us nuclear policy, moral or not?

[Pongui]

It is a hasty assumption on my part to think just because this enormous industry exists as a psudo-governmental branch, and government in the US is often found to be corrupt, there is an interdependancy.

I'd guessed, while knowing very little about US federal party finances, for example, that the military could influence politics. But I don't know that!

 

[Pongui]

An example of that kind of non-conspirital-yet-awful control would be how media basically says what it's sponsor advertisers like it to say. Change your editorial stance, lose an advertising contract.

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by sniping_people
Where are you getting this info, just off a hunch? And you are so totally brainwashed. Oh dear lord, you're lucky I took the time to reply to you. Bush doesn't care about anyone but his oil rich tycoon family. You only see fundamentalism as evil because you grew up in a mainly Christian country. If you had grown up in Iran you'd think differently, believe me.

I've seen it in print several times, and I thought it was an established fact that the U.S. got less of its oil from M.E. sources than did the EU. Here's a link to one source:

http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol2/v2n4oil_body.html

The U.S. is strongly committed to protecting Gulf oil, although only about 10% of oil used in the U.S. is imported from the region. During the cold war, U.S. strategy was primarily aimed at ensuring that Gulf oil did not fall into hostile hands. Gulf oil was and remains important because of its impact on the global economy. U.S. competitors in Europe and Japan depend much more on Gulf oil than the U.S. does: 30% of European oil imports and nearly 80% of Japan’s come from the Gulf.

I know people who have grown up in Iran, before and after the fall of the shah. Most of the people I've met have been far less anti-american than you would guess. In fact, many if not most of the younger generation of Iran are vehemently against the Islamic regime currently in place. They'd prefer something more democratic and secular.

Fundamentalism is an evil, without regard to religion. Christian, Jewish, Islamic fundamentalism is all bad.

Oh, and I so love being called brainwashed by Canadians. Look at some of your own government's programs, particularly with regard to Canadian "culture".

Originally posted by sniping_people
You have no idea, do you? Do you remember Rwanda, late 80s early 90s, 400,000 people slaughtered over religious conflicts, the USA didnt do a single thing to prevent it. This wasnt bombs and guns slaughter, this was pikes and machetes slaughter. The USA could have intervened with very little force and still have an effect.

As could have Canada and the various EU countries, which are purportedly much more concerned with human rights than we in the U.S. I do not think it in the best interests of my goverment to interfere militarily in areas other than to protect our national interests.

Originally posted by sniping_people
American government was in there for all the wrong reasons. It made enemies by exerting government-sanctioned terrorism, and it should have to deal with the consequences without crying to everyone else for help.

In there? Where? Afghanistan? Iraq? In both cases we had broad based support for action. We didn't cry for support from anyone because frankly we don't need it. It's a nice thing to have, and it was good that the other countries of NATO decided to invoke article 5 without our asking.

 

[HotDog Fish]

I love watching these debates, Sean, Sniping and I admit NY Hoya are exchaning good points, these things are the reason why I stay at this board! But anyways, I agree with Sean Lindstrom on this whole debaticle that we call the middle eastern foreign policy

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
I'd guessed, while knowing very little about US federal party finances, for example, that the military could influence politics. But I don't know that!

Of course the military does, but so do many other sources with divergent interests. Military action is generally bad for business, and business (as a whole) is a much stronger lobby than the military.
People are afraid of the military-industrial complex, as compared to the healthcare-industrial complex? Or the social security-industrial complex? Or the repayment on debt-industrial complex? All three are much larger budgets than the military, and are growing at a much faster pace.

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
An example of that kind of non-conspirital-yet-awful control would be how media basically says what it's sponsor advertisers like it to say. Change your editorial stance, lose an advertising contract.

Not exactly. There are very few advertisers which will attempt to excert editorial control. Why? There are too many advertisers. If McDonalds won't advertise, Burger King will.
There are too many contreversial programs and such which recieve advertising money. The companies wan't to make money, not promote a political agenda. They won't operate against their own interests, and limiting their advertising reach is certainly not in their interest.

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
It is a hasty assumption on my part to think just because this enormous industry exists as a psudo-governmental branch, and government in the US is often found to be corrupt, there is an interdependancy.

I'd guessed, while knowing very little about US federal party finances, for example, that the military could influence politics. But I don't know that!

The defense industry in the U.S. has influence upon government policy as do many other industries and corporations. They look out for their interests through donations to politicians, lobbyists and the votes of defense industry workers. The same holds for automotive, technology and telecommunications corporations as well as labor unions like the UAW. All hold a certain amount of influence in our government and I don't think that's a bad thing. The defense industry does not determine the military and foreign policy of the country.

If anything, one would expect to be more cynical about the influence of defense companies in other countries, particularly Europe, where they are owned by the state.

An example of that kind of non-conspirital-yet-awful control would be how media basically says what it's sponsor advertisers like it to say. Change your editorial stance, lose an advertising contract.

I don't think the media is as beholden to sponsorship as you think. And often sponsorship is withheld due to public concern/outrage over particular shows/viewpoints/etc. As much as you may not want to believe it, most major corporations are still accountable to the consuming public. That isn't a bad thing is it?

 

[Vengeance]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor


2) Total acces to Afgani territory for oilpipes connecting the Caspian sea oil to pakistani territory.

This is a totally ridiculous statement. There is already one pipeline being developed from the caspian sea that will include the countries of Azerbajian, Turkey, Georgia. The cost of such a pipe line is extremely high although ultimately will work out well for europe. The idea that someone even entertained the thought of starting a second pipeline from the caspian to go to Pakistan is beyond me. As far as I can recall the American Oil Industry in the Caspian is situated in Baku, Azerbajian (the oil capitol of the world!) I may be wrong but I am pretty sure that there is no American activity in Kazakhstan. Now as I see it running a pipeline to Pakistan would mean going through either Turkmenistan - through Afghanistan - to Pakistan or through Iran to Pakistan. I don't see Iran conceeding to this. So that leaves the Turkmenistan-Aghanistan-Pakistan route. Do you see a problem with laying a pipeline through Aghanistan? Mountains, on a grand scale! The sheer cost of laying a pipeline on such rugged barren ground would be far more than the US could gain back. There are no plans to have a pipe line connect Caspian Oil to Pakistan. Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan don't have the Foriegn investment that Azerbajian has. Although Kazakhstan is attracting more attention.

P.S. How many of you have heard of the countries I mentioned (excluding Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan)?

 

[Vengeance]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor


I have always thought of Greenpeace as a sort of modern day Waffen SS. I mean, their fanaticism!

Such crap only serves to insult the memory of the Waffen SS.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Vengeance


This is a totally ridiculous statement. There is already one pipeline being developed from the caspian sea that will include the countries of Azerbajian, Turkey, Georgia. The cost of such a pipe line is extremely high although ultimately will work out well for europe. The idea that someone even entertained the thought of starting a second pipeline from the caspian to go to Pakistan is beyond me. As far as I can recall the American Oil Industry in the Caspian is situated in Baku, Azerbajian (the oil capitol of the world!) I may be wrong but I am pretty sure that there is no American activity in Kazakhstan. Now as I see it running a pipeline to Pakistan would mean going through either Turkmenistan - through Afghanistan - to Pakistan or through Iran to Pakistan. I don't see Iran conceeding to this. So that leaves the Turkmenistan-Aghanistan-Pakistan route. Do you see a problem with laying a pipeline through Aghanistan? Mountains, on a grand scale! The sheer cost of laying a pipeline on such rugged barren ground would be far more than the US could gain back. There are no plans to have a pipe line connect Caspian Oil to Pakistan. Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan don't have the Foriegn investment that Azerbajian has. Although Kazakhstan is attracting more attention.

P.S. How many of you have heard of the countries I mentioned (excluding Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan)?

As they say, never let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy story.

 

[Vengeance]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade



As they say, never let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy story.

Well I have been hearing alot about this 'book' written by some French ****. What is his market base? The remedial school for terminally stupid monkey fuc*ers! Who does he actually think he can fool? I profess to be somewhat of an authority on Caspian development as I have had experience in the region. I was not fooled...

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Vengeance
Well I have been hearing alot about this 'book' written by some French ****. What is his market base? The remedial school for terminally stupid monkey fuc*ers! Who does he actually think he can fool? I profess to be somewhat of an authority on Caspian development as I have had experience in the region. I was not fooled...

There was a thread about it not long ago..
I believe
the majority agreed
it's just greed

 

[Merd346]

I think NY Hoya and Vengeance have done a good job of expressing how I feel. Let me just say that a an average American I agree with our nuclear policy and also our forign policy.
As far as nukes go, banning nuclear testing is just a way to slow down other counties from developing them. I think it is inevitable that eventually any country that wants them will be able to get them. This is why we need to develope missile defence technology. We also need to go after Terrorist organizations and the countries that support them. One of the countries that is a known supporter of Terrorist groups is Iraq. They are also trying to get nukes. This is why we have to go back there. I don't think it is some great military conspiracy, but maybe I'm just brainwashed. The 9/11 atacks tought us one thing: if we don't go after these groups they will hurt us and if they have nukes they will hurt us bad. This is not brainless patriotism talking, just self preservation.
And to our neighbors the the North and friends across the Pond, if it weren't for our strong military we would all be Nazis or Communists.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

In response to Vengeance.

About the Caspian Sea please study the two maps at this webside. While the site is obviously propagandistic the maps are interesting in that they show that the only other possible route to the Persian Sea is through Iran. As far as I know Iran and Turkey have the same rugged territory as Afghanistan.

I think it makes obvious strategic sense to build an oilpipe to the persian gulf in that the Suez canal is overrided.

http://www.mujahideen.fsnet.co.uk/afghanistan-oil.htm

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by Vengeance
P.S. How many of you have heard of the countries I mentioned (excluding Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan)?

You should post a poll

 

[Simon Darkshade]

The point is that it is extremely speculative, to put it mildly, to suppose that the US would wish to build a pipeline across a distance many times larger than present. Any pipeline exploiting the Caspian Sea would go across the Caucasus.
And the Suez Canal doesn't even enter into calculations.
Anyway, there is more oil being uncovered in Siberia, and Alaska, as well as other locations, which places far less emphasis on the need to control that Central Asian supply.
And it does work on the assumption that the US is mortified at the notion of any deal with the Russians, which is an example of extremely naive Cold War thinking.

As an afterword, any source from a Mujahideen website is not credible, whatsoever.

 

[Jimcat]

Originally posted by NY Hoya
Perhaps ending the conflict in Israel, preventing the spread of vile Islamic fundamentalism?

I would be more supportive of our campaign aganst vile Islamic fundamentalism if we devoted the same efforts to prevent the spread of vile Christian fundamentalism.

 

[G-Man]

How many people were killed recently by Christian foundmentalist as a result of them being foundmentalist? Now compare it to the muslim extrimists

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by Jimcat

I would be more supportive of our campaign aganst vile Islamic fundamentalism if we devoted the same efforts to prevent the spread of vile Christian fundamentalism.

you don't really think that Christian fundamentalists pose the same sort of threat do you? The danger posed to the U.S. and the civilized world in general by islamic fundamentalism is far greater than that by Christian fundamentalism.

 

[IceBlaZe]

The Organization that comitted the largest number of Suicide attacks in History isn't even Muslim.

It's the LTTE. Hindu from Sri Lanka.

 

[sniping_people]

Originally posted by NY Hoya



you don't really think that Christian fundamentalists pose the same sort of threat do you? The danger posed to the U.S. and the civilized world in general by islamic fundamentalism is far greater than that by Christian fundamentalism.

Actually no, not the civilized world, just the USA. CNN will tell you that the sept 11 attacks were directed at NATO.