Printable View
This may be old news, but seeing as I just spent the last 24 hours in a drunken haze ;) it's just been bought to my attention.
It appears that President Bush has decided to pull out of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty signed in '72.
Oh well, looks like another arms race...
You can find the story here if anyones interested.
That treaty was signed in a different time, with a different "enemy" in mind (One that doesn't even exist anymore - the USSR). Times and political relationships have changed much, and although I do think that there is still some distrust and unease present in these relationships, that particluar treaty is outmoded and outdated. I would like to think, and I hope that the world's superpowers are a bit more relaxed about things now. I agree that some kind of 'treaty' is needed to reinforce the ideas of disarmament, but they will only exist on paper, just as the original ABM did. Does anyone really think that the nuclear capabilities of the countries involved really changed after 1972? I seriously doubt it, no matter what anyone says, especially the governments involved.
I think that this particular 'arms race' should revolve around keeping thouroughly crazy tyrants like Saddam Hussein, for example, from ever achieving nuclear capabilities (if he hasn't already), and reserve the rights of that particluar form of DEFENSE to those would would not be so quick to abuse it for the purpose of OFFENSE.
The ABM treaty should be discarded in favor of something more updated, as it serves only as a reminder, and an insult, to the nations that are obviously more peaceful and thoughful about the situation, and are more interested in maintaining peace than fearing war.
Ouroboros
Read the treaty it's really out dated, it was based on MAD you could only protect two sites that to be 1800 miles apart or something like that and only protect them 200 ABM's read the thing(ABM Treaty)it's out-dated. that's just my opinion.;)
http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms.../abm/abm2.html
It's ironic really, when Bush talks about rockets being fired from terrorist-states, and then the bastards hijack Amercian planes instead.
My opinion is that there is need for a change of focus, money should be spent on the root of the problem (whatever that is), not to shield yoursef from the problems' effects.
I suppose when the rocket shield is finished you're still gonna have terrorist attacks, and they will be just as nasty.
And (for the non-americans?) it´s kinda obvious that he´s gonna "improve" the economy by expanding the armed forces. An easy way to get re-elected.
IMHO, i think that we need to get rid of the ABM treaty. Like the man said, "It's a relic of the cold war." and it's also out dated. How are we supposed to defent our country from terrorist and foreign countries when we don't have a decent line of defence. The President tried to make negotiations with that guy from Russia, but he wouldn't cooperate. No negotiations were made or weren't to Mr. Bush's approval. Again, thats just in my humble opinion. :D
Remote_Access_
Well what is to Mr "Big Wanker´s" approval? The Kyoto deal isn´t, ABM isn´t, the anti-terrorism act however is.. so what´s next?
I don´t see him signing anything that has a negative impact on the arms industry. Or if he seriously intend to have something to replace it with, WHERE IS THE ALTERNATIVE? How hard can it be to have something drawn up before you throw another thing into /dev/null?
I think George Bush is a bigger thread to the world than the Islam...
And I'm not even islamic..
George Bush is a right winged closed minded ass...
But that's just my opinion ;)
Come on, how can you say Islam is a threat to the world? Hell, it's just another religion. Here in Norway most people are Christians, but God knows we got a lot of racists, rightists, fanatics and all kinds of crazy people. But if you ask them, they'll probably gonna tell you they're Christians as well.
By the way, I'm not religious. I believe only in technology ;)
The cold war with the USSR was about who was the stronger.
This **** today is about small punk nations causing all the distruction they can. ABM look fine in my book.
this will, no doubt, improve the economy.
What do you all know about the CARLYLE GROUP ?
I think this sounds pretty familiar to computer securty...does it not?
----
Person A got a new firewall in 1972
Person B got a new DDoS in 1972
----
DDoS gets old and is useless so Person B trashes it
Person A takes down old firewall...only to start on a new, better, and advanced one.
Person B finds new DDoS...
----
...So you see...there will always be a "Person B"..whether it be the USSR, China, Cuba, Afganistan, or Iraq. And "Person A" will always have bigger and better stuff to try out, whether it be the US or Oracle. It's a cicle...and it'll just keep on spinning...
As lond as there's a need for bigger and better firewalls, a lot of us will still have jobs. If the tech world were to suddenly turn static, it wouldn't take near as many IT workers to keep existing systems operational.
Dont get me wrong in posting this. I believe in what my president is doing. But tjis is something we all should be aware of and keeping a watch on:
http://baltimorechronicle.com/media3_oct01.shtml
AN IMPORTANT TENET of journalism is that you should always ask, “Who benefits?”
In the case of a war, the answers to this question become of paramount importance. Suppose, for example, that profits from military contracting were to go in the pockets of a former U.S. President whose son (and a presumed future heir) is now President? Suppose further that such profits escalate in times of conflict. Wouldn’t this be of concern to the public? Wouldn’t you expect the media to be all over such an important ethical (not to mention moral, and maybe legal) angle?...
Don't trust the media...for the most part, they exist only to skew the listeners, viewers, etc viewpoints to match theirs. The media tells you who to hate, who to trust, and who to ignore. They tell you what's important and what's not. They try to think for you. Sort through the spin and get to the bare facts, and think from there. Don't allow yourself to be forcefed your life by people that only seek to dramatize and make a production out of everything that they see fit to focus on. You know those "heart to heart" type stories that they do? And that "We care" attitude that they play? It's all fake...serves only to make people think that they really care about what they report.
On Sept 11, I saw more comedians cry than newspeople. "In touch"?, I think not. "We gotta get there first so we can be the first on TV and grab all the early ratings off of thousands of dead people", probably...
Don't trust them, think for yourself...
Don't trust me either, i'd rather you think for yourself, but just make sure that you are doing just that...
Ouroboros
(and I know that not all of the people in the business are like that, but the overwhelming majority are)
Ahh.. I got neg points for my post. I would love to debate this with whoever disagreed with me, but because the coward didn't give a namel I can't...Oh well..:cool:
I agree with you 100%. Yellow journalism has been a way of life for a very long time.
The link i posted is obviously just not a republican supporter. Facts can be easiely manipulated by reporters to coincide with their views.
But the fact remains that there are facts there, that need looking into. Which is why i posted it, i thought maybe i could save myself some research time if some one knew something on this subject. Let me know if its worth persuing or not.
Ouroboros,
What do you really know about the media????
What dose Ouroboros know about anything. He has split personalities. The guy's a nut.
I agree with you. These little pissy ass third world countries starting s*it and thinking that they can get away with it... it's not gonna stand. No, not at all. May be you would see things a little different if it was your home country that got attacked by terrorist. The U.S.A. tried to compromise with Russia but they couldn't reach a compromise.Quote:
This **** today is about small punk nations causing all the distruction they can.
Remote_Access_
I don't get the big deal, honestly. If we want to pull out of a treaty, why in the world would anyone care? Especially Russia! We have nothing but protection of our own country in mind.
Because with the current reduction in nuclear warheadsQuote:
Originally posted by uraloony
I don't get the big deal, honestly. If we want to pull out of a treaty, why in the world would anyone care? Especially Russia! We have nothing but protection of our own country in mind.
they(Russia) are afraid that a missle sheild would give us first strike cabability with little fear of a reprisal.
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.
And 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.Quote:
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.
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.
I don't understand what you're trying to say? Where do I check out America's history of being the "protector"?Quote:
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.
Who was the US defending in Vietnam? Democracy? :D
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.....
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.
Quote:
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!
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
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.
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?
Exactly!!!Quote:
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.
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. :(Quote:
America was wrong for fighting against Nazi Germany???
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...Quote:
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...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?)Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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????
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.
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?????
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 helpingQuote:
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 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.
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.Quote:
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?)
Once again, if the world depends on us to intervene, they should not later come back and complain about how/why we did it.Quote:
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.
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????
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.
:cool:
Nothing really, just wanted to make conversation. :)Quote:
So, whats the point??
No, I'm not saying America is 'bad' in any way. It's actually pretty well set off with our national intrests. But the thing is, it [sometimes] calls upon itself to be "the police of the world".Quote:
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?????
Do you know why we got involved? It's only because we wanted to stop the speading of Communism, and until recently, the USSR has been kept alive because of lands aquired in Asia with supporters. So America intervined, for it didn't want Communism to spread. For Afganistan holds nothing important to us. No oil...no spices...no ore...nothing that would implement our prosperity. But, the US thought that communism was surely a bad government system. Yet tell me...what is a bad governmental system. Surely there is no such thing, yet under American 'code' it's improper...so, are you saying we were trying to protect it from communism only for them to set up a dictatorship (until recently of course because of taken countermeasures)? Sort of contradicting isn't it.Quote:
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.
Hehehe, sorry - typo. Supposed to be 50 years. 1947, Correct. Round it up to 1950. 1950 + 50 = 2001. :rolleyes:Quote:
But where does this 60 years come from
Really? I was not aware of this, could you state the countries from the former USSR that hold oil reserves big enough to share with the United States of America? All I can think off the top of my head would be something like Siberia. But I'm not to certain even about that. Yet if it was, you think [at the time] they would share their oil with us? Yea right.Quote:
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.
Very true :duh: :)Quote:
Once again, if the world depends on us to intervene, they should not later come back and complain about how/why we did it.
The Taliban have been around for *about* 20 years now. Starting off as just another tribal clan, then finally (at around 1994) they took control over the contry itself. On October 12, 1994, the hardline Islamic Taliban militia emerged and seized the sourthen city of Kandahar (you know where this is...it's in the news all the time) vowing to oust the Mujahedeen and introduce a ruling strictly devout to Islam. Then on September 5, 1995, the Taliban take the western "Herat" province/state, on the Iranian border. Yet, they were around before 1994. A group of people just didn't suddenly pack their bags and claim to be fighting a "Holy War" (or "Jihad" in this case).Quote:
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 war hot???
All in all, I think your right about a few points. Blame the UN. Heh, no doubt there at all. Thy were givin a job, and whiped their asses with it thinking it'll all just turn out fine in the end if we just leave them. I hope the US (once done in Afganistan) sets up some stable govnernment with a non-bais American. Then once his '4-years' are over, the Afgani's will rule...like they should.
[P.S. - There is oil in Mogadishu (capital of Samolia), but lets look at Samolia's history before we rush to any conclusions :).
In Somalia, all or nearly all, anticlinal features that have been drilled up to 1977 resulted in dry holes. It was these failures that compelled geologists to seek other methodologies of prospecting oil in Somalia. Then came the idea of using the stratigraphic approach to oil finding in Somalia. Some geologists believe that this method will lead to success.
Secondly, the political history of Somalia played a negative role. In 1969, the military came to power and Somalia shifted to the Russian Block. Command economy and socialism was at the centre of the political economy. In the next two decades, the regime was authoritarian and repressive and oil companies could not take the risk in investing into Somalia, and instead had to wait and move very cautious with regard to Somalia. Somalia was at odds with Ethiopia, and went into war twice in two decades. However, Somalia's policies changed at a later stage and cooperated with the World Bank and the IMF, but this action was too late to contribute positively and the factional movements were already becoming stronger and threatening the existence of the state.
...With this information I give you about Somalia...I fail to understand what that point was about?]
I agree that it was outdated but what scares me is that when we rush to make our defence system. Other people are going to make their defence system..and then another 5,000 nuclear wepons will be pointing at us..I hate nuclear weapons pointing at me..especially where i live..Prime target for nuclear war...
did you know that russia has lost about 50,000 (or some big number like that) suitcased sized warheads? kinda makes you think