backtop


Print 225 comment(s) - last by rett448.. on Mar 15 at 3:36 PM


  (Source: Alicia Torbush/AFP)

U.S. nuclear warhead stockpiles peaked in the 60s and were greatly reduced in the 1990s.  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Obama is not expected to make a radical change in U.S. nuclear policy, though

President Obama is trying to change some of the policies that have been in place under previous presidents. Obama is also working to cut military spending and reduce the stockpiles of some ordinance that the military has on standby in case they are needed.

Defense News reports that Obama is planning to dramatically reduce the number of nuclear weapons that the U.S. possesses. A senior U.S. official call Obama's plan a "dramatic reduction" but the official points out that it is still not clear at this point if Obama will break from past policy. A full review of the U.S. nuclear policy is set to be completed this month.

A report titled "Nuclear Posture Review" was reportedly set to be released in December. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is supposed to meet with Obama on Monday to present the president with final options on the review. Among the radical breaks from past nuclear policy some think Obama might be considering is whether or not the U.S. will openly declare when nuclear arms will be used against enemies or if Obama will stick with more vague language that has been used in past nuclear policy.

Some in Congress are wanting Obama to change parts of the U.S. nuclear policy that allow the U.S. to use nuclear weapons in response to a biological or chemical attack against enemies that have nuclear weapons and those that don't. The hope by the lawmakers is that Obama will declare the U.S. nuclear arsenals sole purpose is to deter nuclear attack. This declaration would allow the nuclear stockpile America holds to be reduced to less numbers than current plans will allow.

Such a sweeping change in U.S. policy is not expected to happen. Jeffery Lewis from the New America Foundation said he expects a "very status-quo document" and goes on to say, "[Obama will offer] a very conventional document that will fall far short of the president's rhetoric." Lewis is referring to a promise that Obama made during a speech in Prague last month promising to end "Cold War thinking."

The push to reduce nuclear arms around the world is reportedly due in part to the growing number of nuclear arms available in Iran and North Korea. North Korea first declared its nuclear weapons in June of 2008. The U.S. and Russia are also reported to be close to a new deal to further reduce the nuclear stockpile held by each country. Obama and Russian president Dmitry Medvedev have already agreed to reduce nuclear warheads on each side to 1,500 to 1,675. America currently has a stockpile of 2,200 operational nuclear warheads and an additional 2,500 warheads that could be activated and are held in reserve reports Defense News.

A senior official told the AFP that the new Nuclear Posture Review "will point to dramatic reductions in the stockpile, while maintaining a strong and reliable deterrent through the investments that have been made in the budget. [And it will] Point to a greater role for conventional weapons in deterrence." The review will also reportedly eliminate the need for so-called bunker-buster nuclear weapons. The Pentagon announced in October 2009 that it was seeking the development of a 15-ton conventional bunker buster bomb that would be the biggest non-nuclear weapon the military has.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Kinda irrelevant really...
By Amiga500 on 3/4/2010 8:35:54 AM , Rating: 2
The US still would retain more than enough to comfortably wipe out anyone who was stupid enough to go nuclear.

So its just making a money saving that has zero negative impact, infact, it is probably one of the few money savers that has no negative impact.




RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By dome1234 on 3/4/2010 8:58:46 AM , Rating: 2
deterence by mutual nuclear destruction only works for countries still possessing some sense. Unfortunately that dude in iran, kim 'I'm so lonely' jong-il might beg to differ, especially some random religious nut.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 9:25:42 AM , Rating: 1
these nuts have began no wars in the last half century and have been victims of constant western aggression. these nuts r better than presidents who kill thousands of innocents based on hunches & 'intelligence'.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By weskurtz0081 on 3/4/2010 9:37:11 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, you are right, combined, they have probably killed hundreds of thousands of innocent based on being purely evil, who needs a hunch to do that?

You are aware of the atrocities that have been committed within the boarders of some of these countries are you not? Iran, Iran, North Korea?


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By weskurtz0081 on 3/4/2010 9:46:44 AM , Rating: 4
Oh, I see. So, you only really have a problem with the
quote:
presidents who kill thousands
and not the dictators that kill hundreds of thousands!

How many people have you talked to from Iran, Iraq, North Korea? Maybe you should go ask THEM how they feel and what they would like other countries to do.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By weskurtz0081 on 3/4/2010 10:21:21 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The dictators kill thousands. Last time I checked the Iraq invasion have killed hundreds of thousands.


Huh? Now it's changing? You said before the President killed thousands.

So, now you are increasing that number in order to justify the dictators killing people.

Do you ACTUALLY care about what goes on in those other countries or do you just use them as an excuse to hate America?

As far as how many have died from the invasion, those numbers are VERY hard to determine, and ever more difficult to tell which ones were bad guys (often times).


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By soulcarver on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 12:34:35 PM , Rating: 4
"This county got its wealth initially because of cheap labor (i.e. slaves)..."

Slavery ended in the US in 1865, at which point the US was, economically and politically, a relative nonentity among world nations. Within the next 90 years however, the US grew to the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth...without slavery.

"...are you proud of that?"

Name one nation on earth that hasn't used slaves in its past, or one group of people that hasn't both held and been used as slaves. The very word "slave" is no more than a corruption of the ethnic term "Slav"...because so many Slavs were sold into slavery in earlier times.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By gamerk2 on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Solandri on 3/4/2010 2:37:36 PM , Rating: 5
The Mideast problems go back further, to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following WWI. The European powers who won the war then basically carved up the region into countries as they saw fit, with little regard for cultural, geographic, or political borders. The result has been countries which lack cohesiveness, and constantly seem to be on the verge of civil war. Such a political climate is conducive to dictators because they're basically the only ones who can provide some sort of stability.

The U.S. hasn't exactly been a saint when it comes to meddling in the region. But IMHO most of the ire in the region directed at the U.S. is just people looking for someone outside of their own governments to blame for their problems, since in most cases criticizing your own government there often ends up with you being dead or missing a few limbs.

Israel is a red herring. It comprises less than 0.25% of the land area in the Middle East with no oil reserves. The people in the area just hate Israel because it's symbolic of outsiders meddling in the region (Israel was created by UN mandate by Western and Soviet bloc powers following WWII), with a dash of religion-based anti-semitism.

The region could be made a lot more stable if we could just redraw the political borders to more closely follow cultural/religious groupings. Arabia, Kurdistan, Persia, etc. Probably impossible now though, since everyone knows where the big oil fields are.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 2:55:20 PM , Rating: 2
"The Mideast problems go back further, to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following WWI."

Or all the way to the Jewish diaspora about 70AD. Or if you prefer, you can date it from Nebuchadnezzar's acts in the 5th century BC.

Starting from more than ten centuries ago, Christians and Muslims in the region have been fighting near-continuously...with Jews aiding first one side, then the other.

"Israel is a red herring. It comprises less than 0.25% of the land area in the Middle East "

But it contains a majority of the most holy sites for all three of the region's main religions. There's a reason its been fought over for centuries.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By karielash on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By soulcarver on 3/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/5/2010 9:25:41 AM , Rating: 2
" Like you muse, every country has done some terrible things. That doesn't mean that we should ignore them"

It also doesn't mean we should be ashamed of them, either. You're responsible only for your own actions, not of those who lived more than a century ago. Do you feel responsible for the countless generations of Indians who butchered each other before Europeans arrived, simply because they lived on the same ground you stand on today?

Historical context is key to a proper understanding of slavery, an institution that was ubiquitous when the US began to practice it. The Ottoman Empire bought, sold, and kept slaves for nearly a thousand years. The Native American Indians kept slaves, all the way from South America into modern-day Canada. And Africa itself was perhaps the most persistent and long-lived hotbed of slavery ever seen, with slave-raids between neighboring tribes stretching back to the beginning of recorded history.

Perhaps you enjoy feeling guilty over slavery because you're of European heritage? Well remember that Europe was the first region of the world to expunge slavery. And, let's not forget the US fought the bloodiest war in its history, in large part to free slaves.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By soulcarver on 3/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/5/2010 2:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
" I am also responsible for what I actions I do not take. If a sit idly by while injustice is happening..."

Slavery is still occurring in the US? Odd, I hadn't noticed that.

"Wages for minority groups and women with the same educational background as their other male European-decedent counterparts are still unequal "

I've seen such studies before. They're made by advocates trying to prove their point, and not worth the paper they're written on. Among the many flaws I've seen, they don't take into account job performance -- the most crucial factor of compensation.

When such studies are done comparing asians (a minority group with a lengthy history of bias and oppression in the US) to whites, one sees near-parity...sometimes even an advantage to the minority group. When one does the same study comparing blacks vs. whites, one sees a large disparity.

The pudding-headed reseacher thus concludes -- racism! Right? Wrong. Like it or not, blacks score lower on standardized testing of all sorts. From college, graduate school, or high school, their GPAs and test results are lower. Ignoring that and assuming that doesn't affect job performance -- especially in high-paid professional positions -- is wishful thinking.

I realize that to a liberal sociologist (is there any other sort) this is heresy. It's also fact.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By soulcarver on 3/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/5/2010 3:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
". The studies you refer to as being biased are based on U.S. Census data."

But not based on job performance, and thus worthless.

" I am not a liberal"

You're wringing your hands with guilt and calling the US a racist nation because of disparate pay, and you're not a liberal? Tell me another one.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By soulcarver on 3/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/6/2010 6:02:41 AM , Rating: 2
Soulcarver, please grow a little backbone and be honest with us. No one who said what you did:

quote:
"Land of the free, home of the brave, indigenous holocaust, and the home of the slaves. Does that sum up America for you?"
Can honestly claim to NOT be a deep-dyed liberal. That aside, I've met at least 6 of the sociologists at my University, and the only ones who didn't vote for Obama were the ones voting for the Socialist or Green Party candidates.

quote:
By your logic then, all males of European decent have better job performance then do women
Correction. Men in general have more consistent job performance. Women (not all of them, but enough to skew the averages) repeatedly interrupt their careers to have and care for children. That affects overall pay rates.

Is that "fair"? If you want to rail about basic biology and millions of years of evolutionary pressure, feel free. Perhaps you'd like to boycott the law of gravity too?

quote:
Asians (a group which is up to your interpretation) receive similar or better wages. Is this because all Asians have better on-the-job performance?
All of them? No, but as an average it's far better than other minorities, and usually slightly better than whites.

And no, I'm not Asian. I'm just honest.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By soulcarver on 3/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/6/2010 6:12:07 AM , Rating: 2
" You will not land a high-paid professional position if you do not qualify"

You will if you're a minority. 30 years of reverse discrimination has given us that. In fact, courts have ruled repeatedly that qualification tests that "have a disparate impact on minorities" are discriminatory, and thus illegal (though luckily with the recent New Haven case, the tide seems to be turning).

Furthermore, the fact you're ignoring is that qualifying for a position does not equate to excelling in it. People are paid by how well they perform. Education is just one small factor in that complex mix.

Worst of all, most of these so-called studies take ridiculous steps like equating a GED to a high school education. Are they equal? In theory, maybe. But a man who didn't graduate high school, and instead got his GED ten years later is certainly not going to be expected to have to same drive and/or intelligence as someone who graduated normally. And thus his pay is expected to be lower.

Seriously, the fact a college-educated person can believe in such a simple-minded correlation horrifies me. Correlation does not prove causation. Did you never learn that? The use of chlorinated drinking water correlates very well to higher incidence of AIDS (fact). Does that mean chlorinated water causes AIDS?


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By soulcarver on 3/5/2010 12:06:04 PM , Rating: 2
I am responsible for more than just my actions; I am also responsible for what I actions I do not take. If a sit idly by while injustice is happening then I too am being a part of that injustice. This is not just according to me, but also to precedents set in the law.

Being a sociologist, my field studies how the legacy of slavery is still around today. Wages for minority groups and women with the same educational background as their other male European-decedent counterparts are still unequal. Once this is equalized then you have an argument that it should be let it go. So too, there are standing treaties and agreements with the indigenous peoples of this land that have not been met. This is not some bygone era, it is right now.

What are some solutions? You can ensure that you pay your employees based on their merit alone. You can understand that legacies of things now in the past are still felt today.

The problem with relativist views of history is that the point gets lost in the spectacle. You are in danger of going so far back that everything and anything is justified historically... historical nihilism if you will. Just because people have killed people throughout history doesn't make it alright for a country to have a legacy of brutality, either internal or external. It then too easily becomes a justification for present and future mis-deeds and actions.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Mint on 3/4/2010 1:13:24 PM , Rating: 4
Are you kidding me? This is one of the most conservative forums of any site not designed to attract Republicans.

Look at any article in the last few years. Every time someone mocks global warming, liberals, or Obama, he gets rated up.

Just because your extreme right nonsense doesn't get votes doesn't mean this DT is the home of the liberals.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By yomamafor1 on 3/4/2010 10:23:29 AM , Rating: 5
Pulling figures out of your arse?

The 2003 Iraq War caused no more than 8k civilian deaths, and less than 50k combatants on both sides.

The Great Leap of China, started by Mao, caused at least 14M deaths, and 40M suffered from hunger. The Cultural Revolution caused approx. 1M deaths.

The Iran-Iraq War started by Huessin and Khomeini caused 1.1M deaths.

The North Korea famine, exacerbated by Kim Jong Il's economy policy (or lack thereof), caused 3M deaths.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Duwelon on 3/4/2010 11:01:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What you don't realise is that these people are already oppressed by their respective governments & the way of 'liberating' them is to kill more of them.


What do you mean by that?


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Duwelon on 3/4/2010 11:56:49 AM , Rating: 3
That's just stupidity. We should just let tyrants go amuck and not oppose them by your line of logic because the outcome will always be worse than the condition before. Seriously where did you go to college, if you did?


By Reclaimer77 on 3/4/2010 12:58:03 PM , Rating: 1
lol good post. I agree with you except for one small point, college is exactly WHERE idiots "learn" this crap.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 11:14:38 AM , Rating: 3
"Glad to see you compare the wars with Mao & Kim Jong's policies"

No, we contrast them, to show you the difference.

"There have been 1,033,000 deaths in Iraq."

That survey was discredited almost before it was even released.

"Hussein was backed & supplied by the west."

Hossein's primary supplier of mlitary weapons was Russia. #2 was France. What's your point?

" Pity the kid who sees his mother/sister being raped..."

There are several hundred documented cases of rape by members of the Hossein regime. No outrage for that, eh?

In a few short years, Iraq has been transformed from a brutal police state with a collapsed state-run economy to a vibrant and growing democracy. Many Iraqis who fled the nation during the Hossein regime have returned, the economy has grown by 14% in just the last two years alone, and new schools and hospitals are being built where once stood Saddam's forts and political jails.

That's the reality. Now we return to your fictional presentation.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 11:56:33 AM , Rating: 3
"But they were trained & supplied by US."

Incorrect. Iraq's troops were almost entirely trained by Soviet military advisors...the same advisors who fled immediately before the first Gulf War.

Iraq's Air Force:

Mig-21 (USSR)
Mig-23 (USSR)
Mig-29 (USSR)
Tu-16 (USSR)
Mi-24 HIND (USSR)
SU-22 (USSR)
Mirage F-1 (France)

Army:

T-72 Tank (USSR)
T-62 Tank (USSR)
T-54 Tank (USSR)
PRCT-55 Tank (China)
PT-76 (USSR)
MT-LB APC (USSR)
YW-531 (China)
M-1938 Artillery (USSR)
A109 Transport (Italy)
ASTROS Rocket Launchers (Brazil)

Navy:

Osa I/II Fast Attack (USSR)
Super Frelon (France)

Missile Forces:

Scud-B (USSR)
Frog-B (USSR)
Exocet AM-39 (France)
Silkworm CSS-C3 (China)
SS-N-2 Styx (USSR)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/...


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Duwelon on 3/4/2010 11:58:52 AM , Rating: 2
Damn Porkpie, you look like you've had to smack some sense into one of these brainwashed tards once before.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Mint on 3/4/2010 12:58:00 PM , Rating: 1
When was the ORB survey discredited? It was a neutral party with no anti-war agenda.

There was plenty of criticism of the Lancet study when it first came out, but then there was the study from the Iraq Ministry of Health and the WHO which found 150k violent deaths. Iraqi Body Count tallies only violent deaths with certificates to back it up, and even they got 100k.

The ORB study considered increased mortality from disease, lack of electricity and water, and all the crap that comes with war. Why the f*** don't you think they count?

You have to really have your head in the sand to ignore all evidence and think only 8K civilians died in the invasion.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 1:08:18 PM , Rating: 5
"he ORB study considered increased mortality from disease, lack of electricity and water, and all the crap that comes with war. Why the f*** don't you think they count?"

Because the study wasn't done by the ORB. It was done by one man, the founder of an Iraqi aid group, who sent out some mail surveys to the hardest hit areas, then extrapolated those results over the entire nation. He then fabricated a figure nearly twice as high as the Lancet study...a study that was roundly criticized all over the world as being significantly biased on the high side.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By weskurtz0081 on 3/4/2010 11:19:40 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
There have been 1,033,000 deaths in Iraq. Many of them civilians for no fault of theirs.


If you do a little research on that figure you quoted, you likely won't quote that as fact anymore. The number of deaths in Iraq vary WILDLY. The number you quoted is likely MUCH higher than reality.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
By weskurtz0081 on 3/4/2010 12:40:23 PM , Rating: 2
Meh, don't need to read about it in wikipedia, a site that can be edited by anybody.

I have done a lot of research on the topic at hand, no need to do anymore, thanks though.

The number you quoted, simply put, is wrong and at best VERY misleading.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By robert5c on 3/4/2010 1:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
so let me guess this straight.

out of all the polls, and figures (basically all guesses) that are out there, you took the one that has the highest casualty rate and call it the only one that's accurate?

sounds like your using that poll just because the highest number

i can pull sources for anything i want to say...that doesn't make it true.

this alone, as well as all the other statements you made that were proven false shows you really don't know what your talking about and don't care to spread the truth.

your fighting someones biased opinion with your own biased opinion...that makes sense


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 1:15:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
i can pull sources for anything i want to say...that doesn't make it true.


any number from 10000 to 1 million is not a favour to the Iraqis. The innocent civilians killed over there were not responsible for Saddam's wrongdoings. Heck, they didn't even elect him. But they fell prey to American bombs and bullets.

You can put any number you want to prove your point. But that number of deaths to justify access Saddam's nukes is invalid.


By NT78stonewobble on 3/5/2010 5:01:49 AM , Rating: 2
Your numbers are wrong.

Nevertheless the US invasion to get rid of Saddam cost less iraqi lives than Saddams rule did.

Basically what youre saying you don't give a shit about other people because wars are bad because?!?!? ...


By NT78stonewobble on 3/5/2010 5:08:05 AM , Rating: 2
Actually any number better than 1.5 million is a favour to the iraqis compaired to Saddam. So much for sticking to facts eh?

"But they fell prey to American bombs and bullets."

That goes for a very very small percentage of your erronous number.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By yomamafor1 on 3/4/2010 11:34:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What you don't realise is that these people are already oppressed by their respective governments & the way of 'liberating' them is to kill more of them.

Are you even reading what you're writing? So as opposed to remove the government that's causing the oppression, you're advocating to kill the civilians to ease their suffering?


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 12:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
" I am against this policy of invading other countries to liberate them."

So you were against the invasion that halted the genocide in Bosnia? Wouldn't have supported a UN mission to halt the Rwanda Hut-Tutsi massacre, or the Cambodian Killing Fields? Wouldn't have supported attacking Germany to halt the Holocaust?


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 12:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
Germany was invaded when it not threatened foreign interests. The holocaust did not begin on 7th Dec, 1941. America entered the war when its interests were threatened. Hitler was seen as a role model until he revealed his war plans. Indeed, Neville Chamberlain saw good in Hitler because he did not harm Britain. What difference did it make if the Jews of Europe were being rounded up and thrown in concentration camps.

By a Japanese act of aggression, the tide turned against Hitler.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 12:44:49 PM , Rating: 4
"Indeed, Neville Chamberlain saw good in Hitler "

That's ironic, considering Chamberlain's appeasement policy is oddly similar to your "we should never attack hostile nations" philosophy.

Don't dodge the question. Would YOU PERSONALLY have supported attacking Germany to end the Holocaust, even though it means some innocent German civilians will die?

Don't maunder about with why the US did or didn't act. Show some intellectual backbone and give us a straight answer.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 1:09:50 PM , Rating: 4
"As a head of state, I would decide based on my geostrategic position."

As I suspected. You talk big, but don't even have the courage to answer a straight question about your convictions.

Grow a backbone, kid.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By gamerk2 on 3/4/2010 1:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
I would decide based on the effect it would have on our country.

Example: After Japan attacked the US, we declared on Japan, not Germany. Germany had to declare on us to honor its treaty.

Secondly, getting involved in affairs that don't concern us is how we get into forign messes; lets face it, we singlehandly created the situation in Iran: We backed a dictator, we armed their enemies [then removed them from being a natural balance], and wonder why the people there hate us.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Iaiken on 3/4/2010 2:45:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Wouldn't have supported a UN mission to halt the Rwanda Hut-Tutsi massacre.


Last time I checked, the US (Clinton Administration) WAS against intervention in the Rwandan Genocide. To this day the official stance of the US government is that it was a civil war and not a genocide.

The UN mission there was Canadian lead and throughout the duration of UNAMIR not a single US soldier was involved in the mission. Regardless of what you think personally, the US did not support the UN mission there. Even then, the mission is considered a failure because of US resistance at the UN security council level.

The only items relevant to your point are those where the US was directly involved in the intervention. The rest are simply historical hindsight/guilt-tripping.

US interdiction is a hell of a lot less black and white than people like to think. Think of the ongoing civil war in Mogadisu, Somalia where the US is now supporting the Somali government it once sought to overthrow.

A significant amount of weaponry being sold on the street now was sourced directly/indirectly from the US.

M16's, M104's amongst other obsolete equipment are all available for sale on the streets of Mogadishu. Most of the AK-47's being sold there now were purchased by the US government as part of the Bosnian disarmament program.

The AK's were originally scheduled to be destroyed, but instead they were smuggled out of a US base by US/Russian private contractors to Yemen by air and from there they were then sent to Iraq and Somalia. This has been going on since 2006 and is still on-going.

Sometimes your only options to stop one group of evil men is to help another group of less-evil men.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Ammohunt on 3/4/2010 2:15:25 PM , Rating: 3
Good thing for the Italians,French,Belgians,Austrians,Dutch,Swedes,Nor wegians and others that America didn't have that attitude during the last world war. Freedom from opression is a basic human right in an Americans book.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 10:56:30 AM , Rating: 3
So in other words, about 1/30 of the amount of Iraqi civilians the Hossein regime killed...not even counting the deaths he caused in Iran, Kuwait, and elsewhere?


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Mint on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 1:00:05 PM , Rating: 3
"For almost ten years after that leading up to the invasion, there's no evidence of Saddam doing any mass killing"

Depends on how you define mass killings. He no longer gassed entire villages, sure. He still shot, beat, and tortured to death tens of thousands of people. His son Uday was even worse:

quote:
Uday would pick women from the streets and order his bodyguards to bring them to his quarters. There Uday would rape and brutalise them...

"In front of our eyes Uday took a beautiful woman and transformed her into a barely breathing hunk of raw meat.

"After beating her severely, he then sodomised her with a length of live electric cable, screaming: 'You said I wasn't hard enough. Is this hard enough for you?'

"Then, to punish her further because of what she had said, Uday slit her tongue with a razor blade.

"I remember the blood spilling onto her dress and her screams," recounts Latif.

"When Uday finally killed the poor girl, she was wrapped in a carpet and dumped in the sea from a helicopter."


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20...

"Why do warmongers like you think this passes for an excuse?"

You mean you don't ?


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 11:05:30 AM , Rating: 1
Sorry for that. I didn't see the parent post.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 11:04:29 AM , Rating: 2
" is killing a hundred thousand justied?"

Was killing German civilians in WW2 justified?


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By yomamafor1 on 3/4/2010 11:36:01 AM , Rating: 2
I've rechecked the numbers, and it appears I quoted from an incorrect source. Your numbers are more accurate than mine.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/4/2010 9:45:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But does that give America the ticket to make their life harder by imposing sanctions & invading them?


The UN imposes sanctions. The US enforces them. That's how it is and the way it's always been.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 9:48:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The UN imposes sanctions. The US enforces them. That's how it is and the way it's always been.


The UN imposes sanctions. The US enforces them when its in their interests. But flouts them when it is not.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Duwelon on 3/4/2010 10:27:29 AM , Rating: 3
Here's a clue, everyone acts in their own self interests no matter what, except for slaves. You've been spoon some major doses of bullshit by whatever lunatic professors your schools have had the misfortune of employing.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 10:37:11 AM , Rating: 2
My professors taught me to fear the wolf hiding in sheep's clothing.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Duwelon on 3/4/2010 11:04:46 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure your professor would teach you exactly how to find a wolf in sheep's clothing, yep he sure would. What you didn't know was he had to leave the room every hour to adjust his wool and brush his teeth so the stench of sheep wouldn't stink too much between his teeth.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 11:07:55 AM , Rating: 1
That was funny. Really good one. Stuff like keeps bringing me back to dailytech.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By thurston on 3/4/2010 11:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know what kind of school you people went to, but the schools I have been to taught me about math, chemistry, astronomy and statistics. I can't recall much political discussion going on, the professors where usually teaching the subject at hand.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 11:16:09 AM , Rating: 3
"The US enforces them when its in their interests. But flouts them when it is not."

Give one example of the US flouting a UN sanction.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 11:42:44 AM , Rating: 1
Why one? There is no shortage of them:

The Iraq war for beginners. The UN did not agree to invade a sovereign nation suspected for building nukes.

Here is a short list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the...


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 12:13:05 PM , Rating: 4
"The Iraq war for beginners. "

Whoa there Bessie! Do you not understand what a sanction is? The US didn't "flout a sanction" by attacking Iraq. The US (and 39 other nations by the way) sent troops to Iraq under clearly defined principles of international law that neither required nor involved the UN in any way.

For the record, under Clinton, US/NATO attacked Yugoslavia over the Kosovo issue without UN approval. But I bet you supported that one, didn't you?

Your "short list" doesn't cite a single example of the US flouting a UN sanction. Care to try again?


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 12:32:13 PM , Rating: 2
By your defintition, the US cannot flout a sanction since it has a veto.

But lesser countries without the luxury of a veto, have to abide by laws imposed on them by the 'greater powers'


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 1:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
Stop playing dumb. You said, "the US enforces sanctions when it suits them, and flouts them when it doesn't". But when I ask you to provide one example of this, you can't.

Why should we listen to anything else you have to say?


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 2:55:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Why should we listen to anything else you have to say?


That's a question you should ask yourself before replying.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 12:28:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
What do you mean "allowed" ? Show me one fucking example where America didn't allow a nation to become a democracy. You can't !!! Time and time again, when people have risen up to fight for their freedom, America has been there to support them.


Pakistan's military dicatotors have been constantly supported by the US. Musharraf was told to go after had given the US its support in establishing a foothold. His job was done.

Tibetans have been fighting for their independence for more than 50 years. American presidents go to Beijing to shake hands with their oppressors. His Holiness, the Dalai Lama is not treated with half that respect.

quote:
Look up the word righteous. And yeah, our media is just SO pro American lol. Have you been living in a cave the last decade or two ?


It does not take a genius to recognise a cover-up operation for the huge mistake of invading Iraq. It has convinced you that America was doing a favour to Iraqis by bombing them. Afghans have a long memory. They have not forgotten the creators & supporters of the Taliban.

quote:
Right, so because of a philosophical concern, we'll just have NO guards. Good idea...


Accept the fact. The UN foremost is a body of 5 permanent members who have decided to be the sole guardians of nukes. Any other country aspiring to get nukes are outlawed. They have to live under the shadow of nuke powers or risk their ire.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Duwelon on 3/4/2010 12:35:23 PM , Rating: 3
He's gotta be some muslim hamas syphathizer living in the US. His english is good but nobody is this brainwashed and stupid, even out of public schools.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Moohbear on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Moohbear on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 1:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
Some people can't bear to see them out.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 1:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
"Why do I get down-voted for answering a disturbing question with historical facts?"

Probably because your "facts" are incorrect. Despite what you might have read on Wikipedia, the US didn't overthrow any democracy in Iran in 1953. The Shah of Iran (and his father before him) led the country since well before the US or Britain arrived.

The "democratically elected government" was PM Mossadeqh, who, after losing the support of the Muslim clerics who put him in office, rigged a popular vote by having his supporters violently block poll access, then shut down voting except in areas in which he was favored.

The "overthrow" was Iranian citizens who came out wildly in support of the Shah, and Iranian troops who disobeyed the orders of Mossedegh to fire upon the citizenry, and instead backed the Shah.

US and British involvement primarily consisted of our secret diplomatic efforts to convince the Shah to use his power to replace Mossedegh with a less radical alternative. Other than that and printing a few handbills, the Iranian people made their choice freely. And given how quickly Mossedegh began exhibiting totalitarian tendencies, I'd say its an even bet whether he would have turned out worse or better for the Iranian people than did the Shah (who at the time was very moderate and quite popular with the people).


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 1:50:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
US and British involvement primarily consisted of our secret diplomatic efforts to convince the Shah to use his power to replace Mossedegh with a less radical alternative.


The plan was for Iranian Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to issue a decree dismissing Mossadegh and replacing him with a royalist general, Fazlollah Zahedi. But the shah proved an unenthusiastic co-conspirator, wary of losing his throne and his own popularity. After months of cajoling (and a power grab by Mossadegh), he assented.

From:
http://photo.newsweek.com/2010/the-worlds-greatest...


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 1:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
"The plan was for Iranian Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to issue a decree..."

Thank you for confirming everything I said. The Shah was already in power long before we arrived. Our involvement was in convincing him to replace a member of his government...an act that wound up increasing his popularity with his people vastly.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 2:42:58 PM , Rating: 1
Did you read the paragraph after that?

quote:
To set the stage, the CIA launched an anti-communist propaganda campaign against Mossadegh, including planted newspaper reports, bribes, street demonstrations, and even the bombing of a cleric’s home to break the prime minister’s coalition with Iran’s religious community.


The initial plan was to replace a govt official. With the shah supporting them, they toppled the democratically elected government.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Moohbear on 3/4/2010 2:08:21 PM , Rating: 1
Of course, the CIA didn't plot to force a regime change in Iran in 1953 and certainly did not conduct any operation to that end... Neither did they plot to replace the elected socialist government of S. Allende with the more "friendly" one, ending with Pinochet, a great democrat if there were ever any...

/Sarcasm


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/4/2010 2:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
lol I love you nutjobs description of the all powerful all knowing all able CIA. Able to pick world leaders at a moments notice without anyone having a say in it.

I hear they also killed Princess Dianna. /sarcasm


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Moohbear on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 4:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
"The operation Ajax is well documented:"

Yes. It's well documented that we convinced the then-ruler of Iran to replace a member of his government. So? The Shah was in charge before the operation; he was in charge afterwards...and his move was wildly popular with the people of Iran. We didn't "depose a government".


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Moohbear on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 6:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
Again, the facts.

a. The Shah was in power long before the US and Britain arrived.

b. The only popular vote in Mosaddeq's favor was rigged by his supporters.

c. Most scholars attribute the fall of Mosaddeq to his radical secular policies, which cost him the spport of the hardline Shia clerics and landed gentry -- the same people ultimately responsible for the deposing of the Shah.

d. The "evil CIA plot" was nothing but diplomatic efforts to convince the Shah and a few members of Parliament that Mosaddeq should be replaced. That and some handbills printed up were the extent of US/British involvement.

e. The Shah at the time was a popular, and in no way despotic leader. He didn't begin to show authoritarian tendencies until decades later.

Here's some actual eyewitness testimony from those "secret CIA papers" you are referring to. From them, its clear the relative levels of support among the people of Iran:

quote:
The news the paper carried of [the Shah's victory] was undoubtably flashed through the city by word of mouth, for before 9:00am, pro-Shah groups were assembling in the bazaar area. Members of these groups had not only made their personal choice between Mossadeq and the Shah, but were stirred up and ready to move...

By 10:15, there were pro-Shah truckloads of military personnel in all the main squares... the really large groups, armed with sticks and stones, came from south Tehran and merged as they [progressed] to the center of the city. The [Mossadeq troops] fired hundreds of shots over the heads of the crowd, but apparently were not willing to fire at these partisans of the Shah...

The surging crowds of men, women, and children wree shouting "Shah Piruz Ast!", (The Shah is Victorious)... A gay holiday atmosphere prevailed , and it was as if exterior pressures had been released so the true sentiments of the people showed through. The crowds included people of all classes -- many well dressed, led or encouraged by other civilians. Trucks and busloads of cheering civilians streamed by [and] about noon, five tanks and 20 truckloads of soldiers joined in...

As usual, word spread like lightning and in other parts of the city, pictures of the Shah were eagerly displayed. Cars went by with headlights burning as tangible indication of loyalty to the ruler...

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/8-Ori...


By Reclaimer77 on 3/4/2010 8:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
Nice. I can't wait to see how that idiot tries to spin this. Why bother with facts and sources when you can keep spewing the same lie over and over again.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Moohbear on 3/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/5/2010 10:36:56 AM , Rating: 2
" If you think it was fair for the Brits to be the sole beneficiaries of Iranian oil,"

Please stop distorting the truth. At the time, Iran was receiving the standard 50-50 profit sharing arrangment as other Middle Eastern nations, an arrangement that was more than fair considering 'the Brits' had invested hundred of millions in developing those fields and building infrastructure. Iran was becoming rich and prosperous from those revenues; they in fact were by far the single largest source of government revenues.

Nationalizing the oil fields was just a cheap populist money-grab maneuver. For analogy, imagine you own a ancient abandoned house. I strike a deal with you-- I'll put on a roof that doesn't leak, fix the broken foundation, replace the rotted wood, install new appliances, paint, carpet, the works....AND I'll even go out and find you a tenant to live in it. In exchange, we split the profits 50:50.

Once I spend all that money and rent is coming in, you suddenly decide, "hey its my house! Why should I share anything?" You then cancel our deal, refuse to pay me back my investment, and keep everything for yourself.

THAT, sir, is the nationalization Mossadeq proposed. The US and Britain were right to oppose it.

"But you can't blame Mossadegh for taking an authoritarian turn when 2 major powers were conspiring against him"

The problem with that theory is that Mossadegh's authoritative turn began well before the "conspiring". It is, in fact, what engendered Project Ajax to start with.

It's very illuminating how easily you justify Mossedeq's violence, brutalization, vote-rigging and other abuses, but are so willing to condemn the west for supporting the country's rightful ruler...a man who, at the time, was an angel of mercy compared to Mossadeq.

Finally, you continue to ignore the primary point here. No amount of US or British diplomacy could have unseated Mossadeq, had he not already been widely unpopular among the Shia clerics AND the people of Iran itself.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Moohbear on 3/5/10, Rating: 0
By HandOfDeath on 3/7/2010 1:04:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
US and British involvement primarily consisted of our secret diplomatic efforts


If by "secret diplomatic efforts" you meant to say "covert intrusion by the CIA" then you would be correct. If you really meant "secret diplomatic efforts" than you're truly naïve. There was nothing diplomatic about the way the US tried to intervene.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By pequin06 on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By hiscross on 3/4/2010 7:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
Relocate to North Korea. Bring plenty of food because you will find out that 10 of thousands North Koreans have starved to death in the past 15 years. US gets rid of bad people, North Korea gets rid of their own.


By teflonbilly on 3/4/2010 12:14:00 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that Kim is In North Korea right? Just Checking.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By anthrax on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 9:08:12 AM , Rating: 3
US needs to lead by example if it wants to prevent states from going nuclear. Speeches filled with optimism of a nuke-free world are fine but national security are not based on opinions.

The cold hard reality today is that US possesses thousands of nuclear warheads without a no first use (NFU) policy. China & India have NFU in their nuclear doctrine.

Countries threatened by the US (like Iran & North Korea) know that nukes are the only guarantee against an American invasion. A non-nuclear Iraq fell prey to US aggression.

quote:
India's General Sundarji famously said, the lesson of the 1991 war between the United States and Iraq was not to get into a conflict with the United States unless you already had nuclear weapons.


By StraightCashHomey on 3/4/2010 9:16:11 AM , Rating: 2
I thought W said they were loaded with nooks?


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 9:34:51 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Do you realize how retarded you sound ? Ignoring your obvious anti-American slant, do you actually propose using nukes on your own soil as a deterrent to invasion ? The United States is not an aggressor, we are liberators. I remind you Iraq broke UN treaties and regulations again and again and again. You might disagree with the reasons for the war, but don't pretend they are some kind of victim.


I would expect that kind of bullshit from a Fox News anchor.

The United states is anything but a liberator. It acts only when its interests have been threatened.

It supported Saddam Hussein against its war with Iran. The chemical weapons used against Iraqi civilians were known to America. They did nothing to stop it since Saddam did not hurt America. But when it turned to invade Kuwait, we had the great liberators travelling half a world away to liberate.

The Afghanis had schools, hospitals & gender equality under communists. Though they did not live in a democracy, they were way better than living under Taliban that was created & supported by US as long as the Taliban were helping the American cause. The Afghanis were raped, tortured & killed by Taliban.

Need I convince you of Vietnam & Iraq 2?

quote:
Yeah that's real logical thinking there. Hey, because they SAID they won't use them first totally means they won't. Right ? Especially China, which is about as honest when it comes to it's foreign policy and dealings with other nations as a crooked politician.


It is a dificult comparison but I must say that China invaded its neighbors & opppressed its citizens. America invaded Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq & killed thousands more.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Duwelon on 3/4/2010 9:47:35 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, Fox News is the one spreading lies here. Where are you from anyway? Every claim you make is so slanted and one dimentional, all you portray is "Saddam the victim", what are you, bought and paid for by Hezbollah or something? You're line of thinking is lock stock and barrel all about how much you hate america and the rest of the world is just peachy, which if you actually looked at some DEATH COUNTS of people living under the control of the dictators you defend, the truth would become evident. You're not after the truth though, are you? Just look at your heroes that you claim America has abused and tortured and see how many millions died to their hands. Is the USA perfect? nobody is, but we sure are one of the few places in this world that actually still upholds justice and respects individuality. Saddam greasing his own people, Iran slaughtering it's own people for speaking out against the Ayatollah is GOOD and RIGHTEOUS to you?


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 9:53:13 AM , Rating: 3
You misunderstood me. I hate Saddam as much as you do.

I am pointing out the US support of monsters like Saddam Hussein & Taliban when it supported US interests.

Make no mistake, Saddam deserved to be hung for his crimes. But not now, way back in the 80s when he was gassing Kurdish villages. That was when he was being supplied adavanced weaponry to fight Iran.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Duwelon on 3/4/2010 10:04:03 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody endorsed or knew Saddam was going to gas his own people. Don't blame the USA for Saddam being Saddam.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 10:08:56 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Nobody endorsed or knew Saddam was going to gas his own people. Don't blame the USA for Saddam being Saddam.


Supporting Saddam after gassing his own people makes USA Saddam.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By tamalero on 3/4/2010 10:21:31 AM , Rating: 1
funny how the "allies" of USA in middle east got easily fed up with USA's bullshit "relationship" and went against them in the end... Bin Ladem is another name...


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 3:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
I never said the US supplied gas. America supplied bombs and other weapons to Saddam against his war with Iran. This support continued until 1990. The slaughter of Kurd villagers did not stop America from supporting Saddam.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 3:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
"America supplied bombs and other weapons to Saddam against his war with Iran. This support continued until 1990."

Once again, you fabricate a fact to fit your agenda. How many times must you be proven wrong?


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 3:22:50 PM , Rating: 1
You haven't read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support...

If you don't trust wikipedia, check out the references at the bottom.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 4:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
"If you don't trust wikipedia, check out the references at the bottom"

I did. No reputable source claims the US continued to arm Iraq after the Halabja gas attacks came to light. Most of them simply point out Rumsfeld's trips to Iraq during the mid-1980s, prior to that time.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By HandOfDeath on 3/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/7/2010 7:03:34 PM , Rating: 4
"So apparently, in your view, chemicals sold to Saddam by US manufacturers, later used by Iraq to make WMDs, don't count as "arms".

Please try to think clearly. The hemical weapons machinery and over 96% of the precursor chemicals used came directly from Germany, Netherlands, and a few other nations.

After Halabja, the US State Department prescribed sales of such equipment and chemicals to Iraq, and strictly enforced it (with the help of intelligence from the CIA you despise so greatly). Does that mean Iraqi agents weren't able to occasionally divert a shipment, by purchasing through a lengthy chain of middlemen and transhipments to other nations first? Of course not...no enforcement is perfect.

Claiming that means "the US armed Iraq" is childishly ludicrous. Compared to Iraq's DIRECT purchases from European nations, what Hossein managed to covertly acquire from US manufacturers was trivial. More to the point, it was done without knowledge of the US government, or the US firms involved.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Kurz on 3/4/2010 10:19:47 AM , Rating: 1
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Duwelon on 3/4/2010 10:37:43 AM , Rating: 4
Way to try to make a small point with a broad stroke and failing badly. Nobody but Saddam and his government supporting the slaughter of the Kurds. The USA supplied Iraq before the Kuwait invasion for the neutralization of Iran at the time. We could argue if it was a good idea or not, hindsight being what it is, but nowhere in US foreign policy did it say "We support Saddam gassing the Kurds".


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 10:45:10 AM , Rating: 3
The mother who takes no action against her child's misbehaviour and supports him is equally guilty.

The fact is that the US turned a blind eye to his atrocities and countiued to arm him. They gave him a free hand to do whatever he pleased as long as he supported the US.

Why was Saddam hanged?


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By shin0bi272 on 3/4/2010 11:13:17 AM , Rating: 5
See this is where the US just cant win. If we did nothing about Saddam we would be blamed for sitting idly by and letting him invade other arabian countries. But if we go in and take action and stop him we get blamed for being the bully. When we take action we are chided for acting like the policemen of the world but when we dont do anything people claim we're arrogant and ambivalent.

Dont forget Saddam was trying to build nuclear plants in 81 till Israel blew them up. They still had the 550 metric tons (600 us tons) of yellow cake uranium in country till 2008 when we found it and shipped it to canada to be used in their power reactors. The CIA also found 1500 pages on making a nuclear weapon in a palace of Saddam's in 2004 and posted them on their website.

To sort of put an end to this debate about funding other countries remember what Jefferson said "Trade with all Allies with none should be our policy". Its sort of like the whole gun control argument... "someone got shot in a driveby we need to ban all guns". It's not the gun that did the killing it was the person using it. Even if you banned all guns where do you think martial arts came from? Banning things dont stop their use by anyone other than the law abiding citizen... So by the same regard if we give guns and ammo to a country thats the enemy of our enemy (and even our enemy) we make money and its on their conscience as to how they use them not ours.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By shin0bi272 on 3/4/2010 11:13:59 AM , Rating: 2
See this is where the US just cant win. If we did nothing about Saddam we would be blamed for sitting idly by and letting him invade other arabian countries. But if we go in and take action and stop him we get blamed for being the bully. When we take action we are chided for acting like the policemen of the world but when we dont do anything people claim we're arrogant and ambivalent.

Dont forget Saddam was trying to build nuclear plants in 81 till Israel blew them up. They still had the 550 metric tons (600 us tons) of yellow cake uranium in country till 2008 when we found it and shipped it to canada to be used in their power reactors. The CIA also found 1500 pages on making a nuclear weapon in a palace of Saddam's in 2004 and posted them on their website.

To sort of put an end to this debate about funding other countries remember what Jefferson said "Trade with all Allies with none should be our policy". Its sort of like the whole gun control argument... "someone got shot in a driveby we need to ban all guns". It's not the gun that did the killing it was the person using it. Even if you banned all guns where do you think martial arts came from? Banning things dont stop their use by anyone other than the law abiding citizen... So by the same regard if we give guns and ammo to a country thats the enemy of our enemy (and even our enemy) we make money and its on their conscience as to how they use them not ours.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By shin0bi272 on 3/4/2010 11:15:41 AM , Rating: 2
Gah double post... stupid website hung "posting" for a full minute. My bad people.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 11:20:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
See this is where the US just cant win. If we did nothing about Saddam we would be blamed for sitting idly by and letting him invade other arabian countries.


Sitting idly and arming a man intent on murder are totally different things. When you supply arms to a country during war, you are on his side of the fence. Like it or hate it, but the US knew well where the arms would end up being used.

quote:
The CIA also found 1500 pages on making a nuclear weapon in a palace of Saddam's in 2004 and posted them on their website.


If they posted them on the website, the documents do not contain classified information in making bombs.

I am waiting for a good reason to justify the invasion of Iraq.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Duwelon on 3/4/2010 11:31:00 AM , Rating: 3
Tell me, which group of people in the world is your model of all things good?


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By shin0bi272 on 3/4/2010 11:34:58 AM , Rating: 2
No you misunderstand the point. We will sell arms to anyone we arent at war with to make money and have them eliminate an enemy of ours at the same time.

Look at the mujaheddin in afghanistan. They were about to be rolled over by the Russians till we gave them stingers. Then the taliban moves in and starts blaming us for corrupting the world or whatever.

Again we are not responsible for how they are used once weve sold them. You cant connect morality to issue #2 when the weapons were for issue #1 so to speak. If Saddam didnt have our weapons he would have killed the kurds anyway (not that we gave him the gas but you get the point). We just gave him the weapons to fight the bigger evil of Iran. What he did with them after was his decision not ours.

Im going to guess your not a libertarian are you? You seem to be more concerned with accounting for every bullet and every death and attaching that to the albatross around the neck of the USA.

And about the CIA... have you ever heard of redacted? You take a big black marker and cross out the important stuff while you leave the stuff like the title page that says "nuclear weapons for dummies".

Your argument is failing but nice try.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 11:50:48 AM , Rating: 2
How about quoting the truth in all its bareness?

quote:
We just gave him the weapons to fight the bigger evil of Iran. What he did with them after was his decision not ours.


In simple words, we don't care whether the villagers die or live as long as our interests in killing Iranians are being carried out. We will continue our morally weak policy of furthering our interests at others' expense. Truth be damned. We convince the world that our side is right.

quote:
And about the CIA... have you ever heard of redacted? You take a big black marker and cross out the important stuff while you leave the stuff like the title page that says "nuclear weapons for dummies".


They don't behave as if the bad stuff did not exist.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 1:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
"I am waiting for a good reason to justify the invasion of Iraq."

1. On countless occasions, Iraq violated the terms of the original cease-fire agreement of the Kuwaiti War. By that alone, Hussein justified the resumption of hostilities, up to and including invasion of his nation.

2. On several occasions, Iraq fired upon US and British Forces enforcing the UN mandated No-Fly Zone. By that alone, Hussein initiated an act of war, justifying reprisals up to and including invasion of his nation.

Despite the many humanitarian reasons to invade Iraq, either of the above two are sufficient by themselves.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 2:51:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
1. On countless occasions, Iraq violated the terms of the original cease-fire agreement of the Kuwaiti War. By that alone, Hussein justified the resumption of hostilities, up to and including invasion of his nation. 2. On several occasions, Iraq fired upon US and British Forces enforcing the UN mandated No-Fly Zone. By that alone, Hussein initiated an act of war, justifying reprisals up to and including invasion of his nation.


If what you say is correct, then Iraq is totally justified in attacking the US for invading on a lousy excuse.

How does this sound?
"Hello comrades. This is your commander Ahmed Omar speaking from Washington DC. We have established peace in the world by removing the 2000 nukes on American territory."

In reality, US does not even have the fig leaf of nukes to cover their invasion.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Low Key on 3/4/2010 4:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
I thought you just gave your own justification for invading iraq. The US supported them at one time and now we had to go back and take away our toys since they were abusing them. It may be a little late but bureaucracy is always slow. </sarcasm>

You said yourself that when you supply arms to a country during a war you are on their side of the war. It does not mean that you support or even have any right to interfere with their internal policies.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 12:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
"The fact is that the US turned a blind eye to his atrocities and countiued to arm him."

I've already demonstrated the falsity of this. Do you really think you win converts by spreading disinformation?


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Duwelon on 3/4/2010 12:38:57 PM , Rating: 3
Someone has already won with him. His claims are full of lies yet at each claim he makes that gets refuted, he just shifts position and pulls a new lie out of his toolbox. I really don't think he's going to change his mind about anything, no matter how much of his stats gets corrected, because he's prejudiced to hate the US to the core and this is but a small avenue of that release.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By gamerk2 on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 2:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
"You see, by getting involved in situations that don't concern us"

You don't seem to realize the Iran-Contra arms sale was designed to free US hostages. Iran didn't concern us, when they're holding US citizens hostage? Our support for the Shah prevented Mossedegh from nationalizing (i.e. stealing) an enormous quantity of US and British assets. How were we "not involved" here again?

As for your little fiction about us arming Hussein, I've already discredited that elsewhere in the thread.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Duwelon on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By jimbo2779 on 3/4/2010 9:40:55 AM , Rating: 2
No I think you will find that America and Britain abolutely were the aggressors. Saddam had weapons inspectors in Iraq qhen we declared war, they could not find any evidence of the weapons our governments were claiming.

Both governments were warned that Iraq was not a threat and that war would be an illegal action, they took it anyway. We were and still are to this day the aggressors.

Don't fool yourself into thinking you know everything about that war if all you listen to is the corporate media as they are not telling you the truth, not about this and not about a lot of things.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Duwelon on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 10:04:38 AM , Rating: 2
Sir, it is astounding when people like you are taken in by propoganda.

Kicking out weapon inspectors is a poor reason to invade a country. The invasion took place beacause of false information.

quote:
People that defend people like Saddam are no better than he was.


Was that a reference to the government of the 80s?


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Duwelon on 3/4/2010 9:55:11 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Both governments were warned that Iraq was not a threat and that war would be an illegal action, they took it anyway. We were and still are to this day the aggressors.


I have to call you out on this lie too. 15 nations voted unanimously to approve the use of military action in Iraq. There was absolutely nothing illegal about it any way shape or form. Even without that approval, Saddam had still broken the 1991 Gulf War Treaty repeatedly, and the US was trying to get the UN to actually do something about it. After the UN failed, the US stepped up to the plate. It's a shame we live in a world filled with spineless morons who hate truth and honor so much as to defend a mass murdering dictator when it's all so black and white.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By tamalero on 3/4/2010 10:12:29 AM , Rating: 2
please.. mention these "15 nations".
unlike you guys who have been brainwashed by US media, we seen how disturbing this problem was.
they had inspectors, they found nothing. the US still was pushing.
besides its not new when the US has to do something AGAINST Their interest, they will ignore the UN and use their veto power..
in short... the UN is just a tool for the US to do what THEY WANT in the way THEY WANT.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Duwelon on 3/4/2010 10:45:33 AM , Rating: 1
You're obfuscating the facts on purpose. The world intelligence community believed saddam has WMD's. Saddam was kicking out the inspectors repeatedly, this is common knowledge, i watched it happen year after year.

Here's the resolution, not that the US needed to depose of Saddam, but Bush played ball with the world regardless and gave Saddam ample time to comply with the UN. If Saddam had any plans to comply, he would have done so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Securi...


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By tamalero on 3/4/2010 12:05:06 PM , Rating: 1
hang on.. THE WORLD??
people already said "BULLSHIT" when USA was moving his armies, I still laugh when they found the "evidence" was just modified satellite photos from certain Students and teachers.

second, Id kick the inspectors if they were spying when they already seen nothing but insist in looking on other shit.
remember that some of the US intelligence loves to DESESTABILICE countries before an assault.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Duwelon on 3/4/2010 12:28:10 PM , Rating: 1
Sidestep, but never face reality, is what you're daddy taught you?


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 12:30:18 PM , Rating: 4
BBC News story from 2001, 2 years before the US invaded Iraq:

quote:
Iraq could produce nuclear weapons within three years, according to a German intelligence assessment.
The report also says the Federal Intelligence Service (BND) has evidence that Baghdad is working to develop its short-range rockets.

The BND also believes Iraq still possesses the capacity to resume the production of biological weapons at short notice.

Details of the information contained in the report was published in various German newspapers following a briefing to journalists by BND officials.

The BND says it has evidence to suggest the following:

Iraq has resumed its nuclear programme and may be capable of producing an atomic bomb in three years. Work has been observed at the Al Qaim site, believed to be the centre of Baghdad's nuclear programme.

Iraq is currently developing its Al Samoud and Ababil 100/Al Fatah short-range rockets, which can deliver a 300kg payload 150km (95 miles). Medium-range rockets capable of carrying a warhead 3,000km (1,900 miles) could be built by 2005 - far enough to reach Europe.

Iraq is also believed to be capable of manufacturing solid rocket fuel.

A Delhi-based company, blacklisted by the German Government because of its alleged role in weapons proliferation, has acted as a buyer on Iraq's behalf. Deliveries have been made via Malaysia and Dubai.

Since the UN inspectors left, the number of Iraqi sites involved in chemicals production has increased from 20 to 80. Of that total, the BND believes a quarter to be involved in making weapons.

Widespread procurement activity has been observed abroad and production of biological weapons could be resumed at short notice. It is possible that production may already have begun.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1189182.stm

Yeah, it was all just George Bush, right?


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 12:03:41 PM , Rating: 3
"Please.. mention these "15 nations"."

Sure. The previous poster provided the link. Here's the actual text:

quote:
On November 8, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15-0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor , giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution</quote.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 10:12:13 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
15 nations voted unanimously to approve the use of military action in Iraq.


based on CIA information.

quote:
It's a shame we live in a world filled with spineless morons who hate truth and honor so much as to defend a mass murdering dictator when it's all so black and white.


No sir, the sir hates the mass murderer whether he is elected or unelected.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Duwelon on 3/4/2010 10:56:45 AM , Rating: 2
Funny how you come off as a lover of a wanton murderers of innocents and a hater of someone who killed said wanton murders of innocents. In the grand score of good and evil, the USA has done far more good in the world than it has evil.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 11:02:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Funny how you come off as a lover of a wanton murderers of innocents and a hater of someone who killed said wanton murders of innocents.


I am a hater of wanton murderers. I equally hate the people who support them in these acts of evil. The supporters then back stab the evil doer when he turns against them.

quote:
In the grand score of good and evil, the USA has done far more good in the world than it has evil.


The orphaned Afghan boy disagrees.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 11:22:57 AM , Rating: 2
"The orphaned Afghan boy disagrees."

All the Afghan women would dispute you. Under the Taliban government, women had no rights whatsoever. They were chattel. Denied the right to work, to go to school, or even leave the house without a male escort, forced to wear a burqa and veil continually.

Today in Afghanistan, women have equal constitutional rights to men. They can vote, work, they go to school, travel as they please, walk the streets without being covered head to toe. Some women have even been appointed to high levels in government.

That's the reality of Afghanistan since the US arrived. Now back to your fictional presentation.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Duwelon on 3/4/2010 11:53:59 AM , Rating: 2
Tell us who your standard of good is in the world is.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By albus on 3/4/2010 12:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All the Afghan women would dispute you.


I fully agree with you.

quote:
Under the Taliban government, women had no rights whatsoever. They were chattel. Denied the right to work, to go to school, or even leave the house without a male escort, forced to wear a burqa and veil continually.


The Taliban were one of the worst things that could happen to Afghanistan.

It is an open secret that the Taliban were funded and supplied by the US covertly thru Pakistan. Not too long ago, the women had equal constitutional rights to men. They could vote, work, they go to school, travel as they pleased, walk the streets without being covered head to toe. Some women had even been appointed to high levels in government.

But they were allied with Soviet Union. The US could not see a happy Afghanistan. Anything to do with the communists was nothing less than pure evil.

America did whatever was in its power to bring them down to their knees. What difference did it make if a few Afghans were killed or wounded, women were covered from head to toe as long as the communists were not in power.

The Taliban was monster created by US & Pakistan. As all things unfaithful, it bit the hand that fed it.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 11:03:07 AM , Rating: 3
"5 million children (almost half of the country's children) who became orphans..."

It's amazing what nonsense a person can convince themselves of if they try hard enough. For half the country's children to be orphans, half the parents in the nation would have had to die.

Iraq population at the start of the war: 24.6M.
Iraq population today: 28.2M

Where's the massive drop in population your tale demands?

Think man, THINK! We know you hate the USA, but fantasy isn't going to win you any converts.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/4/2010 12:45:50 PM , Rating: 2
Five million orphans in Iraq:

source 1: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_con...

source 2 : http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=15...

"Porkpie" I couldn't find Iraq population numbers, the most recent that I could find is from 2007" care to provide reference to newer?

"We know you hate the USA"

I know Porkpie you see the world in black and white but at least make an attempt to not be a bonehead. Personally I don't like US politics, it's true, but I think people of the United States are great, partially I believe due to the multi-ethnic composition which result in massive variety of ideas, arts etc. Americans are awesome, a little too obese but still impressively productive.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 12:50:08 PM , Rating: 3
Your source is "US Labor Against the War?" Lol...are you actually seriously putting forth tinfoil hat material like that as a reputable source?

Here's Reuters, a real source:
quote:
No one knows how many children had parents torn from them by the war, or the conflicts waged by Saddam against Kuwait and Iran. Some fathers were hanged or shot under Saddam.

Samira al-Moussawi, head of the women's, children's and families' committee in parliament, said if there are a million widows in Iraq, there are probably three million orphans.

In other words, no one knows for sure...but one politician is willing to make a wild a*** guess at 3 million.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE52100R200903...


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/4/2010 1:26:56 PM , Rating: 1
I have to call you here "porkpie" a dishonest asshole. The source of information is not a "US Labor Against the War", the source is: "official Iraqi government statistics released in December 2007", I'll repeat it for pretentious and thick the source is "official Iraqi statistics released in 2007".


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 1:28:48 PM , Rating: 1
" The source of information is not a "US Labor Against the War", the source is: "official Iraqi government statistics released in December 2007","

Incorrect. The source is "US Labor Against The War" who claims an "official Iraqi government statistic". No such statistic exists, as I already demonstrated, and this group conveniently fails to provide any documentation to support their claim.

Just because an antiwar group manufacturers a figure doesn't make it true.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/4/2010 1:37:12 PM , Rating: 3
I found newer report:

New reports of Iraqi Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs released in 16 January, 2008 with new disaster numbers of children situation in Iraq. This report was declare that in Iraq now 4.5 millions Iraqi orphans with 500 000 living in streets without any home or family care about thier, as well as there are only 459 orphans in governmental houses of orphans.

The Iraqi Parliamentary Committee of Woman and Child have a pessimistic vision regarding the future of children in Iraq. Naddera Aif, a parliamentary member of this committee and affiliated with the Iraqi Accordance Front (IAF) told VOI “I have a pessimistic vision regarding the future of families in Iraq, due to the current violence, displacement, poverty, and family fragmentation. There are 4.5 million orphans, in addition to 800 children in prisons, 700 of them in the Iraqi detentions, and the rest in American custody, all accused of terror or issuing false statements.”

The Orphanages Department at the Iraqi Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs considers that childhood in Iraq suffers the loss of rights comparing with their counterparts in the neighboring countries. “Kids in Iraq are deprived of health care in schools, playing with their friends, and the right to self-expression,” Abeer Al-Chalabi, the manager of that department said to VOI, adding that many children in Iraq are subjected to sexual harassment, some of them are conducting hard jobs unsuitable to their ages, and others use begging to earn their living.

"Porkpie", Please take your head out of your ass.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 2:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
"Naddera Aif, a parliamentary member of this committee and affiliated with the Iraqi Accordance Front (IAF) told VOI..."

Lol, you mean the same Naddera Aif who a year earlier said he didn't know how many many orphans there were, but estimated 3 million? Then releases a figure claiming 4.5M, without a single shred of supporting evidence? When he heads the committee that would most directly benefit from foreign aid for orphans?

Vitaly please...use your head. There's no possibly way that figure can be correct, and I'll show you why. Iraq's population in 2008 was 28M. Demographically, it is 39.6% children. That means there are 11M children in Iraq. For 4.5M (40%) to be orphans, it would mean the war had killed 40% of all mothers and fathers in the country.

Work that back into the population of Iraq, and that works out to be nearly 12 million people dead. Yet the population of Iraq didn't decrease by 12M from 2003-2008. It increased by over 6 million .

For 12M people to die, and the population still increase by 25%, every woman in Iraq would have had to be having quintuplets every nine months for the last 5 years...during a war and civil upheaval which traditionally lowers the birth rate.

This is why no reputable news source ever reports stories like you linked. They're obvious sham, self evident to anyone with even a basic grasp of high school mathematics.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/4/2010 3:59:45 PM , Rating: 2
OK,"Porkpie" your argument is reasonable this time. Now, I have no idea how they came up with these numbers, though it's quite possible that considerable percentage of adults flee to neighboring countries in search for work and leave their children behind and then officials register them as orphans or Iraqi civilians death tall and population estimation of 28M is quite distorted. Either way thanks for rationale.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 4:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
" though it's quite possible that considerable percentage of adults flee to neighboring countries in search for work and leave their children behind and then officials register them as orphans"

Yep. If you read the attached stories, you'll see they're claiming as "orphans" kids who left home because their parents divorced or abandoned them -- then likely multiplied by a factor of 5 or 10, in the hopes of scaring up more foreign aid dollars.

The only REAL figure is 459 orphans actually under Iraqi state care.

BTW, thanks for being reasonable. It restores some of my lost faith in humanity.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By bhieb on 3/4/2010 9:12:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So its just making a money saving that has zero negative impact, in fact, it is probably one of the few money savers that has no negative impact.

That is the real news here heading should be "Obama announces plan to SAVE money".


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By Duwelon on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
By StraightCashHomey on 3/4/2010 10:39:32 AM , Rating: 2
Dramatic much?


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By glennforum on 3/4/2010 10:44:45 AM , Rating: 4
You just don't understand the issue.

Obama did this without getting anything significant from the Russians in the move.

This is his continued stupid concept of...well we will make the first move in good faith and others will follow.

EPIC FAIL.

This amounts to just another form of surrender. Obama will go down in history as the worst and most dangerous POTUS we have ever had.

NOTE to Shane: Obama has NOT cut military spending - in fact he has INCREASED spending over what Bush did. Get YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. Plus with the civilian defense force Obama stated he would build - it will be as well funded as our military so essentially he is going to double our "military" spoending.


RE: Kinda irrelevant really...
By FaceMaster on 3/4/2010 12:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
Don't throw away, recycle!


where will these warheads go
By shin0bi272 on 3/4/2010 11:24:47 AM , Rating: 3
Are these warheads going to be used for those new nuclear plants that obama is also endorsing?




RE: where will these warheads go
By goz314 on 3/4/2010 12:33:37 PM , Rating: 2
They can be re-formed into fuel for fast breeder reactors, but they probably won't. It's too expensive some have argued. Most of the dismantled warheads end up being stored in safe bunkers on military bases and other secure facilities. The plutonium pits, in particular, are kept under tight lock and key.

One of the great ironies in nuclear warhead reduction efforts is that the fissile material from a dismantled warhead can, with relative ease, be re-assembled into a functional weapon with very little lead time. Sure, they can't be used for immediate response against a first strike, but they could always be called upon for some other use with sufficient notice.


RE: where will these warheads go
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 12:38:50 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't quite correct. Weapons-grade uranium is typically downblended to LEU. Plutonium is a bit more difficult, but its generally disposed of as MOX fuel for reactors, or neutron-irradiated to "poison" it (via Pu-240 production) to prevent its use in weapons.


RE: where will these warheads go
By goz314 on 3/4/2010 5:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you supposedly know more than the folks at Los Alamos then... Judging from some of your previous posts in this thread, that notion neither surprises me nor many of the other folks reading this as well. So, please excuse me for suggesting that you are off the mark when you responded to my earlier comments.

Just because warheads are dismantled does not mean that their constituent parts, most importantly the stuff that makes them go bang, are also dismantled and rendered inert and safe for all time. I think you conveniently ignore that important point when trying to seemingly "correct" the statements from my post.

The numbers below are a bit dated "from '04", but it still demonstrates the concept that reducing the number of deployed warheads does not necessarily translate to a reduction in the effect of deterrence or in re-deployment capability.

At the present time the U.S. has approximately 24,000 intact pits, of which most (and possible all) are in perfect working order -- meaning they would detonate in a blast a little smaller than the one at Hiroshima if collapsed using high explosive. Of these, about 10,600 pits are inside weapons, either deployed or in reserve, and the rest are in sealed drums in bunkers at the Pantex nuclear weapons assembly plant near Amarillo, Texas. Of the pits in storage, about 5,000 have been specially earmarked for possible reuse.


RE: where will these warheads go
By rett448 on 3/15/2010 3:36:29 PM , Rating: 2
look up the Megatons to Megawatts program. The US has been turning HEU from Russia into fuel for US power plants for almost 30 years. In fact roughly half the fuel used in current plants is down blended weapons grade uranium.


Huh?
By goz314 on 3/4/2010 10:57:14 AM , Rating: 3
Keep it up, Dailytech. More spin and newspeak, less substance. That's what all of your acolyte readers want to hear.

Case in point...

quote:
The push to reduce nuclear arms around the world is reportedly due in part to the growing number of nuclear arms available in Iran...


Does the author of this article actually care to back this statement up with a cited and certified fact? Iran is suspected of using its industry to acquire the technology that could be used to create a nuclear weapon. They have not actually done so yet. Suspicion of activity is not grounds for claiming one possible end result of that activity as something factual.

Of course, I probably shouldn't set my expectations too high for a piece that's mislabeled as a science article. It has something to do with political science perhaps, but that's an arguably loose association as well.




RE: Huh?
By Jalek on 3/4/2010 9:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
I just like the sweeping announcements of what "Obama's gonna do" before the information gathering report is even done.

Fox News has been using the same tactic for some time.
"His health care plan will" while it was nothing more than a bunch of ideals tossed out for someone else to figure out, but they'd already come up with cost figures and jumped to all sorts of conclusions.


RE: Huh?
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 9:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
"while it was nothing more than a bunch of ideals tossed out for someone else to figure out"

Rather than a "bunch of ideas", it was a bill being debated before Congress; a bill that, if passed, would become law.


RE: Huh?
By Jalek on 3/5/2010 5:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
The talk shows didn't wait for any bill, they ran with his rhetoric and added their own.

It all sounded like a bunch of populist crap, but it seemed rather ridiculous to have been making those numeric projections before Pelosi and crew had actually proposed anything.


Waste of time
By btc909 on 3/4/2010 1:36:06 PM , Rating: 1
This moron reminds me of my child who like to pull what I call "diversionary tactics". Do your homework - the TV is on, do your homework - oh look it's a computer game on the screen.

You can't ram your healthcare bill down Americas throats so you decided to save the planet from nuclear annihilation.

What are you going to waste your time on next Mr. One Term President?




RE: Waste of time
By StraightCashHomey on 3/4/2010 1:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
Would you prefer that he just sits around and does nothing all day?

I would actually guess that you would considering the tone of your last post.


RE: Waste of time
By gamerk2 on 3/4/2010 2:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, how is an up/down vote by the representatives of the people "Ramming down healthcare"?

Republicans simply don't want to upset their donors, and will continue to have the largest part of our budget grow out of control. [Fun fact, over a third of medicare costs are payments to the insurance industry. Hence why Medicare is broke; The "free-market" isn't producing adequet cost savings]


By wavetrex on 3/4/2010 1:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
... by launching them at Iran & China

(in the upcoming WW3)




By NT78stonewobble on 3/5/2010 5:12:25 AM , Rating: 2
Oh well... Theres too many morons in the world anyway. I say bring it on.


Dated graphic
By DanNeely on 3/4/2010 9:01:51 AM , Rating: 2
If the current inventory is ~4700 warheads a graph that stops 8 years ago when the total was ~8000 isn't particularly relevant.




By The0ne on 3/9/2010 2:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story...

Informative and entertaining, if you're into science :)




How many nukes do we need?
By StraightCashHomey on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: How many nukes do we need?
By Duwelon on 3/4/2010 10:59:08 AM , Rating: 2
How about you let the military brass decide how many we need?


RE: How many nukes do we need?
By JazzMang on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: How many nukes do we need?
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 11:16:43 AM , Rating: 2
If you define "the safety of the nation" as all the right reasons, then yes.


RE: How many nukes do we need?
By Breathless on 3/4/2010 12:55:07 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about anyone else, but I love watching Porkpie (and people like him) eat liberal douchetards for breakfast here on DT. So much so that most of the extreme left posters won't even bother to post to try and refute him - only the really stupid ones that don't know their history "and proud of it" do so anyway.

I wish I was as knowledgeable about history so I could do it on the same scale. Pure unadulterated history always seems to be the downfall of the liberal argument. I love it.


RE: How many nukes do we need?
By StraightCashHomey on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: How many nukes do we need?
By Breathless on 3/4/2010 3:53:50 PM , Rating: 3
Crawl back into the hole from whence you came


RE: How many nukes do we need?
By ekv on 3/5/2010 4:19:31 AM , Rating: 3
Is that jealousy? ha!


RE: How many nukes do we need?
By Breathless on 3/5/2010 8:57:48 AM , Rating: 2
Can you tards not understand admiration of knowledge enough to not confuse it with jealousy or butt kissing? Its called giving credit where credit is due.


RE: How many nukes do we need?
By ekv on 3/5/2010 5:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
Check out my posts ... you'll know where I stand.

I was replying to the other guy, StraightCashHomey.

Re: admiration, I'm not too big on that part, but "giving credit where credit is due" is easily and plainly justified. You could almost say the respect has been earned. [Like it or not.]


RE: How many nukes do we need?
By shin0bi272 on 3/4/2010 11:20:57 AM , Rating: 4
no no no a politician who's never held a job in the private sector for more than a couple of summers during college and NEVER been in the military should decide how best to defend our nation. Of course the "great society" idea intertwined our economies to such a degree that we'll all end up living under an oppressive government pretty soon (look at europe) anyway.


RE: How many nukes do we need?
By StraightCashHomey on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: How many nukes do we need?
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 1:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
"People bitch about Obama not cutting expenditures, but when he actually does, they bitch ..."

How is raising the deficit from $400B to $1.6 trillion cutting expenditures? How is growing the federal budget from $3T to $3.8T cutting back?

The cost savings from this action are negligible in light of Obama's overall budget increases. It's like saying you saved money because you ate at McDonalds, then went out and bought a Ferrari.

Personally, I'd like to see our nuclear arsenal cut even deeper...IF it was replaced by a defensive only ABM system. Unfortunately, Obama has vetoed that approach, which forces us to retain the insanity of MAD.


RE: How many nukes do we need?
By gamerk2 on 3/4/2010 2:08:49 PM , Rating: 2
First off, Income Tax revenue has fallen off a clif due to the recession; no Income = no tax.

Secondly, Bush didn't count Iraq/Afghanistan in the budget, which hid a lot of the deficit figures. Obama included those in the budget, making the numbers look worse.

Then again, wasn't it Regan Republicans saying that deficits don't matter, or did the largest tax hike in US history? And they criticise us? You kill recessions by spending a lot; the loss in revenue will be made up for by increasing tax revenue when the economy recovers.

And I note: The US doesn't need more then maybe 500 nukes; I don't see how we need the firepower to blow up the planet half a dozen times...


RE: How many nukes do we need?
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 2:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
"First off, Income Tax revenue has fallen off a clif"

Nice bit of redirection, but total SPENDING has risen from $3 to $3.8 trillion. Regardless of what revenues do, that's a massive 27% increase in expenditures in less than 2 short years.

"Secondly, Bush didn't count Iraq/Afghanistan in the budget,"

What nonsense is this? Iraq war funding is a special appropriation, counted as part of the budget in all figures:

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/22/nation/na-...

" I don't see how we need the firepower to blow up the planet half a dozen times..."

I've already pointed out the fallacy in this. 500 warheads would destroy a large chunk of Russia once. But then, what's a little exaggeration for effect among friends, right?


RE: How many nukes do we need?
By StraightCashHomey on 3/4/2010 3:06:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I've already pointed out the fallacy in this. 500 warheads would destroy a large chunk of Russia once. But then, what's a little exaggeration for effect among friends, right?


Heh, ok, but how much do you need before you consider our nuclear arsenal adaquate? Do you feel safe with the ability to destroy Asia... Europe.. Europe+Asia.. everything except us?

If you were living in a different country, I'm sure you'd be bitching that the United States has too many nukes and your country needs to produce more.


RE: How many nukes do we need?
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 4:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
"Heh, ok, but how much do you need before you consider our nuclear arsenal adaquate?"

Thinking like a member of the Joint Chiefs-- I'd consider the worst case scenario of a first-strike attack by a combined Sino-Russian coalition, work out the kill rates against our own nuclear forced based on our sadly dated CEP estimates, then calculate what we need for a credible deterrent even after that event.

Then, I'd add in at least a 50% safety factor-- because there's no saying "oops, sorry" in case my estimates were wrong.


RE: How many nukes do we need?
By StraightCashHomey on 3/4/2010 4:39:44 PM , Rating: 2
Alright, so what was the result of your calculation to have such a strong opinion to keeping or making more of the nukes that we have now?


RE: How many nukes do we need?
By porkpie on 3/4/2010 6:16:02 PM , Rating: 1
I don't have launch composition and kill rates, CEP estimates, or any of the other factors necessary for a reasonable calculation-- but I can guarantee you that 500 isn't nearly enough. With a figure that low, a first strike could wipe out all but the SSBN portion of our nuclear triad.

That would change, of course, if the US had a working ABM defense. In that case, a figure even smaller than that would be sufficient.

In the meantime, I'll trust the Joint Chiefs with their estimates. Regardless of what some people may learn from Hollywood movies, a 70 year old general doesn't profit personally from our spending money to maintain nuclear weapons.


RE: How many nukes do we need?
By Jalek on 3/5/2010 6:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't this exactly why waiting on the report would be prudent?

This story's based on conjecture from Defense News. If they're running assumptions without a source, they need a less authoritative name. Couldn't this just be industrial complex rhetoric, at least as much as the noise about redefining the purpose of the nuclear arsenal to meet some special interest's disarmament agenda?

Sounds like more hysteria, but I guess if it's pro-military and not pro-global warming it's ok? Personally, I think both are wrong and people that jump behind them and are later proven to be following chicken littles should consider that when the next "crisis" comes along.


RE: How many nukes do we need?
By AFMatt on 3/5/2010 4:31:12 PM , Rating: 2
By "sadly dated" CEP estimates, I assume you mean our enemies' CEP estimates? I'm not sure how often the Navy performs SLBM tests, but I do know we test launch ICBMs multiple times a year.


RE: How many nukes do we need?
By porkpie on 3/5/2010 4:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
Right. I've read estimates claiming Russian CEPs are getting smaller; I've even read they're getting larger (poor maintenance & QC).