1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

So, who's next: Iran or North Korea?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by joespaniel, Mar 9, 2003.

  1. smalltalk

    smalltalk monkey business

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,140
    Location:
    personality zoo
    Iran is on its way to a modern society. It might be the first big islamic nation to pull this of.

    As far as India is concerned: India has the highest population of the world. If India is not allowed to have nuclear weapons, then nobody should be allowed to.

    @gael:
    > ... its about unstable leaderships or forms of goverment in those countrys developing them and using them ...<
    Agree. Question is, who will decide, what country has an unstable leadership?
     
  2. gael

    gael Ard Ri

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    2,394
    Location:
    Ireland
    Quote:
    "Question is, who will decide, what country has an unstable leadership?"

    The people in a democratic countrys.
     
  3. jack merchant

    jack merchant Internationalist

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    3,911
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Sure, Saddam is stable, but you wouldn't want him to have nukes, would you ? And that was the original point.

    The problem with WMD, of the atomic variety, is that they never should have been developed in the first place. Now people want to put the genie back in the bottle, and the others who didn't get the genie out want to make their wishes too (nice convoluted metaphor, eh ? :) ). But just about anything that will stop WMD from proliferating is, imho, a good thing.
     
  4. amadeus

    amadeus As seen on OT

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    34,753
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Osaka (大阪)
    I'm abstaining from the post, as it's turn into a "I hate Bush" fest.
     
  5. Sultan Bhargash

    Sultan Bhargash Trickster Reincarnated

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2001
    Messages:
    7,608
    Location:
    Missing The Harem
    Oh, jeez, we'll miss your cutting insights!


    ...Like that last one, which has nothing to do with the last several posts...
     
  6. ozscott75

    ozscott75 Groper of Sand

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,113
    Location:
    Albany, Australia
    The point was made, as it always is in these threads about stability. I just wanted a definition of stable.

    One country deciding that their friends can have nukes, but treating the rest of the world like irresponsible children is not the way to stop WMD from proliferating.

    Perhaps making a first-move, showing leadership, setting an example may make a larger impact.
     
  7. ozscott75

    ozscott75 Groper of Sand

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,113
    Location:
    Albany, Australia
    There are many democratic countries who shift the political viewpoints like trees blowing in the wind. There are many 'democracies' who undertake some very questionable actions.

    Why should the people of one country decide what is best for the people of another?
     
  8. nihilistic

    nihilistic Intergalatic Delivery Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    Messages:
    3,261
    Location:
    NNYC
    Well, chances are that they don't, yet. If they did, they would certainly have tested it already. I'm not saying that we should act like Chamberlain in WWII. In fact, even if we want to act like Chamberlain, we can't. Hitler actually had a chance of winning, Kim has a nice shoreline to jump into for his suicide. These are two very different mentalities we are dealing with here.

    It has already been clear to NK that they have no chance of territorial expansion, and they have pretty much stopped trying. Their only fear is of course, invasion. Based on that, we can conclude that the treaties in place before Bush came into power, while still not very stable, is pretty much the best that can be attained at that time. Breaking it and issuing threats makes them desperate. If they come to believe that they will die anyway, they will certainly want their death to make somewhat a difference. The injured beast is much more dangerous than the healthy beast.

    Is that a joke? It better be. If it isn't you are giving us antiwar people a really bad name.

    The optimal answer is: "no one"
    The currently practical answer is: "no one else"

    India does not have the highest population in the world. India's government is not particularly stable due to huge internal conflicts over religion, caste system, and an the external conflict with pakistan. Conclusion: it should not have nukes. The obvious follow up question is: what about china? Well, the Chinese government is still a bit oppressive, but it is at least stable. Being stable and being representative, although related, are not the same thing. Being stable means that they wont suddenly have a change of heart and decide that neighbor A is scum and need to be eliminated.

    OK, I admit, it probably started somewhere near my post. I probably went a bit over the line addressing the president as the derogatory "Shrub". I'll change those references. But can you come up with a counterargument backed by facts and reasoning a tad higher than "we must kill them because they suck"?
     
  9. ozscott75

    ozscott75 Groper of Sand

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,113
    Location:
    Albany, Australia
    You assume I'm anti-war.

    It is serious, everyone keeps using the word stable. Having the same government for 20 years is pretty stable. Depends on your definition. That's why I asked for a definition of stable.
     
  10. Sultan Bhargash

    Sultan Bhargash Trickster Reincarnated

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2001
    Messages:
    7,608
    Location:
    Missing The Harem
    India has more population than China now.
     
  11. Peri

    Peri Vote early and vote often

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,261
    He only needs one war to show the world what a great and fearless leader he is. Two would be overkill.
     
  12. Shady

    Shady Why are you reading this?

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2002
    Messages:
    708
    Location:
    Gun Traffic
    As long as terrorism circulates and there are selfish people and regimes out there that embrace this quick cash opportunity I believe that it is just and probable for the U.S. to be involved in these preventive interventions. Turkey, France, and even my fatherland germany are being shameful especially considering that all had endless U.S. dollars pumped into them to rebuild Europe. It is more than time to pay some back instead of being a dealer, trying to get the best price and taking advantage of our policy to rather spend dollars than lives.

    I recently visited ground zero and just think back at that time when people were jumping out the windows and those things just splattered down. Think of the footage of kurds getting nerve-gassed. If Germany was to harbor and embrace terrorism to the extent of the Iraqi participation then I would even then fully support a preventive intervention.

    Basic prediction on the topic...I think NK has more urgency to be cleaned up since they are just a hub for arms trade and I'm sure future nukes would find themselves there at inflated prices. If we don't go in now it's gonna come back to bite us in the ass like pretty much everything did.
     
  13. Cecasander

    Cecasander King

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    799
    Location:
    Caught in a jar
    The though scares me that the US will probably be fighting four wars in five years, but it is a possibility...

    Afghanistan, Iraq, N. Korea, Iran, ....? (Cuba, Lybia, Jemen, Syria, Pakistan??)
     
  14. Cecasander

    Cecasander King

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    799
    Location:
    Caught in a jar
    Like the US, you mean?
    Talking about selfish people....
     
  15. Darkness

    Darkness Shadow creature

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    6,755
    Location:
    Rotterdam, the Netherlands
    Kinda OT, don't you think?

    Whether or not Americans are selfish has nothing to do with this topic...
    And I really don't think that the average American is significantly more selfish than the average West-European....
     
  16. jack merchant

    jack merchant Internationalist

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    3,911
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    India already has nuclear weapons and has had them for at least 20 years... Resumption of nuclear testing like last year ?(generating an outcry) tends to happen if Indian/Pakistani tensions rise up again.
     
  17. smalltalk

    smalltalk monkey business

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,140
    Location:
    personality zoo
    Deterrence by mutual assured destruction was the doctrine since WWII.

    Why isn't it valid anymore?
     
  18. nihilistic

    nihilistic Intergalatic Delivery Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    Messages:
    3,261
    Location:
    NNYC
    US has vice presidents; Saddam has body doubles. US presidents have the possibility to get replaced every four years; if Saddam isn't careful, one of his generals can displace him in one day. You decide.


    Close, but no yet:
    http://esa.un.org/unpp/


    Bush started with that mentality two years ago and basically pushed NK onto that path by second-guessing every South Korean official hoping to keep the peace. However, if you have paid any attention to the news, this situation is not irrecoverable. All NK is asking for for the moment is a US promise NOT TO INVADE, which is still consistent with what they indicated before. It's just that Bush still wont rule out aggression or or make a deal to tie nonagression to nonproliferation. If they know they are going to be eliminated by the most petty of reasons anyway, what is the point of agreeing to treaties?
     
  19. SSG Paul

    SSG Paul Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    254
    In the case of WMD, stable has nothing to do with how long a person (dictator) has been in charge. I will only touch on the most on-topic reason for a leader to be considered un-stable:

    Let's ask the Kurds who are still suffering from the effects of WMD Saddam used to kill thousands. In my book, a leader who uses chemical weapons to kill civilians is un-stable.
     
  20. joespaniel

    joespaniel Unescorted Settler

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Messages:
    5,260
    Location:
    The Old Pueblo
    And this is related to the discussion how? ;)

    Lets leave this out of this thread C, since the tone has been very civil otherwise.

    ok? :)
     

Share This Page