As far as I know, the U.S. has never had a “no first use” policy.
Time to hack it off.
Simple, it’s not “OK.” For this post WMD = nuclear weapons. Ever heard of SALT I, II, or START? Nuclear arms REDUCTION agreements between nuclear powers, specifically the U.S. and the USSR / Russia. The two leading nuclear nations are having second thoughts - and have since the freaking development of the weapons. For every Curtis LeMay there is an Oppenheimer, or ten, to counter.
AZCowboyBeagle responded:
That is some fancy editing. You had to dance right past two cites to do that. Sorry, it is not worth my time to link for you people, since you do not click any of the links in the dozens of other threads on this very topic, or so related sex beteen them and this thread would be illegal.
Why it is not OK for new nations to have them: (the short list)
- Deterrence through mutual assured destruction (MAD) only works when both sides are armed fairly equally and are led by rational leaders. Do some cogitating on that one for a while.
- Accidental use. The chance goes up greatly each time a nuclear nation is added to the club.
- Terrorists. Duh. It gets easier and easier to get a couple nukes the more nations proliferate.
- Arms agreements. It is impossible to arrive at them as more and more nations go nuclear.
- Radiation
- Fallout
- The atmosphere
- The ozone layer
- Burns, radiation poisioning, blindness, skin sloughing off, nausea, vomiting, etc.
Note: 5-9 are some more reasons nukes are not “OK.”
Yes, we dropped the two bombs – almost 60 years ago – thus ending one of the bloodiest conflicts in history. Very good, deep, insightful, OBVIOUS. Please note that again, you one-trick ponies. You have ridden that one and put it away wet time and time again. Is anyone IN THE WORLD not aware of the fact that the United States dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? ANYONE?
Premise flopping helplessly on ground
Maybe some folks around here might remember a little thing about 11 yrs ago called the Gulf War. In that war, Iraq had their asses handed to them. Saddam, in order to try and save some of his army agreed to a cease fire. That, plus numerous UN Security Council resolutions, say that he is not allowed to have WMD.
Now if he would have just abided by all of the things he agreed to, there wouldn’t be a problem right now.
I think the difference everyone’s reaching for here is the question of how systematic are the bad acts of the respective nations.
Yes, the U.S. has done some really shitty things. The C.I.A. did test L.S.D. on civilians without their knowledge. The U.S. military injected black soldiers undergoing medical treatment (not pregnant women) with radioactive materials to see what would happen. U.S. soldiers were marched into the fallout area of nuclear detonations to test their ability to operate in those conditions.
Were your posts less blanket condemnation of the U.S., Latro, even the conservatives here would admit these facts, as they’ve done in the past, where good evidence exists to support the truth of the claims.
The difference between those things and Iraq’s list of sins is that Iraq undertook actions on a national level; they are systematic to the Iraqi government. Torture doesn’t just happen, it’s a widespread practice; the entire military was mobilized for two fruitless wars against Iraq and an invasion of Kuwait; the Kurds have been systematically attacked with the intent of exterminating them, by the entire power structure in Iraq.
In the U.S., the same things happen on a much smaller scale, and usually in secret, just because the whole government would not support them. Moreover, such actions are usually exposed, either by other arms of the government, or the press, and vilified, in the U.S.. While the U.S. isn’t perfect, it at least has functioning mechanisms for checking its own behavior.
Note that a sitting president and the majority of his administration wants to invade Iraq and depose Saddam, and can’t do it–instead, Bush is making speeches to the U.N. to raise international support, even though the U.S. manifestly has the military power to do so. Saddam, on the other hand, wants to snatch some territory, and the next day the Republican Guard is standing behind waves of conscripts and ordering them to march.
Puhleeze. EasyPhil asked for proof of SH’s WofMD. You offer some cites to speculation and WAGs, but no proof. It’s not that you’re too lazy, you know as well as I that there is no proof. Satellite photos of construction activity at a former nuclear facility does not equate to proof of WofMD. Evidence of intent, perhaps, but speculative at best, and certainly not proof. And you certainly won’t claim Ritter as a credible source of anything. Frontline’s “Gunning for Saddam” lays out a pretty compelling case, but offered no proof. So climb down of your high horse.
Mind you, I don’t need proof in order to support Bush in his quest to topple Saddam. I just want to see public and broad international support.
And thank goodness that common sense finally took hold, as the insanity level was getting close to matching Saddam.
I don’t think it was insanity, I think it was a media ploy: send Cheney out with lots of dire warnings and threats of unilateral action until everyone in the world is clamoring for the U.S. not to do it alone, at which point the Powell stick comes out and Dubya beats the U.N. with it: “fine, you don’t want us to do it, then stick to your own resolutions and do something about.” The rest of the world was so happy Bush finally talked to them about it that they’re lining up on his side of the hard line.
Pretty canny, I think.
I think that’s exactly what happened. I posted that in another thread, but the Bush administration has been orchestrating this for weeks, if not months. Last week, there was a very quiet trip to China by one of the Administration’s top diplomats. They knew then that they were going for Security Council approval, and that China was going to be the difficult case.
There’s a saying among lawyers: never put a witness on the stand unless you know what he’s going to say. Never attempt something in court unless you know the outcome.
I think when Bush made his speech at the U.N. they had already talked to the members of the Security Council, and already had their votes lined up. The speech was cover. He said exactly the things that needed to be said to give the SC the rationale they needed to go along without suffering political damage at home.
Sam and hansel, kind of a “good cop, bad cop” sort of ploy? Well, I doubt Dubya could have come up with it, but I wouldn’t doubt that Cheney/Powell could have come up with such a well-thought out approach. If so, kudos to them.
I will agree that recent events make that explanation look plausible.
You might want to invest in a dictionary. You are confusing absolute proof with proof. As someone in the proof business I find that you are getting tiresome. Can anyone on the other side of this argument do anything other than demand cites and bring up Hiroshima? Again, “GUNNING FOR SADDAM.” Frontline, PBS. Read, learn.
Note: your premise is gone. When you find one, get back with me.
[hijack]Someone needs to start a thread comparing the effectiveness of Bush and Clinton due to their staffs. Clinton was a president with widely acknowledged virtues as a pol, but his administration was a busload of buffoons, while Dubya seems like a halfwit, but with an incredibly strong staff; that seems to be making all the difference in their relative effectiveness ratings.[/hijack]
The problem with the ‘Bush is a halfwit with a great staff’ argument is that this is standard Bush modus operandi, and has been since he ran for governor of Texas. I guess you could still credit his staff for it, as long as you’re claiming that this is the work of Karen Hughes and Andy Card - they’re really the only common threads through the multiple times Bush has done this.
If you can’t recognize the tactic by now, this is the way it goes: Bush comes out initially with an extreme position. This energizes his ‘base’, and gets them immediately on board. It also gets them mobilized, and they reinforce his rhetoric. The opposition gets scared, and tries to occupy the ‘middle ground’, which is pretty much where Bush wanted to be in the first place. Then he offers a ‘compromise’, and his opponents jump at it. In the meantime, his base gets discouraged by the change in rhetoric, but they’re not going anywhere.
It’s a common political tactic, and Bush is very good at it. He did it with the tax cut, with stem cells, with Russia… And he’ll keep doing it as long as it works. One of the reasons his foreign policy team IS so strong is that he built a team that works well in this mode: Cheney the hawk, Rumsfeld the straight shooter, Powell the diplomat, and Bush playing them in turns to reinforce the calculated image-of-the-day. Good cop, bad cop writ large.
I can just see it. Prince Abdullah going to Powell saying, “Your boss is crazy! You’re a reasonable man. Help us out here”. And Powell saying, “Look, I’d love to. But you’re going to have to give my boss something. Help me help you! And I don’t know how long I can hold him back…”
Consider what would have happened if Bush would have just initially gone to the U.N. and asked for them to enforce their resolutions. There would have been gnashing of teeth, much commentary about Bush ‘dictating’ to the U.N., and much resistance. And since inspections with teeth were the absolute minimum that Bush could live with, it would have left him with no room to manoever - he couldn’t concede anything. And without the scary rhetoric in advance, the U.N. members might have been willing to call the U.S.'s bluff. So the result would have been a lot of balking, followed by a toothless ‘compromise’ that would have just led to more ineffectual resolutions. That’s the kind of thing that Clinton’s foreign policy was full of - initial reasonable positions, followed by lots of compromise, resulting in almost nothing of real effect.
You guys who hate Bush would do well to stop underestimating him. As long as you keep characterizing him as a buffoon, you’ll continue to underestimate him, and he’ll continue to ride roughshod all over you. Way back during the presidential elections commentators were acknowledging that Bush’s greatest strength was that his opponents continually underestimate him. Two years later, you’re still doing it.
That they will seek to, and may have the ability to do so in many cases – just as a practical matter of power, not of specially superior morals.
**
Sort of: not only does nobody being “without sin” mean that no-one has carte blanche to pass judgement on who is/is not fit to become a WMD Power, BUT it also means it’s kind of pointless to use that as an argument than no power or group of powers can EVER make the determination. They will, because they feel it in their interest to do so.
**
What, so if Hitler was done and the Death Camps were shut down, now we could afford to be sportsmanlike to the remaining combatant? Too late – five years of the worst that mankind can whip up will take the mercy out of you. Industrialized ethnogenocide, biowarfare experimentation on prisoners, deliberate conventional destruction of civilian population centers (e.g. Dresden – also by “our side”, mind you); plus precursor conflicts including among other events the Rape of Nanjing. Unless nukes have in themselves some sort of “essence of evil” that makes killing a hundred thousand humans by flash-blast and radiation “worse” than killing them by conventional incendiaries and famine, they were not the worst within WW2.
Which is NOT to deny that ever since they have been fully developed into something that IS a greater threat by orders of magnitude than any other “terror weapon” in history. Still, AZ, some people on the subject seem to not just call attention to H & N in a rhetorical sense, to remind us of our less-than-immaculate condition, but seem to genuinely believe that they were some kind of extraordinarily, incomparably evil act on the part of the USA.
Like we both said, it’s a judgement call as to whether historical facts are disqualifiers for the actions of any of the parties today. However, nations do not really act on the basis of whether they feel morally worthy to do something, but as ot whether it is in their interests (they will say it’s the other way around…).
its not that we are allowed to have weapons and they arent. but in this day and age there are rules you must follow in war ( as dumb as that might sound). Like the US and Russia, each country can only have around 30 thousand nukes each. The whole thing about Iraq is that they dont have permission to build weapons of mass destruction. Plus its the kind of womd’s they are building, the main concern is that they are building bio-chem weapons.
But Saddam doesn’t pose a threat of as now, so why attack?
Beagle, let’s talk about tiresome.
Proof:
OK, with that established.
From the [url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/saddam/]PBS Frontline “Gunning for Saddam”](]Merriam-Webster OnLine[/url) front page:
From “Gunning for Saddam”, on the page specifically devoted to Saddam Hussein’s WofMD:
On nuclear weapons
On biological weapons
and
On chemical weapons
In fairness, there is plenty of suspicion and circumstancial evidence. There is also some (WofMD) materials that are unaccounted for, but that is hardly proof of anything, other than perhaps bad accounting.
The report does clearly show that Iraq has the facilities, capacity, and expertise to build such weapons. And, without doubt, they did have WofMD. But no proof is offered that Iraq has WofMD. None.
Now, this is tedious. You respond to a request for proof that it has been repeatedly cited in other threads. When I called you on it, you then limited your reference to this report. And this report, at its highest level, does not suggest that there is proof of WofMD, but only a littany of allegations.
If you wish to continue your fist-pounding and handwaving, without contributing any substance, we can take it to the pit.
JRDelirious, do you beleive it is in Iraq’s interest to possess WofMD?
Please do not give it up. I doubt that I’m the only person reading this thread who is learning a great deal and finding the discussion thought-provoking.
You mightn’t change the minds of the other posters in this thread, but us “observers” who have nothing to contribute ourselves are definitely benefiting from your participation in this debate.
A factual reading of those reports does not really illustrate the thinking of the inspectors, though. If I ask you to drop the gun behind your back, and you say, “I have”, but keep your hands hidden, then if someone asks me, “Do you have any evidence that the gun is still there?” I’d have to honestly say no.
But ask me if the guy is a threat, and see if you get a different answer. I’ve seen both Richard Butler and Hans Blix interviewed recently, and both of them are quite hawkish on Iraq.
A little over a year ago, you probably would have said that a bunch of cavemen living in Afganistan have no way to attack the United States. History would have proved you very wrong.
The victor.
Yes, you wouldn’t have sufficient a reason to shoot the guy, would you?
What has been suggested is that we shoot the guy because he might still have a gun or that one day he might obtain a gun again and he then might use it against us.
Without the guy actually pointing the gun or using it, there is no legality in shooting him.
I agree that Saddam poses a potential threat but do you want to go gunning for every country/regime/movement that could pose a possible threat in the future?
Well, good luck to you.
What Latro just said (not that I agree with all his posts in this thread, but certainly the one immediately above).
mrsmith537, so your point is: Might makes right? And that we ought to go overthrow any foreign government that might threaten us in the future. And are you suggesting that you were a supporter of invading Afghanistan before 9/11?
The current government in Baghdad probably believes it is in their best interest, since having them means a greater deterrent against those who would attempt a “regime change”.
OTOH a large number of other countries including several of the so-called “great powers”, find that it is against their best interests for Iraq to be part of the WoMD club, and at least one of them is supposedly willing and able to take action about it. In the face of this, it may not be rationally in the best interests of the Iraqui people for their government to insist on WoMD’s, if it brings on a preemptive strike and renewed sanctions.
Contrast however how none of the GPs threatened to actually bomb India’s or Pakistan’s weapons plants, but just imposed some temporary trade sanctions.