Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-12-2004, 03:27 PM   #1 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Sure glad we took out the "REAL" threat.

For the last six years I have been worried about this happening, and it has now come to pass. While we can argue all week as to the legitimacy of the Iraq invasion, This is what , in my opinion, we should have been attempting to prevent.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...1/ixworld.html

We now must face the true threat of a completely unstable leader, with WMD's and the means to deliver them. Rather than a relatively stable (if evil) leader , with questionable weapons capability, and no possible delivery mechanism other than the extremely slim possibility of a rougue connection to terrorists.

I am now officially pissed.
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 06-12-2004, 03:49 PM   #2 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Oh God, the rain!
I think whats going to happen is that the government is going to negotiate somekind of treaty where they get Kim Jong to set the max range of those missles short enough not to reach the US. I think a real problem is inevitable.
Asuka{eve} is offline  
Old 06-12-2004, 04:14 PM   #3 (permalink)
Baltimoron
 
djtestudo's Avatar
 
Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD
Oh my God, they might mutate some polar bears...

Seriously though, one of the things I think the Iraq takeover was supposed to do was show other nations we won't let them ignore us when it comes to our safety. Libya has already responded to that, and I think North Korea knows it could happen to them, too.

If I recall correctly, they have said recently they are willing to negotiate about their nuclear program, when before Iraq they refused to even consider it.
__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun
djtestudo is offline  
Old 06-12-2004, 04:21 PM   #4 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
It is frightening how some nations seem to feel that a nuclear program will guarantee their seat at the table of the world powers, particularly when said nations do not seem to adhere to global standards of "rationality." Of course, this situation was inevitable, as there is no putting the genie back in the bottle after it has been released. Pakistan definitely accelerated the process by selling their nuclear secrets to any interested parties but, still, you cannot supress the dissemination of knowledge forever.

It seems that the human race is at a crossroads...either evolve past our need to destroy each other or face extinction. But I might be a little pessimistic
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 06-12-2004, 04:25 PM   #5 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by djtestudo
Seriously though, one of the things I think the Iraq takeover was supposed to do was show other nations we won't let them ignore us when it comes to our safety. Libya has already responded to that, and I think North Korea knows it could happen to them, too.
Exactly.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 06-12-2004, 04:39 PM   #6 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by djtestudo
Oh my God, they might mutate some polar bears...

Seriously though, one of the things I think the Iraq takeover was supposed to do was show other nations we won't let them ignore us when it comes to our safety. Libya has already responded to that, and I think North Korea knows it could happen to them, too.

If I recall correctly, they have said recently they are willing to negotiate about their nuclear program, when before Iraq they refused to even consider it.
I wouldn't be so flippant when discussing the possibility of a nuclear attack on Alaska. Last I heard there were millions of people living there.

The suspected involvement of Libya in a plot to assassinate members of the Saudi royal family kind of shoots the "intimidated into being a good neighbor" idea in the foot.

Anyway, the Bush administration has never seriously rattled any sabers in the direction of North Korea (other than the Axis of Evil speech). I seem to remember a quote during the build up to war in Iraq where an administration official was questioned about the threat of North Korea as compred to Iraq. The answer was that North Korea was a "diplomatic issue" rather than a military one. No one other than kooks has seriously considered invading North Korea, least of all our military leaders. The idea that the Iraq invasion has anything to do with their willingness to negotiate is not a legitimate one.

Last edited by cthulu23; 06-12-2004 at 04:41 PM..
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 06-12-2004, 05:27 PM   #7 (permalink)
Eh?
 
Stare At The Sun's Avatar
 
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
We will never invade again. Main reason; China. Simple as that.

It's a much different region than the middle east, and we can not afford to simply invade them, it would upset to much with china, and we are not willing to risk that on a political, military, or economic front.
Stare At The Sun is offline  
Old 06-12-2004, 08:40 PM   #8 (permalink)
BFG Builder
 
Location: University of Maryland
I'm not worried. The same philosophy that prevented nuclear holocaust during the Cold War will work here; Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

The premise is pretty simple. We all have enough nuclear weapons to guarantee that if either one performs a launch, the other party will respond with enough missiles to turn the aggressor nation into molten glass. Since there are no reliable missile shields (that we know of), and neither nation wants to turn into a radioactive wasteland, we're at a bit of a standoff.
__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.
DelayedReaction is offline  
Old 06-12-2004, 10:19 PM   #9 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
MAD only works if all parties understand that the status quo is better than nuclear conflict. It only takes a glance at the India / Pakistan dispute to see the potential for irrational aggression turning into insane actions. If lunatic demagogues come into power, anything is possible. That is the true threat of nuclear proliferation.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 06-12-2004, 11:56 PM   #10 (permalink)
Insane
 
Moobie's Avatar
 
Location: baked beans
As long as Kim Jong is alive and well he as no reason to use nukes. He maybe insane, but he doesn't want to die. Most dictators care about only one thing, themselves. He obviously doesn't care about his people so in a sense MAD won't work the traditional way. But by using nuclear weapons he threatens his own existence, which is the most important thing. An invasion would only prompt a launch from him.

Unfortunately waiting might not be the solution either. Because you can bet at some point there's going to be some sort of internal power struggle, as there usually is with that type of government, and the chance of Jong panicking is very real.

I for one wouldn't be so worried about them being used against the US, I'm more worried about Japan. North Korea and Japan hate each other. There's a lot of bad blood between them, and they're right next door. Could you imagine what would happen to the world economy if NK nuked the hell out of Japan's industrial centers? That would be very bad for all of us.

This problem is not going to be solved by a standup fight. What's needed most is subterfuge, patience, and a lot of luck.
__________________
Obscenity is the crutch of inarticulate motherfuckers.

We like money. Give us your money you stupid consumer whore.

Moobie is offline  
Old 06-13-2004, 12:06 AM   #11 (permalink)
42, baby!
 
Dragonlich's Avatar
 
Location: The Netherlands
how to "solve" the NK situation? Get bunker-busting nukes in case Kim thinks he's safe in his underground lair. Tell everyone and their dog that you have these nukes around, ready to waste a country's leaders. Perhaps you could go so far as to stop the MAD altogether, and use modern technology to "only" nuke these leaders. That'll get them thinking.

Another thing: if NK even *thinks* about nuking Japan, they're in for a shock. Japan has the capability to build nukes in a very short time, and might do that if NK goes wild on building their own nukes. Japan has indicated in the past that they will build and use nukes if they're forced to. I'd also like to point out that any nuke going from North-Korea to Japan will be followed by a nuke going from the US to NK; perhaps China will join in too. The fact that they'll use their nukes on their enemies is enough to make them a direct threat to the rest of the world.

...on the other hand: nobody will win in these scenarios.
Dragonlich is offline  
Old 06-13-2004, 12:18 AM   #12 (permalink)
Insane
 
Moobie's Avatar
 
Location: baked beans
But the inherent problem is that if NK actually used nukes I don't think they would give a damn about the retaliatory actions of the rest of the world. Anyone who uses nukes in this day and age does so with the knowledge that they will bring down the full weight of the world's wrath. Japan can have all the nukes they can make, but without a preemptive strike they're screwed. If Kim Jong gives the order to launch, they're going to launch everything they have. There'll be nothing left behind, because they know that once they launch, North Korea will be a smoldering crater in a matter of minutes.

But NK won't use nukes unless they're in a terminal scenario anyway. Once Jong's pushed to the edge, no amount of MAD will matter. It'll be a suicide run. Take out as much as you can before you go.
__________________
Obscenity is the crutch of inarticulate motherfuckers.

We like money. Give us your money you stupid consumer whore.

Moobie is offline  
Old 06-13-2004, 12:33 AM   #13 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally posted by cthulu23
I wouldn't be so flippant when discussing the possibility of a nuclear attack on Alaska. Last I heard there were millions of people living there.
Also a few military installations and a big oil pipeline whose demise would put a big dent in our economy.

There was a report about a year ago that a Taepodong III 3-stage ICBM would be able to hit pretty much anything outside of Africa and Antarctica. If they test one of those, the shit will hit the fan.
MSD is offline  
Old 06-13-2004, 12:48 AM   #14 (permalink)
undead
 
Pacifier's Avatar
 
Location: Duisburg, Germany
Quote:
Originally posted by djtestudo
Oh my God, they might mutate some polar bears...
Like some others already said, there are also a few people who are living there and I think those people don't want to "mutate"

additionally, this kind of attack would have a psychological effect. The USA always brought war to other nations, they never had a modern "total" war on their soil. I think the USA feels pretty much "unattackable".
911 already damaged that feeling, an exploding nuke will shock the USA even more, even if it mutates only a few polar bears.
__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
Albert Einstein
Pacifier is offline  
Old 06-13-2004, 06:57 AM   #15 (permalink)
I change
 
ARTelevision's Avatar
 
Location: USA
I would say that we are using China to keep NK in check.
The Chinese connection with NK is historically strong and the smart way to deal with it is to use Superpower diplomacy. In other words, North Korea is being dealt with effectively. Chinese economic dependency on the Western World provides sufficient leverage to hold NK in check. If push comes to shove, we will invade and destroy an imminent threat there.
__________________
create evolution
ARTelevision is offline  
Old 06-13-2004, 07:20 AM   #16 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by ARTelevision
If push comes to shove, we will invade and destroy an imminent threat there.
You make it sound so easy. No trouble at all invading one of the most closed, militaristic societies on earth. But I guess we're just invading the "imminent threat," not the country itself. Maybe we'll take out Kim's secret Moonraker space missle platform....I wonder if Pierce Brosnan has some free time (hmmm...this is probably more of a Connery caliber job).
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 06-13-2004, 08:19 AM   #17 (permalink)
Huggles, sir?
 
seretogis's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally posted by DelayedReaction
I'm not worried. The same philosophy that prevented nuclear holocaust during the Cold War will work here; Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).
Until we get our Ballistic Missle Shield working flawlessly, that is. It would be amusing for NK to launch anything they have at us and have it all destroyed a thousand miles from their coast by our countermeasures. The BMS and space-based weapon systems are important projects to assure our place as the world superpower.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames
seretogis is offline  
Old 06-13-2004, 08:25 AM   #18 (permalink)
I change
 
ARTelevision's Avatar
 
Location: USA
cthulu23, what we have been watching on television and reading about in the media for many decades has been the severely restrained military might of the United States. Our capacity to obliterate any enemy in rapid phases or, if necessary, near instantaneously, is well documented.
__________________
create evolution
ARTelevision is offline  
Old 06-13-2004, 08:27 AM   #19 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by djtestudo
If I recall correctly, they have said recently they are willing to negotiate about their nuclear program, when before Iraq they refused to even consider it.
That's the other pain in the ass. They re-negotiate constantly. They make some weapons, we ask them not to in exchange for money or food, etc, they stop. A few years go by, they heat up the reactors again, the process repeats. I'm going to have to dig up an article if anyone needs it- they've done it several times already, it's kind of getting old.

Only thing is now, people believe that Kim Jong-il really IS crazy enough to start shit. We'll see what kind of leader we have when push comes to shove.
analog is offline  
Old 06-13-2004, 09:22 AM   #20 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by ARTelevision
cthulu23, what we have been watching on television and reading about in the media for many decades has been the severely restrained military might of the United States. Our capacity to obliterate any enemy in rapid phases or, if necessary, near instantaneously, is well documented.
The US military is, without a doubt, the most powerful martial force that has ever existed. This does not make every fight an easy one, however. Invading another country is always dangerous business and should not be considered lightly.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 06-13-2004, 01:29 PM   #21 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Pierce is retiring from Bond and Connery is too old
Superbelt is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 05:27 PM   #22 (permalink)
Junkie
 
biznatch's Avatar
 
Location: France
whoa whoa...people talk like United States hasn't started any crisis when it comes to diplomacy......
The US has always disregarded what the UN said about the attacks in Iraq. They think that they are the world police force, so they don't need to follow advice, or policies from anyone else than themselves...
why do you think that the Arab world hates America? why do you think the rest of the world hates America? Because America thinks ONLY in its own interest. The news in the US are hardly international, and when they are its on Iraq.
So maybe we should start worrying about the rest of the world a little. After all, the US represents not even 5% of world population. Its position as a world power (and world's biggest threat) does not give it the right to think about only themselves.
That's my opinion. America needs to change its "freedom isn't free" cocksuckin Tom Clancy bullshit (paid by the government) and worry about the rest of the world.
__________________
Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread
biznatch is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 05:57 PM   #23 (permalink)
Thank You Jesus
 
reconmike's Avatar
 
Location: Twilight Zone
Quote:
Originally posted by biznatch
whoa whoa...people talk like United States hasn't started any crisis when it comes to diplomacy......
The US has always disregarded what the UN said about the attacks in Iraq. They think that they are the world police force, so they don't need to follow advice, or policies from anyone else than themselves...
why do you think that the Arab world hates America? why do you think the rest of the world hates America? Because America thinks ONLY in its own interest. The news in the US are hardly international, and when they are its on Iraq.
So maybe we should start worrying about the rest of the world a little. After all, the US represents not even 5% of world population. Its position as a world power (and world's biggest threat) does not give it the right to think about only themselves.
That's my opinion. America needs to change its "freedom isn't free" cocksuckin Tom Clancy bullshit (paid by the government) and worry about the rest of the world.
We do not need to follow anyone elses policies, they make theirs and we make ours.
When it comes to defending America we should do whats in OUR best interests.
The Arab world hates America because we side with the Zionists, they want us dead because of this.
I dont know about the rest of the world hating us since its been a few years since I have been on the other sides of it.

And let me say that freedom isnt free it must be defended and fought for, but my guess is that you are one of the protected
so you wouldnt understand it.
__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?
reconmike is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 09:29 PM   #24 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Don't worry about it.
Quote:
Originally posted by cthulu23
I wouldn't be so flippant when discussing the possibility of a nuclear attack on Alaska. Last I heard there were millions of people living there.
Actully it's only about 750,000 people. Yes, I live in Alaska.

Quote:
Oh my God, they might mutate some polar bears...


Say what you want, but the effects on a nuclear attack on Alaska would be very, very devastating. The Alaska Pipeline - Barrow - Valdez, ANWR, need I say more? If you know what ANY of those places are, you know exactly what I'm talking about. If it was as simple as mutating a few polar bears, the goverment woulden't feel the need for armed guards in Valdez during high-risk terrorism times.

It's quite a major threat. So much that the US Goverment felt the need to spend an astonishing amount of money on an anti-missle site in Ft. Greely, Alaska, that has started construction as of this summer.

You should understand exactly what somthing like that could mean to this country. Before you spout off at the mouth about mutating a few Polar Bears, do a little research. You probably think AK is Arkansas and we live in igloos.



Last edited by Kurant; 06-18-2004 at 09:33 PM..
Kurant is offline  
Old 06-19-2004, 12:19 AM   #25 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by reconmike
We do not need to follow anyone elses policies, they make theirs and we make ours.
When it comes to defending America we should do whats in OUR best interests.
The Arab world hates America because we side with the Zionists, they want us dead because of this.
I dont know about the rest of the world hating us since its been a few years since I have been on the other sides of it.

And let me say that freedom isnt free it must be defended and fought for, but my guess is that you are one of the protected
so you wouldnt understand it.
Well, to make a wild guess here, I'd say that you aren't an active duty soldier, so you too are among the protected....is your understanding also handicapped?

Saying that the entire Arab world hates us is a vast generalization...do you think that the Kuwati Royal family is anti-American?

Osama Bin Laden would like nothing more than the declaration of a "crusade" against Islamic society by the US government. Framing the issue as an intractable battle between cultures only strengthens the arguments of radical Muslims.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 06-19-2004, 08:55 AM   #26 (permalink)
42, baby!
 
Dragonlich's Avatar
 
Location: The Netherlands
Cthulu23, the issue *is* a battle between cultures. There's the western culture of individualism on the one hand, and the Islamic culture on the other.

We believe our values are universal, where they are obviously incompatible with the values of a large portion of the world population, including many a muslim. For example, many non-westerners see the "universal declaration of human rights" as a purely western piece of fiction, which they had nothing to do with, and which they don't necessarily agree with. Then there's our fascination with democracy and free trade, as well as our (cultural) relativism; all alien to them, and pretty much forced upon them (as they see it).

Of course, cultural differences don't need to lead to war, but they'll sure as hell won't help us get along either.
Dragonlich is offline  
Old 06-19-2004, 09:37 AM   #27 (permalink)
Upright
 
North Korea is a ticking Bomb. When Kim Jong lee gets close to dying from old age, were going to have a bit of a pickle.
The UN is a joke. We pay 90% of the fees for the UN. The last time the United States left the UN it fell apart and couldnt even stop a rogue beaten country named Germany.
The scenario is the same, the UN has never really shown any force other than in the most blatant situations that were incorrectly maneuvered politically. AKA Gulf War. If Saddam were more diplomatic and gave some sort of a reason, and the US were panzies like france and Germany, then Kuwait would be Iraqi territory right now.

MAD does not work when you have a leader who only cares for the welfare of himself. Unless he really loves his kids America might get nuked when he starts getting close to dying.
Not to mention China will help the US in the event the NK does something rash and inappropriate to the point that it has no choice. The last korean war had china only because it was still communist and part of the USSR.

Currently, the US and China are still at an unspoken standoff. Taiwan has been threatening to split for a while now, though faded from the media, when it does, there may either no longer be a taiwain, or Ill be heading toward a fallout shelter for the long nuclear winter ahead.
Ricer is offline  
Old 06-19-2004, 01:19 PM   #28 (permalink)
Thank You Jesus
 
reconmike's Avatar
 
Location: Twilight Zone
Quote:
Originally posted by cthulu23
Well, to make a wild guess here, I'd say that you aren't an active duty soldier, so you too are among the protected....is your understanding also handicapped?

Saying that the entire Arab world hates us is a vast generalization...do you think that the Kuwati Royal family is anti-American?

Osama Bin Laden would like nothing more than the declaration of a "crusade" against Islamic society by the US government. Framing the issue as an intractable battle between cultures only strengthens the arguments of radical Muslims.
Active duty? No
Retired Marine with over 22 years yes, my understanding of being the protector is still quite vivid, but at this moment I am also one of the protected.
And I thank those who are doing the protecting every chance I get.
The reason I brought up protecting was because biznatch was spouting off about freedom not being free, and also he mentioned the Arab world hates us because of our looking out for our own interests.

And Bin Laden has already called a war between Islam and the west.
__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?
reconmike is offline  
Old 06-19-2004, 11:42 PM   #29 (permalink)
Jarhead
 
whocarz's Avatar
 
Location: Colorado
Quote:
Originally posted by cthulu23
Anyway, the Bush administration has never seriously rattled any sabers in the direction of North Korea (other than the Axis of Evil speech). I seem to remember a quote during the build up to war in Iraq where an administration official was questioned about the threat of North Korea as compred to Iraq. The answer was that North Korea was a "diplomatic issue" rather than a military one. No one other than kooks has seriously considered invading North Korea, least of all our military leaders. The idea that the Iraq invasion has anything to do with their willingness to negotiate is not a legitimate one.
The reason why NK has been treated so delicately is because Seoul, the SK capitol is scant miles away from the DMZ. NK has thousands of heavy artillery pieces in position to turn Seoul into a smoking crater if the shit goes down. Not to mention the million combat troops hanging out close by. It would be a real bloodbath to go to war there. You think 20,000 or so dead Iraqis is a lot, but it wouldn't compare to the millions of Koreans that would die.

It would also be much more difficult to wage a conventional war in Korea, considering it is mainly a mountainous country, whereas Iraq is a big friggin desert. American military might works best when the enemy is far off, where they can be killed with impunity by our aircraft and optics assisted tanks/infantry. That's why the Iraqi army has been slaughtered wholesale in both Gulf wars, while we had a much more difficult time in Vietnam and Korea.

Of course we would win, however it wouldn't be worth the cost. Millions of South Koreans would be killed in the first strike, while hundreds of thousands of North Korean soldiers and tens of thousands of South Korean and American soldiers would die in combat. And famine would sweep through NK, wiping out large swathes of the civilian populous. Therefore, resolving the issue with diplomacy is not the only the more desireable route, it is the only route.

At the time we invaded Iraq, they weren't a real threat. They did, however, have the potential of becoming a threat, atleast to Israel and the middle east, and thus a threat on oil, which is a major concern for not only the United States, but also the whole western world. NK on the otherhand already is a threat, yet it seems they are only a threat because they are mightily worried about keeping their soverignity. They can't get too out of line, not with a vaugely hostile China, South Korea and Japan pinning them in.

NK is not the same problem as Iraq, and they cannot be handled in the same way.
__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly
whocarz is offline  
Old 06-20-2004, 05:37 AM   #30 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Word, whocarz, I mean. Iraq had drone aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons and biological and chemical agents to american shores in 45 minutes or less. (Yes liberal pussies, they ARE that fast)
He also bought an unknown quantity of yellowcake uranium from Nigeria.

How can anyone equate that with North Korea who, at the time had yet to successfully fire a nuclear missile?

Really people. Drone aircraft + Saddams proven reserve of WMD is not the same kind of threat as nuclear missiles + long range rockets capable of hitting American mainland.

Last edited by Superbelt; 06-20-2004 at 05:39 AM..
Superbelt is offline  
Old 06-20-2004, 08:27 AM   #31 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by reconmike
And Bin Laden has already called a war between Islam and the west.
Of course he has...I was saying that it would be a mistake for us to follow his lead by framing the issue in the same way. If the west uses words like "crusade" or threatens to "invade them and convert them to Christianity" then you are going to push the Islamic moderates away from you. I'm sure that everyone here would like for tensions to ease with the Middle East, but using inflammatory language is not the way to do it. Global politics require subtlety.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 06-20-2004, 09:53 AM   #32 (permalink)
42, baby!
 
Dragonlich's Avatar
 
Location: The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally posted by cthulu23
Of course he has...I was saying that it would be a mistake for us to follow his lead by framing the issue in the same way. If the west uses words like "crusade" or threatens to "invade them and convert them to Christianity" then you are going to push the Islamic moderates away from you.
Ah yes, *we* have to be careful so as to not anger the Islamic moderates. When exactly are *they* going to stop using extremist rhetoric? There are countless Islamic ("moderate") political leaders using the exact same phrases that we aren't supposed to use. But *we* have to take care not to anger them...

Well, I say screw them. If a Muslim can't see the difference between the Christian crusades during the middle-ages, and a current "crusade" against terrorists abusing the Islamic religion, they're not moderates to begin with! It's been, what, 700 or 800 years since our crusades, but they're *still* not over it?

(Speaking of the crusades... you are aware of the fact that the Muslims invaded *us* first, don't you? The crusades began as an attempt to kick the Muslims invaders out of our countries (Spain, the Balkans, etc), and then out of *our* holy places... So it's not as black 'n white as many people claim.)
Dragonlich is offline  
Old 06-20-2004, 03:14 PM   #33 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
Ah yes, *we* have to be careful so as to not anger the Islamic moderates. When exactly are *they* going to stop using extremist rhetoric? There are countless Islamic ("moderate") political leaders using the exact same phrases that we aren't supposed to use. But *we* have to take care not to anger them...

Well, I say screw them. If a Muslim can't see the difference between the Christian crusades during the middle-ages, and a current "crusade" against terrorists abusing the Islamic religion, they're not moderates to begin with! It's been, what, 700 or 800 years since our crusades, but they're *still* not over it?

(Speaking of the crusades... you are aware of the fact that the Muslims invaded *us* first, don't you? The crusades began as an attempt to kick the Muslims invaders out of our countries (Spain, the Balkans, etc), and then out of *our* holy places... So it's not as black 'n white as many people claim.)
America's foreign policy can't be based on military action alone. Saying "screw 'em" and proceeding blindly, aggressively and insensitively through global politics will only create more enemies. We do want to reach a point where we aren't constantly engaged in war, don't we? Let's be real here...you can't kick the ass of the entire world and eternal conflict is no position that any reasonable person wants to be in.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 06-20-2004, 07:09 PM   #34 (permalink)
Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate
 
Location: Los Angeles
I'm sure Dragonlich you know many Islamic 'moderate's from that area right?

Please, we are all here in our own homes no where near the Middle East and as they have said, assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups

And TBH I wouldn't want people calling for a Jihad on my house
Zeld2.0 is offline  
Old 06-20-2004, 09:08 PM   #35 (permalink)
Boo
Leave me alone!
 
Boo's Avatar
 
Location: Alaska, USA
Quote:
Originally posted by djtestudo
Oh my God, they might mutate some polar bears...
And one old guy.... but I ain't skeert.
__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old.
Boo is offline  
Old 06-20-2004, 09:13 PM   #36 (permalink)
42, baby!
 
Dragonlich's Avatar
 
Location: The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally posted by cthulu23
America's foreign policy can't be based on military action alone. Saying "screw 'em" and proceeding blindly, aggressively and insensitively through global politics will only create more enemies. We do want to reach a point where we aren't constantly engaged in war, don't we? Let's be real here...you can't kick the ass of the entire world and eternal conflict is no position that any reasonable person wants to be in.
I'm not advocating all-out-war. I'm saying that perhaps many muslims should take a look at themselves for a change. They seem to be complaining about our language, yet can't be bothered to moderate their own tone.

Sure I know there are tons (90+%) of moderate Muslims who aren't advocating terrorism, but those people aren't going to become extremists every time we say bad words like "crusade" or something. It's the people that are extremists already that tend to care, and I for one don't give a rat's arse about some extremists' feelings.
Dragonlich is offline  
Old 06-20-2004, 09:22 PM   #37 (permalink)
BFG Builder
 
Location: University of Maryland
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
Word, whocarz, I mean. Iraq had drone aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons and biological and chemical agents to american shores in 45 minutes or less. (Yes liberal pussies, they ARE that fast)
He also bought an unknown quantity of yellowcake uranium from Nigeria.

How can anyone equate that with North Korea who, at the time had yet to successfully fire a nuclear missile?

Really people. Drone aircraft + Saddams proven reserve of WMD is not the same kind of threat as nuclear missiles + long range rockets capable of hitting American mainland.
Where's your source on the drone aircraft? Given that it takes the Concorde two hours to fly from Europe to America, I'm curious as to how any aircraft could fly from Iraq to America in less than half the time.

I did a brief search online, and there seem to be two types of drone aircraft in the discussion. The first is a UAV similar to the Predator series but of far less sophistication. Source here. The second series is the converted L-29 trainer jets, which have a maximum range of 650 km. At least two of the trainers were turned into unmanned drones, but the exact number is unknown.

According to these guys, the distance from America to Baghdad is 6211 miles (9996 km). The speed of sound is 340 m/s, so in order to travel from Baghdad to DC in 45 minutes the drone would have to travel at an average velocity of Mach 10.9, or roughly 8280 mph. In comparison the maximum speed of the SR-71 Blackbird (the fastest jet in the world) is Mach 3.5 with a maximum range of 2,500 miles without refueling.

So the Iraqis managed to develop an unmanned vehicle which has the following capabilities:
  • A maximum speed three times that of the SR-71.
  • A range over twice that of the SR-71.
  • Sufficient payload capacity to carry a WMD.
  • The ability to fly completely autonomously at incredible speeds over a long distance.
No wonder we invaded them!
__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.
DelayedReaction is offline  
Old 06-20-2004, 11:11 PM   #38 (permalink)
Jarhead
 
whocarz's Avatar
 
Location: Colorado
Delayedreaction,
Superbelt was trying to use his sardonic wit to patronize me and my views. I can't say I'm impressed.
__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly
whocarz is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 03:11 AM   #39 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
No, I was using sarcasm to point out the obvious.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 03:17 AM   #40 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...l/iraq/1816454


This, is the actual drone aircraft (which in reality is a balsa wood model airplane with a remote camere attached to it) that the US government accused Saddam of having, and being willing to use to delver payloads to Europe and America.
My 45 minute claim came from Tony Blair (and backed up by Bush in the SOTU I believe) That Iraq was capable of attacking europe and the americas in a time span of 45 minutes.
Superbelt is offline  
 

Tags
glad, real, threat

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:12 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360