got tonkaed wrote:the terrorism fanatic argument is actually a bad one for maintaining the stockpiles of weapons that we currently have. If we are attacked by terrorists, we cant use such weapons unless we are planning on grossly affecting large numbers of non-combatants. The very nature of both the fanaticism and the terrorist method in which it is employed makes the necessity or justification of large nuclear weapons as a deterrent rather inconsequential.
I was actually aluding to countries like Iran and Syria as well as China and North Korea who are all in the process of devolping new weapons with fissile material or have recently developed them. All of these countries have shown some form of military cooperation with one another and there are serious concerns as to what would happen if a country like Iran were to become armed with nuclear weapons.
Some people would make the argument that these efforts are solely because the United States and other World Powers have these weapons. If one subscribes to this line of thought then the logical conclusion is to disarm so that there is no reason for these countries to possess these weapons.
This approach puts alot of faith in a great many of America's self proclaimed enemies.
Last edited by GabonX on Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yes it is a concern, and its not one that should be taken lightly. However the extension of your argument also requires a type of faith, but just a different sort. The argument that these countries are implementing these technologies simply to take down the united states, or that our national interest should be defined so narrowly that we are only concerned about the potential for attacks toward us is probably not a good conception either.
Essentially id take a middle path between where your line of thinking goes and where obama will likely attempt to argue from. Neither one of them should be that workable or that ideologically appetizing.
I wasn't aware that I presented an argument here. I do have an opinion on the issue and it may be obvious that I disagree with Obama but I have been trying hard not to argue one point or the other. I am only trying to present both sides of the issue so that people think it through for themselves.
I do not think that these countries are only making these things in order to harm the United States. Some of them would rather hurt other countries, like Israel, before the United States and others merely wish to challenge the conception that the US has mastery of this planet.
I dont think its very difficult to at least comment on the ideological leaning that can be derived from what you are posting, even if you are not directly posting it. In fact, let me apologize if im saying anything that you widely disagree with, as im more concerned with talking against those things specifically.
Really it comes down to the question of whether or not ALL people are essentialy good. Anne Frank thought so but Anne Frank died in a concentration camp.
If people only act violently when they feel threatened then disarming is a viable and probably the best option to promote peace. If on the other hand there are people that harm others solely because it empowers them, disarming or falling behind militarily could be catastrophic.
They are two very different ways of looking at the world and both have been applied succesfully and unsuccesfully.
We have figures like Gandi and (Neville) Chamberlain on one side and we have figures like Churchill and Bush Jr. on the other. It is a topic that is worthy of examination.
No it certainly does not...one of the biggest issues i have with some of the rhetoric that you are posting (or would be easy to draw from what you post) is that we must see things in polarized terms. You seem to be portraying everything in some very binary terms, which is incredibly dangerous imo when you start to talking about the issues that we are talking about. The direction you take things because of this binary perception is both very expensive in terms of resources and can lead to some very direct policy interpretations that can have damaging effects.
I question the assumption that things must be so black and white as they could be presented here.
Certainly not everyone who is capable of acting imoraly will do so. Some are not in a position to while others will choose not to because of their individual circumstances. However if there are people who would seek to do harm and we are not prepared for them the logical conclusion of this is that harm will be done to us.
Peace is never an option that any one entity has while war can be started at any time by either side. Peace hinges on cooperation between multiple parties while war can be started by any rougue nation.
Perhaps at best. There should certainly be capability to take a variety of approaches that are less hawkish and still be adequately safeguarded against threats.
The issue is protecting national security is a thankless and inexact job at best. You can work tirelessly and spend all your resources, and it still might not be enough. You can do nothing and if no one attacks, no one attacks. Obviously there needs to be a place somewhere in between.
The hawkish approach is probably not the only answer, and is certainly not the type of approach that leads to cooperation or the diffusing of tension.
Your goal is something that is much more difficult to achieve by the means you attempt to dictate.
That's a fair assertion to make but it's a little misleading. I do believe that the Iraq war was just because Saddam Hussein was long overdue to be removed from power. With that said I think the the war has been gravely mismanaged by the Bush administration. Ultimately we would probably be in a much better position if McCain or Gore had been elected in 2000 but hindsight is 20/20 right?
Among other reasons that I will not vote for Obama I think that the commercial linked to in my first post shows a large degree of naivety. I think that there are a great many parallels, more than people are willing to see, with our current time and the late 1930's which bore the second world war. The difference between then and now is that the WW2 ended with the use of nuclear weapons while should another war break out nuclear weapons will be a factor from beginning to end.
My opinion is that only from an established position of supremacy can we ensure minimal human suffering on both sides of such a conflict.
its really the notion that the US must be in a position of supremacy that makes me cringe, as it is increasingly an assertion that requires more violent ends to maintain, and its less consistent with the nature of reality.
Saddam Hussein being removed from power is certainly the type of assertion that is made from this premise. Its rather ironic that at the base of all of this seems to be an issue of sovereignty. The position you seem to be advocating is a very strong us sovereign one, to the point that your hoping to preserve the position (which may or may not be a bad thing). Yet in the next breath you discuss removing a leader from power. Now of course there are caveats (and worthwhile ones -the obvious and important one being the nature of saddam as a leader) but still you are in one hand discussing the need to protect your own nations sovereignty and in the other hand talking about why its ok to not extend that right to others. The rather stark inconsistency here likely does little to improve the us station in mulitlateral efforts, which you tout as being essential (and to which i would agree).
It is a rather contestable assertion that we are in a parallel of the lead up to WW2 in my opinion. Its certainly not difficult to make the comparisons and everyone has probably seen them by now. However, i think there is a large difference in the issue of appeasement, as outside of perhaps the issue of iran developing nuclear power, it does not seem to be in place as one would have to argue for the comparison to stand. Almost equally important if not more, is the geopolitical difference we find ourselves in at the moment. In this instance we are operating from an impression that US has to essentially be the one to stand up to whatever aggression is accused of being mounted, and this is done from the stance of protecting the US position of hegemonic leader (not really from the threat itself -though its sometimes grotesquely discussed as preventing the world from islamic extremism).
Successful intervention then and now (and success is a bold word to use here at best) was/is predicated on in large part because of large scale cooperation on the behalf of a number of powerful states. Thats not the direction that alot of this policy discussion is leading toward.
And that perhaps would led to poor decision making if these stances were taken.
you know, MoveOn.org is running a contest right now for people to make ads supporting Obama.
i'd post a link to my entry here, and ask everyone to vote for it, but considering how many negative and malicious people there are here, i'll just withhold it.
plus, you'd all learn my real name if you saw it, cause my name is attached to the entry.
anyway, the point to all of this is that if my ad wins and airs on national television, it will help elect Obama, and by the transitive property, will allow ME to bring world peace.
and that is why i rule.
have you ever seen an idealist with grey hairs on his head?
or successful men who keep in touch with unsuccessful friends?
you only think you did
i could have sworn i saw it too
but as it turns out it was just a clever ad for cigarettes.
reminisco wrote:you know, MoveOn.org is running a contest right now for people to make ads supporting Obama.
i'd post a link to my entry here, and ask everyone to vote for it, but considering how many negative and malicious people there are here, i'll just withhold it.
plus, you'd all learn my real name if you saw it, cause my name is attached to the entry.
anyway, the point to all of this is that if my ad wins and airs on national television, it will help elect Obama, and by the transitive property, will allow ME to bring world peace.
reminisco wrote:you know, MoveOn.org is running a contest right now for people to make ads supporting Obama.
i'd post a link to my entry here, and ask everyone to vote for it, but considering how many negative and malicious people there are here, i'll just withhold it.
plus, you'd all learn my real name if you saw it, cause my name is attached to the entry.
anyway, the point to all of this is that if my ad wins and airs on national television, it will help elect Obama, and by the transitive property, will allow ME to bring world peace.
so, you were helping out MY ad, by voting one across the board on that one. thanks for the help.
have you ever seen an idealist with grey hairs on his head?
or successful men who keep in touch with unsuccessful friends?
you only think you did
i could have sworn i saw it too
but as it turns out it was just a clever ad for cigarettes.
reminisco wrote:you know, MoveOn.org is running a contest right now for people to make ads supporting Obama.
i'd post a link to my entry here, and ask everyone to vote for it, but considering how many negative and malicious people there are here, i'll just withhold it.
plus, you'd all learn my real name if you saw it, cause my name is attached to the entry.
anyway, the point to all of this is that if my ad wins and airs on national television, it will help elect Obama, and by the transitive property, will allow ME to bring world peace.
