The Pub Discussion Board

Jefferson · 2007-01-29 10:38:48

New topic and this one is as far from sex as we can get. We're going international this time.

A few points before I get to the question.

1) America is, almost without question, the most powerful nation in the world at this point in time, economically and militarily. We are, without doubt, the worlds ONLY remaining super-power.

2) We have one of the largest militaries in the world today. I think China's military has more men. We also have the most technologically advanced military in the world. We are the only nation whos military has global mobility, what, I believe, the politicians call "Force Projection." Our military can go anywhere in the world, in a matter of hours or days and be ready to fight. No other nation in the world, with the possible exception of England, has this capability and none have it to the same extent that we do. No other nation even seems to be moving towards this goal including China and the European Union.

3) There is no single nation on Earth who can challenge our military in a conventional war. This is why most have turned to poltical potshots and terrorism because they know, militarily, they are no threat and they have no "force projection," no way to get their troops on to US soil and still be war capable.

The question:

As Peter "Spider Man" Parker's uncle put it "With great power, comes great responsibility."

Does the United States Government have a duty, to it's citizens, to it's allies and to the world at large, to protect innocents from threats to their security? This would include removing rogue individuals/groups, politically bankrupt governments and strongmen or dictator any where in the world?

If you feel that the US does have a duty to play "policeman" to the world, if the US government feels a threat is imminent, do they have the right to act? If necessary, unilaterally? If so, does this include pre-emptive attacks?

If the US does not, or should not, act unilaterally, which agency, organization or group should be the authority on such decisions?

If they should NOT be the world's "policeman," why not?

I will save my own thoughts and ideas on this topic for later.

-Jeff

Last edited by Jefferson (2007-01-29 10:40:30)

siath · 2007-01-29 11:44:35

Actually, China's military is the largest in the world and could kick our militaries collective butts into the ground with out shooting a shot. The sheer numbers would win any war they fought. This is why, the US doesn't provoke China. By the way there have been studies on this. They have proven if china landed in Cali. in force with only their people they could basically walk across the US and take it over with out a shot. Their population is so huge it is just unreal.

The U.N. was (don't know if they're still propsing this or not) trying to sieze control of all militaries, they want control of our military and the bases on our soil. Hence forming a world military and global aid foundation. They were turned down and told that would never happen. I believe several other countries followed suit, China being one of them.

Siath

Jefferson · 2007-01-29 12:00:58

China DOES have the largest military in the world. I said that in my original post. They have something like a MILLION men in their military.

The problem is, they have NO WAY to land that army in Cali, as you put it. The Chinese navy is largely a brown water navy, meant for rivers, lakes and shoreline duty, even the subs they are building are meant only to patrol the waters between China and Taiwan because of Taiwan's threats to make themselve independent. They have no aircraft carriers, no large ships to carry an invasion force large enough.

They simply don't have the ships and even if they did, thanks to satellite surviellance the US would know about this invasion fleet, days or even weeks ahead of time. Probably before they ever left Chinese waters. Plenty long enough to put bombers in the air and stop that fleet before it ever reached Hawaii, much Less California.

If they tried an airborne attack, same result. We would see it coming so far in advance, the invasion would simply never reach our shores. Thanks to stealth fighters, they would never see us coming and we would pick them out the air. It would be a turkey shoot That's why I made sure to point the TECHNOLOGICAL advantage the US has, not just in industry but also in the military.

Our technology and ability to project around the world would put a serious damper on their numbers.

So, yes, China has more people in it's military. They don't have the ships or planes to "project" that military though, especially across the Pacific Ocean. They would be at the bottom of the ocean long before any real invasion force could set foot on American soil.

As for the claims about them just walking in, I don't believe that either. There's a reason so many American's support the NRA. American's love their cars and American's love their guns. It may not be ORGANIZED resistance at first, but there would be resistance.

As for the UN, my personal opinion of the UN is that it is a great little humanitarian organization but is impotent in almost all matters military.

Last edited by Jefferson (2007-01-29 12:03:52)

Eric Storm · 2007-01-29 23:23:18

k. Let's start with siath's claim about the Chinese military walking across the US:

Apparently, that study didn't take into account that FAE bombs (Fuel-Air Explosives) are cheap to mass-produce. An FAE is the next best thing to a nuclear weapon for killing mass numbers of people. An FAE, when dropped, fills the air with an explosive vapor (non-nuclear in nature). It is then ignited, and it's like a whole section of the sky just goes BOOM!, killing anyone within its radius, which, for such a cheap weapon, is a pretty damned BIG radius.

Furthermore, Jefferson is right: They've got no way to get there. Ever figured out what it would take to move a million people? A 747 holds about 500 people. To move a million of them, you'd need two thousand flights. In order for it to be effective, they'd all have to be in the air at the same time. By the way, cargo planes / airliners are extremely vulnerable to attack, and would be wiped out before being able to land. Seaborne infantry would fair no better: again, they have no way to fight off submarines and attack aircraft.

We don't mess with China for two reasons: First, they aren't really messing with us in any serious way. Second, they have nuclear weapons attached to intercontinental-range missiles aimed at our country, and deterrence is still a viable military strategy.

As to the question Jefferson raised, here is my personal opinion, and take it for what it's worth:

I am essentially in favor of us pulling back from the vast majority of our "obligations" around the world. Attack those who have attacked, or threatened to attack, us, but otherwise, leave the rest of the world to its problems. Why? First, because we can't fix their problems if they don't want them fixed. If they wanted them fixed, they'd do something about it themselves. Take Iraq as an example: If the people there had REALLY wanted the guy gone, they could have made that happen. It would have required them risking their necks to do it, but far better their necks than ours. Having said that, despite the denials of this, I do believe that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked, which made him a direct threat to us, which means we needed to "deal decisively" with Saddam's government. The mess that's left behind, we aren't going to be able to fix in the kind of timeframe that people (mostly liberals, but a lot of conservatives, too) are willing to accept, so I'm not entirely sure that staying there is going to be useful.

The US cannot police the world because the world does not want to be policed. The UN is the greatest evidence of this: UN resolutions are considered a joke by the countries they are aimed at. The usual response to a UN resolution is "So what?" The UN isn't even a paper tiger. It's a neutered, defanged, WHINY paper tiger.

On the issue of a preemptive strike against a threatening nation, my response is: If you're damned sure they're coming after you eventually, it is idiotic for you to wait for them to get ready and hit you first. That's the way you end up fighting big wars. Preemptive strikes allow you to fight small wars. (Before anyone brings up Iraq again, Iraq stopped being a war years ago. What is left is an occupation, not a war.) It is standard military doctrine that the best defense is a good offense. If you know you're going to be fighting anyway, why do we insist that we have to fight on their terms, instead of our own? It's ludicrous.

In short, my viewpoint is simply that we need to take care of our own backyard, and let the rest of the world take care of its own, as well. Yes, with great power comes great responsibility, but our responsibility is to lead by example, not to force our will on others.

Net Wolf

Jefferson · 2007-01-30 01:36:31

Okay, nows as good a time as any so I'll go ahead and post my views on this very hot political issue.

I am a supporter of the idea that being the worlds ONLY super power, we do have a certain responsibility to work towards world peace. I will admit that it should be done with allies. I read a book a while back called "The Pentagon's New Map" by a Navel War College Strategist named Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett and found I LOVED the man's ideas.

Put simply, since there is no nation in the world who can stand up to our technologically advanced military, Dr. Barnett's idea was to use the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines as a spear tip. Some world organization, Dr. Barnett's idea was an expanded G-8 (expanded to make it the G- 15 or even the G-20. In other words, the fifteen or twenty most powerful nations on Earth) would be the ones to decide where this "Spear" would be launched next.

Being as the US is the only nation in the world capable of projecting it's force anywhere in the world, we would be in the lead. We would be the warriors who go in, take out the bad guys and settle things down a little.

Once the "War" is over, it's then time to work the peace, or "the everything else," which is where the militaries from the EU, India, China, South America etc come in. These nations have transformed their militaries over the last fifty years or so. These miltiaries are, for the most part ineffective as an offensive force. They are strictly defensive. They are an army of Peacekeepers. As we're learning in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, the war is the easy part, it's the "Everything else" we're having trouble with.

Once the war is over, our allies, led by that wonderful humanitarian organization, known as the UN, would flood in and begin the process of keeping the peace as well as rebuilding infrastructure and putting a working government in place where needed. The US military, at this point would be in a supporting role. Going where they were needed as well as providing naval and air power to our allies. The US would also be aiding in financing this work.

If you look at a map, most of the world is at peace. Most of the American continent, Europe, Austrilia and a majority of the former Soviet States are all at peace and really in no danger of going to war anytime in the near future. China and India fall into this catergory as well.

These nations are part of the global economy (globalization is here and here to stay) and are unlikely to cause trouble because they are totally reliant on every other nation. If the US economy collapsed, the whole world would be affected. Same if the Japanese economy or the Chinese economy collapsed or if the French, German or Russian economies collapsed. This is why the US continues to send fistfuls of money into South and Central America as well as to Russia to keep it functioning. It's also another reason why we don't worry about China sending hordes of Chnese into the US. They would lose as much as they would gain.

The areas not in this group, those areas not connected to the global economy are the areas where we are going to see more and more trouble over the coming decades. Africa (with the exception of South Africa), parts of southeast Asia and the middle East. These areas are where the wars will occur. These areas will be the areas where terrorisms flourishes and hides. These are the areas where we need to be.

The US Military is so big and so bad, that we CAN provide security for the world.

We've provided security for most of Western Europe for the better part of sixty years, same for Japan. Vietnam and South Korea for just a little less time. England, with US backing, protected Taiwan and Hong Kong. These are now the exact same nations that are THRIVING that were second or third world nations just a few decades ago. The Phillipines, while it's had it's fair share of problems, is also moving more and more towards the global economy. All of these nations have been under US Military protection for, at least, the last thirty years. These nations are largely at peace and are thriving economically.

Our next step is to do exactly the same thing we did for Europe, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Hong Kong and Taiwan for this new group of bad boys in the Middle East, Africa and SE Asia. Just by placing US military assets in these areas, it will improve the nation we set up in as well as the bordering nations. With security, there will be an influx of foriegn investment from the US, Europe, Japan, China etc. which will kick these now-floudering nations into the 20th or 21st century and connect them to the world economy making them less of a threat and less likely to grow drugs or hide terrorists.

My own personal thoughts on China is that the Communist Chinese government is going to reform itself right out of power in the next 20 to 50 years. The government is opening up the economy, allowing in foriegn workers and money, they are privatizing more and more. The economy there is becoming more and more transparent. We don't need to fight them. They are going to "Peristroika" themselves out of existence. There will be another Tianemen Square but the next time, I think the military will turn on it's masters.

Should we strike pre-emptivly, absolutely! Should we play police man to the world? Absolutely! Should we do it alone? No. We need someone in the White House who believes in the idea and can sell it to the Socialists in Europe. Even if Russia and Japan don't join in, with European support, we COULD see world peace within fifty years.

That's my vision. Just once before I die, I'm almost forty now, I want to see one Day, just ONE DAY, with absolutely no one dying from a war around the world. It can be done. I'm sure of it. But... I am a bit of an idealist and a dreamer.

Storymaster69 · 2007-01-30 04:46:18

Personally I find Jefferson's views a bit disturbing. In a Utopian world where people are only interested in peace and harmony it might actually work but we are talking real life. How can a few select people from a single country decide what is best for everyone else?

You say the UN is ineffective? The reason it is ineffective is because as you say everyone considers its resolutions a joke. If the US, the strongest military force ignores the UN how can it be effective? Take the initial invasion of Iraq the UN didn't want the US to go in but the US went ahead and did so anyway. Was it the right decision in the end I don't know, should the US have done things unilaterally, I don't think so.

If the US truly wants to work towards world peace then they need to actually support an organization like the UN, otherwise the rest of the world will continue thinking of America as arrogant and condescending to everyone else. The American way isn't the only way and until America stops trying to force their ideology on everyone else they will stir things up just as much as calm things down

Eric Storm · 2007-01-30 06:54:10

Okay, couple of things:

"Navel War College"... sorry, can't pass this up, are there many combat actions centered on belly-buttons? 3dbig_smile

Something that Jefferson's plan completely overlooks is that, in the Middle East, there is an entirely different dynamic going on than anywhere else in the world. The Arab nations do not believe in Israel's right to exist. They do not see Israel as a legitimate nation-state. They feel that the land was ripped from Arab hands by the UN and given over to a group of invaders by people who supported that invasion.

You know what? They're right.

Israel lost its cohesiveness over a thousand years ago, and it was only the guilty consciences of people who hadn't stopped Hitler in time who decided to steal land from people who had legitimately held it for centuries, and give it back to people who, by any objective viewpoint, stole the land in the first place. The Arab nations do not acknowledge the validity of Israel's claim to the land, and so you are NEVER going to get them to "make peace", so long as there is an Israel, there will be people striving to destroy it.

Furthermore, despite what idealists wish to believe, humans are, by nature, aggressive, competitive and territorial. All of those things loudly proclaim that there will never be an end to war. There will always be someone who tries to take what someone else has, there will always be someone who lets power go to his head. Anyone who believes that humanity can live in peace for any significant length of time is denying the very nature of who we are. And you'd better hope those things never change, because evolution shows that any species that loses the ability to compete and adapt... dies.

And I must say, the policy you're advocating was very well stated in another story I once read. It comes under the three-word motto: Might Makes Right. Who the hell says that the twenty most powerful nations on the planet are right in their opinion of what is good and just? Who the hell says we are always right in what's good and just? The simple fact is, turning America into judge, jury and executioner on the world stage flies in the face of the very foundation on which this country was founded.

There is another issue: Lots of countries, especially European ones, don't like the US. They feel we are too young, and have gained power too quickly, that we are upstarts on the world stage. What this means is that getting the "twenty most powerful countries" to agree on anything is next to impossible.

In short, the more you try to make America the World Political Police, the more hated we will become, and the more terrorism you will bring down upon us. The Islamic fundamentalists hate us for our culture, yes, but especially for our support of Israel. Support other nations against other political groups, and they will form their own terrorist groups. In short, it means saving someone else at the expense of our own safety. Admirable, but usually foolhardy.

Net Wolf

Jefferson · 2007-01-30 07:04:04

Support the UN?

Are you aware that of all the resolutions condemning a nation that the UN has passed for one act or another, fully HALF of them, were against Israel? Yet, they haven't condemned Syria, Libya or Sudan. They have NEVER condemned the Palestinians for anything I don't think.

The UN passed a resolution stating that Iraq MUST allow UN weapons inspectors into the country and give them unfettered access. Time and again, SEVENTEEN TIMES in fact, Iraq broke that resolution. The US And England had the right to go in and remove Saddam and his government after the FIRST violation. Saddam and his government violated it SEVENTEEN Times. Yet, you're right, the UN didn't want us to go in. Why not? Why didn't they support us?

The UN allows nations that committ horrid crimes against humanity, nations like those mentioned above, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Iran and North Korea to serve on the UN Security council. This is just downright scary. Oh, one more little thing, Israel IS NOT ALLOWED to serve on the Security council. Yet Libya, Sudan, Syria, the former Iraq, Iran and North Korea can serve on the UN committe on human rights.

As Net Wolf and I have already said, the UN is toothless and impotent for the simple reason that they are UNWILLING to enforce the very resolutions that they enact. Iraq violated the resolution seventeen times, Libya is allowed to serve on the Human Right Committe. Slowly but surely we are learning more and more about how corrupt the organization has become and how ill prepared the UN is to do the very jobs is was set up to do.

There are others who are just as bad:

The EU screams about America's slow response to Katrina yet offer NO AID at all. When they have a disaster, the US is the first one there.

The French are rioting in the streets because slowly the French government is being forced to take away the Welfare state that has existed there for the last sixty years. Why are they doing this? They can't charge enough tax to support the New EU military and to support the welfare state the populace so desire. So how did they do it for the last sixty years? Simple, the US was providing security. Yet there are those, in this country, some of whom are running for President of the US right now, who scream that the US government is OBLIGATED to provide exactly that same ideal.

The French yell and scream about us attacking Iraq? Why? Well, we now know it was because FRENCH COMPANIES were selling materials to Iraq for profit. Materials whos only use is to build Nuclear weapons. The very thing Iraq was condemned for in the resolution mentioned earlier.

Yet we're supposed to take their advise? We're supposed to bow down to them? I think my forefathers left Europe so they didn't HAVE TO Listen to the French and the English anymore. The US is a soverign state. We may committ war on any nation on Earth we see as a threat to us, our security or our allies. We may be condemned for such actions but we do have the right. We may be further attacked for such actions, but we do have the right.

I am an idealist and a dreamer. If that's your idea of a Utopian, then so be it. I don't think of myself that way though. I know, while we are alive and on this Earth, we will never know Paradise. I know we will never have total peace. I know that there will always be death, famine, poverty, plague, illness and injustice. I don't seek to rid us of these things. I seek to mute them as much as possible. I do believe that war is one of those things that we can get rid of.

I don't wish for a few people in one nation to make these decisions. I would like to see a concerted effort on the part of the entire western, civilized world to bring the changes I've mentioned about. I would like cooperation from every major industrialized nation in the world. I think it would be a noble effort. We are told it is our duty to save the buffalo and the whale for our children and their children. It's a noble effort, bringing about peace is just as noble if not more so.

Jefferson · 2007-01-30 07:25:09

Naval=Navel... It all works out the same. Sorry about that. 3dsmile

I am forced to admit that you are correct in your statements about Israel, Net. Israel had ceased to exist as a nation hundreds of years ago. The UN did take the land from the Palestinians and give it to the Israeli's. Just to keep things straight, at the time, the land was pretty much barren and unused, even by the Palestinians.

I admit to all of this.

There was a time, not too long ago, where Catholic and Protestant couldn't live together in Northern Ireland in peace. There was a time when England was at war over what would be the National religion. There was a time where men were deemed little more than beasts of burden simply because of their skin. There was a time where half the population of the world, the female half, were seen as "less than" simply because of their gender. All of these things have now changed in most of the world. It's changed slowly, I admit, but it has changed. To quote you, you either adapt or die.

It's unlikely that the Jews, no matter how much pressure is put on them, will ever abandon the nation of Israel again. No matter how they regained the land, they are now in possession of it. This leaves their neighbors with the choice.
1) Drive the jews out and reclaim the land for themselves. They've tried this two or three times now already and failed. Israel now ADMITS to having nukes.
2) Accept that the nation of Israel is going nowhere and has a right to exist and try to make the best of it; get an independent Palestinian state, get the Golan Hieghts back etc.
or
3) Continue this war indefinitly. At some point, one side or the other is going to resort to drastic actions to resolve the conflict once and for all. If this happens, I hope it's long after my death. I don't want to see it. It won't be pretty.

The Israeli's now ADMIT to having nukes. Driving them off isn't going to be easy. Pushing them into the sea might be possible but it will be costly.

In my opinion, our, the United States, best option is to push for a transformation of the Arab states. It can happen.

Turkey is the most westernized, most democratic Arab/Muslim state in the world. They are trying to join the EU. I've been there. I was there for six months. Great place to visit, don't live there though. The woman aren't forced to wear burqa's(sp?) Stonings don't happen or at least not very often. They have a democratically elected government and are leaning more and more towards the west than their Islamic brothers to the east.

If we can put democratic governments in most, if not all, of the Muslim states, kick the Mullahs, the church leaders, out of power, close down the schools that teach Radical Islam, begin moving these people into the industrial age, move them into the 20th century, bring them into the global economy, things would change.

They would have to in order to remain a viable economy in the present day. One of those changes would be a slow acceptance by the mass populace of Israel's right to exist. The bias between Arab and Jew would falter and then fail completely. Look at what happened in this country after integration. There are still assholes racists out there but their numbers are falling with each generation. It won't be quick, it won't be easy but it CAN be done.

Eric Storm · 2007-01-30 10:52:15

First off, #3 is by far the most likely scenario. The Jewish people and the Arabs will continue to fight each other until one is destroyed. You need to understand that it is a REQUIREMENT of Judaism that they hate the Palestinians. The Bible clearly states that God told the Jews to drive these people from the land, and not to live with them. Under a direct edict from God, you cannot be a "true" Jew and seek any kind of accommodation with the Arabs. Likewise, the Arabs see the Israelis as invaders. You might eventually realize there's nothing you can do about invaders, but you're never going to seek peace with them.

The fact that you believe that the Arab states can be transformed into democratic societies so easily shows me a lack of understanding on your part of Arab culture. Turkey was a very poor example to use, as Turkey is not an Arab state. It is a Turkish state with some Arabs in the SE region of the nation. It is not a member of the Arab League, and is not considered part of the Arab nation.

It has often been asked if the Arab peoples perhaps are culturally disinclined toward democracy. They don't seem overly ready to embrace it. That is not racism: I'm not saying they're dumb for not accepting it. I'm just saying that their culture militates against it.

And I note that you're not willing to fully modernize them... you want them at least a decade behind us... 3dbig_smile (Sorry, couldn't resist, but we're in the 21st century now, not the 20th...)

Also, you say "If we can..." etc. The thing is, as soon as you start dictating to these countries, even if "we" is a group of 20 countries, you will create terrorists. You will never close down the "schools of radical Islam", because they aren't, in most cases, government-run facilities. They are run by individuals or businessman with enough wealth and hatred to pull it off. You cannot legislate away hatred. Has integration gotten rid of the hatred in the United States? Sadly, no. And it never will, because some people like hating other people. It makes them feel better about themselves. And there will always be enough of such people that you will always have terrorists. And if you start dictating things to countries, they may start sponsoring said terrorists to get back at you for trying to tell them how to run their country.

I agree with you that economically prosperous countries rarely start wars: the gain isn't worth the risk in those cases. The problem is, military might isn't really helpful in making another country economically prosperous. I am not advocating that we financially support these nations with aid packages. I'm saying that you've got to "teach them how to fish", so to speak. They need to learn how to make their economy work, and that's knowledge we have.

No, I just cannot see America ever succeeding as Earth's Beat Cop. We'd serve much better as Earth's Professor.

Net Wolf

CSquared · 2007-01-30 15:00:44

See, if we want the most effective military - combine the US and UK military forces. Take the tech from the US, and the training from the UK. Last I knew, the US army was the best equipped, but worst trained and the British Army the worst equipped, but best trained. If we trained joint armed forces our way, and equipped them your way, we'd be sorted. The good points of both forces, with none of the bad.

Just as a side note - I'm disgusted by the idea that the US should "police" the world (like it's been trying to do, it would seem). Being the biggest bully in the playground does not make you the wisest leader. Uncle Ben was correct when he said that great responsibility comes with great power - but in my opinion, that responsibility is to aquire the wisdom necessary to impliment the power.

CSquared

WarLord · 2007-02-02 22:17:59

Greeting

Interesting thread, thanx.

Some more or less random thoughts on China and the battlefield of the future.

China's massive army and the technical polish of the newest generation of high tech weapon make them a super power especialy a regional. China and India are booming arms merchants and customer service forces innovation in gunmaking too.

China's one child rule being mostly male and growing disparity berween rich and poor makes them a danger since the leaders may well go to war as a distraction for the masses. Occupation of Taiwan and Afghanistan as likely targets in the near term. This brings them into conflct with Pakisitan and India, all three have the A-Bomb...not good all the way around.

I do agree with the writers that see an invasion into North America across Bering Strait into Alaska then south as the likely route. How Russia reacts to a huge mass of troops crossing their territory?!? Right next to their most sensitive base on the Sakhalin Islands...?!?

I do not agree that mass numbers of Chinese troops pose any more or less of a danger just by sheer numbers. The Claymore directional mine was specifically designed to counter the "human wave" attacks of the Korean war. In the years since the weaponry and tactics has improved to the point that masses of troops will not be effective in taking a properly defended objective.

More of a problem is the fact that China has improved their technology to the point that they (and other armies) have negated the USA technical and equipment advantage.

The battlefield of the very near future will have few (no) planes or helicopters overhead becaues all sides have too much anti-aircraft capability down to shoulder fired SAM. Despite the fact that I dearly love the BOLO stories, the next generation or two of anti-armor and directed artilery weapons will render the battlefiled pretty much armor and vehicle free as well.

The advantage for American (British, French, German) troops would be the communication command and control and training lend itself to working in small very dispersed high fire power units on a chaotic battlefield. DARPA has a study looking at exo-skeleton suits for the ummm foot soldier so they can see the writing on the wall I guess

That seems random enough 3droll

Now if all that random just made a narrative or plot arc 3dwink

Enjoy the journey

WarLord

Jefferson · 2007-02-03 06:20:21

Sorry I haven't been around the last couple days.

Net, my main problem with your idea is that it would lead to World War three, as if things aren't bad enough. You're basically giving up. "The Arabs and the Israeli's will NEVER be able to live together in peace. That’s just the way it is."

That kind of thinking can’t lead anywhere.

There‘s an old saying. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing.”

Sitting out the conflict in the Middle East is doing NOTHING! We can’t sit it out. It won’t stop the terrorists from attacking us. If we embarrass ourselves, internationally, by running away from Iraq, it isn’t going to stop the terrorists. It would probably embolden them because they’d feel like they had made the Mighty American’s runaway! They hated us LONG BEFORE we ever went to Iraq or Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Leaving now would not stop it. It would not stop the hate or the attacks.

Shall we abandon Israel to it’s fate? As far as I can see, we’re about the only nation who HASN’T abandoned Israel. Shall we leave them to fight it out, probably destroying the planet in the process when the Israeli’s fire off their nukes? Or maybe the Israeli’s will have restraint and it’ll be the Iranians who fire off their nukes. Guess it doesn’t really matter which side does it. The radiation will be just as deadly and spread just as quickly.

I don’t know about you but both of these ideas seem like a really BAD thing to do. As I said, sitting out the conflict, doing nothing, would just lead to WW3.

As for my comment about bringing them into the 20th century, instead of the 21st. It wasn’t meant as an insult, and no, I’m not trying to keep them down or whatever. Industrialization is a 20th century concept and the way any newly modernized nation, such as China, India, Brazil etc. would go.

America, England, France, Germany, Italy, Australia, Japan, Russia and others are moving beyond the 20th century, figuratively speaking. We are moving beyond industrialization and into the information age, the 21st century, again figuratively speaking. We are becoming nations of idea men and information brokers. We will design products on a computer and then send those designs off to other nations to actually build. Those items will then be shipped back to the US and elsewhere to be sold. Globalization at work.

Eric Storm · 2007-02-03 07:15:27

Globalization at work... which, by the way, is destroying the middle class in America...

You're right. We were hated before we went into Iraq. We became hated when we started pushing our views on other nations. We became REALLY hated when we supported the formation of Israel.

You fail to acknowledge that, despite whatever we do, if and when Iran gets a nuclear weapon, they will use it, unilaterally, regardless of anything else that happens. I firmly believe this, because their leader is seeking the annihilation of Israel, and damn the consequences. The only way, IMO, to stop this, is to destroy the leadership of Iran. Are you ready to do that? And where does it stop? When do we let the rest of the world grow up and deal with its own problems? I don't believe that a nuclear exchange in the Middle East will inevitably lead to WWIII. If the nuclear superpowers (US, China, Russia, England, France) agree to stay out of it, then the "war" is very short-lived, and the effects, while locally devastating, are not globally life-threatening. A nuclear detonation in Iran, for instance, isn't going to have a lot of (non-economic) impact on America. It wouldn't be so great for countries in the region, but hey, they've chosen not to do anything about their dangerous neighbor, so why should we?

As stated in another thread, America has enough problems within its own borders. We really should not be wasting our resources trying to take care of everyone else until we have fixed ourselves first.

Net Wolf

Jefferson · 2007-02-03 17:49:25

There's really nothing we can do about globalization. It's been going on since before World War 1, took a short break after the war, started again after World War 2 and has been growing pretty steadily ever since.

I'm not quite sure how it's ruining the American middle class so I won't touch that right now.

We tried to sit out World War 1 and 2. That didn't work out too well for us either time. For some reason, I can't see us sitting out World War 3. I can't help but want to prevent it. I hate the idea of abandoning a friendly government (Israel), I hate the idea of abandoning that whole part of the world to whatever will happen next. I hate the idea of condoning genocide on one side or the other.

Answer me one question: What happens after they have fought it out? Most likely Israel will lose and be destroyed along with all of it's people, hopefully, someone will go in and help evacuate the Israeli's to some other part of the world, Europe, America, Russia etc. What happens next? Do we make friends with the Arab states again? Do we just leave them sit there with no contact with the rest of the world? Do we segregate the world? There's the Arab world and then there's everyone else? I have doubt's whether this idea would be real effective. We can't even close our Southern Border, how is anyone supposed to isolate an entire region of the world? Once Israel is destroyed, won't the Arab's want to destroy the REST of the Jews. Those in Russia, Europe, America? Won't this just lead to more terrorism? Won't this just lead to another fight?

Eric Storm · 2007-02-03 20:18:08

1. Staying out of a fight doesn't "condone" action on either side. It means it's none of your business. Which it isn't.
2. Arab hatred of Israelis stems 99% from the existence of the state of Israel. They weren't seeking out and destroying Jews in even the early 20th century. I doubt they're going to try to find every last Jew once the state of Israel doesn't exist. Might they kill one if they run across him? Probably, unless their mindset sees the Jews as irrelevant after that.
3. Not quite sure how you figure Israel as a "friendly" country... except insofar as they aren't trying to attack Americans. Israel does what it wants, and it rarely listens to us when we ask them to behave a certain way that is contrary to their "normal" reaction. They are "friendly" only because we've chosen to support them no matter what they've done. They are, if defined by their actions, neither friend nor enemy.
4. If "World War III" were to happen in the Middle East, you wouldn't need to worry about evacuating or isolating anyone, because there wouldn't be anyone there to deal with. Remember? You said it was going to be a nuclear war. Israel would be a wasteland, and so would Iran, and Syria (at least). What I fail to understand is how you actually plan to STOP this from happening. Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. In my belief, as soon as they have it, they will use it. NOTHING the US or UN has done has slowed Iran down very much... so short of military action, just what do you plan to do? And you can't advocate military action, because we simply haven't got the resources anymore.
5. There is a big difference in getting involved in a world-wide crisis, and getting involved in every damned squabble on the planet. Plus, I have always stated that it should be our policy to protect our own interests. Once an aggressor attacks US, the gloves come off, and we turn them into mincemeat.
6. How could anything lead to MORE terrorism? Given that Iraq is currently flooded with terrorists, I fail to see how killing a few million potential terrorists is going to cause more of them. It's not going to make the US any more or less hated, especially if we stay the hell out of it.
7. You "isolate" the Arabs, if the world thinks that's necessary, the same way we've always isolated countries: You don't trade with them. Of course, in this case, that would mean actually using our own damned oil, instead of buying theirs, but that's something we should be doing, anyway, for National Security reasons.
8. You are still operating under the premise that the Arabs are in the wrong, that any action they take against Israel is unjust and punishable. The fact is that the UN ripped land from these people, and they want it back. Take the religious issues out of it, and look at it objectively: How was it fair that we STOLE Arab land to give it to people who stole it from the Arabs in the first place, and were driven off once?

I find it strange that we have so allied ourselves with Israel due to the death of 6 million Jews (not a trivial incident, don't get me wrong...), but yet we seemingly have no sympathy for the Russians or the Chinese, who died in far greater numbers under the reign of Stalin and Mao. (At least 20 million Russians. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-50 million Chinese...) Why, exactly, is this? We could have prevented those deaths as easily as we could have prevented the deaths of the Jews... I'm not claiming the Holocaust didn't happen: clearly it did. I'm saying it wasn't the only atrocity to occur in the 20th century. In strictly numerical terms, it wasn't even the worst atrocity. Yet we have bent over backwards to cater to Israel. Why?

Oh, and the globalization / middle-class issue: Globalization means that the jobs normally performed by the middle class - factory assembly jobs - are going overseas where they are performed far more cheaply. It is this removal of blue collar jobs from America that is really causing the "gap" in our economic classes. We have poor people, who are usually doing menial labor jobs, and we have the educated upper-middle- and upper-classes, but the jobs for the lower-middle- and middle-classes are disappearing overseas. That is how globalization is destroying the middle class.

Net Wolf

dv8n · 2007-02-06 16:29:16

Net Wolf wrote:
1. Staying out of a fight doesn't "condone" action on either side. It means it's none of your business. Which it isn't.

true it may not be our fight but do you really believe it will never affect us?

Net Wolf wrote:
2. Arab hatred of Israelis stems 99% from the existence of the state of Israel. They weren't seeking out and destroying Jews in even the early 20th century. I doubt they're going to try to find every last Jew once the state of Israel doesn't exist. Might they kill one if they run across him? Probably, unless their mindset sees the Jews as irrelevant after that.

well true they weren't the big killers but they did drive them to europe after Rome went belly up

Net Wolf wrote:
3. Not quite sure how you figure Israel as a "friendly" country... except insofar as they aren't trying to attack Americans. Israel does what it wants, and it rarely listens to us when we ask them to behave a certain way that is contrary to their "normal" reaction. They are "friendly" only because we've chosen to support them no matter what they've done. They are, if defined by their actions, neither friend nor enemy.

They aren't exactly treated well by others are they...if you look at history they have been beat up and kicked out of everywhere they've gone....that would make me unfriendly too

Net Wolf wrote:
4. If "World War III" were to happen in the Middle East, you wouldn't need to worry about evacuating or isolating anyone, because there wouldn't be anyone there to deal with. Remember? You said it was going to be a nuclear war. Israel would be a wasteland, and so would Iran, and Syria (at least). What I fail to understand is how you actually plan to STOP this from happening. Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. In my belief, as soon as they have it, they will use it. NOTHING the US or UN has done has slowed Iran down very much... so short of military action, just what do you plan to do? And you can't advocate military action, because we simply haven't got the resources anymore.

Shit Net when they get it they'll probably hit the US first just to show that they can

Net Wolf wrote:
5. There is a big difference in getting involved in a world-wide crisis, and getting involved in every damned squabble on the planet. Plus, I have always stated that it should be our policy to protect our own interests. Once an aggressor attacks US, the gloves come off, and we turn them into mincemeat.

True but you also have to look ahead and decide if we are going to get attacked..if so prepare the defenses and wait for hell to break loose

Net Wolf wrote:
6. How could anything lead to MORE terrorism? Given that Iraq is currently flooded with terrorists, I fail to see how killing a few million potential terrorists is going to cause more of them. It's not going to make the US any more or less hated, especially if we stay the hell out of it.

Can we get more hated? I say wipe them out and watch the carnage from the sidelines...behind before mentioned defenses 3dbig_smile

Net Wolf wrote:
7. You "isolate" the Arabs, if the world thinks that's necessary, the same way we've always isolated countries: You don't trade with them. Of course, in this case, that would mean actually using our own damned oil, instead of buying theirs, but that's something we should be doing, anyway, for National Security reasons.

if the US acted more Imperialistic over the last 2 centuries we would own the Arab states and japan and germany and so much more..but we don't we spend our money to help them back after they attack us and they spit in our face....that's stupid

Net Wolf wrote:
8. You are still operating under the premise that the Arabs are in the wrong, that any action they take against Israel is unjust and punishable. The fact is that the UN ripped land from these people, and they want it back. Take the religious issues out of it, and look at it objectively: How was it fair that we STOLE Arab land to give it to people who stole it from the Arabs in the first place, and were driven off once?

well historically speaking Net...they beat them fairly and then were overcome by a better force and then scattered to the ends of the earth and almost wiped out..we take land for endangered species all the time..why not people..fuck if they can't take it

Net Wolf wrote:
I find it strange that we have so allied ourselves with Israel due to the death of 6 million Jews (not a trivial incident, don't get me wrong...), but yet we seemingly have no sympathy for the Russians or the Chinese, who died in far greater numbers under the reign of Stalin and Mao. (At least 20 million Russians. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-50 million Chinese...) Why, exactly, is this? We could have prevented those deaths as easily as we could have prevented the deaths of the Jews... I'm not claiming the Holocaust didn't happen: clearly it did. I'm saying it wasn't the only atrocity to occur in the 20th century. In strictly numerical terms, it wasn't even the worst atrocity. Yet we have bent over backwards to cater to Israel. Why.

it is probablly because the people in control at the time of taking the land were what you would call God fearing and they believed what it said in the bible about anybody against Isreal was against God and anyone with Isreal God was with...or something like that..it's been awhile since I read it

Net Wolf wrote:
Oh, and the globalization / middle-class issue: Globalization means that the jobs normally performed by the middle class - factory assembly jobs - are going overseas where they are performed far more cheaply. It is this removal of blue collar jobs from America that is really causing the "gap" in our economic classes. We have poor people, who are usually doing menial labor jobs, and we have the educated upper-middle- and upper-classes, but the jobs for the lower-middle- and middle-classes are disappearing overseas. That is how globalization is destroying the middle class.

yeppers that's how the rotten peach hits the ground...SPLAT ...wave bye bye to all the middle class jobs and look there goes alot of the trained workers heading to their new job at Mc Fries...

Net Wolf wrote:
Net Wolf

DV8N nice to meet you again 3dbig_smile

Last edited by dv8n (2007-02-06 16:30:03)

dv8n · 2007-02-06 17:08:48

Jefferson wrote:
Support the UN?

I don' wanna

Jefferson wrote:
Are you aware that of all the resolutions condemning a nation that the UN has passed for one act or another, fully HALF of them, were against Israel? Yet, they haven't condemned Syria, Libya or Sudan. They have NEVER condemned the Palestinians for anything I don't think.

very suspiscious...maybe your on to something....oh wait I know...it's the oil thing huh? they are afraid to piss off the arabs because of needing oil....well if the big companies hadn't hidden the plans for the electric car and the alternative power stuff this shit wouldn't matter as much as it does

Jefferson wrote:
The UN passed a resolution stating that Iraq MUST allow UN weapons inspectors into the country and give them unfettered access. Time and again, SEVENTEEN TIMES in fact, Iraq broke that resolution. The US And England had the right to go in and remove Saddam and his government after the FIRST violation. Saddam and his government violated it SEVENTEEN Times. Yet, you're right, the UN didn't want us to go in. Why not? Why didn't they support us?

I believe it is called a payoff....maybe bribes...lining the coffers or just plain old fashioned jealousy and the desire to fuck us

Jefferson wrote:
The UN allows nations that committ horrid crimes against humanity, nations like those mentioned above, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Iran and North Korea to serve on the UN Security council. This is just downright scary. Oh, one more little thing, Israel IS NOT ALLOWED to serve on the Security council. Yet Libya, Sudan, Syria, the former Iraq, Iran and North Korea can serve on the UN committe on human rights.

very interresting...well with all the human rights that they bend and break I'm sure they know all about human rights.....right?

Jefferson wrote:
As Net Wolf and I have already said, the UN is toothless and impotent for the simple reason that they are UNWILLING to enforce the very resolutions that they enact. Iraq violated the resolution seventeen times, Libya is allowed to serve on the Human Right Committe. Slowly but surely we are learning more and more about how corrupt the organization has become and how ill prepared the UN is to do the very jobs is was set up to do.

"toothless and impotent" that's harsh...true but harsh... so they suck and they are perfectly suited for sucking..is that what your saying ? 3dsmile

Jefferson wrote:
There are others who are just as bad:

I am sure you are correct in fact I am positive you are correct

Jefferson wrote:
The EU screams about America's slow response to Katrina yet offer NO AID at all. When they have a disaster, the US is the first one there.

That IS really our own fault though isn't it..we should have trained our government better...and do we really want aid from something that calls itself E-EWWWW..I think not 3dsmile

Jefferson wrote:
The French are rioting in the streets because slowly the French government is being forced to take away the Welfare state that has existed there for the last sixty years. Why are they doing this? They can't charge enough tax to support the New EU military and to support the welfare state the populace so desire. So how did they do it for the last sixty years? Simple, the US was providing security. Yet there are those, in this country, some of whom are running for President of the US right now, who scream that the US government is OBLIGATED to provide exactly that same ideal.

well mandatory birth control sounds nice right about 30 years ago...hell technically with as many US armed forces that got french women pregnant, the french should have hit us for child support payment about 50 - 60 years ago.. hell does that make us deadbeat dads?

Jefferson wrote:
The French yell and scream about us attacking Iraq? Why? Well, we now know it was because FRENCH COMPANIES were selling materials to Iraq for profit. Materials whos only use is to build Nuclear weapons. The very thing Iraq was condemned for in the resolution mentioned earlier.

See what happens when a child doesn't have a dad? They sometimes grow up rotten...they needed a good whuppin half a century ago

Jefferson wrote:
Yet we're supposed to take their advise? We're supposed to bow down to them? I think my forefathers left Europe so they didn't HAVE TO Listen to the French and the English anymore. The US is a soverign state. We may committ war on any nation on Earth we see as a threat to us, our security or our allies. We may be condemned for such actions but we do have the right. We may be further attacked for such actions, but we do have the right.

Not if they have their way about we won't...they want America to allow them to castrate us...

Jefferson wrote:
I am an idealist and a dreamer. If that's your idea of a Utopian, then so be it. I don't think of myself that way though. I know, while we are alive and on this Earth, we will never know Paradise. I know we will never have total peace. I know that there will always be death, famine, poverty, plague, illness and injustice. I don't seek to rid us of these things. I seek to mute them as much as possible. I do believe that war is one of those things that we can get rid of.

Sounds like a plan.."mute" them Where's the button? Shit we lost that controller over at Net's house... Well it still sounds good "mute" the bad and wallow in the good 3dbig_smile I like it

Jefferson wrote:
I don't wish for a few people in one nation to make these decisions. I would like to see a concerted effort on the part of the entire western, civilized world to bring the changes I've mentioned about. I would like cooperation from every major industrialized nation in the world. I think it would be a noble effort. We are told it is our duty to save the buffalo and the whale for our children and their children. It's a noble effort, bringing about peace is just as noble if not more so.

Well true...it is noble....but every single major industrialized nation in the world is only going to help so they can find out how to use it to screw the others...which means they will not be doing jack to really help..and in 30 years or so you have the same corruption as in the UN right now....

I Agree with alot of what you said..but I have to say I think we need to burrow into our hole facing the outside world and prepare our defenses with no word to the outside world...we lock our borders...we keep our nose out of things as much as possible...we prepare for the worst while praying for the best...we train our people to be the best and ready for any attack...we provide for ourselves as much as we can and trade with the outside world for what we need...we keep a polite face on for them while remembering that they hate us and will cut our throats if they could....we remind our people how to be reliant on themselves...we need an honest and strong person in charge unfortunatelly we only have politicians....we hire smart and capable people who can make the best future for us (unfortunatelly they are also usually crooks)

sorry this is kinda a bad way to think but I fear for the future of America if we keep living with the world at large..we do not need to isolate ourselves but we do need to isolate our way of thinking and our important ideals...as well as anything that should be secret (national defense stuff) should be kept from the media and "them"

CSquared · 2007-02-06 17:09:25

Well, if we're going on to Nuclear weapons now - we need a Metal Gear. Undetectable nuclear bombs would be a pretty good deterrent, don't you think? After all - if all you have is a weapon that can be easily picked up on satellite and shot down long before it becomes a danger, would you attempt to go up against a country that can nuke you whenever and wherever it wants? Not to mention the fact that you couldn't retaliate - you wouldn't be sure of where it had come from.

CSquared

dv8n · 2007-02-06 17:15:55

CSquared wrote:
See, if we want the most effective military - combine the US and UK military forces. Take the tech from the US, and the training from the UK. Last I knew, the US army was the best equipped, but worst trained and the British Army the worst equipped, but best trained. If we trained joint armed forces our way, and equipped them your way, we'd be sorted. The good points of both forces, with none of the bad.

Just as a side note - I'm disgusted by the idea that the US should "police" the world (like it's been trying to do, it would seem). Being the biggest bully in the playground does not make you the wisest leader. Uncle Ben was correct when he said that great responsibility comes with great power - but in my opinion, that responsibility is to aquire the wisdom necessary to impliment the power.

CSquared

true the US should not police the world the world should police it's own damn self...but that ain't gonna happen..so the US tries to protect itself by becoming a target...not very smart..like I said before...in the hole set the traps...watch they show....destroy if we have to...if we see it coming attack first and hardest

dv8n · 2007-02-06 17:23:10

CSquared wrote:
Well, if we're going on to Nuclear weapons now - we need a Metal Gear. Undetectable nuclear bombs would be a pretty good deterrent, don't you think? After all - if all you have is a weapon that can be easily picked up on satellite and shot down long before it becomes a danger, would you attempt to go up against a country that can nuke you whenever and wherever it wants? Not to mention the fact that you couldn't retaliate - you wouldn't be sure of where it had come from.

CSquared

Don't give them ideals....geez if the US had simply put a lockdown on the tech before giving it to anybody...you know in the middle of the cofusion they round up sceintist and big brains...when asked..um we're moving them to safety...then figure out how to provide service but not tech...leak some completely false info and lock down the boarders...you know like it was a weather balloon and swamp gas that blew up japan...we just took advantage of a bad situation...Anyway we wouldn't have every civil country with a bomb pointed at us now would we...we would have them worried about us and trying to create their own balloon with swamp gas...heheheh

and here you go talking about undetectable nukes....shit like them didn't have enough destroy the world ideals floating around in their heads

Eric Storm · 2007-02-06 20:19:43

dv8n wrote:
true it may not be our fight but do you really believe it will never affect us?

When it does affect us is when we step out and kick somebody's balls up to their chin. America has become such a big target because we never retaliate. We spend too much time wringing our hands about "what if we hit the wrong people?" and less time worrying about "What if they kill more of OUR people?"

dv8n wrote:
Net Wolf wrote:
2. Arab hatred of Israelis stems 99% from the existence of the state of Israel. They weren't seeking out and destroying Jews in even the early 20th century. I doubt they're going to try to find every last Jew once the state of Israel doesn't exist. Might they kill one if they run across him? Probably, unless their mindset sees the Jews as irrelevant after that.
well true they weren't the big killers but they did drive them to europe after Rome went belly up

They didn't run them TO anyplace. They ran them AWAY FROM what the Arabs considered their own soil.

dv8n wrote:
They aren't exactly treated well by others are they...if you look at history they have been beat up and kicked out of everywhere they've gone....that would make me unfriendly too

Not our fault, so not our responsibility to "fix".

dv8n wrote:
Net Wolf wrote:
4. If "World War III" were to happen in the Middle East, you wouldn't need to worry about evacuating or isolating anyone, because there wouldn't be anyone there to deal with. Remember? You said it was going to be a nuclear war. Israel would be a wasteland, and so would Iran, and Syria (at least). What I fail to understand is how you actually plan to STOP this from happening. Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. In my belief, as soon as they have it, they will use it. NOTHING the US or UN has done has slowed Iran down very much... so short of military action, just what do you plan to do? And you can't advocate military action, because we simply haven't got the resources anymore.
Shit Net when they get it they'll probably hit the US first just to show that they can

I said "nuclear weapon", not "Intercontinental Ballistic Missile". Israel is a much easier target to hit with a rocket than the US is. And the maniac running Iran isn't going to wait for the tech to hit the US when he can wipe out Tel Aviv "now". (Meaning when he does have the nuke)

dv8n wrote:
well historically speaking Net...they beat them fairly and then were overcome by a better force and then scattered to the ends of the earth and almost wiped out..we take land for endangered species all the time..why not people..fuck if they can't take it

Okay, here's the way it went:

1. Israel beat the Arabs.
2. Lots of back-and-forth where Israel was enslaved to Arabs, then fought their way out.
3. Rome beat Israel
4. After Rome left, the Arabs ran the Israelis completely out of the Middle East, thus WINNING THE CONFLICT.
5. For over a thousand years, the Israelis had no presence in the Middle East.
6. Along comes the UN and rips land FAIRLY WON BY THE ARABS out of their hands, giving it back to THE LOSERS, the Israelis.

Don't YOU get pissed when you have spent your effort to achieve something, and it gets taken away from you by someone else?

dv8n wrote:
it is probablly because the people in control at the time of taking the land were what you would call God fearing and they believed what it said in the bible about anybody against Isreal was against God and anyone with Isreal God was with...or something like that..it's been awhile since I read it

And I should consider this a good reason? I don't live, or think I don't live, in a theocracy. God doesn't get a vote.

btw, "Big Business" hasn't hidden the technology for the electric car or alternative fuels. There are electric cars on the road today, as you well know. The Fuel Cell vehicle isn't on the road yet because they haven't found a good and safe way to store hydrogen in vehicles yet. They are, however, making many - PUBLIC - advances in this direction. The key here is "economic feasibility". You could have hydrogen fuel cell cars in a few years, I'm sure... if you wanted to pay the equivalent of $8 or $10 / gallon compared to the $2 - $3 you're paying now. (I'm talking equivalent driving usage, not a literal "per gallon" charge for hydrogen.)

The same is true of alternative fuels... with the exception of bio-ethanol, which is being "hidden" by government, not Big Business. biofuels are subsidized in America because they aren't economically feasible here yet. However, there is a S. American country that we're not too fond of that exports the stuff in mass quantities. America won't let it be purchased from them. Don't blame Big Business for everything. Oil companies are, by nature, some of the most forward-looking companies on the planet. They know that fossil fuels are going to run out sometime within the next century. It is in their best interest to help develop the technologies for next-generation fuels, so that they have a head start on making money off it. It doesn't make sense for them to hide technology, because that only guarantees that whatever tech DOES replace internal combustion engines will take them by surprise and leave them unprepared.

Net Wolf

CSquared · 2007-02-07 14:32:54

dv8n wrote:
CSquared wrote:
Well, if we're going on to Nuclear weapons now - we need a Metal Gear. Undetectable nuclear bombs would be a pretty good deterrent, don't you think? After all - if all you have is a weapon that can be easily picked up on satellite and shot down long before it becomes a danger, would you attempt to go up against a country that can nuke you whenever and wherever it wants? Not to mention the fact that you couldn't retaliate - you wouldn't be sure of where it had come from.

CSquared
Don't give them ideals....geez if the US had simply put a lockdown on the tech before giving it to anybody...you know in the middle of the cofusion they round up sceintist and big brains...when asked..um we're moving them to safety...then figure out how to provide service but not tech...leak some completely false info and lock down the boarders...you know like it was a weather balloon and swamp gas that blew up japan...we just took advantage of a bad situation...Anyway we wouldn't have every civil country with a bomb pointed at us now would we...we would have them worried about us and trying to create their own balloon with swamp gas...heheheh

and here you go talking about undetectable nukes....shit like them didn't have enough destroy the world ideals floating around in their heads

I'm hardly giving anyone ideas... if you want to blame someone, blame Hideo Kojima. Anyone who's played Metal Gear Solid will realise it's a wonderful idea, if you want to become a superpower. Just, whatever you do - don't build it into a mech. And maybe use a Gauss gun, not a Rail gun. Easier to fix, y'see.

CSquared

Jefferson · 2007-03-04 11:10:49

Net Wolf wrote:
Okay, here's the way it went:

1. Israel beat the Arabs.
2. Lots of back-and-forth where Israel was enslaved to Arabs, then fought their way out.
3. Rome beat Israel
4. After Rome left, the Arabs ran the Israelis completely out of the Middle East, thus WINNING THE CONFLICT.
5. For over a thousand years, the Israelis had no presence in the Middle East.
6. Along comes the UN and rips land FAIRLY WON BY THE ARABS out of their hands, giving it back to THE LOSERS, the Israelis.

Don't YOU get pissed when you have spent your effort to achieve something, and it gets taken away from you by someone else?

Since the UN "rips the land out of their hands," their hands being that of the Arabs, doesn't that mean that the UN TOOK the land away from the arabs, just like the arabs took the land from the Jews a thousand or so years ago? By your own standard, doesn't that make it the UN's land? Or does the land have to be taken during war for this standard to apply? If the UN chooses to give that land to the Jews as they did fifty some years ago, aren't we and other nations, as members of the UN and Allies of Israel, obliged to protect that land? Protect that democracy? Protect those people? We defended France from Nazi Germany. We defended China from Empirical Japan.

Net Wolf wrote:
The Jewish people and the Arabs will continue to fight each other until one is destroyed. You need to understand that it is a REQUIREMENT of Judaism that they hate the Palestinians. The Bible clearly states that God told the Jews to drive these people from the land, and not to live with them. Under a direct edict from God, you cannot be a "true" Jew and seek any kind of accommodation with the Arabs.

I know very little about what the Jews believe but I think MOST jews, just like most christians today, have come to realize that the Bible was written 2000 years ago. Certain things have changed. I believe you are confusing Zionism and Judaism. I'm not sure though. If the Israeli's wished to destroy the Arabs, why haven't they? The Israeli's have had nukes for decades. They won the six day war against THREE arab nations. Why haven't they attacked? Why haven't they simply expelled all the arabs from the West Bank and Gaza? Why haven't they taken more offensive action? More than an air strike here and there or a push into Lebanon only to retreat a few weeks later? Why is it we keep hearing about Arabs taking offensive action but the Israeli's just seem to be counter-attacking? Why is it, that it's usually the Arab's who break the truces?

Net Wolf wrote:
It has often been asked if the Arab peoples perhaps are culturally disinclined toward democracy. They don't seem overly ready to embrace it. That is not racism: I'm not saying they're dumb for not accepting it. I'm just saying that their culture militates against it.

And I note that you're not willing to fully modernize them... you want them at least a decade behind us...

I don't believe that any "Group" of humans can be "disinclined" towards democracy. A person, an individual, fine. But they said that African-American's, freed slaves, weren't smart enough to be allowed to vote. They said women, black or white, shouldn't be allowed to vote. African-American's and women both learned how to vote. The Arabs in this nation, as well as those in Europe all manage to understand and live within a democracy. You're right, you're not calling them dumb, you're showing your bigotry.

Stating that you don't think a group can do something is bigotry, if it's the color of their skin, it's racism. If it's because of the gender, it's sexism. If it's because of their religion... Well, I'm not sure there is a name for that? Anti-MUslim? Any group, given time, education and security can learn and adapt to almost any situation. Any GROUP!!!!!

As for me not being willing to modernize them. I have no problem with modernizing them. But, like the US and Europe 200 years ago, and like China and India today, I think moving to an idustrial society, like those common in the 20th century, is a lot simpler than moving right into an information-based society as the US, Europe, Japan and other nations are now doing which will become more and more common in this, the 21st century. I wasn't holding them back, more progressing them along the line in the proper order.

My apologies for being away so long lately and for going back to what you probably thought was a closed subject. 3dsmile

-Jeff

Eric Storm · 2007-03-04 20:57:14

Jefferson wrote:
Since the UN "rips the land out of their hands," their hands being that of the Arabs, doesn't that mean that the UN TOOK the land away from the arabs, just like the arabs took the land from the Jews a thousand or so years ago? By your own standard, doesn't that make it the UN's land? Or does the land have to be taken during war for this standard to apply? If the UN chooses to give that land to the Jews as they did fifty some years ago, aren't we and other nations, as members of the UN and Allies of Israel, obliged to protect that land? Protect that democracy? Protect those people? We defended France from Nazi Germany. We defended China from Empirical Japan.

The UN hadn't earned the territory. They took it by governmental fiat: "We're doing this because we're making the rules now." It's an illegitimate way to take anything. It is essentially being a bully. Taking things through war is at least giving the other side a shot at keeping the land... and, in fact, they HAD kept the land, up until that point. This is where the problem comes from: The UN said, "We don't care that you've won this war AND held the land for over a thousand years. We're giving the land to the loser because we can, and because we feel guilty."

You bring up France and China... what I note is that you are mentioning preexisting nations. Why was it not our responsibility to protect Palestine from the UN's guilt? You can try to say "We were protecting democracy!", but China has never had a democratic government to my knowledge, so that doesn't wash.

I'm sorry, but there is a big difference between two nations contesting over disputed land, and some outside force just coming in and taking it. Remember that the "nation" they gave it to, didn't even exist at the time. The Israelis were spread throughout the world. Yes, it was horrible what happened to them during World War II. No, it was NOT appropriate to take what someone else had and give it to them just to salve our consciences over not getting involved sooner. Two wrongs do NOT make a right. Every six-year-old knows this.

Jefferson wrote:
I know very little about what the Jews believe but I think MOST jews, just like most christians today, have come to realize that the Bible was written 2000 years ago. Certain things have changed. I believe you are confusing Zionism and Judaism. I'm not sure though. If the Israeli's wished to destroy the Arabs, why haven't they? The Israeli's have had nukes for decades. They won the six day war against THREE arab nations. Why haven't they attacked? Why haven't they simply expelled all the arabs from the West Bank and Gaza? Why haven't they taken more offensive action? More than an air strike here and there or a push into Lebanon only to retreat a few weeks later? Why is it we keep hearing about Arabs taking offensive action but the Israeli's just seem to be counter-attacking? Why is it, that it's usually the Arab's who break the truces?

See, here's where your problem stems from: The people have changed, the RELIGION hasn't. The rules of Judaism are the same as they have been. It is merely a matter of whether those rules are FOLLOWED or not. Zionism is not a religion: it is a nationalistic movement that stems from the belief in Judaism that God gave the land of Palestine to the Jews. Israel has become more political than religious: they are a democracy (sorta), not a theocracy, and so they have to do what the majority of their people want done, more or less. Most people aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to expel the Arabs, so Israel doesn't do it. Could they, using nuclear weapons? Sure, but they would lose all support they have around the world. If they wanted to fight a conventional war, the truth is that there are enough Arab armies to crush them, if they all worked together. The US would not back an Israeli offensive, as the incursion into Lebanon proves. Israel doesn't do these things because they no longer live entirely by God's Law as written in the Torah / Old Testament, and because it isn't politically expedient to do them.

Why are the Arabs the ones who start everything? Because the Arabs are the ones who are pissed off at having their land stolen. Being the victim of injustice generally makes people cranky. You have yet to justify the UN's action in taking Arab land. What had the Arabs done to deserve this treatment? It was their land in the first place! The Israelites took it from them by force, and then the Arabs eventually took it back, by force. In other words, they won back what belonged to them anyway. So by what ethical right did the UN take that land from the Arabs?

Jefferson wrote:
I don't believe that any "Group" of humans can be "disinclined" towards democracy. A person, an individual, fine. But they said that African-American's, freed slaves, weren't smart enough to be allowed to vote. They said women, black or white, shouldn't be allowed to vote. African-American's and women both learned how to vote. The Arabs in this nation, as well as those in Europe all manage to understand and live within a democracy. You're right, you're not calling them dumb, you're showing your bigotry.

Stating that you don't think a group can do something is bigotry, if it's the color of their skin, it's racism. If it's because of the gender, it's sexism. If it's because of their religion... Well, I'm not sure there is a name for that? Anti-MUslim? Any group, given time, education and security can learn and adapt to almost any situation. Any GROUP!!!!!

First, I am offended that you accused me of bigotry. I never stated they were incapable of it, I said they were DISINCLINED to it. As America is DISINCLINED to becoming a Socialist nation. COULD we do it? Sure. WILL WE? I highly doubt it, because we are disinclined to the notion. Having a disinclination to do something has nothing whatsoever to do with capability. It has to do with one's tendencies.

Yes, the Arabs could be forced into it, and yes, they could probably make it work. I do believe, however, that it would be difficult for them to maintain it long-term due to their cultural heritage. YOU are the one insulting them by saying that they have to be educated out of their current mindset... you are basically proving my point for me: that the Arabs, as they exist today, aren't going to make a go of democracy. Even you claim they have to be re-educated to make it work. Who's the real bigot? I said they were culturally disinclined to a certain way of thinking. YOU implied they were just stupid, and that a little educating would "fix that" so they could be good little democrats. (Not referring to the political party here)

All ethnicities/nationalities have a certain "mindset". Yes, there are individuals within that ethnicity/nationality that differ from that mindset, but those "stereotypes", if you wish to call them that, come about for a REASON. Arabs are, by nature, a tribal people. That does not encourage them, culturally, to seek a national government of any kind, and certainly not democracy, which requires you to set aside tribal feuds and differences to make the whole system work. Can they do it? Probably. But do they WANT TO? You are accusing me of thinking them incapable of it, when what I said was that they were unlikely to want to bother. There is a difference between intelligence and culture, and if your culture finds little worth in something, you're unlikely (if you believe in your culture) to find merit in it. You are under the impression that democracy is the end-all and be-all of human existence. That is also a prejudiced statement. Democracy is great for those who want it. But if the Arabs were happy being a nomadic, tribal people, who are we to say that government is inappropriate FOR THEM? If they like it, as a whole, what right do we have to force something else upon them? What I said, and I stand by it, is that the Arabs may not find democracy desirable, due to their heritage. I NEVER ONCE SAID they were incapable of it: YOU DID. YOU said that they would need to be, and I quote, "given time, education and security" before they would be capable of democracy. You have as much as said they are CURRENTLY incapable of it. I never even went there. I think they are currently CAPABLE of it. I don't think they are DESIROUS of it! There is a HUGE difference!

I think you owe me an apology, for putting words into my mouth, and for labeling me as a bigot, when your comments are certainly no more "pure" than mine... and in fact, when looked at closely, are much more derisive of the people in question. I have found NO group of people that I do not like and/or respect at least some of the individuals in. That does not mean they are all inclined to live the same way as we do, no matter how much we may want them to be.

Net Wolf

PS: The fact that you equate "Arab" to "Muslim" shows your own prejudice. They are not the same thing. There are Arabs who are not Muslims. There are MANY Muslims who are not Arabs. Do not accuse me of something until you've cleaned it up from your own house.

The Pub Discussion Board

#1 2007-01-29 10:38:48

America's Duty?

#2 2007-01-29 11:44:35

Re: America's Duty?

#3 2007-01-29 12:00:58

Re: America's Duty?

#4 2007-01-29 23:23:18

Re: America's Duty?

#5 2007-01-30 01:36:31

Re: America's Duty?

#6 2007-01-30 04:46:18

Re: America's Duty?

#7 2007-01-30 06:54:10

Re: America's Duty?

#8 2007-01-30 07:04:04

Re: America's Duty?

#9 2007-01-30 07:25:09

Re: America's Duty?

#10 2007-01-30 10:52:15

Re: America's Duty?

#11 2007-01-30 15:00:44

Re: America's Duty?

#12 2007-02-02 22:17:59

Re: America's Duty?

#13 2007-02-03 06:20:21

Re: America's Duty?

#14 2007-02-03 07:15:27

Re: America's Duty?

#15 2007-02-03 17:49:25

Re: America's Duty?

#16 2007-02-03 20:18:08

Re: America's Duty?

#17 2007-02-06 16:29:16

Re: America's Duty?

Net Wolf wrote:

Net Wolf wrote:

Net Wolf wrote:

Net Wolf wrote:

Net Wolf wrote:

Net Wolf wrote:

Net Wolf wrote:

Net Wolf wrote:

Net Wolf wrote:

Net Wolf wrote:

Net Wolf wrote:

#18 2007-02-06 17:08:48

Re: America's Duty?

Jefferson wrote:

Jefferson wrote:

Jefferson wrote:

Jefferson wrote:

Jefferson wrote:

Jefferson wrote:

Jefferson wrote:

Jefferson wrote:

Jefferson wrote:

Jefferson wrote:

Jefferson wrote:

Jefferson wrote:

#19 2007-02-06 17:09:25

Re: America's Duty?

#20 2007-02-06 17:15:55

Re: America's Duty?

CSquared wrote:

#21 2007-02-06 17:23:10

Re: America's Duty?

CSquared wrote:

#22 2007-02-06 20:19:43

Re: America's Duty?

dv8n wrote:

dv8n wrote:

Net Wolf wrote:

dv8n wrote:

dv8n wrote:

Net Wolf wrote:

dv8n wrote:

dv8n wrote:

#23 2007-02-07 14:32:54

Re: America's Duty?