north korea launch missile

[Nebbiolo]

Sorry Neb but you're all but saying that we really didn't have any issues with the peace loving radical Islamists until Bush got into office.

That my friend is the real poppycock. You know it. I know it. Any anyone reading this thread knows it.

Sorry Bill, what you've just written actually makes no sense. I mentioned an increase in the inculcation of radical Islam in the minds of the young. You just mention something about peace-loving radicals, which is really just a breath of hot air.

With reference to your other point. Who indeed will be able to do something if the US illegally invaded another sovereign territory? Who indeed will be able to do a thing when the biggest bully on the block kicks sand in the face of the wee nerdy guy down the lane? Is that the point you're making? The US is the only superpower left, so it can do what the heck it wants and stuff morality and international law?

But beware, Bill. China's about to get on your coattails and Russia has never really left the game. The US would do well to remember that it's only ruled the roost militarily for the wink of an eye.

Oops. Just saw your other post. You know I love you really, Bill. You're still the best right-winger on the block.

 

[Tennessee Blue Mike]

I take your point, Mike. However, since the Bush regime came into power, there has been a marked increase in the bitterness and resentment that exists between the west and the middle east. Of course, all of the blame for this can't be laid at Bush's door. But he's not helped the situation and some, myself included, would suggest he's helped set back relations to a a new low.

No more cold war, so start an ideological war with Mohamed.

I agree with you on the gung ho attitude from Bush and the stepping on the toes mentality. But when so many civilians were lost at the Towers that drew the line early in his administration. Your spot on that this went back in failed attempts years earlier. Overall, most governments won't admit it but oil at the moment is king and if anyones transportation or defense system is in harms way look out. You can paint any picture you want to conceal the real deal..... religious, ethnic, etc. It will come down to quality of life in the end. Thus we will see if T.Boone Pickens energy plan with Natural gas can get kickstarted to avoid more involvement in the middle east but who knows. I think all the major players will be sucked into the middle east before to long.

 

[Tennessee Blue Mike]

Ah screw it....

We'll agree to disagree.

No need for us to get into a pissing match.

I think that the USA is the greatest country in the world and many on here think that we're the worst.

I think we'd agree that the reality is that we're somewhere in between.

No worries.

(Hope I didn't get too personal Neb, Chico, or any of the others.)

Truthfully, Bill I think were ever we live we will feel it's the best in the world because of our families and way of life. I've been fortunate to have family on both sides of the pond. I respect each nation untill they start sabre rattling. Then you have to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[TX Bill]

Sorry Bill, what you've just written actually makes no sense. I mentioned an increase in the inculcation of radical Islam in the minds of the young. You just mention something about peace-loving radicals, which is really just a breath of hot air.

With reference to your other point. Who indeed will be able to do something if the US illegally invaded another sovereign territory? Who indeed will be able to do a thing when the biggest bully on the block kicks sand in the face of the wee nerdy guy down the lane? Is that the point you're making? The US is the only superpower left, so it can do what the heck it wants and stuff morality and international law?

But beware, Bill. China's about to get on your coattails and Russia has never really left the game. The US would do well to remember that it's only ruled the roost militarily for the wink of an eye.

Well yeah. A bit of sarcasm on my part regarding the radicals.

I think the disturbing part of China and Russia is that who's watching their nukes.

For all the things said about the USA, we've restrained ourselves when using force. I don't ever see us using nuclear weapons unless retaliating against a country who's launched them against us.

At that point it's game over.

But right now, Russia's modern military machine is pretty much broken down and rotted. China's I don't know much about but I'm confident they don't have the ability as we do to project our capabilities as far from home as we can (think carrier strike groups, submarines, foreign bases, etc...)

I see that you made an analogy to us being a bully and it's a common one. Typically, the bully goes around and attacks without provocation. The USA has restrained itself and if you want recent evidence, look no further than Iran. It's a fact that they've been smuggling weapons and supplies into Iraq to be used against American and other countries' servicemen and women. If we ever had justification to hit Iran, I'd say that would be it. We haven't even touched on the subject of their nuclear ambitions or their call for the outright destruction of Israel.

But we haven't hit them yet.

Where is the world court Neb? Where are all the outraged world citizens where Iran is concerned? How are they going to be held accountable for their actions? When are sanctions and diplomacy going to get Iran to become a peaceful member of society as a whole?

Surely calling for the destruction of another country is illegal isn't it? Calling for genocide?

In short, when is Iran going to be held accountable? Many outside of the USA look at us as a big bully and I understand the viewpoint. Don't agree with it but I understand it.

However, take a minute and look at the USA's view of the rest of the world. Inept is a word that comes to mind when dealing with these situations. Countries like Iran will continue down the paths that they've chosen until they get "to that point" where then can cause real problems. Why isn't the rest of the world (I use the term "rest of the world" loosely) taking action?

You see where I'm going with this right? Again, the world's moral compass is so far out of whack that it's not even funny anymore. They'll get on the USA for their responses to 9/11 while turning a blind eye to North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc....

Do you not see any hypocrisy in this?

 

[Dylan]

• Iran want to wipe Israel from the face of the earth.
• Iran consider the USA the Great Satan (and the USSR was called the Lesser Satan)
• The US have the worlds premier military, bar none.
• Russia, Europe, China have no chance (China can't even get their army across the Straits of Formosa to retake the rebels, their ships and subs are all old and noisy with the creme de la creme of the 1970's tech, Russia are a shell, a big shell, but still a shell. Shells can be crushed quite easily. The biggest threat, militarily, would be Europe, as a combined force, but still won't stand to a prolonged war.

Ok, now that is done.

It doesn't seem to matter which party is in power (dems or reps) Iran, China and NK are going to keep pursuing their agenda. Which is all well and fine, but when it starts going for offensive gear(with the previous statements of hostility towards the US and her allies) we will sit up and take note (and testing a intercontinental ballistic missile which can hold a MIRV is PRETTY EFFING OFFENSIVE)

We have been imposing sanctions on NK and Iran for how long now? And where has it gotten us? Nowhere. Where do we go from here? Who knows

And in regard to everyone thinking now Obama is President how everything will be all rosy, I will give you a brief run-down on how his first contact with Iran went:

Obama: Iran, we love you and want to re-open diplomatic discussions with you.

Ayatollah: We don't care. You are still American. We still kill you.


The issue here doesn't seem to be the radical terrorists, but with the US being the only country in the world to not be afraid to stand alone and do something about it. There was a reference to bullies earlier, and the way I see it, 'those' guys are the bullies, and we are the strong quiet guy who is stopping them from waving their stick.

This world would be in a really crappy state if the US hadn't intervened in several courses through out the twentieth century.

 

[gordonjblair]

no it wouldn't

the major overriding factor in the stability of the world in the second half of the 20th century was the advent of the nuke. The US may have had lots, but as soon as you had some on either side of the fence, that was pretty much it bar the shouting.

There have been smaller issues, Vietnam and Korea being 2, however it is just as easy to postulate that, had the Russians been given their head, the new Communist pacific rim countries would have eventually have folded in the same way that the Eastern European ones did. In spite of the events of the 90s, I'd much rather a Balkan situation than the current Korean one.

As for the middle east, like it or not, that's a problem of our own creation. The British, American and French nations dicked around with the region so much in the early 20th to suit our own agendas, it's no surprise that there's such bitterness and resentment, even before you take into account the situation in Palestine.

Am still tickled that people are missing Dubya's skill for international diplomacy, that's ace

 

[Tennessee Blue Mike]

• Iran want to wipe Israel from the face of the earth.
• Iran consider the USA the Great Satan (and the USSR was called the Lesser Satan)
• The US have the worlds premier military, bar none.
• Russia, Europe, China have no chance (China can't even get their army across the Straits of Formosa to retake the rebels, their ships and subs are all old and noisy with the creme de la creme of the 1970's tech, Russia are a shell, a big shell, but still a shell. Shells can be crushed quite easily. The biggest threat, militarily, would be Europe, as a combined force, but still won't stand to a prolonged war.

Ok, now that is done.

It doesn't seem to matter which party is in power (dems or reps) Iran, China and NK are going to keep pursuing their agenda. Which is all well and fine, but when it starts going for offensive gear(with the previous statements of hostility towards the US and her allies) we will sit up and take note (and testing a intercontinental ballistic missile which can hold a MIRV is PRETTY EFFING OFFENSIVE)

We have been imposing sanctions on NK and Iran for how long now? And where has it gotten us? Nowhere. Where do we go from here? Who knows

And in regard to everyone thinking now Obama is President how everything will be all rosy, I will give you a brief run-down on how his first contact with Iran went:

Obama: Iran, we love you and want to re-open diplomatic discussions with you.

Ayatollah: We don't care. You are still American. We still kill you.


The issue here doesn't seem to be the radical terrorists, but with the US being the only country in the world to not be afraid to stand alone and do something about it. There was a reference to bullies earlier, and the way I see it, 'those' guys are the bullies, and we are the strong quiet guy who is stopping them from waving their stick.

This world would be in a really crappy state if the US hadn't intervened in several courses through out the twentieth century.

Being a Air force brat I was told many times we have a standard to uphold and you pretty much summed it up. We are there to serve and protect with other responsible nations. Communism and radical extremists won't go away and we can't become Neville Chamberlins thinking they will.

 

[Dylan]

no it wouldn't

I disagree. We can only speculate, but what if we never went into Europe to split Hilters forces? What would have happened if the USSR was allowed to pursue its agenda with no opposition?

the major overriding factor in the stability of the world in the second half of the 20th century was the advent of the nuke. The US may have had lots, but as soon as you had some on either side of the fence, that was pretty much it bar the shouting.

Although the shouting would have some pretty darn serious consequences if it came to blows.

There have been smaller issues, Vietnam and Korea being 2, however it is just as easy to postulate that, had the Russians been given their head, the new Communist pacific rim countries would have eventually have folded in the same way that the Eastern European ones did. In spite of the events of the 90s, I'd much rather a Balkan situation than the current Korean one.

Maybe, the is entirely feasible.

As for the middle east, like it or not, that's a problem of our own creation. The British, American and French nations dicked around with the region so much in the early 20th to suit our own agendas, it's no surprise that there's such bitterness and resentment, even before you take into account the situation in Palestine.

It isn't like we are robbing them. We pay them well for the oil. Fundamentalists are merely using it as an excuse to rally against us.

Am still tickled that people are missing Dubya's skill for international diplomacy, that's ace

I miss the fact that he didn't take crap. Now with our new president I am fearful of how far other nations will push.

 

[NeoNaoNeo]

Americuh

**** yeahh

Comin again to save the mother ****** day yeah

Americuh
(the only nation on Earth to have used not one, but two nuclear weapons on populated urban areas)

**** yeahhh

freedom is the only way yeahh

 

[toffeestillidie]

Sorry Bill, what you've just written actually makes no sense. I mentioned an increase in the inculcation of radical Islam in the minds of the young. You just mention something about peace-loving radicals, which is really just a breath of hot air.

With reference to your other point. Who indeed will be able to do something if the US illegally invaded another sovereign territory? Who indeed will be able to do a thing when the biggest bully on the block kicks sand in the face of the wee nerdy guy down the lane? Is that the point you're making? The US is the only superpower left, so it can do what the heck it wants and stuff morality and international law?

But beware, Bill. China's about to get on your coattails and Russia has never really left the game. The US would do well to remember that it's only ruled the roost militarily for the wink of an eye.

Oops. Just saw your other post. You know I love you really, Bill. You're still the best right-winger on the block.

lol about to get on their coattails? if they wanted to take us out of the game, they'd stop shipping toothpaste, and underwear to the US and watch it plunge into chaos. or what about steel? china subsidizes steel so its much cheaper, driving many US steel companies out of business. Thankfully obama included buy-american in the bailout or that could be another industry that we'd hand overseas, if russia and china decided to stop shipping steel and we let our domestic steel companies die like the conservatives wanted us to, i'd be curious to see what we're building our military equipment out of.

lets be under no illusion that the United States has no check on it, economics are as important in this day and age as physical might, and our dominancy only appears to be in one of those

 

[TX Bill]

no it wouldn't

the major overriding factor in the stability of the world in the second half of the 20th century was the advent of the nuke. The US may have had lots, but as soon as you had some on either side of the fence, that was pretty much it bar the shouting.

There have been smaller issues, Vietnam and Korea being 2, however it is just as easy to postulate that, had the Russians been given their head, the new Communist pacific rim countries would have eventually have folded in the same way that the Eastern European ones did. In spite of the events of the 90s, I'd much rather a Balkan situation than the current Korean one.

As for the middle east, like it or not, that's a problem of our own creation. The British, American and French nations dicked around with the region so much in the early 20th to suit our own agendas, it's no surprise that there's such bitterness and resentment, even before you take into account the situation in Palestine.

Am still tickled that people are missing Dubya's skill for international diplomacy, that's ace

That's an interesting point Blair.

During the Cold War, deterrence was pretty much the standard as was mutually assured destruction.

But now, is deterrence even on the table anymore with what we're dealing with (i.e. radicalism) in this century.

Bill Whittle wrote an outstanding essay on deterrence and where we are today in relation to world threats. I'd link it but can't seem to find the entire essay. It's a good one though.

 

[gordonjblair]

I disagree. We can only speculate, but what if we never went into Europe to split Hilters forces? What would have happened if the USSR was allowed to pursue its agenda with no opposition?

It's highly likely, had German forces not been fighting on 2 fronts, that they and the Red Menace (TM) would have slugged each other to a standstill somewhere near the Ukraine. Perhaps that would have seen a strability of a kind, as the German politic war machine was dismantled - much in the way that Churchill was shifted to one side, and the moderates took over. It's easy in hindsight to make up alternative pasts - Thomas Harris has made a bloody good living out of it, fact is speculation is just that. Funny how things always seem to work out though eh?

It isn't like we are robbing them. We pay them well for the oil. Fundamentalists are merely using it as an excuse to rally against us.

For decades we did rob them blind... sorry, we appropriated the natural resources within our protectorates, and gave the natives a means for their extraction, for a consideration, of course ...

 

[ajax_andy]

Well yeah. A bit of sarcasm on my part regarding the radicals.

I think the disturbing part of China and Russia is that who's watching their nukes.
I think its ironic that Obama is calling for a world without Nuclear Weapons... he is leader of the country with the most Nukes. Why are China and Russia less suitable to hold Nukes then say the US?

For all the things said about the USA, we've restrained ourselves when using force. I don't ever see us using nuclear weapons unless retaliating against a country who's launched them against us.

At that point it's game over.
Completely true. Hopefully no country will ever be stupid enough to set off this chain reaction.


I see that you made an analogy to us being a bully and it's a common one. Typically, the bully goes around and attacks without provocation. The USA has restrained itself and if you want recent evidence, look no further than Iran. It's a fact that they've been smuggling weapons and supplies into Iraq to be used against American and other countries' servicemen and women. If we ever had justification to hit Iran, I'd say that would be it. We haven't even touched on the subject of their nuclear ambitions or their call for the outright destruction of Israel.
1) Iraq and Afganistan could be argued to being wars with provacation... especially Iraq unless you consider natural resources a just reason for killing.
2) If America hadn't illegaly invaded Iraq then Iran wouldn't be supplying them with weapons to fight the unlawfull occupation.
2)i) Another example of "your either with us or terrorists". Iran help a country try and fight off an illegal invasion, yet they are wrong for doing so? So on that logic America's involvement in WW2 was wrong because the US hadn't been invaded bu enemy troups?
3) Destruction of Israel is something that can't be taken lightly, however Israel threatened to wipe Palestine off the map... double standards eh?

But we haven't hit them yet.
If you hadn't stretched your military operations so thin already then you might have done

Where is the world court Neb? Where are all the outraged world citizens where Iran is concerned? How are they going to be held accountable for their actions? When are sanctions and diplomacy going to get Iran to become a peaceful member of society as a whole?
Is America a peacful member of society? It seems that the country kicking up most of the instability in this world is the US!

Surely calling for the destruction of another country is illegal isn't it? Calling for genocide?
Yes and so is the violation of basic human rights that the US (which is international law btw) continue to persue by using torture on detainees. If that was any other country the world would be up in arms about it.

In short, when is Iran going to be held accountable? Many outside of the USA look at us as a big bully and I understand the viewpoint. Don't agree with it but I understand it.
Accountable for what?
Held accountable by who? The US? Or leave things to the UN? Why do the US think they have a right to ignore all basic international laws and just invade who they want, when they want, and for whatever reason they feel suitable?


However, take a minute and look at the USA's view of the rest of the world. Inept is a word that comes to mind when dealing with these situations. Countries like Iran will continue down the paths that they've chosen until they get "to that point" where then can cause real problems. Why isn't the rest of the world (I use the term "rest of the world" loosely) taking action?
How can they? The US has more nukes then any country in the world, and spends more on their military then all other countries put together. they invade other countries on a pretext of lies and steal their natural resources. When is the rest of the world going to take action against the only regime set on world domination?

You see where I'm going with this right? Again, the world's moral compass is so far out of whack that it's not even funny anymore. They'll get on the USA for their responses to 9/11 while turning a blind eye to North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc....
Surely the US (and their allies) have killed more people then all of these countries combined?
I agree that if say NK invaded say SK and tried to take over by force that they would be breaking international law and someone should step in and help out the country being invaded. This should be a decision made by the UN and not by one country alone. I don't agree with taking them out/over in a premptive move. Surely on that basis the US are likely to invade more countries illegally and should be taken out/over by the combined force of the UN?

Do you not see any hypocrisy in this?

Indeed I do, but in the complete reverse way that you do

 

[Robert Jarvis]

Should have nuked the buggars back in the fifties, woulod have been all over now. As a result Pakistan, India to name two would not have nuclear weapons or rockets.

 

[Tennessee Blue Mike]

What?!? The media thought the Iraq/Afghanistan wars were a complete debacle and no good came out of them whatsover???

Well I never....

We always trust the liberal media don't we. Just like the spin that we have everyone coming to Everton around the transfer deadline when we are skint for money.