How About a Nice Game of Global Thermonuclear War? 1859
Loconut1389 writes "According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon has a revised doctrine to be signed in the next few weeks would give the president the authority for a preemptive nuclear strike. I would hope that this is a move designed to say we mean business and then never use it, but the means is there for mutual assured destruction."
That's a good boy... (Score:2, Insightful)
Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
And in other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
And who has the authority to adopt this policy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, since W's administration doesn't seem to think the Constitution is worth the paper it's printed on, this won't stop them.
And Congress doesn't seem to hold it in any higher regard these days. The Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war, not the power to issue an "authorization of force".
Preemptive Impeachment (Score:5, Insightful)
Err... anything else dumb.
What's that? We had that opportunity? November 2004, you say? Oops.
Re:Doesn't anybody remember the W.O.P.R. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pre-emption a severe move with these weapons (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, then, isn't it a good idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Me? Cynical?)
Re:Pre-emptive strikes... (Score:2, Insightful)
Can we start the civil war yet? Please? Pretty please?
Ugh.
You think this is some sort of game?! (Score:5, Insightful)
such ignorance... *sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the reason NASA can't pay Russia to launch more Soyuz's to station to compensate for grounded shuttles, the nonproliferation laws state that the US can't exchange money for services to countries that supply arms to our enemies...
-everphilski-
Re:_Great_ analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
History (Score:5, Insightful)
We would have nuked Iraq. (Score:3, Insightful)
GW was sure they had WMDs.
Re:Bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Honor does not exist in this country, does it?
Re:History (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Times have changed (Score:5, Insightful)
We also have a system in place to respond in kind to wmd attack within 3 minutes with all out world-killing force.
the idea of "preemptive nuclear strike" is not just radical, it's insane.
Re:Uh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Opening your eyes and actually using them instead of mindlessly repeating the garbage that some war happy people in the White House are telling you might be a really good idea indeed.
In short, North Korea might have the capability to launch one or two nukes directly at the USA (actually they don't, but lets just assume they do, they probably do have the nukes for it), but is far from assured destruction of the USA. Don't come with the theory that that is only a matter of time, North Korea does not have access to the resources to come anywhere near.
Re:And who has the authority to adopt this policy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pre-emptive strikes... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:And who has the authority to adopt this policy? (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the Constitution - the only ones who can enforce that are the Supreme Court Justices. Guess who GWB gets to pick two of? Oh, and before the Supreme Court can hear a Constitutional issue of this kind, it has to be brought to a lower court BY the Federal Government -and- it has to be within the jurisdiction of the courts.
(Why do you think the people out at Gitmo are being denied access to the US courts? Because if they DID have access, and DID get heard by the Supreme Court, and DID prove a Constitutional violation in the War on Terror, then the whole of GWB's government collapses. By denying access, the Supreme Court is powerless to intervene, no matter what the Justices happen to think on the issue.)
Terrorism forces us into a no win situation (Score:4, Insightful)
What do we do, aside from wringing our hands and saying we can't kill large number of civilians to fight terrorism? The terrorists bomb us, tens of thousands of Americans or Brits or French or Japanese, etc. die. No massive response against the popular terrorists' home base. The result is a population that sees the attacked country/ethnic/religious group as weak, vulnerable and in the case of Islamic terrorism, which is the majority of terrorism today, it is a "sign from Allah that the enemy is going to lose."
So we don't nuke Riyadh and kill a bunch of the people who gave their moral support to the enemy. This is the best option we have short of getting ourselves either into a guerrilla war or just letting the enemy kill us. And here's something that the hand-wringing pacifists will never accept: our enemy knows us and hates us. People who are as dedicated toward killing you as most terrorists are cannot and will not be reasoned with or otherwise be converted to liking you. Either they die, or you and your children die because after you're dead, chances are damn good they'll kill every last one of yours that they can get ahold of.
We have to kill people who even just strongly SUPPORT terrorism overseas if we can to drive home the point we are serious. If we don't, then many of those people will be saying "sign me up" right after the American paper tiger has been defanged by the "martyrs." The Iranian government is already openly boasting that we are weak and totally exposed thanks to our blithering idiots in government from Nagin to Blanco to Bush to almost all of the bureaucrats in between.
The threat is real, and it can indeed be better solved through the threat of military force, especially mass destruction by nuclear weapons. In 1992, the only way we were able to keep Saddam from hitting us and the Israelis with bio weapons was we told him we were prepared to fire off a few of our nuclear weapons against Iraq.
It really does suck that we are pushed to this point, but how else are we going to intimidate the governments and populations that would whole-heartedly jump into the terrorism game? Huh? I'd like to see some serious proposals that don't revolve around us sacrificing all of our rights and sending massive amounts of aid to these groups on a regular basis like some sort of tribute in exchange for not bombing us. And let's cut the bullshit. The Muslim terrorists whine and bitch and moan not just about the fact that we support Israel and have/had troops on their holy grounds, but that *gasp* Spain is actually ruled today by the Spanish and not those imperialist Moores. Repeat the same claims about Greece, Romania, a few other countries in Europe occupied by the Ottomans, India and well... you get the idea. Pretty much any country where the non-Muslims gave their Muslim overlords a swift kick in the ass right out the door.
Blame the enemy, not us. Most Americans do not want to rule the world. Hell, most Americans would really be happy if the rest of the world would just leave us alone and we could get our government to reciprocate to them. But I can say this, as much of an isolationist, live-and-let-live southerner as I am, if my girlfriend and our families were killed in the Northern Virginia area by an Al Qaeda nuclear weapon, I wouldn't care about freedom of speech or conscience in Saudi Arabia. Like many, I'd support anyone who would drive a nuclear bomb right into the middle of those fuckers dancing in the streets celebrating "The Great Satan(tm)" getting nuked.
For the love of God, terrorism is about slaughtering women and children. It is a low-key form of genocide and is beyond mere criminality. A population that supports it and encourages it doesn't deserve to be let off the hook when it unleashes that on another group.
Re:Uh? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is all moot, anyway -- I can't see this being any more than a message that says, "We have a LOT more toys than you do, and we could end you before you even blink."
Nothing to see here. This is their job. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm in for a thermonuclear flaming for so much as suggesting this on slashdot, but here goes:
The Pentagon is charged with defense and defense planning. Drawing up plans like this is their job. They are there to plan for every contingency and to present every option. They are also there to carry those plans out when so ordered. They are not there to carry those plans out without authorization
The United States is a second-strike nuclear power--its weapons are both so numerous and so dispersed that no single strike could easily knock out all of its retaliatory capability. Emerging nuclear powers, in contrast, are usually first-strike powers: their weapons are few and concentrated, geographically.
Given the knowledge that such an emerging nuclear power is preparing to fire its weapons on the United States or its allies, the warplanners are faced with the following choice:
Consider the costs and the benefits: a targeted, pre-emptive strike could neutralize a military target and eliminate a threat, all in a single stroke. Striking after the fact, your choice of targets is less optimal--do you hit some *other*, less-crucial part of the enemy's military infrastructure? Or do you retaliate in kind against a civilian target?
Tough choices. But somebody has to make them, eventually.
Re:such ignorance... *sigh* (Score:2, Insightful)
The sentence remain valid if you replace "soviets" with "Americans", or several other nations.
That's the reason NASA can't pay Russia to launch more Soyuz's to station to compensate for grounded shuttles, the nonproliferation laws state that the US can't exchange money for services to countries that supply arms to our enemies...
And of course, the US is a posterchild when it comes to respecting internation law and treaties.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not reading the WHOLE of the article (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, if the USA got itself into a war that was wholly conventional, against an opponent that had no WMDs whatsoever and where no claims of WMDs were even made, but where that opponent was simply better at fighting, the President of the USA will have the right to nuke that opponent off the face of the planet.
Translated: America WILL win every war it fights, because if it loses, it'll utterly obliterate whoever beat it, and then it'll declare itself the winner anyway.
That is a very dangerous policy and doesn't dissuade places like North Korea at all. If anything, they'll now take the line that America is going to nuke them no matter what, so there is absolutely no point in holding back. If they're dead anyway, then why not pull the trigger?
That is NOT a way to make the world safer. Never play chicken with paranoid schizophrenics, particularly not after you've told them that you're prepared to cheat to win.
Re:_Great_ analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
If you consider what either side offers in this conflict, I think you would be led to conclude that there ARE no good guys. Consider a few points:
Whereas Muslim terrorists want to enslave the WORLD to their retarded religious extremism, the neocons want to ENSLAVE the world to their retarded religious extremism.
Whereas Muslim terrorists want to keep their women in the home covered from head to toe and pregnant, neocons want to keep their women in the home BAREFOOT and pregnant.
And whereas Muslim terrorists hope to spread their ideology by indiscriminantly torturing and killing white people, neocons hope to spread their ideology by indiscriminantly torturing and killing Muslims.
My greatest hope is that the Rapture comes soon and hoovers up all these assholes so that the world can be left to rational people.
Bad Idea, here's why (Score:2, Insightful)
These are NOT the mental giants I pictured to responibly wield such authority.
--
This sig is available via p2p
Re:Why not? (Score:1, Insightful)
Non-existent WMDs Baaaad! Real WMDs Gooood! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know how many of you grew up with the Cuban Missile Crisis and neighbors digging bomb shelters in their back yards; most of you probably just had scary TV specials instead. But we really don't need to put up with this kind of crap from an Administration that says it's doing it to make us *safer*.
Re:such ignorance... *sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Two more words: Afghan Resistance.
BS Rightwing Myths (Score:1, Insightful)
Even a cursory look at American foreign policy shows we are anything but isolationist, and that these people, despicable as they are, have POLITICAL reasons behind their actions.
This is true. BUT THIS IS NOT REFLECTED IN OUR DAMN GOVERNMENT, AND REPUBLICANS ARE LARGELY RESPONSIBLE. Here's a quick example. Guess how Iran went from a democratically elected government to a dictatorship? WE HELPED. And then we tried to give the Shah of Iran nuclear technology! Way back in the day! WAS THAT FREAKING ISOLATIONIST? Is giving nuclear technology to India something that Pakistanians won't be worried about? There are many other examples of current, topical, and serious concerns beyond your little "Oh God they want Spain back" spiel.
Please, read a goddamn paper or history book.
ohoh (Score:3, Insightful)
Aide: But they are our Allie.
Prez: they MUST be hiding WMDS.
Aide: *slap on forehead*
Prez: *Presses Button*
later....
Aide: there are no signs of WMDS in New Zealand's smoldering wreakage. the 3 remaining people over there are quite upset
Prez: See I tol you that those Nu Clear Missile would Obliterate those WMDS! My policy works, Nuke those 3 remaining NZlanders. they might know how to make a WMD.
Hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought that was exactly the reason why the whole "We have the right to nuke the adverse party if we believe they are going to use WMD on us" clause. We have just shown the whole world that we do not need one teeeny bit of evidence, or even a somewhat-reliable intelligence to declare that someone has WMD and is ready to use it against us. In essense, "WMD" is the keyword that can be applied to anybody (if you read the draft, that includes states and non-states alike), and that gives the president the power to just nuke the heck out of whoever he pleases.
So, what do we have here? 1, We have shown resolve to go to war even if the rest of the world vehemently opposes it, and do so, essentially, unilaterally (the forces in Iraq are multinational on paper only, just look at the numbers!). 2, We have shown that WMD is carte blanche of sort, and justifies any means. 3, We have labelled certain nations as supporters of terrorists, and labelled terrorists as wanting to use WMD on us. 4, We are putting the legal framework in place to avoid silly Congress from disagreeing with the president over going to war. 5, By using nukes we ensure that we'd be doing a "precision strike" and avoid the whole mess with a lengthy occupation, etc, making such a war very inexpensive indeed. Except for the international backlash, but we have shown by now that cullies cannot care less about international opinion.
Now, if you were a nation that was laballed as a supporter of terrorism, what's there to guarantee that you won't be nuked the day after such a draft becomes a law? I think this is a very deliberate message -- we have a big red button, and we have one person, the president, who can push it if he is in a bad mood, and he's pushed similar buttons before. Live in PHEAR!
Eveyone knows that we cannot afford to start another war. That's why both Iran and North Korea can happily ignore what we say and do as they please. This draft changes that. We can still threaten them very effectively, and can afford it as well. Very, very dirty move. On par with our friendly Unix vendor, SCO.
Re:Uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thinking instead of mindlessly repeating the garbage that some anti-war hippy is telling you might be smart.
Sure there isn't a USSR who could take out the entire country in one shot anymore, but one or two missiles is enough. One well placed nuke could kill/injure 10 million if it took out Los Angeles county. New york city has 8 million. Two nukes, well placed, could take out 18 million people. There are 295 million people in the US. That would be 16.39% of the US population. That is literally decimation. That is 50% more than decimation.
You think New Orleans is bad? There were what, 100,000 people left when the hurricane hit? We had 2/3 days to evacuate before it hit. We had that much warning. And the city is livable going forward. Compare that to a few hours notice. Millions dead. Millions injured. The area would be worthless thanks to fallout. Some of the largest and most important companies in the US could be gone. You think the post 9/11 recession was bad?
You don't have to take out half the country in one shot. Just take out LA, New York, or another large city (Seattle, San Fran., etc). If you can hit in the MIDDLE of the US (say Denver, St. Louis, Minneapolis, etc) that would scare people even more.
North Korea, Iran, Terrorists, other states that haven't announced yet or are currently friends/neutral but could turn with an election or coup. Just because big bad USSR is gone doesn't make us safe from nuclear attacks.
Re:_Great_ analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bollocks. They may have a handful of warheads, but no ICBMs with the range or accuracy. Even if they delivered them by hand, that would be terrible, but not "Assured Destruction". But at the first sign of them making ready, I think they'd get preemptively struck; the US has lots of force in place just over the border.
Russia still has thousands of nukes. China has enough, and some ICBMs, to do a lot of damage. As does France, so I wouldn't keep pissing on them as has become fashionable in the US.
Re:Times have changed (Score:5, Insightful)
Few countries would come to the US's aid if they nuked Iran. War or no war. The act is simply too repulsive. Sure, there will be official policies, but the regular people on the ground: customs official, the policeman. They will not inforce official policy.
Any country that lobs nukes will inevitably get theirs too. Not that the regular folks deserve it but they will certainly be the ones to pay the price.
Nukes are 40s technology. The time to learn to get along is now.
Re:Pre-emptive strikes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Last time I checked, we had treaties with both South Korea and Japan in which case if either came under attack we would help defend them. Also last time I checked, they were both within range of North Koreas missles.
Re:We would have nuked Iraq. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Poland said in a statement from Iraq that "beyond doubt the shells were from the 1980-1988 period, of the type used against Kurds and during the Iraq-Iran war."
In Baghdad, the U.S. military issued a statement saying that two 122 mm rockets found by Polish forces had tested positive for sarin gas and confirmed that they were left over from the Iran-Iraq war, but said they posed little danger."
Re:Uh? (Score:3, Insightful)
The dirty secret is that the Korean war never really ended. We've had tens of thousands of troops on the border for decades. Bush finally had the cajones to pull them off the border (and out of artillery range). The problem is that Seoul, South Korea is within artillery range of North Korea. In any war with North Korea, the civilian casualties would be higher than any war since WWII. And that's assuming that North Korea doesn't have nukes. Also, in this hypothetical war, the actions of China are completely unknown. My guess is that China would invade Korea from the north. What would happen when Allied troops and Chinese troops met? I don't think anybody knows.
And as much as we don't want a war with North Korea, a war with China is even more undesirable.
Re:Uh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:_Great_ analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but I've been to the VRWC meetings, and those points never came up. I'm also confused, as I thought NeoCons were all Zionist, Christian-blood drinking Jews, like Wolfowitz, so where does the Rapture fit in?
And you're right, it should go without saying that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," because it's a load of crap.
Re:Bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Method of living for the socially challenged: W (Score:2, Insightful)
Please, stand up and, for the sake of humanity, don't let this happen!
You are entirely correct (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, not very much. Not all prisoners will ever be given the opportunity for a review - the Pentagon has already said as much and has said that it expects some to remain prisoners for life with no possibility of any court review, even on an internal level.
Those who have been "processed" have been denied knowledge of the charges against them or the evidence against them. Indeed, nobody other than the top brass and the judges themselves know if any charges or evidence even exists in these cases. That falls a bit short of a right to a hearing.
Nor have any of those "processed" been allowed to bring witnesses of any kind, challenge testimony presented, challenge the impartiality of any of the tribunal, or carry out any kind of investigative process whatsoever. They can't even question any hearsay the DoD wishes to use as "evidence".
I'm from England, and I know English history pretty well. England had a time like that, under the ruthless dictates of King John, where any person could be arrested on suspicion of an unspecified crime, on the basis of the accuser's uncorroborated "eyewitness testimony". So horrified did England become that it rose up in rebellion and demanded a written constitution (the Magna Carta).
America has a written constitution - although GWB tends to ignore it, and it hasn't been (for the most part) American citizens who have suffered - although there are exceptions. In consequence, there is virtually no chance of any kind of revolt against abuses of power. Nobody who is in a position to has enough to lose or enough to gain. Those who do - well, they're just labelled terrorists and carpet-bombed.
The whole "war on terror" is one huge unholy mess. Hey, fighting terrorism is a good idea, but you can't fight terrorism with the weapons of terror. You've got to use other methods, where at all possible. The problem is, GWB has no interest in "other methods", which makes me think that he is more interested in the fighting than in the resolving.
God (Score:3, Insightful)
Those stupid motherfuckers.
Re:Uh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Politicians talk about how we won't need a draft in the foreseeable future. But if we have to fight North Korea, there's going to be a draft. We really won't have any other choice.
Re:Uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I indeed happen to think war is not such a good thing to be involved in, doesn't exactly make me a hippy. What is this name calling needed for whenever anyone might disagree with the current government anyway.
Sure there isn't a USSR who could take out the entire country in one shot anymore, but one or two missiles is enough. One well placed nuke could kill/injure 10 million if it took out Los Angeles county. New york city has 8 million. Two nukes, well placed, could take out 18 million people. There are 295 million people in the US. That would be 16.39% of the US population. That is literally decimation. That is 50% more than decimation.
Just please go learn something about the effects of nuclear weapons, what Korea might have in the worst case, and what kind of damage they can do with it.
I do agree that they can cause a pretty amount of damage, that is not the point.
If you are going to be afraid of a country with nukes, then I'd take another look at Pakistan. Its current leader may not be a problem, and actually most of its population would not be either, but chances of some extremist comming to power one way or another are quite there, and then you have a country with proven nuclear ability, some access to resources for making more, own technology for delivery and a group of fanatic idiots who may try anything to get a nuke delivered.
Do something about North Korea? sure, something should have been done some 40+ years ago there actually, end the state of war between it and the USA. It is one of those 'monsters' the USA has created itself with the same kind of blindness and fear (for communism back then) that so many there are still showing today.
Re:Bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because the president has the authorization to fire nukes at-will, doesn't make us any safer from nuclear attacks either. The threat behind a preemptive strike will only protect us from an enemy that's rational or has a lot to lose. Unfortunately most of our true enemies are irrational or have nothing to lose.
Re:Pre-emption a severe move with these weapons (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that you lower the threshold for their use and there's almost no upper limit for escalation. When in 50 years the United Parishes of Jesusland and the Berkeley Socialist Republic decide to duke it out and suddenly one side starts to flatten the cities of the other with thermonuclear warheads in the 100MT+ range then everyone else is gonna jump on those bastards and use the opportunity to nuke all their other enemies too. Chances are they're gonna have some inhibitions to become the reason for the end of the human race.
With new low yield, low radiation nukes the danger is that the UPJ use a bunker buster the BSR retaliates with a tactical nuke against troop concentrations the UPJ then uses one against dug-in defenders in a city the BSR starts using H-bombs against industrial installation and after that both simply nuke everything. Humans generally don't like to take that first big step but a dozen smaller ones seem easier.
Re:Uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nukes are old skool. The real problem is that billions of people all over the world want to see us suffer and die. You can't just keep making more enemies every day and not expect any consequences. Those billions of people who want to see you die will figure out a way to kill you or spend you into bankrupcy trying to defend yourself.
Unfortunately nobody in the good old U S of A has any interest in making nice with people. We are intent on making ourselves as obnoxious and dangerous as possible. Sooner or later it's going to bite us in the ass.
There is a reason US was attacked instead of Canada but nobody wants to think about that.
Re:Times have changed (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I speak for a lot of people when I say... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm in the middle of studying for my Chemistry quiz, when I figure, hey, I haven't check slashdot in the last couple of seconds, so lo and behold, out of the bloody blue, there's a story talking about my government giving a moron the power to nuke whoever he wants. WHY???? Where they bored? Did they feel they didn't fuck enough things up? Nuclear war is no joke! It doesn't matter what the reason or who you're bombing; nuking someone is wrong!
There's no reason and entire city of innocent people needs to be wiped out just because these idiots can't get along...
Re:Mutual? As in Mutual Insurance for Nuclear War? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is actually a kind of complicated intersection of several forms of insanity. For example, Dubya's flavor is that he buys into religious forms of Armageddon, so he thinks America needs lots of nuclear bombs to join the party "properly". The neo-cons have delusions of recreating a new Holy Roman Empire, with nuclear bombs replacing the legions. Cheney is the best example of the most toys faction, as in "He who dies with the most toys wins."
In reality, might does NOT make right, and trying to sustain modern civilization with the law of the jungle is going to produce a whole lot of dead Tarzans. The more nuclear weapons one side plays with, the more weapons the other sides will want to play with, and it's the richest players who wind up with the most to lose, and the poorest players who can roll for broke. No blinking allowed.
I'm not a pacifist, by the way. I know that the nuclear genie is not going to go back into the bottle, and the only way to have real peace is if you are ready to use sufficient force against anyone who wants to become violent. However, "sufficient" does not mean "absolute and overwhelming", because there is no such thing. What the world really needs is enough good nations that are capable of working together to face down the threats--which is almost exactly the situation that existed in Iraq in the '90s.
However, I also think that the "just use of force" has an even more important aspect than keeping it to the sufficient level. That's a matter of personal attitude. The just use of force should be done with the proverbial heavy heart and in the face of true necessity. It shouldn't be imagined as a real-life version of a video game or some kind of cowboy romp, which is how most of the Rusheviks and Busheviks see it. You can actually map this all the way down to your local policeman: Of course you want your local policeman to know how to quickly and efficiently apply enough force for each situation, but I do not want a policeman who enjoys the use of force, or even one who has become indifferent to the use of it.
Re:World War III Here We Come... (Score:2, Insightful)
So, you would get your rhetoric and information from movies to make your decisions? What? Is your news channel the "E" channel and/or FOX?
You are the classic example of what has become of this nation. ("pop-culture", "pop-mentality", "pop-psychology", a nation of lolli-pop-heads). You must be like what, early twenty something? Have you EVER been outside of this country? Have you EVER been to Europe? Mexico? Canada? Cuba? I don't mean just the little tourist traps where you see what "their" government wants you to see, but explored some of these other countries? Met people from other nations, had ANY kind of friendly relation with a person from another country/culture?
So, we should just ATTACK!! Damn the torpedoes FULL speed ahead... Nukem till they GLOW!!! Despite the FACT that those involved with 9/11 weren't from IRAQ, but MOST were from our BUDDIES the SAUDIS!!! Why then haven't we ATTACKED THEM?
YES we are THE MOST POWERFUL nation but that power comes with an even GREATER amount of responsibility and required temperance. ALSO, it requires a certain amount of intelligence and wisdom to think BEFORE we act.
Oh that's right, responsibility is something Americans (most) don't believe in anymore. Temperance, thought BEFORE action, instead of RE-action, that's right these too don't mean a DAMN thing...
I believe in taking action but NOT before we KNOW who is responsible! We KNOW who is responsible, but because the RICH have connections and TIES to those responsible AND have a strong control of the GOVERNEMENT (OUR government), the PROPER course of action is NOT being taken. Nor will it...
PROPER action should be taken to severely pressure the governments of Saudi Arabia and the surrounding countries, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Isreal, Palestine, Turkey, Iran, in fact MOST of the nations in that area to cough up those that are terrorists. You want to cripple a nation? CUT THEM OFF!!! Don't NUKEM! That just makes us MORE enemies, it makes US the enemy. Then EVERYONE sees us as an enemy if we just go in and without THINKING blow shit up!! Also, that crap that drugs lead to terrorism? What about the FACT that the country we liberated but don't care about because they don't have oil (Afghanistan) is one of the LARGES OPIUM producers of ANY nation? That certainly sounds like "feeding grounds" for terrorism.
Solution?
CUT THEM OFF!!!
Cut them off financial, economically, trade
SURE it will mean hard times for us, but it will be worth it in the long run.
BUT because the rich and the businesses control our government this will NEVER happen. It would take and EVEN GREATER amount of Chutzpah and BALLS to do it then it would to NUKEM! That's the EASY way out... but without THINKING about it, we wouldn't realize till it was too late that we have just turned EVERY OTHER NATION against us. You want WW3? Go ahead support that CHILDISH, TWO year old mentality.
We should have been researching new technologies to replace fuel when we figured out (twenty years ago) that we would start running out of crude oil around 1999/2000. (In other words we are using more then the capability is to produce and pump out.) HAVE YOU SEEN what the Saudis have in terms of riches? The opulence of those palaces? The CACHES of MONEY, Au (that's Gold for those that don't remember chemistry), Ag (Silver), jewels are SO vast!!! It is mind boggling to see.
If you want to nuke someone Nuke the Saudis, start saving for a hybrid car that gets BETTER then 45mpg to use less OIL, use more natural fabrics not ones which are petroleum based to use LESS OIL, and for GOD's sake do a little research before saying anything THAT m
Re:Terrorism forces us into a no win situation (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I understand why so many Americans need shrinks...
Do you realize how scared, you as a nation, are?
Seems like many people are scared of "What goes around, comes around" problem.
Blame the enemy, not us. Most Americans do not want to rule the world. Hell, most Americans would really be happy if the rest of the world would just leave us alone and we could get our government to reciprocate to them.
You *really* need a shrink.
Most of the world would be happy if Americans left THEM alone. You seem to have problems with understanding things, since noone is bothering USA - it's the other way around.
Hell, USA bombed me in 1999 and you're telling me that you want to be left alone?!?
Right. So, you bully people all over the world, and come back later with "Blame the enemy, not us".
So logical, how come I didn't think of it?
As a sidenote - I wonder how noone realized (in writing
It's always about the money people, not the moral or right/wrong...
Re:You are entirely correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not? Because you don't want to?
Either they drop their weapons and live a peacefull life,
Frankly unlikely given the provocation you're dishing out.
or we hunt them down in their neighborhood
Great. When does that start? Oh wait...
Given that plan seems to be a miserable failure I guess you should start thinking "outside the box". Maybe slowing down on the provocation and speeding up on the reconciliation might be helpful. Sure I don't expect Bin Laden to just shake hands and walk away, but he's only one man, and Al Quaeda is just a few. If you get the rest of the Islamic world on your side, they'll be trivially easy to defeat. But your current course of action is doing the exact opposite. It's a war that can never be won.
It would seem the UK is just now starting to realise this at a personal level
What? The UK has been living with terrorism for years (strangely enough, mainly funded out of the US). We know what it is, we know how to continue living our lives without running around like scared kids with machine guns.
And if I say so myself, they executed a response much more quickly and efficiently then our government in the US.
Indeed we did. The police found and arrested those responsible (well, those who didn't blow themselves up), and those who assisted them. They will be subject to criminal trial through the justice system. They will not be sent to a torture camp, the evidence will not be fabricated and we will not invade anywhere. We'll deal with them like we deal with all criminals.
the Pentagon should be taking notes from the UK
Finally we agree on something.
Re:N.B. Preemptive != Preventive (Score:2, Insightful)
The Iraq war was a preventive war, not a preemptive one, but the administration did its best to make it look preemptive.
What was it trying to prevent?
Re:You are entirely correct (Score:4, Insightful)
You mispelled "a group of privileged nobles".
One rule of pretty much every government: keep your freinds close, and your enemies closer. John treated his barons like crap. How else did he think he was going to hold onto power?
At least Bush keeps his barons fat and happy. When you've got that, the Constitution doesn't really mean jack shit.
Re:Mutual? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, judging by his actions, George W. seems to think the destruction of an American city is an acceptable outcome for his domestic policy.
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Terrorism forces us into a no win situation (Score:5, Insightful)
What do we do, aside from wringing our hands and saying we can't kill large number of civilians to fight terrorism?
I'll tell you what we do:
We give them what they want! We get the fuck out of Saudi Arabia!
Trust me on this one. I know it's romantic to say "Never give in to terrorists", and all that, but I know what I'm talking about. I do actually hold a recent degree in History, and I did take several courses on the History of the Middle East, including a 2 semester sequence on Middle East history, and an in-depth study of The Arab-Israeli conflict. I've studied the history; I've read the origional source documents and researched the events. I've debated the merits of several systems of governance in post-Saddam Iraq.
What we're not doing, because we're typical American blowhards, is we're not listening to what the terrorists are saying. If we're going to bomb them, and arrest them, and occupy their land, as if they were a country, then we ought to at least find out what they want.
What Osama Bin Ladin wants is what the vast majority of Muslims (especially Sunnis) want: The U.S. out of Saudi Arabia. After Gulf War I, we never left. This is sacreligious to most Muslims - they take the sacredness of the land much more seriously than we do. It would be akin to Russia building a military base on an Indian reservation in Oklahoma, or Korea setting up a forward outpost right next to George Washington's Boyhood home; and even these don't do the feeling justice.
But, we're all too busy listening to Bill O'Rielly, who proudly proclaims that these quote "radical islamists" endquote (islamists isn't a word; Islam is the religion, Muslim is the word describing the follower - we don't say Judeaists, we say "Jews") are trying to kill us and our wives and children, and convert all of us to their radical islamist ideals, which is just plain false. They just want to be left the fuck alone.
No one is asking "Why do the terrorists attack us?", and possibly as important, "Why do they have popular support?". We assume we know the answer - "because they're all fucking nuts". The answer is:
"The terrorists attack us because we give them reason to attack us"
and
"They have popular support because we constantly prove what the terrorist figureheads say is right, time after time".
If we don't give them reason to attack us, then their attacks will become less and less frequent, AND they will not have the popular support of the Muslim people. If we pull out of Saudi Arabia, stop unilaterally supporting Israel*, and leave Iraq, and basically leave the Muslim world alone, what grounds will they have to attack us? If we do all that, and then an attack comes, the world (including Muslim nations) will know we're innocent, and use peer pressure to stop those attacks.
The terrorists accomplished their goals on 9/11/01, America. What were their goals? To provoke a war. To make America hated and despised. To bankrupt the nation. To bring about the death of civil liberty, and the birth of a police state. They don't want to kill us. They want to make us afraid.
Mission Accomplished.
~Will
*Think pulling out of the Gaza Strip was a good thing? The other half of the deal went like this: "We'll pull out of the Gaza strip, but we're denying right-of-return rights to Palestinian refugees". So, now we have 15 million Palestinians who are stateless. The UN has repeatedly tried to censure Israel for the things it constantly does to the Palestinians; but it can't, because censure requires votes from all 5 members on the UN Security council: The US, the UK, France, Russia, and China. Guess who constantly vetoes any anti-Israel measure?
Re:And in other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
I miss Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman. Give me Bill Nye over Michio Kaku any day.
Re:Terrorism forces us into a no win situation (Score:5, Insightful)
So imagine you're a peaceful Iraqi guy minding his own business, who's family was just wiped out by a US cruise missile. Now do you understand? Violence begats violence. The only way to survive is to break the cycle. Be the better person.
Re:Preemptive Impeachment (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Times have changed (Score:5, Insightful)
You aren't seriously suggesting that Ollie North was committing treason by selling weapons to a declared enemy of the USA (Iran) while working for the US military are you? That would be like saying the money wasn't being raised for a good cause anyway - funding right wing terrorists in Central America. It would also be like saying that skimming off money for a personal commission was also wrong, or the current administration giving him another job after all that was wrong.
When the leading lights of the USA compare themselves to the founding fathers are they really talking about Arnold, Wilkinson and Burr?
Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the obvious thought process goes something vaguely like this:
"Ya see, we've got this big behemoth that is trying to tell us what to do, and they've recently shown that they aren't afraid to invade other countries, and they've made it abundantly clear that they consider us part of their "axis of evil," right there in the same category as the other countries they have invaded. They're totally fucking crazy, you know - they're the only country to have ever used a nuclear weapon on another country, and they've done it twice. Now they're posturing against us, pointing their nukes around the planet willy-nilly, and we've gotta defend ourselves. Now, we all know the concept of mutually assured destruction - it would be insane to attack a nuclear power using nuclear weapons, because nobody can win. They have nukes. We don't. They're pointing their nukes at us. We better hurry."
Re:Bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
InnerWeb
Re:You are entirely correct (Score:1, Insightful)
So you're going to lock people up for the rest of their lives for committing no crime? If they have committed crimes, prove it in an open court and convict them properly. If you can't do that, you're no better than the terrorists themselves.
Re:_Great_ analogy (Score:0, Insightful)
Yes it should becuase its not true.
Thats like saying "one man's serial killer and baby rapist is another man's nice neighbor who doesn't make too much noise."
Your an idiot.
Re:Bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Bad mood? Lovely. (They tried to kill my pa!)
And thereby force thousands of his fellow countrymen to take up arms against his regime.
Not to mention aligning EVERY other nation against us. Go ahead and fight the world if you like, I won't be with you.
He throws a nuke at anyone I'd imagine the next shots will be in the US from revolutionaries.
Thats like saying he should have the right to wipe your whole neighborhood off the map because of some house full of idiots.
No one should have that power, especially one who hasn't seen warfare in person.
That amount of power is 100% contrary to the foundations of the USA.
Jackass.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mutual? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Terrorism forces us into a no win situation (Score:3, Insightful)
So imagine you're a peaceful Japanese guy minding his own business, who's family was just wiped out by a US Army Air Force firebombing in 1944.
It worked before. Why are the Japanese and Germans so passive and peaceful today when they were so consumed by militarism 60 years ago? The answer is that their society was so totally destroyed that they had to change. There was no longer any way to sympathise with Nazism or Shintoism. Would "being the better person" have forced change on those societies? Are you cool with having a viable Nazi movement remaining in Germany? I'm not. The choice to bomb them until they submitted was the correct one. Turning the other cheek would not have worked.
Re:Mutual? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is, today, September 12. Four years and one day ago, it was September 11th, 2001, and I was in New York watching the dust cloud rise. And it's just remarkable, just stunning... I mean, who could have predicted that four years later, the most powerful nation on earth would yet to have brought bin Laden to justice for what he did? Who could have believed that instead, the administration would use lies about WMD to invade a nation with no connection to 9/11? Who would have believed that we'd be in an endless guerilla war with almost two thousand American lives lost and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead. That a nation which prides itself in being a beacon of freedom would be torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib and running a gulag in Cuba. And there's no end in sight to any of it. It's just disgusting. And profoundly sad. What's happened to my country? We rose up after 9-11 but somehow in the past four years, it brought us down so low, I barely even recognize the country anymore.
We shouldn't be giving this guy the authority to use nuclear weapons. If he were watching TV in my house, he wouldn't even be entrusted with the remote control. God... just, one day, I want to walk up to him. And spit in his face, and then walk away.
Why global thermonuclear war? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't anybody remember the W.O.P.R. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes, there was (Score:5, Insightful)
Osama Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire but he's jealous of you yeh right.
You know how the UK stopped Irishmen blowing up our cities. We spent nearly 30 years of getting ever more draconian and then after actually negotiating with the terrorists we've had virtually no trouble with them at all in the last 10.
It may turn some people's stomachs to see Gerry Adams being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize but up until our ass-kisser leader dragged us into a pointless war, UK citizens didn't have to worry about being blown up anymore.
Re:Use 'em (Score:1, Insightful)
But I guess that makes too much sense to actually be carried out.
Errr, yes.
Re:Mutual? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just another example of the sheer, utter incompetence of the Bush administration.
Can't find Bin Laden. Can't respond to natural disasters. Somewhere north of $400 Billion down the "war on terror" hole and it looks about as successful as the "war on drugs" started by the original sainted Republican, Ronnie "Iran-Contra" Reagan.
Boy, but he sure got the "values" crowd in this country fired up - the same people who think it's logical to bomb abortion clinics to stop the "murder" of "babies".
After beating on Clinton and Gore for every little misstep they made over eight years, the press must have been tired, because even after Katrina, they're still taking a nap. Bush could cornhole a dead boy on the White House lawn and Fox news would fawn over him for making that particular butthole safe for democracy.
Sure, let's make it policy for the man responsible (and I use the word very loosely, since he never seems to take responsibility for ANYTHING) to fire off a few nukes when he feels like it, without provocation.
I know I feel safer. Not.
The USA as a third-world dictatorship... (Score:1, Insightful)
Consider the USA as a third-world dictatorship with an overabundance of natural resources/wealth.
How would such a dictatorship behave?
When it needs oil, what would it do? Would have a phenomenally high prison population? How would it treat its poor? How would it treat corporations that were investing in its country? Would it put more money into its military than in public services?
When it needs cheap fruit, would it set up bananna republics? Would it sign any global laws/mandates that would require it to make concessions? Would it pay back any tariffs it stole from its neighbours? Would it support the UN? Would it start wars based on lies? Could it use religion to suppress the masses? Would its education system be very good? Would it offer socialized healthcare?
Being the biggest badass on the face of the planet, what sort of nuclear policies would a US-sized dictatorship hold?
Things that make you go hmmmm.
For the record, I don't think the USA is a dictatorship. But many of its behaviours seem to closely parallel those one would expect of a dictatorship.
At any rate, I find it an interesting intellectual exercise.
Re:Mutual? (Score:2, Insightful)
THIS CHANGES NOTHING AND MEANS NEXT TO NOTHING!
This is just another stupid policy paper to keep the staff busy. It's nothing more than a reminder to anyone (mostly other governments) who have the time to waste reading such papers that this is the official US government policy. And it always has been bush changed nothing, not a thing. There are thousands of these papers published each year, this one got mention because some reporter thought he could stir up the reactionaries and get his name in the light a little.
Re:Mutual? (Score:5, Insightful)
The hurricane wasn't caused by policy. Obviously
The flooding on the other hand, was caused by the degradation of the surrounding swamplands, cleverly placed there by God/nature/whatever to absorb the excess water from exciting weather events
The levee system, it was forecast several years ago, was not even up to the task of resisting a smaller hurricane than Katrina. The Clinton administration had spent 500 mill on it, but funding dropped considerably under Bush.
The advance response was non-existent, the President being too busy with other affairs, and preferring to plead ignorance after the fact
Additionally, National Guard and Army troops, who would normally be called in to assist in major emergencies, were not available at this time, being elsewhere engaged.
Oh wait I see, you were being ironic. You're right, the poor levee maintenance and lack of military personnel and lack of preparatory response weren't caused by President Bush's domestic policies. They were caused by his obsession with foreign policy.
That's a very subtle and clever point you made, well done
Re:Mutual? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you mean the legislation he signed to go ahead and get 'the big one' out of the way.
Perhaps he wanted to do his oil buddies and Halburton a favor and cause a crisis.
Davy Crockett (Score:5, Insightful)
The Davy was a recoilless rifle that fired 1 kiloton nukes and was developed years ago. Yes, there are 155mm nuclear rounds (some are rocket propelled and laser guided) in addition to VX, blister, mine deploying, etc. Do not be surprised at the disgusting genius of weapons designers. There exist some truly horrific means of mass murder and nuclear munitions is just one. Personally nukes don't scare me as much any more. They are fairly easy to track, difficult to build and deliver and suffer from scalibility and engineering issues to make the big ones. There is also a certain stigma attached to them.
Biological weapons scare the living shit out of me. They are difficult to develop, but can be easily mass produced and delivered. They kill indescriminately and can be made self sustaining. What is worse is that to defeat them, you have to devlopment them in the first place (this is the conundrum of any weapons research).
Let's all just try to get along, okay?
Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, of course I'd rather have a public that either takes the time to inform itself, or admits when it doesn't know. Who wouldn't?
Re:Desperation. (Score:3, Insightful)
This would be a more impressive figure it if included one or both of:
- An indication of how many aborted and/or prevented attacks there actually were during those four years.
- Some way of knowing how the numbers would change based on a more elegant and well-planned response.
Two countries that supported terrorism no longer exist.
Which countries are those? Did I miss the US invading countries other than Afghanistan and Iraq? Because those are still there, minus a tiny handful of their overall populations.
I think "shock and awe" was a valid description.
Yes, and I think theoretically it's a great strategy - just like it was when it was called a Blitzkrieg. But that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do in that particular situation.
Go ahead an tell me Iraq would be better off long-term with Saddam in charge.
I'm not a citizen of Iraq. The question should be "as a US citizen, am *I* better off long-term without Saddam in charge, given the cost?" and I think the answer is obviously "no."
Was he a vile person? Yes. There are lots of them in the world - including here in America.
Are the Iraqis mostly appreciative that he's gone? Probably. I think the lack of a significant anti-Saddam resistance before the invasion is an indication that it didn't matter enough to them that we should have cared either.
I think we had things right back in WWII. We stayed out of it until we were really sure it was necessary, and then we used overwhelming force to stomp all over the countries that deserved it. "Measure twice, cut once."
Re:Uh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yippee kayay! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know how the rocket science works, but a nuke launched from the US into NK will look awful lot like a nuke coming INBOUND to China. hmm...
Re:No... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:_Great_ analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope plenty of people wish death on the US Government because of their absolutely fucked foreign policy. And since tha US of A loudly proclaims it's a democracy for the people, of the people, yada yada, the terrorists assume (and rightly so 50% of the time) that the US citizens are 101% behind their government, thus, putting the blame squarely on US citizens. And this is why they want to kill you. I'm not saying it makes it ok. But I think this point needs to be clarified. They are NOT after you because of your "way of life" despite what OBL yells about all day long. They are basically after you because they think you are responsible for their loss of life and limb.
Re:Yes, there was (Score:5, Insightful)
Osama bin Laden is a psychopath. But you have a point. His supporters are often wealthy too. They have no reason to envy the US.
I have traveled the world over. I have lived in Muslim nations as a non-Muslim. I have traveled to countries which have seen the brunt of US covert actions. I have never met anyone who hated *me* because I am an American. Yet many people are frustrated and even outraged at our government.
In May of 2002, I was in Quito Ecuador. I used to go to an Indian restaurant, and once I started talking with one of the owners. Turned out he was from Iraq. He asked me where I was from and I told him "Los Estados Unidos" (the US). I will never forget the look in his eyes. Not hatred or anger. But pain and sorrow. Yet I am sure he was in Ecuador not because of my country but because of trying to get away from Saddam.
We in the US are often incredibly insensitive to the suffering our country causes all over the world. The problem is that once you are hurt enough, you may start to do little things to fight back. These may involve looking the other direction when a charity you give money to spends some of its money on donations to militant and/or terrorist organizations. It may involve actually willfully aiding such organization, or it may even involve volunteering into such groups.
Yes, we are the most powerful country the world has ever known. But the hardest lesson to learn is that, to quote an old Norwegian saying, the "Sheath is for Swords." Real power is best kept in reserve, always close at hand but rarely if ever used. Ever since WWII, however, we have been militarily involved in one place or another more or less constantly. We have caused immeasurable sorrow in the world, and consequently we have earned powerful enemies. People forget the lessons of Iran, or Chile, or Guatamala.
Do a google search for September 11, 1973 and see what shows up.... The result of that action by the CIA killed *more Chileans* than Al Qaeda did on the 28th anniversery of that event (if you assume that the 1100 or so that were "disappeared" were probably summarily executed in custody.
The truth is that we are hated for the same reason that we hate Al Qaeda. We are hated just as they are for our crimes against humanity. And those of us who truly love our country have an obligation to try to turn this around.
Re:Bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone hurting or killing others on purpose (that haven't been sentenced to death in a court of law) is a fucking terrorist, whatever their motive. It's just that when you have enough money, you can afford the PR to call it a war.
I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
But I understand that there is this thing called "International Humanitarian Law" that includes such things as the Geneva Conventions. Real freedom fighters should confine themselves to standards that are at least defensible under interational rules of war. Those that do not are terrorists, state sponsored or not.
For example, when I look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, lets look at acts of terrorism:
* Blowing up busses
* dropping 1-ton bombs on apartment buildings
* Indescriminant razing of neighborhoods in refugee camps
* Blowing up supermarkets
* Using ICRC relief workers as human shields
* Firing on PRC medical personnel and equipment with PRG's etc.
etc...
The *only* group which has a legitimate claim not to be a group of terrorists is Tanzim. Not Fatah, Not Hamas, Not the IDF. And Tanzim is only questionably so (it depends on whether Settlers are protected noncombatants under the Geneva Conventions). So a terrorist is a terrorist.
Back to the US.
Look up "September 11, 1973" and you will see what I mean. Personally I think that if Pinochet is to be tried for his crimes against humanity than his CIA buddies should be too. Same in El Salvador, same in Guatamala, same in Ecuador, same in Iran.
Strategic nuclear weapons IMO are terrorist impliments and the use of them ultimately qualifies as a terrorist attack.
A terrorist is a terrorist. It should go without saying that we should be willing to police our own government as much as we want to fight those who perpetrate crimes against humanity (though in revenge for what we have done) against us.
Those who truly love our country have a moral duty to try and turn things around before it is too late (it may be too late anyway but we have to try). I don't pledge allegiance to the President. I pledge allegiance to the *flag.* I don't owe allegiance to the president. I owe allegiance to my *country.* This is the essence of true American patriotism, deeply rooted in a mistrust for those who run our government.
Doesn't anybody read the Constitution anymore? (Score:2, Insightful)
What happened to Section 8 Powers of Congress to declare war ? Isn't that part of your democracy ?
Tell me a preemptive nuclear strike wouldn't be a declaration of war? Sure! It's like a pat on the head!
Or maybe, like Pearl Harbour, it'd just be an act of infamy ?
Where'd you get these Pentagon brains ?
Re:Bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, you appear to be insane.
It could just be ignorance, but the simple fact that you can read and write and have access to the internet rules against this.
One word for you: Cambodia. You want terror and devestation? They murdered two million of their own people. You want more recent terror and devestation? Try Iraq under Saddam Hussein (at least 300,000 Iraqis killed, plus another million in the Iran/Iraq war). Then there's the 100 million people killed by communist regimes during the
When it comes to terror and devestation, actual terror and devestation, America is strictly in the little leagues.
Re:I think I speak for a lot of people when I say. (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF is wrong with our government?!?!?
In a democracy, people get the government they deserve. It is the responsibility of USA citizens to stop the madman in the Whitehouse. If you do not, you are part of the problem. As things stand, the majority of USA citizens that can be bothered to vote want Bush. You guys had the ability to kick him out of office last year, and you didn't. He represents you. Your fault. Do something about it.
Two-party == dictatorship (Score:1, Insightful)
The difference could vey well be that there is one big dictator family controlling it all and taking turns being chief. Some of them is against abortion, some for. Some against death penalty, some for. All raving lunatics hell-bent on absolute supreme power, wealth and oil. Or something.
A two-party system is a joke as any means of ensuring democracy. There are just two very similar parties to actually choose from, now how different is that from the evil one-party systems that are in place in dictatorships? It must be soooo much better.
Re:You're not reading the WHOLE of the article (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the opposite of BOTH is to recognize the massive culture clash and spend time and money on research to find out the best way to reduce that clash until both societies can co-exist.
Appeasement is to destroy one culture. Aggression is to destroy the other. Someone loses, both ways. The only way to win is to not compete on that basis. (In the same way, the optimum solution in commerce is cooperation, not competition. Americans ignore that one, too, though, even though they discovered it.)
Re:Bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus depriving future generations of valuable natural resources by using it up now to maintain the current egoistic way of life might also be called terrorist. Blocking fair trade agreements and thus exploiting many poor countries inhabitants, all to protect your own aggressive economy, causing much suffering and deaths as well. If you cannot see why many in the world today consider the US to be the main bully, and yes, terrorist, it is time for you to wake up and open your eyes.
Re:Maybe so... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that once they are used, there is no going back...it may trigger all manner of unintended consequences and be be just the beginning of a hell we never imagined possible.
Re:Bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
> or sought nuclear weapons before Gulf War II....
Of course they have---they've probably done both. Which is precisely why we don't want to back them into a corner where they feel like they have no choice but to run hell-bent for leather for a nuke. They're about the last countries we'd like to see have one, but by our actions (compare responses to Iraq and North Korea) we're telling them that they need nukes, pronto.
I'd rather not tell them that.
Of course, I'd also rather not nuke them. Any bets on how long it would take after nuking one of these countries before radiological materials "accidentally" fell into the hands of terrorists for use against the US?
Whipping out our nukes is a wildly unsafe idea.
Re:I think I speak for a lot of people when I say. (Score:2, Insightful)
I think I heard a statistic on a television show the other night stating that 20% of adults think the Sun revolve around Earth.
And, unfortunately, the numbers of these people are such that they over-ride those with - you know - common sense on their side.
It's a little dishonest to say that "Americans get the government they deserve". No - 100% of the country gets the government 52% of the country is ignorant enough to choose. That, my friend, is democracy.
Iran (Score:3, Insightful)
This is probably designed to scare Iran into submission. Problem is, that sometimes bluffs get called. Then we will have to go through with it. Then how will the world (esp the muslim world) regard America to be the only nation to drop the bomb? Twice.
This is going to backfire badly.
Re:Bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
1: PHEAR? sounds like a tactic that only a terrorist would use.
2: This completely ignores the logic of religious fundamentalism. The fundamentalist wants to die in service of God and recieve his reward in the afterlife. In particular when talking about islam which specifically states that no man can delay or advance the chosen time of their death. That is in Allah's control (to paraphrase the Quran). Thus you can not actually kill anyone any sooner than he would have died anyway.
By definition the fantatics who we are at war with will NOT fear.
It is a lot easier to be a fanatic than it is to face the cold hard reality that all the suffering in the world is actually FOR NO GOOD REASON.
The only thing a fundamentalist fears is God.
And as long as we continue citing GOD we will continue to breed fundamentalists and extremists.
It's time to put our mythologies back in the past where they belong. Neither the Vatican, the Mullah's the Rabi's nor your favorite TV evangelist has a fucking clue what happens after we die.
This is a war of ideologies. The only problem is that the fundamentalists hiding in Al Qaeda cells and the fundamentalists from Washington who spend 4 months of the year on vacation both espouse the same basic one:. "God is on OUR side. Sacrifice the present earth all for eternal paradise in kingdom come."
The side of REASON has not even woken up to the reality that it is faith which is the root cause of terror.
As to the deterrent effect a preemptive strike policy would have: such a thing presupposes that the US will in fact only nuke those who have WMD based on incontrovertable proof. however since nukes will destroy all the evidence we will never have any and we know the policy will simply be a means to put fear into others to make economic concessions (same old game). Consequently it will create a new nuclear arms race to insure MAD is still functional. (and as I said before it wont scare fundamentalists anyway).
As for the terrorists, they will simply need to operate INSIDE the united states. (which 911 shows they have been already). Is the United States going to pre-emptively nuke itself?
Re:No... (Score:1, Insightful)
Nice to know you can read minds from thousands of miles away from good ol' 'Dear Leader'! So you do read his horoscopes and predict his intentions from that too?
Re:Basic (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please, spare us yet more of this ridiculous bomb them back into the stone age idiocy that fails to realise what epoch we're in and who we're dealing with. Please be absolutely, unconditionally assured that no-one in the world doubts the ability of Americans to utterly miss the point and bomb the hell out of "rogue nations", utterly unaware that they're fighting last century's kind of war. The terrorists escaped by foot and horse while you "bombed Afghanistan into the Stone Age", killing more innocent civilians than ever died in 9/11, largely for the benefit of Fox News. So it's all good; no-one doubts your ability to make this kind of dumb fool mistake, just as few now doubt that America is, indeed, a paper tiger when it comes to writing checks the electorate's stomach can't cash. Like a sustained military occupation of Iraq, for example. But, it's true, putting more power in the hands of a prat like Bush will certainly drum the point home to anyone who hasn't been paying attention to your murderous platitudes about trigger-fingers and righteous bombs.
Re:Yippee kayay! (Score:4, Insightful)
Have they no suitcases?
Are they unable to covertly contact terrorist organizations?
Have they no legitimate-seeming cargo containers?
A missle is a rather unlikely way for a nuke to strike the US, so forgive me if I find it uncomforting that nutball nuclear powers have poor missile capability. Kinda like I'd hardly feel better to note that a grizzly bear charging me did not, in fact, have the opposable thumbs required to hold a gun---that isn't why it's dangerous.
Re:Uh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then why do people fight back against a bully?
We don't think they're "fighting back"; they do. Until we work that difference out, I suspect you can expect to see continuing violence.
Re:Mutual? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you should consider the possibility that its not incompetence but malevolence, and that the Bush administration doesn't want to catch Bin Laden or break up Al Qaeda. When the Soviet Union collapsed the world started heading towards a dramatic reduction in military spending and decline in military threats and fear in the world. The right wingers absolutely HATED it. The couldn't stand the defense spending cuts in the U.S in particular.
9/11 was a godsend to them since not only did it allow them to reverse the defense cuts but they had an excuse to inflate defense and intelligence spending to new record levels today, and this is facing a rag tag terrorist band with few weapons, versus countering the massive armaments of the Soviet Union.
The right wing no doubt vowed that when a new threat came along to replace the Soviet Union, to justify the massive defense spending they love so much, to justify massive erosion in civil liberties they love so much, and to use as a fear mongering tool to get themselves elected, they no doubt took a vow to make sure they would do everything in their power that threat would last forever this time. There is a fair chance the current strategy is to nibble around the edges of Al Qaeda but make sure their leadership stays in tact so they can put out a video tape every six months or so to whip up a new round of fear.
The heart of the neocon philisophy is to create myths of good and evil to unite and heard the American people, American's always being good and everything they oppose being evil, hence the terms "Evil empire" and "Axis of Evil". This whole philosophy falls apart if you don't have something clearly defined, and clearly named to play the evil role, its Bin Laden on the global stage and its Al-Zarqawi in Iraq. Notice how the Bush administration uses the name Al-Zarqawi every time they talk about the war in Iraq, though in fact he probably has little to do with the vast majority of the insurgency which is based on former Baathists and Sunni's who are angry they've been thrown out of power. Al-Zarqawi is just evil role player the neocons love so much.
What are people afraid of? (Score:3, Insightful)
So what's this new bill for? Just strengthening the powers of GWB so he can visit some more destruction on the heads of whoever the heck crosses his mind? What good does that accomplish? It seriously sounds like a very dangerous law introduced for no reason at all.
Damn, I almost wish some other countries would show some backbone and state that they will launch their missiles if the USA passes this law. But, of course, it's hard to stand up against the big bully.
Re:_Great_ analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
Pre-emptive is a big problem, because if you go pre-emptive, then so will them, then you pre-empt that, then they pre-empt that, until basically you need to nuke them tomorrow before they nuke you in 100 years.
The only possible outcome is death for whoever the US feels might be a problem in general.
Looks like we're set for another stupid situation like in the 60s - Hey wasn't that you guys (US) again?
Re:_Great_ analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
Mmmmm... just like clear and present danger of WMDs was be required to go into Iraq, right?
I can't believe anyone still falls for bullshit like this.
Not content with invading countries in defiance of international opinion and signally failing to produce one scrap of justification, not content with failing miserably to install a democratic government and leaving some Iraqi citizens actually regretting the USA's involvement, now Bush is itching to re-start the cold war and MAD by posturing and waving his cock-compensating "nukerler" weapons at anyone who might have WMDs? And who decides who has them? Oh yeah, the same fuckwits who hallucinated the WMDs in Iraq.
Unfair? That's how the rest of the world sees Bush and the USA at the moment.
My only question is this: Is Bush actually fucking insane? We've only just finished the public nuclear standoff and MAD bullshit that occupied us for most of the 80s and half the 90s, and now he wants to start it again?
I hate to flame, but just what the fuck is wrong with him?
Stop reacting and start acting! (Score:1, Insightful)
Hint: Instead of making martyrs, you can make yourself martyrs. Now, you only seem like a big, insecure and scared bully. Honestly, as a European I see USA self-destructing itself and the rest of the Western world with it if you don't change course asap.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think I speak for a lot of people when I say. (Score:4, Insightful)
Troll or Most Retarded Post in the thread? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure the GPP was a bit over the top, but by seriously suggesting you don't understand where they're coming from you're more stupid than you appear. Sure, the liberals hate Bush and the religious right, but they also hate the terrorists. It's Republicans vs. The Terrorists, and the Democrats are merely stuck in the middle (all too often huddling on the ground in a puddle of urine with their hands over their ears).
The "liberals" think the right are similar to "the terrorists" because they have the same level of vitriol, prefer the same strategy (violence[1]), are motivated by paranoia or religious extremism, happily and easily reject facts (and greater reality) whenever convenient, and are completely incapable of rational, detatched self-analysis or self-questioning.
The right think "the liberals" are similar to "the terrorists" because they see the world in black and white - they literally believe "if you're not with us, you're against us". This is so fucking simple a child can understand it - it's the concept of "compromise" or taking the middle road. It is, however, useful to pretend they don't so they can accuse anyone faintly less extremist than them of being a traitor.
Nevertheless, you can't deny that it's extremely hypocritical to loudly condemn one type of religious fundamentalism (Muslim) for:
Unnecessary violence and invasive aggression
Repression of civil liberties
Causing civilian deaths
Repression of women
Possibly researching nuclear weapons
while your own fundamentalist-lead (Christian) leadership and population promotes:
Invasive foreign policies that risk turning the world against you
Police-state interior policies (PATRIOT act, etc)
Anti-abortion legislation
And actively threatening to nuke countries
Even reducing it to your stereotypes:
Any denomination of religious nutter with a nuclear fucking weapon is far more dangerous than any number of "terrorst sympathisers".
Footnotes:
[1] Although not the same tactics, due at least in part to the massive disparity in their material resources.[2]
[2] Reading it back, this sounds like I'm implying that the American Right might use terrorism tactics if it wasn't the overwhelmingly dominant party in the conflict. We can actually empirically test this - when the economy starts slipping, natural disasters deplete their resources, they can't afford (or recruit) a large enough army to continue the conflict and they generally perceive a slipping of their power, what do they do? Start waving the "fuck with us and we'll nuke you" card.
Setting off a nuclear weapon, killing the opposition but also killing hundreds of thousands of civilians... Exactly how is this different from (say) terrorists nuking the Whitehouse? They take out the people they hate, plus hundreds of thousands of civilians. Seriously - what's the difference?
And no, I don't buy into that whole "it's the government, so it's alright". The Taliban were a government, and they weren't "alright". This argument simply devolves into "it's us, so it's alright", and the same argument is used by fanatics, liars and psychopaths the world over.
Pretty obvious by now... (Score:5, Insightful)
This bunch of 5 gallon cowboys in 10 gallon are going to leave this country in a real mess. Watch real closely once Karl Rove's think tanks come up with the catch phrase (probably "Operation Compasion" or something) who ponies up to the trough following Katrina...Haliburton and the usual suspects are already there [cnn.com]. REALLY pay close attention when the word for the day is mentioned 14 times in a carefully test grouped speech and displayed on a big blue screen behind the President. It's worked for 6 years...why not now.
Re:No... (Score:2, Insightful)
Have fun trying that while the terrorists try the same on you.
to make people not support the terrorists,
By killing innocents left and right with flimsy justification, you achieve exactly the opposite. "morale bombing" was tried on a large scale in WWII. It failed.
to make countries sit up and control their own extremists.
At some point, what heavy-handed tactics achieve is that the countries instead are controlled by the extremists.
I think that we're far too tilted to the way of the carrot, rather than the stick.
You are 100% wrong.
Re:Terrorism forces us into a no win situation (Score:2, Insightful)
Your true colors come out when you say:
So you propose that 15million Palestianians should go to Israel? Not even the most radical left wing thinker believes this. The only people who believe this are the people who don't think Israel should exist (along with many other irrational ultra-left appeasment and appologist, racist views).
Some facts: Around 800,000 Arabs were driven or fled out of Israel when Arab states attacked Israel after it was founded. http://www.mideastweb.org/refugees1.htm [mideastweb.org] I have no idea how you came up with 15million but I am guessing you are referring to the size of third generation Palestinians who are refused citizanship by their friendly and concerned Arab "brothers" (in order to fight a proxy war against Israel - if you don't treat a wound it will fester slowly).
In that regard, I too am a refugee as are millions of people in Europe who were displaced in the first and second world wars. Do we get to "go back too"? The "right of return" is a subtle way of denying Israel's right to exist and in reality will at a most will require a symbolic monetary comensation from Israel to the Palestinians along with Iraq and other Arab countries proving the same compensation for the Jews where were expelled from those countries around the same time.
You must have done really well in your course to get your facts so right. Pinch of salt to what you say my friend...
Re:I think I speak for a lot of people when I say. (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing left to do is try to work within a broken system. Once again, our fore fathers left means to fix it, but I am sure any attempt to do so would get a label of unpatriotic, or a terrorists, or both.
Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. God bless America.
I'm sorry, but this has to be said. (Score:5, Insightful)
I deliberately said "not american" as opposed to "european" or "english", because that is fast becoming the only distinction required.
the USA, that is the people, need a wake up message, perhaps a wake up message in the form of your entire congress including the president chimp being nuked.
the WTC obviously wasn't a clear enough message.
"9/11" was ___NOT___ an attack on the american people or way of life or anything else, it was an attack on USA foreign policy as driven by USA monetary policy, hence hitting two buildings full of financial institutions.
If I wanted to slap the face of the USA ___PEOPLE___ I'd fly a jet into the Statue of Liberty, the one true global symbol of all that is american.....
if this has been done it would have killed maybe a hundred people, but rocked every citizen in the USA back on their heels as a personal insult.
no way lady liberty was "Overlooked" as a possible target, no chance in hell, ergo the perpetrators werem't after slapping you all personally across the face.
3 jetliners could have been crashed into three electricity stations around new york and thrown the city into anarchy, same as new orleans, but it wasn't done.
bottom line is it is really hard to think of targets that are more clearly and obviously specifically USA financial / foreign policy related than those that were hit
and yet you lot still do not get it
bush is still there, getting worse every day.
we don't care too much if he ruins america, we're sorry for you as citizens, but then you keep voting him in and who are we to interfere?
we do care if he ruins our countries.
bush is the village psychopath, as time passes and his behaviour worstens, more and more of the villagers are going to turn against him
sure, in the ensuing fight much of the village may be razed to the ground, but some of it will survive, if we don't do something about the village psychopath he will desroy ALL of the village.
USA citizens need to wake up and ask themselves is living in a destroyed US economy, like post katrina new orleans or a kurt russell vision of new york, is the future they really want, if not, it's time to cut loose, very publicly, from the insane chimp and his money men backers.
I guess we'll tell how blinkered you all are from how quickly this message is modded as "troll", if slashdot had regional modding you'd find non USAians modding it differently....
Re:I think I speak for a lot of people when I say. (Score:2, Insightful)
We live in a REPUBLIC. We vote for representitives that vote for "us". Sure, some systems in our goverment are democratic in nature, it doesn't make it a democracy.
I can't just march up to Congress and help change public policy now can I? Is that a democracy?
I don't care about how precisely the government should be run, but I want to have a say when they are doing something that I object to.
Re:_Great_ analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
And sometimes there really isn't anything you can do about the problem. You make something someone else wants. They take it, violently if need be. You live where someone else wants to live. You have food when someone else wants to eat.
Sure you can give up something every time someone asks for it, but how long will you last in that case?
Competition is the way of the world, and all the creatures on it do it all the time. If you decide you don't want to play the game, then you need to be glad that there are people with guns whose job it is to make sure you have that right.
Re:_Great_ analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Non-existent WMDs Baaaad! Real WMDs Gooood! (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, do you think the American public would be okay with not even trying to stop russia from putting nukes in cuba? Nukes aimed at us?
No, I do not think the American public would be okay with that. And no, I also do not think the government and people of Soviet Union were okay with the missiles in Turkey.
Once more, I reiterate the point: USA put nuclear weapons into Turkey first and had them aimed at the Soviet Union. Why do you think the Soviet Union should have accepted US nuclear missiles next to them, aimed at them?
Like you said: "no sane person purposely lets a potential enemy gain such a close striking position". The Soviet Union did to USA exactly what USA did to them, i.e. they positioned some nuclear missiles near the US border. The result was the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I would say that the correct action in this case would have been to exercise some common sense and NOT to position the nuclear weapons into Turkey in the first place. Eisenhower was very correct in noting that the step would be considered as "provocative".
Re:Method of living for the socially challenged: W (Score:2, Insightful)
For one, the U.S. is as big as western Europe. So we have to travel longer distances for a lot of things. Plus, our national passenger train system is, being generous, poor. It's slow and more expensive than flying. Mass transit in all but the largest cities is also very poor. Probably all consequences of always having cheaply available gas. Everyone could afford to have cars and drive around.
I hope one good thing that comes out of the rising fuel prices is establishment of better transit systems here.
Re:Whatever (Score:2, Insightful)
Explain to me exactly how anything except fighting and killing are going to get rid of a ready-made foe like that? (taking him and his minions collectively)
It seems that a long-standing deadlock followed by negotiation might work (IRA, ETA). I can agree that it's a difficult situation with decades or violence for both sides. Countries can be won by devastating show of force and negotiation in a shorter timeframe.
Would you in turn explain to me how exactly should one fight and kill a readily-made foe without making new foes in the process? Imagine the Britain fighting and killing every IRA activist. Your fight-and-win POV was appropriate back then when there were countries fighting each other, but even then it only worked in some cases. For example, a large group of people who desperately want to be independent cannot be "fought and killed".
Europe, while getting blissfully unaware and more and more shocked by wartime realities, seems to honor some ideas that I think are essential to lessening the total amount of aggression. First of all, in order to "finish" an affair with a country or a rebellion against a country, you need to still be worthy of trust. If your enemy knows you have compassion and can be trusted, there is hope for true peace. It doesn't even matter that much which one wins. But as long as the enemy is the Great Satan the best peace there is is still disturbed by a bomb going off every now and then.
USA is currently also not negotiating with anyone. Not even with its allies (while deciding about Iraq). This is an enormous show of selfish pride. It also effectively prevents peaceful solutions from arising. Think about it for a while. Nobody would really fight USA and hope for a military victory. Only the most angered would wish to go kamikaze at USA from sheer hate. They want something and they want it desperately. The world doesn't even know what they want because of the lack of negotiation.
The USA is treating islamist terrorists like Britain was treating freedom fighters in colonies in 1800s. Their some rebel scum not to be taken seriously and not negotiated with. Well, the rebel ideology prevailed, was eventually negotiated with, gained independence by negotiation. Peace, end of story.
I'm not saying USA shouldn't defend itself. It should, but it should be less preemptive and more negotiating.
there will always be external forces that will want to exert power over significant reaches of (or the entire) world.
Please explain why you think this way because I disagree with you strongly. It seems to me that after the colonial era, and very visibly after the second world war, at least Europe came to see that there's no greatness in conquering land area and bringing people under one's control. I think power is a primitive motivation and really, I don't know personally anyone who would be motivated by power. Even the USA is not trying to annex anybody. Actually, I can't tell of any recent examples except for Iraq possibly wishing to annex Kuwait.
Times are changing. You cannot tell future by studying the past. Some of us are desperately trying to make the global future into something very unlike our history. One reason USA is hated is that they seem to be counteracting what some believe is global moral development.
I do not believe that any culture can advance, for more than a few centuries at a time, on a technological front alone. Morals and ethics must not lag behind science, otherwise the social system will breed poisons which will cause its certain destruction. I believe therefore that with superhuman knowledge must go equally great compassion and tolerance. - Arthur C. Clarke
After all, we want to live peaceful lives. Democracy itself (real democracy, the kind in which people have power) prevents war because those deciding about the wars are the ones who suffer them. There are no longer material reasons for war in most countries. Religious fanaticism is declining (big picture, Bus
Re:I think I speak for a lot of people when I say. (Score:3, Insightful)
Or we don't believe any of that crap and just thought he'd do a better job than the other guy. Many people, and I'm saying 'many' based on an informal survey of group containing 'people I know who voted in 2004', thought that it was a choice between a bad and worse candidate. Neither were terribly appealing, and both had lots of negatives. Some (lots) of us who voted for Bush did so because we disliked Kerry, not because we thought Bush was right on everything.
--trb
Re:_Great_ analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
If you use them against terrorists you have very little chance of getting them. Even if you hit the city they are in most will survive. In Japan some girls working in a bank less than a mile from where the bomb went off are still alive to talk about it. Key to their survival was not drinking the toxic rain that fell afterwards.
The bomb creates tremendous heat and on large populated areas is so terrifying (terroristic weapon) that it scares your enemy into surrender. Which is exactly why we used them against the Japanese.
Anyway I just think the principles of the United States and what we advertise to the world should not be "we have nuke's and we can use them at a moments notice", but instead be "we want to help create a world where it is clear to everyone that fascist, expansionist empires are not a good idea and will not be tolerated".
Being a fascist, expansionist regime ourselves is not what the United States is about IMHO.
Re:I'm sorry, but this has to be said. (Score:3, Insightful)
But what are we to do?
- Assassinate him? Apart from the moral and ethical issues, good luck getting close enough. Besides, I think the machine (Cheney, Rumsfield, etc.) will move on without him; or, more accurately, use him as a martyr to move even faster.
- Vote him out? We only get a chance every 4 years, and so far he's a lot better at rigging elections than we are. In 2008, he can't run...but Cheney can.
- Impeach him? Fat fucking chance with 55 republicans on the Senate, and the House even worse. Bush could smoke crack on the White House lawn, then rape and eat a small child, and he wouldn't get impeached.
Frankly, our best chance at this point is probably a foreign invasion.
Re:Doesn't anybody remember the W.O.P.R. (Score:2, Insightful)
Cheers, uwe
Re:I'm sorry, but this has to be said. (Score:3, Insightful)
Believe it or not, in the whole scheme of things, Bush is not nearly as dangerous as the situation as a whole. The United States is currently on a very dangerous precipe where the evangelical right are attempting to sieze control of this country and turn it in to a religious state. Currently, in the US today, there are RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS operating in Washington DC with the INTENT of creating future politicians. It disgusts me. Things such as "intelligent design" are talked about as though they are scientific theories [I have no problem with intelligent design per se, but teach it in a bloody philosophy class, where it belongs not a fucking science class]. Rowe v. Wade could be overturned giveen what's going on with the Supreme Court [and I'm sick of pro-life, evangelical right people polarizing the issue for political ends, no one WANTS abortion to occur but it's a necessary evil]. The Patriot Act takes our constitutional rights and pisses on them as if they were meaningless; their are prisoners detained with no charges brought against them. What are we, China?
Fucking A.
So what about those supposed WMDs in Iraq? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:_Great_ analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:such ignorance... *sigh* (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't anybody remember the W.O.P.R. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nazism == Socialism (Score:3, Insightful)
Nazism killed many more people than that, 6 million is the count for Jews alone. But Nazism is a socialist doctrine, the name itself is an abreviation for "National Socialist German Workers' Party". Nazism was socialist both in its emphasis of government control of the economy, and social protection and welfare for the workers. Check for instance their "Kraft durch Freude" program.
Nazism may be called "right wing", but that's just an attempt of the "left wing" to differentiate. Actually, Nazist Germany and Socialist Russia were close allies at one time. Remember the so-called Ribbentropp-Molotov treaty by which the Soviet Union and Germany agreed on how they would split Europe among themselves. If Hitler hadn't coveted the natural resources of Russia, they would have continued to be allies. The proof that Stalin had no intention of attacking Germany is in the events from July through December 1941, when it became clear that the Soviet army was absolutely unprepared for war against Germany.
Therefore, the real distinction is not among "left wing" Socialists vs. "right wing" Nazis. If you want to distinguish between political streams, a better classification would be "socialist" vs. "capitalist", or the government taking care both of the economy and welfare, vs. a system where everyone takes care of himself.
Re:I'm sorry, but this has to be said. (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, you are the one who doesn't "get it" and those who both modded you up and those who agree with you. The terrorists who staged the 9/11 attack were in the US and training for the missions for YEARS before Bush was ever even a presidential canidate let alone a president. Bush was in office for less than 8 months at the point of the attacks. You can not seriously tell me with these facts in mind that you think the attacks were put in motion based on Bush? That's the most foolish thing I've heard aside from the tin foil cap kids who think that Bush somehow controls the weather.
Infact, if al-quada, an Afgan based entity, had any cause at all to attack the US it was because of Clinton bombing Afganistan! [telegraph.co.uk]. But to even try to end the blame there is short sighted.
I can only dismiss you as another person who has zero clue in these matters and somehow got modded as "insightful" over what is simply a knee-jerk reaction post.
Re:Extremely Bad Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
MAD didn't just discourage pre-emptive strikes. MAD downright forbade nuclear strikes of any kind. Using nuclear weapons was suicide, period. MAD was not a policy, it was a fact.
And it still is. Sure, people reserve an implicit "first strike" doctrine, but it really doesn't matter. Against any nuclear-capable country, a pre-emptive nuke still assures that everyone is going to die. Even more silly, we still have the capability to return nuclear fire while the first set of weapons are still in the air, so there is no additional protection offered by firing anything first.
The difference between now and 50 years ago, is that 50 years ago nuclear weapons were seen as a last resort that could end mankind either through regular terrible destructive power or through nuclear fallout. Fast forward to the administration of today, and we now have "tactical" nuclear weapons, a nuclear "pre-emptive" capability, and the stated right to use nuclear weapons against countries that may just be stockpiling weapons we don't like.
So far, everything I have read about this policy says that we should have nuked Iraq. I fail to see how that would have helped do anything but basically rendered the Middle East, and anything downwind from it, uninhabitable.
I swear there were terrorists there!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mutual? (Score:3, Insightful)
With apologies to Roosevelt: We have become of afraid of fear itself.
Capitalism encourages us to feel that not having the latest, greatest consumer product cheapens our very existence - thus we become jealous. Once we acquire these products, we want to hold onto them and acquire more, preserving our sense of status and increasing our sense of self worth - thus we become greedy. We are fed a daily doses of horror, terror, and bad human behavior by the media and the folks we put in charge - thus we learn to fear. We fear that the "others" are out to take our stuff and make us less than we were before.
Jealousy, fear, and greed are three primary elements required for control over any individual. Just ask any con man.
Re:Doesn't anybody remember the W.O.P.R. (Score:2, Insightful)
"look only at the numbers and geopolitics. You can hardly call it a 'disaster.'"
Iraqi civilians are dying at a vastly higher rate than under Saddam. Millions of people have been moved from a brutal dictatorship to a nasty civil war that shows every sign of leading quickly to a brutal theocracy. Saddams regime was quite terrible, yet at great expense in lives and money we have made things worse for pretty much everyone. How could one possibly not call it a disaster?
Re:Why no responses? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've lost count of the number of times I've good-naturedly (and not) argued on various topics on
1) I read up and realise I'm wrong (or they offer an argument I can't logically spot the flaw in), at which point I apologise and either admit I was wrong or agree my conviction has been shaken and I'll reserve judgement pending more thinking.
2) I fire off my arguments (not normally as vitriolic as this, I must add), wait eagerly for the other side's reply, and watch as they argue until they're backed into a corner, then just stop posting to avoid having to admit they're wrong.
Even worse, I often see the self-same people in other threads advancing exactly the same arguments I'd shot down in previous debates, who then stop posting if I point out the problems again.
I try to judge people on their merits, and try to avoid sterotyping wherever I can, but the only explanation I can find is that the majority of Republicans and ID proponents are simply intellectually corrupt.
They don't appear to believe what they believe because of evidence or rationality, and having it demonstrably proven their position is untenable doesn't make them re-evaluate it - it just makes them duck out of the fight and try the same arguments and same fallacies the next time.
This idea of grading things from "my point of view" to "your point of view" (rather than "right" to "wrong") is completely alien to me, and it's quite disturbing to find how prevalent it is.
These people need to understand reality is not "Pick 'n' Mix" - everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but no-one's entitled to their own facts.
The religious right in the USA might rail against "moral relativism" (basically, the idea that it is possible to hold a valid opinion different to their own), but they're demonstrating a much more dangerous habit themselves - factual relativism.
Such wholesale rejection of reality is a symptom of mental illness, and it worries me greatly when it's exhibited regularly by people controlling the most powerful nation on earth.
Re:Doesn't anybody remember the W.O.P.R. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm sorry, but this has to be said. (Score:3, Insightful)
we have a polotician or two here in the UK who, were goebbels resurrected, would gain a nod of recognition from him.
the thing is in the USA there are more of these people, and they are backed up by other with an agenda.
the hitler parallels aren't the half of, the real problem is the religious bullshit, basically everything the american machine is accusing "axis of evil" countries of, just substitute "(american flavour) christianity" for "islam" and "USA" for "current shitlist country with resources to be stolen" and you get a perfect match.
Re:Method of living for the socially challenged: W (Score:2, Insightful)
Worse yet, most US cities and towns have "grown up" around the car because gas has been kept so cheap. The design of our cities (with way too much sprawl) makes good public transportation very impractical. I live in Atlanta, and people commute to work here every day from various towns in 5 different states (Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, plus North and South Carolina). Many drive as far as two hours each way every day to combine affordable housing with a well-paying job. Many of them are dumb enough to drive all that way in a truck or SUV. When gas prices go through the roof, we'll be royally screwed, and it'll be our own fault.
Re:Terrorism forces us into a no win situation (Score:3, Insightful)
Silly little man. Everyone wants the money and aid that the US government doles out. They want us to bail them out when they falter on their loans.
They want us to get involved in their little border disputes. They want our support in their military (mis)adventures. They want our military technology, too.
They want access to our exuberant, spend-happy consumers with their penchant to overpay for cheap shit. They want our lifestyle, our culture, our baseline level of luxury that even our poor enjoy.
Nations come to our door like beggars to a church run soup kitchen. They extract promises and sign treaties. Then they run home and break their promises before we get a chance to do the same.
The world would be really upset if the US left them alone. However I think it is just what we should do.
Re:Doesn't anybody remember the W.O.P.R. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uh? (Score:2, Insightful)
How many times have I heard an american use this argument?! Countless! If anyone likes or dislikes America, it's not because of what America has. It's because of what America DOES. Some people dont like what you do (lie and invade other countries) while others like it (democracy, financial aid etc.) While others - like me - like some and hate some.
Re:Mutual? (Score:1, Insightful)
Bin Laden may have funded the 9/11 counterattacks, but the American people funded the warplanes that Clinton sent to attack Afganistan with missile strikes in the first place. You'ld think that a clear and direct violation of national sovreignty would make the Afgan people furious: it did, and that was why 9/11 happened. The attacks were directed at clear and symbolic targets: the CIA, who are the US's officially sanctioned assasination and espionage department, and the World Trade Towers, the powerful monied interests who fund America's violent military foreign policy.
Your warplanes shot missiles at another country, first, and that's why many of the locals there hate you. It's not because the terrorists "hate your freedom"; it's because they see you as a threat to their own. The 9/11 attacks were sent as a message to those in power to leave the rest of the world the hell alone; not as an attack on the general American public.
The fact that people let the media spin this counterattack into some sort of "the terrorists hate America" message is the real shame. Just keep your warplanes at home, disband your occupation forces in other countries, and keep your soldiers entirely within your borders. Keep the CIA at home; don't let them spy on anyone, and don't let them kill anyone. Stop threatening to destroy the planet with your nuclear warheads, like you and Russia both did all through the Cold War.
Take all those extra billions of dollars in savings, and put even 10% of it towards honest international charity, with no strings attached this time. Keep the rest for disaster recovery, like for hurricane Katrina. Watch all of the world's hostility towards Americans suddenly evaporate overnight.
Re:I'm sorry, but this has to be said. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Troll or Most Retarded Post in the thread? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just before the start of the invasion of Iraq, I remember reading about a number of pro-war rallies in various US cities. People were actually praying for war!
If we could find a way to peacefully coexist in freedom, we would.I think that opinion is not consistent with the reality of US foreign policy...
I would venture to say that before 9/11, most muslims shared a significant level of responsibility for terrorism.Following this spurious logic, should we also hold most Catholics responsible for the terrorist attacks committed by the IRA? Are most Asian people responsible for the genocide of the Khmer Rouge? Islam is not a monolithic whole you know...
They were not terrorists, but neither were they fighting against it.Are you suggesting that a person is automatically in favour of ideas/actions that he or she does not actively oppose?
We in the West have committed more than our fair share of crimes against humanity in turn. Do you accept responsibility for what was done in your name, regardless of whether you were aware of what was being done?
Do you spend all of your time, energy and resources opposing oppression and tyranny, even though it may be half a world away?
I don't, and I suspect that you don't either. So why would you expect "most Muslims" to do such a thing?
Re:Whatever (Score:3, Insightful)
If I ask for a more humble us policy I am committing sedition. If I disagree with US policy I am bashing the US. If I point out that the leaders made horrible calculation and mistakes and lead to misery and death all over the world I am not "injecting contextual backing". And finally it's important to take your big dick out act like a man and kill lots of people otherwise the bad people will get you.
Typical republitard thinking.
Answer me this. How come nobody commits terrorists attacks against the canadians, swedes or new zealanders? How come their embassies don't get taken over? Could be because nobody has a bone to pick with them? Could be that they are by and large nice people who help rather then pricks who mess with internal affairs of other countries and take control over their natural resources?
Nah, it couln't be that. You see the terrorists hate us because we are free, not because we actually have ever done anything bad to anybody. No sir, not us, we are the good guys (and we have huge dicks too!).
Re:We wouldn't nuke Iran (Score:3, Insightful)
And with that portable symbol they will conquer the whole world.
Just to set the record straight (Score:3, Insightful)
When you recount our supposed 'evil' without giving it contextual backing, you are bashing your own country. This is why I call people like you anti-American. You'd rather see your own country humbled because of some misplaced humanitarian notion that doesn't work in the real world. That's a seditious attitude whether you understand that - or not.
When I was discussing the lessons of Chile, Guatemala, Iran, etc. I was referring to the pain and suffering we have caused and the way in which this stokes the fires of those who would wish our country harm. My own personal judgement or lack thereof regarding the original decision is another discussion for another time. This is about hindsight (as you touch on) and making sure it can be applied in the future, not about whether any of us would make the same decisions with the same set of facts before us. The ultimate hindsight we have today is a part of that set of facts we can look at today regarding how to go forward from here.
I don't think it should matter what your political views are, but you have to admit that voter apathy is one of the worst threats to our democratic republic than any thing else-- as long as voters are apathetic, then corporate interests will always carry the day. On of our primary duties as Americans is to focus on raising the level of public discourse regarding these topics. By participating in this discussion, I thank you for your part of that. And I do appreciate that you are not simply dismissing my POV for this reason.
I have lived in other countries. My appreciation for what we have in this country in terms of both good governance and civil liberties runs deep, but we should not pretend that it is perfect. And the essence of American patriotism includes a careful scrutiny regarding the acts of our government (to do otherwise renders the democratic on which our republic rests largely meaningless). Open discourse of these issues is extremely important to our form of government.
I will also say that should the basic foundations of our society be changed by the combination of an over-extended executive and an activist court* (4th circuit, Padilla v. Hanft), that I will be the first to say that once the protections of our liberty which have served our society well since before the founding of our country are eviscerated by judicial and executive fiat, then I will at that point reconsider my loyalty to my country.
* I am sensitive to the weight of this accusation. However, for the 4th circuit to rule that an American citizen detained on American soil by ordinary law enforcement officers can be held indefinitely without normal due process rights, and without the possibility of a writ of Habeas Corpus (and in the absense of a Congressional suspension thereof), one is hard pressed to find any interpretation of the opinion in which the court was not seeking to rewrite the basic right to due process written into our Constitution both in the Invasion clause (Article I, Section 9) and in the 4th ammendment. Furthermore, they must have written this with full knowledge that the Supreme Court was largely deadlocked on Hamdi with circumstances far less suspect than those of Padilla. Either the court was negligently wrong or was activist.