10-02-2005 18:22									#151
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Of course not. I'm worried about North Korea invading South Korea and threatening to nuke American or Japanese cities if we intervine to help our ally. currently the North wouldn't think of doing that because it would mean their total destruction.

It would mean their total destruction even if the USA has disarmed their nuclear arseneal. If a country nukes another country, it has commited political suicide. A nuclear retaliation is not even neccisary.

quote: They'd fire off their one or two and we'd return fire with 10,000.

Well, that would be incredibly reckless. you'd probably end up iradiating that part of the world and killing millions of people who aren't even korean, let alone practical genocide of the north koreans, but regardless...

quote: Not even Kim is that stupid. Let's say we unilateraly disarm like Kid has said then how do we stand up to a nuclear armed dictator when his forces are invading south Korea. How would we stand up to a nuclear armed Iran when if they decided to grab the huge Kuwait oil fields like they tried to do in 1985 (because they were helping Saddam finance the war plus the mullahs wanted the oil)? Back then they were stopped by Saddam's Army using poison gas for the first time. That won't help next time.

First of all, it's arguable (well, i only say that to be polite) whether the USA should be able to unilaterally dictate and police everyone else in the first place, but you would stand up to them the same way it's always been done... through diplomacy or war.

quote: You cannot reason with the Hitlers and want to be Hitlers of the World.

Which is why no one seriously expects the USA to disarm.

	10-02-2005 18:33									#152
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin [Pakistan has] had them since the 1970's just like India.

Not exactly. India built and tested a weapon in the 1970s, but dicontinued its program at that time. Since then, Pakistan was trying to build a weapon to even the playing field, and in the late 80s, announced they had the technology to build a bomb, and then claimed they were putting it on a shelf, since India did not have an active program.

Then the BJP came to power in India in the mid '90s, and began building bombs. Approximately one year later, Pakistan announced it had built its first bomb. That was 1996-7.

lauentius, we allowed neither India nor Pakistan to have nuclear weapons. As soon as both countries renewed their weapons programs, we slapped sanctions on them. The only country we allow to have nukes is Israel, by officially pretending they don't have them. We are, by law, required to sanction any country with nukes who built them after the signing of the non-proliferation treaty.

After 9/11, we removed sanctions from both Pakistan and India, due to the fact we needed their help in the War on Terror.

	10-02-2005 18:39									#153
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

We can't police everyone. We have to be selective. Iran will have nukes. There's nothing we can do about it. The current strategy on nonproliferation is a failure.

	10-02-2005 18:43									#154
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara As soon as both countries renewed their weapons programs, we slapped sanctions on them.

But che, don't forget that it's been an article of faith, at least since the time of Blessed Ron the Redeemer, that sanctions are effective only when employed against evil empires, or the ungodly Communists or Eye Rainians.

Against all others, such as the Righteous Rhodesians, or Solidly With Us Apartheid South Africans, sanctions are just plain wrong, and get in the way of, whatever the nauseating pabulum phrase was, um, 'constructive engagement'....

	10-02-2005 18:50									#155
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sikander Your posts are ample proof of that.

I've made your life hell?

	10-02-2005 19:11									#156
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom Eye Rainians

Most people in the US pronounce it that way. I can't even remember how it was pronounced before Reagan. I sort of think Carter pronounced it correctly, but I was too young.

	10-02-2005 19:19									#157
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Most people in the US pronounce it that way. I can't even remember how it was pronounced before Reagan. I sort of think Carter pronounced it correctly, but I was too young.

I suspect they would have confused the Persians with the Prooshians, and by extension the Heshuns, so, as not to overexcite the antediluvian Repug.s, they changed the nomenclature to Eye Rainians, in the hope perhaps they might take them for great green B.E.M.s from a William Castle Fifties s.f. b-movie....

	10-02-2005 20:03									#158
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The problem as I see it is the ridiculous fear mongering regarding Iran. No, their leaders aren't insane. No, they will not launch nukes at Israel and US at the first opportunity.

They're a nation just like everyone else, and a damn sight more democratic than most Middle-Eastern nations.

	11-02-2005 02:42									#159
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I agree with Sava on the POS DU has become. It's because of all the idiots and conspiracy theorists like the guys on DU that drive the average americans to the right. Even most of the few liberal talk radio are raving idiots (Ed Schultz being the major exception). I am sick of all these Neo-hippies turing the Left into the laughing stock it has become.

	11-02-2005 03:11									#160
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Odin I agree with Sava on the POS DU has become. It's because of all the idiots and conspiracy theorists like the guys on DU that drive the average americans to the right. Even most of the few liberal talk radio are raving idiots (Ed Schultz being the major exception). I am sick of all these Neo-hippies turing the Left into the laughing stock it has become.

Interestingly, similar wingnut babble from the right does NOT drive people away from them, but lures in even greater masses.

	11-02-2005 03:15									#161
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by GePap The US has the legal right to seek to end any illicit weapons program because Iran signed the NPT, which forbids it from aquiring nuclear weapons. Iran has not yet stated they are planning to leave the NPT, so legally they do NOT have the right to nukes. That said, they do have the option of leaving the NPT at any time they wish. The problem is the Bush adm,in. and the Europeans aqre demanding Iran undertake no Uranium enrichment, the problem being Iran has every right under the NPT to enrich uranium. That said, whether Iran gets nukes or not is a function of whether the Iraninasn want them or not too badly- the US has no diplomatic nor military options right now that would stop the Iranians. Personally, I think even a democratic Iranian government has reasons to seek nukes, thought US objections to Iranian nukes would probably melt away if a pro-US regime took control.

or atleast a Regime that wasn't the very first state sponsor of terrorism,didn't threaten to use said weapons at the first oppurtunity, refrained from calling us the great satan and calling for our destruction in every other speech,etc.

	11-02-2005 03:16									#162
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Agathon I can see why the Iranians would want nuclear weapons. The worlds only superpower hates them and they are surrounded by other hostile regimes

there might be some cause effect relationships here to be explored.

	11-02-2005 03:24									#163
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Exactly. Notice how the enemies of the US always get desperate for nukes. That shouldn't suprise anyone. If the US really wants to stop the spread of nukes they should stop creating enemies.

So we could have peace in our time if we just appease them then?

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd That wouldn't weaken your position. You having nukes doesn't make you less succeptable to being nuked, it just means you can nuke someone else. In that sense, geting rid of the capability to nuek another country doesn't weaken you (unless you do intend to nuke somoene else) and can actually strengthen your position because you are saying that you don't intend to use nuclear weapons, and in the eyes of the world you now gain a sort of moral high groundand by extension a basic immunity to nuclear strikes anyways - how would the world react to a country nuking another after agreeing to disarm their nuclear weapons? That would be more MAD than any interaction between two nuclear powers could ever be. And remember, you can dstroy nuclear weapons but you can never destroy the potential to build more of them...

they'd sit there and shake their ineffectual fists, then go back to jacking off, unless the target was America, then they'd cheer.

	11-02-2005 04:09									#164
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Whoha So we could have peace in our time if we just appease them then?

You are going off the assumption that the US is always in the right - that we do no harm to the world.

	11-02-2005 04:30									#165
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Once again realpolitick. If you do this I will hurt you very badly; If you do that I will help you. Brute force and bribery since we have no moral grounds to deny others things which we won't deny ourselves. Also since the invention has been made and people know how to build nukes we can't just disarm because other people would then have an advantage over us. This genie is out and all we can do cajole people into slowing it's spread.

Spare us the BS, everyone always makes moral arguments about anything, and even moreso the so-called relativists. If you can't make a moral argument, how would you debate anything in the first place?

	11-02-2005 04:36									#166
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: How are they different?

Are you ****ing kidding me? Neoconservatism and realpolitik is on opposite sides of the spectrum! One is part and parcel of realist theory and the other is a subset of liberal theory. Now you wonder why no one takes you seriously?! Educate yourself because you speak on this again, please.

	11-02-2005 04:45									#167
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: How are they different? Are you ****ing kidding me? Neoconservatism and realpolitik is on opposite sides of the spectrum! One is part and parcel of realist theory and the other is a subset of liberal theory. Now you wonder why no one takes you seriously?! Educate yourself because you speak on this again, please.

I don't claim to know everything, but I'm sure not going to get my education from you.

edit: And this is why.

Wikipedia

quote: Some argue that Strauss's influence has left some neoconservatives adopting a Machiavellian view of politics.

	11-02-2005 05:01									#168
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

And from the same article.

quote: Critics have charged that, while paying lip service to American values, neoconservatives have supported undemocratic regimes for realpolitik reasons.

	11-02-2005 06:02									#169
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: Yes, MINE. Why should we listen to you then?

Because a) I can make an argument from your morals and b) our moral axioms are probably similar.

	11-02-2005 06:04									#170
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious You would mind but you wouldn't call it immoral, because I would be acting in my self-interest, right?

I'd also call it immoral, but that's because morality is very EASY to enforce and hold standard within a nation, but effectively impossible to enforce between nations.

	11-02-2005 06:33									#171
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker I'd also call it immoral, but that's because morality is very EASY to enforce and hold standard within a nation, but effectively impossible to enforce between nations.

That's called conventional morality. You don't believe in any moral principles. I really don't consider that morality, just self-interest.

	11-02-2005 06:35									#172
	Increase Your PM Length

So?

I don't consider freely made contracts coercion.

	11-02-2005 06:41									#173
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: And this is why.

Hey... 'some say' and 'critics charge'. That's really factual hard truth. Some say Stalin ate babies... guess that makes it true .

Learn some IR, consider the term "Hard Wilsonianism" and educate yourself.

	11-02-2005 06:42									#174
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker I don't consider freely made contracts coercion.

So what. Either do I, but at least my decision about them is not clouded by my self-interest, and conventional limitations to my morality.

	11-02-2005 06:46									#175
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: And this is why. Hey... 'some say' and 'critics charge'. That's really factual hard truth. Some say Stalin ate babies... guess that makes it true .

Well, it is technically possible that stalin ate babies, so the question of whether he did or not is an acceptable, if somewhat silly, idea because it is in the realm of possibility.

However, you where suggesting that the two things where polar opposites and so unlike one another that they could not be compaired. And yet, "some say" and "critics charge" would seem to suggest otherwise, as there is apparently an ongoing debate where the two are compared, and even associated with one another. So they must not be such complete, uncompatible, opposites, and there must be similiarities or parallels that warrant comparison.

	11-02-2005 06:48									#176
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Sandman The American's behaviour with regard to Iraq and North Korea is all the incentive the Iranians need. If you have nukes, they will leave you alone. If you don't have nukes, they will say you do and then attack. We only need to remember the empiricism-free 'case' against Iraq.

That would be a valid explination if only you didn't ignore what occured in India & Pakistan. Since you did ignore it...

	11-02-2005 06:55									#177
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: And yet, "some say" and "critics charge" would seem to suggest otherwise

Mostly because people have no idea what a neo-conservative really is and use the term for any right-wing idea they hear. There are some people who consider Dick Cheney a neoconservative!

quote: So they must not be such complete, uncompatible, opposites, and there must be similiarities or parallels that warrant comparison.

Like Fascism and Communism? People make dumb comparisons some times.

	11-02-2005 06:57									#178
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: And this is why. Hey... 'some say' and 'critics charge'. That's really factual hard truth. Some say Stalin ate babies... guess that makes it true . Learn some IR, consider the term "Hard Wilsonianism" and educate yourself.

Let's go back and see what happened. I asked a QUESTION. Maybe you don't know what a question is. It starts with a word like 'how' and it ends with a question mark. A question is not a claim. Not carrying about civil debate, or morality as it turns out. You took the opportunity to try to make me look like a person who thinks he knows everything and is frequently wrong.

As it turns out that person is YOU. You think you know everything. I knew long ago that you don't know **** about economics. No matter how much I tried to help you understand economics. You never listened to me. You just called me ignorant.

You also pretend to be authoritative about other subjects (like poly sci) which I don't really know much about. I had my doubts as to whether you actually knew a lot about those subjects, but I never said anything. But here we see that you pretend to be authoritative about this subject also, but you are not.

Now here is what you posted.

quote: Are you ****ing kidding me? Neoconservatism and realpolitik is on opposite sides of the spectrum! One is part and parcel of realist theory and the other is a subset of liberal theory. Now you wonder why no one takes you seriously?! Educate yourself because you speak on this again, please.

Obviously you were claiming authoritative knowledge of political science, and making the claim that EVERYONE knows that neoconservatism and realpolitik are incompatable.

But it didn't stop there. Why? Because I have said something here that is unacceptable to you about the US. So instead of debating civily and admiting wrong doing. You continue to support you claim when it is clearly wrong. BECAUSE YOU DO NOT THINK THAT MORALS MATTER! You are immoral. I do not argue with people like you. Case closed.

YOU ARE PWNED! And it's all the sweeter because you've acted like such an *******.

	11-02-2005 07:03									#179
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: I asked a QUESTION. Maybe you don't know what a question is. It starts with a word like 'how' and it ends with a question mark.

Yeah.. right... a flippant question designed to be a smartass.

quote: You took the opportunity to try to make me look like a person who thinks he knows everything and is frequently wrong.

Because you are.

quote: I knew long ago that you don't know **** about economics. No matter how much I tried to help you understand economics. You never listened to me. You just called me ignorant.

The person that knows jack **** about economics, who gets schooled in every debate about economics saying someone else doesn't know economics! That's so hilarious!

quote: Obviously you were claiming authoritative knowledge of political science, and making the claim that EVERYONE knows that neoconservatism and realpolitik are incompatable.

Everyone that has the bare minimum of political science IR knowledge. Realism and Liberalism are two obviously opposite ideals. It's like asking the "what is the difference" when someone says Fascism and Anarachism are different.

quote: You continue to support you claim when it is clearly wrong. BECAUSE YOU DO NOT THINK THAT MORALS MATTER! You are immoral. I do not argue with people like you. Case closed.

In the end you've called everyone in this thread that has disagreed with you that 'you do not think that morals matter'. Have your proven it? No, of course not. And also you think that not thinking morals matter equals immoralness, which is demonstrably wrong. In fact, I wonder if you know anything at all, or do you just parrot your slogans and hope one will stick.

quote: YOU ARE PWNED!

If saying so makes you sleep better, while getting utterly schooled over and over again, go ahead, say what errors you will .

	11-02-2005 07:06									#180
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd If a country nukes another country, it has commited political suicide. A nuclear retaliation is not even neccisary.

Oh, now that is funny. I realize yopu are very young and likely don't remember how John Major and George Bush Sr. both flatly said they'd launch a massive nuclear attack upon Iraq if they used chemical weapons. What did your world do? Chear and agree. There most certainly are cases where nukes can be used and political support be maintained; the main reason they haven't been used since 1945 is the weak are to scared to cross the strong and the strong are afraid to fight each other.