Current/Recent World Conflicts thread.

[The_Dane]

As I recall didn't Irans president(?) talk to the UN but said that the UN was oblivious as long as such an agitator as USA had a permanent seat in the safety council(?)

I'm almost certain that he stood by Irans right to produce nuclear-power, no matter what the US and UN says

 

where (?) is put it is because I'm not sure that that's what it's called

[turtle]

What I don't understand is if the US can have nucleanr power why are they so against Egypt, Iran or other nations having nuclear power?

 

Maybe I'm missing yet another vital bit of information on this one but thats what it looks like to me.

[Jahled]

It's not nuclear power we're concerned about, it's the process of enrichment, where by the Iranians would have a source of weapon's grade plutonium.

 

That in the hands of a president who has repeatedly denied the holocaust happened, and expressed his desire to 'wipe out Israel,' and is, quite frankly, a religious extremist, supporting the concept of 'martyrdom,' is not acceptable to the civilized community, including not least it's democratic neighbours in places like Turkey and India.

 

I wasn't having a dig Turtle mate! I work in a scientific library and get lots of time to read Science, New scientist, etc, where current news is investigated a little bit deeper than in the comics sold at our news stands, despite half the articles flying over my head..

[Darth_Rob]

The United States keeps nuclear weapons as a deterrent. I have no problem with the US having nuclear arms, and also agree with them wanting to keep other nations from having them. The U.S. has nukes, but would never use them to initiate a war or what-not. Like I said, they are basicly a deterrent to other nations. Some other nations may not view nuclear weapons in that light, and that is what scares me.

[The_Dane]

I agree that countries such as Iran and Egypt should be kept from having a possibility at making nukes. I don't trust the governments in most of the middle-east...

But I also believe that nuclear weapons should be banned outright, with no exeptions.... there are plenty of other military means of keeping rouge states in line. And why have them if you are never going to use them? because the enemy also know that US will never use them... doesn't that make them superfluous???

[Eagle]

There´s something that sounds pretty familiar in that what is said about Iran. Just remember what they told about the plans of Iraq building nuclear weapons. They never found anything in Iraq who could had been used to build an A-bomb or whatever. I guess it´s just because of the plans about this pipeline which they plan to build. It starts in Usbekistan and should go through Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and should end in Turkey. Usbekistan and Turkey are allies of the United States, Afghanistan and Iraq are controlled now by US-friendly governments. So the only state which is still not under controll is Iran. Here is a map of that region.

 

/off-topic: I had no idea that Canada used German tanks. /off-topic.

Well indeed the barrel and the software for the M1-Abrahams are developed in germany. So you may call the Abrahams a german tank too.

[DarthTex]

... But I also believe that nuclear weapons should be banned outright, with no exeptions.... there are plenty of other military means of keeping rouge states in line. And why have them if you are never going to use them? because the enemy also know that US will never use them... doesn't that make them superfluous???

The US might not ever use them, and it's been stated that they would never(?) be used as a "first strike" weapon. But, it is the policy of the US, should it be attacked by weapons of mass destruction by another nation, the US would respond in kind. Since most 3rd world despots can't afford nuclear weapons, their usual choice of weapons of mass destruction is biological or chemical. Those with the $ (Iranian oil $) can afford to try and develop nuclear weapons. Libya tried to develop nuclear weapons for years, but with sanctions from most of the world, their economy tanked and they could no longer afford it. They eventually agreed to give it up for the lifting of sanctions (and they gave up some of those pesky terrorists they've been hiding). Since the US is destroying its stockpile of biological and chemical weapons (developed for the Cold War), the only thing left is nuclear. If another country "gasses", bombs or starts a biological epidemic in the US, then the US will vaporize them.

 

The Iranians have mentioned they will destroy Israel. They are known supporters of terrorist organizations throughout the Mid-East. Should they develop nuclear weapons, what's to prevent them from ... accidentally making an extra bomb, or losing one, that conveniently lands in the hands of terrorists? The terrorists would have no qualms of using the device to further their ideals (especially since the majority of us are called "infidels" and deserve to die anyway). They can deny they supplied any such nuclear device. Basically Iran can NOT be trusted. As for nuclear power, they can say all they want, but they can't prove to the world (because of past statements, and current gov't/religious views) they won't do it. All it takes is for them to enrich the uranium (that's used for the nuclear power) to get weapons grade material. Sure they can say they won't enrich it, but what about the fact they already have the necessary equipment to enrich it? If you're not going to enrich, then why do you have the equipment to do so? It's simple, they're going to develop nuclear weapons and deny it for the rest of their lives.

 

And one last thing, nuclear weapons are the great "equalizer". If you were standing on the ... let's say South Korean DMZ, and over 1 million enemy soldiers come barrelling across the border at the same time, how are you going to stop them in time from completely overrunning the country. The US only has ~37,000 troops to help South Korea. Unless each US soldier can take out ~30 enemy soldiers before getting killed, they don't stand a chance. But one nuke at the right place, at the right time can make thousands of enemy soldiers disappear in a flash (<-- quite the pun, huh?). Nuclear weapons aren't superfluous at all, they will always make others think hard and reconsider starting a war, knowing they could get their butts fried even if they did win.

[Jahled]

... But I also believe that nuclear weapons should be banned outright, with no exeptions.... there are plenty of other military means of keeping rouge states in line. And why have them if you are never going to use them? because the enemy also know that US will never use them... doesn't that make them superfluous???

The US might not ever use them, and it's been stated that they would never(?) be used as a "first strike" weapon. But, it is the policy of the US, should it be attacked by weapons of mass destruction by another nation, the US would respond in kind. Since most 3rd world despots can't afford nuclear weapons, their usual choice of weapons of mass destruction is biological or chemical. Those with the $ (Iranian oil $) can afford to try and develop nuclear weapons. Libya tried to develop nuclear weapons for years, but with sanctions from most of the world, their economy tanked and they could no longer afford it. They eventually agreed to give it up for the lifting of sanctions (and they gave up some of those pesky terrorists they've been hiding). Since the US is destroying its stockpile of biological and chemical weapons (developed for the Cold War), the only thing left is nuclear. If another country "gasses", bombs or starts a biological epidemic in the US, then the US will vaporize them.

 

The Iranians have mentioned they will destroy Israel. They are known supporters of terrorist organizations throughout the Mid-East. Should they develop nuclear weapons, what's to prevent them from ... accidentally making an extra bomb, or losing one, that conveniently lands in the hands of terrorists? The terrorists would have no qualms of using the device to further their ideals (especially since the majority of us are called "infidels" and deserve to die anyway). They can deny they supplied any such nuclear device. Basically Iran can NOT be trusted. As for nuclear power, they can say all they want, but they can't prove to the world (because of past statements, and current gov't/religious views) they won't do it. All it takes is for them to enrich the uranium (that's used for the nuclear power) to get weapons grade material. Sure they can say they won't enrich it, but what about the fact they already have the necessary equipment to enrich it? If you're not going to enrich, then why do you have the equipment to do so? It's simple, they're going to develop nuclear weapons and deny it for the rest of their lives.

 

And one last thing, nuclear weapons are the great "equalizer". If you were standing on the ... let's say South Korean DMZ, and over 1 million enemy soldiers come barrelling across the border at the same time, how are you going to stop them in time from completely overrunning the country. The US only has ~37,000 troops to help South Korea. Unless each US soldier can take out ~30 enemy soldiers before getting killed, they don't stand a chance. But one nuke at the right place, at the right time can make thousands of enemy soldiers disappear in a flash (

 

^this

[The_Dane]

@DarthTex: I see your point and I can understand what you are saying, and I respect that make no mistake about that.

What I'm saying is that I'm all for equality which I belive is the case with many Scandinavian people. Thus I believe that if the US want to prevent some countries from having nuclear weapons, (like Iran) which I'm all for by the way, then they ought to get rid of their own nukes also. That would also make a much needed statement in the Middle-East that the US/Western World is NOT above them (not my personal belief) but an equal fighting for a better world.

[JediHunter]

but see.. if the US gives up nukes... then what is there to stop people from developing them?.. nuclear deterence is kind of an oxymoron but it still works.. through the possesion of nuclear weapons.. nuclear weapons will not be used... its a weird concept but.. if the US didnt have nukes then countries like Iran would say.. how you going to stop me eh?... and then just do it... its through the fear of retaliation with nuclear weapons that nuclear war is avoided...

[The_Dane]

well that is the part where the UN SHOULD work*. If the UN was working the way it is supposed to do then there shouldn't be problems. But if there comes a problem with a rouge state or two then I would belive that the forces of the UN have enough military power to intimidate (I'm recognising the huge amount of forces US provide, and I know that a lot rest upon their shoulders as the worlds only "Superstate(?)"), even without nukes...

 

*But then again communism SHOULD work IN THEORY (not a communist myself)

[DarthTex]

The UN is like a volunteer group, with the all of the countries as volunteer members. The UN as a whole, only has power to the extent as the members are willing to enforce it for the UN. Not only does the US have the "strongest military" (only in terms of being the remaining superpower. There are other countries with larger armies, etc), but the US is also the single largest contributor to the UN budget. Some UN policies are actions are the opposite of US foreign policy. Some people in the US would like to quit the UN (because it's basically useless), and divert the millions of $ back to the countries own needs. Countries causing problems act like little kids complaining that the US is being a bully when trying to enforce UN mandates/sanctions/whatever. That is why the US prefers coalitions, so that other countries may participate and the US can't be accused of acting unilaterally (Even the Iraq War is a coalition of many nations, although the US has the largest force there, enforcing the UN's own rulings, which it them criticizes ).

[Defender_16]

Some good debate on the UN. It's like Dave Chappelle said in one of his "Black Bush" skits.

'If you dont like what I'm doing UN then sanction me! Sanction me with your Army. Oh that's right, you dont have an Army, so maybe you should just shut the-"

 

 

Oh yeah, I meant to post these when I found out that Canada was sending tanks to Afghanistan.

 

These are dated Dec 17, 2000. Yeah...

 

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h293/Defender_16/Leopand%20Tank/DSC00001.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h293/Defender_16/Leopand%20Tank/DSC00002.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h293/Defender_16/Leopand%20Tank/DSC00003.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h293/Defender_16/Leopand%20Tank/DSC00004.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h293/Defender_16/Leopand%20Tank/DSC00005.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h293/Defender_16/Leopand%20Tank/DSC00006.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h293/Defender_16/Leopand%20Tank/DSC00007.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h293/Defender_16/Leopand%20Tank/DSC00008.jpg

[DarthTofu]

Wow... Is that you, Def? If it is you look very differant without the ginger beard you had in the last pic of yourself that you posted...

[Defender_16]

Wow... Is that you, Def? If it is you look very differant without the ginger beard you had in the last pic of yourself that you posted...

These are dated Dec 17, 2000. Yeah...

 

That was pre-beard. I didn't pick it up for another two years.

 

I am now post-beard since I'm trying to get a job and being clean shaven is one of the major steps toward that.

[The_Dane]

The UN is like a volunteer group, with the all of the countries as volunteer members. The UN as a whole, only has power to the extent as the members are willing to enforce it for the UN. Not only does the US have the "strongest military" (only in terms of being the remaining superpower. There are other countries with larger armies, etc), but the US is also the single largest contributor to the UN budget. Some UN policies are actions are the opposite of US foreign policy. Some people in the US would like to quit the UN (because it's basically useless), and divert the millions of $ back to the countries own needs. Countries causing problems act like little kids complaining that the US is being a bully when trying to enforce UN mandates/sanctions/whatever. That is why the US prefers coalitions, so that other countries may participate and the US can't be accused of acting unilaterally (Even the Iraq War is a coalition of many nations, although the US has the largest force there, enforcing the UN's own rulings, which it them criticizes ).

 

Hmm, I thought that I posted a response two days ago... must have forgotten to push "Submit"

 

I know about those coalitions since Denmark is part of both of the Iraq and Afghanistan forces...

 

I can see why USA would be annoyed by countries complaining about their military actions since it is in everyones best interests.

As I see it then all countries want to have influence, which is the main reason as to why UN isn't working.

Here in EU we are being expanded from 15 countries to 27 which have reduced our efficiency greatly since we are now 27 countries who want to have the deciding word... My point is that the smaller countries are bitching about the larger countries always getting their way (England, Germany and France in particular), including Denmark sadly

 

BTW I think I heard something about UN having an item on the agenda that would result in a standing UN force that could be dispatched when situations arise... This should help in making the UN an efficient organisation instead of a standing joke

[DarthTofu]

Erm, shifting the topic over to the U.S. of A. (Because I'm cruel like that)

 

Tony Snow is heading out to help the Republicans with the upcoming Congressional Elections (It's an off-year election for those of you who didn't know. 468 representatives and Senators are up for reelection)

 

Question: Since Snow is supposed to give objective news to the American people will his having chosen a side affect his ability to do as much?

 

I say that it will, and not just because he's supporting Bush. I say that the Press Secretary should be objective, regardless of who is in power, and that his chosing a side is not the brightest thing he's ever done...

 

... Ooo, and on a side note- who do the Americans/Foreigners-who-watch-American-news-programs think is going to win Congress, and in which of the houses if not both?

 

I'm going with history and saying that the Democrats will win back the House by a majority, and the Senate by only two or three Senators.

[DarthTex]

Erm, shifting the topic over to the U.S. of A. (Because I'm cruel like that)

 

Tony Snow is heading out to help the Republicans with the upcoming Congressional Elections (It's an off-year election for those of you who didn't know. 468 representatives and Senators are up for reelection) ...

There are a TOTAL of 435 congressmen and 100 senators. Only 1/3rd of the Senators are up for re-election (in any given election year), so that's 435 + (100)/3 = ~468 congressional/senatorial seats "up for grab". There are 2 Senators per state (50 states x 2 = 100 Senators), and there are 435 Congressmen (the number per state is determined by a state's population vs the country population). Sorry for the previous mistake

 

EDIT: senior moment corrected

Edited October 2, 2006 by DarthTex

[Evaders99]

I'm going to bring up Islamic extremism again. Mostly because the Thomas Friedman points out what is exactly wrong with the Islamic world today..

 

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/opinion/29friedman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fThomas%20L%20Friedman

(Sorry this is the only online option I can find... I don't have a subscription either to actually view it)

 

To boil it down: Much of the the middle eastern media and even liberal newspapers in the western world would have you believe it is the West against the Islamic world. It is all what we do... so we shouldn't say anything as to not inflame the Islamic countries. But the central conflict remains... Islam vs Islam. There are death squads of Sunni's vs Shittes. There were wars such as Iraq vs Iran, ethnic cleansing, human rights violations through the roof. And where is the outrage? It is when united against the West .. through the cartoons and the papal speech... that the protests start. Why is it not directed at the people who will explode themselves in front of a mosque? Why is there no outrage against those who would pervert Islam? If this is truly a "religion of peace", why is there no peace in the middle east? And you can't say it is just the existance of Israel... that causes such things as chemical attacks from Iraq to Iran?

 

Much like the theoretical resolution written in Orson Scott Card's Enderverse books, I believe that the Islamic world needs deal with its own people first. They must hit a low point in order to build back up to a civilization that is respected by the world.

[The_Dane]

Ok, I would like some insight into the american election system, as well as how power is divided between the government, senate and House of Representatives? I know that these are large areas but if someone could give me the gist of it you would make an ignorant dane gratefull...

 

BTW since this is Bush' last term who has been announced as precidential candidates? (If this has happened yet... I heard something about Hillary Clinton vs. Condoleezza Rice...)

[The_Dane]

I know this is two posts in a row, but I though that a new subject deserved a new post...

 

@Evaders: I think that the cartoons and the papal speech has created an external outlet of hatred. There was this couple who were both psychiatrists about 50 years ago who made some testing with boys at a summercamp. They were divided into two groups and it soon became competitive between them to the point where they almost got into a fight. But then a third group of boys from a different summercamp arrived and the two original groups forgot their previous hatred towards each other and united in a fight against the newcomers.

The West vs. Islam conflict has made Sunni's and Shittes forget their enmity for a while for as long as they are facing a mutual enemy...

Just my two cents worth...

[Evaders99]

Okay.. so we have 3 branches of the American Government

 

Executive - the President, the Vice President, his Cabinet, etc.

Legislative - the Congress, divided into the House of Representatives and the Senate

Judicial - the Supreme Court and all lower courts

 

Each as a check on the other, whether it be from Congressional oversight of the Executive, the President allowed to pardon, Judicial appointments, etc.

 

The President is elected every 4 years. They can serve up to two terms.

In the House of Representatives, representatives are elected every 2 years. While in the Sentate, senators are elected every 6 years. Supreme Court judges are appointed and serve a life term.

 

The system is such that we have an election every even year. Whether it be from Congress now in 2006... or the President again in 2008.

 

That's the basic summary, I hope others could go into further details.

 

 

It is too early for the 2008 election for candidates to be announced. But generally the thought is that Hillary Clinton will run (even though she denies it at this point). Condolezza Rice has said she will not run, I'd believe her more than Clinton. My guess is that it will be a powerhouse like John McCain for the Republicans, someone that has been Bush's opponent and can win on his own Republican credentials.

[Jahled]

The West vs. Islam conflict has made Sunni's and Shittes forget their enmity for a while for as long as they are facing a mutual enemy...

 

You wouldn't consider what's going on in Iraq rather contrary to this statement would you dude? The vast majority of the daily violence is one ethnic fraction against another; remember those Shiite Mosques being attacked and pilgrims slaughtered? So not much unity on that front.

[The_Dane]

OK so not forgotten (very wrong choice of words in fact)

But my point is that they used a lot of energy on fighting the West and if history had been different they would have used that energy to fight each other.

[Jahled]

OK so not forgotten (very wrong choice of words in fact)

But my point is that they used a lot of energy on fighting the West and if history had been different they would have used that energy to fight each other.

 

No, me apologize. I hadn't read E's post above yours and put your post into Pope context..