I will try to keep
TEH ANGER!!1! to a minimum.
"Okay let's take this from the top. You are making a distinction between weapons of mass destruction (nuclear warheads and anything with a 'significant' (ugh) blast radius ) over 'smart' munitions that can maximise efficiency and minimise error, right?"
Quote:
I suggest you learn the definitions of the words you use. The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" in official U.S. documents is "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons."
|
I do not claim any different. I made the 'qualm' error, you called me on it and I moved on to discuss what exactly the moral difference between using more conventional munitions over WMDs is. So far I see no reason for you to resort to this petty patronizing.
"As far I can understand this, any OFFENSIVE military system that has been designed towards aquiring targets outside the radius of the owner's country in question differs from WMD's only in the amount of damage it's designed to inflict."
Quote:
What we have here is a failure... To communicate.
|
How nice and sarcastic of you. Elaborate.
"I'm not saying it's a negligible difference, but it doesn't negate the argument."
How? Why? Elaborate on this profoundly detailed rebuttal of yours.
Quote:
It isn't about possession, its about use.
|
You're saying it's okay for whatever country to have WMDs, as long as they do not use them?
Quote:
Do you remember when the Soviet Union disintigrated, how there was a brief panic over what would happen to the fissionable materials and constructed warheads? Such lack of stabilities is also present in No Korea, where there are more metric tons of munition than there are food, and various other nations which have rushed to become militarily combatible with the world around them without first making their own nation a peer to its neighbours.
|
Yes I do remember. How does this further your argument?
Quote:
"Doesn't give you the right to 'step in' no more than it gives N.Korea the right to do the same."
Someone needs to do it. We lead the world technologically, economically and, contrary to what you've probably heard, in civility.
|
This is the crux of the matter. Explain how you leading the world in all those respects grants you the right to step in anywhere in the world. Don't cop out on me on this one.
Quote:
"How does a nepleted uranium bomb exactly, which will leave the ground it hit contaminated for thousands of years and will be to blame for tens of teratogeneses to follow, not count as a 'weapon of mass destruction'?) however, I think your retort in itself is complete bulshit."
Yes well, thats what happens when the mind is forced to come to terms with something it would rather not accept: Disbelief.
I'm going to take the time to explain to you why it is that DU rounds have been used in every war since Yom Kippur that any country has engaged in.
[...]
to surface dwelling humans. Is it dangerous? Yes. Did we use it in and about urban environments? Yes. What choice was left to us?
|
How about not going into war? This is as fallacious as any argument can get. The burden of choice has always been on you, and you cannot shift it so easily. DU is dangerous. Yet you used it. What choice did you have? EVERY choice. Refute this, if you will. Humour me by explaining how you absolutely HAD to go into war in Iraq.
Quote:
As a rule, the US places its bunkers and offensive military commands outside of cities, and generally as far from civilian populations as permissible. We don't hide our tanks and anti-aircraft armourments behind a wall of innocent lives, Sadaam did, and unfortunately his people will pay for his actions.
|
Well, there's shifting the burden of action over to Sadaam too. HE made the choice to escalate things, and HE is to blame for civilian deaths. Oh well.
And if I remember correctly, anyone that isn't with you is against you. Thusly all those innocent civilians (the vast percentage of which was definately against the administration that is bombing their country) aren't really all that innocent, are they?
Quote:
Now, lets take a gander at some relevent facts: Back in '99 in Kosovo such rounds were used in combat, with the sanction of the UN.
|
Yes. I do not support the descision of the UN either in this case, if that's what you're suggesting.
Quote:
On 7 February 2000 NATO published their use of some 31K 30mm PGU/14A API rounds. About 16,000 lbs of DU. Israel used it in the Yom Kippur retaliation, the Falklands war and their invasion of South Lebanon. We used less than 2k lbs in this Iraqi war, if you wish to cry over it, I suggest you find someone with more sympathy.
|
This attitude of yours disturbs me. Are you saying that sometimes the ends justify the means? That the death of anyone, and the contamination of their lands is 'the price of freedom'?
Quote:
"Is there a responsible use for an offensive weapon system?"
Is there a such thing a just war? The answer for both questions is the same, but then maybe you're particularly fond of that period in your nations history when Hitler held occupation.
|
No, there is no such thing as a just war. But surely you agree that a defensive war and an offensive one are not the same thing. To make any relation between your recent bombing of Iraq, and the Greek situation in world war 2 is simply gross to the point to which I am not prepared to comment further. To equate my great grandfather's service in the war with killing children and bombing TV reporters is taking it a bit too far.
Quote:
Evil is generally accepted as a moral judgement, and relative to one's belief system. You will have to use clearer terms if you wish to keep the tone of this conversation serious.
|
Inept. It is exactly because your administration has used such childish terminology in the past that I mention it. And you try to turn it over? You think I don't know that a moral judgement is? You should really know better.
This is the case of you forcing your belief system over the rest of the world, step by step, for lack of another stabilizing superpower. Sure democracy is great and wonderful. We invented the damned method of goverment. But it should be up to every country to choose how it will govern it's own affairs, and if we do not like it, we should persue our goals diplomatically. I simply refuse to stand by Carl Von Clausewitz's aphorism that War is the continuation of politics by other means.
Quote:
"Especially in a "strike first scenario (of the likes we've witnessed in oh, three US wars in the last 8 years? )"
So shall we consider our embassy bombings in Afghanistan prior to war silly teenage 'pranks?' Or the support of Al Qaeda by the Taliban just whimiscal Middle Easten nuttiness? Liberia isn't a war yet, or are you thinking of something else and I'm just not getting it?
|
Serbia. As to embassy bombings, would you provide me with some more information? Also you know better than to make a 9/11 connection with the Taliban. There has been so far no hard evidence to suggest that the terrorists that drove them planes into the WTC towers were Taliban agents.
As to Liberia, it will be a nice little 'peaceful mediation' will it not?
Quote:
"Furthermore, is your apparent eagerness to use 'smart' weapons proof of your propensity to not act responsibly?"
Yes! We were so eager to use them we invaded Mexico immediately after we developed them! You should have been there Helm, you especially would've enjoyed it.
|
Wouldn't you call the deployment of smart bombs in your recent wars as 'eager'? After all, weapon manufactures have to eat too, don't they?
Quote:
"Does the "number of lives lost per bomb" ratio in an arbitary, unjust and frankly imperialistic war even make an actual difference as far as ethics go?"
Christ, I can understand not knowing how a WMD was classified, but imperialism? We are not annexing Iraq, where is the imperialism here?
|
The political leadership that you will provide for Iraq will no doubt be furthering the US political agenda. And let's not talk about oil. You're hiding behind your finger. Anything scathingly sarcastic to add?
Quote:
"There's no argument there."
Quite right, I haven't found one yet, just some whiny mewling with half assed facts tossed in for colour.
|
Well, do I have to tell you what I think about the hard evidence you've provided?
Quote:
"The only country that insofar has not threatened, but actualy used nuclear weapons in a war is the US."
As Blanco duly noted, you must know more than either of us. I only know of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. . .Did we deploy nukes in the Mexican War where we eagerly tested our smart bombs?
|
Naturally I was talking about said two cases.
Quote:
"And I believe that speaks volumes about who is most unfit to wield nuclear weaponry."
Sure, but such volumes would only be found in a childrens library. But, if you're lucky, you can influence the next generation and then they can grow up kow towing to Holier-Than-Thou Intellectual European moralists like yourself.
|
Sophomoric wordplay and ad hominems abound. Is more of this what I should be looking forward to?
Quote:
"And let's not talk about the cold war and how many times the US has threatened nuclear retaliation. Not a valid argument in itself either, that one."
All I can do is hang my head really. Apparantly you missed where we constantly tried to get Russia to disarm, often taking the first step by destroying our nuclear wareheads as an act of good faith. Apparantly you have also missed the nuclear proliferation pact. Furthermore, it has escaped your notive WE NEVER THREATENED TO US THEM. We had no need to, we built them, built the silos, and said that only in the case of a PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE AGAINST OUR NATION would they be utilized. Thats not a threat Helm, and if you can't see the difference between Pakistan saying they use nuclear devices in a war against India if India does not abandon Kasmir, or No Korea feeling econimically or militarily 'threatened' by the US. . . There is no hope for you.
|
"Our policy historically has been generally that we will not foreclose the possible use of nuclear weapons if attacked," - Donald Duck
The nature of the attack has not been defined strongly. For all we know, of someone throws a rock at your embassy at any place around the world, you could be lobbing nuclear weapons at them.
There's not much difference between such a loose statement and N.Korea feeling economically of militarily threatened by the US.
So, what makes either of the two more justified?
Quote:
Noone is eager for war, not even Bush. He's eager for another election, and tried to surf the post September 11th popularity with a strike from Afghanistan into Iraq, and now he is trying to clean it up with a peace action in Liberia to dissipate the negative blacklash left after Iraq. You are judging an entire nation based upon a series of bad leadership, since about the late eighties, and I think thats pretty simple.
|
No, I'm judging the current (and to some extent the one before it) administration. I'm not judging the entire nation. I agree that would be base, so I'm not doing it. Where is it even suggested that I am?
Quote:
"This is an issue of global interest conflicts, and we both know no country should have to 'trust' the US with being the one to arrange who and why should have nuclear bombs."
Of course, noone should trust the nation responsible for the Marshall Plan, or protecting countries like China (which we until Eisenhower in his infinate wisdom move the Seventh Fleet, like an asshole), Korea and Vietnam from insurgant and subversive forces. I'm done with this topic.
|
Well yes, fundamentally that's true. No nation should explicitly trust any other with anything as long as there's strong conflict of interest. Diplomacy isn't about love and tenderness, It's about mutual compromise. Just a week before the UN has gone on the record with stating that "we do not agree with you, but we will back you up", rendering itself completely obsolete as far as it being a vessel of political manouvering goes. I'm sure you think that's a good thing.
As to you being done with this topic, whatever. I hoped for less asininity and more constructive discussion, but hey, suit yourself.