The differences between America and Europe

[GePap]

Dalgetti

I am not against any relgion, which is why I defend Isam at this time. The religion of Islam is no more fair minded and open thn any other religion that claims to be the way to salvation, but neither is it more oppresive or dagerous. It is more political than Christianity (though not Judaism) so it cn be manipulated for politics more readil, but tht is no reason to condemn the faith of 1/6th of humanity. If you do this, mock peoples faith, then you undermine any other arguments you make because why should they listen to you if all you are doing is mocking their faith?

[chequita guevara]

Christian Evangalism is also spreading, Dalgetti.

[Az]

not as fast . And I am aware of that as well . I've been recieving silly pamphletes , smiled at the people that gave them to me , and threw them away shortly afterwards.

GePap : Just because most people believe something to be true it doesn't mean it is true. Just as I'm fighting in Real Life against Jewish religion , (unlike jewish customs i.e. holydays ,etc. which are harmless ) I am fighting on apolyton against all other religions. I mock their faith because that even if god exists he's not relevant to us in any context of morality.

[Ned]

I'll repeat, what is Chirac's plan for preventing Iraq and Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

If the answer is, none because the threat is against the US and not against Eurorpe, what does this say about France as an ally?

[chequita guevara]

The threat isn't against us, Ned. Iraq and Iran want a bomb for prestige purposes, and for protection from each other, and possibly protection from Israel, which has many bombs.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ned
I'll repeat, what is Chirac's plan for preventing Iraq and Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

The plan is to give Iraq nuclear weapons. I don't think that they have any plan to deal with Iran though.

[Az]

they've got the Russians for that

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The threat isn't against us, Ned. Iraq and Iran want a bomb for prestige purposes, and for protection from each other, and possibly protection from Israel, which has many bombs.

Che, Perhaps. We are daily at war with Iraq. Iraq issues threat after threat. Do we dismiss these as "irrelevant?"

What I hear from Europe is that we should either ignore or appease Saddam. This is not a plan.

.

[chequita guevara]

Well, yes, Iraq does issue threat after threat, but considering the fact that we bomb them almost daily, it's kinda understandable. We forget that we are dealing with a very honor driven society. For some reason, we really enjoy rubbing our foes noses in it. We don't just kick them when they're down, we laugh at them too. Even among ourselves, it's not something you really do, unless you want an enemy. To a society where honor is as important as life, it means blood.

BTW, appeasing Saddam is a misnomer. We aren't giving in to his territorial ambitions. We aren't allowing him WoMD. Even if we ended the blockade, that wouldn't be appeasement. It would be mercy to his people. But mercy is not a quality Americans are known for.


Oh, and my original point wasn't to let him have the bombs, but rather to try and bring a more realistic assessment into the fray. Saddam didn't use gas against us, even though he could have. He's not going to use a nuke against us the moment he gets it (and he probably will, let's face it). He knows that means nuclear annihilation.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Oh, and my original point wasn't to let him have the bombs, but rather to try and bring a more realistic assessment into the fray. Saddam didn't use gas against us, even though he could have. He's not going to use a nuke against us the moment he gets it (and he probably will, let's face it). He knows that means nuclear annihilation.

I don't think most of the policy makers are worried about Saddam himself lauching a nuclear attack on the US. I think many are concerned that these materials will fall into the hands of organizations that have no territory or position to loose. If a terrorist detonates even a small sized device in the US, who do we obliterate in response? How far are we off from someone having that ability? I honestly don't know. But it would be reasonable to try everything in our power to prevent, harass, and put every roadblock between them and even the possiblity of such an event. Yeah Saddam has a lot to loose, but there are people out there with nothing to loose. Saddam's greatest use of nuclear capability isn't what he can do with it, but what others can do with it.

As for Iran, I don't really know if they are more likely or less likely to divulge those technogies or not. I would seem to think that even though they support certain groups, they would be more likely to keep the tech to themselves. Maybe not, I don't know.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Kropotkin

Yes, so what? It's not in my interest to do anything drastic about that.

Dr. Strangelove: Exampels please.

Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia.

[Pekka]

Little offtopic here, but i have to comment on that China thingie. If you really think you can take them out like that when needed, you have to be either crazy or a victim of movies and propaganda. US obviously is the superpower and has the greatest military force. But China is a heavy weight too and when the to clash, there's no such thing as smartbombing and winning, or dominating the air 100% and bombing the hell out of it all the time. No way.
There's a thing called air defense, and anti-aircraft. Of course it can be damaged a lot, but not destroyed. If you are ignoring that fact, then i won't even start arguing about it. It's easy to dominate air and bomb with light losses or no losses at all against countries like afghanistan where they do not exist. I can't recall the last time someone actually challenged a country with decent air defence and troops since.. maybe ww2. Iraq does not have quality in there, so gulf can not be counted.

Just some thoughts from someone who actually has gone through training in AA-things.

ps. Many countries have decent weaponry in this field, and China is one. Don't believe everything you saw in top gun.

[GePap]

Dalgetti

When i meant political Judaism, i meant many of the things currently policy in Israel, such as the Rabbi's having control over many civil laws in marriage, death, and so forth. nd as you well know, there are extremist streams in jewish life, which believe in mutual respect of peoples of other faits as much as Osama.

God and relegion are intangibles, they are issues of faith. I am also an aethist, but Dalgetti, can you prove to me that God doesn't exist? You, as I , have put our FAITH in reason, perhaps just as blindly as those that believe in God. If someone asks me a 'why, perhaps my answer will involve less invoking of sacred texts and more experimental data, but if anyone asks me an existensial question, what answers can we give them? Besides, mockery is no form of adult debate, and a moral system that adopts mockery can't help but be corrupt. You will not succeed in lessening faiths, for faith is to strong for that. If you whish to creae a mporal world then, you must try to convince people with arguments, not mockery, and if you can't convince them on the reason, convince them on the path of action, but again, that calls for reasoned argument, not mockery.

[Roland]

Couple of points:

1. US power is hopelessly overstated. You can go against 3rd rate powers. That's about it.

2. Switch of positions is a good angle. He forgot one: In the 19th century America was strategically isolated and relied on potential power - now Europe is coming into that situation, while the US is relying on military power and getting into increasing problems from imperial overstretch. Pissing on your allies is about the stupidest thing you can do in such a situation, but most powers have done exactly that....

3. The US military presence in Europe is close to zero. It's there for an operational basis in the balkans and outside europe.

4. The transatlantic alliance is dead. It'll be for the next generation of politicians to bury the rotting corpse and come up with something else.

Dan:

"Europe is riding our coat-tails merely because they aren't chipping in for the creation of the Ultimate Ideal Western World (TM). To my mind, Europe is on the hook for an add'l 2% of GDP for "doing the dishes", laxer immigration laws, and friendlier trade terms to other countries."

Oh bollocks. We hand out x-times more foreign aid. We have a similar level of immigration. And the US has always been as protectionist as the EU. And we spend just about 1 percentage point less of GDP on the military - 1.5 % after dubya's latest budget.

"They are on the hook to do the dishes, if liberal Western values are to be spread throughout the world"

You want to spread western values with fire and sword ? Are you really nuts ?

[morb]

Re: 1+3=/5

Originally posted by GePap
Heck, what if saddam took refuge in Iran? No one has brought that one up!

why would he take up refuge in Iran if he waged an undecisive 8 year war against them in the 80's? Iran wants nothing less than to see him suffer. I doubt they would harbour him.