EPTUS pulling out of Iraq - Page 23
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
| ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
| ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
On December 15 2011 23:28 Dfgj wrote: If you don't think there's already massive global attention on Iran for trying, and a ton of theorizing of what to do if they actively begin proliferating nuclear weapons, then you're delusional. Iran is already under major international containment, but fortunately for them they have the support of China/Russia, which means they get knowledge/material + a possibility of military support against any operations. Again, nuclear weapons don't exist in a vacuum. You need to be able to shoot back after an attack to provide deterrence (second-strike capability). Even if Iran (or another country) had weapons, they need multiple launching platforms with the range to damage a potential aggressor. Simply having a nuclear weapon is not enough, and is quite likely to make you more at risk without the appropriate infrastructure. There is a lot of work produced as to why increased proliferation is a bad thing for parties involved (and, to be fair, for the other view as well). Yep, exactly. The whole point of nukes as a deterrence is to maintain second-strike capabilities. Very few nuclear nations actually have effective second strike abilities. The US clearly has the most powerful ones, but Israel, Russia, and China are all very much so able to provide significant second strike capabilities. NK, Iran, Pakistan, and India are all pretty much completely unable to do so, so their nuclear weapons aren't keeping the US from doing anything. In NK's case, it's the 1000s of artillery pieces aimed directly at Seoul and in India and Pakistan's cases, they're strategic allies. If Iran gets nukes, it won't change a thing. They need to then get ICBMs, submarines to carry those ICBMs, long-range bombers, etc. And of course they aren't getting that from anyone else, including China and Russia. For now both of those nations maintain "friendly" terms with Iran, but don't confuse that for trust. Neither China nor Russia actually care about Iran and neither are particularly receptive to theocracy or Islam in general. Maintaining relations with Iran is good for them, but arming Iran is not. There's a reason why Iran's military equipment is largely made up of outdated Russian technology -- Russia won't sell them anything powerful enough to threaten their own safety. | ||
|
hazefrog
United States16 Posts
On December 15 2011 22:09 D10 wrote: Yeah... well Lemme give you a brief rant, When I was a ideallistic tennage I used to read a shitload of news about the americans, the bush administration infuriated me with their stupidity. Now older and wiser, I gotta say I dont give a damn about what the US does, the US will be the US. They will not fight the wars the world wants them to fight, because like every country god put on this earth, they have their own agenda. Now I just aknowledge that not all countries agenda's will go hand in hand with the US agenda, and when doing military foreign power, the question anyone should ask themselves first is, how would we fare against a US invasion, honestly, the way things are going, I wouldnt be surprised if the next republican nutjob starts WWIII No point in complaining, all we can individually do is support our governments military and tell them to get as many nukes as we can, so as to avoid a potential military threat from the US. My advice for all teens outthere, the US imperialism will go on with or without you, support your own country and world peace and call it a day. w...t....f..... you admit oppressive US imperialism is bullshiat, then you say all you can do is support your country? que the bill hicks skit of sucking satan's memeber. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
If Iran ever gets a nuke pointed at israel, they wont ever need about suffering a large scale invasion from another country ever again, they might not be in good graces with the west, but I dont think they give a damn, and I dont blame them, they are the last bastion of their culture that is not overrun by crazy fanatics or completely a puppet. I honestly think Iran is an honest nation, and that they should have nuclear power and weapons, who are we to stop a sovereign nation from developing nuclear weapons to protect itself in such a dangerous world ? Yes we have the UN and several goverments have them already and we dont need more actors yadda yadda If you can overcome all that and get the nukes (and the launchers) you will no longer be bothered. Just get ready to be self sufficient ! | ||
|
kittensrcute
United States617 Posts
| ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On December 15 2011 23:38 hazefrog wrote: w...t....f..... you admit oppressive US imperialism is bullshiat, then you say all you can do is support your country? que the bill hicks skit of sucking satan's memeber. You are american from your POV the US imperialism is a good thing, and their bullying is actually policing the world against bad guys. Therefore support them in their quest for greater good, while i support my country to develop nukes to defend from said imperialism that said we all love your countries and live in peace | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On December 15 2011 23:42 D10 wrote: Iran could probably hit israel with a nuke if they had one, and thats enough to stop any agression towards it (unless badass seals seize the facility somewhat, ill give you that) but on the big scale. If Iran ever gets a nuke pointed at israel, they wont ever need about suffering a large scale invasion from another country ever again, they might not be in good graces with the west, but I dont think they give a damn, and I dont blame them, they are the last bastion of their culture that is not overrun by crazy fanatics or completely a puppet. I honestly think Iran is an honest nation, and that they should have nuclear power and weapons, who are we to stop a sovereign nation from developing nuclear weapons to protect itself in such a dangerous world ? Yes we have the UN and several goverments have them already and we dont need more actors yadda yadda If you can overcome all that and get the nukes (and the launchers) you will no longer be bothered. Just get ready to be self sufficient ! It's true that nuclear powers have not fought wars against each other. It's also true that nuclear powers have had numerous crises, proxy wars, and minor skirmishes. Full-scale war is no longer logical because of the slim chance that there will be a massive retaliation on your own country, so small-scale conflicts become more of an option. Examples: India-Pakistan rivalries and clashes, every proxy conflict between the USSR/USA, various crises during the cold war... Don't think that having a nuclear weapon means your national interests can no longer be challenged - and the same limitations of you being attacked hold with you attacking another country. This is, of course, assuming a proliferating country remains entirely stable, does not open itself to be disarmed, does not have any accidental detonations or launches (of which there were nearly several during the cold war that could have ended the modern era), and does not have any escalation of crises. If we look at those possibilities, then mathematically the increase in weapons and actors with weapons will likely increase the chances of these occurring. I don't disagree that countries, for their own interests, might want to develop weapons. But this development is so menacing to other states that they make themselves a threat - and threats get opposed. That is something that must be considered, because that increase in hostility can be as much of a destabilizing factor as having the weapons themselves can be a stabilizing one. | ||
|
Golem72
Canada127 Posts
On October 22 2011 02:06 Hapahauli wrote: It's sickening that it took this long, especially with our economic problems over the last few years. Imo this leaving Iraq is just for show so I'm not surprised. I feel like this would just be fuel to get voted in again for another term, when it comes to politics this is how you play the game. We'll just see what happens within the next four years gentlemen. | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On December 15 2011 23:59 Golem72 wrote: Imo this leaving Iraq is just for show so I'm not surprised. I feel like this would just be fuel to get voted in again for another term, when it comes to politics this is how you play the game. We'll just see what happens within the next four years gentlemen. Yeah, it clearly wasn't to scale down fiscal and manpower costs, reduce global involvement, and give a shred of legitimacy to American missions by showing they do, actually, leave after a point. -_- | ||
|
DreamChaser
1649 Posts
| ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On December 16 2011 00:01 Dfgj wrote: Yeah, it clearly wasn't to scale down fiscal and manpower costs, reduce global involvement, and give a shred of legitimacy to American missions by showing they do, actually, leave after a point. -_- Define "leave".  It's mostly a political show, perhaps to take some attention off of Obama's reversal in whether to veto the NDAA Act that allows indefinite detention of US citizens and repeals the executive order on torture? Or just coincidence? | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On December 16 2011 00:04 screamingpalm wrote: Define "leave". It's mostly a political show, perhaps to take some attention off of Obama's reversal in whether to veto the NDAA Act that allows indefinite detention of US citizens and repeals the executive order on torture? Or just coincidence? That's a possible domestic point, but probably means a lot less to everyone else. The 'legitimacy' - and overall success of occupation missions - is actually quite dependent on whether there's a believable schedule for departure. The US actually showing they're moving out is a good thing in that regard. | ||
|
jungsu
United States279 Posts
| ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On December 16 2011 00:08 jungsu wrote: But what if they attack us again? Oh wait... that wasn't them... The US, and international community, have been containing Iraq ever since the invasion of Kuwait. The end of that conflict never saw major resolution, assuming that internal pressure would bring down Saddam and that no international action need be taken in that regard. This did not happen (rebels were slaughtered), and we come to the logical progression of another operation to remove Saddam. But hey, it was totally your government flailing at the desert at terrorists without direction. Yeah. | ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
| ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On December 16 2011 00:08 Dfgj wrote: That's a possible domestic point, but probably means a lot less to everyone else. The 'legitimacy' - and overall success of occupation missions - is actually quite dependent on whether there's a believable schedule for departure. The US actually showing they're moving out is a good thing in that regard. Repealing the executive order ban on torture isn't a domestic issue (but ironically might become one now). A believable schedule for departure? Or again, coincidence (i.e.- politically motivated/expedient)? http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/14/9435882-iraqis-unable-to-defend-their-borders-as-us-exits | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10800 Posts
On December 16 2011 00:16 Dfgj wrote: The US, and international community, have been containing Iraq ever since the invasion of Kuwait. The end of that conflict never saw major resolution, assuming that internal pressure would bring down Saddam and that no international action need be taken in that regard. This did not happen (rebels were slaughtered), and we come to the logical progression of another operation to remove Saddam. But hey, it was totally your government flailing at the desert at terrorists without direction. Yeah. And the result is a country that is worse of than under Saddam. GOOD JOB! | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On December 16 2011 00:39 Velr wrote: And the result is a country that is worse of than under Saddam. GOOD JOB! Well it is a country that is much less likely to invade its neighbors (Kuwait, Iran) than under Saddam. So definitely a good job. (although it might have been better executed if Bush #1 had pushed for regime change) | ||
|
Drteeth
Great Britain415 Posts
On October 22 2011 02:03 Blix wrote: I just hope the exit out of iraq is not via iran... this guy nailed it ... | ||
| ||
