17-09-2003 22:16									#31
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

While it's quite clear in my mind that Bush is the kind of guy that wouldn't mind to start a nice little war if he finds a decent enough reason for it (or fabricates one). It's on a normal day a good way to get support and drag away the attention from the economy close to an election. However, this is hardly a normal day. As long as the Iraqi-situation is as it is, Bush would be foolish to start even more armed conflicts. An invasion would be out of the question.

Like your new avatar Chemical Ollie.

	17-09-2003 22:27									#32
	Get a bigger avatar today!

btw i know you guys are having fun and all on the question of nuclear vs Chem weapons, but might i point out that violation of the NPT does not carry war as a punishment, at least by the terms of that treaty. Rather,IIUC, violators are to be cut off from nuclear technology, supplies, etc.

NKor, IIUC, announced that it was withdrawing from the NPT. The powers are concerned, and may, under some circumstances, sanction Nkor, not because Nkor is in violation of the NPT, but because the powers fear the consequences of allowing Nkor to retain nuclear weapons (the likelihood of Japan rearming, the potential that Nkor might sell nukes, etc)

	17-09-2003 22:34									#33
	Put an end to popups!

Japan is already rearming and we might see powers such as Taiwan and South Korea get involved in an arms race against North Korea/China if North Korea if things don't change. The sad fact is the Chinese supply 90% of North Korea's energy and can stop the North Koreans any time it wants to but has decided to let this train wreck continue.

	17-09-2003 22:45									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Taiwan is running radio commercials (in the NYC area, at least) lobbying for admittance into the UN.

	17-09-2003 22:52									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Taiwan is running radio commercials (in the NYC area, at least) lobbying for admittance into the UN.

Before it does that doesn't it have to declare statehood?

	17-09-2003 22:53									#36
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by GePap So why can't they? you forget that usally the kid who can is some example of bad behavior or has rotten parents.

Did you get to always do what the other kid's did ?
If you say you did, well, let me just say I don't believe you.

	17-09-2003 23:12									#37
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand Did you get to always do what the other kid's did ?

CHOSON

	17-09-2003 23:18									#38
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by GePap anymore than we have no ground to insist India, Pakistan and Israel get rid of their nukes, since they never signed on the the NPT.

Just to point out, Israel already had nukes (thanks to France) by 1967, before the NPT.

	17-09-2003 23:34									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Monk They're worse because they're actually used.

Very, very rarely. Iraq is the only country I've heard of using them since WWI where there's any actual proof that they were used. US use of extremely poisonous pesticides in Vietnam comes close, but since it didn't cause immediate death, isn't considered.

	17-09-2003 23:41									#40
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The US is done invading countries for now. We have barely enough troops for the jobs they're doing. You might have noticed lots of reservists are getting their period of service extended. If we start a third war and another occupation, we won't be able to respond to an actual threat.

	17-09-2003 23:42									#41
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

The question is not which of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons are worse than the other, the question is whether one or the other are more likely to be used. The fact is that chem and bio weapons are easier to produce than nukes and that virtually any semi-industrialized tin pot nation can make them. Throw Syria's continued and consistent support of many terrorist organizations into the pot and you've got the same potential problem as we had with Iraq.

What was not said at the public committee meeting but what was clearly written between the lines (to me at least) and that may have been said at the secure meeting was how much help Syria have been giving to the Iraqi resistance and how many american lives it has cost.

You say we wont go into Iraq. What if I said that Syrian support had cost 100 american lives and that we could cut our cost by 100 billion by removing Syrian support for the Iraqi resistance and thereby shortening our time in occupation of Iraq ?

	17-09-2003 23:45									#42
	Tired of ads?

I don't think the Administration has enough credibility to sell that right now, even if it may be the truth. That whole thing about crying wolf and all.

	18-09-2003 00:25									#43
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Edan Just to point out, Israel already had nukes (thanks to France) by 1967, before the NPT.

Which makes no difference to the NPT whatsoever.

quote: btw i know you guys are having fun and all on the question of nuclear vs Chem weapons, but might i point out that violation of the NPT does not carry war as a punishment, at least by the terms of that treaty. Rather,IIUC, violators are to be cut off from nuclear technology, supplies, etc.

Even more reason why the whole: 'invade Syria" bit is absurd, though it also brings into question the "invade Iraq" ude to WMD's just as much.

	18-09-2003 00:35									#44
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by GePap Which makes no difference to the NPT whatsoever.

Umm, yes it does. It means that if one were to hold Israel to the NPT, Israel would be a nuclear-weapon state, not a non-nuclear weapon state.

	18-09-2003 00:43									#45
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GePap Which makes no difference to the NPT whatsoever. quote: btw i know you guys are having fun and all on the question of nuclear vs Chem weapons, but might i point out that violation of the NPT does not carry war as a punishment, at least by the terms of that treaty. Rather,IIUC, violators are to be cut off from nuclear technology, supplies, etc. Even more reason why the whole: 'invade Syria" bit is absurd, though it also brings into question the "invade Iraq" ude to WMD's just as much.

As you know well, the admin did not base its case on the NPT, but on UNSC resolutions, and the 1991 ceasefire, which do not apply in the case of Syria. You can (and have) disagreed with the admin on the validity of using those as a casus belli - lets please not go through that again - the point is that Syria is different from Iraq.

	18-09-2003 01:03									#46
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Edan Umm, yes it does. It means that if one were to hold Israel to the NPT, Israel would be a nuclear-weapon state, not a non-nuclear weapon state.

Israel could have declared and joined the NPT and have this been a non-issue: the thing is if Israel was nucelar as of 1967, then of course that meant admitting that it had lied to the US through the '60's through its teeth.

I still am skeptical fo the claim that Israel was a full member of the nuclear club as of '67.

All of which still leaves the point moot, vis a vi my arguement with Imran.

	18-09-2003 01:08									#47
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by GePap Israel could have declared and joined the NPT and have this been a non-issue

Yes, but IIRC the US didn't want Israel to declare itself a nuclear power for fear of starting a Mideast nuclear arms race (eg, like India and Pakistan, US and Russia, etc).

	18-09-2003 01:10									#48
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GePap I still am skeptical fo the claim that Israel was a full member of the nuclear club as of '67.

My understanding is that they went hot in 1960.

	18-09-2003 08:34									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara My understanding is that they went hot in 1960.

Now that is impossible: France went nulcear in 1960, no way Israel did then.

	18-09-2003 08:56									#50
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Invasion of Syria? Probably not. Continued US bases in Western Iraq (remember the two airfields we siezed?) will start to supply a steady flow of armed insurgents. Low grade Israeli attacks on Syrian clients and some Syrian trrop positions in Lebanon will resume under auspices of "eliminating terrorist". Syria's government will come under increasing economic power and will eithier destabilize or go to war with Israel. If destabilized, then US puppet leader will rise. If war, then US airpower will intervene to provide quick Israeli victory. UN brokered ceasefire will cause Syrian Government to fall and US puppet will rise.

I think thats the conventional Washington wisdom right now.

	18-09-2003 09:02									#51
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Israel won't attack Hizbollah, and insurgents in Syria? Their internal services are as good as Iraq's.

That scenerio is highly unlikely.

	18-09-2003 09:07									#52
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by GePap Israel won't attack Hizbollah, and insurgents in Syria? Their internal services are as good as Iraq's. That scenerio is highly unlikely.

Didn't say it was likely. Said it was "conventional Washington wisdom"

Big difference...as I am sure you of all people would agree.