Do you think this cartoon is correct? - Page 2

Maniac · September 7, 2002, 18:34

As I said they fight not directly between them, but in third countries.

KrazyHorse · September 7, 2002, 18:34

Some people don't agree with the way you do things. So to tell them that they should be grateful to you smacks of both ignorance of others' objections and more than a bit of arogance in assuming that your way is the only way.

Drake Tungsten · September 7, 2002, 18:35

Quote:

Sino-Soviet border war, 1969.

Hardly qualifies as a real "war", but I'll still give you credit for thinking of one. I think my point about nuclear powers almost pathologically avoiding war with one another still stands.

Drake Tungsten · September 7, 2002, 18:39

Quote:

So to tell them that they should be grateful to you smacks of both ignorance of others' objections and more than a bit of arogance in assuming that your way is the only way.

I certainly don't think that the American way is the only way, but I do believe that it is the most effective way. I guess we could allow Saddam to develop nukes and see what happens, but that strikes me as an extremely idiotic thing to do. Every country should feel free to make its views known, but America is under no obligation to pay lip service to the most ridiculous of those views.

Bereta_Eder · September 7, 2002, 18:41

Apparently it does otherwise you'd have gone in already.

Drake Tungsten · September 7, 2002, 18:45

We're not obligated to do so, but we have done so in order to maintain relations with our European allies. Not exactly the behavior of a war mongering nation bent on world conquest is it?

Bereta_Eder · September 7, 2002, 18:46

You can't do anything else.

alva · September 7, 2002, 19:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Name one war that has occured between nuclear equipped powers.

Pakistan - India

not a full blown war, still it comes very close IMO

Sandman · September 7, 2002, 19:10

The cartoon is incorrect as the 'ally' is holding a hands off Saddam sign. It should be hands off Iraq.

Gatekeeper · September 7, 2002, 19:18

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
Europe already has lucrative oil deals with Iraq. US is screwing it up.

Yeah! Those damn sanctions! F*ckin' Yanks! All they do is screw up the way things should be done!

Hey, Paiktis. Do you have a breakdown on how much of that oil money Europe provides Iraq (due to their "lucrative" deals) goes to, say, helping the Iraqi people? Y'know. Food. Medicines. Rebuilding infrastructure. That sort of thing. What are the odds most of it goes towards Saddam's palaces, paying off his family and friends in high places, and, BTW, rebuilding facilities that, uh, don't have peaceful purposes?

Gatekeeper

Maniac · September 7, 2002, 19:20

That's in all dictatorships. The same with your good allies Arabia.

Drake Tungsten · September 7, 2002, 19:23

Quote:

Pakistan - India

not a full blown war, still it comes very close IMO

I think that it would've become a full blown war if they had not been nuclear powers. They had fought wars before they became nuclear powers and no one was too concerned about it. Now that they are nuclear powers, however, the entire international community went crazy trying to prevent a war. No one wants to see a war between nuclear powers; the risks aren't worth it.

Sandman · September 7, 2002, 19:29

I disagree with that view. I don't think that they were ever that close to war; it was all just sabre-rattling.

Didn't stop Bush sending Rumsfeld to the region with the easy task of convincing them not to annihilate each other. Result, Rumsfeld's stock goes up.

Gatekeeper · September 7, 2002, 19:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Maniac
That's in all dictatorships. The same with your good allies Arabia.

Europe doesn't seem to have a big problem with Saudi Arabia, either. Must be all that oil. Or maybe they're afraid their Islamic communities will rise up or something if Europe so much as opens its mouth in regards to SA.

Isn't it strange how the Western world continues to trade and do business with other nations that, frankly, are not beacons of freedom? I suppose if we in the Western world were to get really huffy about taking our ideals seriously, we'd have to cut off relations with most of the world or invade them and install democracies. I doubt that'll happen anytime soon. China's 1.1 billion person *potential* market is too much of a temptation, along with the Middle East's oil.

Realpolitik ensues.

Gatekeeper

Maniac · September 7, 2002, 19:38

Indeed it does. So we should tolerate dictatorships to some degree, as Europe both does to Iraq and Arabia. The USA however are hypocrites. They support Arabia, but they accuse Iraq of not being democratic enough. I (and European leaders to some degree) see Iraq as just as good a potential business partner as Arabia. USA doesn't.

Drake Tungsten · September 7, 2002, 19:40

As bad as Saudi Arabia is, Iraq is a thousand times worse.

Maniac · September 7, 2002, 19:44

Yeah right. In the 80's Iraq was an ally of America. Then suddenly they changed from supergood to superbad. Gimme a break. Iraq could still be a potential business partner, if you just gave up those attempts to demonize them and treat them like you do to other useful dictatorships.

Drake Tungsten · September 7, 2002, 19:47

We're demonizing a dictator that has invaded several of his neighbors, is trying to build nukes, and has gassed his own people!?!

How dense are you?

Maniac · September 7, 2002, 19:51

You were demonizing Afghanistan and the Taliban for their strict application of the Islam laws. Nothing of that with Arabia. With the Taliban gone they're the most strict Islam country.

How dense are you?

chequita guevara · September 7, 2002, 19:52

Having nukes doesn't stop people from attacking you. Israel has had nukes since the early 60s, and was attacked in 1973. India developed it's first nuke in 1973, and went to war with Pakistan the following year. Numerous nuclear armed powers have gotten into wars and not used them.

I don't believe that the fact that Pakistan and India both have nukes had as much to do with them not going to war as India's overwhelming military advantage gave Pakistan a reason to come to terms. The fact that the US was using Pakistan as a base for its operations in Afganistan also gave the Indians some pause. The fact that both countries had nukes made everyone else nervous, and gave the world an incentive to put pressure on both countries not to go to war.

Having a nuke (an extremely dubious prospect in re: Iraq) is meaningless if other countries refused to be cowed by it. Even if he did, exactly how powerful a weapon would it be? How many would he have? And how would he be able to use it?

Maniac · September 7, 2002, 19:54

Chegitz

Drake Tungsten · September 7, 2002, 20:02

Quote:

Having nukes doesn't stop people from attacking you. Israel has had nukes since the early 60s, and was attacked in 1973. India developed it's first nuke in 1973, and went to war with Pakistan the following year. Numerous nuclear armed powers have gotten into wars and not used them.

I specifically said that it decreases conflict between nuclear armed powers. In conflicts between a nuclear power and a non-nuclear power there isn't much chance of nukes being used. Sure, Israel could've turned Cairo and Damascus into glass, but why? The international condemnation would be unimaginable. Same thing with India. Why nuke a country that can't defend itself? The only way I could see it happening is if a nuclear armed nation was on the verge of collapse when facing a non-nuclear foe.

Quote:

The fact that both countries had nukes made everyone else nervous, and gave the world an incentive to put pressure on both countries not to go to war.

That was exactly my point. If India and Pakistan had not been nuclear powers, the situation might have spiraled out of control while the international community ignored it. Nukes change the situation completely.

Quote:

Having a nuke (an extremely dubious prospect in re: Iraq) is meaningless if other countries refused to be cowed by it. Even if he did, exactly how powerful a weapon would it be? How many would he have? And how would he be able to use it?

A single Scud tipped with a nuclear warhead would be enough to kill thousands of US troops attempting to fight a conventional war against Iraq. Do you think the US wouldn't be cowed by the potential for those type of casualties?

chequita guevara · September 7, 2002, 20:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
A single Scud tipped with a nuclear warhead would be enough to kill thousands of US troops attempting to fight a conventional war against Iraq. Do you think the US wouldn't be cowed by the potential for those type of casualties?

If it could hit. SCUDs have no serious guidance system. They are point and fire weapons, and you hope it runs out of fuel at the right time and hits the target. How many SCUDs were fired during the Gulf War? How many actually hit their target? Plus, where are the Iraqis going to get a SCUD?

Drake Tungsten · September 7, 2002, 20:09

Do you really have to be that accurate with a nuclear weapon?

And Iraq still has mobile Scud launchers. Everyone seems to know this except for you...

Imran Siddiqui · September 7, 2002, 22:47

Yes, the man is right. Nukes drastically reduce warfare betwene two nuclear powers. It is refered to as the 'Balance of Terror'.

Gatekeeper · September 7, 2002, 23:06

Maniac:

If the United States is hypocritical, then so is Europe.

BTW, has anyone noticed how the debate on Iraq (in general) seems to have moved from whether or not Iraq has WMD to, yes, they probably do have them, but is it still reason enough to attack them?

Gatekeeper

Tingkai · September 8, 2002, 00:46

What I find funny is the unintended idea that the United States is controlled by its allies. The cartoon says the US can't do anything unless it is allowed to by its allies. Kind of insulting to the US, eh.

DinoDoc · September 8, 2002, 00:52

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
Europe already has lucrative oil deals with Iraq. US is screwing it up.

We already know about the under the table deals between France and Iraq. There's no need to broadcast it further.

Oerdin · September 8, 2002, 01:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Maniac
That's in all dictatorships. The same with your good allies Arabia.

The Saudis certainly aren't our friends; they are business associates. They have oil but are militarially incompetent. We have a great military but would like some of their oil. What's more is that as long as the cheap oil keeps flowing we'll even agree not to have them overthrown like the two bit dictators they are. Is that a good deal or what?

Oerdin · September 8, 2002, 01:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Maniac
The USA however are hypocrites. They support Arabia, but they accuse Iraq of not being democratic enough.

I have heard bush come up with some flimsey excuses but never once has he said anything about democracy. No, it usually boils down to not wanting a dictator who has invaded two of its neighbors (Iran & Kuwait) and who has gased his own people to have a nuclear arsonal. The belief is he will use them as black mail against other countries in the region or, since they have already supported terrorism & attempted to assinate Bush Senior in the past, they may use these nukes as part of a terrorism attack. The average nuke can fit easily into the trunk of a car. Just drive it into a city of your choice, leave, then...BOOM.

It would be damn near impossible to figure out who sponsored the attack to so the Iraqis might even win in the court of international opinion by simply denying everything (a la OBL).