ZOMBIE FORUMS

Nice way not to address the point I made, UF. Please address the point or shut the fuck up- I'm not interested in snippits from whatever rag you read.

I didn't catch your point. Please elucidate, KC.

I was injecting some information for discussion. Explain to me, with a little more civility, what exactly is wrong with that.

Filthy,just because South koreans are too stupid to see the danger doesn't mean that Iraq wouldn't be a threat with nukes.

I stop being civil when people purposely avoid an obvious point.

But Barghest put it, civilly, in smack-you-in-the-face language.

/Pyro walks back into the thread and feeds everyone still arguing into a meat grinder.

P-M

-><-

I don't think thats needed as seeing how this debate is a meat grinder.

KC- As I said, I didn't catch a point in your post.

Barghest- There are a few things wrong with that statement, the first being that it skips a few steps in my argument, to put it lightly. Your rebuttal is bankrupt simply because it is a flagrant distortion of my position.

Allow me to summarize the issue: as a response to my argument minimizing the threat from Iraq, it was said that even if Iraq wouldn't rationally use a WMD, it could feasibly commit nuclear blackmail to gain regional dominance.

My response was that reliance on WMDs in diplomacy isn't terribly effective on its own, citing North Korea as an example of a state in decline because of such methods. You rejected this premise, I refuted by stating that NK is not even a percieved threat in its own region, and certainly not a threat to us.

Beyond your distortion of my own logic, you are now reasoning that North Korea is still a threat, and the whole of South Korea is collectively too stupid to realize it. Somehow, I'm not convinced that your authority on the matter is somehow better than the bulk of the South Korean administration and public. The point stands: North Korea's threat is minimal. It's neighbors aren't crying out for the regime to be changed. Likewise, the example still holds weight in my refutation of the Iraqi threat.

Barring your rejection of the Iraq/NK analogy, I still haven't seen any valid refutation of any of my other points.

Okay,I will try to make sense out of your trying-to-look-intellegent crappy ass statement.

First,the NK/Iraq comparsion is about as intellgent as a retarded child.These two regions are very different in culture and religion and trying to match them is very stupid.

Second,Iraq can survive and even thrive with Nuclear blackmail backing it up.You see Iraq has this thing called "Oil".Now I'm sure this will blow your mind but listen up anyways.People LOVE oil.Don't ask for the details but believe me that they will pay lots for it.It is possible that with Nuclear weapons backing him up saddam could start expanding again and using blackmail keep people off his back.The lowered prices on oil wouldn't hurt either.
North korea can't do this because unlike Iraq it has problems selling stuff to other people.It barely gets any money from the weapons it sells.That brings us to our next point.

Third,Why north korea represents a threat to us.NK is going down the tubes.They are commie and because of that they got jack shit.But the do have lots of guns and they are willing to sell some of it to keep their heads above the water.The recent discovery of them selling SCUDS is disturbing enough by itself.God knows how much weapons they have sold already or who they have sold it to who.

Fourth,The reason nobody is calling for the removal of the NK regime is because that would be like yelling that we have to kill the crazed maniac with the assualt rifle while right in front of him and while all you got is a pistol.Cause lets face it,North korea could probably kick everybody's ass down there for a good while before the US brought it's military to bear.

Fifth,I may have been a bit hasty in saying South koreans were too stupid to see the threat.The recent pro-american rally(Yes,I am as surprised as you are)where they burnt the flag of North korea certainly is surprising.So yes my authority on the matter is not too good.

But compared to your threat analysis of rogue countries I'm a fucking genius.

You toe the line separating debate and ad hominem mudslinging. Stick to debating my content rather than my form, and I'll try not to correct your egregious spelling and grammar and your uninspired insults.



"...as intelligent as a retarded child"? At the very least, my analogy is better than your simile.

Simply because there are differences present does not negate the fact that there are comparisons to draw--there are always differences between the elements of analogies.

Nevertheless, it is a difficult undertaking to name a stable rogue state that can attribute much of its success to reliance on nuclear blackmail alone.



This is probably your best counter-example to my analogy. If you could produce like this rather than try to insult me, we might get somewhere in this debate.

Nonetheless, Iraq does not have the best oil extraction infrastructure in the world, and having the means to extract the resource is as important as the actual supply.

Continuing UN presence and an expansion of the oil for food program can also help to minimize the possibility that Iraq could use its oil supply to gain threatening dominance in the future.

I'll spare the usual rants about alternative fuels and the dominion of oil corporations. You've probably heard it before, and you probably don't want to hear it again.

However, let it also be said that if they could use their oil supply to gain power, this creates a link of interdependence with whomever they are selling to. Once people grow accustomed to and reliant on such a relationship, they tend to get along better. There is also a remote chance that the profitability of such a relationship can even stimulate a change in Iraq.

Pardon my use of another analogy, but this is part of the reason that we have normalized relations with China, despite their communist regime, lack of political freedoms, and infrequent disregard for international law. The "remote chance" is admittedly not as clear in this comparison, but from my point of view, the market shift in China is indicative that it will also shift toward democracy rather soon. After all, authoritarian governments are not likely to exist in a society with an educated middle class, as a free market almost invariably produces. I'm rambling and this analogy isn't entirely vital to what I'm trying to say.



I hope you mean that arms sales can be a threat to our allies, and I'll assume you do, because they certainly don't pose a direct threat to the US. Arms sales to terrorists can pose an indirect threat to us, but not only are such sales unsubstantiated, but even if they were, the fact remains that it doesn't really matter WHERE anyone--state or terrorist group--gets their guns. They will get them no matter what. If North Korea did not sell weapons, the world would be no safer. In this regard, North Korea is not a threat.

That being said, a case can be made for your being a commie, Barghest. Apparently you have a problem with international trade. There is something distictly un-American about restricting someone's right to buy and sell freely, especially when it comes to guns.

I've got another one: SCUDs don't kill people. Nation-states kill people. Har har har, ark ark ark.

*silence*

*ribbit*

I'd appologize for making jokes at your expense, but I think I made them at my own. *sigh*



That's an exaggeration.

North Korea has no resources other than arms to sustain such a war, no reason to act in such a manner, and would stand to lose everything from such an assault when the United States or UN moves in. Be realistic. You're assuming that simply because it is a desperate and crumbling state, everyone within the military and administration is nihilistically suicidal.

The reason no one is calling for war there is because no one in the region wants it. In the drive for December elections in South Korea, even the conservative front runner had to drop his hardline stance and back the popular Sunshine policy. Dubya isn't taking a soft stance on the issue because he's afraid of them.



What pro-America rally? To my knowledge, all of the recent and notable demonstrations in South Korea have been anti-American. The pro-hardliners are a minority in South Korea. This element of your argument confuses me.



Agree to disagree, Barghest. Believe it or not, I'm enjoying some of this debate, despite some of the insults and accusations.

Anyway, I don't consider the North Korea example to be especially important to the Iraq case. I will concede that the analogy is not perfect, if only to get back to discussing the possible threat posed by a future Iraq with a nuclear capacity.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: UncleFilthy on 2003-01-14 21:28 ]</font>

UF: There is no comparison between two so dissimilar countries, in position both economically, politically, and historically. The comparison you draw between the two countries is shakey at best- a big blunder at worst.

The simple case is, though to a casual observer one dictatorship is interchangable with another, no comparison can be drawn between two countries as you did. There are simply too many variables to come to a conclusion based simply on a comparison with a single country. Your historical claim that nuclear blackmail hasn't worked is a half truth- nuclear blackmail has never worked in the long term but that is never its purpose. It is, rather, a tool to gain a temporary advantage from which you can do something with an umbrella over it, so that no one will interfere.

Did that get through?

-Kills Commies

First,I take great pride in my bad spelling and bad insults.

Second,If the differences between two rogue states outweigh the comparisions don't bother using them.Also,yes it might be hard to find a successful rogue state with nukes but do you really want to give a rogue state a chance to become successful at it?

Third,oil for food programs may hinder saddam but they really arn't going to really do anything.But there is no way a interdependence link is going to help topple saddam.First,it depends on who exactly he is selling the oil to.Second,he probably won't allow anything that threatens his power in anyway.


Fourth,Terrorist may still get their guns from somewhere but if one less place sells them then it's just a little bit harder to get them and that may make all the difference.

And let me get this straight.You are calling
me a commie?Maybe I just want the US to have a monopoly on Arms sells.


Fifth,How do you know that NK wouldn't resort to war if they had even a chance of survival?This nation is so secretive and paranoid there is really no telling what they might do.So you have to be prepared when you are dealing with somebody like this.
And yes no one is openly calling for war but neither are they happy about North korea being there.You wouldn't feel too secure with people like that only a short distance away.Finally that pro-american rally happened very recently.Mostly Korean war veterans who actually realize how much of our people died so wouldn't be starving in the streets!And I only put that in cause if you could put in unrelated facts I felt I could do the same.

Now if you want to get back to discussing iraq fine.I was enjoying this debate as well.You can tell that from all the swearing and insults.

KC, the analogy was to illustrate the point that nuclear blackmail is not something we need to be horribly afraid of. In no way did I say the two countries are socially, politically, or historically similar. I didn't even say they were similar, beyond that an Iraq in the possible future would not have dominion over the Middle East if it simply were to aquire nuclear weapons, just as North Korea, with its potential nuclear program, has not gained any significant advantage with its weapons program. I don't have to prove that they are similar in any other regard, though the two nations are similar in some other ways (both states have communist elements in their administration and society, both are secular, both show a casual disregard for international laws and treaties, both are authoritarian, etc.) None of those really matter, but the fact that they don't have a shared history, identical cultures, or the same political structure.

The comparison in no way implied an absolute conclusion. I don't think that when you cited the Germans during World War II as an example of the tendency of civilians to clear out of urban areas during a liberating invasion, that you necessarily believed that there was a conclusion to be made about Iraq. Yours was not an exact comparison by any sense of the word 'exact', but I would not go so far as to say that it was a blunder or an unforgivably stupid statement that was devoid of any logic.

You are correct in saying that nuclear blackmail serves a purpose, but as you said, it is short term, and nuclear coercion is something that we are accustomed to dealing with diplomatically instead of militarily.

If my position implied that I think nuclear weapons are ineffectual or obsolete in modern politics, I apologize, though I don't think it needs to be stated that explicitly.

Rather, I was drawing attention to the fact that the threat of nuclear diplomacy--or chem/bio diplomacy, which is a more likely scenario--was much less a threat when compared to the insignificant possibility that Saddam would use a WMD or hand one over to our enemies.

It still stands to reason that the remote possibility of Iraq gaining a nuclear bargaining chip is not a valid justification to go to war, given the consequences.

But you just don't know if saddam would use a WMD do you?He is just too dangerous to allow him to have a nuke.We just can't risk the lives on letting him have a nuke.

You know, the Soviet Union was able to do quite a bit with their nuclear umbrella. Though the circumstances were different, so has North Korea (by threatening Japan and S. Korea they have gotten several perks...look it up, UF.)

The point is that with nuclear blackmail any country gains a big advantage in diplomacy for at least a little while. Which is quite enough for an ambitious person like Hussein over there to expand his little plot of land.

Additionally, though Hussein can have a nuclear bomb or two dropped on his country and show the pictures to the press (which will hurt America unmeasurably) the thought of either our country (unlikely) or our troops (way more likely) being nuked is enough to give anybody wishing to repeat Desert Storm a big pause- is it worth the risk? As long as Hussein agrees to trade with the US, there is no imperitive reason to risk both the bad press and the soldiers we would lose.

So, in conclusion, these are a bunch of circumstances- Hussein gets a nuke, Hussein invades, say, Kuwait again. When we could destroy his army before and he underestimated us, he knows that he is outclassed now and he would play the only card in his hand worth playing- ie, that he has nuclear weapons. The threat is enough to make us leave him well enough alone and let him expand all he wants. Again, as long as he doesn't decide to not sell oil to us, it simply isn't worth the risk.

The nuclear card IS a short term diplomatic option. But you forget how much can be accomplished with a short term diplomatic trump. Please take this into consideration from now on.

-Kills Commies
Goddamn motherfucking commies

Barghest-


I take great pride in my unnecessarily grandiose writing, as well.



Well, we have to give everyone a chance in the long run. We can't be expected to crush every rogue state that happens to get in our way. That'll earn us a lot of enemies and cause us to lose a lot of friends.

If the rogue state demonstrates a clear and present danger, an immediate and absolute threat to us or our allies, it is in our right--no, our duty to do what we can to fix things.

If the state is an immediate danger to the region (or our allies), our role in the matter is arguable. In some ways, I am all for the spread of democracy and peacebuilding throughout the world. However, we need to consider our role as world police; a lot of people around the world still remember some of our failures to spread democracy in the Cold War.

But one thing is certain: Hussein is not an immediate threat to either us or his neighbors. I'll admit, he definitely has chemical and perhaps biological weapons, but the nukes are highly unlikely. I wouldn't be comfortable if Iraq were to get his hands on a nuke, but neither can anyone be certain that he'll get one. The possibility that Hussein could be a threat in the future is not a case for war.

War is one of the most ethically important decisions we can make, and it should be treated as such. There is plenty more for the UN to do to persuade or coerce Saddam, and at the absolute minimum, with all of the attention on him, he won't be able to get away with some of the atrocities he got away with before the Gulf War.



The oil for food program at least keep him from using oil revenues to purchase or develop armaments.

I think the worst case scenario is that Saddam will shut down production, or only sell oil to China or Russia. The latter is unlikely, because I'm somewhat sure that the oil for food program can control where the oil goes (at least I would be surprised if the US didn't amend the UN resolutions to get a share of things). The possibility that he could shut down his oil production is more real, as he has ordered it when the UN jerked him around on the extension of the oil for food program. No matter, though. The oil that he isn't giving us right now can't be considered a threat in the future.

Let alone that a future oil threat justification would be difficult to sell to the rest of the world, even to the people at home.

That doesn't mean that oil isn't an issue in the possible war, since we could easily set up such extraction facilities if we toppled the administration. Oil is more of a positive to going to war than a negative for not going to war.



It could make a little difference, but not a lot. The more important weapons are the emotional weapons of the terrorists--their appeals to religion and to the general feeling that the US has less than honorable imperialistic aims. By destroying an arms dealer, we may knock off one unimportant source of the physical weapons, but we create more enemies.



You show your true colors at last, Barghest, and they are various shades of red. Capitalism without competition? Bah! That's another term for 'command economy'. KC, do something before he uses his psychotropically induced commie mind powers and tries to convince me to rise up against the bourgeoisie and seize control of the factors of production.



One should be prepared; this much is certain. Attacking first and making the desperation of the nation all the more certain is much worse.



Point taken, but that's an extremely marginal group.



I suppose I assumed from the "meat grinder" comment that you felt otherwise.

----------


So we do what we can to stop him from getting the nuke without going to war. If he gets a nuke, it's certainly a bad thing. He'd be the only nuclear state other than Israel in the region. But the uncertainty of the distant future is no reason to go to war and put the near future in jeopardy.

---------------
KC-
I wanted to reply to your rebuttals point by point, but I'm running out of time. I think I'll just say something rather general about the nuclear blackmail threat.

The scenario you proposed, though not pretty, are rather remote. They rely on (1) Hussein getting his hands on a nuke, and (2)then require slick diplomatic maneuvering on his part to turn a nuclear stalemate in his favor.

The former is almost impossible with the weapons inspections taking place; he might be able to hide things he's got, but he'll have a hell of a hard time making any progress while the rest of the world is paying attention to him.

The latter requirement for the scenario to take place is within the realm of possibility, but most nuclear diplomacy ends in a stalemate.

Beyond what would have to happen for the scenario to even occur, you have to consider that Hussein, too, will be aware of the risks of such an undertaking. You can't be sure that he would be so bold (or stupid) to do such a thing.

On the other hand, the results of a war can be predicted with more certainty. The backlash from radical groups against the new "Japan II" as you called it, as well as our forces elsewhere, is one such result that we can count on.

According to the defected head of Iraq's Nuclear Weapon's program, since that dumbass nuclear weapons inspection beauro from the UN PUBLISHED EXACTLY HOW THEY FIND OUT IF A COUNTRY HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS, OR IS TRYING TO DEVELOPE THEM, it was required reading for all nuclear weapons personell. The tactics they have been taught are quite clever- and they also know, thanks to these idiots, exactly how to avoid by US flyovers and the inspectors getting suspicious about any factories that could be used in this manner.

In short, the 1st proposition is not only in the realm of possibility but absolutely probable. Seeing as how Hussein was able to adjust all his nuclear developement to be basically under the radar of any inspector (underground facilities, underground power cables so no one sees all this electricity going into this building here, etc.) Therefore, the inspectors (since their tactics are public knowledge) are less than useless in this manner.

With this information, you can now see that Hussein can develope a nuclear weapon right under the noses of the inspectors quite easily, given the correct materials (which we have no control over, nor knowledge of and thus is an unknown- which you traditionally are supposed to take in a worst-case scenario, so lets assume for a moment he has material with which to develope a nuclear weapon) and a little time.

The 2nd condition is quite in the realm of probability. North Korea used it to stunned success with their neighbors, as did the Soviet Union. There is no reason to assume that the Iraqis are less mentally capable in their dealings than North Koreans, for example.

Satisfy you?

Okay first,We already gave saddam a chance along time ago.We told him to get the fuck out of kuwait and he didn't listen.Now I've said it over and over again we may not know saddam is a immediate threat till it's too late since he is so adept at keeping our inspectors going around in circles.

The oil for food program is doing nothing to stop saddam's arms projects.He just smuggles out whatever he can if he needs money.

Also I don't really see how terrorists can capitalize on the downfall of North Korea if we have a part in it.Since North Korea ranks up in the US with the evil infidel groups.
And don't repeat what I say either.Doesn't make a real good point except for me.


And who says I don't like a meat grinder?


Finally,look to the past and see how saddam has acted.The near future is already in jeopardy because of him.

There are still ways to figure out if materials were in place in the past--especially fissionable materials used in nuclear weapons. Chemical and biological weapons leave some signatures as well. It already requires quite a stretch of the imagination to explain how the Iraqis can possibly move possible WMDs. Chemical and biological arsenals take up a lot of room. Several tons of gas doesn't just disappear without a trace.



Assuming that even if they have to move reactors and enrichment devices around (which would be quite a feat) because of continuing inspections, they aren't going to get anything done. At the bare minimum, worst case scenario, if the inspectors cannot come up with a smoking gun, their being there can halt the process of development until someone slips up and leaves a chunk of uranium somewhere.

Further, underground facilities don't just show up out of nowhere. Intelligence can detect the development of an underground facility.



Even if they can't find the smoking gun, they will at the very least make development of new weapons impossible. Nuclear development labs aren't mobile. You'd have a far better case to prove that they can move/develop chemical and biological weapons undetected, but that would be unimpressive.



The bargaining efforts you mentioned were rewarded with very limited success. I don't see Hussein annexing Kuwait with a single nuclear warhead.



You forgot about delivery devices, which are detectable from both space and air. Iraq is currently not allowed to have mid-range missiles with a range beyond their own borders.

Also, any weapon that they'd be able to make undetected would be rather primitive and thus very large warhead. They'll have a hell of a time convincing anyone they can throw it all the way to Israel.

First,I already mentioned that he could have hidden his weapons in MEK camps because those armed camps have never let inspectors in.

Second,the inspectors can't be there all the time and all they have to do is wait for the inspectors to leave before they start over.

Third,don't discount Bio weapons either.He is still supposed not to make those either and there are reports that he has set up mobile labs disguised as milk trucks.

fourth,NK has different goals and a different situation then iraq does.Once again comparing the two is no help.

Finally,SCUDS.There are still many that are unaccounted for and alot of warheads missing as well.Saddam has also been known to tinker around with his missiles creating new varients.I'm sure you know what that can lead too.

I'm seeing a lot of "mights" and "coulds" and "maybes" in this thread.

Before even convicting common criminals, the United States government is required to demonstrate proof of the suspect's guilt, beyond any reasonable standard of doubt, to a representative (in theory) sample of the suspect's fellow citizens. It stands to reason that a similar standard of proof should hold in war; after all, war has the potential to fuck a lot more lives up.

I do not see such proof. You have a few defectors (who are hardly an unbiased group) telling doomsday stories, and you have demonstrated the existence of a few gaps in our weapons inspection system. You do not have any samples of these supposed chemical or biological weapons, nor any photos of the production sites, intelligence on current production, or the like. In short, you have no hard evidence at all; just a lot of hearsay. Is that really enough to start a war over?

P-M

-><-