Slashdot Mirror
How About a Nice Game of Global Thermonuclear War?
Loconut1389 writes "According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon has a revised doctrine to be signed in the next few weeks would give the president the authority for a preemptive nuclear strike. I would hope that this is a move designed to say we mean business and then never use it, but the means is there for mutual assured destruction."
...Johnny, and remember if those mean boys on the playground even think of taking your Tonka trucks, make sure to kill them first!
FLR
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
...scientists today believe they have finally solved the Fermi paradox. "Where are the aliens? Dead, all dead, in piles of radioactive rubble."
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
Of course, since W's administration doesn't seem to think the Constitution is worth the paper it's printed on, this won't stop them.
And Congress doesn't seem to hold it in any higher regard these days. The Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war, not the power to issue an "authorization of force".
Err... anything else dumb.
What's that? We had that opportunity? November 2004, you say? Oops.
Somehow this link seems more appropriate.
there's no place like ~
The arguments for pre-empting action can be made long and hard, but in the case of nuclear weapons it just seems like a bad decision. The sheer destruction of these payloads, and devastating after effects they cause are not something that (in my opinion) be used without fully justified action. There's literally just too much at stake for the world community as a whole.
Business Voyeur
(Me? Cynical?)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Exactly... And I know that people here are probably just a weeeeee bit biased against conservatives, but jeez... at least Reagan got this point right: make them _think_ you're crazy enough to use the bomb, without actually _saying_ you're going to use it (well, hehe, except for that one little slip where he said in a live press conference, "We're launching the missiles in 15 minutes"). Mutually Assured Destruction only works if _neither_ side decides to actually use the g*d@mn weapons.
Can we start the civil war yet? Please? Pretty please?
Ugh.
Remind me again how having stupid people be in charge of weapons that could potentially destroy us all is something to laugh at?! GAAH...
The biggest threat is the fact that the soviets had/have (may still?) sell weapons to other countries so long as the price is right. On top of that, many soviet scientist could be bought for a price.
That's the reason NASA can't pay Russia to launch more Soyuz's to station to compensate for grounded shuttles, the nonproliferation laws state that the US can't exchange money for services to countries that supply arms to our enemies...
-everphilski-
By destroying the entire city the small group of evil men may or may not be in? What a winning strategy.
This is one of those things that history classes 100 years from now will look back upon and someone will ask: "Why would they ever give the president so much power?" :-)
"The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using "or intending to use WMD" against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations."
GW was sure they had WMDs.
Uhhm, we didn't do this with the soviets when they had enough firepower aimed at us to level the world 3 times over.
We also have a system in place to respond in kind to wmd attack within 3 minutes with all out world-killing force.
the idea of "preemptive nuclear strike" is not just radical, it's insane.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
North Korea at the very least? Lots of places, sheesh. And there are a lot of old Soviet scientist with nothing in their wallets but nuclear warhead schematics. Come on, open your eyes a little bit.
Opening your eyes and actually using them instead of mindlessly repeating the garbage that some war happy people in the White House are telling you might be a really good idea indeed.
In short, North Korea might have the capability to launch one or two nukes directly at the USA (actually they don't, but lets just assume they do, they probably do have the nukes for it), but is far from assured destruction of the USA. Don't come with the theory that that is only a matter of time, North Korea does not have access to the resources to come anywhere near.
it's really not about real conservatives. It's about these Neocons. They are sugerbuzzed children with loaded guns. The only thing hold most of them back is the few grown ups in the GOP like McCain, Spector, etc.
Here's a scenario for you. Saudi Arabia is virulently anti-American and even anti-Non-Muslim. It is the seat of Wahabi Islam, a sect of Islam that calls for systematic elimination of the Shia and Sufi Muslims as well. Now, a bunch of Saudi terrorists drop a backpack nuke in NYC and kill 80,000 Americans and foreigners.
What do we do, aside from wringing our hands and saying we can't kill large number of civilians to fight terrorism? The terrorists bomb us, tens of thousands of Americans or Brits or French or Japanese, etc. die. No massive response against the popular terrorists' home base. The result is a population that sees the attacked country/ethnic/religious group as weak, vulnerable and in the case of Islamic terrorism, which is the majority of terrorism today, it is a "sign from Allah that the enemy is going to lose."
So we don't nuke Riyadh and kill a bunch of the people who gave their moral support to the enemy. This is the best option we have short of getting ourselves either into a guerrilla war or just letting the enemy kill us. And here's something that the hand-wringing pacifists will never accept: our enemy knows us and hates us. People who are as dedicated toward killing you as most terrorists are cannot and will not be reasoned with or otherwise be converted to liking you. Either they die, or you and your children die because after you're dead, chances are damn good they'll kill every last one of yours that they can get ahold of.
We have to kill people who even just strongly SUPPORT terrorism overseas if we can to drive home the point we are serious. If we don't, then many of those people will be saying "sign me up" right after the American paper tiger has been defanged by the "martyrs." The Iranian government is already openly boasting that we are weak and totally exposed thanks to our blithering idiots in government from Nagin to Blanco to Bush to almost all of the bureaucrats in between.
The threat is real, and it can indeed be better solved through the threat of military force, especially mass destruction by nuclear weapons. In 1992, the only way we were able to keep Saddam from hitting us and the Israelis with bio weapons was we told him we were prepared to fire off a few of our nuclear weapons against Iraq.
It really does suck that we are pushed to this point, but how else are we going to intimidate the governments and populations that would whole-heartedly jump into the terrorism game? Huh? I'd like to see some serious proposals that don't revolve around us sacrificing all of our rights and sending massive amounts of aid to these groups on a regular basis like some sort of tribute in exchange for not bombing us. And let's cut the bullshit. The Muslim terrorists whine and bitch and moan not just about the fact that we support Israel and have/had troops on their holy grounds, but that *gasp* Spain is actually ruled today by the Spanish and not those imperialist Moores. Repeat the same claims about Greece, Romania, a few other countries in Europe occupied by the Ottomans, India and well... you get the idea. Pretty much any country where the non-Muslims gave their Muslim overlords a swift kick in the ass right out the door.
Blame the enemy, not us. Most Americans do not want to rule the world. Hell, most Americans would really be happy if the rest of the world would just leave us alone and we could get our government to reciprocate to them. But I can say this, as much of an isolationist, live-and-let-live southerner as I am, if my girlfriend and our families were killed in the Northern Virginia area by an Al Qaeda nuclear weapon, I wouldn't care about freedom of speech or conscience in Saudi Arabia. Like many, I'd support anyone who would drive a nuclear bomb right into the middle of those fuckers dancing in the streets celebrating "The Great Satan(tm)" getting nuked.
For the love of God, terrorism is about slaughtering women and children. It is a low-key form of genocide and is beyond mere criminality. A population that supports it and encourages it doesn't deserve to be let off the hook when it unleashes that on another group.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Uh... nuclear capability does not mean you have the means to cause any widespread damage with your ordinance. This is a response to current times, where newer nuclear powers have the technology but not the volume of weapons. North Korea, for example, is a country small enough that striking them would remove them from the map, and therefore nullify their ability to mount a retaliatory strike.
This is all moot, anyway -- I can't see this being any more than a message that says, "We have a LOT more toys than you do, and we could end you before you even blink."
I'm in for a thermonuclear flaming for so much as suggesting this on slashdot, but here goes:
The Pentagon is charged with defense and defense planning. Drawing up plans like this is their job. They are there to plan for every contingency and to present every option. They are also there to carry those plans out when so ordered. They are not there to carry those plans out without authorization
The United States is a second-strike nuclear power--its weapons are both so numerous and so dispersed that no single strike could easily knock out all of its retaliatory capability. Emerging nuclear powers, in contrast, are usually first-strike powers: their weapons are few and concentrated, geographically.
Given the knowledge that such an emerging nuclear power is preparing to fire its weapons on the United States or its allies, the warplanners are faced with the following choice:
Consider the costs and the benefits: a targeted, pre-emptive strike could neutralize a military target and eliminate a threat, all in a single stroke. Striking after the fact, your choice of targets is less optimal--do you hit some *other*, less-crucial part of the enemy's military infrastructure? Or do you retaliate in kind against a civilian target?
Tough choices. But somebody has to make them, eventually.
When "Death to America, death to Ireal" is chanted at the end of Irans parliamentry sessions much in the same fasion you might say "Amen" in church...do you really thing we should not take them seriously?
Life is not for the lazy.
In other words, if the USA got itself into a war that was wholly conventional, against an opponent that had no WMDs whatsoever and where no claims of WMDs were even made, but where that opponent was simply better at fighting, the President of the USA will have the right to nuke that opponent off the face of the planet.
Translated: America WILL win every war it fights, because if it loses, it'll utterly obliterate whoever beat it, and then it'll declare itself the winner anyway.
That is a very dangerous policy and doesn't dissuade places like North Korea at all. If anything, they'll now take the line that America is going to nuke them no matter what, so there is absolutely no point in holding back. If they're dead anyway, then why not pull the trigger?
That is NOT a way to make the world safer. Never play chicken with paranoid schizophrenics, particularly not after you've told them that you're prepared to cheat to win.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It SHOULD go without saying, but "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".
If you consider what either side offers in this conflict, I think you would be led to conclude that there ARE no good guys. Consider a few points:
Whereas Muslim terrorists want to enslave the WORLD to their retarded religious extremism, the neocons want to ENSLAVE the world to their retarded religious extremism.
Whereas Muslim terrorists want to keep their women in the home covered from head to toe and pregnant, neocons want to keep their women in the home BAREFOOT and pregnant.
And whereas Muslim terrorists hope to spread their ideology by indiscriminantly torturing and killing white people, neocons hope to spread their ideology by indiscriminantly torturing and killing Muslims.
My greatest hope is that the Rapture comes soon and hoovers up all these assholes so that the world can be left to rational people.
Remember a few years ago, when we gave Bush the ability to go to war to "Show that we mean business", then went to war? Prematurely and illegally I might add. I think this is something to consider, but not with this "We don't just talk like 2 year olds, we act like it too" administration.
These are NOT the mental giants I pictured to responibly wield such authority.
--
This sig is available via p2p
Honestly, have a guess who the rest of the world is more concerned about, N Korea or the USA.
I don't know how many of you grew up with the Cuban Missile Crisis and neighbors digging bomb shelters in their back yards; most of you probably just had scary TV specials instead. But we really don't need to put up with this kind of crap from an Administration that says it's doing it to make us *safer*.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Even a cursory look at American foreign policy shows we are anything but isolationist, and that these people, despicable as they are, have POLITICAL reasons behind their actions.
This is true. BUT THIS IS NOT REFLECTED IN OUR DAMN GOVERNMENT, AND REPUBLICANS ARE LARGELY RESPONSIBLE. Here's a quick example. Guess how Iran went from a democratically elected government to a dictatorship? WE HELPED. And then we tried to give the Shah of Iran nuclear technology! Way back in the day! WAS THAT FREAKING ISOLATIONIST? Is giving nuclear technology to India something that Pakistanians won't be worried about? There are many other examples of current, topical, and serious concerns beyond your little "Oh God they want Spain back" spiel.
Please, read a goddamn paper or history book.
Prez: These New Zealanders have banned all our Nu Clear ships - what are they hiding
Aide: But they are our Allie.
Prez: they MUST be hiding WMDS.
Aide: *slap on forehead*
Prez: *Presses Button*
later....
Aide: there are no signs of WMDS in New Zealand's smoldering wreakage. the 3 remaining people over there are quite upset
Prez: See I tol you that those Nu Clear Missile would Obliterate those WMDS! My policy works, Nuke those 3 remaining NZlanders. they might know how to make a WMD.
Type unto others as you would have them type unto you.
Slashdot has migrated from tech news to "Tech News and Anything We Can Bitch At Bush Over"
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Thinking instead of mindlessly repeating the garbage that some anti-war hippy is telling you might be smart.
Sure there isn't a USSR who could take out the entire country in one shot anymore, but one or two missiles is enough. One well placed nuke could kill/injure 10 million if it took out Los Angeles county. New york city has 8 million. Two nukes, well placed, could take out 18 million people. There are 295 million people in the US. That would be 16.39% of the US population. That is literally decimation. That is 50% more than decimation.
You think New Orleans is bad? There were what, 100,000 people left when the hurricane hit? We had 2/3 days to evacuate before it hit. We had that much warning. And the city is livable going forward. Compare that to a few hours notice. Millions dead. Millions injured. The area would be worthless thanks to fallout. Some of the largest and most important companies in the US could be gone. You think the post 9/11 recession was bad?
You don't have to take out half the country in one shot. Just take out LA, New York, or another large city (Seattle, San Fran., etc). If you can hit in the MIDDLE of the US (say Denver, St. Louis, Minneapolis, etc) that would scare people even more.
North Korea, Iran, Terrorists, other states that haven't announced yet or are currently friends/neutral but could turn with an election or coup. Just because big bad USSR is gone doesn't make us safe from nuclear attacks.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
http://mediagoblin.org/
Bollocks. They may have a handful of warheads, but no ICBMs with the range or accuracy. Even if they delivered them by hand, that would be terrible, but not "Assured Destruction". But at the first sign of them making ready, I think they'd get preemptively struck; the US has lots of force in place just over the border.
Russia still has thousands of nukes. China has enough, and some ICBMs, to do a lot of damage. As does France, so I wouldn't keep pissing on them as has become fashionable in the US.
9/11 should have dispelled that idea. Say the US nukes Iranian territory or even all of Iranian cities. (For this is to whom this policy is geared in about 10 years or so when they can attack). Do you not think that Iranians living around the world would not try to retaliate? Do you not think that most middle easterners would not try to retaliate?
Few countries would come to the US's aid if they nuked Iran. War or no war. The act is simply too repulsive. Sure, there will be official policies, but the regular people on the ground: customs official, the policeman. They will not inforce official policy.
Any country that lobs nukes will inevitably get theirs too. Not that the regular folks deserve it but they will certainly be the ones to pay the price.
Nukes are 40s technology. The time to learn to get along is now.
Yeah, the doctrine of pre-emptive attack worked out real well for Japan... :-P
In short, North Korea might have the capability to launch one or two nukes directly at the USA (actually they don't, but lets just assume they do, they probably do have the nukes for it), but is far from assured destruction of the USA. Don't come with the theory that that is only a matter of time, North Korea does not have access to the resources to come anywhere near.
Last time I checked, we had treaties with both South Korea and Japan in which case if either came under attack we would help defend them. Also last time I checked, they were both within range of North Koreas missles.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
If North Korea has nukes (I don't think they do, but they claim to), I'm not so much worried about the US as I am about Japan. North Korea would nuke Tokyo. I shouldn't have to tell anyone that this would be very bad.
The dirty secret is that the Korean war never really ended. We've had tens of thousands of troops on the border for decades. Bush finally had the cajones to pull them off the border (and out of artillery range). The problem is that Seoul, South Korea is within artillery range of North Korea. In any war with North Korea, the civilian casualties would be higher than any war since WWII. And that's assuming that North Korea doesn't have nukes. Also, in this hypothetical war, the actions of China are completely unknown. My guess is that China would invade Korea from the north. What would happen when Allied troops and Chinese troops met? I don't think anybody knows.
And as much as we don't want a war with North Korea, a war with China is even more undesirable.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
Not "Assured Destruction"? The country is presently flipping-the-fuck-out over New Orleans; you mean to tell me that a nuclear strike won't be at least that destructive? Thinking about it in psychological terms as well as collateral terms brings out the vulnerability of us as a people. And yeah, I didn't think the North Korea line of thought out very well; China is a much bigger threat, you're right. Eh...we all speak in haste now and then.
TLoM: Nerds + DDR + Rednecks for the win!
I'm sorry, but I've been to the VRWC meetings, and those points never came up. I'm also confused, as I thought NeoCons were all Zionist, Christian-blood drinking Jews, like Wolfowitz, so where does the Rapture fit in?
And you're right, it should go without saying that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," because it's a load of crap.
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
Anybody else notice how they use "Weapons of Mass Destruction" when speaking off the "enemy", but off "nuclear weapons" (not WMDs I guess!) when speaking about the americans?
Please, stand up and, for the sake of humanity, don't let this happen!
In other words, not very much. Not all prisoners will ever be given the opportunity for a review - the Pentagon has already said as much and has said that it expects some to remain prisoners for life with no possibility of any court review, even on an internal level.
Those who have been "processed" have been denied knowledge of the charges against them or the evidence against them. Indeed, nobody other than the top brass and the judges themselves know if any charges or evidence even exists in these cases. That falls a bit short of a right to a hearing.
Nor have any of those "processed" been allowed to bring witnesses of any kind, challenge testimony presented, challenge the impartiality of any of the tribunal, or carry out any kind of investigative process whatsoever. They can't even question any hearsay the DoD wishes to use as "evidence".
I'm from England, and I know English history pretty well. England had a time like that, under the ruthless dictates of King John, where any person could be arrested on suspicion of an unspecified crime, on the basis of the accuser's uncorroborated "eyewitness testimony". So horrified did England become that it rose up in rebellion and demanded a written constitution (the Magna Carta).
America has a written constitution - although GWB tends to ignore it, and it hasn't been (for the most part) American citizens who have suffered - although there are exceptions. In consequence, there is virtually no chance of any kind of revolt against abuses of power. Nobody who is in a position to has enough to lose or enough to gain. Those who do - well, they're just labelled terrorists and carpet-bombed.
The whole "war on terror" is one huge unholy mess. Hey, fighting terrorism is a good idea, but you can't fight terrorism with the weapons of terror. You've got to use other methods, where at all possible. The problem is, GWB has no interest in "other methods", which makes me think that he is more interested in the fighting than in the resolving.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Mod me as a troll, I don't care... I have to say it.
Those stupid motherfuckers.
We know that, yes. And China knows that. But does North Korea, and its 7 million+ troops know that?
Politicians talk about how we won't need a draft in the foreseeable future. But if we have to fight North Korea, there's going to be a draft. We really won't have any other choice.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
Thinking instead of mindlessly repeating the garbage that some anti-war hippy is telling you might be smart.
I indeed happen to think war is not such a good thing to be involved in, doesn't exactly make me a hippy. What is this name calling needed for whenever anyone might disagree with the current government anyway.
Sure there isn't a USSR who could take out the entire country in one shot anymore, but one or two missiles is enough. One well placed nuke could kill/injure 10 million if it took out Los Angeles county. New york city has 8 million. Two nukes, well placed, could take out 18 million people. There are 295 million people in the US. That would be 16.39% of the US population. That is literally decimation. That is 50% more than decimation.
Just please go learn something about the effects of nuclear weapons, what Korea might have in the worst case, and what kind of damage they can do with it.
I do agree that they can cause a pretty amount of damage, that is not the point.
If you are going to be afraid of a country with nukes, then I'd take another look at Pakistan. Its current leader may not be a problem, and actually most of its population would not be either, but chances of some extremist comming to power one way or another are quite there, and then you have a country with proven nuclear ability, some access to resources for making more, own technology for delivery and a group of fanatic idiots who may try anything to get a nuke delivered.
Do something about North Korea? sure, something should have been done some 40+ years ago there actually, end the state of war between it and the USA. It is one of those 'monsters' the USA has created itself with the same kind of blindness and fear (for communism back then) that so many there are still showing today.
Just because the president has the authorization to fire nukes at-will, doesn't make us any safer from nuclear attacks either. The threat behind a preemptive strike will only protect us from an enemy that's rational or has a lot to lose. Unfortunately most of our true enemies are irrational or have nothing to lose.
_______
2B1ASK1
Yes but why would anybody want to hurt the US? We are such nice people. We don't ever bother anybody and we are such concerned and helpful world citizens!.
Nukes are old skool. The real problem is that billions of people all over the world want to see us suffer and die. You can't just keep making more enemies every day and not expect any consequences. Those billions of people who want to see you die will figure out a way to kill you or spend you into bankrupcy trying to defend yourself.
Unfortunately nobody in the good old U S of A has any interest in making nice with people. We are intent on making ourselves as obnoxious and dangerous as possible. Sooner or later it's going to bite us in the ass.
There is a reason US was attacked instead of Canada but nobody wants to think about that.
evil is as evil does
Um, the point of weapons is to have more and bigger than the other guy. Trying to prevent other people from being as well-armed is not hypocritical in the slightest. Just so you know. Elitist, perhaps, but not hypocritical. When you insult someone, at least use the correct word.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
WTF is wrong with our government?!?!?
I'm in the middle of studying for my Chemistry quiz, when I figure, hey, I haven't check slashdot in the last couple of seconds, so lo and behold, out of the bloody blue, there's a story talking about my government giving a moron the power to nuke whoever he wants. WHY???? Where they bored? Did they feel they didn't fuck enough things up? Nuclear war is no joke! It doesn't matter what the reason or who you're bombing; nuking someone is wrong!
There's no reason and entire city of innocent people needs to be wiped out just because these idiots can't get along...
Best. Webhost. Ever. Dreamhost.
This is actually a kind of complicated intersection of several forms of insanity. For example, Dubya's flavor is that he buys into religious forms of Armageddon, so he thinks America needs lots of nuclear bombs to join the party "properly". The neo-cons have delusions of recreating a new Holy Roman Empire, with nuclear bombs replacing the legions. Cheney is the best example of the most toys faction, as in "He who dies with the most toys wins."
In reality, might does NOT make right, and trying to sustain modern civilization with the law of the jungle is going to produce a whole lot of dead Tarzans. The more nuclear weapons one side plays with, the more weapons the other sides will want to play with, and it's the richest players who wind up with the most to lose, and the poorest players who can roll for broke. No blinking allowed.
I'm not a pacifist, by the way. I know that the nuclear genie is not going to go back into the bottle, and the only way to have real peace is if you are ready to use sufficient force against anyone who wants to become violent. However, "sufficient" does not mean "absolute and overwhelming", because there is no such thing. What the world really needs is enough good nations that are capable of working together to face down the threats--which is almost exactly the situation that existed in Iraq in the '90s.
However, I also think that the "just use of force" has an even more important aspect than keeping it to the sufficient level. That's a matter of personal attitude. The just use of force should be done with the proverbial heavy heart and in the face of true necessity. It shouldn't be imagined as a real-life version of a video game or some kind of cowboy romp, which is how most of the Rusheviks and Busheviks see it. You can actually map this all the way down to your local policeman: Of course you want your local policeman to know how to quickly and efficiently apply enough force for each situation, but I do not want a policeman who enjoys the use of force, or even one who has become indifferent to the use of it.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Are you HIGH? Seriously, do you REALLY believe what you just put up there?
... everything!!! Show them we don't need a DAMN thing that comes from them... I guarantee they will be BEGGING to talk with us inside of 3 months!!! Turn their oil tankers around, don't let ANY of their people INTO or OUT of our country. Don't buy JACK SHIT from them.
So, you would get your rhetoric and information from movies to make your decisions? What? Is your news channel the "E" channel and/or FOX?
You are the classic example of what has become of this nation. ("pop-culture", "pop-mentality", "pop-psychology", a nation of lolli-pop-heads). You must be like what, early twenty something? Have you EVER been outside of this country? Have you EVER been to Europe? Mexico? Canada? Cuba? I don't mean just the little tourist traps where you see what "their" government wants you to see, but explored some of these other countries? Met people from other nations, had ANY kind of friendly relation with a person from another country/culture?
So, we should just ATTACK!! Damn the torpedoes FULL speed ahead... Nukem till they GLOW!!! Despite the FACT that those involved with 9/11 weren't from IRAQ, but MOST were from our BUDDIES the SAUDIS!!! Why then haven't we ATTACKED THEM?
YES we are THE MOST POWERFUL nation but that power comes with an even GREATER amount of responsibility and required temperance. ALSO, it requires a certain amount of intelligence and wisdom to think BEFORE we act.
Oh that's right, responsibility is something Americans (most) don't believe in anymore. Temperance, thought BEFORE action, instead of RE-action, that's right these too don't mean a DAMN thing...
I believe in taking action but NOT before we KNOW who is responsible! We KNOW who is responsible, but because the RICH have connections and TIES to those responsible AND have a strong control of the GOVERNEMENT (OUR government), the PROPER course of action is NOT being taken. Nor will it...
PROPER action should be taken to severely pressure the governments of Saudi Arabia and the surrounding countries, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Isreal, Palestine, Turkey, Iran, in fact MOST of the nations in that area to cough up those that are terrorists. You want to cripple a nation? CUT THEM OFF!!! Don't NUKEM! That just makes us MORE enemies, it makes US the enemy. Then EVERYONE sees us as an enemy if we just go in and without THINKING blow shit up!! Also, that crap that drugs lead to terrorism? What about the FACT that the country we liberated but don't care about because they don't have oil (Afghanistan) is one of the LARGES OPIUM producers of ANY nation? That certainly sounds like "feeding grounds" for terrorism.
Solution?
CUT THEM OFF!!!
Cut them off financial, economically, trade
SURE it will mean hard times for us, but it will be worth it in the long run.
BUT because the rich and the businesses control our government this will NEVER happen. It would take and EVEN GREATER amount of Chutzpah and BALLS to do it then it would to NUKEM! That's the EASY way out... but without THINKING about it, we wouldn't realize till it was too late that we have just turned EVERY OTHER NATION against us. You want WW3? Go ahead support that CHILDISH, TWO year old mentality.
We should have been researching new technologies to replace fuel when we figured out (twenty years ago) that we would start running out of crude oil around 1999/2000. (In other words we are using more then the capability is to produce and pump out.) HAVE YOU SEEN what the Saudis have in terms of riches? The opulence of those palaces? The CACHES of MONEY, Au (that's Gold for those that don't remember chemistry), Ag (Silver), jewels are SO vast!!! It is mind boggling to see.
If you want to nuke someone Nuke the Saudis, start saving for a hybrid car that gets BETTER then 45mpg to use less OIL, use more natural fabrics not ones which are petroleum based to use LESS OIL, and for GOD's sake do a little research before saying anything THAT m
The Iraq war was a preventive war, not a preemptive one, but the administration did its best to make it look preemptive.
What was it trying to prevent?
Well, judging by his actions, George W. seems to think the destruction of an American city is an acceptable outcome for his domestic policy.
You aren't seriously suggesting that Ollie North was committing treason by selling weapons to a declared enemy of the USA (Iran) while working for the US military are you? That would be like saying the money wasn't being raised for a good cause anyway - funding right wing terrorists in Central America. It would also be like saying that skimming off money for a personal commission was also wrong, or the current administration giving him another job after all that was wrong.
When the leading lights of the USA compare themselves to the founding fathers are they really talking about Arnold, Wilkinson and Burr?
> It SHOULD go without saying, but "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".
Yes it should becuase its not true.
Thats like saying "one man's serial killer and baby rapist is another man's nice neighbor who doesn't make too much noise."
Your an idiot.
I've been following your thread on North Korea, and well, I had to jump in.
I think you are massively uninformed about North Korea.
1. North Korea has been pursuing nuclear weapons for at least three decades. They started in the 1970's, some say as early as 1969.
2. The only reason North Korea hasn't obtained and built advanced delivery systems and more powerful warheads is because the US's "monster" is totally contained. The economic strangehold placed on North Korea has strained hard cash resources to the point where they can't even keep embassies open. They are among the poorest nations on earth, and whatever resources they have go towards military and nuclear research. This is not new.
3. North Korea would be far, far, far ahead of Pakistan if given the resourecs. Look at the economic powerhouse that is South Korea. Without the sanctions and anti-communist stance of the US and Europe since the end of the Korean War the North would be in a much better position. Imagine if they had even 50% of the economic resources of South Korea. It'd be catastrophic.
4. Whatever you think of Clinton, he bungled the handling of the nuclear position in North Korea. His the 1994 U.S.-North Korea nuclear pact was insane. Just absurdly insane. They started work back on the program days after the ink was dry.
5. It is possible to be afraid of Pakistan and North Korea simulatenously.
6. You make it seem like North Korea is just going stop. Developing a missle that could hit just the outer most parts of the US isn't going to be the end of the day.
Signing a peace agreement with North Korea can do no good. I think you need to rethink what it would do. Ending the state of war will allow money to flow into North Korea. Right now they have natural resources that are untapped. Bringing in foreign equipnment and capital would cause a huge economic boon for the country and fill the governments pockets with cold hard cash, something it has very little of. This is country with natural gas and oil reserves but has to beg the US and others for heating fuel. That was part of the 1994 agreement.
The goal of the leaders of North Korea is to stay in power, and to live the good life. That means the people suffer, and literall a dozen or two live high. Meanwhile every penny they can grab goes towards testng missles, building and testing new equipment that we or Europeans invented in the 40's, 50's or 60's, and trying to reverse engineer things we've using for just as long.
Sorry, but I just can't believe you are on sound footing with your analysis of North Korea.
After we spent the 1990s negotiating with Russia to destroy their nukes, Bush cancelled the funding to actually scrap the Russian arsenal. Now we'll spend even more billions building more nukes. This whole thing is totally insane. Will the madness end only in a nuclear holocaust?
--
make install -not war
It is, today, September 12. Four years and one day ago, it was September 11th, 2001, and I was in New York watching the dust cloud rise. And it's just remarkable, just stunning... I mean, who could have predicted that four years later, the most powerful nation on earth would yet to have brought bin Laden to justice for what he did? Who could have believed that instead, the administration would use lies about WMD to invade a nation with no connection to 9/11? Who would have believed that we'd be in an endless guerilla war with almost two thousand American lives lost and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead. That a nation which prides itself in being a beacon of freedom would be torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib and running a gulag in Cuba. And there's no end in sight to any of it. It's just disgusting. And profoundly sad. What's happened to my country? We rose up after 9-11 but somehow in the past four years, it brought us down so low, I barely even recognize the country anymore.
We shouldn't be giving this guy the authority to use nuclear weapons. If he were watching TV in my house, he wouldn't even be entrusted with the remote control. God... just, one day, I want to walk up to him. And spit in his face, and then walk away.
Lets play chess.
Or "Doesn't anybody remember that there we no WMD ever found in Iraq?" Nuking the place would take care of that nasty little problem of having to produce evidence.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Yep that worked out so well for empires in the past. There's a reason why the US is hated and it isn't jealousy.
Osama Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire but he's jealous of you yeh right.
You know how the UK stopped Irishmen blowing up our cities. We spent nearly 30 years of getting ever more draconian and then after actually negotiating with the terrorists we've had virtually no trouble with them at all in the last 10.
It may turn some people's stomachs to see Gerry Adams being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize but up until our ass-kisser leader dragged us into a pointless war, UK citizens didn't have to worry about being blown up anymore.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
Seriously. Why not simply evacuate the tribes loyal to the Afghan regime living near the border with Pakistan and after that takes place, DTB (drop the bomb)? It would kill off a bunch of Taliban groupies and Bin Laden with them.
But I guess that makes too much sense to actually be carried out.
Errr, yes.
I mean, who could have predicted that four years later, the most powerful nation on earth would yet to have brought bin Laden to justice for what he did?
Just another example of the sheer, utter incompetence of the Bush administration.
Can't find Bin Laden. Can't respond to natural disasters. Somewhere north of $400 Billion down the "war on terror" hole and it looks about as successful as the "war on drugs" started by the original sainted Republican, Ronnie "Iran-Contra" Reagan.
Boy, but he sure got the "values" crowd in this country fired up - the same people who think it's logical to bomb abortion clinics to stop the "murder" of "babies".
After beating on Clinton and Gore for every little misstep they made over eight years, the press must have been tired, because even after Katrina, they're still taking a nap. Bush could cornhole a dead boy on the White House lawn and Fox news would fawn over him for making that particular butthole safe for democracy.
Sure, let's make it policy for the man responsible (and I use the word very loosely, since he never seems to take responsibility for ANYTHING) to fire off a few nukes when he feels like it, without provocation.
I know I feel safer. Not.
The moderators will go absolutely apeshit on my ass here, but what the hell:
Consider the USA as a third-world dictatorship with an overabundance of natural resources/wealth.
How would such a dictatorship behave?
When it needs oil, what would it do? Would have a phenomenally high prison population? How would it treat its poor? How would it treat corporations that were investing in its country? Would it put more money into its military than in public services?
When it needs cheap fruit, would it set up bananna republics? Would it sign any global laws/mandates that would require it to make concessions? Would it pay back any tariffs it stole from its neighbours? Would it support the UN? Would it start wars based on lies? Could it use religion to suppress the masses? Would its education system be very good? Would it offer socialized healthcare?
Being the biggest badass on the face of the planet, what sort of nuclear policies would a US-sized dictatorship hold?
Things that make you go hmmmm.
For the record, I don't think the USA is a dictatorship. But many of its behaviours seem to closely parallel those one would expect of a dictatorship.
At any rate, I find it an interesting intellectual exercise.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
THIS CHANGES NOTHING AND MEANS NEXT TO NOTHING!
This is just another stupid policy paper to keep the staff busy. It's nothing more than a reminder to anyone (mostly other governments) who have the time to waste reading such papers that this is the official US government policy. And it always has been bush changed nothing, not a thing. There are thousands of these papers published each year, this one got mention because some reporter thought he could stir up the reactionaries and get his name in the light a little.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
The hurricane wasn't caused by policy. Obviously
The flooding on the other hand, was caused by the degradation of the surrounding swamplands, cleverly placed there by God/nature/whatever to absorb the excess water from exciting weather events
The levee system, it was forecast several years ago, was not even up to the task of resisting a smaller hurricane than Katrina. The Clinton administration had spent 500 mill on it, but funding dropped considerably under Bush.
The advance response was non-existent, the President being too busy with other affairs, and preferring to plead ignorance after the fact
Additionally, National Guard and Army troops, who would normally be called in to assist in major emergencies, were not available at this time, being elsewhere engaged.
Oh wait I see, you were being ironic. You're right, the poor levee maintenance and lack of military personnel and lack of preparatory response weren't caused by President Bush's domestic policies. They were caused by his obsession with foreign policy.
That's a very subtle and clever point you made, well done
All available data suggest that regardless of any of this, the sun will still come up tomorrow.
You mean GWB was at the controls of the national weather machine when the hurricane hit New Orleans?
Maybe you mean the legislation he signed to go ahead and get 'the big one' out of the way.
Perhaps he wanted to do his oil buddies and Halburton a favor and cause a crisis.
Someone hates these cans.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Davy-Croc kett-(nuclear-device)
The Davy was a recoilless rifle that fired 1 kiloton nukes and was developed years ago. Yes, there are 155mm nuclear rounds (some are rocket propelled and laser guided) in addition to VX, blister, mine deploying, etc. Do not be surprised at the disgusting genius of weapons designers. There exist some truly horrific means of mass murder and nuclear munitions is just one. Personally nukes don't scare me as much any more. They are fairly easy to track, difficult to build and deliver and suffer from scalibility and engineering issues to make the big ones. There is also a certain stigma attached to them.
Biological weapons scare the living shit out of me. They are difficult to develop, but can be easily mass produced and delivered. They kill indescriminately and can be made self sustaining. What is worse is that to defeat them, you have to devlopment them in the first place (this is the conundrum of any weapons research).
Let's all just try to get along, okay?
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
We have not had a strike on US soil in four years.
This would be a more impressive figure it if included one or both of:
- An indication of how many aborted and/or prevented attacks there actually were during those four years.
- Some way of knowing how the numbers would change based on a more elegant and well-planned response.
Two countries that supported terrorism no longer exist.
Which countries are those? Did I miss the US invading countries other than Afghanistan and Iraq? Because those are still there, minus a tiny handful of their overall populations.
I think "shock and awe" was a valid description.
Yes, and I think theoretically it's a great strategy - just like it was when it was called a Blitzkrieg. But that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do in that particular situation.
Go ahead an tell me Iraq would be better off long-term with Saddam in charge.
I'm not a citizen of Iraq. The question should be "as a US citizen, am *I* better off long-term without Saddam in charge, given the cost?" and I think the answer is obviously "no."
Was he a vile person? Yes. There are lots of them in the world - including here in America.
Are the Iraqis mostly appreciative that he's gone? Probably. I think the lack of a significant anti-Saddam resistance before the invasion is an indication that it didn't matter enough to them that we should have cared either.
I think we had things right back in WWII. We stayed out of it until we were really sure it was necessary, and then we used overwhelming force to stomp all over the countries that deserved it. "Measure twice, cut once."
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Unfortunately, the western powers and USA in particular have a lot to do with those radicalized people lacking food, safety and means to take care of their families. There's a good reason why it's the US flag Palestinians are burning instead of, say, the Swedish flag. The question of Palestine seems to be a genuine insult to many a muslim, and USA is very closely and visibly linked to it by always supporting the actions of Israel, no matter what. Also it's about the presence of foreign (US) troops on the holy land. As you can see, there's many reasons to choose from, and not all of them are just envy.
What are we going to do tomorrow night? The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world!
The way I see it, China and Russia will not look kindly toward smoking nuclear craters in its backyard. So it probably won't come to that. :)
I don't know how the rocket science works, but a nuke launched from the US into NK will look awful lot like a nuke coming INBOUND to China. hmm...
Bomb Heaven! Oh wait, even though most of the death and destruction in the World is religion based, nobody knows where Heaven is!
Eh, plenty of people wish death on every citizen of the US
Nope plenty of people wish death on the US Government because of their absolutely fucked foreign policy. And since tha US of A loudly proclaims it's a democracy for the people, of the people, yada yada, the terrorists assume (and rightly so 50% of the time) that the US citizens are 101% behind their government, thus, putting the blame squarely on US citizens. And this is why they want to kill you. I'm not saying it makes it ok. But I think this point needs to be clarified. They are NOT after you because of your "way of life" despite what OBL yells about all day long. They are basically after you because they think you are responsible for their loss of life and limb.
Osama Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire but he's jealous of you yeh right.
Osama bin Laden is a psychopath. But you have a point. His supporters are often wealthy too. They have no reason to envy the US.
I have traveled the world over. I have lived in Muslim nations as a non-Muslim. I have traveled to countries which have seen the brunt of US covert actions. I have never met anyone who hated *me* because I am an American. Yet many people are frustrated and even outraged at our government.
In May of 2002, I was in Quito Ecuador. I used to go to an Indian restaurant, and once I started talking with one of the owners. Turned out he was from Iraq. He asked me where I was from and I told him "Los Estados Unidos" (the US). I will never forget the look in his eyes. Not hatred or anger. But pain and sorrow. Yet I am sure he was in Ecuador not because of my country but because of trying to get away from Saddam.
We in the US are often incredibly insensitive to the suffering our country causes all over the world. The problem is that once you are hurt enough, you may start to do little things to fight back. These may involve looking the other direction when a charity you give money to spends some of its money on donations to militant and/or terrorist organizations. It may involve actually willfully aiding such organization, or it may even involve volunteering into such groups.
Yes, we are the most powerful country the world has ever known. But the hardest lesson to learn is that, to quote an old Norwegian saying, the "Sheath is for Swords." Real power is best kept in reserve, always close at hand but rarely if ever used. Ever since WWII, however, we have been militarily involved in one place or another more or less constantly. We have caused immeasurable sorrow in the world, and consequently we have earned powerful enemies. People forget the lessons of Iran, or Chile, or Guatamala.
Do a google search for September 11, 1973 and see what shows up.... The result of that action by the CIA killed *more Chileans* than Al Qaeda did on the 28th anniversery of that event (if you assume that the 1100 or so that were "disappeared" were probably summarily executed in custody.
The truth is that we are hated for the same reason that we hate Al Qaeda. We are hated just as they are for our crimes against humanity. And those of us who truly love our country have an obligation to try to turn this around.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
IANAL....
But I understand that there is this thing called "International Humanitarian Law" that includes such things as the Geneva Conventions. Real freedom fighters should confine themselves to standards that are at least defensible under interational rules of war. Those that do not are terrorists, state sponsored or not.
For example, when I look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, lets look at acts of terrorism:
* Blowing up busses
* dropping 1-ton bombs on apartment buildings
* Indescriminant razing of neighborhoods in refugee camps
* Blowing up supermarkets
* Using ICRC relief workers as human shields
* Firing on PRC medical personnel and equipment with PRG's etc.
etc...
The *only* group which has a legitimate claim not to be a group of terrorists is Tanzim. Not Fatah, Not Hamas, Not the IDF. And Tanzim is only questionably so (it depends on whether Settlers are protected noncombatants under the Geneva Conventions). So a terrorist is a terrorist.
Back to the US.
Look up "September 11, 1973" and you will see what I mean. Personally I think that if Pinochet is to be tried for his crimes against humanity than his CIA buddies should be too. Same in El Salvador, same in Guatamala, same in Ecuador, same in Iran.
Strategic nuclear weapons IMO are terrorist impliments and the use of them ultimately qualifies as a terrorist attack.
A terrorist is a terrorist. It should go without saying that we should be willing to police our own government as much as we want to fight those who perpetrate crimes against humanity (though in revenge for what we have done) against us.
Those who truly love our country have a moral duty to try and turn things around before it is too late (it may be too late anyway but we have to try). I don't pledge allegiance to the President. I pledge allegiance to the *flag.* I don't owe allegiance to the president. I owe allegiance to my *country.* This is the essence of true American patriotism, deeply rooted in a mistrust for those who run our government.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Hey, guys -- I'm a furrigner -- it's your country, your Constitution. But you make us furrigners (Australia here) nervous sometimes.
What happened to Section 8 Powers of Congress to declare war ? Isn't that part of your democracy ?
Tell me a preemptive nuclear strike wouldn't be a declaration of war? Sure! It's like a pat on the head!
Or maybe, like Pearl Harbour, it'd just be an act of infamy ?
Where'd you get these Pentagon brains ?
WTF is wrong with our government?!?!?
In a democracy, people get the government they deserve. It is the responsibility of USA citizens to stop the madman in the Whitehouse. If you do not, you are part of the problem. As things stand, the majority of USA citizens that can be bothered to vote want Bush. You guys had the ability to kick him out of office last year, and you didn't. He represents you. Your fault. Do something about it.
The difference could vey well be that there is one big dictator family controlling it all and taking turns being chief. Some of them is against abortion, some for. Some against death penalty, some for. All raving lunatics hell-bent on absolute supreme power, wealth and oil. Or something.
A two-party system is a joke as any means of ensuring democracy. There are just two very similar parties to actually choose from, now how different is that from the evil one-party systems that are in place in dictatorships? It must be soooo much better.
But entrusting someone with nuclear capability who is allegedly 'leading' a superpower nation, necessitates a true leader with great wisdom and foresight. Somehow I don't see a former alcoholic who can barely give a speech without sounding like he just had one too many as someone who qualifies. First, there was the intelligence debacle that allowed 9/11 slip through the cracks, the perpetrator was allowed to escape and was never captured, an attack on the country of origin proved very costly and without the intended result, and to top it off, there is a continuation of the so-called 'war on terror' marked by a 'pre-emptive strike' on a nation for something that turned out to be a complete falsehood. This is not the kind of record I'd use to justify the use of nuclear weapons.
The problem is that once they are used, there is no going back...it may trigger all manner of unintended consequences and be be just the beginning of a hell we never imagined possible.
Yes, unfortunately, the majority of the country seemingly believes that creation myths have the same quality and quantity of supporting evidence as evolution, that hurricanes are the result of gay people and that crippled people don't deserve to walk again or move their arms, if it means utilizing stem-cells.
I think I heard a statistic on a television show the other night stating that 20% of adults think the Sun revolve around Earth.
And, unfortunately, the numbers of these people are such that they over-ride those with - you know - common sense on their side.
It's a little dishonest to say that "Americans get the government they deserve". No - 100% of the country gets the government 52% of the country is ignorant enough to choose. That, my friend, is democracy.
This is probably designed to scare Iran into submission. Problem is, that sometimes bluffs get called. Then we will have to go through with it. Then how will the world (esp the muslim world) regard America to be the only nation to drop the bomb? Twice.
This is going to backfire badly.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
North Korea has no intention of attacking the US even if they could
Nice to know you can read minds from thousands of miles away from good ol' 'Dear Leader'! So you do read his horoscopes and predict his intentions from that too?
Oh please, spare us yet more of this ridiculous bomb them back into the stone age idiocy that fails to realise what epoch we're in and who we're dealing with. Please be absolutely, unconditionally assured that no-one in the world doubts the ability of Americans to utterly miss the point and bomb the hell out of "rogue nations", utterly unaware that they're fighting last century's kind of war. The terrorists escaped by foot and horse while you "bombed Afghanistan into the Stone Age", killing more innocent civilians than ever died in 9/11, largely for the benefit of Fox News. So it's all good; no-one doubts your ability to make this kind of dumb fool mistake, just as few now doubt that America is, indeed, a paper tiger when it comes to writing checks the electorate's stomach can't cash. Like a sustained military occupation of Iraq, for example. But, it's true, putting more power in the hands of a prat like Bush will certainly drum the point home to anyone who hasn't been paying attention to your murderous platitudes about trigger-fingers and righteous bombs.
Have they no suitcases?
Are they unable to covertly contact terrorist organizations?
Have they no legitimate-seeming cargo containers?
A missle is a rather unlikely way for a nuke to strike the US, so forgive me if I find it uncomforting that nutball nuclear powers have poor missile capability. Kinda like I'd hardly feel better to note that a grizzly bear charging me did not, in fact, have the opposable thumbs required to hold a gun---that isn't why it's dangerous.
Then why do people fight back against a bully?
We don't think they're "fighting back"; they do. Until we work that difference out, I suspect you can expect to see continuing violence.
"Just another example of the sheer, utter incompetence of the Bush administration."
Maybe you should consider the possibility that its not incompetence but malevolence, and that the Bush administration doesn't want to catch Bin Laden or break up Al Qaeda. When the Soviet Union collapsed the world started heading towards a dramatic reduction in military spending and decline in military threats and fear in the world. The right wingers absolutely HATED it. The couldn't stand the defense spending cuts in the U.S in particular.
9/11 was a godsend to them since not only did it allow them to reverse the defense cuts but they had an excuse to inflate defense and intelligence spending to new record levels today, and this is facing a rag tag terrorist band with few weapons, versus countering the massive armaments of the Soviet Union.
The right wing no doubt vowed that when a new threat came along to replace the Soviet Union, to justify the massive defense spending they love so much, to justify massive erosion in civil liberties they love so much, and to use as a fear mongering tool to get themselves elected, they no doubt took a vow to make sure they would do everything in their power that threat would last forever this time. There is a fair chance the current strategy is to nibble around the edges of Al Qaeda but make sure their leadership stays in tact so they can put out a video tape every six months or so to whip up a new round of fear.
The heart of the neocon philisophy is to create myths of good and evil to unite and heard the American people, American's always being good and everything they oppose being evil, hence the terms "Evil empire" and "Axis of Evil". This whole philosophy falls apart if you don't have something clearly defined, and clearly named to play the evil role, its Bin Laden on the global stage and its Al-Zarqawi in Iraq. Notice how the Bush administration uses the name Al-Zarqawi every time they talk about the war in Iraq, though in fact he probably has little to do with the vast majority of the insurgency which is based on former Baathists and Sunni's who are angry they've been thrown out of power. Al-Zarqawi is just evil role player the neocons love so much.
@de_machina
Ok, I could understand that one would think about measurements like this when one feels threatened. However, what do people feel threatened by? Other than terrorists, I can't think of anything. And it's not like a pre-emptive strike is going to help - after all, terrorists are usually stealthy and you only get to know where they are after they hit.
So what's this new bill for? Just strengthening the powers of GWB so he can visit some more destruction on the heads of whoever the heck crosses his mind? What good does that accomplish? It seriously sounds like a very dangerous law introduced for no reason at all.
Damn, I almost wish some other countries would show some backbone and state that they will launch their missiles if the USA passes this law. But, of course, it's hard to stand up against the big bully.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
So are you saying that IRAN/China should Nuke America before they nuke them?
Pre-emptive is a big problem, because if you go pre-emptive, then so will them, then you pre-empt that, then they pre-empt that, until basically you need to nuke them tomorrow before they nuke you in 100 years.
The only possible outcome is death for whoever the US feels might be a problem in general.
Looks like we're set for another stupid situation like in the 60s - Hey wasn't that you guys (US) again?
"the place the fairy tale falls apart is them having the real means to do so, which is generally a prerequisite for the whole 'preemptive' thing."
Mmmmm... just like clear and present danger of WMDs was be required to go into Iraq, right?
I can't believe anyone still falls for bullshit like this.
Not content with invading countries in defiance of international opinion and signally failing to produce one scrap of justification, not content with failing miserably to install a democratic government and leaving some Iraqi citizens actually regretting the USA's involvement, now Bush is itching to re-start the cold war and MAD by posturing and waving his cock-compensating "nukerler" weapons at anyone who might have WMDs? And who decides who has them? Oh yeah, the same fuckwits who hallucinated the WMDs in Iraq.
Unfair? That's how the rest of the world sees Bush and the USA at the moment.
My only question is this: Is Bush actually fucking insane? We've only just finished the public nuclear standoff and MAD bullshit that occupied us for most of the 80s and half the 90s, and now he wants to start it again?
I hate to flame, but just what the fuck is wrong with him?
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
Stop supporting dictators and manipulating politics in the Middle-East, overthrowing governments, supporting tyrants like Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden, etc, would be a good start. Also diplomacy can reach a long way. Act with your heart, not your muscles.
Hint: Instead of making martyrs, you can make yourself martyrs. Now, you only seem like a big, insecure and scared bully. Honestly, as a European I see USA self-destructing itself and the rest of the Western world with it if you don't change course asap.
Listen, your post is well written and i'm glad you own a passport unlike 80% of us (or whatever). I do too. I've listened to anti-US tirades in bars, and the opposite. It depends on where you are and the person.
Despite all that, your post sets up a straw man, and also discounts the lust for power.
Your mistake is that you blame your own country for these issues and that isn't so. The problem isn't a US problem. The problem is human nature. No one is going to sit down and be killed or held hostage by external forces when they can do something about it, and there will always be external forces that will want to exert power over significant reaches of (or the entire) world.
Moreover, someone like OBL isn't motivated precisely by envy of the US, though that is there in terms of the power we can wield. One almost gets the impression you think desire of money is the only motivator for humankind. His attack on the US was motivated by the needs of local politics and establishing his bonafides as an enemy of the imperialist oppressor that shows up in Arab schoolbooks as the supporter of the Zionists. It was a piece of a plan to provoke revolution in his home country, more than anything else. He exploited a weakness that the Saudis have in their own ideology. He probably has Pan-Arab ambitions like a modern day Nasser, also. This is lust for power.
Explain to me exactly how anything except fighting and killing are going to get rid of a ready-made foe like that? (taking him and his minions collectively)
Leaving that aside for now, the fact that little people get ground into the dust by exercise of the power of a nation like the US. Truth - and in retrospect the Allende situation perhaps wasn't the Communist revolution that it seemed to be to people like Kissinger. Gotta love that 20/20 hindsight.
The point is that even today, the Allende thing had a meaningful realpolitik objective that we can discern. It might have been a bullshit reason. We'll never know now, though, because all anyone has is conjecture about the future actions of an Allende regime. There was a real force in the world that plotted our demise via proxy. We had lost a lot of fights against that force in the recent past (or were about to, in Southeast Asia). Those fights resounded far more strongly in importance then than they truly had. Yet, though the events in Southeast Asia were somehow unimportant to us (though they were very important to the inhabitants thereof who suffered from privation and extermination, depending on geography and timeframe), they certainly did their part to assure that the Iranians, sensing our weakness, felt few qualms about kidnapping the occupants of our embassy in 1979. Note that they didn't take over our embassy because of Mossadegh or hatred of the Shah. They took over our embassy because they could. What was Jimmy Carter going to do about it? (one can hear the laughs from the back of the audience)
The lesson to draw: Carter's 'niceness' and perceived weakness was the cause of those hostages enduring a year plus in captivity. Reagan got them out simply because they feared his reprisal should they remain captive. Fear for your own survival is a far better motivator than some abstract moral sense. In fact, the abstract moral sense barely registers in comparison.
When you recount our supposed 'evil' without giving it contextual backing, you are bashing your own country. This is why I call people like you anti-American. You'd rather see your own country humbled because of some misplaced humanitarian notion that doesn't work in the real world. That's a seditious attitude whether you understand that - or not.
The only measure of a nation at war is that you survived. I point to Dresden or Hamburg or Tokyo or even Hiroshima/Nagasaki. If the war had turned the other way, we might talk about war crimes trials for these wanton killings of civilians, rather than for concentration camps. Both the Soviets and the Germans raped, pillaged and murdered the
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
No, 70% of the country has decided to let the other 30% choose a government. If they get something they don't like, it's too late now to complain.
This is completely fucking disingenuous, and you know it.
Sure the GPP was a bit over the top, but by seriously suggesting you don't understand where they're coming from you're more stupid than you appear. Sure, the liberals hate Bush and the religious right, but they also hate the terrorists. It's Republicans vs. The Terrorists, and the Democrats are merely stuck in the middle (all too often huddling on the ground in a puddle of urine with their hands over their ears).
The "liberals" think the right are similar to "the terrorists" because they have the same level of vitriol, prefer the same strategy (violence[1]), are motivated by paranoia or religious extremism, happily and easily reject facts (and greater reality) whenever convenient, and are completely incapable of rational, detatched self-analysis or self-questioning.
The right think "the liberals" are similar to "the terrorists" because they see the world in black and white - they literally believe "if you're not with us, you're against us". This is so fucking simple a child can understand it - it's the concept of "compromise" or taking the middle road. It is, however, useful to pretend they don't so they can accuse anyone faintly less extremist than them of being a traitor.
Nevertheless, you can't deny that it's extremely hypocritical to loudly condemn one type of religious fundamentalism (Muslim) for:
Unnecessary violence and invasive aggression
Repression of civil liberties
Causing civilian deaths
Repression of women
Possibly researching nuclear weapons
while your own fundamentalist-lead (Christian) leadership and population promotes:
Invasive foreign policies that risk turning the world against you
Police-state interior policies (PATRIOT act, etc)
Anti-abortion legislation
And actively threatening to nuke countries
Even reducing it to your stereotypes:
Any denomination of religious nutter with a nuclear fucking weapon is far more dangerous than any number of "terrorst sympathisers".
Footnotes:
[1] Although not the same tactics, due at least in part to the massive disparity in their material resources.[2]
[2] Reading it back, this sounds like I'm implying that the American Right might use terrorism tactics if it wasn't the overwhelmingly dominant party in the conflict. We can actually empirically test this - when the economy starts slipping, natural disasters deplete their resources, they can't afford (or recruit) a large enough army to continue the conflict and they generally perceive a slipping of their power, what do they do? Start waving the "fuck with us and we'll nuke you" card.
Setting off a nuclear weapon, killing the opposition but also killing hundreds of thousands of civilians... Exactly how is this different from (say) terrorists nuking the Whitehouse? They take out the people they hate, plus hundreds of thousands of civilians. Seriously - what's the difference?
And no, I don't buy into that whole "it's the government, so it's alright". The Taliban were a government, and they weren't "alright". This argument simply devolves into "it's us, so it's alright", and the same argument is used by fanatics, liars and psychopaths the world over.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
This bunch of 5 gallon cowboys in 10 gallon are going to leave this country in a real mess. Watch real closely once Karl Rove's think tanks come up with the catch phrase (probably "Operation Compasion" or something) who ponies up to the trough following Katrina...Haliburton and the usual suspects are already there. REALLY pay close attention when the word for the day is mentioned 14 times in a carefully test grouped speech and displayed on a big blue screen behind the President. It's worked for 6 years...why not now.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
What I do believe is that you have to do is make the war(and it is a war) too horrible for the terrorists to continue,
Have fun trying that while the terrorists try the same on you.
to make people not support the terrorists,
By killing innocents left and right with flimsy justification, you achieve exactly the opposite. "morale bombing" was tried on a large scale in WWII. It failed.
to make countries sit up and control their own extremists.
At some point, what heavy-handed tactics achieve is that the countries instead are controlled by the extremists.
I think that we're far too tilted to the way of the carrot, rather than the stick.
You are 100% wrong.
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
The Declaration basically says that if we don't like our government, we should overthrow it, which is what our fore fathers did. But in today's America, to try and do such a thing would likely get you labeled as a terrorist, with no legal recourse.
The only thing left to do is try to work within a broken system. Once again, our fore fathers left means to fix it, but I am sure any attempt to do so would get a label of unpatriotic, or a terrorists, or both.
Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. God bless America.
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
The person saying this is white, mature, educated, well travelled, and not american.
I deliberately said "not american" as opposed to "european" or "english", because that is fast becoming the only distinction required.
the USA, that is the people, need a wake up message, perhaps a wake up message in the form of your entire congress including the president chimp being nuked.
the WTC obviously wasn't a clear enough message.
"9/11" was ___NOT___ an attack on the american people or way of life or anything else, it was an attack on USA foreign policy as driven by USA monetary policy, hence hitting two buildings full of financial institutions.
If I wanted to slap the face of the USA ___PEOPLE___ I'd fly a jet into the Statue of Liberty, the one true global symbol of all that is american.....
if this has been done it would have killed maybe a hundred people, but rocked every citizen in the USA back on their heels as a personal insult.
no way lady liberty was "Overlooked" as a possible target, no chance in hell, ergo the perpetrators werem't after slapping you all personally across the face.
3 jetliners could have been crashed into three electricity stations around new york and thrown the city into anarchy, same as new orleans, but it wasn't done.
bottom line is it is really hard to think of targets that are more clearly and obviously specifically USA financial / foreign policy related than those that were hit
and yet you lot still do not get it
bush is still there, getting worse every day.
we don't care too much if he ruins america, we're sorry for you as citizens, but then you keep voting him in and who are we to interfere?
we do care if he ruins our countries.
bush is the village psychopath, as time passes and his behaviour worstens, more and more of the villagers are going to turn against him
sure, in the ensuing fight much of the village may be razed to the ground, but some of it will survive, if we don't do something about the village psychopath he will desroy ALL of the village.
USA citizens need to wake up and ask themselves is living in a destroyed US economy, like post katrina new orleans or a kurt russell vision of new york, is the future they really want, if not, it's time to cut loose, very publicly, from the insane chimp and his money men backers.
I guess we'll tell how blinkered you all are from how quickly this message is modded as "troll", if slashdot had regional modding you'd find non USAians modding it differently....
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
Unfortunately, this country was never designed to be a democracy, no matter what you think you remember from US History class. This country was created by rich white people who thought that it might be a good idea to protect thier own property.
We live in a REPUBLIC. We vote for representitives that vote for "us". Sure, some systems in our goverment are democratic in nature, it doesn't make it a democracy.
I can't just march up to Congress and help change public policy now can I? Is that a democracy?
I don't care about how precisely the government should be run, but I want to have a say when they are doing something that I object to.
Meh. The reality is, someone will always be willing to shoot. If you embrace a pacifist ideal, then the next guy who comes along who doesn't is going to take you down without even thinking twice about it.
And sometimes there really isn't anything you can do about the problem. You make something someone else wants. They take it, violently if need be. You live where someone else wants to live. You have food when someone else wants to eat.
Sure you can give up something every time someone asks for it, but how long will you last in that case?
Competition is the way of the world, and all the creatures on it do it all the time. If you decide you don't want to play the game, then you need to be glad that there are people with guns whose job it is to make sure you have that right.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
American soldiers were not terrorists. They engaged in guerilla warfare, but they did not kill innocent British civilians. There is a difference.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Really, do you think the American public would be okay with not even trying to stop russia from putting nukes in cuba? Nukes aimed at us?
No, I do not think the American public would be okay with that. And no, I also do not think the government and people of Soviet Union were okay with the missiles in Turkey.
Once more, I reiterate the point: USA put nuclear weapons into Turkey first and had them aimed at the Soviet Union. Why do you think the Soviet Union should have accepted US nuclear missiles next to them, aimed at them?
Like you said: "no sane person purposely lets a potential enemy gain such a close striking position". The Soviet Union did to USA exactly what USA did to them, i.e. they positioned some nuclear missiles near the US border. The result was the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I would say that the correct action in this case would have been to exercise some common sense and NOT to position the nuclear weapons into Turkey in the first place. Eisenhower was very correct in noting that the step would be considered as "provocative".
I do not moderate.
I can appreciate how much everyone else pays for gas outside of the U.S., but it's a different situation over here than in a lot of places in Europe.
For one, the U.S. is as big as western Europe. So we have to travel longer distances for a lot of things. Plus, our national passenger train system is, being generous, poor. It's slow and more expensive than flying. Mass transit in all but the largest cities is also very poor. Probably all consequences of always having cheaply available gas. Everyone could afford to have cars and drive around.
I hope one good thing that comes out of the rising fuel prices is establishment of better transit systems here.
I like bread.
Yes, unfortunately, the majority of the country seemingly believes that creation myths have the same quality and quantity of supporting evidence as evolution, that hurricanes are the result of gay people and that crippled people don't deserve to walk again or move their arms, if it means utilizing stem-cells.
Or we don't believe any of that crap and just thought he'd do a better job than the other guy. Many people, and I'm saying 'many' based on an informal survey of group containing 'people I know who voted in 2004', thought that it was a choice between a bad and worse candidate. Neither were terribly appealing, and both had lots of negatives. Some (lots) of us who voted for Bush did so because we disliked Kerry, not because we thought Bush was right on everything.
--trb
Having recently watched a few shows and read some articles on the nuclear weapons used in Japan, I got to thinking nuke's are almost a purely terroristic weapon.
If you use them against terrorists you have very little chance of getting them. Even if you hit the city they are in most will survive. In Japan some girls working in a bank less than a mile from where the bomb went off are still alive to talk about it. Key to their survival was not drinking the toxic rain that fell afterwards.
The bomb creates tremendous heat and on large populated areas is so terrifying (terroristic weapon) that it scares your enemy into surrender. Which is exactly why we used them against the Japanese.
Anyway I just think the principles of the United States and what we advertise to the world should not be "we have nuke's and we can use them at a moments notice", but instead be "we want to help create a world where it is clear to everyone that fascist, expansionist empires are not a good idea and will not be tolerated".
Being a fascist, expansionist regime ourselves is not what the United States is about IMHO.
usual bookplug: Read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn, many of your questions will be answered there (and quite a few you never thought about before as an added bonus ;)
Cheers, uwe
Ever wondered whats wrong with the world? http://www.ishmael.org/
If this policy were in place before Iraq II, would Iraq now be a radioactive crater? I'm sure some of you wouldn't mind, but I think it would have been a truly horrible tragedy. And, just think, how would we know whether the act was justified? A nuke would completely wipe out any evidence. This policy would lower the barrier to deployment of nuclear weapons and I don't trust the Bush Administration, or any other administration that acts as recklessly as they do, enough to condone the lowering of such a barrier. This is insanity.
Linux is not Windows
I kind of thought Arafat winning it took the irony prize from Kissinger.
Nazism killed many more people than that, 6 million is the count for Jews alone. But Nazism is a socialist doctrine, the name itself is an abreviation for "National Socialist German Workers' Party". Nazism was socialist both in its emphasis of government control of the economy, and social protection and welfare for the workers. Check for instance their "Kraft durch Freude" program.
Nazism may be called "right wing", but that's just an attempt of the "left wing" to differentiate. Actually, Nazist Germany and Socialist Russia were close allies at one time. Remember the so-called Ribbentropp-Molotov treaty by which the Soviet Union and Germany agreed on how they would split Europe among themselves. If Hitler hadn't coveted the natural resources of Russia, they would have continued to be allies. The proof that Stalin had no intention of attacking Germany is in the events from July through December 1941, when it became clear that the Soviet army was absolutely unprepared for war against Germany.
Therefore, the real distinction is not among "left wing" Socialists vs. "right wing" Nazis. If you want to distinguish between political streams, a better classification would be "socialist" vs. "capitalist", or the government taking care both of the economy and welfare, vs. a system where everyone takes care of himself.
Mutually Assured Destruction is something very different. The ultimate extension of the MAD policy was the doomsday device in Dr. Strangelove. If you're going to nuke us, we're going to nuke you, and everyone is going to die. Basically, no matter who fires off the first nuke, everyone dies.
MAD didn't just discourage pre-emptive strikes. MAD downright forbade nuclear strikes of any kind. Using nuclear weapons was suicide, period. MAD was not a policy, it was a fact.
And it still is. Sure, people reserve an implicit "first strike" doctrine, but it really doesn't matter. Against any nuclear-capable country, a pre-emptive nuke still assures that everyone is going to die. Even more silly, we still have the capability to return nuclear fire while the first set of weapons are still in the air, so there is no additional protection offered by firing anything first.
The difference between now and 50 years ago, is that 50 years ago nuclear weapons were seen as a last resort that could end mankind either through regular terrible destructive power or through nuclear fallout. Fast forward to the administration of today, and we now have "tactical" nuclear weapons, a nuclear "pre-emptive" capability, and the stated right to use nuclear weapons against countries that may just be stockpiling weapons we don't like.
So far, everything I have read about this policy says that we should have nuked Iraq. I fail to see how that would have helped do anything but basically rendered the Middle East, and anything downwind from it, uninhabitable.
The ______ Agenda
I swear there were terrorists there!! Of course if you care to go there to look for factual evidence or WMD you'll find only dust...Cause we did our job so damn well!
With apologies to Roosevelt: We have become of afraid of fear itself.
Capitalism encourages us to feel that not having the latest, greatest consumer product cheapens our very existence - thus we become jealous. Once we acquire these products, we want to hold onto them and acquire more, preserving our sense of status and increasing our sense of self worth - thus we become greedy. We are fed a daily doses of horror, terror, and bad human behavior by the media and the folks we put in charge - thus we learn to fear. We fear that the "others" are out to take our stuff and make us less than we were before.
Jealousy, fear, and greed are three primary elements required for control over any individual. Just ask any con man.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
"look only at the numbers and geopolitics. You can hardly call it a 'disaster.'"
Iraqi civilians are dying at a vastly higher rate than under Saddam. Millions of people have been moved from a brutal dictatorship to a nasty civil war that shows every sign of leading quickly to a brutal theocracy. Saddams regime was quite terrible, yet at great expense in lives and money we have made things worse for pretty much everyone. How could one possibly not call it a disaster?
Without wanting to blow my own trumpet (hell, if I could do that I'd never leave the house), this seems to happen a lot around here with the minority crowds around here (right-wing, ID, whatever).
/., and almost every debate seem to end one of two ways:
I've lost count of the number of times I've good-naturedly (and not) argued on various topics on
1) I read up and realise I'm wrong (or they offer an argument I can't logically spot the flaw in), at which point I apologise and either admit I was wrong or agree my conviction has been shaken and I'll reserve judgement pending more thinking.
2) I fire off my arguments (not normally as vitriolic as this, I must add), wait eagerly for the other side's reply, and watch as they argue until they're backed into a corner, then just stop posting to avoid having to admit they're wrong.
Even worse, I often see the self-same people in other threads advancing exactly the same arguments I'd shot down in previous debates, who then stop posting if I point out the problems again.
I try to judge people on their merits, and try to avoid sterotyping wherever I can, but the only explanation I can find is that the majority of Republicans and ID proponents are simply intellectually corrupt.
They don't appear to believe what they believe because of evidence or rationality, and having it demonstrably proven their position is untenable doesn't make them re-evaluate it - it just makes them duck out of the fight and try the same arguments and same fallacies the next time.
This idea of grading things from "my point of view" to "your point of view" (rather than "right" to "wrong") is completely alien to me, and it's quite disturbing to find how prevalent it is.
These people need to understand reality is not "Pick 'n' Mix" - everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but no-one's entitled to their own facts.
The religious right in the USA might rail against "moral relativism" (basically, the idea that it is possible to hold a valid opinion different to their own), but they're demonstrating a much more dangerous habit themselves - factual relativism.
Such wholesale rejection of reality is a symptom of mental illness, and it worries me greatly when it's exhibited regularly by people controlling the most powerful nation on earth.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
surely freeing millions of people from a brutal dictatorship counts for something? I'm sure that's what Bush thinks he's done. In the real world, however, all that's happened is he's removed one group from power (Sunnis) to replace them with another (Shias). We'll only really find out if they're any better or worse once the the troops are withdrawn and Bush is no longer trying to force his extreme right-wing democracy on them while donating all their money to Halliburton. The only way to achieve political reform is to educate and involve the people.
That didn't really make sense. But I'm going to post it anyway.
Mass transit is poor because gas prices have been kept artificially low for generations in the US. A good chunk of the federal taxes we pay goes toward keeping gas prices as low as possible, so we pay extra for the gas whether we use it or not. Plus, most people would have to pay twice as much to ride public transportation, and it would take twice as long to get to their destination, so who would use it when it can be avoided?
Worse yet, most US cities and towns have "grown up" around the car because gas has been kept so cheap. The design of our cities (with way too much sprawl) makes good public transportation very impractical. I live in Atlanta, and people commute to work here every day from various towns in 5 different states (Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, plus North and South Carolina). Many drive as far as two hours each way every day to combine affordable housing with a well-paying job. Many of them are dumb enough to drive all that way in a truck or SUV. When gas prices go through the roof, we'll be royally screwed, and it'll be our own fault.
Nah, planting evidence can turn into a scandel if found out. It's easier to just pump Fox news and talk radio with false information and act like liberals are just pointing fingers and playing a "blame game". I mean, we all know that liberals hate people of good moral standing and are not really true sheep...er...Americans. ;-)
> Typically you only attack someone when you envy what they have.
How many times have I heard an american use this argument?! Countless! If anyone likes or dislikes America, it's not because of what America has. It's because of what America DOES. Some people dont like what you do (lie and invade other countries) while others like it (democracy, financial aid etc.) While others - like me - like some and hate some.
I mean, who could have predicted that four years later, the most powerful nation on earth would yet to have brought bin Laden to justice for what he did?
Bin Laden may have funded the 9/11 counterattacks, but the American people funded the warplanes that Clinton sent to attack Afganistan with missile strikes in the first place. You'ld think that a clear and direct violation of national sovreignty would make the Afgan people furious: it did, and that was why 9/11 happened. The attacks were directed at clear and symbolic targets: the CIA, who are the US's officially sanctioned assasination and espionage department, and the World Trade Towers, the powerful monied interests who fund America's violent military foreign policy.
Your warplanes shot missiles at another country, first, and that's why many of the locals there hate you. It's not because the terrorists "hate your freedom"; it's because they see you as a threat to their own. The 9/11 attacks were sent as a message to those in power to leave the rest of the world the hell alone; not as an attack on the general American public.
The fact that people let the media spin this counterattack into some sort of "the terrorists hate America" message is the real shame. Just keep your warplanes at home, disband your occupation forces in other countries, and keep your soldiers entirely within your borders. Keep the CIA at home; don't let them spy on anyone, and don't let them kill anyone. Stop threatening to destroy the planet with your nuclear warheads, like you and Russia both did all through the Cold War.
Take all those extra billions of dollars in savings, and put even 10% of it towards honest international charity, with no strings attached this time. Keep the rest for disaster recovery, like for hurricane Katrina. Watch all of the world's hostility towards Americans suddenly evaporate overnight.
Actually, nuking Mecca would enormously strengthen Islam. You see, neither Jews, nor Christians have a Holy Church. Jews had one, but it was, ahem, lost. Christians never had one. That's one of the reasons why they can operate all over the world. Muslims, on the other hand, need to go to hadj, need to turn to Mecca every time they pray, etc. This complicates things a lot. Destroy the Mecca and they will invent a portable holy symbol, such as a crucifix (or even simplier - cross) for Christians.
And with that portable symbol they will conquer the whole world.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Leaving that aside for now, the fact that little people get ground into the dust by exercise of the power of a nation like the US. Truth - and in retrospect the Allende situation perhaps wasn't the Communist revolution that it seemed to be to people like Kissinger. Gotta love that 20/20 hindsight. ....
When you recount our supposed 'evil' without giving it contextual backing, you are bashing your own country. This is why I call people like you anti-American. You'd rather see your own country humbled because of some misplaced humanitarian notion that doesn't work in the real world. That's a seditious attitude whether you understand that - or not.
When I was discussing the lessons of Chile, Guatemala, Iran, etc. I was referring to the pain and suffering we have caused and the way in which this stokes the fires of those who would wish our country harm. My own personal judgement or lack thereof regarding the original decision is another discussion for another time. This is about hindsight (as you touch on) and making sure it can be applied in the future, not about whether any of us would make the same decisions with the same set of facts before us. The ultimate hindsight we have today is a part of that set of facts we can look at today regarding how to go forward from here.
I don't think it should matter what your political views are, but you have to admit that voter apathy is one of the worst threats to our democratic republic than any thing else-- as long as voters are apathetic, then corporate interests will always carry the day. On of our primary duties as Americans is to focus on raising the level of public discourse regarding these topics. By participating in this discussion, I thank you for your part of that. And I do appreciate that you are not simply dismissing my POV for this reason.
I have lived in other countries. My appreciation for what we have in this country in terms of both good governance and civil liberties runs deep, but we should not pretend that it is perfect. And the essence of American patriotism includes a careful scrutiny regarding the acts of our government (to do otherwise renders the democratic on which our republic rests largely meaningless). Open discourse of these issues is extremely important to our form of government.
I will also say that should the basic foundations of our society be changed by the combination of an over-extended executive and an activist court* (4th circuit, Padilla v. Hanft), that I will be the first to say that once the protections of our liberty which have served our society well since before the founding of our country are eviscerated by judicial and executive fiat, then I will at that point reconsider my loyalty to my country.
* I am sensitive to the weight of this accusation. However, for the 4th circuit to rule that an American citizen detained on American soil by ordinary law enforcement officers can be held indefinitely without normal due process rights, and without the possibility of a writ of Habeas Corpus (and in the absense of a Congressional suspension thereof), one is hard pressed to find any interpretation of the opinion in which the court was not seeking to rewrite the basic right to due process written into our Constitution both in the Invasion clause (Article I, Section 9) and in the 4th ammendment. Furthermore, they must have written this with full knowledge that the Supreme Court was largely deadlocked on Hamdi with circumstances far less suspect than those of Padilla. Either the court was negligently wrong or was activist.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP