Draft in May '05, Operation Iranian Freedom in Sept '05?

[Bill Murphy]

In his interview w/Bill O'Reilly Bush made it perfectly clear that we're going into Iran. There was also something in Time or Newsweek (hardly objective sources but still) about it. Some cambriacon was interviewed in the other of the two mags, saying Bush needs to denounce Putin for his recent election crackdowns, and that regime change should not be disconsidered.

Also been a lot of chatter recently about the return of the draft, a lot of it of the black helicopter variety to be fair. Still, hearing about it in lots of different places after nothing until recently. Not that Kerry has any clear, logical solutions for anything, esp for Iraq. Don't think he's looking to crank up the Cold War again, but who knows.

PREDICTION: If Bush wins the electoral vote(I make him a 49.9-50.1 dog; popular vote is 99%) serious discussions about a draft AND an invasion of Iran will be going on by June. If the draft returns you'll see bloodshed that'll make Kent St. and the Rodney King riots look like a Camp David horsehoe toss.

If the draft does come back, it'll be funny to read all the exposes about rich folk smuggling their teens into Europe, tho, assuming that Ashcroft hasn't taken over the media by then.

[IrishHand]

I think a draft is unlikely, but I also think it's a foregone conclusion that if Bush is re-elected, either N. Korea or Iran will be given a Hitlerian ultimatum: cave into our (unreasonable) demands or we invade.

Whether we can manage both in his 2nd term depends on how long the first choice takes. Of course, neither of them will be anywhere near the push-over that Iraq was. We'll crush either like a bug - it'll just result in a notably higher human cost. Our air superiority over every evil-doer nation is something that simply can't be overcome, even by the AA porcupine that N. Korea is.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]

Also been a lot of chatter recently about the return of the draft, a lot of it of the black helicopter variety to be fair. Still, hearing about it in lots of different places after nothing until recently. Not that Kerry has any clear, logical solutions for anything, esp for Iraq. Don't think he's looking to crank up the Cold War again, but who knows.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you will see a draft. In the past, The United States has fielded a much larger all volunteer force. In recent years the military has really downsized in terms of personell. There is no reason to believe it could not upsize.

There have been dire predections that the United States would have a difficult time recuiting new soldiers and retaining experienced ones should the Iraq conflict become drawn out. So far that hasn't happened. The military seems to be meeting its recruitment/re-enlistment goals.

I heard Kerry wants increase the size of the military by adding two combat divisions. Bush and Rummy do not think the military needs to grow any larger, it just needs to be reorganized. Id like to see a combination of both. That is, add two new combat divisions, and reorganize the rest to better meet the requirments for war in the 21st century.

Stu

[andyfox]

O'REILLY: Iran said yesterday: Hey, we're going to develop this nuclear stuff, we don't care what you think. You ready to use military force against Iran if they continue to defy the world on nuclear?

BUSH: My hope is that we can solve this diplomatically.

O'REILLY: But if you can't?

BUSH: Well, let me try to solve it diplomatically, first. All options are on the table, of course, in any situation. But diplomacy is the first option.

O'REILLY: Would you allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon?

BUSH: We are working our hearts out so that they don't develop a nuclear weapon, and the best way to do so is to continue to keep international pressure on them.

O'REILLY: Is it conceivable that you would allow them to develop a nuclear weapon?

BUSH: No, we've made it clear, our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon.

O'REILLY: Period.

BUSH: Yes.

I don't read that as we're going into Iran.

The question I have, though, concerns what right we have to decide who can have nuclear weapons and who cannot. What if somebody decides they won't allow us to have nuclear weapons?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a draft is unlikely, but I also think it's a foregone conclusion that if Bush is re-elected, either N. Korea or Iran will be given a Hitlerian ultimatum: cave into our (unreasonable) demands or we invade

[/ QUOTE ]

The Iranians arern't going to stop developing nukes on their own. The Isrealis arn't going to let the Iranians develope them. Do a google search on the kinds of weapons Isreal is buying and ask yourself what you think there going to do with them.

I'm not sure weather we are going to sit back and let the Isrealis handle the Iranian problem. This would be a difficult task for the Isrealis considering much of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure is on the edge of or just outside the range of Isreali weapon systems. The Isrealis are a resourceful people though so you never know.

In any event it doesn't matter who gets elected in Nov. The [censored] is about to hit the fan over there. Perhaps the only way to stop it is by giving an ultimatum and hoping the Iranians cave. The ultimatum has to come from the US because there is 0 chance the Iranians would cave if faced with an ultimatum from Isreal. There is also hope that a French Ultimatum could bring peace, at least in the short term. Should the French give the ultimatum, everyone would be laughing so hard it would be impossible to be engaged in any kind of credible combat.

North Korea is a bit of a problem in that we could win that war, but we would probably lose much of South Korea in the process. There is almost no chance North Korea would cave should the US give them an ultimatum. Premptive war isn't really much of an option over there which is why you see the US drawing down troops and instead building missle defenses in Alaska.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The question I have, though, concerns what right we have to decide who can have nuclear weapons and who cannot. What if somebody decides they won't allow us to have nuclear weapons?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they are strong enough to take them away, we would be kinda screwed.

Stu

[Gabe]

We'd nuke 'em.

[El Barto]

The only politicians pumping the draft now are Democrats.

So, if you want the draft, vote Kerry.
If you don't want the draft, vote Bush.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
if Bush is re-elected, either N. Korea or Iran will be given a Hitlerian ultimatum: cave into our (unreasonable) demands or we invade.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iran perhaps but there is zero chance that we invade North Korea. We simply couldn't do it without South Korean backing and that is definitely not what they want, and for good reason.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Yes, draft bills are already in the house and the senate. Who are the sponsors? Mmmmmmmm...let us see:

US House:
Charlie Rangle, a Democrat from New York

US Senate:
Fritz "Foghorn Leghorn" Hollings, a Democrat from South Carolina

What is the common thread between these two bills?
Answer: There both sponsored by Democrats.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Iran perhaps but there is zero chance that we invade North Korea. We simply couldn't do it without South Korean backing and that is definitely not what they want, and for good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

A war in Korea just is nearly impossible. While South Korea won't want to fight, the real problem is that China might decide it does want to fight if we try to remove the North Korean regime. Somehow, we've got to get China to deal with this directly with North Korea.

The war in Iran is coming. It's unfortunate that it hasn't already. I think Bush had to slow down in order to get re-elected and continue taking the fight to the enemy (which I'm very worried Kerry won't in Iran).

There will be no draft. We don't need one. It probably wouldn't create effective soldiers in today's military. And, most importantly, there's ZERO chance the Congress will authorize it. Any Congressman or Senator who votes to bring back the draft is getting voted out in the next election.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, draft bills are already in the house and the senate. Who are the sponsors? Mmmmmmmm...let us see:

US House:
Charlie Rangle, a Democrat from New York

US Senate:
Fritz "Foghorn Leghorn" Hollings, a Democrat from South Carolina

What is the common thread between these two bills?
Answer: There both sponsored by Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a political dirty trick of the Democrats- and a good one if it sticks.

I wonder if Bush and the Republicans can turn it on Kerry and accuse him of having his allies in the Congress restart the draft in case he's elected? After all, it's Democrats who have sponsored the legislation.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
The question I have, though, concerns what right we have to decide who can have nuclear weapons and who cannot.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a ridiculous position to have. We certainly have the RESPONSIBILITY to the world and to ourselves to prevent backwards-ass theocracies (Iran) and mad dictators (N.Korea) from gaining nukes.

As a side note, I have often heard this rhetorical question about do we have the right to prevent nukes.

It's almost always from the pro-U.N. types who think america is more evil and than good, if not wholly evil.
They usually harbor dreams of a one-world government where the U.S. is merely an emasculated state beholden to the now all-powerful U.N.

If that doesn't describe you Andy, then I'm glad, and you are a rare exception in my experience. But usually your question is posed by those who prefer to see the U.S. beholden to the U.N. like a member state of an authoritative body.

Personally, I can think of no worse turn of events for the world. I'm shuddering just thinking of it.

[ QUOTE ]
What if somebody decides they won't allow us to have nuclear weapons?

[/ QUOTE ]

How will they even begin to enforce their decision?

natedogg

[MMMMMM]

"...think a draft is unlikely, but I also think it's a foregone conclusion that if Bush is re-elected, either N. Korea or Iran will be given a Hitlerian ultimatum: cave into our (unreasonable) demands or we invade."

So, what are you saying...that telling Iran or North Korea that they can't have nukes is a "Hitlerian ultimatum"[/i]"? And that to demand they not have nukes is "unreasonable"? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Is that what you're saying? Because if you are, I really don't get it.

[IrishHand]

If Russia and China banded together, declared they were dismantling all their nuclear weapons, and demanded that the US do the same or be invaded, would you consider that reasonable?

More to the point - it's the height of hypocrisy to demand that other nations shed the only weapon in their arsenal with any ability to deter the US from steamrolling them at will while at the same time possessing enough nuclear weapons to turn this planet into a lifeless globe. (That's why I added that part about CHI/RUS dismantling theirs - in a vague effort to take our hypocrisy out of my hypothetical.)

You seem to base much of your beliefs on the assumption that these other sovereign nations are less significant, legitimate or valuable than ours. I cannot share that arrogant position. Just because you're more powerful than they are doesn't make you any better.

You'll surely bring up that you don't agree philosophically with their forms of government, but I suspect you wouldn't agree philosophically with ANY form of government 500 years ago, when even "Western" countries were run by a dictator of some form or another (eg. "royalty"). Governments come and go, revolutions come and go. Trust that "progress", however you define that, will come to each nation when it's ready and when the time is right.

If your goal is to export democracy to the globe (I'll refrain from commenting on the similarities with another nation which sought to export their ideology/government to the world througout much of the last century), then the humane method is by encouraging regime change and governmental progress through diplomatic measures.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
As a side note, I have often heard this rhetorical question about do we have the right to prevent nukes.

It's almost always from the pro-U.N. types who think america is more evil and than good, if not wholly evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think America is more good than evil. I also question what authority we have to decided who gets to have nukes. There should be some standards --- probably not created by us.

Doesn't it strike you as odd in any way that the only country to have actually used a nuke is the one deciding who is responsible enough to have them.

[IrishHand]

Well said.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't it strike you as odd in any way that the only country to have actually used a nuke is the one deciding who is responsible enough to have them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given Hezbollah's backing by Iran; Hezbollah's history of murder and terrorism; and Hezbollah's vows to kill Americans putting nuclear weapons within reach of Hezbollah is unacceptable to me and I would hope many more.

[elwoodblues]

In other words, you don't think it's odd that the only country in the world that has ever used a nuclear weapon is the one deciding who is responsible enough to have them.

-----------

I'm not suggesting that Iran should have nukes, nor N Korea. I just think it is this type of arrogance (we are the only responsible ones) that gets us into trouble.

[OrangeHeat]

[ QUOTE ]
A war in Korea just is nearly impossible. While South Korea won't want to fight, the real problem is that China might decide it does want to fight if we try to remove the North Korean regime.

[/ QUOTE ]

My boss just returned from China (trying to outsource my job /images/graemlins/frown.gif ) and said that the Chinese are actually vary wary of North Korea. There is a feeling over there that Korea in it's desperate state may be considering "expanding" into neighboring chinese territories.

Nobody likes desperate countries with Nukes next to them. Having N Korea in the neighborhood also detracts somewhat from China's attempt to bring foreign businesses in.

Orange

[Ray Zee]

thats the problem with nukes elwood. a country will be almost forced to use them if cornered and have no other way of assuring its survival. that is why the world needs a strong power whether it is the u.s. or united nations or something else to wield the only large hammer to control the individual govts. from blowing us all up. living in fear of something that will or will not happen is almost as bad as the event.

[nicky g]

Hizballah is primarily an anti-Israeli resistance organisation based in Southern Lebanon. It was formed to resist the Israeli invasion and its main military purpose these days (it also has a political wing) is to harrass the Israeli army in the disputed Shebaa farms area on the Israeli, Syrian and Lebanese border. The only time it's attacked American interests to my knowledge was when it attacked US forces stationed in Lebanon during the Lebanese civil war, alleging that they were assisting the Israeli invaders (something I would not classify as terrorism, personally). I've heard of no Hizballah vows to carry out operations against the US or anyone else outside of Lebanon. The idea that they would attack the US with an Iranian supplied nuclear weapon is utterly fanciful.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
that is why the world needs a strong power whether it is the u.s. or united nations or something else to wield the only large hammer to control the individual govts

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. However, the flip side of that is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If only one country has nukes (I know that's not the case) the fear of others is, and rightly so, that they will start using that muscle in ways not originally intended. They will start viewing themselves as the strongest (and therefore the best) country in the world. They will start exerting their military muscle in tenuous places. They will hold a monopoly on real military power.

p.s. (Sorry for using mixed caps, I know how it can be confusing.) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not suggesting that Iran should have nukes, nor N Korea. I just think it is this type of arrogance (we are the only responsible ones) that gets us into trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the issue is that the U.S. government is against rogue Islamic states that sponser terrorism developing and obtaining nuclear weapons. I'm not totally familiar with the maze of multilateral treaties (I probably should be though) that pertain to nuclear arms and the issues surrounding them like nuclear waste but they do exist and I'm fairly certain they're viable.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that they would attack the US with an Iranian supplied nuclear weapon is utterly fanciful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I'm not willing to take that chance or accept your guarantee /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[nicky g]

Fair enough but explain to me why an organisation whose concerns are entirely localised and who have never to my knoweldge attacked and who show no inclination of attacking the US outside of Lebanon would suddenly decide to nuke it? Hizballah was one of the organisations that condemned 9/11, I don;t think they're top of the list of organisations about to mount attacks on the US.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
think the issue is that the U.S. government is against rogue Islamic states that sponser terrorism developing and obtaining nuclear weapons

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt about it. The problem is that perception about America (be it real or imagined) is that we are arbitrary on who we define as a rogue state. Being one of few powers with nukes means that we need to be delicate in how we yield our military influence (dare I say, we need to be sensitive.) Going at it alone (again whether this is real or imagined is irrelevant) in Iraq has sent the message that the US should decide who is good and who is bad -- not, for example, the UN. The US decides who is responsible. The US decides who is a rogue state. This mindset can only lead to more animous.

[nicky g]

"The problem is that perception about America (be it real or imagined) is that we are arbitrary on who we define as a rogue state."

More than that, the problem is that the US is perceived by many as being a rogue state.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I'm not willing to take that chance or accept your guarantee

[/ QUOTE ]

The same could be said of nearly ANY other country looking to acquire nukes. Where the consequences of misuse are so great we shouldn't want anyone else to have nukes. Of course, from every other country's point of view --- because the consequences of US misuse of their nukes or monopoly power is so great we must develop nukes.

[adios]

To be honest though isn't part of the problem that Iran is thumbing it's nose at complying with nuclear treaties?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
the problem is that the US is perceived by many as being a rogue state

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and it doesn't matter if that perception is justified or not - whether it is real or imagined. People are going to behave based on what they believe to be true (whether they are wrong or not.)

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
To be honest though isn't part of the problem that Iran is thumbing it's nose at complying with nuclear treaties

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't know. I could try to look it up --- anybody know of nuclear treaties to which Iran is a party?

[adios]

Iran signed a nuclear arms non proliferation treaty in 1970. Iran has submitted to IAEA inspections but the concern is that this not sufficient and the IAEA has found Iraq to be in violation of their commitments to the terms of non proliferation. That's my basic understanding.

[nicky g]

It is a signatory of the Non-proliferation treaty.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Nonproliferation_Treaty)

[elwoodblues]

Thanks. So N Korea can develop them (at least under this particular treaty) as they are not a signatory.

[tolbiny]

China also might not like the type of government we would attempt to set up in Korea. There are a whole mess of problems with North Korea, ones that should have been addressed long ago.
Since they weren't it will take a strong leader with a sense of how forgien policy should be run to deal with it. I don't think that Bush's strong arm tactics will work on North Korea, their leader really is nutZ.
I am worried that Kerry will let it go on the other hand, it will be a hell of a decision to make, and i just don't trust bush to correctly inform the US population on what will happen and what the costs (not just financially) will be from his decision, untill its already happened.

[andyfox]

"We certainly have the RESPONSIBILITY to the world and to ourselves to prevent backwards-ass theocracies (Iran) and mad dictators (N.Korea) from gaining nukes."

The idea that only we have the right, indeed that it is our responsibility, to decide who is backwards-ass and who is mad, is ill-considered. Such an hubristic attitude, which our leaders have had since at least 1945, has led to an endless series of disasters for our country and millions of deaths worldwide. We don't always know best and we can't always make things right everywhere in the world. The madmen and mass murderers Stalin and Mao never used their nukes. But somehow the admired Harry Truman used atomic weapons to kill 150,000 civilians, mostly women and children. And never lost a night's sleep over it. And the United States has threatened to use nukes many times since.

Sometimes the madmen live at the White House. Sometimes they even cultivate that image, as, for example, Richard Nixon did as part of his "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War. I don't have the implicit faith in the ability of our leaders to do the right thing that you apparently do.

President Bush said emphatically he intends to deal with Iran diplomatically. This is a wise course.

[tolbiny]

"There will be no draft. We don't need one"

Most military experts agree that a larger presence in Iraq is needed to help stabalize the country. We have already called up huge amounts of reservists, moved signifigant amounts of troops from other areas of the globe and forced those already serving into acceptig longer stays, just to deal with the Iraq situation. The aftermath of Iraq has (hopefully) shown how difficult an occupation is, and how we need more troops/equipment.
I don't know if a draft is a viable option or not (politically) but i don't see how we can maintain another large scale conflict with a dubious ending date with current forces.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if a draft is a viable option or not (politically)

[/ QUOTE ]

Absent another world war, I cannot imagine that a draft will ever be implemented in my life time. I just cannot foresee a political climate in which a draft would be considered an acceptable solution.

[ QUOTE ]
but i don't see how we can maintain another large scale conflict with a dubious ending date with current forces.

[/ QUOTE ]

We probably can't. The cynic in me thinks that maybe the diplomatic stance that Bush has taken with Iran might have something to do with this.

[mmcd]

The same could be said of nearly ANY other country looking to acquire nukes. Where the consequences of misuse are so great we shouldn't want anyone else to have nukes.

We (along with the other countries that already have a nuclear arsenal) absolutely do not want ANY other country to have nukes, which is why the NPT was implemented. Of course any number of smaller/other countries would WANT to develop a nuclear weapons program.

We (and other nuclear powers) have enough strength to prevent this. We usually try to do this by diplomatic means (sanctions/pressure etc.) but if this doesn't work, we can always just use force.

It's not a question of whether we have a RIGHT to prevent other countries from obtaining nukes.

It's a question of whether we have the POWER to prevent other countries from obtaining nukes.

In international relations, we essentially persue our own rational self-interest, and to that effect, POWER means a hell of a lot more than RIGHT.

[Cashcow]

Excellent Post.
I agree that America is more good than bad. I don't understand how we took the position of the world's police.
To say you can't have what we have because it scares us is a little hypocritical.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
In international relations, we essentially persue our own rational self-interest, and to that effect, POWER means a hell of a lot more than RIGHT.

[/ QUOTE ]

No question about it. But defining our own self-interest can be tricky. Long term, by wielding nuclear monopoly power, we might be creating the environment that fosters a desire for others to both acquire nukes and attack us.

[ACPlayer]

Cutting thru the BS about the UN types, RESPONSIBILITY crapola, and nutty dictators (few are nuttier than the neocons BTW) - ultimately the only reason we can decide who can and who cannot is because we CAN enforce it and not because we are right.

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
China also might not like the type of government we would attempt to set up in Korea. There are a whole mess of problems with North Korea, ones that should have been addressed long ago.
Since they weren't it will take a strong leader with a sense of how forgien policy should be run to deal with it. I don't think that Bush's strong arm tactics will work on North Korea, their leader really is nutZ.
I am worried that Kerry will let it go on the other hand, it will be a hell of a decision to make, and i just don't trust bush to correctly inform the US population on what will happen and what the costs (not just financially) will be from his decision, untill its already happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

N. Korea (DPRK) utterly fascinates me. 20 million people living in a place completely frozen in time. On the other side of the DMZ it really is still 1950. As a US citizen I cannot travel there but I read many travel logs from Canadians, Britons, Australians etc and I am utterly amazed at how completely lobotomized the N. Koreans are. I don't think anyone with interests in the region know quite what to do about the DPRK, but I'm frankly not that concerned about them getting a nuclear weapon. In the case of the DRPK I truly believe it would only be to ensure the regime's survival. Kim Jong-Il and his top military brass want to ensure their regime endures above all else. They will not sell a nuclear weapon to a Islamic whacko who would certainly use it if he could. They know this could be traced back to them and the punishment would likely be a response in kind. N. Korea makes enough money for the elite to prosper by smuggling drugs through its diplomats and selling conventional weapons. The West, through its generous food donations, keeps its million man army fed. And when you could care less if 5 million peasants starve, isn't that really all you need?

On the other hand, Iran is already run by Islamic whackos. A nuclear weapon in their hands is far more dangerous and must not be allowed to happen. I do not believe occupation is necessary, though. A few well placed bombs could go a long way to ensuring humanity's survival.

[MMMMMM]

"You seem to base much of your beliefs on the assumption that these other sovereign nations are less significant, legitimate or valuable than ours."

So you don't feel that a democracy is better and more legitimate than a dictatorship, a thugocracy, or a theocracy?


"I cannot share that arrogant position. Just because you're more powerful than they are doesn't make you any better."

I don't think that being more powerful is what makes our democracy better than their military disctatorship or thugocracy/theocracy. I think that being representative and relatively free is what makes our form of government better and more legitimate.


So...basically what you're saying is that you feel North Korea and Iran should be allowed to have or acquire nukes, right? And since you feel that way, to be consistent you ought also then feel that any and every country ought to be allowed to have nukes.

I've never met anyone who claims to be in the military (as you have) to support such idiotic and even dangerous positions. I do suspect you're just really a troll.

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In international relations, we essentially persue our own rational self-interest, and to that effect, POWER means a hell of a lot more than RIGHT.

[/ QUOTE ]

No question about it. But defining our own self-interest can be tricky. Long term, by wielding nuclear monopoly power, we might be creating the environment that fosters a desire for others to both acquire nukes and attack us.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why we do our best to prevent others from acquiring nukes. While this might cause some countries to want nukes "more", as long as we are vigilant in enforcing our policy of non-proliferation, I don't see how this would really have any practical effect.

I think it would be much more problematic if we allowed other states (Iran and N. Korea) to develop/acquire nukes, because this would send the message to other nations that it is POSSIBLE to do this and get away with it.

Most any country would want nuclear weapons (albeit to varying degrees). The reason most of them don't actually acquire/attempt to acquire them is that they know there would be hell to pay if they did.

I don't think any one can argue that it would be in our best interest if other (non-nuclear) countries were to develop nuclear weapons, be they "rouge" states or not.

The only way to prevent this from happening is to vigilently enforce our policy of non-prolifiration preferably through diplomacy, but if all else fails through force.

As far as "Nuclear Monopoly Power" , in the NPT there is a list of "approved" nuclear powers (countries that already had nukes at the time the treaty was implemented). I'm not positive but I think theres about a dozen countries on that list. The treaty basically says no NEW countries are allowed to develop/acquire nukes.

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
So you don't feel that a democracy is better and more legitimate than a dictatorship, a thugocracy, or a theocracy?

[/ QUOTE ]
Your selective reading of what I write is entertaining. I said that our nation, meaning the people living in the geographic area called the "US", is no more legitimate or better than those other nations. I would certainly agree that a democracy is a more legitimate form of government than a dictatorship or theocracy. (Sorry, can't help you with a "thugocracy" since I've never been into making up words to add an emotional element to my arguments.) I favor democracies and I would support a diplomatic or international initiative designed to promote democracy in nations which don't adhere to that form of government. However, I don't think we have the right to force it on anyone, just as I don't feel that the USSR had the right to force communism on anyone.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that being more powerful is what makes our democracy better than their military disctatorship or thugocracy/theocracy. I think that being representative and relatively free is what makes our form of government better and more legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. Again, selective reading - I was talking about nations. If the people of Iraq want to be ruled by a theocracy (as many polls suggest they would if they had that alternative), they have every right to do so. Along those same lines, whatever government happens to be in power in Iraq (or anywhere else) has every right to defend their nation from foreign invasion. In today's climate, the only way to do so with any level of confidence is to possess nuclear weapons. Pakistan is a military dictatorship which harbors massive quantities of terrorists on their northern borders, but we'd never think of invading that country as a part of the war on terror. Almost exclusively due to their status as a nuclear power, we've brought them into our camp and negotiate with them in order to get the results we want (or at least some of them).

[ QUOTE ]
And since you feel that way, to be consistent you ought also then feel that any and every country ought to be allowed to have nukes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Given the current state of the world, I think any sane government would want to have nuclear weapons to deter the US from doing what it did to Iraq to it. It's not a question of being "allowed" to have nukes - the last time I checked, there's no world government setting rules for nations.

There certainly are international treaties, but that's not what we're talking about. I would wholeheartedly support a treaty signed by every nation of the world which outlawed the creation of any new nuclear weapons and mandated a staggered period of reduction down to a much, much smaller level than currently exists. Of course, no "non-nuke" country would agree to this without a carrot of some sort, but I've no doubt that given the importance of such a measure to our security, we'd be thrilled about leading the fundraising effort. (Eg. "You don't make nukes for 40 years, we provide your country with antibiotics, food, whatever.")

[ QUOTE ]
I do suspect you're just really a troll.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't begin to imagine how unconcerned I am about your opinion of me as a person.

[MMMMMM]

"Your selective reading of what I write is entertaining. I said that our nation, meaning the people living in the geographic area called the "US", is no more legitimate or better than those other nations. I would certainly agree that a democracy is a more legitimate form of government than a dictatorship or theocracy."

So: you agree that democracy is a more legitimate and better form of government than dictatorship or theocracy--but you don't agree that the U.S. is better and more legitimate nation than North Korea or Iran? Or are you just playing semantical games, claiming that "nation" is not the same as "country" in this instance?

Do you think the free nations of the world--or even just the U.S.--should allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons? Do you support North Korea and Iran having nuclear armaments?

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
So: you agree that democracy is a more legitimate and better form of government than dictatorship or theocracy--but you don't agree that the U.S. is better and more legitimate nation than North Korea or Iran?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, then no, respectively. Iranians and North Koreans are just as good and legitimate as Americans. As I noted above, a "nation" to me is a geographic and human distinction. When I refer to the nation of Canada, I'm talking about the people living in that large area north of the US. My point is that neither you nor I is any better than some farmer in Iran (I'm assuming they have farms there, having never been myself), which leads into...

[ QUOTE ]
Or are you just playing semantical games, claiming that "nation" is not the same as "country" in this instance?

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope - nation and country are pretty interchangeable in my mind - both both are very different from a nation or country's government.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the free nations of the world--or even just the U.S.--should allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think the US has the right to allow or not allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons, although I agree that they have the power to do so. I do think that the free nations of the world (depending on how you define that group) has the right, and indeed the responsibility, to limit the creation of any new nuclear weapons.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you support North Korea and Iran having nuclear armaments?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely not. I don't support any nation having nuclear weapons. But that doesn't mean that I don't understand their desire to have them and agree that having them would be of tremendous value to their governments.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
What if somebody decides they won't allow us to have nuclear weapons?


[/ QUOTE ]

Then we ask them politely to patiently wait in line for their turn in the barrel then we will get to blowing the [censored] out of them shortly.

Jimbo

[natedogg]

The idea that only we have the right, indeed that it is our responsibility, to decide who is backwards-ass and who is mad, is ill-considered.

Actually I disagree with you here Andy. It's a matter of believing in your own values and your won worldview. It doesn't mean much to say "I value personal liberty and religious freedom and equality for men and women and people of all races" but also be unwilling to label those who don't as backwards.

They are backwards. The western worldview is superior to primitive fundamentalist theocrats, and I suspect you feel the same.

I'm not able to look at societies or governments that violate every core value I have about human rights and dignity and say it's hubris or ill-considered to condemn it. I say they are backwards ass and mad and I'm right about that. I'm not willing to equivocate and play cultural relativism with human rights.

And the world is better off if we actively try to prevent them from getting nukes.

natedogg

[vulturesrow]

Well said. I would also add my opinion that having the power that the US has obligates you to exercise it in defense of what is right. The analogy I like is that if I walked by an old man getting beaten up by a mugger and I just walked by and ignored it, I would be very wrong not to use the power I had defend someone who couldnt.

[MMMMMM]

So you don't consider the U.S. population "better" than Iranians or North Koreans, but you do agree that the U.S. government is better and more legitimate than the Iranian or North Korean governments, right? Fine.

So why then do you seem opposed to the U.S. government preventing such governments from gaining nukes? Don't you think the world will be a better and more stable place if the spread of nuclear weapons is halted, than if it isn't--especially to dictatorships and theocracies?

[MMMMMM]

^

[The once and future king]

Thats assuming your not the one doing the mugging.

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
So why then do you seem opposed to the U.S. government preventing such governments from gaining nukes?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just because I think the US government is "better" than the Iranian or N. Korean governments doesn't mean I think the US government has the right to dictate what those governments can and can't do any more than a more democratic government like those in many European countries has the right to dictate what the US government can and can't do.

I wholeheartedly support the US government leading a push from the world community - preferrably democratic community - to restrict or eliminate the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I am 100% opposed to the US government deciding unilaterally that Iran has nukes and we need to invade them to solve this problem. (As with Iraq, I consider our invading a much larger problem than their possible possession of weapons.)

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think the world will be a better and more stable place if the spread of nuclear weapons is halted, than if it isn't--especially to dictatorships and theocracies?

[/ QUOTE ]
I certainly do. I also think that it's a wholly defensible position to argue that the US (unilaterally) selectively attacking and occupying foreign nations will help acheive that goal. All those governments that you don't like surely learned a valuable lesson from the past couple of years. Pre-Iraq invasion, we labelled several countries the "axis of evil" and the criteria had next-to-nothing to do with terrorism and a lot to do with not being a US puppet. (Three prime offenders in the terrorism area have more compliant governments - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan.)

Then, as between Iran, Iraq and N. Korea, which do we attack? The only one with no means to defend themselves. What's the message to the others? Arm yourselves as quickly as possible! If you can get even a couple of functional nuclear weapons, you might be able to forestall invasion and/or future domination by the US.

Do I think the world would be a better place if we stopped countries from getting nukes? Depends on how we do the stopping. Continuing to be the rogue state that much of the rest of the world sees us as certainly isn't the path to long-term success. Spain's already jumped ship. Blair's support for US policies could easily cause the UK to reverse course at some point in the next year. What's that leave? "You forgot about Poland!"

I guess that mighty US/Poland alliance will lead the world from chaos to lasting peace and prosperity - from the end of a rifle.

[MMMMMM]

Ok, at least you've given thoughtful and reasonable answers without the usual sarcasm and so forth. I agree with a fair part of what you say here. This was a much better post than the initial post of yours in this thread of which made bald and controversial statements without much explanation (in particular I still don't see how telling the Iranian government--even unilaterally--that they can't have nukes is a "Hitlerian demand", but well let that pass for now). Thanks for the elaboration.

[tolbiny]

"that they can't have nukes is a "Hitlerian demand", but well let that pass for now"

I believe that the reference to the "hitlerian demand" isn't comparing the actual demands to hitler's but to their expected outcome. The demands that Hitler made were outrages, and intentionally so, he wanted an reason to go to war. He stood by his "demand"
knowing that they would never be met, and that he was better prepared to go to war.
By calling our demands "hitlerian" he is saying that the demands that are being propsed have 0 chance of being accepted, and that the only reason to push them is an effort to go to war, and that they are actaully not "negotiations" in an honest sense.

[MMMMMM]

OK, thanks for the insight, I did not see that side of the phrase.

Anyway there may indeed be zero chance that the Mad Mullahs will accept the demand that they not acquire nukes, but that is not the same as making a demand they cannot possibly accomodate.

And of course, they would be FOOLS to not acquiesce to this demand. Perhaps this will provide a sort of litmus test to see just how rational or irrational the mullahs really are /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[IrishHand]

Thank you Tolbiny - that was precisely what I was getting at. Sorry it wasn't more clear.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
The question I have, though, concerns what right we have to decide who can have nuclear weapons and who cannot. What if somebody decides they won't allow us to have nuclear weapons?

[/ QUOTE ]

This may have been covered already (I haven't read the thread), but this is a ridonkulous statement.

It's like saying, "Who are we to say that five year-olds shouldn't drive cars?"

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
It's like saying, "Who are we to say that five year-olds shouldn't drive cars?"

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's like saying "Who are we to say that Tibetan five year-olds shouldn't drive cars?"

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's like saying, "Who are we to say that five year-olds shouldn't drive cars?"

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's like saying "Who are we to say that Tibetan five year-olds shouldn't drive cars?"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's like saying, "who are we to discourage dangerous, belligerent backwards nations that have nothing to lose from developing nuclear weapons"?

It was I believe James Baldwin who said, "there is no more dangerous creation of society that the individual with nothing left to lose".

Life isn't fair. There's no such thing as inherent rights or inalienable rights. And dangerous desperate theocratic regimes don't get to have nukes because the rest of the civilized world says so.

natedogg

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's like saying, "who are we to discourage dangerous, belligerent backwards nations that have nothing to lose from developing nuclear weapons"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Take out the word "backwards" and much of the rest of the world thinks the same thing about us. We certainly have a more dangerous and belligerent government than any other country in the world.

[ QUOTE ]
There's no such thing as inherent rights or inalienable rights.

[/ QUOTE ]
You will discover to your dismay that this country is theoretically based on an opposing philosophy.

[ QUOTE ]
And dangerous desperate theocratic regimes don't get to have nukes because the rest of the civilized world says so.

[/ QUOTE ]
When the "rest of the civilized world" sits down and agrees who gets to have nukes and what will be done about those that shouldn't have them, I will support that initiative. I cannot, however, support the notion that we alone should do that.

[natedogg]

You DO realize that the U.S. is not the only nation seeking to curb nuclear development in Iran and N. Korea don't you?

Take out the word "backwards" and much of the rest of the world thinks the same thing about us.

Much of the rest of the world thinks that AIDS is a cia conspiracy to eradicate africans. Much of the rest of the world actually believes in evil spirits and other supernatural nonsense. What the rest of the world thinks is basically irrelevant.

natedogg

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
When the "rest of the civilized world" sits down and agrees who gets to have nukes and what will be done about those that shouldn't have them, I will support that initiative. I cannot, however, support the notion that we alone should do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its called the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and it happened back in 1970s

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
You DO realize that the U.S. is not the only nation seeking to curb nuclear development in Iran and N. Korea don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep - and they all wanted to disarm Iraq too, but they were smart enough not to support the invasion. Again, I wholeheartedly support curbing nuclear development. It's some means that I take issue with.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Iran perhaps but there is zero chance that we invade North Korea. We simply couldn't do it without South Korean backing and that is definitely not what they want, and for good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since when does Bush care what any other country wants?