Missiles Threaten Peace

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]John S. wrote:
Lixy, they want the missiles(eastren europe that is). [/quote]

I think we’ve already established they don’t want it (the people that is). See polls above.

Playing the “it’s a defensive thing only” doesn’t fly for all reasons the 1972 treaty cites. To quote the Wiki:

The ABM treaty was “considered one of the landmarks in arms limitations. It was perceived as requiring two enemies to agree not to deploy a potentially useful weapon, deliberately to maintain the balance of power and as such, was also taken as confirmation of the Soviet adherence to the MAD doctrine.”

The threat of this thing going live is a shift in the (perceived) balance of power that will naturally drive country’s to arm themselves up. That’s the scary part!

22

Don’t let the Europeans have them then. Double up our anti-missle defense. Why you’d not want strictly defensive tools, I don’t know.

23

You have Iran claiming it’s missiles can hit Europe, a giant oil producer wanting nuclear weapons…

I think an anti ballistic missile system is in order.

This problem was not started by the Americans, but by the Iranians. They are the reason for this system, and the reason why all the other gulf states now want their own nuclear deterents.

Let’s see, a nuclear armed middle east…a safer world?

(And don’t throw Israel into this, if they have nukes, you didn’t see 4 gulf states have nuclear aspirations until Iran started.

24

I did see the polls, and I saw the others, seems like a lot of people are warming up to the idea, a lot like the idea of having a defensive system set up. or do the people who want them not count? is it because they would get in the way of Irans goal to rule everything muslim? why dont you go strap a bomb to yourself already and see if you get your 72 virgins your promised.

25

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
And don’t throw Israel into this, if they have nukes, you didn’t see 4 gulf states have nuclear aspirations until Iran started.[/quote]

Ok, I won’t if you allow me to slip in the fatwa decreed by the Ayatollah that prohibits nuclear weapons. And, just so you know, most African states recently announced they wanted a piece of the nuclear cake as well. It’s their inalienable right under the terms of the NPT.

Now, the real question is whether the “axis of evil” speech combined with the invasion of Iraq pushed N. Korea and Iran to bulk up in the military area. Any thoughts on that?

26

Possibly.

My take would have been to take any ally to defeat al qaeda regardless of who they were.

Iran and the Taliban were bitter enemies. Maybe, in hindsight, we should have tapped into that hatred for support from Iran. Who knows if Iran would have been ready to sit down and talk.

Blatantly calling a country evil, and then attacking another country in a pre-emptive strike was clearly not the way to go imo.

And why wasn’t Pakistan on the list? Here is a country which harbors terrorists…and HAS AND PARLIFERATED NUKES.

and this country is an ally?

27

[quote]John S. wrote:
I did see the polls, and I saw the others, seems like a lot of people are warming up to the idea, a lot like the idea of having a defensive system set up. or do the people who want them not count?[/quote]

When you say “the others”, are you refering to a set of polls that show a majority wanting US military installations on their land? If so, I’d love to hear about them.

It’s disingenous to claim Iran is the reason of those things. The US withdrew from the treaty in 2001, WAAAAYYYY before the development of the Iranian missiles.

Why don’t you?

I don’t believe killing people gets you anywhere but hell.

28

[quote]lixy wrote:
John S. wrote:
I did see the polls, and I saw the others, seems like a lot of people are warming up to the idea, a lot like the idea of having a defensive system set up. or do the people who want them not count?

When you say “the others”, are you refering to a set of polls that show a majority wanting US military installations on their land? If so, I’d love to hear about them.

It’s disingenous to claim Iran is the reason of those things. The US withdrew from the treaty in 2001, WAAAAYYYY before the development of the Iranian missiles.

why dont you go strap a bomb to yourself already and see if you get your 72 virgins your promised.

Why don’t you?

I don’t believe killing people gets you anywhere but hell.[/quote]

First off it was the artical that you dissmissed because it had conservatives in it(yeah read both sides of story next time)

Second, its not my religion that states that I will get 72 virgins if I blow myself up, thats yours.

29

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
My take would have been to take any ally to defeat al qaeda regardless of who they were. [/quote]

As tragic as the events of 9/11 were, it was the closest the world has come to eradicating tyrannies, terror and violence. Had Bush chose the introspective path, the whole world could have united in an effort to avenge the WTC victims and rid us of the barbarous bastards.

It’s interesting to see how the Latin American press responded to 9/11; they harshly condemned it but said that it’s something they themselves have experienced repeatedly.

A few days after the catastrophe, I volunteered to help the cyber-tracking of the cell members. I offered my knowledge of Arabic and networking expertise. Sadly, my dreams of world’s peace quickly washed out after hearing things like “if you’re not with us (implying unconditional support of US military operations), you’re with the terrorists”, “axis of evil” and the infamous high-ranking officials who threw cheap shots at Islam.

Judging from the offer the Iranians made in 2003, I’ll say that they would have been delighted to sit down.

[quote]And why wasn’t Pakistan on the list? Here is a country which harbors terrorists…and HAS AND PARLIFERATED NUKES.

and this country is an ally?[/quote]

Good point. That and the out-of-time theocracy of Saudi Arabia from which 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came. I talked to a Pakistani the other day, and he said that the house arrest of the guy who leaked nuke designs to libya, N. Korea and Iran was just a scam to please the US. He can go anywhere he wants and is literally adulated by all Pakistanis.

It’s not hard to see that the horror of 9/11 was shamelessly exploited for political purposes. I mean, why else wouldn’t those countries be on the list? From that only you can tell that it was more about settling old scores and keeping the military-industrial complex operating at full-steam than terrorism.

To answer your question, once you stop assuming Washington acts in good faith, the pieces of the puzzle fall in place and you see that threatening Pakistan is out of the question because of their nuclear capability. I mean, if you’re gonna have to pick a fight with someone, you’d be wise to go for the weakest.

If that weak (suffered many wars and been under embargo for a long time) guy happens to be sitting on a treasure and has a strategic location, you’d come up with just about any excuse to justify a fight with him. That is why it is ludicrous to assume Iraq represented any threat at all. Pakistan on the other hand, has clearly Al-Qaeda operating on its soil and the regime in Islam-abad tacitely condones it.

The same applies for the Islamist fundamentalists in Ryad. And you people chose to pick on Baghdad and Tehran, the two fiercest enemies of Al-Qaeda.

I’m sure history reserves a special place for the generation who managed to extend the stay of Bush in the White House. My guess is somewhere in the “most brainwashed people ever” category.

30

[quote]John S. wrote:
First off it was the artical that you dissmissed because it had conservatives in it(yeah read both sides of story next time) [/quote]

You mean, the Cs-monitor article Gkhan posted? I’m afraid it didn’t mention popular opinion at all. All it talked about was the position of some conservatives in the government.

You obviously didn’t read past the title of that article. Please do.

I also want to mention that the polls I posted were ran by a governmental agency. So, if anything, they should be biased in favor of the government.

You see my friend, Islam doesn’t state that either. What it does state is that harming an innocent or suicide is ABSOLUTELY forbidden UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE!

The 72 virgins image is from a very dubious Hadith. Use with caution.

31

[quote]lixy wrote:
John S. wrote:
First off it was the artical that you dissmissed because it had conservatives in it(yeah read both sides of story next time)

You mean, the Cs-monitor article Gkhan posted? I’m afraid it didn’t mention popular opinion at all. All it talked about was the position of some conservatives in the government.

You obviously didn’t read past the title of that article. Please do.

I also want to mention that the polls I posted were ran by a governmental agency. So, if anything, they should be biased in favor of the government.

Second, its not my religion that states that I will get 72 virgins if I blow myself up, thats yours.

You see my friend, Islam doesn’t state that either. What it does state is that harming an innocent or suicide is ABSOLUTELY forbidden UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE!

The 72 virgins image is from a very dubious Hadith. Use with caution.[/quote]

I did read the artical, they seem to want it maybe its you who should re read it.

And second why is 20% of the Muslims in Iraq willing to blow themselves up? and do you not say they do not believe they will get 72 virgins. You wish to use small polls like the one you pulled out to varify the majority so can I not do the same with the middle east muslims? Or is what I am saying biggoted and what you are saying not?

That jab was supposed to show you how you generalized everything I hope I pissed you off enough to make some changes.

32

I talked to a Pakistani the other day, and he said that the house arrest of the guy who leaked nuke designs to libya, N. Korea and Iran was just a scam to please the US. He can go anywhere he wants and is literally adulated by all Pakistanis.

I saw an interesting piece on 60 Minutes which said the same thing. Funny how the nuke technology left Pakistan from a military base…but “no one knew what was going on”…yeah, sure, pretty suspect imo.

33

[quote]John S. wrote:
I did read the artical, they seem to want it maybe its you who should re read it.[/quote]

You can’t possibly tell me you are giving the same weight to an explicit poll by a reputable agency and to an impression you get from reading an article. Regardless, I read it for the third time and failed to see what passage of the text you might have interpreted as meaning that the people (not the governments) want the missiles.

I feel obligated to ask you for clarifications. Please quote the part which you think supports your point.

No offense meant, but it’s actually spelled article.

Excellent question.

The peculiarly high portion of Iraqis that condone violence against US troops has more to do with the presence of foreign forces on their soil than the religion of Iraqis. I shall remind you that during the invasion, countless civilians died and it is very likely some of those 20% lost a dear one because of a US bomb.

That it was not intentional don’t really matter to them apparently. Add that to the Abu Ghraib horrors, the rapes and cold-blooded murders of Iraqi kids by American soldiers (I’m only referring to the unequivocal cases where said soldiers have already been convicted by martial court. Let me know if you want them sourced) and you end up with an explosive situation where people are evidently ready to blow themselves up in protest.

The recent oil law and the fact that “reconstruction contracts” lacked any kind of transparency and conveniently all went to US companies (not even as much as symbolic bids were held) might play a role in exacerbating the already existing hate.

By all means, feel free to do so.

I have nothing against polls from reputable agencies. Please mind smelly red herrings though.

Not following. Where do you think I made any generalization? Was it when I said Poles are opposing the missiles by showing a poll where the clear majority of them indeed expressed their opposition to the plan? If so, I apologize for my flawed understanding of democracy.

You see, where I come from, referendums are held to decide what the government should do about important issues. Apparently, in your “democratic” system the political classes’ will should transgress that of the majority of the citizens.

On a side note, you don’t need to piss me off. I’m already pretty wind up as it is, and am (ab)using every non-violent channel to temper the prevailing madness. Change is gonna come…

34

US plans to extend its “star wars” missile-defense program to Europe, which once dismissed the technology as an unproven cold-war anachronism, are gaining acceptance among governments here.

Despite Russia’s mounting opposition, the Czech Republic, Poland, and ? as of Friday ? Britain have all expressed serious interest in hosting parts of the shield. Other countries traditionally cool to the idea have been notably quiet. The trigger: concern about a nuclear Iran.

“This is all a result of Iran,” says Tim Williams, a European security analyst at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies in London. “Governments see that Iranian missiles can hit Europe, and suddenly they are very worried about the threat from ballistic missiles. They have to look at missile defenses.”

here is just a tid bit of it. need I go on?

Also think of it this way in Iraq, 20% kurds treated us as liberators, 60% want us there(they are starting to stand up for themselves too they just keep asking for a little more help) and 20% want us out.

35

[quote]John S. wrote:
here is just a tid bit of it. need I go on? [/quote]

Nowhere did your “bit” talk about public opinion. You therefore can’t claim there are “two sides of the story”. What you CAN say, on the other hand, is that the enthusiasm shown by the governments to the US proposal was matched by a strong opposition among the people.

You seem to believe that the political classes and the populace have the same interests. I suggest you take a look at the staggering (in excesse of 90%) proportion of Spaniards and Italians who were opposed to the war in Iraq and the readiness with which their respective governments bowed to the coercion from Washington.

First, Kurds make up 13% of the Iraqi population.

Secondly, Your poll that claims 60% of Iraqis want you there was eiher confined to northern provinces or was commisioned by Fox.

Finally, it’s your money and blood that’s being spilled there. If you think using your resources that way to gain even more enemies is wise, I have nothing to add. If you can’t see how Al-Qaeda and all the other Islamists are proliferating and feasting at your expense, you seriously need to wake up and stop listening to whatever BS Bush is feeding you.