Nuclear War

[The_old_worm]

Exactly, Shogun.  

Kirov, I never said we didn't meddle.  We meddle because it is in the best interest of the world.  Our intentions are to stop WWIII from happening, by trying to form some kind of stability and law in the world.  And again, I'll say it, war is the last option for us, we exhaust every possible option diplomatically, but that doesn't always work. You need to realize, that America does not enter situations with guns blazing.  In fact, 90% of our meddling IS diplomatic.

As Shogun said, we, as a world community need to start working together for world peace. We are, whether you want to admit it or not, a world community, and what another country does in our community, especially if it threatens us or our allies, is our business.  All countries need to end their isolationist views and step up to defend the world against genocide, cruelty, aggression, and war.  No country should be able to do whatever the hell it wants.  All should be subject to international law. Including the U.S.

So, about biological and nuclear weapons, you think it would be in everybody's best interest if we lifted the ban and let anyone have as many nukes as they want?  Damn, I don't want to live in your world!  True, there is hypocrisy in us having the weapons and not allowing others to have them, but that's the way it is, and unless we want everyone to have them, we have to limit other countries developement while reducing our own arsenal.

But here is the thing.  Why the hell is the world against us developing a national defense system for nukes? especially Russia. We don't tell other countries they can't develope it.  Not that I think it would ever work, but if they did, what a great defense they would be.  Now here's a technology that saves lives, but others oppose it.  The fact is, that these other countries want the option to strike us with a nuclear attack.

I'm not saying we are a benevolent country.  We do look out for our own interests, but I think our intentions are generally good.  Our meddling is most of the time to help people in need, and to promote stability in the world.

And yes, I do take offense to what you are saying!  I think you're one of those sideline benchwarmers who like to gripe about how the game is being played, instead of actually doing something to make a difference.  

[Sardauker-Kirov]

And that's i said, The ban doesn't seem to go for the American's since they have propped up Bio weapons and nuclear weapons.

America going diplomatic.  :D

Yeah they say this?

America: Please stop fighting....

Other country: Ummm let me...

America: THATS IT THIS MEANS WAR!

Like i said "Before"

America only causes war. If they want world peace they can better enforce it with brute force, then going diplomatic (If they ever do that)

[Acriku]

I think other countries are mad because think about it: Another country has the defence of your main arsenal, and best, while you don't and they could bomb you without you being able to defend yourself. It would make other countries more vulnerable to attack, or they would feel that way. But that is what I think they think.

Also, Kirov, you are really exaggerating it. Stereotypical exaggerations get you nowhere in an argument. America's agenda is in the safety of itself and it's allies, and if helping a certain people out is beneficial to us, or not, we will do it. Just so long as it doesn't hurt more than it helps. My opinion though.

[vidiware]

Good Old Worm, one that agrees with me ;D

Fighting is not good, just look at ghanima (or what the name was), he got india, for free from england without looking on a weapon!!!

[vidiware]

America is not the problem

But men like the Israel, man, and the US president!

Sorry, my fellow Americans, god bless you and get a president who loves peace, like a hippie (whitout drugs)

[The_old_worm]

Well, we need a president who is strong, but reasonable at the same time.

[The_old_worm]

Good Old Worm, one that agrees with me ;D

Fighting is not good, just look at ghanima (or what the name was), he got india, for free from england without looking on a weapon!!!

Ghandi was a great man, he understood his adversary and used their compassion against them.  This doesn't work against an adversary who has no conscience of brutalizing and killing innocence, like the terrorists.

[nampigai]

First of all Milosovic is a serb it was the Albanian that was killed.

Secondly Bush has no diplomatic sence at all a man like Clinton seemed more active on that front in my opinnion.

I agree with you that Bush have shot to far by saying he will rid of terrorism it will extend his time of precidency if it will ever dissapear, which I doubt. Terrorism will always excist as long as people have something to be displeased about.

[The_old_worm]

You're right about Milosevic.  I got the two mixed up.  It still doesn't change my point, though.

I also agree with you about Bush.  He is making some big mistakes now, like antagonizing N. Korea, and making the comments he did about nuclear possibilities.  He is going to end up overextending our military forces.  I thought Clinton did a pretty good job with foreign affairs, certainly better than Bush so far.

Clinton, though, made mistakes too.  I think his watering down of our military was a major mistake.  It seemed that he was more interested in public opinion, than he was about national security.  

[vidiware]

Bush -> he loves to rule america, with power

Clinton -> He loved america as a land, and .. (just kidding :))

But Bush is same type as the WW2 president, show power

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Heh "Show Power"

Other country's responds with same idea.

[The_old_worm]

As a country we DO need to show power.  We ARE like a big dog, and if you hurt us we will bite.  Clinton's bark was worse than his bite.  It think in some ways we are paying for his weakness now.  Bush is just the opposite, and don't get me wrong, I support many of the things he is doing, we need justice for 9-11, and we need assurance that we are doing everything in our power to keep it from happening again.  We have to show people that if they attack us, they will get our full force.  If other countries don't like us fighting for our security, then piss on them.

[quoudam72]

No one could doubt that the US has a right to defend it's security but with 9-11, the US also enters a complex set of events that for a long time for US interest only was about the oil in the Middle East. With the events of 9/11/01, Middle Eastern interests (with US concerns) have changed and also the focus of the US/Middle Eastern relationship has changed. That is why it is important for the US to step up to the plate with the Israeli-Palestine conflict, you see that Saudi Arabia is making an effort with Israel.

[gryphon]

Weird, we had a opposite conclusion in a debate here.

Clinton was respected, and for that they didn't show mutch hostilaty towards the USoA. President Bush was instated, he was known for a possible "softy", and just President so not quite "into the job". Therefor the attacks where planned after former President Clinton.

They had a lot of time to plan, and don't think they choose to attack after President clinton for no-reason.

[nampigai]

Clinton wasn't weak he seemed to be a more active in his foreign policies than Bush, it seemed as though most of the world respected him and his policies. I don't think Bush has the brains to be president and I was shocked that he was elected.

I was thinking what do you think about the Russian attack on the Chechney?

[The_old_worm]

I agree, Clinton did some good things.

[Gunseng_Harkonnen]

There are no mistakes, Bush wants United States control other countries. Bush`s mistake was place war with Afghanistan before recesion that is in his country.

[The_old_worm]

No Gunseng, I may agree with you on the larger point, but Afghanistan was totally in response to 9-11, and was totally necessary.  We had to get justice, which we haven't gotten yet, for Al Quieda and the Talibal, attacking, or sponsoring the attack on us.  Afghanistan was totally justified.  Bush's mistakes are that he has broadened the objective to the point where I think we cannot win.

I want to pose this question, though, and you'll have to bear with me, cause I'm a little drunk now, but from a European, and especially a British perspective, are we a little hypocritical, as Americans, not to condemn the IRA?   They send fund raising campaigns into the U.S. all the time, and we do nothing about that.  Should we, in our war on terror, do more to stop the IRA? I want to know the British perspective.  Are you guys a little pissed off at us about that?

[vidiware]

Are there a fight now???

America rules vs. America is bad???

America is not bad but they, cant rule the world! :)

[nampigai]

Old_worm you can also see the british as an invading army in north Ireland. But the british moved alot of protestants over to NI so they would have support. Personally I think NI should be united with the rest of Ireland.

by the way you seem to forget the UVF they are as much "terrorists" as IRA.

I was wondering what do you think about the partisans during WW2 were they terrorists?

And what about the Chechnya, should the Russian be allowed to quel the rebellion?

[Usul]

NaMpIgAi is right any serious milatry action from the US against the IRA would have catastrophic consequenses. Represion breeds violence. The British are to blame for the current conflict I agree. I think America should do its best to cut its citizens funding (a difficult task I know) and leave the British and Republic of Ireland governments work it out. Also I agree that NI should join with the Republic but not yet as a majority of people in most NI counties want to stay joined to Britian in twenty years or so this will change. The UVF (Ulster Volenter Force) arn't as active as they were now are they? Also about the Russian partisans, if you win a war you are know as a fredom fighter if you lose you are known as a terorist (unfair I know) to at least some people. The USSR won the war so no I don't think so.

[nemafakei]

The point is not who was to blame 100 years ago, but what is to be done now. The IRA is demilitarising, along with other terrorist organisations...

"Afghanistan was totally justified"

NO! The point is, Bush needed to attack someone soon for political reasons - but attacking afghanistan did not take out al-quaeda.

[nampigai]

Well said Nema, well said indeed.

[Acriku]

Attacking Afghanistan may not have taken Al-Q yet, but it has taken a step towards it. We are capturing people who commanded, and were in, the Al-Q heirarchy of ruling positions. Little by little we will take them out. This may not have been the best decision, but Bush was under a lot of pressure to do something. Just like when the Maine blew up, the president and congress were pressured immensly from the people to fight the one's to blame, or who they thought were to blame. The only difference now is that we know who and what did it, unlike the supposed fault of the Spanish for blowing the Maine.

[The_old_worm]

Do you not understand Nema, the outrage that existed here in the U.S. after 9-11?  Attacking Afghanistan was not a Bush directive, it was an American directive.  To say that Bush was looking for a battle to save his political career is ignorant.  The American people demanded it, and were actually somewhat impatient with the pace in which he carried it out. I live in Kansas, over 1,500 miles from New York, and the outrage here was intense.

We may never get rid of Al-Quieda totally, but we need to send a message to all terrorist groups, that if you hit us, we will hit you back--hard! Otherwise, if we don't show that we will retalliate, it will be open season on the U.S.

I was just posing the question about Northern Ireland to get opinions from others, especially Europeans.  I was not making any kind of statement, certainly not the need for military action from us, I was just looking for feedback.  I have no real opinion on what we should do, I think we should clamp down on fund raising here, but beyond that, I don't know.