Appeasement in the front end of the cycle (of history repeating itself again)

[Dachs]

I take it you don't buy into nuclear peace Dachs?

Correct. Even if it is true - and I strongly doubt that it is, because in my view, the lack of an open global conflict during the Cold War was a contingent, not a systemic, development - I don't believe that it would be desirable. There are much better, more effective, and less dangerous methods of ensuring peace than the maintenance of large arsenals of atomic weapons.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Eh, I buy into it hook line and sinker.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Advocates of the so-called nuclear peace claim that the threat of nuclear war has reduced the incidence of wars among nuclear-capable countries.

Well, that wasn't so much my point as I got the idea that we were discussing the use of nuclear weapons as deterrent/use of nuclear weapons at all as a moral good or bad. Wasn't debating the pros or cons of nuclear peace; I'm sure you have a lot more concrete things to put forward on that than I do.

 

[Dachs]

Well, that wasn't so much my point as I got the idea that we were discussing the use of nuclear weapons as deterrent/use of nuclear weapons at all as a moral good or bad. Wasn't debating the pros or cons of nuclear peace; I'm sure you have a lot more concrete things to put forward on that than I do.

I probably don't, actually. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the Cold War.

The point about the nuclear peace is that its advocates claim that the possession of nuclear weapons as a deterrent is a moral good - or some other form of good - that has supposedly led directly to the maintenance of peace, which most people would also consider to be a moral good.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Disclaimer:
I don't think it directly led to maintenance of peace (which was an unintended consequence IMO) nor do I think it is moral.

 

[Borachio]

I wouldn't probably be alive without nukes.

What, on account of Windscale? Or is it Sellafield?

 

[WindFish]

What, on account of Windscale? Or is it Sellafield?

Oh no, Polaris and Trident subs.

 

[Borachio]

So...you were born in one? Your Mum and Dad met in one? Without the nuclear deterrent...what?

:just curious:

 

[WindFish]

So...you were born in one? Your Mum and Dad met in one? Without the nuclear deterrent...what?

:just curious:

Nah

Without building the nuclear deterrent, my hometown would have become a ghost town in the early 80's and parents wouldn't have met.

 

[Neomega]

The real appeasement going on is the world standing by while NATO sets up a new empire in the middle East.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

This is the perfect thread for you Neomega.

 

[Neomega]

well, geeze, some stupid rubes in America are trying to tell me the muslim monster they created with their stupid wars and occupations is a serious threat, and they need people like me to join the army and go fight.

And this thread godwins from the beginning, trying to claim Iran is like Nazi Germany, which is just stupid, and the reason Godwins law was invented, so people don't have to waste time refuting such ridiculous comparisons.

Oh, and LOL @ they wantz a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

Where do these people get these stupid ideas? Certainly not from our "free" press.

 

[Borachio]

The real appeasement going on is the world standing by while NATO sets up a new empire in the middle East.

But this has been going on since the end of WW1, and the fall of the Ottoman Empire left a power vacuum.

This is nothing new. It looks like economic imperialism to me.

How our oil got to be beneath their sand is a mystery.

And nothing is going to change until we stop burning oil. Which is round about when there isn't any left.

 

[Cutlass]

Besides the whole blowing up/shooting thing?
Ignoring Iran which has been a pariah state for so long only the most extreme sanctions have any real effect, both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are weaker than they were when Bush took office. Whether the chaos that Afghanistan fell into following the removal of the Taliban from office and how Bush went about pursuing those goals is the issue for debate.

And most of that weakening happened after Bush left office. Iran was the primary beneficiary of the Bush foreign policy. We removed their primary enemy, allowed them to greatly expand their influence, and missed our best chance to talk them out of pursuing nukes.

Al Qaida certainly benefited from Bush policy. For they got to kill a lot of Americans they would not have had a shot at otherwise. Bush left their leaders alone, and made the US military sitting ducks for them. Certainly they lost more people than we did, but they can also more afford to, and the overall cost to us was huge. Not to mention that the US standing in the world was badly diminished.

The Taliban we forced out of power, and then Bush ignored them for 7 years while they regrouped. Eventually we will leave Afghanistan. They will still be there. They will still be the strongest force there. They lost little other than some time.

 

[Lord of Elves]

The real appeasement going on is the world standing by while NATO sets up a new empire in the middle East.

So we meet again, Mr. Chomsky.

 

[Neomega]

So we meet again, Mr. Chomsky.

I've never read Chomsky.

 

[Lord of Elves]

I've never read Chomsky.

You seem to speak about the evils of American foreign policy and global power as if you have. I don't know where people get this idea that the United States uses its fellow NATO states as pawns in a game of Anglosphere World Order Chess. It's hard enough to get our close allies to cooperate with us without talking about even further-separated NATO members.

 

[Neomega]

You seem to speak about the evils of American foreign policy and global power as if you have. I don't know where people get this idea that the United States uses its fellow NATO states as pawns in a game of Anglosphere World Order Chess. It's hard enough to get our close allies to cooperate with us without talking about even further-separated NATO members.

What world are you living on?
It's not hard to get NATO countries to start bombing.
When have they ever vetoed America's demands to bomb?

And it's not America's NATO, it's just NATO period, the armed wing of the international bankers and corporations. "American" interests don't even matter anymore. If they did, we would still have manufacturing jobs here.

 

[Lord of Elves]

What world are you living on?
It's not hard to get NATO countries to start bombing.
When have they ever vetoed America's demands to bomb?

And it's not America's NATO, it's just NATO period, the armed wing of the international bankers and corporations. "American" interests don't even matter anymore. If they did, we would still have manufacturing jobs here.

If it was so easy to organize an international monetary-cum-national conspiracy to do your bidding, someone would have used it to establish a Huxleyesque World State (or if you prefer, Orwellian Oceania) by now, replete with whatever means of population control you consider appropriate.

No nations' global or economic interests cooperate so seamlessly and uniformly.

 

[Neomega]

If it was so easy to organize an international monetary-cum-national conspiracy to do your bidding,

Do whose bidding? What are you talking about?

someone would have used it to establish a Huxleyesque World State (or if you prefer, Orwellian Oceania) by now, replete with whatever means of population control you consider appropriate.

Yeah, the entire Western media is owned by corporate interests that parrot everything NATO wants them to say.

We are in Orwell's 1984.

When have they ever vetoed America's demands to bomb?

Why did you quote this, if you aren't going to answer it?