POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq

[wild]

hapaboy,

"Seriously, if the US didn't have nukes, what would have stopped the USSR from taking over Europe? Then Asia? What about China?"

"Nuclear arsenals will have to be retained indefinitely, not just as a weapon of last resort, or as a deterrent against a nuclear attack, but as an ordinary tool in the military armoury, to be used in the resolution of conflicts, and even in pre-emptive strikes, should political contingencies demand it."

"This is in essence the current US nuclear policy, and I see it as a very dangerous policy."

"We have to convince the public that the continuation of current policies, in which the security of the world is maintained by the indefinite retention of nuclear weapons, is not realistic in the long run, because it is bound eventually to result in a nuclear holocaust in which the future of the human race would be at stake."

"We must convince public opinion that the only alternative is the total elimination of nuclear weapons." (Sir Joseph Rotblat)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,871169,00.html

Seriously, if others didn´t have nukes, what would stop the USA from taking over the rest of the world?

regards

wild

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from wild:

Seriously, if others didn´t have nukes, what would stop the USA from taking over the rest of the world?

wild [/B]

You still haven't answered my question: So EVERYONE should have nukes?!? Does that concept actually make sense to you?

As for the above quote, you have no historical precedent to make an argument with. Had the US wanted to try and take over the rest of the world it had the opportunity to do so following WWII when we had a nuclear monopoly.

And the foremost reason - it would be BAD FOR BUSINESS!Free trade and capitalism is emminently more profitable than conquering, defending, and maintaining an empire. Just ask the Romans, Persians, et. al.

Now I can submit to gales of unrestrained laughter....

Please, please, PLEASE do everyone a favor, especially yourself, and depart immediately from this country you obviously hold so much contempt for.

 

[wild]

The president's real goal in Iraq

By JAY BOOKMAN

The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.

The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.

In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were. ...

more at http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html


The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

regards

wild

 

[ElCubano]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-01-09-korea-treaty_x.htm

Iraq or N.Korea??? who is more of a risk???

 

[daniel_m]

Quote from wild:

The president's real goal in Iraq

just like the 'real' goal in afghanistan wasn't taliban/al-qaeda alliance, it was to build a pipeline right?

 

[goldenarm]

Quote from ElCubano:


Iraq or N.Korea??? who is more of a risk???

Obviously it's North Korea. They can mobilze an army of 7 million men (including reserves) and have enough long range artillery to destroy Seoul and the US bases. North Korea can easily start WWIII. That is their leverage. That's why Bush has to treat them diplomatically.

Iraq doesn't really pose that much of a threat to the region and the US can take them out with minimal casualties on our side (see Desert Storm). That's why Iraq is an easy target whereas N. Korea is not.

 

[ElCubano]

thank you for the reply....I was asking Hapaboy who insist that Iraq is more of a threat....

 

[wild]

daniel_m

just like the 'real' goal in afghanistan wasn't taliban/al-qaeda alliance, it was to build a pipeline right?


right indeed ...

regards

wild

 

[candletrader]

Quote from daniel_m:



just like the 'real' goal in afghanistan wasn't taliban/al-qaeda alliance, it was to build a pipeline right?

Great point, daniel_m... the Taliban (a creation of the USA) had turned against their creator and were in the way of the pipeline... so the USA simply decided to kill them off...

 

[wild]

candletrader

"Great point, daniel_m... the Taliban (a creation of the USA) had turned against their creator and were in the way of the pipeline... so the USA simply decided to kill them off..."


Operation "Infinite Justice" ... remember ?

regards

wild