September 5, 201114 yr Which is why I have often said the sooner Iran goes nuclear the quieter the region will become. That's for sure...
September 5, 201114 yr Which is why I have often said the sooner Iran goes nuclear the quieter the region will become. That's for sure... Pakistan has had nukes since 1972 India has Nukes China has Nukes Russia has nukes Us has nukes Israel has nukes UK has Nukes France has Nukes North Kore has Nukes Who would be deemed more crazy than Kim Jong? Yet there he is with nukes. Either everyone is armed or everyone is disarmed. Or the bullying will continue. Of course the bullies will not like it or may even end the world to stop it. Bullies can be an unstable bunch when their dominance is threatened
September 5, 201114 yr Which is why I have often said the sooner Iran goes nuclear the quieter the region will become. I know the claims will be then they will do this or threaten that. But it will be the same reason it is quiet between...Russia,China,US,NK etc Mutually assured destruction tends to equal mutual respect Sad but true. It is the unbalanced state of things now that allows certain injustices to continue. You know, I tend to agree here. What we need to do is make it more balanced because right now it isn't close. Their side of the table: China - Nukes Russia - Nukes NK - Nukes Our side of the table: USA - Nukes South korea - none Japan - none So as soon as we can arm Japan and SK to the teeth with nukes, the safer I will feel. I also wouldn't mind seeing China shit itself at the thought of Japan as a rising power again. Oh, and I think Gaddafi should go to Afghanistan and replace Karzai. We can do that can't we? Afterall, Karzai is our puppet, right?
September 5, 201114 yr So as soon as we can arm Japan with nukes, the safer I will feel. In light of recent events....I would say nukes have no place in areas with heavy seismic or tsunami threats As for tables that show sides.... I think a better division/description would be Those that get invaded/attacked & those that do the invading/attacking If you use that you will see it is very unbalanced & presently favors those who do the invading...which not surprisingly coincides with the haves Of course my premise is there will be much less attacking/invading when the playing field/threat of mutually assured destruction is leveled.
September 5, 201114 yr So as soon as we can arm Japan with nukes, the safer I will feel. In light of recent events....I would say nukes have no place in areas with heavy seismic or tsunami threats As for tables that show sides.... I think a better division/description would be Those that get invaded/attacked & those that do the invading/attacking If you use that you will see it is very unbalanced & presently favors those who do the invading...which not surprisingly coincides with the haves Of course my premise is there will be much less attacking/invading when the playing field/threat of mutually assured destruction is leveled. Unfortunately, MAD doesn't apply to Islamic govts so we need to take them out ASAP. However, it could still work in the Korean peninsula that's why we need to spread nukes around to our allies.
September 5, 201114 yr Author "The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." - Salvador Dali And the relevance of your post was....? If you're trying to say something relevant, I for one would appreciate you being more explicit because I don\t get what you're trying to say here.
September 5, 201114 yr Author So as soon as we can arm Japan with nukes, the safer I will feel. In light of recent events....I would say nukes have no place in areas with heavy seismic or tsunami threats As for tables that show sides.... I think a better division/description would be Those that get invaded/attacked & those that do the invading/attacking If you use that you will see it is very unbalanced & presently favors those who do the invading...which not surprisingly coincides with the haves Of course my premise is there will be much less attacking/invading when the playing field/threat of mutually assured destruction is leveled. Unfortunately, MAD doesn't apply to Islamic govts so we need to take them out ASAP. However, it could still work in the Korean peninsula that's why we need to spread nukes around to our allies. Your "sides" didn't mention any of America's allies that are nuke capable. Why? It's extremely relevant to your argument. Your argument could be used by the allies of your enemies to arm themselves.......so we eventually get around to MAD.
September 5, 201114 yr From the news today. ______________________________________________________ AP-GfK Poll: Japanese support for US bases grows By MALCOLM FOSTER - Associated Press TOKYO (AP) — Japanese have become more welcoming to the U.S. military presence in their country over the past six years as fears spread that neighboring China and North Korea are threats to peace, an Associated Press-GfK poll has found. The survey released Monday on Japanese views of other countries, security and the imperial family also showed that while about half of Japanese are positive about the U.S. and Germany, they are overwhelmingly negative or neutral toward immediate Asian neighbors China, Russia and North Korea. Opinions about South Korea are mixed. Complete article here: http://news.yahoo.com/ap-gfk-poll-japanese-support-us-bases-grows-070358548.html
September 5, 201114 yr Someone posted an interesting link in another subsection of the forum........ http://gagnauga.is/i...=Greinar&ID=169 It's amazing how the truth is there for anyone to accept, but people being what they are (lemmings, sheep, ostriches with their head in the sand, ignorant masses, or simply uncaring because of bias) will not accept it. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and one day I daresay, Iran, are all essentially the same in the geo-political resource-grabbing sense. As the author of the article pointed out, none of these Western powers care about the oppression in N Korea.......what are the resources to control there? And of course, Flying, you and I will be deemed "batshit crazy"by those same lemmings for pointing it out. It's sadly laughable. One doesn't have to be terribly obsevant to truly understand that all these activities are bonded to resource wars. Nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps, geo-polotical strategies of imperialistic control cast a close second. It not as if it's a secret - a number of well-regarded books on the subject manner have been promoted. Be they authored by influential insiders of the establishment [quite open and blantant] or the supposed conspiratorial left nutter. Historically, Western military activities in foreign lands have most everything to do with a sort of neo-colonial drive.
September 5, 201114 yr Who would be deemed more crazy than Kim Jong? Who, you ask? There are well establish institutional nutters around [as it pertains to nukes and usage]. For starters - the U.S. establishment, who has stockpiled and threatened the world for decades and demonstrated their use already. Their traditional brothers, the U.K. - same mindset. Add Israel and Russia to this exclusive club of madhatters that wouldn't give it a second thought. Why is it that seemingly intelligent people, historically, buy into these invented boogieman themes towards an individual or state? As long as it is carefully repeated over and again and the show is manipulated ever so cleverly.....things will always remain the same. The real boogiemen are never who they appear to be.
September 5, 201114 yr Who would be deemed more crazy than Kim Jong? Who, you ask? There are well establish institutional nutters around [as it pertains to nukes and usage]. For starters - the U.S. establishment, who has stockpiled and threatened the world for decades and demonstrated their use already. Their traditional brothers, the U.K. - same mindset. Add Israel and Russia to this exclusive club of madhatters that wouldn't give it a second thought. Why is it that seemingly intelligent people, historically, buy into these invented boogieman themes towards an individual or state? As long as it is carefully repeated over and again and the show is manipulated ever so cleverly.....things will always remain the same. The real boogiemen are never who they appear to be. Clear thingking zzaa zzaa of course you are correct & no I do not buy into the usual *deemed* madmen But my question was rhetorical because of the claims made & what the sheep deem the crazies. I agree that the easiest way to suss out who the boogiemen are is by deeds not threats. I do not automatically buy excuses for said mad deeds. Nor do I excuse the gross over-reactions of the same boogiemen over & over as justification for their mad deeds.
September 5, 201114 yr From the news today. ______________________________________________________ AP-GfK Poll: Japanese support for US bases grows By MALCOLM FOSTER - Associated Press TOKYO (AP) — Japanese have become more welcoming to the U.S. military presence in their country over the past six years as fears spread that neighboring China and North Korea are threats to peace, an Associated Press-GfK poll has found. I do not know if those claims/poll are valid. It seems more so that Japan was demanding reductions of US military presence http://www.g2mil.com/japan-bases.htm http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80846&page=1 http://www.ipsnewsasia.net/bridgesfromasia/node/21 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aG3-QoUTZY
September 5, 201114 yr Unfortunately, MAD doesn't apply to Islamic govts so we need to take them out ASAP. However, it could still work in the Korean peninsula that's why we need to spread nukes around to our allies. Sorry I dont buy that....It appears the old card that Islamic governments are suicidal. Yet the facts do not agree. For instance when it comes to suicide bombings many believe the driving force behind it is Islamic Fundamentalism Yet the worlds expert on suicide terrorism disagrees. I read his stats in RP's book The Revolution he summed it up as follows..... Robert Pape for his book " Dying To Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" collected a database of 462 suicide attacks between 1980 &2004. One thing he found was that religious beliefs were less important as motivating factors than we have believed. The worlds leaders in suicide terrorism are actually the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxists secular group. The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attacks. Not one has come from Iran or Sudan. The clincher is this: the strongest motivation according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorist view as their homeland" Between 1995 and 2004 the al Queda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the US had troops stationed. While al Queda terrorist are twice likely to hail from a country with a strong Wahhabist (radical Islamist) presence, they are ten times as likely to come from a country in which the US troops are stationed. Until the US invasion in 2003 Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in its entire history. Between 1982 & 1986 there were 41 suicide attacks in Lebanon. Once the US,France & Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the attacks stopped according to Pape is hat the Osama Bin Ladens of the world can no longer inspire potential suicide attacks regardless of religious beliefs. The longer and more extensive the occupation of Muslim Territories, the greater the chance of more 9/11 type attacks on the US. Although most American dont know it, for much of the early 20th century our country had an excellent reputation in the Middle East. Right now after decades of meddling, our government is hated in the Middle East & other places around the world to a degree never before seen.
September 5, 201114 yr Author Who would be deemed more crazy than Kim Jong? Who, you ask? There are well establish institutional nutters around [as it pertains to nukes and usage]. For starters - the U.S. establishment, who has stockpiled and threatened the world for decades and demonstrated their use already. Their traditional brothers, the U.K. - same mindset. Add Israel and Russia to this exclusive club of madhatters that wouldn't give it a second thought. Why is it that seemingly intelligent people, historically, buy into these invented boogieman themes towards an individual or state? As long as it is carefully repeated over and again and the show is manipulated ever so cleverly.....things will always remain the same. The real boogiemen are never who they appear to be. Clear thingking zzaa zzaa of course you are correct & no I do not buy into the usual *deemed* madmen But my question was rhetorical because of the claims made & what the sheep deem the crazies. I agree that the easiest way to suss out who the boogiemen are is by deeds not threats. I do not automatically buy excuses for said mad deeds. Nor do I excuse the gross over-reactions of the same boogiemen over & over as justification for their mad deeds. Sound bites. The latest was Gaddafi's "...kill them like rats..." which David Cameron uses as his main justification for British Nato involvement. Take a sentence or two that sounds sensational. Air it with your arguments disregarding the true context. Gain public support. I am begining to suspect that this Libyan operation has been plannned for a long time. The Locherbie bomber's release may well have been a tactical move. Releasing him was a surefire way to get the British public once again fired up and angry against Libya. Actually, the original not-so-peaceful protests that occurred in Benghazi that initiated all this mess may very well have had foreign (Western) influence. Then the sound bite was the green flag they had been waiting for. "We have to get involved and save Libyans from this threat!". Meanwhile, disregard Syria where protestors are actually being killed in their thousands, indeed like rats, not just threatened with it. But then, Syria is a net importer of oil, so Syria's citizens have no importance to the noble humanitarian Nato countries. Keep in mind, it was that one single sound bite that sparked Nato's involvement.
September 6, 201114 yr Clear thingking zzaa The same kind of thinking as in most of his posts. Well the forum sub-section is called outside the box eh? It would probably run a whole lot better if we addressed opinions with counter opinions... if you have one?.... Instead of the constant cheap insinuations at the poster of the original opinion. Give it a try
September 6, 201114 yr Author Clear thingking zzaa The same kind of thinking as in most of his posts. Well the forum sub-section is called outside the box eh? It would probably run a whole lot better if we addressed opinions with counter opinions... if you have one?.... Instead of the constant cheap insinuations at the poster of the original opinion. Give it a try It was a good post from zzaa. It is telling that nobody has brought up any arguments against the "It's All Lies" article you linked to.....just the normal detracting. History in this forum has shown that no argument is made if there is no argument to be made. We then have to assume that they agree.....so why do they retain their stance??????? Ostriches burying their head, or knowingly uncaring because of a bias?
September 6, 201114 yr Maybe no one can be bothered replying to a long, silly article making justifications and excuses for a monster.
September 6, 201114 yr Maybe no one can be bothered replying to a long, silly article making justifications and excuses for a monster. The claims that he is a monster were basically weak. If even a fraction of the claims in this video are true I would say he has done better than most for his people. In any case it did not justify NATO going in & backing rebels who now turn against the bullies that helped them bully a legit government into ruins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q11R56Y0Dx4&feature=player_embedded
September 6, 201114 yr I think there is plenty of merit to the monster bit, but I agree that there was little justification to attack him at this point in time and backing the rebels without knowing who they really were is going to backfire badly.
September 6, 201114 yr Who would be deemed more crazy than Kim Jong? Who, you ask? There are well establish institutional nutters around [as it pertains to nukes and usage]. For starters - the U.S. establishment, who has stockpiled and threatened the world for decades and demonstrated their use already. Their traditional brothers, the U.K. - same mindset. Add Israel and Russia to this exclusive club of madhatters that wouldn't give it a second thought. Why is it that seemingly intelligent people, historically, buy into these invented boogieman themes towards an individual or state? As long as it is carefully repeated over and again and the show is manipulated ever so cleverly.....things will always remain the same. The real boogiemen are never who they appear to be. Why is it seemingly intelligent people ignore history? Were the Japs just a figment of the Chinese imagination? And of course the Polish, or the people of western europe must have been delusional to think the Nazis were ever a threat, right? Sometimes the boogiemen are exactly who we think they are. As to the use of nuclear weapons, it's well known it was used by the U.S. to keep Allied casualties as low as possible in WWII, but it also is considered to have saved Japanese lives because of the resistance they would have provided, and the civilian suicide rate witnessed in other battles, far more would have died in an invasion. War is hell, especially when you lose. So, far as the actual topic, something should have been done about Libya 20 years ago.
September 6, 201114 yr If the auhor can't see where NK's proximity to Russia and China and the support they are given by those two nuclear nations differentiates them from those other nations, then he shouldn't be writing on the subject in the first place. Seriously. Which is why I have often said the sooner Iran goes nuclear the quieter the region will become. I know the claims will be then they will do this or threaten that. But it will be the same reason it is quiet between...Russia,China,US,NK etc Mutually assured destruction tends to equal mutual respect Sad but true. It is the unbalanced state of things now that allows certain injustices to continue. If you think it will get quieter, I don't think you know Arabs, or Persians, Ahmadinejab in particular, very well.
September 6, 201114 yr If you think it will get quieter, I don't think you know Arabs, or Persians, Ahmadinejab in particular, very well. If you do have personal first hand info/experiences then share it. If your knowledge & assumptions are based on the media slant then we have probably heard it. That some of us may not believe the media spin does not mean we have less *knowledge* of these people/governments
September 6, 201114 yr If you think it will get quieter, I don't think you know Arabs, or Persians, Ahmadinejab in particular, very well. If you do have personal first hand info/experiences then share it. If your knowledge & assumptions are based on the media slant then we have probably heard it. That some of us may not believe the media spin does not mean we have less *knowledge* of these people/governments My opinion isn't based on believing the western media, but living in the Gulf region for 10 years. The Iranians have a way of irritating their neighbors, I don't think that will improve if they do get a nuclear weapon, if anything it may get worse.
September 6, 201114 yr My opinion isn't based on believing the western media, but living in the Gulf region for 10 years. The Iranians have a way of irritating their neighbors, I don't think that will improve if they do get a nuclear weapon, if anything it may get worse. I have lived in the US all my life. I travel yearly internationally. The US government seems to irritate most of the middle east. I dont think they will nuke them....well at times I think they may. After all they have been the only ones to ever actually use such devices on a civilian population. Should the world take action? Tell the US no nukes or else? I don't think so...But then I don't think anyone should be demanding anything of other governments that have committed no crimes. Especially the US...I think we should mind our own business/problems. We have almost zero of the former & tons of the latter
September 6, 201114 yr My opinion isn't based on believing the western media, but living in the Gulf region for 10 years. The Iranians have a way of irritating their neighbors, I don't think that will improve if they do get a nuclear weapon, if anything it may get worse. I have lived in the US all my life. I travel yearly internationally. The US government seems to irritate most of the middle east. I dont think they will nuke them....well at times I think they may. After all they have been the only ones to ever actually use such devices on a civilian population. Should the world take action? Tell the US no nukes or else? I don't think so...But then I don't think anyone should be demanding anything of other governments that have committed no crimes. Especially the US...I think we should mind our own business/problems. We have almost zero of the former & tons of the latter I have lived in both Iran and Saudi and have traveled extensively throughout the Middle East for around 30 years. Beechguy is correct. It ain't gonna calm down if/after Iran gets nukes. Look for tension to ratchet up and an arms race to begin big time. Things will NOT calm down after Iran gets the bomb. Now, let me take this a tad bit off topic. There have been a couple of references to the US use of nuclear weapons on Japan in 1945. Let me pose a question. If you were President of the US in 1945 and your name was Harry Truman, how would you have chosen to end WWII? Be honest in your answer, think a bit, read some about the time and the nationalities involved and let us know. If this requires a separate thread, the mods can let me know. Edit in: My question about WWII is addressed to anybody and is not Mr. Flying specific.
September 6, 201114 yr [While al Queda terrorist are twice likely to hail from a country with a strong Wahhabist (radical Islamist) presence, they are ten times as likely to come from a country in which the US troops are stationed. How do you account for the 7th July attacks on the London Underground? Home grown suicide bombers, living in a welfare state that provides everything. Also the liquid-explosive IEDs that were going to be used by approx. twenty volunteers on the UK-US transatlantic flights in 2009 (I think). All home grown. Plus shoe bomber. Plus the two doctors at Glasgow airport. And so on ... The number of proven bombers (actual or potential) produced by the UK is way out of proportion to the islamic population of the country.
September 6, 201114 yr [While al Queda terrorist are twice likely to hail from a country with a strong Wahhabist (radical Islamist) presence, they are ten times as likely to come from a country in which the US troops are stationed. How do you account for the 7th July attacks on the London Underground? Home grown suicide bombers, living in a welfare state that provides everything. Also the liquid-explosive IEDs that were going to be used by approx. twenty volunteers on the UK-US transatlantic flights in 2009 (I think). All home grown. Plus shoe bomber. Plus the two doctors at Glasgow airport. And so on ... The number of proven bombers (actual or potential) produced by the UK is way out of proportion to the islamic population of the country. I am not Robert Pape but you could email him? Personally I am not familiar with some of the events you are citing Nor am I clear on whether they were actual suicide bombings or attempts? I note you said *were* going to be used in one instance & AFAIK the shoe bomber is about on par with the underwear bomber as far as credible. The otehrs as I said I am not familiar with
Create an account or sign in to comment