rogue states like Syria and others, and insures they don't develop nuclear weapons, (NK has what's called the "Candu" breeder reactor, as does Syria if I recall correctly), we're going to need some means of either retaliation or deterrance. You're not dealing with rational minds, or people who even give a rat's @$$ about what's best for their own people. You're dealing with psychotics. Extreme force and their own destruction is the only thing they'll understand.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by RandFan
Is this your idea of logical argument? Have you ever taken a course in critical thinking? Do you know what fallacy is?

Not much of a sense of humour, eh? :rolleyes:

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


2.) The United States has for years been dismantling nuclear weapons, starting in the 1980's, and has continued to do so since then. Much of the dismantlment has been because the weapons were obsolete, part of it has been because the U.S. was reducing stockpiles of weapons which were unnecessary. A significant portion of this has been because of a decision to unilaterally disarm to a particular level. We simply don't have the tonnage we used to have because we don't need it.

The current administration has reversed that policy. To make things worse, they're thinking of developing new kinds of nukes, and they want to put up an antimissile defence program. Both of these endeavours violate treaties that have been signed by the US.


Originally posted by Roadtoad

3.) Until and unless someone does something about Iran, North Korea, and a handful of other rogue states like Syria and others, and insures they don't develop nuclear weapons, (NK has what's called the "Candu" breeder reactor, as does Syria if I recall correctly), we're going to need some means of either retaliation or deterrance. You're not dealing with rational minds, or people who even give a rat's @$$ about what's best for their own people. You're dealing with psychotics. Extreme force and their own destruction is the only thing they'll understand.

Funny, that "they're psychotic" line is exactly what many people around the world have been saying of the US for a while! And curiously, even more people have been voicing this opinion since Bush and co. invaded Iraq!

I'm as worried as you are about nuclear proliferation. The difference is that I don't think that sabre rattling by the world's lone ranger is going to improve the situation. Quite the contrary, it risks making things worse. You need the support of the international community. And you're not gonna get it if you keep breaking international treaties and alienating your allies with your cowboy diplomacy.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Not much of a sense of humour, eh? :rolleyes: My appologies. I withdraw my statement.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Otther
The thing is ELT, we're not asking for cuts. We're not gonna be satisfied with North Korea or Iran having only one or two nukes. You're position that we should make cuts makes sense in only one scenario... where we want another country to make cuts. "Hey Iran! We're kinda nervous about you having 10 nukes. If you destroy 8 of them, we'll go ahead and destroy and eigth of our arsenal." But that's not what we're saying. Our position is that they cannot have any. And when when we're saying YOU CANNOT HAVE ANY, us cutting ours by a fraction is of no value to them. Yes, the US could easily cut it's arsenal in half a few times, without really affecting it's world position. But completely disarming? Never. The same is true of any other country. If Iran has 20 nukes right now, there's a decent chance they could be brought to part with 10 of them. But completely disarming? Why would they? The point of nukes is to have them so other's can't use them on you. There is simply no advantage to getting rid of your nukes so your enemy will reduce his ability to destroy you by a tiny fraction.

Although that would be the ultimate ideal situation all over the world, for all countries, nobody here is asking for complete disarming.

Cutting back on nukes will give both legitimacy and moral support to your position. It might be the difference, in Iranian and North Korean minds, between an aggressive posture and a conciliating posture. Also, you cannot negotiate with N. Korea without China's backing, and you cannot negotiate in the Middle East without the Europeans. When dealing with the so called "rogue states", it will be easier to get the rest of the world on your side if you're not armed to the teeth. As you admit yourself, reducing nukes won't affect your world position. Less nukes is safer and less expensive too.

Even if you have a legitimate concern about certain countries getting the bomb, you will be shooting yourselves in the foot if you try to limit access to nukes alone. See, if you do it alone, people will perceive it as bullying. But if you do it within international institutions and with the agreement of many countries around the world, you will create a lot less resentment.

Just compare world reaction to the Yugoslavian intervention and the first Gulf War vs. the world's reaction to the invasion of Iraq!

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
The current administration has reversed that policy. To make things worse, they're thinking of developing new kinds of nukes, and they want to put up an antimissile defence program. Both of these endeavours violate treaties that have been signed by the US.

Treaties which were also repeatedly violated by the former Soviet Union, which was one of the reasons Ronald Reagan wanted to build the SDI systems. Not that they worked mind, but that was the desire. I'm not saying this is right, but there were reasons. It's a damned foolish move, and I wish like hell Bush would reconsider this. Most of the world is moving away from nukes, including China. They're realizing trade and cooperation work better than warfare.

As a result, there's less and less need for what Bush wants. Who are we going to use it against? Brazil? "You girls flash your bikinis at us one more time, and we'll give you a suntan like you've never had!"

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Funny, that "they're psychotic" line is exactly what many people around the world have been saying of the US for a while! And curiously, even more people have been voicing this opinion since Bush and co. invaded Iraq!

I'm as worried as you are about nuclear proliferation. The difference is that I don't think that sabre rattling by the world's lone ranger is going to improve the situation. Quite the contrary, it risks making things worse. You need the support of the international community. And you're not gonna get it if you keep breaking international treaties and alienating your allies with your cowboy diplomacy.

Unlike NK and Syria, the U.S. has not supported terrorists, or provided them with safe haven and the weapons they ask for to launch their attacks. We don't murder our own people. (At least, not in this century.) We've had nukes since 1944, and we've only used them twice, in 1945. We've been on record since then asking that no one develop them at all, and yet, the U.S. has been ignored on this point ever since.

As to Iraq, George Tennant, the CIA director told the president that it was a slam dunk, that Iraq had nuclear and biological weapons which it had repeatedly been told by the UN it could not have. The UN's response was another round of sanctions which did not work. The U.S. decided for the sake of the United Nations' credibility that this could not stand.

I've said this before: either Tennant was a boob, or he was a liar. I think Bush needs his @$$ kicked, hard, for giving Tennant a medal. I don't even think he deserves to be paid for the sh** he pulled in the Oval Office that day.

But, that was NOT cowboy diplomacy. If you're going to have sanctions, if you're going to have credibility, simply standing around and wagging a finger at a nutjob who has killed millions of Shi'ites and Kurds is not going to do the job. They're going to sit there and laugh at you. If you're going to tell someone, "You do that again, and I'll kick your @$$," you'd better commence with the @$$-kicking the very second it happens again. As it happens, from what we're seeing happened in the Oil For Food Program, a lot of folks were bought off, and that's why Hussein was able to put it off for so long. Sorry: that's wrong, especially when his people were going hungry.

As to the nukes: there has got to be a retaliatory means. I would rather see the whole collection of the damned things dismantled, and resources used for their creation used for something else, something productive. That's not going to happen. Kim the Kook is starving his own people, making weird excuses for it, and flipping an atomic bird at the UN, China, Japan, and the U.S. Syria's Assads (Sr. and Jr.) have been doing the same for decades to the UN. Iran is led by religious fanatics who would see detonation of a nuclear device in the middle of Tel Aviv as God's Will. Do you have a better response than what's being proposed?

I don't want nukes. But force is the only thing these guys respond to. At some point, it was part of what probably worked on Muammar Kadaffi. (I say part of what worked, as there was undoubtedly more that helped.) There's no easy answer to any of this.

And of all the people to criticize American Foreign Policy, Robert McNamara, who WROTE a hell of a lot of it, including MAD and much of our nuclear policy which is currently in place, and is what George W. Bush is using, is the last person who ought to open his prevaricating mouth. He, above all, is responsible for the gash in the Capitol Mall in Washington, D.C., and he's the one who damned well ought to be owning up for his gruesome mistakes. Instead, that filthy chickensh** ghoul is trying to claim a heroism he neither deserves nor has earned.

George W. Bush has made some monumental blunders. But the death toll in American lives has yet to reach five figures for the same length of time. McNamara can't make that claim.

[Otther]

Cutting back on nukes will give both legitimacy and moral support to your position.

This is what I'm interested it. I don't think it really lends any moral legitimacy. I'd like to hear why you think it does.

For the sake of argument, I'm completely ignoring reality here... the specifics of the states are irrelevant (things like the US being a reasonably rational democracy, and North Korea being... well... North Korea.). Moral support is also irrelevant because that's only important in the real world.

So all we have is a nuclear state and a potential nuclear state. Now, how does the first state, by merely cutting its arsenal, give it any legitimacy to tell the other country to completely disarm or discontinue its nuke programs? This is obviously a double standard still. All you're doing is dressing it up by setting up a sacrifice on the nuclear state's part. That sacrifice wouldn't make the position legitimate were it a real sacrifice; but we both know there's no sacrifice! We agree that 500 nukes is equivalent to 5000!

So the only way to tell them to completely disarm is for us to do so. The absurdity of that is only surpassed by the other logical option of allowing everyone to have arms.

This moral arguement for US arsenal cuts on the basis of telling others to disarm is silly. It's only grounded by not taking itself to its full conclusion.


But back to the real world, I have to admit I'm not too interested in the whole popularity contest aspect of it all. I'd much rather tuck in, kick up border security, get a working missle defense system... and then let all you guys deal with the rogue states however you see fit.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, not exactly--people don't mind nearly as much that, say, democratic India has nuclear weapons; and if Japan were to "go nuclear" tomorrow, that might be opposed on general non-proliferation principles, but surely not considered nearly as problematic as NK arming itself. And, on the opposite side, the USSR's weapons--a far "whiter" country than the USA--was a problem because of its dictatorial government.

As usual, AUP, there are two camps here: those who try to stop the North Koreans & Iranians from getting nuclear weapons, thus keeping the world safer, and those who would enjoy the full benefits of the success of such an effort (if it were to succeed), while at the same time wagging their fingers accusingly at those insensitive racist ethnocentric white males who try to do the real work to stop the mullahs going nuclear.



And, as usual, your dichotomy is your regular, simplistic rubbish.



....That's you in a nutshell.

No, it's you, once again, your nutshell.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko
I only endure lecturing from two types of people, ELT.

1. My elders.
2. My betters.

You are clearly neither, so you have joined the other category:

3. My ignored.

1. I have it on very good authority that ELT is indeed older than you.
2. You are incapable of knowing who your betters are.

3. ***I'm not listening. I'm not listening, la la la la la ****

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ralph
Didn't Midnight Oil (great band btw)----do a song called "My Country".



Have you listened to the lyrics of their songs?



Was it just a dream, were you so confused
Was it just a giant leap of logic
Was it the time of year, that makes a state of fear
Methods, were their motives for the action

And did I hear you say
My country right or wrong
My country right or wrong
My country right or wrong

Did you save your face
Did you breach your faith
Women, there were children at the shelter
Now who can stop the hail
When human senses fail
There was never any warning, no escape

And did I hear you say
My country right or wrong
My country oh so strong
My country right or wrong
My country right or wrong
My country going wrong
My country right or wrong

I hear you say the truth must take a beating
The flag a camouflage for your deceiving
Cause I know, (I know) I know, it's written on your soul
I know we all make mistakes

This is not a case of blurred vision, it's a case of black holes, pocket
holes, soul holes





U.S. forces give the nod
It's a setback for your country
Bombs and trenches all in rows
Bombs and threats still ask for more

Divided world the CIA
Who controls the issue
You leave us with no time to talk
You can write your own assessment

Sing me songs of no denying
Seems to me too many trying
Waiting for the next big thing

Will you know it when you see it
High risk children dogs of war

Now market movements call the shots
Business deals in parking lots
Waiting for the meat of tomorrow

Sing me songs of no denying
Seems to me too many trying
Waiting for the next big thing

Everyone is too stoned to start emission
People too scared to go to prison
We're unable to make decisions
Political party line don't cross that floor

L. Ron Hubbard can't save your life
Superboy takes a plutonium wife
In the shadows of Ban the Bomb we live

Sing me songs of no denying
Seems to me too many trying
Waiting for the next big thing





Nobody disputes the fact the the the US has lots of nukes.

The debate is whether or not the large # of warheads in the US arsenal is what constitutes the greatest danger to world stabilty.

People seem to keep arguing that the greater the number--the greater the danger.

Fine--if that's true than what level should we reduce our arsenal to that would make us safer.

Please suggest some specific numbers.

That last line just derails the whole train of logic. You see, by stating that I have to supply specific numbers, you make a nonsense of any reply I make, because, of course, you already know I can't make a reply that supplies a 'specific' number.

I think if you want to have an intellectually honest argument, you have to avoid using devices such as these.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Have you listened to the lyrics of their songs?






That last line just derails the whole train of logic. You see, by stating that I have to supply specific numbers, you make a nonsense of any reply I make, because, of course, you already know I can't make a reply that supplies a 'specific' number.

I think if you want to have an intellectually honest argument, you have to avoid using devices such as these.




In other words---you can't answer the questions I asked.


ELTs arguement assumes EVERYBODY will respond in a reasonable & rational way if the US simply shows "good faith".

I'm sure most of the citizens of Sydney or Montreal are fine people. They obey the rules--don't break the law (for the most part) and behave in a logical reasonable fashion.

So why do you still have cops with guns?

Is it possible that every once in awhile someone arrives on the scene who doesn't care about the rules. He feels entitled to take your property or even your life.

Who's going to stop him?

The cops with the guns or the Canadian Students Anti-fascist Peace league?

Instead of addressing the nature of my arguement or dismissing everything you disagree with as simplistic-----just answer the questions I've asked.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ralph
In other words---you can't answer the questions I asked.


ELTs arguement assumes EVERYBODY will respond in a reasonable & rational way if the US simply shows "good faith".

I'm sure most of the citizens of Sydney or Montreal are fine people. They obey the rules--don't break the law (for the most part) and behave in a logical reasonable fashion.

So why do you still have cops with guns?

Is it possible that every once in awhile someone arrives on the scene who doesn't care about the rules. He feels entitled to take your property or even your life.

Who's going to stop him?

The cops with the guns or the Canadian Students Anti-fascist Peace league?

Instead of addressing the nature of my arguement or dismissing everything you disagree with as simplistic-----just answer the questions I've asked.

Ralph, nobody's arguing that the US should completely disarm! To use your analogy, cops usually have handguns and shotguns. Some of them even have heavier arms, but they don't patrol with them. But cops have no need to own an entire squad of jet fighters!

The huge number of nukes the US has now is a relic of the cold war. They're unnecessary in today's world. Worse, they undermine attempts at non-proliferation.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Otther
This is what I'm interested it. I don't think it really lends any moral legitimacy. I'd like to hear why you think it does.

How do you feel about someone that preaches something and then does the opposite of what he was preaching? "Do as I say, not as I do"...

Originally posted by Otther

For the sake of argument, I'm completely ignoring reality here... the specifics of the states are irrelevant (things like the US being a reasonably rational democracy, and North Korea being... well... North Korea.). Moral support is also irrelevant because that's only important in the real world.

So all we have is a nuclear state and a potential nuclear state. Now, how does the first state, by merely cutting its arsenal, give it any legitimacy to tell the other country to completely disarm or discontinue its nuke programs? This is obviously a double standard still. All you're doing is dressing it up by setting up a sacrifice on the nuclear state's part. That sacrifice wouldn't make the position legitimate were it a real sacrifice; but we both know there's no sacrifice! We agree that 500 nukes is equivalent to 5000!

So the only way to tell them to completely disarm is for us to do so. The absurdity of that is only surpassed by the other logical option of allowing everyone to have arms.

This moral arguement for US arsenal cuts on the basis of telling others to disarm is silly. It's only grounded by not taking itself to its full conclusion.

But back to the real world, I have to admit I'm not too interested in the whole popularity contest aspect of it all. I'd much rather tuck in, kick up border security, get a working missle defense system... and then let all you guys deal with the rogue states however you see fit.

As I said before, the need for 500 nukes can be defended rationally: it's deterrence. You can, for instance, say to Iran and N. Korea "we have these nukes because the Russians and Chinese still have theirs. It's not about you." But 5000 nukes? How do you justify that? And by the way, I doubt that the US nuclear policy has anything to do with Iran or N. Korea. The behaviour of those two countries is just an excuse! I mean, these are small, poor, relatively isolated countries on the other side of the world! They might get a couple of nukes, tops. But these nukes will probably be used as bargaining chips and as a means to avoid an invasion.

Again, as I said before, the difference between 500 and 5000 nukes can be seen as the difference between a posture based on deterrence and a posture based on aggression and supremacy.

And you should be interested in the "whole popularity" thing! With the rise of China, India and maybe Europe (really maybe Europe, they don't seem to go anywhere right now), the US alone will increasingly have difficulty playing world cop. You can't realistically go back to isolationism. Pissing off everyone in the blind defence of your interests won't work. The only thing left is to play along with the international community. You shouldn't be undermining the UN, international courts and all those treaties you decided to ignore! You should be trying to reinforce these organisations and to give them legitimacy!

[Otther]

How do you feel about someone that preaches something and then does the opposite of what he was preaching? "Do as I say, not as I do"... I don't think you're reading my posts... telling others to disarm, while making meaningless arsenal cuts, is exactly "Do as I say, not as I do"! Note the difference between disarming and making a fractional cut. Cuts give us no proper moral "legitimacy" to tell others to disarm. They only give us the right to tell others to cut. And that's not what we want. Get it?

Again, as I said before, the difference between 500 and 5000 nukes can be seen as the difference between a posture based on deterrence and a posture based on aggression and supremacy. That doesn't make any real sense. We both agree that power wise, the difference between 500 and 5000 nukes is inconsequential. So, reducing our arsenal hardly reduces our ability to blow the hell out of everyone. Attaching some signifficance to how we can blow the crap out of everyone is purely an emotional perception. So, such an attitude is basically telling us how to run our country based on your emotional perceptions. Sounds like a rather american attiude... :p

You can't realistically go back to isolationism. Why not? Our corperations abroad can probably handle their own interests. Frankly, I understand people not wanting the US to be the world's cop. But I don't think the US needs to be the horse that has to pull the carriages of everyone sharing world cop duty.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Ralph, nobody's arguing that the US should completely disarm! To use your analogy, cops usually have handguns and shotguns. Some of them even have heavier arms, but they don't patrol with them. But cops have no need to own an entire squad of jet fighters!

The huge number of nukes the US has now is a relic of the cold war. They're unnecessary in today's world. Worse, they undermine attempts at non-proliferation.


I agree--nobody's arguing we should disarm.

The arguement is whether or not a reduction will have any effect on a nation state deciding NOT to aquire nukes simply because the US shows "good faith".

You argue that countries want nukes because we have them. If we cut back from 5000 to 500 we STILL have them so where's the incentive?

You argue that countries want them because they feel threatened by the US.

Will Iran feel any less threatened if we have "only" 500 nukes (along with vastly superior conventional forces.)

Nobody wants to answer the question"How do you deal with nations who say FU----I want nukes & I'm going to have them."


As far as the whole 'cold-war leftover" arguement goes-----the danger isn't that Iran will attack the US with missles/bombers
and commit instant suicide.

The danger is when they've managed to acquire their 500 nukes---the # you claim is reasonable for defense---what's to prevent them from "losing" one or some fissionable material to the wrong people?

I don't know what Israel does to safeguard it's nukes. I have a feeling though it's highly unlikely they'd just hand a few out to the highest bidder. I also don't think it's just a matter of bribing a few guards with cigarrettes & a hooker.

Can you say the same thing about Iran?

What if Mugabwe decides he should have a nuke too.....Think he'll respond to diplomatic pressure?

[Roadtoad]

I don't know that the possession of nukes undermines non-proliferation. One of the projects my father was involved in before he died was the incineration of old chemical weapons the military had stored since the 1940's. We've almost completely rid ourselves of such weapons, and yet we have enemies in the world who are trying to produce more of these weapons, called "Poor Man's Nukes." The claim is that they're needed to protect against an "American Invasion," and yet, if anything, it takes a hell of a lot to get us to act, and once we have, in spite of every mistake we've made in the past, we generally are fairly generous to those we've gone up against.

Further, for anyone who cares to look, we've been moving out of other people's lives in other countries, (something I wish we would do here in the States.) Much of Micronesia has been handed back to the Micronesians themselves. We're leaving, and we're not going back in. Much the same is happening elsewhere, such as our service in Germany, much to the dismay of Gerhardt Schroeder. The Cold War is over, and much of our military might is being moved elsewhere, and thankfully. a significant amount of this is home.

The people who are building nukes are the same ones who are blowing billions of dollars buying AK47s and T-72s. If you remember reading Animal Farm, it's the same sort of deal as Napoleon pulled with Snowball. You magnify the presence of an "enemy," in the hopes it draws attention away from the real problems at home. It's how you maintain power.

And I still say McNamara's a d***head.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ralph
In other words---you can't answer the questions I asked.



The question you asked is unanswerable, so there was no point asking it, and thinking you have made a point because it cannot be answered.



ELTs arguement assumes EVERYBODY will respond in a reasonable & rational way if the US simply shows "good faith".

I'm sure most of the citizens of Sydney or Montreal are fine people. They obey the rules--don't break the law (for the most part) and behave in a logical reasonable fashion.



And, as I have pointed out in another post, there are many reasonble people in the countries that are being discussed. Tehran has a strong democratic movement, it would be stronger, IMHO, if it could show the good will of the US, that it is not the 'great satan', that it does reduce it's nuclear arms cache while demanding others have none.



So why do you still have cops with guns?

Is it possible that every once in awhile someone arrives on the scene who doesn't care about the rules. He feels entitled to take your property or even your life.

Who's going to stop him?

The cops with the guns or the Canadian Students Anti-fascist Peace league?

Instead of addressing the nature of my arguement or dismissing everything you disagree with as simplistic-----just answer the questions I've asked.

Reasonable questions can be answered. As I have done.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The question you asked is unanswerable, so there was no point asking it, and thinking you have made a point because it cannot be answered.




Reasonable questions can be answered. As I have done.


I've asked a lot of questions.


"Is it reasonable for Iran to feel LESS threatened if the US has only 500 vs 5000 nukes in it's aresenal"?

"If the US reduces it's arsenal to 500 or whatever # is deemed "reasonable----what should Russia do?

"Should ALL nations be allowed 500 (or whatever # is deemed reasonable)nukes if they so desire?"

Are the Iranians truly only interested in using their nuke program to generate electricy or do they have "something else" in mind?"


Are those Iranian missles draped with festive "Death to the Jews" banners just part of the Iranian space program..(dedicated to spreading the peace of Islam & the blessings of Allah throughout the solar system)....or do they have some thing else in mind?


Maybe you could point out to me what questions I've asked that are unanswerable.

As far as I can see---you haven't answered a single one of them.

[Orwell]

Reducing to a small number of nukes (I arbitrarily said 500 nukes because it seemed like a reasonable number, comparable in size to the number of nukes owned by other nations) implies that those nukes are only to be used as a deterrent. This in turn implies that you will keep them as long as there are other nations that have nukes, since a deterrent is only necessary as long as there is something you want to deter. It implicitly gives the idea that, in the long term, in the indeterminate future, you would be willing to totally give up your nukes, if other nations give up theirs.

The smaller the number of nukes, the closer you are, both psychologically and physically, to total global disarmament. And I think you would agree that total global nuclear disarmament should be the ultimate ideal goal, even if it's unattainable.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
The smaller the number of nukes, the closer you are, both psychologically and physically, to total global disarmament. And I think you would agree that total global nuclear disarmament should be the ultimate ideal goal, even if it's unattainable.

Why is it unattainable? I would think with time and effort, it could not only be attainable, but reasonable.

The first thing, though, is to quit enabling despots and thugs.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Why is it unattainable? I would think with time and effort, it could not only be attainable, but reasonable.

The first thing, though, is to quit enabling despots and thugs.

I believe it can be done. Some might argue it can't, that's why I put unattainable line there.

As I've argued before, the US shouldn't fight despots and thugs alone. And to effectively fight despots and thugs, the US can't seem to act like a despot and a thug.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
I believe it can be done. Some might argue it can't, that's why I put unattainable line there.

As I've argued before, the US shouldn't fight despots and thugs alone. And to effectively fight despots and thugs, the US can't seem to act like a despot and a thug.

Well, we agree on that.

One thing I've noted, much to my own irritation, is that American Foreign Policy tends to be taken in four-year increments. It was certainly a point of contention for Sir Michael Redgrave, who, while I disagree greatly with his politics, and his Trotskyite views, was correct on this point.

Let me phrase it another way: Ever wonder why new drivers, regardless of what it is they're driving, are so damned scary? For one thing, they have such a limited range of vision. Most of them are so frightened of that huge metal beast they're driving, they can't figure out that you have to look over and beyond the hood so that you have time and ability to react to a hazard that's coming up on you.

When you're driving, you have to train yourself to look well beyond the hood of the car, to look not merely to the next half-mile, but as far as the horizon. You have to train yourself to be aware of what's ahead of you in one mile, two mile, and three mile increments. If you're moving at 60 mph, and someone is coming towards you at the same rate of speed, drifting into your lane, at one mile, you have less than 30 seconds to warn the other driver what he's doing, and failing that, plan and move out of the way. You run a real risk of getting killed if you don't.

This is one of the greater frustrations regarding AFP. Clinton and now Bush seem to be making the same mistake that has been made over and over again. Jefferson was good when it came to FP: when he said, "Leave us the hell alone, or we're going to start kicking @$$," he did just what he said he was going to do. He did it as expediently as you could do it in the 1800's, and it resulted in minimal loss of life.

Clinton, on the other hand, bombed an aspirin factory, and Bush, of all the stupid things, actually listened to the imbecile who advised Clinton where to launch the bomb! In the name of continuity, Bush retained an incompetent. That was short sighted and stupid.

McNamara, in his criticism, fails to mention (and I'll keep mentioning it until people realize he's a lying bastard, and quit listening to him) that the nuclear policy we're following is one he helped to create. He worked on this with Edward Teller, he helped plan it, he helped implement it. He was the one who was among the loudest when it came to warning of "falling dominoes," who was among those who planned and implemented the policies that put and kept Reza Palahvi on the throne of Iran, that supported Anastacio Somoza and Agosto Pinochet, and that supported the human rights abuses both of those cretins commited. And while I repect Charles Krauthammer, I disagree with his view that we could have, should have, and did, simply used these brutes and cast them aside when we were done with them. We're paying a heavy price for that type of activity today. (It's one of the reasons France is not to be trusted, BTW.)

I would remind you that Diana Trilling once pointed out that the U.S. has yet to comprehend the difference between Socialist and Communist. It's a huge gap, and just because a foreign power chooses a Socialist government, (an error in judgement in my book, but I don't live there, so my word means little), it doesn't necessarily follow that they'll become Communist. In fact, I would suggest that many of the Socialist countries in the world are extremely unlikely to go much further, and from what I'm reading here and elsewhere, there's a move to turn back toward less government involvment in people's lives. I could wish it would hit California, but then, the CA Republican Party has become more of a country club than an active political player, and most of our state assemblymen on the Right have allowed the Democrats to gerrymander the districts to the effect of saving their own butts to the detriment of the state.

(And you wonder why I'm so pissed with politicians...)

[Orwell]

Oh I totally agree with you on McNamara. I don't like the guy anymore than you do. It galls me that he,s on the same side of the issue as I am when it comes to american nuclear policy! :)

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Oh I totally agree with you on McNamara. I don't like the guy anymore than you do. It galls me that he,s on the same side of the issue as I am when it comes to american nuclear policy! :)

If you think McNamara is on YOUR side, you're very naive. McNamara is out to cover McNamara's @$$. He'll take any side he can to try and help cover up the fact that he cost so many Americans their lives in SE Asia, and that he was among the first architects of a FP that destroyed so many lives elsewhere in the world.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
If you think McNamara is on YOUR side, you're very naive. McNamara is out to cover McNamara's @$$. He'll take any side he can to try and help cover up the fact that he cost so many Americans their lives in SE Asia, and that he was among the first architects of a FP that destroyed so many lives elsewhere in the world.

I'm not being naive. I said "on this issue". Like you, I don't trust his motivations.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
I'm not being naive. I said "on this issue". Like you, I don't trust his motivations.

Got it. My apologies.

Frankly, if he thought he'd get good press from dropping pound puppies from the back end of a C-130 flying at 30,000 ft. he'd be cleaning out animal shelters from San Diego, CA to Portland, ME.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ralph
I've asked a lot of questions.


"Is it reasonable for Iran to feel LESS threatened if the US has only 500 vs 5000 nukes in it's aresenal"?



I would say yes, but a "threat" is not a simple concept. I would say they could view the US as less agressive, but certainly not impotent. It only takes one nuke to wipe out Tehran.



"If the US reduces it's arsenal to 500 or whatever # is deemed "reasonable----what should Russia do?



Russia has been reducing it's arsenal, and it's delivery methods.



"Should ALL nations be allowed 500 (or whatever # is deemed reasonable)nukes if they so desire?"



I would say no, proliferation is only going to be destabilising. The argument is not that Iran is allowed to have nukes. I would argue against that.



Are the Iranians truly only interested in using their nuke program to generate electricy or do they have "something else" in mind?"



Let's play it safe and not guess, lets have an effective monitoring system in place to ensure they don't get up to anything else.



Are those Iranian missles draped with festive "Death to the Jews" banners just part of the Iranian space program..(dedicated to spreading the peace of Islam & the blessings of Allah throughout the solar system)....or do they have some thing else in mind?



Colourful language aside, there is a lot of tension and hatred out there. Let's see what can be done to reduce that.



Maybe you could point out to me what questions I've asked that are unanswerable.

As far as I can see---you haven't answered a single one of them.

Asking for a 'specific' number, as I already told you.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I would say yes, but a "threat" is not a simple concept. I would say they could view the US as less agressive, but certainly not impotent. It only takes one nuke to wipe out Tehran.



Russia has been reducing it's arsenal, and it's delivery methods.



I would say no, proliferation is only going to be destabilising. The argument is not that Iran is allowed to have nukes. I would argue against that.



Let's play it safe and not guess, lets have an effective monitoring system in place to ensure they don't get up to anything else.



Colourful language aside, there is a lot of tension and hatred out there. Let's see what can be done to reduce that.



Asking for a 'specific' number, as I already told you.





Yes--Russia has been reducing it's arsenal. So has the US though.

At the height of the cold war we had over 10,000 warheads --now we're down to about 5000. Iran doesn't seem to care too much though.

What's puzzling though is why is it the US that's "the greatest threat"?

Why not Russia?

They have more warheads than we do.

They are helping Iran develop their nuke program.

They have a reputation for poor security as regards their WMDs.


I should think they deserve at least equal status with the US as far as being a threat to world stability.


Not that I'm arguing Russia's really the problem anyway though.


The problem revolves around your statement that there is a lot of tension & hatred over there.

Indeed there is but just saying "let's reduce it" is easier said than done.

Do you really think that an Islamic theocracy that has sworn death to the US & Israel and is allowed to develop & perfect it's "space & electrical generating programs" will ADD to the stabilty of the region?

If you don't---then what are you're answers to some hard choices that may have to be made?

Right now--we're hoping diplomacy will work. The Iranians seem more than happy with this since while their diplomats continue to talk---their nuke & missle programs continue to progress.

Of course if we just continue to haggle---that may buy the Iranians the time they need to complete their goals.

I'm not a weapons designer or military planner but it's my understanding that if strike now (or soon)--we can bring their program to halt without ground troops & with a minimal loss of life.

If we wait---we can still accomplish that--but the death toll will be much greater.

You still haven't the asnwered the question though about "should we intervene militarily if Iran refuses to scrap it's nuke program"?