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

[joespaniel]

India and Pakistan are not bound by the NPF treaty, they never signed it. However, I tend to think they currently would NOT sell nuclear bombs to anyone.

I am not so sure about North Korea.

Iran may be worth talking to. At least to give them a chance. If there are 300,000 US troops occupying Iraq, I couldnt think of a better time to open a diplomatic dialogue.

 

[vonork]

5. Also, this final point is rather OT to the NK situation but i deem it still relevant: One of the main reasons that China, again, along with most of the rest of the world, is "officially" opposed to the latest US-led UN resolution regarding Iraq is Bush's attitude. For that, i refer you to this article: http://www.msnbc.com/news/882083.asp

Good articel

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Originally posted by SSG Paul
In the case of WMD, stable has nothing to do with how long a person (dictator) has been in charge

still no defention of stable

Originally posted by SSG Paul
a leader who uses chemical weapons to kill civilians is un-stable.

Wait no wait oh yes i am mistaken agent orange ohhh wait no that wasnt chemical was it.

edit: I am not having a go at the U.S but the absolute hypocrisy of foreign policy still amazes and astonishes me

 

[Shady]

Originally posted by joespaniel
India and Pakistan are not bound by the NPF treaty, they never signed it. However, I tend to think they currently would NOT sell nuclear bombs to anyone.

I am not so sure about North Korea.

Iran may be worth talking to. At least to give them a chance. If there are 300,000 US troops occupying Iraq, I couldnt think of a better time to open a diplomatic dialogue.

Personally I believe it's good that both India and Pakistan have nukes. It will keep them from attacking each other like they came close to recently last year. It's completely analagous to the US-CCCP standoff because neither wants to start something.

I don't understand why Pakistan receives negative opinions from around the world. Just because they're an islamic state doesn't mean they're going to engage in the crap that saddam and his buddies deal in. In the war on terrorism, Pakistan has been the most effective country in catching top terrorists, most recently KSM. I think respect for their participation is long overdue but I don't see any of it.

 

[sween32]

i'm usually not a big fan of doonsbury but lately it's been pretty damn good and has been hitting this issue very hard...

 

[sween32]

i was cracking up with this one...

 

[vonork]

yeah that's a good one(posted it in humor & jokes) but I guess it is fitting here

 

[sween32]

Originally posted by vonork
yeah that's a good one(posted it in humor & jokes) but I guess it is fitting here

i rarely go into humor and jokes, didn't realize you posted it yesterday.

 

[EdwardTking]

Originally posted by smalltalk
Deterrence by mutual assured destruction was the doctrine since WWII.

Why isn't it valid anymore?

"Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) only came into being because:

1.) USA could not destroy USSR without losing tens of millions and vice-versa.

2.) USA was not prepared to surrender to USSR and vice-versa.

3.) USA and USSR did not trust each other.

MAD was all they had left! We are lucky that it worked. Fortunately neither the US nor the USSR were culturally inclined to use military means to propagate their belief systems.

Ultimatley 3 then 2 occurred.


MAD requires:

1) All parties to be rational normally.

2) Knowing that they will know it was you if you nuke them.


The problem with MAD today is that:

a) Many people such as Osama Bin Liden are not rational.

b) With so many countries having WMD; you won't necessarily be able to ascertain who has WMD'd you and retaliate accordingly;so they won't be deterred from WMDing you.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Cecasander


Like the US, you mean?
Talking about selfish people....

You mean like being as caring and compassionate as the Dutch were in South Africa and the East Indies? Oops.

EVERYONE acts in their self-interest, I don't care who you are. France does. Mexico does. Cambodia does.

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

EVERYONE acts in their self-interest, I don't care who you are. France does. Mexico does. Cambodia does.

And everyone gets critical of them when they do.

 

[amadeus]

Yes, because countries acting in THEIR interests may conflict with those opposing nations and their interests.

If the country who is acting in their interest has some sort of positive effect for the otherwise opposing nation, they'll keep quiet.

 

[Bose]

Australia doesn't act in our self-interest, we act in America's self-interest! If we didn't, and they dropped our alliance, we would all be speaking Indonesian...

 

[SSG Paul]

Originally posted by Ancient Grudge




Wait no wait oh yes i am mistaken agent orange ohhh wait no that wasnt chemical was it.

edit: I am not having a go at the U.S but the absolute hypocrisy of foreign policy still amazes and astonishes me

Was it known that agent orange would sicken/injure or kill prior to it's use? It's use was for deforestation, not to kill.
Also, I don't see the hypocrisy since the perps who used agent orange, are no longer in charge. Bush is in charge now, and I have never heard of him using WMD to kill civilians.

 

[Xiahou-Dun]

Originally posted by Bose
Australia doesn't act in our self-interest, we act in America's self-interest! If we didn't, and they dropped our alliance, we would all be speaking Indonesian...

So infact, it is in the self interest of Australia, right?

 

[Panda]

That site has some great posters, Sultan! Thanks for the link!

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Originally posted by SSG Paul


Was it known that agent orange would sicken/injure or kill prior to it's use? It's use was for deforestation, not to kill.
Also, I don't see the hypocrisy since the perps who used agent orange, are no longer in charge. Bush is in charge now, and I have never heard of him using WMD to kill civilians.

oh wait a chemical agent ofcourse not................

i wasnt commenting on that hypocrisy just the fact america/britain/russia/china etc are allowed to have WMD but we get mad when other people have them or try to develop them please dont confuse my points next time

 

[Cheetah]

Yes it is something to think over...

Why can some nations - who has used WMD - be allowed to have them, while others aren't allowed.

(As far as I know, only USA, Britain, Germany and France has used WMD in wars. USA used nuclear weapons against Japan and Britain, Germany and France used gas against each other in the first World War. (I might be wrong about Britain and France using gas, but I know Germany did, and I believe the others did too.))

I guess its because "we" don't trust the other nations. But then again I'm sure they don't trust us with the weapons either...

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Britain sure did we even gave iraq the idea for gassing the kurds arent we clever!

 

[sween32]

Originally posted by Panda
That site has some great posters, Sultan! Thanks for the link!

I actually BOUGHT the poster of this one....