Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grug on March 16, 2006, 04:08:45 pm

Title: World Police...
Post by: Grug on March 16, 2006, 04:08:45 pm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18498056-2,00.html

Quote
MAKING no apologies for the war in Iraq, the United States reaffirmed its strike-first policy of preemption and warned Iran could pose the biggest threat to US national security.
"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," the White House said in a 49 page blueprint called The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.

The report drew up a balance sheet of what it called US President George W. Bush's foreign policy successes and remaining "challenges" like bloody violence in Iraq and tense stand-offs over nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.

It also warned Russia that its ties with the West depend on democratic reforms, and urged China to embrace greater political freedom - while saying that Washington will "hedge" for the possibility this does not happen.

Off to save the world before its even under an immediate threat. =/

I find this some what ironic how the US is now all about "preemptive" strikes, whereas back in the day, refused to go to war in WW2 until they were attacked directly by Empire Japan. Since that worldly event, it has seemed to breed some kind of paranoia or warped justification for invading other countries. (to the government at least) =/
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: aldo_14 on March 16, 2006, 04:19:23 pm
I think we've already seen the consequences of a US preemptive strike based on false intelligence.......
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Nuclear1 on March 16, 2006, 04:23:40 pm
In the USA's defense, you can't really compare the events of WWII to today. Pearl Harbor was attacked with conventional weapons; the USA can't really "wait" to be attacked first when it comes to a suspected nuclear power that could easily kill tens of thousands of people in the one necessary first strike on the USA.
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: achtung on March 16, 2006, 04:31:03 pm
Actually not only the US, it involves any and all nations, and that includes the Europeans.  They seem just as shook up about this as we are.
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Skippy on March 16, 2006, 04:31:16 pm
lol @ Google Ads : "The Coming World War" :lol:
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Janos on March 16, 2006, 04:34:15 pm
In the USA's defense, you can't really compare the events of WWII to today. Pearl Harbor was attacked with conventional weapons; the USA can't really "wait" to be attacked first when it comes to a suspected nuclear power that could easily kill tens of thousands of people in the one necessary first strike on the USA.

Well sure thing, as long as they have hard evidence that it is possible and most likely will happen. "Those guys could attack us! We'll attack them!" is one of the most common attitudes in history of mankind and has rarely been either A) correct or B) useful.

Pre-emptive war? Go ahead. If Iran is arming nukes and massing tank divisions on borders and withdrawing populace and infiltrating cities - all that grey phase **** - it's quite fair game. Preventative war? Uhh no thanks, that's exactly the thing that will go wrong. Plus the casus belli of "they could attack us" is not really useful in long term.
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: phreak on March 16, 2006, 04:34:45 pm
This thread title reminds me of a song

America! **** Yeah!
Comin again to save the mother****ing day, yeah!
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Janos on March 16, 2006, 04:35:34 pm
Actually not only the US, it involves any and all nations, and that includes the Europeans.  They seem just as shook up about this as we are.

Yeah, but most Europeans are more afraid of USA going all gun-ho on Iran than your average US citizen.

If they have short-range strategic missiles, just guess who they would nuke IF they had a working nuke and IF someone started to lob bombs and IFx1827
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Nuclear1 on March 16, 2006, 04:44:31 pm
This thread title reminds me of a song

America! **** Yeah!
Comin again to save the mother****ing day, yeah!

That's exactly what I thought when I first read the title. :D

Quote
If they have short-range strategic missiles, just guess who they would nuke IF they had a working nuke and IF someone started to lob bombs and IFx1827

Well, of course that would be the obvious first choice with Iran, and I have the (unnerving) thought that America would step up in such a case to defend her allies, Israel being one of them in this case. If Iran had prepared a nuke, then I have no doubt that the USA would do something to prevent Israel from being nuked.
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Janos on March 16, 2006, 04:53:37 pm
This thread title reminds me of a song

America! **** Yeah!
Comin again to save the mother****ing day, yeah!

That's exactly what I thought when I first read the title. :D

Quote
If they have short-range strategic missiles, just guess who they would nuke IF they had a working nuke and IF someone started to lob bombs and IFx1827

Well, of course that would be the obvious first choice with Iran, and I have the (unnerving) thought that America would step up in such a case to defend her allies, Israel being one of them in this case. If Iran had prepared a nuke, then I have no doubt that the USA would do something to prevent Israel from being nuked.

This is quite true. Using nukes against another nuclear power or against someone who is allied with USA is pretty suicidial move. As a last punch before inevitable knockout through..
The point is that even though there would be retaliation, it wouldn't propably help those who happened to be in the first city that got nuked. Hypothetical questions.
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Fineus on March 16, 2006, 05:16:01 pm
This thread title reminds me of a song

America! **** Yeah!
Comin again to save the mother****ing day, yeah!

That's exactly what I thought when I first read the title. :D


Likewise :D
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Nuclear1 on March 16, 2006, 05:22:50 pm
This is quite true. Using nukes against another nuclear power or against someone who is allied with USA is pretty suicidial move. As a last punch before inevitable knockout through..
The point is that even though there would be retaliation, it wouldn't propably help those who happened to be in the first city that got nuked. Hypothetical questions.

This is really the big point. Is it worth sacrificing the first city or the first hundred thousand innocent people to justify a war?

War can be such **** sometimes.
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: WeatherOp on March 16, 2006, 06:16:05 pm

This is quite true. Using nukes against another nuclear power or against someone who is allied with USA is pretty suicidial move. As a last punch before inevitable knockout through..
The point is that even though there would be retaliation, it wouldn't propably help those who happened to be in the first city that got nuked. Hypothetical questions.


Not really, I don't know if we would use nukes as retaliation. There are to many people against nukes, so that most likely if we do suffer a nuclear attack, we will not use them. And if they are banking on that, they could hit us with all they have, knowing that we will probley invade their contry and they can take even more of us with them.

We need to make it rock hard, that if we are attacked with nukes, we will use the same force on them.
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: achtung on March 16, 2006, 06:56:03 pm
Then, somewhere in the crossfire, one of the nukes manages to veer off course and knock China, Russia, a European Nation, or one of their allies.  Then nuclear world war ensues.

Of course that's a worst case scenario.
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: FireCrack on March 16, 2006, 08:17:07 pm
^err yeah, realy worst case...
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Rictor on March 16, 2006, 09:31:15 pm
Quote
MAKING no apologies for the war in Iraq, the United States reaffirmed its strike-first policy of preemption and warned Iran could pose the biggest threat to US national security.
"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," the White House said in a 49 page blueprint called The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.

The report drew up a balance sheet of what it called US President George W. Bush's foreign policy successes and remaining "challenges" like bloody violence in Iraq and tense stand-offs over nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.

It also warned Russia that its ties with the West depend on democratic reforms, and urged China to embrace greater political freedom - while saying that Washington will "hedge" for the possibility this does not happen.

I think Jonh Bolton is absolutely right on the money, just not the way he intended it. Notice the word "challenge". Not threat, challenge. That's exactly what the US faces from Russia, Iran, Venezuela, China and others. A challenge to it's power. A loss of its ability to have its will be done in every corner of the globe. The countries towards which the US is agressive are, more often than not, challenges not threats. Challenges in terms of economy (China), ideology (Iran, Venezuela), politics (Iran), media (al Jazeera and Telesur) and so on.

Of course, as any monopoly worth it's salt will tell you, challenges must be eliminated and the monopoly maintained. In this case, the monopoly on power. More importantly, a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of power. Europe has a similar mindset, though with a more diplomatic cover and softer approach. An example being how the mark of a "mature" nation, one that is "living up to its commitments" is measured by the number of foreign countries in which your troops are stationed.
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: IceFire on March 16, 2006, 10:15:03 pm
In the USA's defense, you can't really compare the events of WWII to today. Pearl Harbor was attacked with conventional weapons; the USA can't really "wait" to be attacked first when it comes to a suspected nuclear power that could easily kill tens of thousands of people in the one necessary first strike on the USA.
This is true...the paradigm has changed. But not completely.  Had the Japanese succeeded in their goal of completely crippling the US Pacific Fleet the effects would have been, in some ways, similar to a WMD attack.  Fortunately they never landed a complete and finishing blow on the Pacific Fleet...many ships being salvagable and all of the carriers not present. Infact the lack of carriers meant that the fleet commanders paranoia was infact much higher and one of the reasons why a fourth wave was never launched.

But you are right...the problem with holding back in isolation when there are powers out there seeking to topple you by any means and with little or no remorse means that first strike may be required to stave off a much bigger catastrophy.  So long as first strike is conducted purely with conventional means.  That said...Iraq is a disaster.  Iran and North Korea were always greater threats and Iraq was actually a counterbalance to at the very least Iran and Osama....but not anymore.
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Rictor on March 16, 2006, 11:07:56 pm
This thread title reminds me of a song

America! **** Yeah!
Comin again to save the mother****ing day, yeah!

That's exactly what I thought when I first read the title. :D

Quote
If they have short-range strategic missiles, just guess who they would nuke IF they had a working nuke and IF someone started to lob bombs and IFx1827

Well, of course that would be the obvious first choice with Iran, and I have the (unnerving) thought that America would step up in such a case to defend her allies, Israel being one of them in this case. If Iran had prepared a nuke, then I have no doubt that the USA would do something to prevent Israel from being nuked.

This is quite true. Using nukes against another nuclear power or against someone who is allied with USA is pretty suicidial move. As a last punch before inevitable knockout through..
The point is that even though there would be retaliation, it wouldn't propably help those who happened to be in the first city that got nuked. Hypothetical questions.


My belief is that for all the rhetoric, for all their corruption, those in power in Iran are pragmatic enough not to attempt such a suicidal course. People often simply assume that those who they disagree with are evil and insane. Bull****. Those who run Iran, even the mullahs, are invested in the progression of Iranian power and influence. The elite is made up of not only clerics but diplomats and capitalists, and all three are often the same. There is even some indication that they are on edge about Ahmadenijad's forceful tone and his effect of the stability of the Iranian economy. These people are neither insane nor suicidal. They know that Iran can repell any possible invasion, now or in the future, and a nuclear detterent, while appealing, is not really a life or death matter at the moment. Aquiring a nuke, however, would signifcantly damage Iran's position on the world stage. That's why I believe that out of simple self-interest Iran will not aquire nuclear weapons in the near future (let's say 5-10 years).

Forget America, Israel is quite capable of defending itself. And if Iran annouced tommorow that they had a nuke, by tommorow afternoon you would likely see Israeli airstrikes. Remember, Israel has nukes too, and some of the best anti-missle technologies in the world. They're not defenceless, and the entire Middle East knows this.  Attacking, even with conventional weapons, would be signing the death warrant for whichever regime backed the attack.
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: karajorma on March 17, 2006, 03:50:49 am
Quote
The report drew up a balance sheet of what it called US President George W. Bush's foreign policy successes


How long do you think it took them to draw up a blank piece of paper? :D
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Kosh on March 17, 2006, 04:07:20 am
Quote
Challenges in terms of economy (China),

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HC17Dj01.html

I'd say the greatest threat to America's economic dominance are the Americans themselves.

Quote
How long do you think it took them to draw up a blank piece of paper? 

:lol:
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Grug on March 17, 2006, 08:21:37 am
This thread title reminds me of a song

America! **** Yeah!
Comin again to save the mother****ing day, yeah!
*slaps the lot of you*
That was an intentional plug to team america sillys! :rolleyes:


I mostly agree with what Rictor has been saying.

@nuclear1, somewhat true, but should a policy of paranoia and preemptive strikes be allowed for a might be?
Sure if conclusive evidence is submitted, (unlike WMD bull****) but they (and the coalition for that matter) should act with the UN's majority agreement.
Better to go down in history as a benevolent powerful nation rather than a tyrant / regime like one.

I still fully consider the possibility that in the years to come, Bush, and other members of the Coalition may very well be trialed for war crimes...
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Nuclear1 on March 17, 2006, 09:01:10 am
Forget America, Israel is quite capable of defending itself. And if Iran annouced tommorow that they had a nuke, by tommorow afternoon you would likely see Israeli airstrikes. Remember, Israel has nukes too, and some of the best anti-missle technologies in the world. They're not defenceless, and the entire Middle East knows this.  Attacking, even with conventional weapons, would be signing the death warrant for whichever regime backed the attack.

True, Israel is capable of defending itself, but that's not to say that America won't take the opportunity to do some damage to Iran on its own. Conclusive evidence that would lead to an Israeli air raid on an Iranian reactor would undoubtedly give America the excuse it needs to launch an attack.

Quote
@nuclear1, somewhat true, but should a policy of paranoia and preemptive strikes be allowed for a might be?
Sure if conclusive evidence is submitted, (unlike WMD bull****) but they (and the coalition for that matter) should act with the UN's majority agreement.

Agreed here, but I still don't have a lot of trust in the UN. It might just be me, but I thought America was perfectly capable of defending its interests in the 20th Century before the UN or the League of Nations existed (see: both world wars). In both world wars, the American government was well-aware of the threat posed by the Central Powers/Axis in both wars, but only contributed weapons and supplies. When the Lusitania and the unrestricted warfare on the seas/Pearl Harbor incidents occured, America would become militarily involved, because they now had proof that there was a genuine threat to American interests.

Still, as I pointed out before, that necessary evidence has become much more excruciatingly technical, even now down to uranium and nuclear reactors rather than a fully-armed assault on American citizens/interests, simply due to the fact that the price of waiting for an armed attack would simply be too costly where modern weapons are involved.

Quote
I still fully consider the possibility that in the years to come, Bush, and other members of the Coalition may very well be trialed for war crimes...

Somewhat true, but very little (besides the torture of Guantanamo prisoners and some prison incidents in Iraq) have occured that doesn't normally happen in war anyways--soldiers get stressed out and take out their anger on civilians, sure, but it's not as if the government has particularly ordered the soldiers to gun down the civilians themselves. This isn't like World War II where thousands of civilians died in aerial attacks on Dresden or Japanese cities were hit with atomic bombs. The collateral damage is a result simply of war. Insurgents and militants detonate bombs on crowded street corners or at police stations as well--don't think that even a majority of the civilian casualties in this war are as a result of American orders.
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Grug on March 17, 2006, 10:32:48 am
Somewhat true, but very little (besides the torture of Guantanamo prisoners and some prison incidents in Iraq) have occured that doesn't normally happen in war anyways--soldiers get stressed out and take out their anger on civilians, sure, but it's not as if the government has particularly ordered the soldiers to gun down the civilians themselves. This isn't like World War II where thousands of civilians died in aerial attacks on Dresden or Japanese cities were hit with atomic bombs. The collateral damage is a result simply of war. Insurgents and militants detonate bombs on crowded street corners or at police stations as well--don't think that even a majority of the civilian casualties in this war are as a result of American orders.

Maybe. But to think America (or any coalition force for that matter) is an army of angels would be naive indeed. Also, the shoot first, ask questions later training of US soldiers leaves much wanting in the prevention of blue on blue, and civilian casualties.
The same stuff is going on as compared to the Vietnam war. It's just that they no longer show it on TV. =/
War is war yes. Which is why it sucks in the first place. :(
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Nuclear1 on March 17, 2006, 04:08:51 pm
Maybe. But to think America (or any coalition force for that matter) is an army of angels would be naive indeed. Also, the shoot first, ask questions later training of US soldiers leaves much wanting in the prevention of blue on blue, and civilian casualties.
The same stuff is going on as compared to the Vietnam war. It's just that they no longer show it on TV. =/
War is war yes. Which is why it sucks in the first place. :(

Of course, I perfectly understand that no one in the world is perfect. I'm a little more biased to the American military, since I'm four weeks away from formally enlisting in the USAF, but I know that every group has their flaws, and, like I said before, war is a high-stress situation. While that doesn't excuse what happens, it is a cause of what's happening.

But yes, war sucks. Big time.
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Kosh on March 17, 2006, 06:13:36 pm
Quote
While that doesn't excuse what happens, it is a cause of what's happening.

A lot of these civilian casualties comes from "unexploded cluster munitions". While the Air Force doesn't really use these anymore, the Army still does. Even though it is unethical to use them close to civilian populations (and use White Phosphurus too for that matter), they do it anyway. After all, a few dead Iraqis here and there, what's the difference?
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: karajorma on March 17, 2006, 06:19:44 pm
Of course the real irony of this situation is that the CIA apparently gave the Iranians plans for a Russian nuclear weapon (http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1678220,00.html) about 5-6 years ago.
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Rictor on March 17, 2006, 07:17:30 pm
Not to mention that it was the US that kinda, sorta kicked off the whole Iranian nuclear program, back when Iran was a US ally and was enjoying the freedom and democracy that comes with living under a monarchy.
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Kosh on March 18, 2006, 08:21:16 am
Not to mention that it was the US that kinda, sorta kicked off the whole Iranian nuclear program, back when Iran was a US ally and was enjoying the freedom and democracy that comes with living under a monarchy.

The Shah was overthrown 30 years ago. Iran wasn't exactly "free and democratic" under the Shah.
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: aldo_14 on March 18, 2006, 08:42:08 am
Not to mention that it was the US that kinda, sorta kicked off the whole Iranian nuclear program, back when Iran was a US ally and was enjoying the freedom and democracy that comes with living under a monarchy.

The Shah was overthrown 30 years ago. Iran wasn't exactly "free and democratic" un the Shah.

Yeah, you'd almost think Rictor was being satirical or something.
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Kosh on March 18, 2006, 08:47:23 am
Well according to that article, Iran has only been working on nuclear weapons for about 20 years.
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Rictor on March 18, 2006, 10:36:19 am
Nuh-uh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%27s_civilian_nuclear_program#Under_the_Shah").

edit: wait a minute, I just re-read your post. Uhm, as far as anyone knows, including the IAEA, Iran is to this day not working on nuclear weapons. What I meant was that Iran's nuclear energy program dates back to before the revolution.
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Ace on March 18, 2006, 10:42:18 am
Not to mention that it was the US that kinda, sorta kicked off the whole Iranian nuclear program, back when Iran was a US ally and was enjoying the freedom and democracy that comes with living under a monarchy.

The Shah was overthrown 30 years ago. Iran wasn't exactly "free and democratic" under the Shah.

How dare you downplay Kermit Rosevelt's mighty efforts to defend freedom and democracy from the evils of nationalizing your oil fields from the British!
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Ford Prefect on March 18, 2006, 10:07:06 pm
(http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b319/Mistah_Kurtz/stfu2.jpg)
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Flipside on March 18, 2006, 10:45:54 pm
Or possibly...

(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/stfu3.jpg)

;)
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Ford Prefect on March 19, 2006, 12:37:36 am
Haha! Did you do that yourself?
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: Flipside on March 19, 2006, 12:53:52 am
LOL Yeah, took about 20 mins in Photoshop, though I screwed up the fonts a bit ;)
Title: Re: World Police...
Post by: karajorma on March 20, 2006, 05:55:20 am
Good one Flipside :) I think I'll have to keep that one :)