I understand that kollapse is banned, but I think this conversation is something of a group effort anyway, so why not respond right?
Originally posted by Kollapse
Well, Turkey for example is a Muslim country, but not fundamentalist and no suicidebombings, what makes the difference between the more extreme
Afghans and the moderate Turks?
Turkey has been massively interfered with tho, true, it wasn't invaded by the soviets, like afghanistan, but that might've had something to do with
western ICBM's pointing at them across the euxine. Also, keep in mind that the turks were, well, invaded and forced to take up a democracy, not
unlike iraq, a country that they had to abandon in that other unpopular global war.
US invaded Iraq beacuse of the WMD's US gave them?
I said the Arab world would cease to exist. I posit that 5-10 Arab cities would be vaporized and that almost all Arab / Persian governments would be
forcibly overthrown and replaced with western proxies.
You hadn't said that there should be a strike on strategic cities, you had said that the arab world be destroyed. Why would western democracies pop
up after nuking multiple cities full of innocent people in the mid east? It would demonstrate that the west is dangerous and homocidal and not to be
trusted, not force
that part of the world into submission. Also, are you prepared for an occupation of the entire muslim world, from morrocco
There would be zero tolerance of any kind of anti-western sentiment in the remaining populace.
How is this supposed to be accomplished? Totalitarian rule of north africa, east africa, the persian gulf, iran, central asia, pakistan, indonesia and
the phillipines? And the rest of the world is just going to sit by mute when US forces swell up on their borders? China and Russia aren't going to
be interested at a massive american land pressence in marching distance of their cities?
It would be brutal, draconian, and not something to be proud of…but it would happen.
And if it did it would result in absolutely nothing. The black market that supplies nukes wouldn't be shut down and more nukes woud go off in the
US. Nukes aren't good
weapons, and they most certainly aren't conventional. They are best
as a detterent force. The possibility of
soviet cities being nuked was enough to keep the soviets from nuking american cities, or even invading europe. What do you think nuking tehran will
do? Besides killing off the more cosmopolitan, tolerant, and reform minded portions of the population? Not only does bin ladin or any of these other
terrorists care about muslim cities being annhilated, but even some of the governments
over there don't care. I recall reading about a speech
given by one of the iranian mullahs, he siad sommethign like 'what do we care if a nuke goes off in our city and kills millions? We have millions
more'. They have disposable populations
. They don't care about running cities, they are regressive, pre-modern, 'luddite like'
extremists. Taking their cities away is not a problem for them. Besides, the cities aren't whats the problems. Why destroy islamabad when its the
pastoral tribesmen in the mountains of waziristan that are the problem?
Lots of cultures have had to deal with these regions, even before they were muslim dominated, all of them had the ability to invade, kill millions,
destroy cities, and dominate, and its never worked. Look at the Hindu Kush mountains. Know why they are called that? It means "Hindu Killing'
Mountains. Its not terrain non natives can be effective on, and no one can prevent natives from rallying, preparing, and leaving there. Not the
hindus, not the greeks, not the persians or brits or anyone.
with all this talk of nuking them can you really blame Arab nations for wanting WMD
No, but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't destroy the regimes and structures that are trying to acquire them.
I think the world would be a lot safer if only 3 or 4 countries had nukes and divided the world up into areas they were deticated to respond on
behalf of if attacked by nukes
Some have predicted that the pakistani-indian situation will not erupt into war again because of this detterence concern. But why give other powers
massive nuke arsenals? The US isn't going to use it 'kill all dem der a rabes'. If the US is attacked with nukes, then there will be a
'non-conventional' response and it will not allow itself to be bound by any previous international treaties or standards. There really is no choice
on that matter. Regardless, better that than, say, a saudi-egyptian controlled nuclear strike force.
playing ignorant because this is your chance to stick your finger in our open wound.
Useful Idiots as the international communists used to say, no?
Speaking of which, the U.S. did not give Hussein WMD's.
I suppose its rather debatle as to whether they got their VX gas from the US or the UK, but surely you don't think that they developed it on their
claiming that they have nukes, and small pox already in place within the 7 largest cities in the USA, and will ABSOLUTELY use them no matter what,
what is the USA to do?
Lets just think about the situation for a moment. What does al qaida, specifically, want? I think every one agrees that their ultimate goal is the
re-establishment of the Caliphate, a pan-islamic theocratic empire. How do, effectively, powerless people accomplish this? They can't defeat the US
on the field, so they engineer a situation where the US and the West in general becomes more involved in middle easter affairs, invades and destroys
the old regimes (also an obstacle to the caliphate), and then waits for the inevitable softening of resolve on the part of the western public and
pressure from the international community (governmental and non) to eventually result in the west pulling out of the middle east. SO now what? I
mean, the west must've left someone in charge no? But look at it now, karzai isn't in charge of afghanistan, and there was only a lack of violence
and a generally decent election becuase the local warlords would, well, benefit from peace.
Or look at iraq. The national police are out and about, heck the coalition is there in force, and stil cities and sections of the country are open
to the various terrorists. So an even 'weaker' structure is going to be in power once the west 'pulls out' of the middle east, and then
the terrorists will, literally, come down from the mountains, wrathfully calling the people, who had been nuked, beaten, imprisoned, betrayed, and
nearly exterminated by the west and the lackeys now in power, to rise up against the current set of tyrants. And they most certainly will do it,
they'll see peolpe like bin ladin in an intensification of the way they see him now, as someone, "the only one" willing to stand up against the
'decadent, immoral, hypocritical, depraved west' that by then had literally shown up promising democracy peace and prosperity and had ended up
absoltely brutalizing them.
So i bring that up because thats the kind of involvement that nuclear retaliation will require, and everyone has to be absolutely commited to it. The
west and the US simply can not
be that commited, especially
in a post wmd intelligence debacle world. IE, if the cia can't tell that
iraq, with its permanent structures, facilities, and defectors, does or does not have wmd, or worse, insists that it does and they practically know
that amounts and how long they've had them, and is completely wrong, then how the hell
can anyone know that these terrorists have
? I strongly
suspect that they do. Heck, they must either have them or be very close. But, goddamnit, iraq must've had it
too no? And they didn't. Crap.