Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Swamp_Thing on February 18, 2005, 08:02:10 am
-
Well well well, ain´t that funny! Seems like the world is taking sides, isn´t it? This doesn´t help the US´s case at all. First we had a Syria-Iran alliance, formally announced. And now Russia announces it will sell "nuculer" fuel to Iran? This is getting more interesting by the minute!! More and more the world is dividing into 2 blocks. Again. It´s curious how the world got rid of the capitalist vs. comunist blocks, only to wind up with another. When will Mankind get over this "we against them" mentality?
:wtf:
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
When will Mankind get over this "we against them" mentality?
:wtf:
Never. It is the very foundation of our nature. We are a race of conflict and contradictions.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
When will Mankind get over this "we against them" mentality?
:wtf:
Never, because Man, and by consequence society, is fundamentally selfish.
And, at the risk of being once again branded as an America-basher, I'd say the us against them thing was rekindled by the US. I mean, "If you're not with us, you're against us". This sort of talk doesn't help much for credibility when you talk about peace and freedom.
-
Russians have always had an interest in the middle east. This is nothing new.
Of course they will sell nuclear fuel. I'm sure if Iran was willing to pay, they would sell them Su-30MKI's too. Its money and trade.
-
IIRC Iran has oil which is useful to Russia, as well as being useful as a neighbour to Azerbaijan and Georgia (the former an oil source, the latter somewhat of a thorn to Russia recently I think) - so it means the Russians can have an ally to exert politicial or (unlikely) military pressure on those.
The other thing is that the 'superpowers' (Russia a semi-superpower due to it's amount of nukes, China as an emerging superpower( all have an interest in expanding their sphere of influence, critically with regard to access of oil; the US is (regardless of your opinion of the reasons for the Iraq war) increasingly exerting itself across the middle-East states, Russia is getting a route into Iran here, and China is active in funding joint ventures (for oil again, mining, etc) in Africa.
-
Wow, this is all a surprise. Russia selling weapons to clients in the Middle East. My God! What is Putin thinking? :rolleyes:
It's seriously not a shocker that Russia is dealing with Iran anyway (or any of its old Soviet Middle East allies, for that matter). Especially if its to give nukes to point at American troops :doubt:
-
Russia loves everyone who will buy their weapons.:lol:
-
Figures. Putin would do anything to stab us in the back.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Figures. Putin would do anything to stab us in the back.
It would seem to me that you are doing a pretty good job of it by yourselves.
-
Theres also a large sale of Tor Class Anti-aircraft missiles going on between the two of them. Russia is using the same tactics to stop the growth of the US as the US used to try and stop the growth of Russia, it's swings and roundabouts.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
When will Mankind get over this "we against them" mentality?
:wtf:
There is a way.
Just as much as there is a way of me ruling the world by the time I'm 30-40 years old.
-
We now have official confirmation of nothing getting through the Security Council.
-
Not that anything ever gets through it in the first place :rolleyes:
-
By my estimate, I think we went from a 2-5% chance to roughly 0%.
-
Nahhh.. Americas been playing this game with Russia for years, it's just somehow the cards have got turned face-up in the last few years.
In a strange, peverse, way, that's actually for the good.
-
It's not really all that different from the US/UK support for (for example) Saudi Arabia, etc.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Figures. Putin would do anything to stab us in the back.
I pity* the naive fool who thinks the Russians are friends of the West.
-
The situation isn't unknown throughtout History though, one large Nation with dreams of Past Empires, one large Nation with dreams of Future Empire, It's a dance that's been going on for a long long time now, I just hope the band isn't getting tired.
EDIT : Thing is, Iran is being described as the 'World Number One funder of Terrorism', (Though, this dubious honour probably belongs to Saudi Arabia), which, this implies that they are next on the Agenda.
But what then? Who's the next 'World Number One funder of Terrorism'? It's the Domino Theory in reverse.
-
Jesus Christ are you people for real - the cries of "big bad russia" only worked when we were under the foolish impression we in the west were the "good guys". The US and the UK have sold (and are selling) weapons to people in the middle east that should never leave our borders - yet when Russia does it, essentially gaining a satellite nation (something the US has done for half a century around the world) it's seen as some unforgivable sin.
-
Russia was always going to sell nuclear fuel to Iran, they're just announcing they're ready to do it. What nobody here seems to understand is that the deal involves the return of the spent waste to russia, which prevents Iran from making nukes out of it. The deal was held up until the Iranians signed on this so essentially the Russians are doing the US a favour.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/berman200502180741.asp
-
Originally posted by vyper
Jesus Christ are you people for real - the cries of "big bad russia" only worked when we were under the foolish impression we in the west were the "good guys".
Points to Eastern Europe...
We (the West) definately were the good guys back then.
And we still are.
-
The US has to stop playing the "we're liberating the world!" card. What right do we have to interfere with other sovereign nations?
-
Nope, you never were, right from when you were massacring the indians and using black slaves to pick cotton.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Nope, you never were, right from when you were massacring the indians and using black slaves to pick cotton.
:blah:
:doubt:
:lol:
-
Good Guys and Bad Guys, it's amazing how we reduce the world to the level of a movie isn't it?
-
Basic psychology, my country is good therefore I am.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
When will Mankind get over this "we against them" mentality?
:wtf:
We need the Vasudans to discriminate against first.
-
Very true. Just like Star Trek - Vulcans arrive and we suddenly group together as one race. What we need are those giant space ameobas that Tiara mentioned.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
The US has to stop playing the "we're liberating the world!" card. What right do we have to interfere with other sovereign nations?
If they're not nice to us and have nuclear weapons or want nuclear weapons and are close to getting them, or is a state sponsor of terrorism, we have every right to interfere with the "we're not going to let you blow us all up" card.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
I pity* the naive fool who thinks the Russians are friends of the West.
They weren't really our friends even when Yeltsin was in office.
Originally posted by ngtm1r
We need the Vasudans to discriminate against first.
Death to the Zods!:D :p
Originally posted by Gank
Nope, you never were, right from when you were massacring the indians and using black slaves to pick cotton.
Well, right now those Indians are ripping the less intelligent Americans off with casinos and Jesse Jackson is extorting millions of dollars from businesses. At least we don't shoot people for saying "capitalism sucks" like the USSR did (in the case of "communism sucks") and Iran does (in the case of "Khomeini sucks").
-
So it boils down to 'Blow them up, because they don't like us and might blow us up' (remember, we are applying Terrorist opinions to entire nations here).
Hmmmm... Seems to me that what is demonising the East is more the West's assumption that they think along the same lines as us and would try to screw us over if they got the chance.
But, does that say something about us, them, or mankind in general?
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
If they're not nice to us and have nuclear weapons or want nuclear weapons and are close to getting them, or is a state sponsor of terrorism, we have every right to interfere with the "we're not going to let you blow us all up" card.
So, by your definition, nearly every country in the world could attack America then :p
America has nuclear weapons,used them already, and Bush want to research way of making them more usable last time I heard.
I won't bother to list all the guerilla, 'freedom fighters' and other niceties the USA has funded.
And America is once again proving it's ready to interfere in sovereign country.
So, tell me once again, why would you have the right to attack other country, and not the reverse, other than the might is right reason ?
-
There's a difference between trying to protect your nation and invading other countries while pretending that you're doing it to make them more "free".
-
Iraq was in material breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 due to its obstruction of UN inspectors.
-
Well, if theres one reason I wouldn't apply to the Iraq War, it's any kind of UN Resolution. Simply because then you have to consider all the other countries that are in material breach of UN resolutions.
Besides, the UN isn't a ping-pong game, you can't call them ineffectual and corrupt one minute and then say 'They told us to do it' the next ;)
-
Iraq was in material breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 due to its obstruction of UN inspectors.
Your excuse for invading a country is that it didnt comply with a UN resolution? :wtf:
I mean its not like the US ignored the UN when they invaded Iraq is it? Oh wait.... :rolleyes:
-
Thing is, bombing and invading someone to install a more compliant ruler is more the sort of behaviour I'd associate with the people America claim to be fighting against.
-
Originally posted by Genryu
So, by your definition, nearly every country in the world could attack America then :p
America has nuclear weapons,used them already, and Bush want to research way of making them more usable last time I heard.
I won't bother to list all the guerilla, 'freedom fighters' and other niceties the USA has funded.
And America is once again proving it's ready to interfere in sovereign country.
So, tell me once again, why would you have the right to attack other country, and not the reverse, other than the might is right reason ?
Because that's the way politics works. Might makes right. Politics is a global dick-measuring contest.
But we don't plan to commit genocide like Muammar Khatami or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi do or Sodamn Insane used to do (and he actually tried to execute his plans).
-
Choice is a funny thing, as long as we choose to believe the Ape with the biggest Stick (our beloved Alpha Male) is the one that calls the shots, the closer we get to our Primate cousins and the further we pull ourselves from what we are trying to be ;)
-
No thats the way the current world works, not politics. You don't change things by sitting on your anus saying "thats just the way things are".
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Well, right now those Indians are ripping the less intelligent Americans off with casinos and Jesse Jackson is extorting millions of dollars from businesses. At least we don't shoot people for saying "capitalism sucks" like the USSR did (in the case of "communism sucks") and Iran does (in the case of "Khomeini sucks").
I suppose we deserve it, being stupid American white-males. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Gank
Nope, you never were, right from when you were massacring the indians and using black slaves to pick cotton.
[/b]
Oh, so you want to play that card, huh? Has the United States been the only country in the world to do such a thing?
Don't make me start naming. :doubt:
Originally posted by Flipside
So it boils down to 'Blow them up, because they don't like us and might blow us up' (remember, we are applying Terrorist opinions to entire nations here).
No, it boils down to "Blow up the madman that'll start blowing up other people on the same continent/region".
Now I'm just going to put out my opinion of the UN once and for all:
I honestly do not like the UN in its modern-day form at all. Why? More than half of the nations represented in it are ruled by dictators. The Security Council is controlled by nations that would more like to start WWIII than to do anything about it. In addition, it's highly ineffective, passing resolutions that hardly produce any results, leaving other nations, the US in particular, to step in and make things happen.
Now there are some instances where I do not despise the UN. Take 1962 for example. The UN's member nations effectively boycotted the South African apartheid government, eventually bringing about military and economic pressure that would lead to its collapse.
I understand that the UN was created to resolve disputes and problems between nations peacefully, but when they decide to place Saddam Hussein on the Human Rights Commission and Iraq starts abusing the Oil-For-Food Program, that just shows how ineffective and ready for an overhaul it has become.
There, see? I got through an entire statement about the UN without venting steam.
-
Errrrrr I don't think Gank was saying we didn't I think he was saying we learnt from our mistakes.
Define 'Madman' for me will you, is that Mad 'Insane' or Mad 'Angry', since both types exist the former through ignorance the latter through suffering.
Of course, 200lb of high explosive makes the situation that much better....
-
Oooh, Russia supports so-and so. Big ****ing deal. Its called international arms trading, and its not exactly a new invention. America backs Israel, Russia backs Iran. America backs A, someone else, usually weaker, backs B.
When it comes to selling deadly weapons to tinpot dictarors and butchers, the US isn't exactly a virgin. Its business, an evil and destructive business, but business nevertheless. Powerful governments don't seem to have too many problems selling weapons to repressiver regimes, just as long as the money is good.
-
[q]it's highly ineffective, passing resolutions that hardly produce any results, leaving other nations, the US in particular, to step in and make things happen.[/q]
Dude the US is half the reason most UN resolutions fail. The actual serious ones get Vetoed by you. Especially the ones that clamp down on dictators installed by the US Goverment.
[q]the latter through suffering.[/q]
DING DING DING! And who causes that suffering through proxy wars and support of oppressive regimes? Heh, oh say can you see, by the pawns deadly blight....
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
When will Mankind get over this "we against them" mentality?
:wtf:
Hopefully after a nuclear war and the arrival of an Alien species with pointy ears.
No seriously, let's just clean house and start again.
-
Originally posted by nuclear1
I honestly do not like the UN in its modern-day form at all. Why? More than half of the nations represented in it are ruled by dictators. The Security Council is controlled by nations that would more like to start WWIII than to do anything about it. In addition, it's highly ineffective, passing resolutions that hardly produce any results, leaving other nations, the US in particular, to step in and make things happen.
Now there are some instances where I do not despise the UN. Take 1962 for example. The UN's member nations effectively boycotted the South African apartheid government, eventually bringing about military and economic pressure that would lead to its collapse.
I understand that the UN was created to resolve disputes and problems between nations peacefully, but when they decide to place Saddam Hussein on the Human Rights Commission and Iraq starts abusing the Oil-For-Food Program, that just shows how ineffective and ready for an overhaul it has become.
There, see? I got through an entire statement about the UN without venting steam.
Have you any idea how many times the US has used its veto to protect allies who were in clear violation of UN mandates? Or the number of times such issues barely came up due to US influence?
Yes, the UN isn't perfect, but I for one think they would improve that by being less pliable to US coersion, not more (not only, all members of the Security Council, but the US being chief among them). Yes, its corrupt, but try finding one large, powerful organization that isn't. The job of the UN is to
save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind,
You either believe in UN authority, or you don't. If you do, then that applies equally to everyone, including the US and its allies. If you don't, then don't start talking about how so and so is violating UN mandates. You claim that half the UN counties are ruled by dictators? Take a look at how many of them have been propped up or supported by the US? Equal standards, thats all I ask.
-
There is one way to make the UN work:
It needs to have it´s own standing army. Because it depends on other countries allowing it to use their troops, they can never be fully independent. If a peacekeeping action is needed, the conclusion of that action is pending on the aproval of the troop supplying nations. If however they have their own troops, they can go over the heads of the nations that would rather not see that action take place. Like the US and Israel. How many lives could have been saved if the UN was allowed to enter Israel and force the palestinian state into existence?
Obviouslly, the UN would need to get rid of Vetoes alltogether aswell. If we want an effective UN, we have to be prepared to delegate the responsability to that world body, and comply with all and every resolution, like it or not.
Those are the 2 reforms most needed by the UN. They need to be fully independent, and all powerfull, so that no one nation can wave their weight about and f**k things up. Call it a World Counsil or UN, it needs to be for the world like a Supreme Court is for a nation.
If people were allowed to inlist into the UN´s army, just as we are into our nation´s army, the UN would have it´s own expeditionary force in a matter of a few years.
Regarding weapons sales from Russia to Iran, that was never a surprise. What was a surprise was that Russia publicaly announces they will support Iran´s nuclear program, especially now that the US is pressing so hard to end it.
Selling conventionall armament was never a surprise. Iran-Contras anyone? Or have you forgotten about it by now? I wouldn´t be surprised if even today there were american guns being sold to Iran and Syria, at the same time as the US govt. strives to put the hurt in them. No sir, i wouldn´t...
:doubt:
-
Russia supporting Irans nuclear program is NOT a surprise, its been that way since day one.
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Well, right now those Indians are ripping the less intelligent Americans off with casinos and Jesse Jackson is extorting millions of dollars from businesses. At least we don't shoot people for saying "capitalism sucks" like the USSR did (in the case of "communism sucks") and Iran does (in the case of "Khomeini sucks").
Oh and that makes it alright does it? As for not shooting people for saying ****, you did it for monetary gains instead, thats so much better.
Originally posted by nuclear1
Oh, so you want to play that card, huh? Has the United States been the only country in the world to do such a thing?
No but its the only country whose citizens claim to be the leaders of the free world.
Originally posted by nuclear1
There, see? I got through an entire statement about the UN without venting steam.
:wtf: You entire statement was venting steam at the UN, or were you being sarcastic?
-
Originally posted by nuclear1
I understand that the UN was created to resolve disputes and problems between nations peacefully, but when they decide to place Saddam Hussein on the Human Rights Commission and Iraq starts abusing the Oil-For-Food Program, that just shows how ineffective and ready for an overhaul it has become.
And what right does America have to start dictating to others about human rights when it is one of only 5 or so nations in the entire world who uses capital punishment against minors?
Even Iraq didn't do that.
-
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/454b9d94-7fbf-11d9-8ceb-00000e2511c8.html
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_09/b3922077_mz054.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=aZ6yVeyLhzkE&refer=uk
http://www.globalagendamagazine.com/2005/matthewsimmons.asp