Originally posted by 27jd
Of course most may not be a direct threat to us, but could you imagine if any of the factions in Africa were to get nukes? What kind of world
will we be living in when nuclear weapons belong to everybody?
That's a good point, and you're right, there are a lot of people who would DEFINATELY use nukes. I'm not 100% sure that India really knows better
even, and I will pretty much bet my bottom dollar that if one side of a genocidal conflict in Africa gets the bomb they will use it, especially if
they can manage to obtain an exotic nuclear weapon such as a "salted bomb", which can have a configureable fallout period. Theoretically the use of
gold in a "salted bomb" would yield fallout that dissipates in days, or so I have read.
Like I have said, America needs to go after this problem at the source. We need to use force to regulate those who sell fissile material, missile
components, and who provide technical assisstance with enrichment systems such as Heavy Water Reactors. I think we're better better off getting into
a staring contest with Russia than we are running around having staring contests with a dozen smaller nations for whom blinking isn't even an option.
Afterall, Russia can back down and stop proliferation, because they know they can deter us directly when they need to. Unless Russia is put in that
situation where they have to deter us directly though, Iran can't afford to back down, because without a deterrent they know for a fact we're gonna
mop the floor with them.
You're an intelligent person,
I appreciate that, but a lot of people around here will think less of you for saying that about me
. Nobody who knows what they are talking about of
course, or so I'd like to think.
Not all nukes are missiles. Not to mention a global defense system is a long way off, if ever, and as soon as one's in place, you know as well as I
somebody out there (probably us) will find a way around it, it's just the nature of things I guess.
How would we do that? Aren't we (the U.S.) the original source of proliferation?
We are the original source, but it's never to late to abandon a bad habit.
A missile shield would do a lot for us, even though it wasn't full proof. For example Iran can't threaten Israel so long as there is a good
missile/air defense between those nations. All Israel has to do to stay safe is control the security of its borders. Actually even a good Theater
Missile Defense would solve many problems.
There is no one sollution, but staring down the proliferators (including our own government) developing defenses, regulating the trafficking of
equipment, and yes at times we may have to go to war with the recipients, but that should be the last option because it is very inefficient and very
costly. Also, when we do go in, we need to go in and accomplish the goal, nothing more, nothing less. Just start whacking their presidents again and
again until one of their presidents changes his mind. Blow up their reactors. If you really want to occupy, take a nice big occupation force to do it
right so that you don't spend 3 years there and suffer almost 2000 casualities.
Don't worry, the civilian hawks will get their chance to beat the crap out of people as soon as the draft is reinstated. But seriously, I'm
kinda disappointed seing a soldier disconnect himself from "civilians", like we're different people from soldiers.
I fear that I've been misunderstood. I don't necessarily see myself as completely seperated from civilian America, and I don't look down on
I simply detest the ignorance that is often displayed by those who support war almost in any case, simply because they do not have any personal
connection to the human cost of war. If America had a draft I believe many hawks would temper their warlike attitudes.
I take this example from my grandfather. He definately felt that it was worthwhile to send people off to fight in Iraq- but he argued with me at
length when he found out that I had joined the Marines and asked for infantry. I guess he only wanted to send other people's grandchildren off to be
shot at. I love my grandfather and I respect him as a man of integrity, and such an error by a man of his wisdom lends credibility to my belief that
well meaning members of team America sometimes forget the cost of war simply because they do not immediately share in it.
and don't forget who pays for the superior technology employed by the soldiers
God bless them for it, but let's not forget that it's not exactly done by donation, and the pro-war party (republicans) pushed through a tax cut at
a time when they weren't providing maximum funding for the effort to equip our troops. I lean right of center and I wouldn't have voted for Kerry to
save my soul, but give me a break man- how could America go to war understrength without even trying to institute a draft and then pass a tax cut when
we needed MORE funding for armor?
As I've said- I believe in Weinberger's criteria. We needed overwhelming domestic support and sufficient forces. If America would tollerate a draft
and increased military spending in order to field 500,000 troops for up to 2 years, we shouldn't have gone to war. Hand in hand with that point, if
the average American voter had knew what this war required and wasn't willing to support that much (most of us didn't know of course) then they
never should have supported the war.
Sorry to see so much turmoil and loss, truly. That being said, we have all been affected by this war, we all know somebody who has lost a loved one or
their sanity to this war. But it's part of the job description, anybody signing up to fight in a war, should expect to fight in a war, IMO.
I'm with you on that because I agree that we volunteer to fight, not just to sit around and look good in uniform, although that is a fun part of the
job sometimes. We don't all share the cost of the war evenly though. As I have said, a lot of hawks wouldn't be hawks if they had a child in the
military. We are a team, but we do not necessarily all know it or act like it. Some people would send other people's kids off to fight so they can
feel macho, but they'd never send their own kids. You saw the quote I used earlier- the guy who wanted to open up some popcorn and watch my friends
fight for their lives.
You don't think a nuclear Iran would be a threat to us? Seriously? Israel is not the great Satan (they are a secondary Satan) we are the great Satan.
But I do agree, since the secondary Satan is more accessible, they will be first, after the countless innocent Israelis are killed, it will be
followed by the extinction of Iran. After an event of that scale, the whole world would be rocked, it would not just be business as usual here in the
Are you sure about that? My understanding, which could be wrong, was that America wouldn't necessarily be a satan at all except that they think
we're a bunch of Zionist pigs.
The bottom line is that Israel is the one in Iran's sights; They are the ones that might cease to exist if Iran gets the bomb. They should have to do
most of the leg work in kicking Iran's butt. Do they need passage through Iraq, fine. Do they need a little help, fine. But why in the bloody heck
saus that we have to protect Israel when Israel is capable of protecting themselves. It seems to me that Zionist Christians believe that America has
to support Israel, and once again I really don't think their faith runs so deep that they would send their own children to fight for Israel.
The other thing to keep in mind is that our government and some of its conservative supporters are picking and choosing where they apply this policy
to. Who do you think gave Israel the bomb in the first place? Why don't we give the bomb to other nations which are endangered by their neighbors?
Why didn't we attack North Korea for going for the bomb? Why don't we invade Libya? Why don't we go get Hamas and Hizbollah out of Lebanon and
Somehow we keep standing up for our values in nations with a great deal of mineral wealth, and none of them happen to be friends of ours. I think
it's really interesting that we don't say anything to Saudi Arabia about their support of terrorism, and we don't want Israel to disarm.
I agree fully, hopefully this will be the case, unlike Iraq.
Even if an invasion of Iran weren't quite the perfect answer, I'd be likely to accept it and support it if we did it the right way.
Forgive me if there are incomplete thoughts in here. I have been interrupted and am cutting short.