22-01-2003 00:14									#121
	Remove this text

Europeans are always good at going after bad guys(Pinochet, Milosevic) no longer in power, and at sucking up to bad guys(Saddam, Ghaddafi) still in power.

	22-01-2003 00:34									#122
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned Adam Smith, It does appear that France and Germany are 1) not operating on the same set of facts, or 2) they are drawing different conclusions from a common set of facts, or 3) they are being disengenuous. I say the French and Germans are being disengenuous. I believe the facts strongly suggest more Saddam obstruction with only the appearance of cooperation. As you say, Adam Smith, I too am deeply disturbed by the French and German obstructionism. This presages a wholesale rearrangement of alliances. As Che would say, the world, or at least some of it, appears to have united against America and the UK. (Just as an asside, I am just finished listening to Band of Brothers on tape. It appears the French had a very hostile, anti-American attitude even as we liberated them in WWII. Now, someone, please explain that!)

Oh, just remember the French have a chip on their shoulder because the only thing they have left from the days of Napoleon's grandeur is the feelings of inferiority due to short stature (physical in his case, military and political in France's current national standing).

	22-01-2003 02:11									#123
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Sorry.

No problem. I understand how posts can become buried.

quote: It seems pretty self-explanatory.

It does save for one salient point. Your theory about the US's stance causing it to loose credibility on this issue doesn't seem to be carried over into reality.

	22-01-2003 02:31									#124
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Dino,

Hypocrisy does damage credibility. People tend to get upset about hypocrisy, especially when the hypocrit is powerful. It's true in private life, and it's true in the world at large. I personally think it is a major factor in "anti-Americanism" around the world.

The problem is that our argument ends up coming down to this: we can have them because we're responsible enough and you're not. To which the rejoinder is: "Say what? You're the ones who actually used the damn things!" Our position, even if it wasn't hypocritical, is also patronizing (even if we're right about pisspot dictators not being responsible enough to be allowed to have nukes).

-Arrian

EDIT: However, as I've said before, Saddam did indeed agree to terms that required him to disarm following the Gulf War. That's seperate from the larger debate over the US's position on non-proliferation.

The problem I have with a war at this point is that we cannot seem to prove he has any WoMDs. If he's got them, I'm sure he's hiding them, in which case the inspectors will not find them. If he doesn't have them... the inspectors will not find them. Bush says this, Saddam says that. I don't think there is a good enough case for war.

	22-01-2003 02:36									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by GePap So when do we fit this thread with a Gun rack? Maybe one of those "don't mess with texas" bumperstickers?

quote: reminder : must get myself one of those stickers.

already got one

	22-01-2003 02:37									#126
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Arrian: Fair enough. I'll agree to disagree on the hypocrisy point for the moment in order to avoid being bogged down by it and move on to what I consider to be the more substantive points. I still fail to see how it helps DF's position on nuclear proliferation become more rational in light of the dangers presented by thier spread.

	22-01-2003 02:38									#127
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Frogger No, the Iraqis were just not encouraging the scientists to be interviewed alone. No scientist said "yes" when the inspectors asked if they wanted to be. Now Iraq has promised to encourage scientists to be interviewed alone, but has said that it will not compel them to do so.

omg. do you honestly think a scientist would agree to talk freely, putting his family in mortal danger?

	22-01-2003 02:40									#128
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Richelieu While i think that the US would most probably be able to invade IRAQ without any problems, i'm not so sure about what you say here. I just hope the lessons of Mogadeshiu haven't been forgotten if it gets to that.

No way is this going to be like Mogadeshu. I believe the Bush administration when they say the white flags will be waving quickly.

	22-01-2003 02:44									#129
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin I've never understood this oil colony business. Is there actually any out there simple minded enough to really believe this is the truth? Hello! Earth to space cadet. Have you ever heard of the commodities exchange market? Anyone with money can already buy all the oil the want. It would be ten times more expensive to occupy a country to try to set up an oil colony then it would be just to buy the oil at market rate. Ergo it is not about setting up an oil colony. It's about getting rid of someone who's been a pain in the backside and making an example out of him. It's about demenstraiting that bad things happen to people who try to upset the apple cart. That the guy happens to be an SOB and that we will once again get to experiment in creating spin-offs in our image is just icing on the cake. Is that fair? No. Is it effective? Yes. Will it make make countries like North Korea and Iran think long and hard before they get into any pissing contests with us? Yes, and that's why knocking off Saddam is a good idea.

Thank you... god damn, whenever my friends (who are about as educated and well read on geopolitics as Poly Shore...) say we are going to war 'just for oil', i feel like slapping them. The ignorance is upsetting, i suppose...

Kman

	22-01-2003 02:45									#130
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Dino,

Well, I'm not Floyd, but here's my take on it:

We have essentially 2 (non-hypocritical) choices.

1) Accept that Pandora's Box is open, and that more and more nations will gain nuclear weapons, ala Pakistan & India. This is Floyd's position, right?

2) Alternatively, we could work out an agreement with the other nuclear powers that we will all disarm and cooperate in getting everyone else to disarm as well. The problem here is that such an agreement will be awfully difficult to get: a lot of countries see the power of nukes as a foil to US hegemony. But I think it's worth a try.

What we're doing now is clearly not working.

-Arrian

	22-01-2003 02:51									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by DuncanK No way is this going to be like Mogadeshu. I believe the Bush administration when they say the white flags will be waving quickly.

I can only hope... but im not so sure. On the BBC world news I now see marches in Iraq daily, where men brandish AKs and vowing to fight for their "glorious" leader to teh death. If it comes to war, my guess is there will be stiff fighting at first, but as the masses see their dead piling (in Mogadishu, there were about 100 Americans, with 17 deaths... there was practically a city of Somalians and 1000 deaths...), the white flags will begin to wave. Bitter feeligs tho will probably prevail for some time, unfortunately.

	22-01-2003 02:54									#132
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I've never understood this oil colony business.

Oil companies extract oil in order to make a profit. Iraq is a great place to extract oil. American oil companies can't go there now. If an American friendly regime is installed in Iraq, American oil companies could go there to extract oil. If that happens those companies and anybody highly placed in those companies will make large amounts of money.

Understand?

This should also allow you to understand why this administration is the one pushing for this.

	22-01-2003 02:54									#133
	Remove this text

quote: 2) Alternatively, we could work out an agreement with the other nuclear powers that we will all disarm and cooperate in getting everyone else to disarm as well. The problem here is that such an agreement will be awfully difficult to get: a lot of countries see the power of nukes as a foil to US hegemony. But I think it's worth a try.

also, the US would be unlikely to go along with this because of the fear that someone my not disarm, and secretly persue nukes. This fear is not unfounded either. The US and the Soviet Union signed an agreement to ban the development and manufacture of biological agents for use in warfare. The US complied, but the Soviet Union secretly continued the development and manufacture of germs.

	22-01-2003 02:57									#134
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Krammerman,

I understand that is a problem with option #2. But the alternative, so far as I can see, is option #1.

-Arrian

	22-01-2003 03:09									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Arrian, I said this in a post in the previous page. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with the US position. It is a strawman argument and leads nowhere except to proliferation.

"Snowfire, if you were seriously supportive of the NPF, you would not justify proliferation based on the US, or for that matter, Russia, China, France or the UK having them. The goal is to halt proliferation while having the current nuclear powers reduce stockpiles to zero over time through negotiation.

Iraq and the NK are the first countries, IIRC, that have signed the NPF that have embarked on programs to acquire nukes.

To the extent the world will not enforce the NPF, or for that matter, UN resolution that are aimed at carrying out the NPF, the world will not get rid of these terror weapons ever.

So, let's not talk about hypocrisy."

	22-01-2003 03:14									#136
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Garth Vader I've never understood this oil colony business. Oil companies extract oil in order to make a profit. Iraq is a great place to extract oil. American oil companies can't go there now. If an American friendly regime is installed in Iraq, American oil companies could go there to extract oil. If that happens those companies and anybody highly placed in those companies will make large amounts of money. Understand? This should also allow you to understand why this administration is the one pushing for this.

I really hope any post-Saddam regime appropriately remembers its friends (the US and the UK) and pisses on the images of its enemies (France and Germany) in granting concessions.

	22-01-2003 03:16									#137
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Dino, Well, I'm not Floyd, but here's my take on it: We have essentially 2 (non-hypocritical) choices. 1) Accept that Pandora's Box is open, and that more and more nations will gain nuclear weapons, ala Pakistan & India. This is Floyd's position, right? 2) Alternatively, we could work out an agreement with the other nuclear powers that we will all disarm and cooperate in getting everyone else to disarm as well. The problem here is that such an agreement will be awfully difficult to get: a lot of countries see the power of nukes as a foil to US hegemony. But I think it's worth a try. What we're doing now is clearly not working. Arrian, for your information, that agreement is already in place. It is called the Nuclear Nonproliferaton Treaty. -Arrian

	22-01-2003 03:19									#138
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: The goal is to halt proliferation while having the current nuclear powers reduce stockpiles to zero over time through negotiation.

You know, if this were clearly stated and pursued, I'd probably accept that argument. It would help, furthermore, if the powers began reducing their arsenals now. The thing is, this isn't the case. There are a number of nations that have acquired nuclear weapons... but we're only hounding two. We hounded a different two for a while, but have since backed off, particularly because we really need one of them to help us out (Pakistan) with something else.

But even that position requires the non-nuclear powers of the world to trust the big boys. Sure, we'll disarm, just as soon as we make sure none of you are trying to get nukes... which could drag on indefinitely, thus simply maintaining the nuclear balance of power as it stands now. Sure, from our point of view, that is better than unchecked proliferation, but it's not a real solution. At best, it's merely a delaying tactic.

-Arrian

	22-01-2003 03:21									#139
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Iraq is a great place to extract oil.

Only until Saddam decides it's better to use destroy his oil wells and those of his neighbors.

Besides, if this were "only about oil" wouldn't attacking Saudi Arabia or Kuwait make more sense, cause they would be a lot easier to defeat and have more oil?

	22-01-2003 03:24									#140
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Ned,

Frist, clearly the Treaty doesn't work. None of the powers seem to be consistently pursuing it, ourselves included. Such a treaty requires real commitment on the part of the signatories to devote themselves to ridding the world of nukes, and the problem is I don't think any of them really want that.

Second, IIRC, that treaty does not include several current nuclear powers (since they acquired nukes after the treaty). Without their agreement, we get nowhere (Pakistan is rumored to be the major proliferator of nuclear weapons technology. The NKs are the missle exporters).

-Arrian

	22-01-2003 03:29									#141
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Garth Vader Oil companies extract oil in order to make a profit. Iraq is a great place to extract oil. American oil companies can't go there now. If an American friendly regime is installed in Iraq, American oil companies could go there to extract oil. If that happens those companies and anybody highly placed in those companies will make large amounts of money. Understand?

That is only so much mindless drivil. There are a ton of countries out their which don't allow foreigners to invest or own any of their productive oil resources. Saudi Arabia hasn't let foreigners invest in developing its reserves since the 1930's, Mexico nationalized (read:stole since they never payed the American investors for any of it) all oil production in the late 40's and hasn't let foreigners back since, and even our oh so good friends in Kuwait won't let foreigners invest one dime into buying oil reserves.

Do you see anyone pushing for war with these countries? This oil colony BS is made up by simple minded people for simple minded people.

	22-01-2003 03:30									#142
	Full PM-box? Change here!

If I say that republicans are nazis will this discussion be rendered obsolete?

	22-01-2003 03:33									#143
	Support Apolyton

Tripledoc,

No, we'd probably just ignore you. Please don't Sava the thread.

-Arrian

	22-01-2003 03:33									#144
	Suffering from ads?

Hey, I'm having a good time. Don't invoke that internet law yet.

	22-01-2003 03:35									#145
	Got spare money?

just checking.

	22-01-2003 03:39									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Ned, Frist, clearly the Treaty doesn't work. None of the powers seem to be consistently pursuing it, ourselves included. Such a treaty requires real commitment on the part of the signatories to devote themselves to ridding the world of nukes, and the problem is I don't think any of them really want that. Second, IIRC, that treaty does not include several current nuclear powers (since they acquired nukes after the treaty). Without their agreement, we get nowhere (Pakistan is rumored to be the major proliferator of nuclear weapons technology. The NKs are the missle exporters). -Arrian

The treaty obligates the nuclear powers to reduce their stockpiles to zero through negotiation. Below is a quote from the UN site. I beleive India, Pakistan and Israel did not sign and are now nuclear powers. They ought to be grandfathered along with the original five powers. Regardless, the eventual aim is no nuclear weapons.

If no one is prepared to enforce the the treaty against violators, the NPT is, of course, a meaningless document - almost like the document upon which is written the UN Charter.

But the argument that the US is pursuing a double standard in seeking to enforce it is pure crap.

"The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. A total of 187 parties have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty's significance.

To further the goal of non-proliferation and as a confidence-building measure between States parties, the Treaty establishes a safeguards system under the responsibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Safeguards are used to verify compliance with the Treaty through inspections conducted by the IAEA. The Treaty promotes co-operation in the field of peaceful nuclear technology and equal access to this technology for all States parties, while safeguards prevent the diversion of fissile material for weapons use. "

	22-01-2003 03:42									#147
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Tripledoc If I say that republicans are nazis will this discussion be rendered obsolete?

If this is true, then all Democrats are communists and all Europeans, save for the Brits, are ******** wimps.

	22-01-2003 03:55									#148
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ned I beleive India, Pakistan and Israel did not sign and are now nuclear powers.

That's correct. Cuba didn't sign either (but isn't a nuclear power). All the others signed.

	22-01-2003 04:04									#149
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Garth Vader I've never understood this oil colony business. Oil companies extract oil in order to make a profit. Iraq is a great place to extract oil. American oil companies can't go there now. If an American friendly regime is installed in Iraq, American oil companies could go there to extract oil. If that happens those companies and anybody highly placed in those companies will make large amounts of money. Understand? This should also allow you to understand why this administration is the one pushing for this.

And if you understood the economics of oil, you wouldn't be wasting your time on this silly theory.

	22-01-2003 04:28									#150
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

That is only so much mindless drivil.

And if you understood the economics of oil, you wouldn't be wasting your time on this silly theory.


I have done enough research to convince myself of the legitimacy of my claim. Since insults are your first argument, and a staunch unwillingness to consider a differing opinion your second, my time will be better spent doing anything other than continuing discourse with you.