Libya And Iran Wmd Cave-in
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Why t3h ph34r?</div> Suddenly, Iran and Libya are tap-dancing like crazy on WMD inspections. A sample from the thousands of google news articles:
<a href='http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/23180/story.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cf...23180/story.htm</a>
<a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/22/international/africa/22CND-LIBY.html?ex=1072760400&en=34c83f49464e2052&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE' target='_blank'>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/22/internat...;partner=GOOGLE</a>
Now, there has certainly been diplomatic pressure on these countries for years to admit to this stuff, without result. The UN even did a few very stern condemnations - amazingly, to no effect <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> . Is this positive state of affairs a result of the capture of one of their own, and these dictatorships are suddenly eager to deal? Did the Iraqi occupation have a domino effect, like it was proposed? Is it a rather amazing coincidence (I could believe one or the other, but both?)? Is it nothing, and I should go back to my shuffleboard and Metamusil?
Regardless of the cause, a couple of pretty dangerous countries are looking to get on board with the civilized world. A nice Christmas present indeed...
<a href='http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/23180/story.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cf...23180/story.htm</a>
<a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/22/international/africa/22CND-LIBY.html?ex=1072760400&en=34c83f49464e2052&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE' target='_blank'>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/22/internat...;partner=GOOGLE</a>
Now, there has certainly been diplomatic pressure on these countries for years to admit to this stuff, without result. The UN even did a few very stern condemnations - amazingly, to no effect <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> . Is this positive state of affairs a result of the capture of one of their own, and these dictatorships are suddenly eager to deal? Did the Iraqi occupation have a domino effect, like it was proposed? Is it a rather amazing coincidence (I could believe one or the other, but both?)? Is it nothing, and I should go back to my shuffleboard and Metamusil?
Regardless of the cause, a couple of pretty dangerous countries are looking to get on board with the civilized world. A nice Christmas present indeed...
Comments
And to clarify for the record (just historically), we believed in the inspection process for 15 years, through three presidents. We (and I mean the UN, the AEC, the US, etc.) also found that the inspections were often misleading, incomplete, or simply missing a lot of the weapons. It's not reasonable to assume that 20 years of weapons design and research simply vanished overnight. Hell, we've been destroying our chemical weapons in this country for a decade using an incinerator in the south pacific, and we've got plenty more to go. But that's close to OT, let's keep our eyes on the ball here.
Should China be allowed to have these weapons? Certainly their government is despotic and repressive. Perhaps the bigger question would be: who is going to take them away, or even say to China: "hand them over". The same applies really for any of the major nuclear powers: no-one is going to tell them to dismantle or destroy their weapons, and even someone did tell them, these nations don't want to give up their nuclear stockpiles. Who is allowed WMD, and who is not? Should Saudi Arabia be allowed nukes? After all, they are a US ally.
The question here is what qualifies a nation to be allowed WMDs? Must they be an ally of the US? Must they have a progressive democratic government? If you have enough guns, should you be allowed to put nuclear bullets in them, so to speak? Does might make right?
Following the death of his wife and child at the hands of the US military (leaving justifications aside) I'm not surprised that the guy was anti-west.
There has been a definite mellowing over the past 20 years though. I was as surprised as anyone to see him hand over the Lockerbie bombing suspects.
I'm pleased Libya has thawed, its been one of the more pro-women's rights Islamic nations.
As an addendum to CWAG's post.
What makes the US more suited to have WMD?
Name another country that has recently ground another two countries into the dust with their military might.
Name another country that has used nuclear weapons against fellow human beings.
It seems there's a little bit of hypocrisy going on here. What makes the US more suited to acting as a global police force than any other country? And don’t give me that “Land of the free” rubbish. Anyone got the actual percentage of people that voted for bush?
--Scythe--
What makes the US more competent? Nothing. It's just that they have them, and they have the might to stop other nations getting them. Calling it "unfair" that only the US has them is crazy. This is Real Life ppl, you capitalise on every opportunity, and you dont give your competitors any advantage. You can hypothesis all you like - its an excercise in futility.
Are the US the most suitable to have them. In my opinion, yes. Why? Because Australia and the US are allies. If they US sees fit to nuke someone, chances are we dont get along with them already.
So what if the US used nuclear weapons against human beings? You make it sound like thats a reason for taking it off them. They did it for a purpose, which most of us agree on. If you wish to debate otherwise I guess we'll need a separate threat.
Again on the Police force issue, its not suitability - its power. You get power, you make the choices. Simple as that. Debating about whether they deserve it or not is pointless.
EDIT
Riddle me this - which other nations that are currently seeking to become nuclear powers would you actively support in their goal for a lovely WMD? It almost sounds like you lads are fans of nuclear proliferation.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please do not bring up that election until you've studied American government. It's possible to occur, it's on the basis of the electoral college not the popular vote. It's happened twice before in our history.
Ahhh, the classic argument: because the US is the only country ever to have used an atomic bomb (when it was invented, to end a war, 60 years ago - very relevant to modern times, right?), then they are the only ones capable of using it now and the most likely to. Nevermind that the ethics of WMD were completely different in the 1940's then they are now in the west. Not necessarily in the middle east or asia though. If you honestly think that South Koreans are MORE likely to get attacked by the US with a nuclear weapon than from North Korea, it's hopeless to discuss anything, as you are in la-la land. It is of course far more important to remove nuclear weapons from nations which would use them preemptively against their neighbors than, but it is also important to remove them altogether. Ditto for chemical weapons and biological as well.
PS: I mean 'you' as in the metaphorical, not you personally Scythe.
PPS: And based on modern doctrine of WMD reciprocation, the Japanese would have been a natural target for the A-Bomb, as they used chemical and biological weapons quite often throughout WW2, mainly on civillians. Even the Nazi's managed to avoid that. But that is a topic for another conversation.
Getting back on topic:
Libya and Iran saw what happened in Iraq. Plain and simple. They've seen Bush is serious about WMDs and has the political finesse to drum up support for a war.
Although it could have been French moral superiority that finally convinced them to stop. :-P
Ahhh, the classic argument: because the US is the only country ever to have used an atomic bomb (when it was invented, to end a war, 60 years ago - very relevant to modern times, right?), then they are the only ones capable of using it now and the most likely to. Nevermind that the ethics of WMD were completely different in the 1940's then they are now in the west. Not necessarily in the middle east or asia though. If you honestly think that South Koreans are MORE likely to get attacked by the US with a nuclear weapon than from North Korea, it's hopeless to discuss anything, as you are in la-la land. It is of course far more important to remove nuclear weapons from nations which would use them preemptively against their neighbors than, but it is also important to remove them altogether. Ditto for chemical weapons and biological as well.
PS: I mean 'you' as in the metaphorical, not you personally Scythe.
PPS: And based on modern doctrine of WMD reciprocation, the Japanese would have been a natural target for the A-Bomb, as they used chemical and biological weapons quite often throughout WW2, mainly on civillians. Even the Nazi's managed to avoid that. But that is a topic for another conversation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nah. If they can't have measures to feel safe from american imperialism, then nobody should have them.
Maybe because they knew that:
"You can run, but you can't hide" ?
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
(sorry, i just HAD to say that. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> )
You have some quarrel with the French, so what? Why are you(as in yanks, not just you Jammer) so angry to them? They helped you with that little independence project you had and gave you your most well know landmark(Statue of Liberty). Don't blame everything on France.
You have some quarrel with the French, so what? Why are you(as in yanks, not just you Jammer) so angry to them? They helped you with that little independence project you had and gave you your most well know landmark(Statue of Liberty). Don't blame everything on France. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some quarrel?
Years and years of having France continually bash our nation constitues in my book as something not to like them by.
As for our past history with France:
The statue of liberty has been the only nice thing France has done for the USA.
The American Revolution was only helped by France to get at England.
Other than that, we've gone in to cover France's arse at least 4 times, all of them costing lives, money, time, and lots of reasources in general.
They are:
World War 1
World War 2
Cold War
Vietnam
And you'd have the SLIGHT IDEA TO THINK THAT FRANCE WOULD BE A BIT APPRECIATIVE, but no.
We have every reason to pass them off as conceeded idoits.
As for the main topic:
Of course they are giving up WMD's. They have seen with Iraq that we mean business.
Really? I haven't heard/seem any of that. Where do they bash you? The people or the government? Are you sure everyone in France bashes USA? Maybe you just haven't met the right people.
Though, you had other motives to go to Vietnam/WW1&2 than to save France. Just like France had other motives to help you during your revolution.
Baaaack on topiiicccc! /me makes Homer Simpson fist shaking gesture
World War 1 and 2 was to save Europe from a total breakdown and revolution with German rule, and Vietnam... playing up to allies. Really, it was a dumb move.
As for the topic, doesn't this prove that Bush's doctrine is working?
Might makes right.