• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html

The Washington Post reports adjustment to the nuclear aspects of US military doctrine to include the use of nuclear weapons in preemptive strike scenarios.
Bunker-Buster development is also being pushed by Myers and Rumsfield.

I would like to know how anyone out there can support the following three things at the same time:

1) the rule of law and order (including the NPT)
2) lobbying for Iran to abandon it uranium enrichment (which is allowed by the NPT)
3) the expansion of nuclear weapons development and posture in the US (which is against the NPT)

Even if you don't support the NPT, how does anyone support restricting Iran and letting the USA run loose?
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
25,781
Reaction score
11,153
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
python416 said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html

The Washington Post reports adjustment to the nuclear aspects of US military doctrine to include the use of nuclear weapons in preemptive strike scenarios.
Bunker-Buster development is also being pushed by Myers and Rumsfield.

I would like to know how anyone out there can support the following three things at the same time:

1) the rule of law and order (including the NPT)
2) lobbying for Iran to abandon it uranium enrichment (which is allowed by the NPT)
3) the expansion of nuclear weapons development and posture in the US (which is against the NPT)

Even if you don't support the NPT, how does anyone support restricting Iran and letting the USA run loose?
Because despite, WWII, we are more responsible and of a higher moral fiber than Islamic leadership in the Middle East. We have proven that we can be trusted to safe guard the world with our nukes everytime we have had a war. Instead of dropping a nuke and calling it a victory, we send our troops to die in the interest of civilian life. The militant Islamics of the Middle East have proven quite the opposite. They have proven that killing civilians is not only acceptable, but it is encouraged as a primary target.


That being said....I do not agree with using nuclear capability as a pre-emptive strike. We can use our conventional missiles and rockets for that. I do not understand fully why we would be pushing for this capability. Bunker-busting technology is alive and well and is a no factor.
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GySgt said:
Because despite, WWII, we are more responsible and of a higher moral fiber than Islamic leadership in the Middle East. We have proven that we can be trusted to safe guard the world with our nukes everytime we have had a war. Instead of dropping a nuke and calling it a victory, we send our troops to die in the interest of civilian life. The militant Islamics of the Middle East have proven quite the opposite. They have proven that killing civilians is not only acceptable, but it is encouraged as a primary target.


That being said....I do not agree with using nuclear capability as a pre-emptive strike. We can use our conventional missiles and rockets for that. I do not understand fully why we would be pushing for this capability. Bunker-busting technology is alive and well and is a no factor.
I'd have to say it is difficult to except moral superiority of the US over the Arab countries, when the US has been messing around in Arab affairs for over 50 years for its own energy interests. It is hard to fault Iran for being anti-US after the whole Sha thing leading to the revolution.

I think that the US did have a strong claim to moral superiority over the rest of the world right up until Colin Powell lied to the UN to start a war the members of the administration have been wanting since the late 90s (as in PNAC, Pearle, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz).

Now I don't mean any disrespect to a Marine; I think if it wasn't for the US during the 20th century, I might be speaking German or Russian right now.

But with the Bush administration racheting up the rhetoric so high on both DPRK and Iran, it is hard to see how they are going to make progress towards a more peaceful planet.

I guess more to the point, I don't have a problem with the historical role of the US (in fact I applaud it and am greatful for it), but I have a HUGE problem with almost every move the neo-conservative in control of the GOP make.

I believe their foriegn policy is not geared to move towards peace, it is geared to move towards perpetual conflict - and as someone who doesn't make money off war, weapons, or energy, I think that is bad. Call me selfish.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
25,781
Reaction score
11,153
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
python416 said:
I'd have to say it is difficult to except moral superiority of the US over the Arab countries, when the US has been messing around in Arab affairs for over 50 years for its own energy interests. It is hard to fault Iran for being anti-US after the whole Sha thing leading to the revolution.

I think that the US did have a strong claim to moral superiority over the rest of the world right up until Colin Powell lied to the UN to start a war the members of the administration have been wanting since the late 90s (as in PNAC, Pearle, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz).

Now I don't mean any disrespect to a Marine; I think if it wasn't for the US during the 20th century, I might be speaking German or Russian right now.

But with the Bush administration racheting up the rhetoric so high on both DPRK and Iran, it is hard to see how they are going to make progress towards a more peaceful planet.

I guess more to the point, I don't have a problem with the historical role of the US (in fact I applaud it and am greatful for it), but I have a HUGE problem with almost every move the neo-conservative in control of the GOP make.

I believe their foriegn policy is not geared to move towards peace, it is geared to move towards perpetual conflict - and as someone who doesn't make money off war, weapons, or energy, I think that is bad. Call me selfish.

Things have definately been cranked up during this administration, but it has not created anything that wasn't already there. History has seen ideologies that would oppress and murder fall one by one after people opened there eyes to it. We were blind to the Nazi's and it cost countless of needless lives. We were blind to Soviet Communism and we endured a 40 year Cold War. We are equally being blind to the world's current scourge against humanity - the Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalist. As long as fundamentalists continue to gain power and influence their Muslim people, they will continue to spread. They have already spread into Africa and all the way towards Asia. Perpetual conflict is what Islamic extremists have been determined to force on us for decades. So far, we largely continue to ignore them. The problem with fighting them is that they are not a conventional military. They hide within their population, murder civilians, and then disappear back within the millions of Islamic "peaceful" supporters.

As far as Saddam...I wanted him to go down too and we should have done it during the 90's while he was breaking UN rules set to him by the "cease fire."
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GySgt said:
Things have definately been cranked up during this administration, but it has not created anything that wasn't already there. History has seen ideologies that would oppress and murder fall one by one after people opened there eyes to it. We were blind to the Nazi's and it cost countless of needless lives. We were blind to Soviet Communism and we endured a 40 year Cold War. We are equally being blind to the world's current scourge against humanity - the Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalist. As long as fundamentalists continue to gain power and influence their Muslim people, they will continue to spread. They have already spread into Africa and all the way towards Asia. Perpetual conflict is what Islamic extremists have been determined to force on us for decades. So far, we largely continue to ignore them. The problem with fighting them is that they are not a conventional military. They hide within their population, murder civilians, and then disappear back within the millions of Islamic "peaceful" supporters.

As far as Saddam...I wanted him to go down too and we should have done it during the 90's while he was breaking UN rules set to him by the "cease fire."
I hear ya. Islamic fundamentalists are the real problem. But what is the solution?

There has only been one formal study on suicide bombers to date. The author of that study was recently called to testify in the US Congress. His findings are published in the book "Dying to Win" by Robert A. Pape. He suggests that suicide attacks are prompted by an overwhelming power that is perceived to either install a oppressive government or execute a military occupation of a land they believe is their homeland.

In that environment, the straitigy that the Bush administration is running with can never win the war on terror.

But to boil it down to one point, how can the US really be working to
wipe out Islamic fundamentalists when they continue to support the House of Saud?

Or perhaps another good questions is "what do you think causes Islamic fundamentalism?"
 

Batman

Active member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
407
Reaction score
7
Location
Fulton, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
python416 said:
I think that the US did have a strong claim to moral superiority over the rest of the world right up until Colin Powell lied to the UN to start a war the members of the administration have been wanting since the late 90s (as in PNAC, Pearle, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz)
And the regime change policy signed into law in 1998 by the President (as in Bill Clinton).

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
LINK
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Batman said:
And the regime change policy signed into law in 1998 by the President (as in Bill Clinton).
The difference is that Bill Clinton was participating in diplomatic efforts to draw Iraq into conformence. Bush was circumventing the UN and cuting off that process to start the war on its own schedule, knowing at the time that the evidence that they were presenting was hand picked to present an "immediate threat" that was related to their favorite source of policital strength - September 11th.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
python416 said:
The difference is that Bill Clinton was participating in diplomatic efforts to draw Iraq into conformence. Bush was circumventing the UN and cuting off that process to start the war on its own schedule, knowing at the time that the evidence that they were presenting was hand picked to present an "immediate threat" that was related to their favorite source of policital strength - September 11th.
In all fairness to the Bush administration, they may or may not have not have known about the falseness of the information as it had many people fooled. But, we can fault them for not going through with more international cooperation.

You state that he circumvented the UN when in fact he went to the UN and basically said "I don't want to listen to you anymore for this reason, this reason, this reason and this reason." That wasn't fair and we know that now, but it is also not fair for you to characterize him as completely circumventing the UN when instead he just didn't pay attention.
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ShamMol said:
In all fairness to the Bush administration, they may or may not have not have known about the falseness of the information as it had many people fooled. But, we can fault them for not going through with more international cooperation.

You state that he circumvented the UN when in fact he went to the UN and basically said "I don't want to listen to you anymore for this reason, this reason, this reason and this reason." That wasn't fair and we know that now, but it is also not fair for you to characterize him as completely circumventing the UN when instead he just didn't pay attention.
Good point.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
25,781
Reaction score
11,153
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ShamMol said:
In all fairness to the Bush administration, they may or may not have not have known about the falseness of the information as it had many people fooled. But, we can fault them for not going through with more international cooperation.

You state that he circumvented the UN when in fact he went to the UN and basically said "I don't want to listen to you anymore for this reason, this reason, this reason and this reason." That wasn't fair and we know that now, but it is also not fair for you to characterize him as completely circumventing the UN when instead he just didn't pay attention.
Let's also not forget about the scandal going on in the UN that our Government was undoubtedly suspicious of. I'm referencing France and Russia.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
GySgt said:
Let's also not forget about the scandal going on in the UN that our Government was undoubtedly suspicious of. I'm referencing France and Russia.
And let's not forget that human beings are just that, human beings that make mistakes. That is why this mess in Iraq was started and that was why they gave into temptation. That simple in my honest opinion.

I see the UN as necessary, you probably do not, so let that be a guide for you when responding to this, or trying to figure out how to respond to what I just posted.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
25,781
Reaction score
11,153
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ShamMol said:
And let's not forget that human beings are just that, human beings that make mistakes. That is why this mess in Iraq was started and that was why they gave into temptation. That simple in my honest opinion.

I see the UN as necessary, you probably do not, so let that be a guide for you when responding to this, or trying to figure out how to respond to what I just posted.

I give them no quarter. Giving into temtation is one thing. What many of the UN did was take advantage of a situation with complete disregard to anything else. These were not "mistakes."

I see the UN as useless and a complete dissapointment to what it should be. They are quick to point out the world's sore areas, but completely impotent to act. For example..the Sudan. While we attacked Iraq, they repeatedly offerred up Africa as a place to "help" people instead of Iraqis. They obviously know what to do, but they lack conviction to lift a finger. The one time they did act collectively (Somalia), they crumbled and left America to stand alone before we ourselves finally tucked our tails and ran.

As far as "figuring out how to respond to what you just posted"....what the hell are you talking about? Did you say something brilliant or something?
 
Top Bottom