QuickTopic free message boards logo
Skip to Messages

TOPIC:

Mar 12 - More blather

8
Deleted by topic administrator 04-03-2005 08:52 PM
7
lagado
03-12-2002
07:33 PM ET (US)
S11 was a dark day indeed for many reasons but the main one was that it seemed to turn most Americans into bellicose loonies. When I think of the USA today I think of the British Empire at its zenith, with troops stationed everywhere and gunboat diplomacy as its one and only diplomatic tool. Expect to see a few noble "opium wars" fought over the next couple of decades.
6
Os
03-12-2002
03:01 PM ET (US)
The more time passes with the "new" leadership of the US, the more I am amazed by the sabre rattling rhetoric of this administration. Maybe I am wrong here, but global de-stabilisation is the name of the game here, with only one country looking to benfit from the extra arms sales, deployment of troops / invasion into other countries.
Whilst it was long the policy to have forces stationed globally during the cold war era, this time has passed, and the administration is now actively looking to keep it`s precense where it isn`t needed rather than looking at those areas where a greater involvement would actually bring a higher level of stability - for example in Palestine. These thoughts are ignored in order to boost the economy with greater arms sales and strong arm tactics to keep down anyone who might have the conviction not to agree with rampant globilisation and control.
I also find it interesting, but not suprising, that the US armed forces manage, with alarming regularity, to kill more innocent people than the perceived enemy - this not only includes those unfortunate members of local populations, but also puts their own citizens (both abroad and at home) at greater risk. Perhaps this is a part of their policies - more casualties, more outrage, more military expenditure?
I am a Brit working in south america currently, I have worked in other areas of the world too, and I constantly find myself having to explain that I am not an american. Once this has been estabished, the locals are a lot friendlier and open towards me. Surely this is not healthy!
5
Os
03-12-2002
02:59 PM ET (US)
The more time passes with the "new" leadership of the US, the more I am amazed by the sabre rattling rhetoric of this administration. Maybe I am wrong here, but global de-stabilisation is the name of the game here, with only one country looking to benfit from the extra arms sales, deployment of troops / invasion into other countries.
Whilst it was long the policy to have forces stationed globally during the cold war era, this time has passed, and the administration is now actively looking to keep it`s precense where it isn`t needed rather than looking at those areas where a greater involvement would actually bring a higher level of stability - for example in Palestine. These thoughts are ignored in order to boost the economy with greater arms sales and strong arm tactics to keep down anyone who might have the conviction not to agree with rampant globilisation and control.
I also find it interesting, but not suprising, that the US armed forces manage, with alarming regularity, to kill more innocent people than the perceived enemy - this not only includes those unfortunate members of local populations, but also puts their own citizens (both abroad and at home) at greater risk. Perhaps this is a part of their policies - more casualties, more outrage, more military expenditure?
4
Drew
03-12-2002
10:07 AM ET (US)
North Korea makes no secret of its willingness to visit nuclear destruction upon the U.S. The fact that they may lack the present ability to do so matters less than their desire.

Not to mention that the Chinese have certainly considered using nuclear weapons against the U.S. Possibly against South Korea as well.

Regarding the fact that nuclear weapons use scenarios have been studied, I'm glad that the U.S. has done so. To me, that indicates that the country is taking some responsibility. How so? Like it or not, the U.S. possesses nuclear weapons. I'd prefer that it at least consider the horrible consequences of their use, rather than being tempted to use them blindly. People seem to assume that these scenarios will justify the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea, et al., but I believe it equally likely that these simulations will show that the use of nuclear weapons is not justified. Similarly, the U.S. considered but decided against using tactical battlefield nuclear weapons during the Korean War.

To get an idea of what I mean, consider the following thoughts in Pakistan regarding the possible use of nuclear weapons:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/03/landesman.htm

Far more frightening than anything Bush could come up with.

And no, I've never voted for any Bush.
3
stavrosthewonderchickenPerson was signed in when posted
03-12-2002
09:35 AM ET (US)
You're right, of course, John - the Korea Times actually had a front page piece yesterday assuring people here that the Nuclear Contingency Thing was business as usual, more or less. But I keep saying, again and again, 'cause I'm an annoying bastard, that pushing out the edges of what's acceptable, in geopolitics as in TV shows, in music as in literature, yadda yadda, makes what was unthinkable in the recent past fodder for ironic jokes today.

That's fine and dandy when we're talking about art, but is the evil opposite of fine and dandy when we're talking about the legitimizing of using (and isn't it fucking ironic, given the words that the American government is using to demonize their upcoming targets) weapons of (nuclear) mass destruction when it seems appropriate.

Blah. I'm drunk. Wheeee!
2
John
03-12-2002
09:12 AM ET (US)
I don't see why people are so uptight about the whole nuclear targeting thing. It's not like it's a new development... we've been planning to go to nuclear war for the last 50 years under a thing called SIOP (Single Integrated Operations Plan). Of course for the bulk of that time most of the plan concerned counter-value and counter-force strikes against the USSR, but all the tertiary countries were included too (with the thought that if America is going down in nuclear flames we're going to take all the folks we have a beef with down with us too, I guess).

The difference now is that some reporters got their hands on the documents and published them. I'd be surprised if they were much different than equivalent papers written under Clinton, Papa Bush, Reagan, etc.

Dubya is an idiot, though. I want to make my stand on that issue clear :)
1
stavrosthewonderchickenPerson was signed in when posted
03-12-2002
06:46 AM ET (US)
Original post here.

Print | RSS Views: 496 (Unique: 369 ) / Subscribers: 0 | What's this?