Pages: 1 2 3

 

2006-04-12 00:55:38
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7062|Cologne, Germany

lowing wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:


the Pakistani US alliance, is the same as the US Soviet Union alliance was in WW2. that was only an alliance in the sense that they both had a greater threat to deal with than each other.  Stalin Churchill and Roosevelt sat together and discussed war plans in Tehran in 1943 but hey, the Soviets were not true allies. And only in speeches and public appearances were they considered as such.  Pakistan is not  truly allied to the US the same as England for example.
well, maybe you can tell me the difference between "true" alliances and those that arise from strategical needs ?

What quality does England have that it is a "true" ally ? What quality does Pakistan lack ? Are british lifes worth more than Pakistani lifes ?

I am sorry, but all I see here is a classical double-standard, somewhere along the lines of: "you know, they are our allies in the war on terror, but they are not really allies since they are not good christians. Their lifes are worth shit, which is why we don't really care when some of them die accidentally in one of our airstrikes. I mean, who really cares, they are just a bunch of stinkin' muslims and they probably support Al Quaeda anyway..."

Of course, I am just guessing here, no offense...
Whoa whoa easy Tex. LOL ...I never brought race or religion into this. Since just before the turn of the last century England and the US has covered each others back in times of crisis. the war in Iraq is not popular right now but England is standing by her friends. All I am saying is the alliegance with Islamic countries are very fragile and can change with the blowing wind. Not 25 yrs ago Iran was a "friend" and Iraq was the enemy. Now we are trying to help Iraq and Iran is the enemy. In the 80s the US was "allied"  with the mujahadeen and wit hSadam. It is a very unstable region and alligences are as good as the moment and nothing more.
well, I have always believed that alliances are as stable as you make them to be. I would agree that historically, the alliance between the US and England is more stable, but that really depends on your perspective. Not so long ago ( in a historic sense ) the two nations were enemies, now they are allies, even "friends" as you call them.
So why should it be impossible to make true allies, maybe even friends in the middle east ?

Good alliances can stabilize a region. And I believe the US is there to do just that. You think you can do that without true allies down there ?

I guess what I am trying to say is that you need to make new friends in the middle east if you want to stabilize the region on a long-term basis. Changing your strategy in foreign politics for the region every 20 years or so has obviously not achieved that.

What I am worried about though is that some in the US administration might think that islamic nations can never be "true" allies or even friends with the US or other western nations, because of the cultural differences.

And I believe that's what you implied....
2006-04-12 01:05:38
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6872|USA

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

well, maybe you can tell me the difference between "true" alliances and those that arise from strategical needs ?

What quality does England have that it is a "true" ally ? What quality does Pakistan lack ? Are british lifes worth more than Pakistani lifes ?

I am sorry, but all I see here is a classical double-standard, somewhere along the lines of: "you know, they are our allies in the war on terror, but they are not really allies since they are not good christians. Their lifes are worth shit, which is why we don't really care when some of them die accidentally in one of our airstrikes. I mean, who really cares, they are just a bunch of stinkin' muslims and they probably support Al Quaeda anyway..."

Of course, I am just guessing here, no offense...
Whoa whoa easy Tex. LOL ...I never brought race or religion into this. Since just before the turn of the last century England and the US has covered each others back in times of crisis. the war in Iraq is not popular right now but England is standing by her friends. All I am saying is the alliegance with Islamic countries are very fragile and can change with the blowing wind. Not 25 yrs ago Iran was a "friend" and Iraq was the enemy. Now we are trying to help Iraq and Iran is the enemy. In the 80s the US was "allied"  with the mujahadeen and wit hSadam. It is a very unstable region and alligences are as good as the moment and nothing more.
well, I have always believed that alliances are as stable as you make them to be. I would agree that historically, the alliance between the US and England is more stable, but that really depends on your perspective. Not so long ago ( in a historic sense ) the two nations were enemies, now they are allies, even "friends" as you call them.
So why should it be impossible to make true allies, maybe even friends in the middle east ?

Good alliances can stabilize a region. And I believe the US is there to do just that. You think you can do that without true allies down there ?

I guess what I am trying to say is that you need to make new friends in the middle east if you want to stabilize the region on a long-term basis. Changing your strategy in foreign politics for the region every 20 years or so has obviously not achieved that.

What I am worried about though is that some in the US administration might think that islamic nations can never be "true" allies or even friends with the US or other western nations, because of the cultural differences.

And I believe that's what you implied....
Yes that is exactly what I meant. The reason the US, Canada, England, Australia, etc are true allies and friends is because we share exactly the same values, morality, and compashion and tolerance.

the Middle Eastern countries population has no respect for infidels (us) and fundamentally believe we have no right to exist and should either convert to Islam or die. Kinda makes a true friendship between our two nations strained to say the least. that is a far cry different than what you are suggesting I think. The short comings of tolerance is on their side not the western countries. You are free to practice Islam in any of the western countries I listed.


ANd no I don't think the region will ever be stable, it hasn't been stable since the recording of history (even since before Bush) and  there is nothing happening there that would suggest once Iraq is stable on its own that the region itself will simmer down. It has always been a bee hive and always will be.

Last edited by lowing (2006-04-12 01:12:21)

2006-04-12 01:09:49
THA
im a fucking .....well not now
+609|6991|AUS, Canberra
its all good to have a nuke, but dont forget you still need a delivery system capable of getting to us soil without getting shot out of the sky.
2006-04-12 01:31:47
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6993|PNW

the_heart_attack wrote:

its all good to have a nuke, but dont forget you still need a delivery system capable of getting to us soil without getting shot out of the sky.
Cargo ship. Ports don't have the time or manpower to investigate every container, and everyone knows it. I could file this admission under "loose lips sink ships," but it's too common of knowledge.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-04-12 01:33:07)

2006-04-12 01:52:51
JimKong
Member
+31|6863|Ohio

Pubic wrote:

North Korea can't do shit....
As someone who has served in South Korea, I disagree with this part. Sure, there is no way in hell NK could logistically sustain a head on campaign. They have no economy. They have no technology that can match ours. They probably can't even afford to practice live firing for their troops. They don't have the Soviets to back them like Nam did. Though, it doesn't cost much for an ideology and a rusty olf AK. Yes, us and the SKs spy on their every move but they most likely have operatives already working in our military installations.

It's not surprising why North Korea acts tough. It is surrounded by enemies. Kim Jong keeps his people uninformed of the outside world and brainwashed as the Khmer Rouge did. Hell, they can't even grow their own food. I agree that China and even Russia would smack them if they started to get out of hand long before Japan, SK, and the US stepped in.


“Think hard about it. I’m running out of demons. I’m running out of villains. I'm down to Castro and Kim Il Sung.”

- General Colin Powell (Toronto Star, April 9, 1991)
2006-04-12 01:58:25
THA
im a fucking .....well not now
+609|6991|AUS, Canberra

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

the_heart_attack wrote:

its all good to have a nuke, but dont forget you still need a delivery system capable of getting to us soil without getting shot out of the sky.
Cargo ship. Ports don't have the time or manpower to investigate every container, and everyone knows it. I could file this admission under "loose lips sink ships," but it's too common of knowledge.
hahah how funny would that be, they launch a nuke strike on america using cargo ships.......

i meant icbm's.
2006-04-12 02:01:48
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7062|Cologne, Germany

exactly. China is the regional superpower, and they have every interest to keep the region safe and stable.

There will be no war with NK. They don't have the means to do it, and they know.
2006-04-12 02:15:51
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6993|PNW

the_heart_attack wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

the_heart_attack wrote:

its all good to have a nuke, but dont forget you still need a delivery system capable of getting to us soil without getting shot out of the sky.
Cargo ship. Ports don't have the time or manpower to investigate every container, and everyone knows it. I could file this admission under "loose lips sink ships," but it's too common of knowledge.
hahah how funny would that be, they launch a nuke strike on america using cargo ships.......

i meant icbm's.
lol, yes. I don't know though...a cargo ship is a cheaper and more effective delivery system, at least to ports.

Still, only a madman would nuke the US. It'd be like attacking a Borg cube with a spitwad. Better be prepared to follow through with the destruction of all our inland manufacturing and command. And you'd still have to deal with our angry submarines buzzing around the oceans with their own nukes.

I'm sure every paltry dictator with access/future access to nukes realizes that using them would result in his country being turned into a glass pit. But a nuclear arsenal remains a desirable national asset as a deterrent against attack.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-04-12 02:20:33)

2006-04-12 02:35:56
blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|6866
Yeah true its always on the news how like 90% or something like that around there maybe little less but anyhow most of the cargos don’t get inspected or they sit there for months, well to get to my point it would be more effective to strike that way because the atomic bomb can sit there and explode on the timer. If it goes through the air U.S. will track the missile and will know where it came from and strike back. But if you bring a nuke by a port it would be sitting there for quite some time and then it could explode before its ever even checked, so we would not even know who delivered the nuke, we could assume Terrorists lol...but in reality it was N. Korea or all those other nations that hate U.S.......so it would be pretty hard to counter back if they don’t know who delivered the nuke or where it came from, it would be draining economically and we would have to attack some country just to satisfy the people even if its a wrong one.
2006-04-12 02:38:31
blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|6866
Also if you have stuff to include about Iran post it on ..Iran getting closer now not this one this one is about N.Korea
2006-04-12 02:40:34
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6993|PNW

Interestingly enough, if a nuke from an unknown source detonated in the US, our government would hold the entire 'Axis of Evil' responsible. Not a particularly desirable situation for your country to fall into...

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-04-12 02:41:10)

2006-04-12 02:48:13
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6896|Canberra, AUS

lowing wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:


Whoa whoa easy Tex. LOL ...I never brought race or religion into this. Since just before the turn of the last century England and the US has covered each others back in times of crisis. the war in Iraq is not popular right now but England is standing by her friends. All I am saying is the alliegance with Islamic countries are very fragile and can change with the blowing wind. Not 25 yrs ago Iran was a "friend" and Iraq was the enemy. Now we are trying to help Iraq and Iran is the enemy. In the 80s the US was "allied"  with the mujahadeen and wit hSadam. It is a very unstable region and alligences are as good as the moment and nothing more.
well, I have always believed that alliances are as stable as you make them to be. I would agree that historically, the alliance between the US and England is more stable, but that really depends on your perspective. Not so long ago ( in a historic sense ) the two nations were enemies, now they are allies, even "friends" as you call them.
So why should it be impossible to make true allies, maybe even friends in the middle east ?

Good alliances can stabilize a region. And I believe the US is there to do just that. You think you can do that without true allies down there ?

I guess what I am trying to say is that you need to make new friends in the middle east if you want to stabilize the region on a long-term basis. Changing your strategy in foreign politics for the region every 20 years or so has obviously not achieved that.

What I am worried about though is that some in the US administration might think that islamic nations can never be "true" allies or even friends with the US or other western nations, because of the cultural differences.

And I believe that's what you implied....
Yes that is exactly what I meant. The reason the US, Canada, England, Australia, etc are true allies and friends is because we share exactly the same values, morality, and compashion and tolerance.

the Middle Eastern countries population has no respect for infidels (us) and fundamentally believe we have no right to exist and should either convert to Islam or die. Kinda makes a true friendship between our two nations strained to say the least. that is a far cry different than what you are suggesting I think. The short comings of tolerance is on their side not the western countries. You are free to practice Islam in any of the western countries I listed.


ANd no I don't think the region will ever be stable, it hasn't been stable since the recording of history (even since before Bush) and  there is nothing happening there that would suggest once Iraq is stable on its own that the region itself will simmer down. It has always been a bee hive and always will be.
Clearly you have decided to limit the 'Middle East' to Iran, bits of Pakistan and bits of other countries.

*cough*SAUDI ARABIA*cough*UAE*cough*

Though it is good you make the distinction between Middle Easterners and other Muslims (e.g. Indonesians who nobody knows was Indonesian - the cream of the crop in my geo class thought they were Buddhists!).

Anyway, I thought this topic was about North Korea!
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-04-12 05:25:38
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6872|USA

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:


well, I have always believed that alliances are as stable as you make them to be. I would agree that historically, the alliance between the US and England is more stable, but that really depends on your perspective. Not so long ago ( in a historic sense ) the two nations were enemies, now they are allies, even "friends" as you call them.
So why should it be impossible to make true allies, maybe even friends in the middle east ?

Good alliances can stabilize a region. And I believe the US is there to do just that. You think you can do that without true allies down there ?

I guess what I am trying to say is that you need to make new friends in the middle east if you want to stabilize the region on a long-term basis. Changing your strategy in foreign politics for the region every 20 years or so has obviously not achieved that.

What I am worried about though is that some in the US administration might think that islamic nations can never be "true" allies or even friends with the US or other western nations, because of the cultural differences.

And I believe that's what you implied....
Yes that is exactly what I meant. The reason the US, Canada, England, Australia, etc are true allies and friends is because we share exactly the same values, morality, and compashion and tolerance.

the Middle Eastern countries population has no respect for infidels (us) and fundamentally believe we have no right to exist and should either convert to Islam or die. Kinda makes a true friendship between our two nations strained to say the least. that is a far cry different than what you are suggesting I think. The short comings of tolerance is on their side not the western countries. You are free to practice Islam in any of the western countries I listed.


ANd no I don't think the region will ever be stable, it hasn't been stable since the recording of history (even since before Bush) and  there is nothing happening there that would suggest once Iraq is stable on its own that the region itself will simmer down. It has always been a bee hive and always will be.
Clearly you have decided to limit the 'Middle East' to Iran, bits of Pakistan and bits of other countries.

*cough*SAUDI ARABIA*cough*UAE*cough*

Though it is good you make the distinction between Middle Easterners and other Muslims (e.g. Indonesians who nobody knows was Indonesian - the cream of the crop in my geo class thought they were Buddhists!).

Anyway, I thought this topic was about North Korea!
I wouldn't consider Saudi Arabia or the UAE allies either for the same reason right now , they are just bed fellows.

All discussions branch out at some point using different analogies and examples to prove points. If you don't want them to, then there is no sense saying anything. Just mark your answer on the poll and move along.

The Middle east comparison was made to discuss how you handle NK as compared to the Middle East is all.
2006-04-12 05:38:56
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7062|Cologne, Germany

well, considering NK already has nukes, do you suggest the US should deal with them as they did in Iraq ?
2006-04-12 06:25:37
sheggalism
Member
+16|6963|France

B.Schuss wrote:

exactly. China is the regional superpower, and they have every interest to keep the region safe and stable.

There will be no war with NK. They don't have the means to do it, and they know.
I absolutely agree ! (except that Japan, though Japanese don't have enough military forces and experience to defend their country, is actually THE asian superpower, but not for long now). I don't give much of NK chances of winning a single battle against any of their neighbours, they've got arms and equipment from the 70's
2006-04-12 08:17:06
JimKong
Member
+31|6863|Ohio

sheggalism wrote:

though Japanese don't have enough military forces and experience to defend their country
What?
2006-04-12 09:16:14
-EcS-Blade
Mr.Speakman
+153|6861|Manchester UK
they wont attack the u.s army is over streched
2006-04-12 09:45:08
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6993|PNW

sheggalism wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

exactly. China is the regional superpower, and they have every interest to keep the region safe and stable.

There will be no war with NK. They don't have the means to do it, and they know.
I absolutely agree ! (except that Japan, though Japanese don't have enough military forces and experience to defend their country, is actually THE asian superpower, but not for long now). I don't give much of NK chances of winning a single battle against any of their neighbours, they've got arms and equipment from the 70's
Erm, the JSDF is pretty wily and well-supplied for the region.
2006-04-13 11:14:02
sheggalism
Member
+16|6963|France
yeah, maybe. With american bases all over Asia, they could defend their country pretty well. But, for 60 years now, Japanese people haven't shown interest in war (except war simulation games, if you've been in Japan and test it, you will understand) and are far away from thinking they could be attacked, but by who ? North Korea is one of the poorest country, and others asian countries (and rest of world powers) are constantly keeping an eye on it. Besides, as German's, Japanese's constitution doesn't allowed them to have more than a certain quantity of weapons and to attack wherever they would without US. It would be better if they were more "independant", I don't think they would lead another attack on Pearl Harbor !

Last edited by sheggalism (2006-04-13 11:15:12)

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard