Scott Ritter Says Don't Even Bother

[gewing]

DOes the new board have an "IGNORE" function?

[Koesj]

Holy sh*t who decided it was a good idea to get an enema inside this thread? Take it to FFZ if you want to initiate some kind of wild crusade.

 

Nah, im not kidding.... I could make a list of all the crazy things American presidents have said and done, including building "spirit" bombers at 2.2 billion USD each, but i just dont have the energy to try convince you that all nations have had their fair share of strange people at the helm. Question should be when the last time was that Kim "liberate" a country? Im actually all for self involved people who build huge buildings and dress strangely if that keeps them happy and smiling. What upsets me most is not when a dictator starves or tortures his own people but when a self assigned liberator of nations sends his countries most unhappy people to kill some other countries people. I though Nuremburg made all of this clear but here we are 60 years later with with the defenders being accused of being agressors ( no one sane person understands the logic involved but anyways) and then being bombed and "liberated". The shear audacity of accusing these pathetic dictators of suffering from irrationality when their the one's being subjected to it simply stuns me.

 

Working with the logic you employ the EU is fully justified if they decided to liberate( or just bomb to bits) America from it's "strange" leader! Sounds crazy, does'nt it?

 

Stellar

145063[/snapback]

[FlyingCanOpener]

Nah, im not kidding.... I could make a list of all the crazy things American presidents have said and done, including building "spirit" bombers at 2.2 billion USD each, but i just dont have the energy to try convince you that all nations have had their fair share of strange people at the helm. Question should be when the last time was that Kim "liberate" a country? Im actually all for self involved people who build huge buildings and dress strangely if that keeps them happy and smiling. What upsets me most is not when a dictator starves or tortures his own people but when a self assigned liberator of nations sends his countries most unhappy people to kill some other countries people. I though Nuremburg made all of this clear but here we are 60 years later with with the defenders being accused of being agressors ( no one sane person understands the logic involved but anyways) and then being bombed and "liberated". The shear audacity of accusing these pathetic dictators of suffering from irrationality when their the one's being subjected to it simply stuns me.

 

Working with the logic you employ the EU is fully justified if they decided to liberate( or just bomb to bits) America from it's "strange" leader! Sounds crazy, does'nt it?

 

Stellar

145063[/snapback]

 

Juche all the way then?

[FlyingCanOpener]

Im afraid that is the only course of action now open to these regimes if they want to avoid being invaded.

145081[/snapback]

 

Yeah, we don't want them to democratise or anything...

[FlyingCanOpener]

It's all "just" and wonderfull untill someone tries to bomb your hours and your neighbours into their shape of democracy....

 

Stellar

145086[/snapback]

 

So a totalitarian dictatorship is a just government then, despite its less-than-legal establishment? If that was the case, I guess we were all wrong about World War 2 then...

[R011]

Stellar,Mon 14 Feb 2005  0016

 

Question should be when the last time was that Kim "liberate" a country?

Well there was that little contretemps in 1950 to 1953, not to mention a plethora of terrorist attacks, cross-border infiltrations, kidnappings, and assassinations since.

 

What upsets me most is not when a dictator starves or tortures his own people

 

So you prefer to see Koreans, Iraqis,and Afghans being starved and tortured do you. I wonder how you'd feel if this happened you one day and we all sat back and let it happen when we could stop it.

 

I though Nuremburg made all of this clear

Which is why the world community set rules about when armed action between states could occur. The interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan followed those rules. The US has not proposed any action that would do so in North Korea's case.

 

with the defenders being accused of being agressors

 

These "defenders" would be the ones in Aghanistan who attacked or facilitated attack on the US on September 11, 2001 and the Iraqis who violated the 1991 ceasefire conditions?

 

but when a self assigned liberator of nations sends his countries most unhappy people to kill some other countries people.

Ya know, I've noted quite a few posters here who have been sent "to kill some other countries people", specifically to kill those people who were starving and torturing the others. None of them struck me as being especially unhappy. You might also try to expand your sources on the demographics of the US armed forces beyond Michael Moore infomercials. You will find that it isn't much different from the US as a whole rather than what he implies.

 

Working with the logic you employ the EU is fully justified if they decided to liberate( or just bomb to bits) America from it's "strange" leader

 

But, unfortunately for your scenario, Bush isn't torturing and starving his people. Of course if he was, then by your logic, the EU would have no justification to invade.

Edited February 14, 2005 by R011

[R011]

The only crusade here is the demonization of Iran for being "evil" enough to consider building weapons that could do no more than possibly effectively scaring off possible agression against them.

 

Actually, they've been described as evil for their support of terrorists murderers, their torture and murder of dissidents, their calls for the assassination of dissidents outside Iran, their supression of religious freedon, and their oppression of women. Having nuclear wepaons would make them both evil and dangerous.

Edited February 14, 2005 by R011

[FlyingCanOpener]

Most countries dont even execute their own criminals for commiting acts of murder on their own citizens yet you want a world were governments visist destruction on each other for illegal actions those governments might have taken to get to power? The US could liberate dozens of countries from "dictators" but the choices made indicates the real reasons for these breaches of international protocol has nothing to do with liberation or democracy. Dont know who you think your fooling here.

 

Stellar

145097[/snapback]

 

 

For OIL!/MONEY FOR BUSH'S POCKETS/MONEY FOR CHENEY'S POCKETS!/<INSERT CONSPIRACY HERE>! Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know...

[R011]

Stellar,Mon 14 Feb 2005  0048

 

The United States have been doing deficit spending for two decades against fast fading threats; where is the much touted rational behaviour?

The US budget was balanced and had been for some toime until the 2001 recession coincided with the beginning of a new war on 9/11 - a war the US did not start.

 

The only recorded use of a large nuclear bomb was on a totally defenseless population living in a prostated nation.

 

When did that happen? I can only recall two small devices used on industrial and military centres in a country still very actively at war with the rest of the world.

Edited February 14, 2005 by R011

[R011]

Stellar,Mon 14 Feb 2005  0120

 

yet you want a world were governments visist destruction on each other for illegal actions those governments might have taken to get to power?

For certain illegal acts they persist in committing, Yes please.

 

The US could liberate dozens of countries from "dictators"

 

Dozens. That's a lot. They can't do them all at once, can they? Nor, for that matter, have they claimed that's the only reason they have done so now, or that military action is always the only way to change them. One can assume, though, that those places are on a to-do list

Edited February 14, 2005 by R011

[R011]

For OIL!/MONEY FOR BUSH'S POCKETS/MONEY FOR CHENEY'S POCKETS!/<INSERT CONSPIRACY HERE>! Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know... 

145101[/snapback]

Isn't it because FDR was an Agent of Stalin or am I getting my conspiracies mixed up?

[FlyingCanOpener]

Isn't it because FDR was an Agent of Stalin or am I getting my conspiracies mixed up?

145109[/snapback]

 

It's related.

 

Though it's amusing that this little spat erupted whilst I am doing a readings course on Interwar American Diplomacy. In this period, we tried all of this fuzzy-feelings diplomacy, culminating witht he Kellogg-Briand Pact, which pretty much banned war. However, as 1934-1941 showed, force has to be used in order to preserve democracy from the forces of totalitarianism as it was proven mere words couldn't. Too bad many people have forgotten this...

[FlyingCanOpener]

You know the US record in South America ( not even mentioning the horrors of South east Asia)

145115[/snapback]

 

Our record is rather Stellar (pun intended) in South America. Of course, you're probably referring to our actions in Central America, which, of course, took place in a diplomatic world far removed from even the pre- 9/11 one. But hey, if presentism works to bash the US, why not use it?

[FlyingCanOpener]

No way! We all know western governments do not take part in such devious activities. This is strictly the stuff those Asians and Arabs do.  I would be foolish to compare ( and obviously totally insane) the sane, responsible, godly inspired actions of GWB to anything as horrendous as the devious "nuclear-missile-lobbing" schemes now being planned in EVIl EVIL Iran and North-Korea.

 

Yes indeed.

 

Stellar

145120[/snapback]

 

Yes, they're not lobbing missiles, nosiree...

 

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/nkorea/bm98.html

 

On August 31, 1998, North Korea launched what was initially believed to be a two-stage Taepodong 1 (TD1) missile eastward over Japan. The first stage of the missile fell into international waters roughly 400 miles east of the launch site, and the second stage flew over Japanese territory, splashing down in the Pacific Ocean approximately 930 miles from the launch site.

 

...

 

The launch of a two-stage TD1 missile had been anticipated by U.S. intelligence, which has been tracking North Korea's progress toward an ICBM capability since the early 1990s. The TD1 is liquid fueled, reported to be roughly 25 meters tall, and has an estimated warhead capability of 3000 pounds. The two-stage missile is a significant step forward for North Korea's missile program, which had not previously moved beyond single-stage rockets.

 

The Taepo-dong program, encompassing both the TD1 and the untested TD2 ballistic missile, was initiated in the early 1990s. Its intent was to improve the range of North Korea's existing rockets, primarily the Scud C missile, and the Nodong, both of which are single-stage missiles. The TD1 appears to be constructed of a Nodong as a first stage and a Scud C as a second stage, whereas the TD2 is expected to couple a newly designed first stage with a Nodong as a second stage.

and...

 

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/.../miss-miles.htm

 

1991: Iran test-fires a ballistic missile identified by U.S. intelligence as a North Korean Scud-C.

 

July 1998: Iran tests the Shahab-3 missile. According to Iranian sources, the 16-meter long missile can carry a 1,000 kilogram payload 1,300 kilometers. The missile is believed to be single-stage, liquid-fueled, scaled-up version of North Korea's Nodong missile.

 

February 2000: Iran reportedly tests a Shahab-3 missile equipped with a North Korean engine. The missile was launched from a transporter-erector-launcher (TEL) at a Revolutionary Guards airbase. Iranian sources say the missile has an inertial navigation guidance system and a circular error probable (CEP) of approximately three kilometers.

[gewing]

"The only recorded use of a large nuclear bomb was on a totally defenseless population living in a prostated nation."

 

 

HMMM... And the Japanese Surrendered When?

[FlyingCanOpener]

Your uniformed and your making it my problem. Go google "firebombing", "japan" and "world war two" and come tell me nuclear weapons were required.

 

Stellar

145128[/snapback]

 

The Twentieth Air Force never firebombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

If you're silly enough to try and offer a postulation that we shouldn't have dropped atomic weapons on Japan, you shall find out the error of your ways quite soon.

 

In addition, I would like to hear your definition of a "small" nuclear weapon. If you think Little Boy and Fat Boy are "large" nuclear weapons, then you are sadly mistaken...

[FlyingCanOpener]

Im just a big meenie yes! How dare i bring up history! Shame on me for not being specific and saying CENTRAL America. It really changes everything and the US only had interest in the central part, right....

 

Stellar

145134[/snapback]

 

Perhaps you should whilst feebly attempting to criticise US Foreign Policy in the Americas. Of course, once again, you fail to see your use of presentism, as in the age of Fillerbusters, every power had their own "sphere of interest" which foreign intervention, especially by powers from the outside, were seen as serious breaches of international protocol. Of course, times have changed, as have policies, but since it's all the rage to condemn *any* action by the US at anytime in History (I actually saw someone condemn US actions against the Barbary Pirates in a journal) by using presentism, your statement is rather expect, yet still incorrect.

[FlyingCanOpener]

What brilliant powers of observation you have. Could they have? Yes?

 

Ah Grasshopper, but they didn't! You were the one to mention firebombing first.

 

Oh i shall? Educate me on why the area had to be turned into a radiated mess.

 

In a word, yes. Considering the Japanese rejected the Allies call for Unconditional surrender and continuing to fight (something a "prostrated nation" does not do), the coice was either an invasion of the Home Islands (Operation Olympic projected over 1 million Allied casualties just to capture Kyushu) or drop atom bombs as a show of force to show the Japanese War Lords what the Allies could do to them. Which would you rather have? 1 million of your own people killed/wounded just to take 1 island, or 120,000 of your enemies' people in order to end the war?

 

Harry Truman looked at it this way:

 

"This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimpson, to use it so that military objective and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children.

 

"Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital [Kyoto] or the new [Tokyo, w[h]ere the Imperial Palace had been spared thus far'.

 

Small meaning backpack nukes. Dont know of anything smaller and thought you would understand that on the modern scale they would rate large in comparison to mini nukes.

 

You mean the fictional "backpack" nuclear weapons that are too large for a backpack? Frankly, on the scale of nuclear weapons, the 2 bombs dropped on Japan are rather small (12-22kt compared to the 100kt in the MIRV of a Trident II SLBM) so I have no clue where you get that they were "large"...

 

Either way this changes nothing.

 

Change what?

 

Ps : So they tested missiles! I guess that can be viewed as a evil devious act if you want to be suspicious. I dont think that is any more devious or scary than a CBG in international waters. Both have the capacity for great destruction if you want to be, or have reason to be because you did said nation harm, paranoid....

 

Stellar

 

Yes, but a missile flying in the airspace of another nation is a violation of international law, whilst a CVBG in international waters are perfectly legal. Your point?

Edited February 14, 2005 by FlyingCanOpener

[Guest Mike Steele]

For OIL!/MONEY FOR BUSH'S POCKETS/MONEY FOR CHENEY'S POCKETS!/<INSERT CONSPIRACY HERE>! Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know... 

145101[/snapback]

I didn't know that you could spell Brian with an "S"

[FlyingCanOpener]

FCO. I dont see any sense in any more responses. You clearly think that when the US is staging coup's, assasinating people or invading nations it is justified in some wonderfully innocent way and that when others do the same it is evil, wrong and worthy of sanctions, bombing or outright invasion.

 

Where did I say they were correct? I would like a quote please if you're going to make such accusations. You are the one who continually attempts to condemn US policy in a time where it was Standard Operating Procedure for a regional power to do exactly what they did. I have not given any sort of judgement on the Filibustering policy of the United States in this thread, so whatever your response is, it's out of thin air, and has no substance to it.

 

Clearly international law only applies to non-American individuals and those currently lucky enough to be allied with them. The American government is however exempt from such limitations and since it will always act in the common good of mankind there is no problem and we all, somehow, benifit by all this senseless violence.

Clearly I never mentioned an opinion on current US Foreign Policy. Once again, back up your accusations with quotes.

 

Basically your argument is that i have no rigth to question American foreign policy and that i must just accept that the right thing is being done and all those innocent Iraqi's had to die during the glorious "liberation" of their country.

 

See above.

 

Thank you for reminding us non-Americans of our place in the world. I wont bother you again with all this international law or common sense nonsense.

 

Stellar

145148[/snapback]

 

Uh huh. If the United States was out to flout international law, I'm pretty sure geiger counters world wide would be picking up more than they are now. BTW, since you mentioned International Law, mind finding me the grounds on which the US' actions in Iraq are illegal? I would really be amused if you could do so.

[Guest aevans]

Do you know that 80- 100 000 people died in one night of firebombing on Tokio? Why drop nukes with known long term effects when the war was as good as over? Small devices by modern standards.  Very active? Oh you mean they were still killing tens of Americans per day while losing tens of thousands to air raids? By that standard America have waging "active" war on dozens of nations in the last few decades but you dont see anyone dropping nuclear weapons .....

 

I just dont understand any of your reasoning.

 

Stellar

145155[/snapback]

 

Yep, they sure did -- then the Japanese learned how to protect their urban populations and only lose a few thousand per air raid afterward. And they went on with the war. The purpose of the atomic bombings was to convince the Japanese that continuing was not a good idea. Given that continued resistance by the Japanese would have caused hundreds of thousands -- possibly millions -- of further casualties, this makes very good sense. Even if you assume that Japanese could have eventually been brought to the table by blockade over the summer and autumn of 1945, how many tens or hundreds of thousands would have died of privation in the subsequent winter? If you don't understand that kind of reasoning, it's only bcause you can't think through the consequences of continued war and do simple math.

[R011]

]Stellar,Mon 14 Feb 2005 0322

 

]You might want to think about what happens when the US no longer has the power to defend others from treating it as it has treated others.

 

You mean prevent the United States from being taken over by Stalinists or Nazis? That would be a nice thing for people to do.

That is the sacrifice that i think should be made for some semblance of world order.

 

I dearly hope you can make that sacrifice alone soon. Regretably, that would probably cause quite a few others to suffer with you. You don't care about that, but mos people are not quite so vicious. An "order" that results in the torture, murder, and oppression of hundreds of millions of people is not an order worth having, and not one that is stable in the long run.

 

Hitler also claimed he was "liberating" people.

 

Actually, he claimed he was subjugating lesser races and taking their land, more than a slight difference I do believe. I also do not recall seeing free elections held in any Nazi occupied territory, or in Nazi Germany itself for that matter. Shall we compare that to Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq?

 

I know you want to believe that but it simply is not so.

 

Afghanistan was authorized by the UN. Iraq was liberated under the auspices of the UN approved 1991 ceasefire, the conditions of which were broken by Iraq, and by the Hague Convention. It has retro-actively been recognized by the UN, certainly they haven't condemned it in spite of the disapproval of Kofi Annan, a disapproval that is of no legal value.

 

They do not have any natural resouce to justify the expenditure of money

 

Which has what to do with a claim the US intends to invade without the sanction of international law?

Many countries and people helped facilitate 9-11.

 

Osama bin Laden made his base in Afghanistan. A major part of the Taliban's army was under bin Laden's command.

That was a Un sponsored cease fire and the US never had the right to act alone in deciding how to implement it in the future.

 

That ceasefire was unilaterally declared by George H. W. Bush. The UN never recinded the previous resolutions authorizing action or declared peace. Saddam was in violation of major parts of the ceasefire from the day he signed it. Among other violations, for instance, was his refusal to account for the whereabouts of Kuwaitis his forces had taken to Iraq. After the liberation in 2003, their remains were found in mass graves.

i know how much information his misrepresented or lied about.

 

Yet you choose to repeat one of his discredited claims. Are you admiting then to lying?

Im not going to launch into a economic discussion here. Can we agree to totally disagree?

 

Can we agree that you haven't bothered to check the facts in this?

How dare i bring up history!

 

It certainly isn't your strong suit.

 

Oh i shall? Educate me on why the area had to be turned into a radiated mess.

 

Actually, residual radiation was quite low. Cancer rates do not seem to have been significantly higher than normal except for thoser caught in the blast or the immediate fallout.

all those innocent Iraqi's had to die during the glorious "liberation" of their country.

 

Still fewer than were dying on an annual basis thanks to Saddam's security forces and especially thanks to his theft of food and medical aid.

 

Oh you mean they were still killing tens of Americans per day while losing tens of thousands to air raids?

 

And thousands of Chinese, South-East Asians,and Koreans. Lets also not forget that they had not surrendered, were not going to surrender, and that an invasion would result in millions of Japanerse casualties as well as hundreds of thousands of Allied ones.

 

Firebombing didn't cause the surrender. Blockade didn't cause the surrender. Even the intervention of the Soviet Union didn't cause the surrender and that's accorrding to none other than a chap called Hirohito speaking in August 1945.

I just dont understand any of your reasoning.

 

Don't worry. Just ask a mentally competent adult to help you out.

Edited February 14, 2005 by R011

[Chris Werb]

For OIL!/MONEY FOR BUSH'S POCKETS/MONEY FOR CHENEY'S POCKETS!/<INSERT CONSPIRACY HERE>! Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know... 

145101[/snapback]

 

It's obvious the US didn't invade Iraq (either time) to grab its oil but it would (IMHO) be a bit of a stretch to argue that the need to secure oil reserves in the region (and to stabilise it politically for that reason) had nothing to do with the need to deal with the Iraqi problem on both occasions.

[FlyingCanOpener]

It's obvious the US didn't invade Iraq (either time) to grab its oil but it would (IMHO) be a bit of a stretch to argue that the need to secure oil reserves in the region (and to stabilise it politically for that reason) had nothing to do with the need to deal with the Iraqi problem on both occasions.

145215[/snapback]

 

You mean the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq had nohting to do with our intervention in 1991?

[R011]

You mean the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq had nohting to do with our intervention in 1991?

145238[/snapback]

Had this been two countries in Central Africa, the US and the rest of the world community wouldn't have bothered. If Iraq and Kuwait had no oil, the chances of interevention would have been much lessened.

 

OTOH, had Iraq not invaded Kuwait in 1991 or broken the subsequent ceasefire, there would have been no war in 1991 and no invasion in 2003. Saddaam would have been free to oppress his people in peace - at least until other conditions moved Iraq to the top of the to-do list. Of course, that might have taken decades. As someone else pointed out, there are dozens of bad regimes out there.

 

The problem with mentioning oil is that people on left and right seem to think it means one is saying that the US nvaded to take control of Iraq's oil or for the profit of American corporations rather than because oil is essential to the economic security of the world. Were that the case, the Bush Admoinistration could find far lower risk ways to accomplish the latter, and has no need to do the former.

 

It is far more complicated than that. Oil gave Saddam a source of wealth that peritted him to threaten his neighbours and by extention, the energy supply of the world.