ABM treaty - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: ABM treaty

  1. #21
    larryjs
    Guest
    Originally posted by uraloony
    Do you honestly think that the US would attack Russia? If you do, check out America's history of being the protector and mediator.
    Also, why would a missile sheild give us strike capabilities? It is a defensive weapon, not an offensive one.
    nd lastly, do you think that the world would sit by if we attacked Russia for no apparent reason? No they would rise up against us.
    1) Oh yea? Just ask the American Indains.
    2)If we struck first and detroyed most of her silos we could use the shield to block whatever she has left.
    3)How could any nation stand against us? Don't get me wrong I'm not saying we WILL do that. Russia . whom has faced goverment change fears the same thing could happen to us
    and a not so friendly goverment might arise.
    Share on Google+

  2. #22
    Originally posted by uraloony
    Do you honestly think that the US would attack Russia? If you do, check out America's history of being the protector and mediator.
    I don't understand what you're trying to say? Where do I check out America's history of being the "protector"?

    Who was the US defending in Vietnam? Democracy?

    Who was the US defending in Kuwait? Oil?


    I remeber someone in this thread using the term "piss ass third world countries" whatever that means. I think it was Remote_Access. Would I be right in assuming that the majority of these counties are in such a poor economic state due to the large foriegn debt most of them owe to countries such as the US?


    I think it's extremely dangerous to let one country build up such "defenses"...So does Russia and China. Only time will tell.....
    Share on Google+

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    872

    Post America...standing proud?

    I understand the viewpoint of some people thinking that America is and has the [appropriate] title: "Defenders of the Free World". But is that really true? America, for the past two hundred years, has plundered at least one country in just about every continent on Earth. Lets see the facts:
    [list=1][*]Ah..the good 'ole American countryside...soon to be corrupt with American turm-oil and John D. Rockafeller a hundred years later. The "so-called-Americans" were really British (and other nations inculded as well, but I'm saying British for now). These Brit's came, they saw, and conquered. Driving the American Indians literally to the brink of extinction. Why you might ask? Because the British needed land...especially to compete with their European neighbors - France, Spain, and Germany - who by the way were doing pretty good bythemselves at the murder of Indians (besides the French...the French weren't that bad...they allied with them instead...).
    [*]Hmmm, our first World War...ever in history. Such a sad decree was made by Austria to delcare war. But it happened. And at first America was neutral...but her British companion called, and so she came. Fighting for what is right - don't you agree? Or not?...America was only fighting, for it could not solve the dispute with ambasadors. All it took was one man to get shot, and a world war starts...*sigh*...such ignorance takes place in the minds of the many...
    [*]Ah,...the infamous World War II. So...what happened? Who knows? Who cares?...all we know is that America won...right? Hehehe, well my commrades - here's the scoop. Germany, disgusted at their war efforts wants revenge...wants an answer...for they are in ever-debt to the nations that fought, and won, against them. Adolf Hitler has an answer...but at a sacrifice...He needs a scapgoat...so he points his finger at the Jews (damn Jews...). The Germans fall in, call on their allies, and attack Poland. Now the "Great-United-States-Land-Of-The-Free-Home-Of-The-Brave" are neutral once again at the begenning of this disasterous war. Yet they send supplies to the front - and Japan doesn't like this at all...so they attack. After Pearl Harbor...all the US wants is revenge...such a costly decision is it not?...Well...you'll be happy to know that the US got it's revenge...after 295,000 casualties later...
    [*]The Vietnam War: ...this only took place because Vietnam was turning communist...thats about it really, blatantly speaking of course. But the whole ordeal was that the American government wanted to control the communist government type so it would not become widespread. Unfortunatly for America, this did not work. And about a year (or was it...if somebody knows post it please) later N. and S. Vietname signed a contract giving the 'communists' a home of their own.
    [*]The Cold War may have cost no lives...or losses in machinery. But it was very important. This was a battle of wit and masses of offensive and defencive explosion of counter-structure. Could America live up to it's defences? Could America live under a Russian attack? Maybe, maybe not. America liked to brag...this was it's best oppurtunity. Make more bombs, make more missles...only to get a phonecall saying that the Russians have done the same thing as well.
    [*]Desert Storm...cool name for an opteration don't you think? There's really nothing here for me to say. America wanted oil, Iraq was threatning their main source for it...America intervened. Yet another heroic battle for the "Great Nation"...[/list=1]

    As you can see from the facts...America only intervenes when it's own personal luxuries are at stake. Your oppinions are greatly appreciated.
    ...This Space For Rent.

    -[WebCarnage]
    Share on Google+

  4. #24

    Re: America...standing proud?

    Originally posted by [WebCarnage]
    As you can see from the facts...America only intervenes when it's own personal luxuries are at stake. Your oppinions are greatly appreciated. [/B]

    Exactly my point. How long had the Taliban been in power in Afghanistan? The US attacked (and rightly so) the Taliban not to liberate anyone or to "protect" but because it was in America best interest to do so.....


    Anyway, we appear to be going slightly off topic. Good thread though none the less!
    Share on Google+

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    461
    I think that if an agreement or treaty set up during one period, during a certain set of circumstances is overcome by events, as the ABM treaty seems to have been(IMHO) there is no reason not to pull out of it.

    I do however, think that there may be much better ways for the US to spend its money to improve national and world security. And, I have doubts about the feasability of an actual working realtime detection/targeting system sending corrections to an intercept missile, at the speeds the intercept missile is travelling.(And the speed the inbound ballistic will be travelling.) So far the tests have not been very good, yes there were a few hits, but the inbound "warheads" had sensors on them which were broadcasting their position.(At least that is what was stated by someone who supposedly knows, on some talk show on National Public Radio).

    And to the person who said that George Bush is a bigger threat to world security that Islam. You could not be more right, considering that Islam is "NOT" a threat to world security. "Radical militant islam" is a threat to world security, but not islam itself. Really, most religions have their extreme elements, and almost always those elements are very dangerous.

    Painting all muslims with the same brush that we paint "radical militant islamic terrorists" is a habit that we should try to avoid.

    The vast majority of muslims are peaceful, kind, loving, friendly people.

    Discriminating against any one because of skin color, religion, sex, or a host of other reasons will only cause us more trouble than we have now.

    Although, I think we can still prejudge anyone asking "Dewd,
    H0\/\/ C4|\| 1 H4Ck H07|\/|41L" as a lowlife script kiddie.

    IchNiSan
    Share on Google+

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    461
    I will not debate that the US record of intervention is poor, meaning in the past we have only intervened when it was in our best interest to do so.

    Although, if someone could tell me what possible interest we had in the Balkans I would appreciate it.

    The bottom line is though, that in several of the cases mentioned by [WebCarnage] one nation or group of nations was attacking other nations. The nations being attacked "requested" aid in almost every case. Was it in our national interest(or thought so by our leaders at the time) to do so? probably. Excepting vietnam and the Native americans and possibly World War One(of which my memory of the history is vague) is there any question that the nation/group of nations we were fighting were not wrong??? America was wrong for fighting against Nazi Germany??? I think we should have been involved in that fight militarily much sooner, but we Americans seem to have a terminal case of optimism, "maybe they can deal with the problem themselves, and we dont have to get involved". Japan attacked the US, hoping to keep us from getting into the war in the pacific further than we were, but, was Japan an innocent party??? I think not. They had attacked China, and several other countries, with the only reason being that they wanted to steal resources. That "Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" was a load of crap. It meant more stuff for Japan.

    Were we wrong to get involved in Desert Storm to protect Saudi Arabia, and to remove the iraqis from Kuwait??? Sadam Husain was just standing there innocently, and happend to trip and accidently take over Kuwait right? He was about to say, oops, psyche, and give it back right? Come on. Just because there is a national interest in things that we do, does not mean that those things are bad.

    Are there many other situations which we should have made an effort to correct?? ABSOLUTELY.

    Should some effort have been made to correct the horrible situation that the Taliban began to create in AFghanistan(although, to be fair, Afghanistan has been in poor shape monetarily, foodwise, and many many other ways since the coup d'etat back in the late sixties, early seventies, and the Taliban merely added a much more restrictive set of rules and laws to a bad situation). Absolutely a great effort should have been made. But not just by the US, by the entire world. Is it in our nationaly interest now, you bet your ass it is, do you blame us????

    IMHO There seems to be a tendency in some other parts of the world to call upon the US as soon as a situation starts to get tense.

    But then, as soon as things calm down, to cast aspersions and blame at the US for getting involved.
    Share on Google+

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    276
    What most people around me react to is the Vietnam war. But those who do their homework critize A. for bombing Laos, getting involved in latin and south america and then standing idly by watching other latin (and south) american countries commit atrocities.
    Surely you (IchNiSan) is not defending CIA education of right wing butchers?
    Dear Santa, I liked the mp3 player I got but next christmas I want a SA-7 surface to air missile
    Share on Google+

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    872
    Origionally posted by: IIchNiSan
    I will not debate that the US record of intervention is poor, meaning in the past we have only intervened when it was in our best interest to do so.
    Exactly!!!

    America was wrong for fighting against Nazi Germany???
    Was America right for not intervening with Afganistan/Pakistan/India in the past 60 years. I mean - there only building nuclear bomb after nuclear bomb and threatning to destroy a fraction of the planets O-Zone layer...right?....The Taliban can't even speak English...what do we care? ...nothing big.

    Japan attacked the US, hoping to keep us from getting into the war in the pacific further than we were, but, was Japan an innocent party??? I think not. They had attacked China, and several other countries, with the only reason being that they wanted to steal resources. That "Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" was a load of crap. It meant more stuff for Japan.
    So...Japan is sorta like the US then right?...All the best for them. :P ...actually Japan had conquered Chinese lands not wanting to take over the whole country (obviously this was a bonus if they could...but that wasn't their intention). They just wanted to spread their national water borderline so their navy (which was excellent at the time - remember...no B-25 Bombers invented yet... ) Thats why they attacked almost every island in the Pacific (yes...even inculding the non-inhabited ones) just to occupy the area and increase their border...they were at the climax of their empire...then the US, after fed up with Germany for bombing England and defeating Hitler, made an all-out offensive on Japanese held territory. Re-captured everything except the very island itself - Japan...thats were the A-Bombs came into use...

    Were we wrong to get involved in Desert Storm to protect Saudi Arabia, and to remove the iraqis from Kuwait??? Sadam Husain was just standing there innocently, and happend to trip and accidently take over Kuwait right? He was about to say, oops, psyche, and give it back right? Come on. Just because there is a national interest in things that we do, does not mean that those things are bad.
    SO...what your saying is if "our" oil was in Palestine...the outcome would have been very different. And we'd still save Kuwait's ass?...Wrong my friend. We'd let Hussan do what he wishes with Kuwait...and attack Israil...yes, we'd attack the "holy country"...merely for oil...We'd put up the argument: What if there is no God...or....What if Your God is wrong?...Something to soften the effects of the economy of the rest of the world...to cheer them up...you know the drill with the US: Get in, get "it", get out, appologize with food.... (Sorta like what were doing with Cuba eh?)

    Should some effort have been made to correct the horrible situation that the Taliban began to create in AFghanistan(although, to be fair, Afghanistan has been in poor shape monetarily, foodwise, and many many other ways since the coup d'etat back in the late sixties, early seventies, and the Taliban merely added a much more restrictive set of rules and laws to a bad situation). Absolutely a great effort should have been made. But not just by the US, by the entire world. Is it in our nationaly interest now, you bet your ass it is, do you blame us????
    Yea...the rest of the world SHOULD HAVE done something about it...but yet they all depend on us..."Oh no - some madman killing Jews is bombing our capital...save us America"..."Oh no - some mad man is doing ethical clensing please save us America"...Bullshit. Ethnic Clensing has been happening under the Taliban for 20 years now...with no intervention...the only reason of our going to Yugoslavia was because a group of US Citizens were there and needed to be excavated...And World War II...I think I explained that in a previous post.

    America ONLY intervenes when IT'S OWN country, or NECCESSITIES are at bay with an enemy that could lower the economy considerably. Your views about Nazi Germany are totally up to your ethics and views on how people should be treated as human beings...nothing more.
    ...This Space For Rent.

    -[WebCarnage]
    Share on Google+

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    461
    So, whats the point??

    The US is bad because we do things that are in our own national interest?????

    Any other country that does something in its own national interests is good because it is not the US????

    I am missing something WebCarnage. What is it that I do not understand?

    Maybe, the US is just bad, because it is?????

    Was America right for not intervening with Afganistan/Pakistan/India in the past 60 years. I mean - there only building nuclear bomb after nuclear bomb and threatning to destroy a fraction of the planets O-Zone layer...right?....The Taliban can't even speak English...what do we care? ...nothing big.
    The afghans were doing quite nicely on their own for many many years, they fended off the British Empire twice, and had a nice thing going on until their king was overthrown in the late late sixties. The one of the reasons that the king was overthrown was that the soviet union was becoming more and more involved in attempting to subvert the government, and the king was not doing much about it. He was overthrown by a movement started by his brother if I remember correctly. Then the soviet union became even more involved in deliberately spreading strife and discontent within the country until there was another coup, this time by a movement sympathetic to the soviets. Finally when that group was in trouble by Afghans who were fighting them, the soviets invaded to attempt to retain controll. At that point(early 80's) we became involved with the Afghan resistance. So, we have been involved in helping

    The nuclear rennaisance of India and Pakistan also took place mainly withing the last 8 years or so. Does that mean they were not trying before, no. But where does this 60 years come from.

    Pakistan and India were not even nations until(I forget exactly, but this is close) 1947. Before that they were part of the British Empire. And for sure they had no way at all to even consider nuclear testing at that point.

    I will admit that we kinda screwed Pakistan at one point by not giving them some of the support they needed.





    SO...what your saying is if "our" oil was in Palestine...the outcome would have been very different. And we'd still save Kuwait's ass?...Wrong my friend. We'd let Hussan do what he wishes with Kuwait...and attack Israil...yes, we'd attack the "holy country"...merely for oil...We'd put up the argument: What if there is no God...or....What if Your God is wrong?...Something to soften the effects of the economy of the rest of the world...to cheer them up...you know the drill with the US: Get in, get "it", get out, appologize with food.... (Sorta like what were doing with Cuba eh?)
    come on... The territories of the former USSR have oil to, why didnt we invade some of those when the USSR fell. Did oil play a part in some of these things we did, sure it did, but what you are saying is ridiculous.

    Yea...the rest of the world SHOULD HAVE done something about it...but yet they all depend on us..."Oh no - some madman killing Jews is bombing our capital...save us America"..."Oh no - some mad man is doing ethical clensing please save us America"...Bullshit. Ethnic Clensing has been happening under the Taliban for 20 years now...with no intervention...the only reason of our going to Yugoslavia was because a group of US Citizens were there and needed to be excavated...And World War II...I think I explained that in a previous post.
    Once again, if the world depends on us to intervene, they should not later come back and complain about how/why we did it.

    I repeat, the Taliban has only been in power for 6 years(not 20, Im not sure where your numbers are coming from). During the early 80's there were lots of attrocities commited by lots of different people in Afghanistan, they were in a state of civil war, at the same time part of the population was fighting off the Soviet Union..
    Were some of the people involved in the Taliban now part of the groups commiting those atrocities, sure, they probably were, should more have been done earlier, probably, however what could we really have done beyond what we did in the 80's, the soviet union had invaded the place, do you think we should have taken actions that would have made the cold war hot???

    Once the Soviets left, AFghanistan became under the supposed protection of the UN, however, nothing good ever came out of this. The governments were still corrupt, there was lots of vigilante "justice", it is just that the UN never took any steps to correct the problems. Then the Taliban came to power(6 years ago) because the people of Afghanistan were sick of the crap from the current government, and decided not to resist, or even, decided to help a bit when the Taliban movement started to sweep the country.

    If you want to blame someone for that whole mess, blame the UN.

    As to when we intervene, you are right, it is when our own interests are at stake. When you find France and then UK, and china, and Russia, and the Netherlands, and ......... intervening in situations(outside of their forces participating in UN peacekeeping missions) when there own best interests are not at stake, let me know.

    Oh, yeah, what about Mogadishu, was there oil ther too????
    Share on Google+

  10. #30
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,716

    Thumbs up

    The ABM treaty prohibited the construction
    of a system that would defend against
    ballistic missiles.
    Here's the scenario.
    1. You begin to construct a "shield'
    2. The other guy begins to think, "As soon
    as he completes his shield, he's going to
    attack me, so I had better go ahead and
    attack now"
    3. Both guys sign a treaty, promising
    to remain vulnerable, as a sign of good faith.
    Judge for yourself if it was wise at the time,
    or if it is relevant to today's circumstances.
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.
    Share on Google+

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •