When Bush hatred makes you a moron...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


No. The US has no right to invade any other sovereign country.

Never? What about a case like Panama under Bush Sr. where to government was completely corrupt, was shipping drugs into the United States, and was threatening to nationalize the Panama Canal which the US still had a legal right to for another decade? Was the US right to topple a corrupt dictator and set up the fully functioning democracy which exists today. Did the US have a right to invade Afghanistan when the Afghan government was shielding Al Qaeda terrorists who had murdered 3000 American citizens and caused billions and billions of dollars in damage?

I think your use of absolute terms such as "no right" does not reflect reality.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by General Ludd
What do you expect to happen - some "aggresive dictator" secretely building up a nuclear arsenal powerful enough to destroy the entire world without anyone knowing?

Of course not. I'm worried about North Korea invading South Korea and threatening to nuke American or Japanese cities if we intervine to help our ally. currently the North wouldn't think of doing that because it would mean their total destruction. They'd fire off their one or two and we'd return fire with 10,000. Not even Kim is that stupid. Let's say we unilateraly disarm like Kid has said then how do we stand up to a nuclear armed dictator when his forces are invading south Korea. How would we stand up to a nuclear armed Iran when if they decided to grab the huge Kuwait oil fields like they tried to do in 1985 (because they were helping Saddam finance the war plus the mullahs wanted the oil)? Back then they were stopped by Saddam's Army using poison gas for the first time. That won't help next time.

Similiar arguements can be made for an aggressive PRC which wants to annex Taiwan. For the last 56 years their aggression towards Taiwan has been checked by the threat of American naval, air, and (yes) nuclear response. The only effective way to cow the militants of the world is use over welling military force to threaten them with. You cannot reason with the Hitlers and want to be Hitlers of the World.

[Tassadar500]

And thus the conclusion of this topic is, Israel is always right.

[RGBVideo]

Imran -- stop trying to play some cynical foreign policy, international relations -expert if you're not (EDIT: Let me just add that I'm not either). World peace is for, never against, every country's national interest. Fear and misunderestandings on an invididual level (ie. crappy leaders) cause wars.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It's a manual for rulers to maintian their rule. It has nothing to do with world peace. Therefore, it is of no interest to anyone who cares about other things besides power.

You mean... like everyone country in the world.

World Peace . Yeah, because countries really would promote that if it went against their interests, right?

Only powerful nations like war, because they can win. Weaker nations want peace.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kidicious
It's obvious that nukes are an important weapon for the US to continue this role. First, the US needs to change it's role in the world. That would help create a more peacefull world. And then it might be possible to destroy nukes.

Can you please expand on that? I'm assuming when you claim the US has a bully role that you mean the US shouldn't be the global police man who goes after Saddam when he invades Kuwait, invades Panama when their dictator is selling drugs and threatening to nationalize the canal, occupy Haiti when it's government falls apart, or go after the Taliban when they supported terrorists. I for one see a huge global upside to having someone enforce some form of law and structure on the world even if it is tilted toward a capitalist and democratic western view point.

By being more peaceful do you mean not do those things?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by VJ
Imran -- stop trying to play some foreign policy, international relations -expert if you're not. World peace is for, never against, every country's national interest. Fear and misunderestandings on an invididual level (ie. crappy leaders) cause wars.

I graduated with a degree in political science. I think I know what I'm talking about . World peace is not ALWAYS for every country's national interest. That's just foolish. Was it for or against the United State's national interest to fight a war against the Mexicans in the 1840s? Was it for or against the Prussian national interest to fight the French in the 1870s? The answer to both is a resounding FOR! World peace would have hurt them in their national interests of accumulating far greater power.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Only powerful nations like war, because they can win. Weaker nations want peace.

Well duh! But if you think the weaker nations do not care about their power while campaigning for 'peace', you are sadly mistaken. Only Switzerland wants to be left alone. Everyone else wants a bigger say. War ain't the only way to gain power. It's just one way (policy by other means).

[Tassadar500]

Imran has hit it spot on with his last two posts.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
By being more peaceful do you mean not do those things?

Being a communist I'm obvious opposed to a lot of the action that the US takes. It's more a matter of blaming the most powerfull nation for me. If the US took a more hands off approach to the world it's hard to say whether things would actually be better, but I do think that the world would be more likely to destroy it's nukes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I do think that the world would be more likely to destroy it's nukes.

You are really not living on this planet, are you?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Well duh! But if you think the weaker nations do not care about their power while campaigning for 'peace', you are sadly mistaken. Only Switzerland wants to be left alone. Everyone else wants a bigger say. War ain't the only way to gain power. It's just one way (policy by other means).

Power to defend yourself is one thing. You do that by forming alliances and negotiating for peace. The US has 10,000 nukes. That's something else. That's power to dominate. That's the kind of power Machiavelli was talking about. Most nations aren't even concerned with that, only trying to prevent other nations from getting and maintaining that power.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Power to defend yourself is one thing. You do that by forming alliances and negotiating for peace. The US has 10,000 nukes. That's something else. That's power to dominate. That's the kind of power Machiavelli was talking about. Most nations aren't even concerned with that, only trying to prevent other nations from getting and maintaining that power.

Power to defend yourself? No... power to gain a greater say in the concert of nations. To be a player. To have others listen to you. And one reason that countries are concerned with other countries getting a 'power to dominate' is because it severly reduces their power.

You have a seriously skewed view of things that borders on the "USA - bad, everyone else - good". Countries are not into gaining power solely to defend themselves. That's just silly.

[Kidlicious]

This only shows how people like you see what's inside of yourself only and project that view outward to the world. Other nations are not in the same position in the world and so they have different objectives.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
This only shows how people like you see what's inside of yourself only and project that view outward to the world. Other nations are not in the same position in the world and so they have different objectives.

No, this only shows your idealistic view of the world is totally and hopeless so out of touch with reality that no one should listen to you. The ultimate objective is the same, more say in the world community, ie, power. Though for some reason you equate it to war, which is only one way to gain that power. No country wants a lesser say in the world.