@TG:
You are right, my country was not strong (and smart) enough to prevent the US from placing nuclear weapons on our territory.
Yeah, forget about deterrence from the iron boot of Stalinism.
The placing of Pershing 2s and cruise missiles in western germany in the 80s as a counter to the USSR stationing SS20s in the east didn’t really make sense. It’s more like: "ok, we have a dozen of overkills with our ICBMs, let’s add a few ones on short range weapons.
The problem is much more that “the world” can’t do anything (better: a lot) against the USAs will.
I’m sure if “50%” of the world banded together against the US, they could do more than something. US is only one country. Then why haven’t they?
Do you really think that the US would allow that? As soon as one country starts a “unifiy to statnd up against the US action”, what would be the USs reaction?
defends “freedom” by cutting down individual rights
The same as how liberals try to take away individual rights. You cannot have the absolute amount of both security and freedom. Guess what, most Americans would choose more security in these times.
Was it Lincoln, or Washington (or which former US president) who said something like:
Who wants to change his freedom for security is not worth any of it!
You seem to belittle the amount of damage “single persons/ small gangs” can do to the United States. We live in a where one man can be responsible for the deaths of millions. As the events of 9/11 proved, it doesn’t takem many to inflict serve desturction.
Right, but that is something that they can do to any nation, not only to the United States!
Don’t think you are very special just because you suffered that horrible attack.
Israel has to live with it, and fights its war “soldiers vs. guerrila” for quite some time now, and it doesn’t look like they could win this way! Still, the US would like to repeat that for themselves?
Why does the US not stop and think for a minute: Why did they bomb us and not France …. what have we done differently? Could we change our behavior to reduce the “attraction” we obviously have towards terrorists?
No, this didn’t happen… As soon as anybody said “the terrorists attacks could have been provoked” he is muted by the public.
Force and denial? So we should just forget everything that happened and go about completely the same as normal?
Again your question asks for implication i didn’t make.
This seems to happen quite often, that you things that i didn’t think of (and from my point of view made clear that i didn’t!)
This is very bad style in an argument.
To answer your question: no
but still you said that many of those “hate spewers” would love to have the US’ wealth and standard of living.
i dare you:
quote me on that!
That was more a point your brought up in a rethorical question.
I am not too sure of that. Saudia Arabia is a rich land, and one of the most islamic fundamentalist country around.
A rich land in terms of what? Maybe to the wealthy oil princes there, but not to the average Saudi. Most of Saudia Arabia is made up of barren deserts. More than half the country’s people live in Riyadh or Jidda. It also seems strange how Saudi Arabia is also the biggest outlet for US goods in the Mideast.
rich in terms of money.
No people in a desert, therefore no influence of the richness.
In Australia, the urbanization is the highest in the world: percantage of people in cities is not a a way to measure it’s wealth.
outlet for US goods = imports US goods? If so, how does that not back up my claim of richness? For the islamic fundamentalism, this is not an indicator, the laws are.
Read on. Saddam no longer wants to allow unrestricted access. He is going against his word the same way he did in 1991 (“unfettered access” - sure :roll:). What does he have to hide. His Prime Minister even said, “Iraq posses no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.” If this is true, then why the coverup?
I have heard that it might take less than 4 weeks for the first commando of inspectors go to the Iraq. Maybe he starts and started games, but he knows that he can’t overdo it.
What does he have to hide? Maybe not lose his pride?
Would you allow UN inspectors to go in and inspect everything of the US, including the white house? If you don’t, why do you expect that others eagerly will?
Pride, not losing your face or humiliation…. just think of that possibility.
All I can say, is read that document. I think it is available for download on the internet.
It came up in the Journal of Peace Research, my institut has not subscribed to that one…
took me 5 secs with google btw.
Even if, would the “lazyness” of our side be enough reason to start a war?
If these UN inspectors do get lax, then I think it is more a reason for the US to take action. The US government should not wait around and let UN do nothing (or conduct only meager efforts)
sounds like the US is not part of the UN.
sounds like you don’t feel like being part of the UN.
If the inspectors get lax, then the US should make the inspectors work again. Is it Saddams fault, when our workers go lazy ???
No, go back and reread my other post before that. It is a future where Iraq has changed for the better.
Misunderstood you there then, ok.
Saddam has learned from the mistakes, he now knows how to play the UN as fools.
WE have learnt how he plays as well. And this time the setting is different: there is a very angry superpower that just waits for him to be uncooperative.
No, it says “react equivalently” not “react exactly the same way”
React equivalently as in conduct terrorist attacks of our own? So instead of using a plane, we now use a bus?
Did i say “do nothing”?
quote me on that!
Oh then, what should’ve have done? Slap some offical reprimands and sit back?
And please explain that last sentence, i don’t understand what you want to say with that.
You say, “What you would have done is send in some terrorists of your own.'” Except according to your game theory, it’s perfectly right.
You ask questions i have already answered. The bus question is rethoric, i will not go into that one.
You do not quote me, instead you try to divert my attention, bad style again. I will therefore ignore the questions asked there.
Thanks for the explanation. And the answer to your question there is “yes”, they didn’t"
For your question: No, and please find where i made any proposal like that (openly arm and train terrorists).
I posed that as a question ->?<-, not as an answer, though it might be what you’re implying.
Well, if that is what you see in what i say, then my english must be pretty crappy.
You are always asking for alternatives: my alternatives are “use your brain another 15 minutes longer” and “listen to what others say”. The rest will follow.
The alternative would be sending in UN inspectors, they did a good job before, otherwise the Iraq wouldn’t have sent them out!
Even if that were true (which I highly doubt), in this case does that mean, the moment the UN inspectors do a good job of locating such plants, Saddam will send them out again?
He will not dare it this time, as long as GWB is in power in the US. He will wait for the next president.
You call the US cowards, though they were the only ones who stood up to the Soviet Union. I would except MAD from the Soviets, but if they had the capability of pre-emptive first strike, then that is something is get “mad” about. The Soviets may not have planned a pre-emptive strike (remains to be disputed), though the ability to do so with missiles point at the South of the United States is terrible enough.
Ever thought of how the USSR felt? You say you can’t accept sitting on the wrong end of the barrel, but you are sure every one else feels at ease with you at the trigger.
Are USis so badly selfcentered that this thought doesn’t even cross their minds?
The russians: yes.
Ha, so the Stalinist actions in Hungary, Berlin Blockade, Afghanistan, ect. were perfectly fine?
Hungary: ok, a break of the rules.
On the other hand: you would have not come to west germanies aid, if a “communist revolution” had taken place there?
Hungary as a borderland could not be allowed to defect from the alliance. Simple as that, the US would not have reacted differently.
Berlin Blockade: was absolutley legal. There were no treaties about transit-rights for anybody on the ground to go to west-berlin. There were treaties for the air-transit, these were not broken.
Afghanistan: was the USSR coming, after the government called for help.
Sounds like Vietnam, and ended the same way for the involved superpower.