





A new study, though, published in the 











Comments     Threshold


RE: This can be solved diplomatically
By tng on 11/1/2010 5:43:12 PM , Rating: 4
which is ultimately more useful, carrying a gun with you at all times for protection or making efforts to avoid situations that you might have to use one?

Actually, I think that it is best to carry the gun and also avoid the situations. However real life rarely works that way, eventually you may need to use it.

Back in the 90's there was a group of pointy headed academics who came out with a statement that said that the US should stop development of missile defense systems because they don't work well enough to get all of the warheads. They were correct, the systems at that time were not very good, but they have gotten better. The problem I have with people like this is that although they proposed a different solution, it is a much worse idea than what they want to get rid of.

I think that we should basically tell the world now that if a rouge nation launches or you let a rouge element launch from your shores, we will retaliate in kind. All the while we should continue to improve what defenses we have.

RE: This can be solved diplomatically
By roykahn on 11/1/2010 7:06:12 PM , Rating: 3

You do realise that America is a rogue nation, right? Also, America is not interested in retaliation, its business is pre-emptive attacks which are almost always economically motivated and then lying to rationalise their massacres.

RE: This can be solved diplomatically
By tng on 11/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: This can be solved diplomatically
By ImJustSaying on 11/5/2010 1:48:40 AM , Rating: 5
To those who voted this guy down, you DO realize that he IS correct, right?

A rogue nation, by definition, is (according to a state that conducts its policy in a dangerously unpredictable way, disregarding international law or diplomacy.

Regardless of any knee-jerk reaction, patriotic responses, it is undeniable that this definition can be applied to the United States government (not you and I, but the government). This is a government, particularly the executive, that does not respect international law (violation of preemptive strike rule, according to the international court of justice: "The International Court of Justice (ICJ) spelled out exactly what no nation can legally do in light of its commitments to uphold the U.N. Charter: 'Thus it would be illegal for a state to threaten force to secure territory from another State, or to cause it to follow or not follow certain political or economic paths'," according to Ann Fagan Ginger, Executive Director of the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute."

I give you a quote from Noam Chomsky (eat your hearts out, Neocon visitors of this website) "The grand strategy authorises the US to carry out preventive war: preventive, not pre-emptive. Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war might be, they do not hold for preventive war, particularly as that concept is interpreted by its current enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an invented or imagined threat, so that even the term "preventive" is too charitable. Preventive war is, very simply, the supreme crime that was condemned at Nuremberg."
—Noam Chomsky, "Preventive War 'The Supreme Crime': Iraq: invasion that will live in infamy", August, 11, 2003.

I don't want to hear any dismissive bullshit about Noam Chomskey either. This man's logical explanations of his definitions and reasoning are impeccable, as those who have read ANY of his books could attest to.

By roykahn on 11/5/2010 3:45:27 AM , Rating: 5
Oh no, what have you done? You'll only get yourself voted down. Exposing the lawlessness of the American elite and military is a sin on this site. It's almost as frowned upon as acknowledging that humans are destroying the environment. If you want to get voted up and redeem yourself, just mention something supporting the US military, greed, and the right to plunder the earth's resources for your own immediate gratification.

Regarding Chomsky, he did write a book called "Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs". Can you guess which country was featured prominantly?

RE: This can be solved diplomatically
By Nutzo on 11/2/2010 11:27:04 AM , Rating: 2
As much as these tyrants like to huff and puff and think they are important on the world stage, they mainly care about themselves. They need to be convinced that any attack with a WMD against the US or our allies will result in a retaliation against them that will not only destroy their WMDs and military, but them personally as well.
They should also be told that this will happen even if some rogue agent provides a nuke to a terrorist group that uses it, and yes, we will use nukes if needed, and it won’t matter how many civilians they are hiding under.

RE: This can be solved diplomatically
By roykahn on 11/3/2010 1:13:28 AM , Rating: 2
Of course countries know that they can't attack America. It's so bleedingly obvious and yet America somehow manages to convince its public that they are constantly under threat from evil countries. If they're not making up BS about WMD's then they're making up BS about making nuclear weapons. After the lies about Iraq's WMD claims, how can anyone believe anything the US says about so-called threats? You're also forgetting that the US is all too happy to supply weapons to terrorist groups as long as the weapons are used in the strategic interests of the US. Not to mention that the US military is itself a terrorist group. But I agree with you that it doesn't matter how many civilians die from US attacks. It's either covered up under lies or somehow rationalized under false information. Because the US is always the good guy, right?

RE: This can be solved diplomatically
By Jaybus on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
By roykahn on 11/3/2010 7:26:41 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for replying in a calm manner and for using some sort of reasonable debate.

I said that "countries" know they can't attack the US. There's always going to be the possibility of individuals or small groups murdering a small number of Americans within America. 9/11 is small in scale and very short in duration when compared to what America has done to a number of countries including Iraq and Afghanistan currently. There was no military invasion on America. No country was trying to occupy it, control it, or overthrow its government. Compare that to what America has done numerous times to other countries. Compare the number of overseas military bases America has to other countries. Compare the military spending, military budgets, military aid, and weapon exports of America to other countries. There's also a growing trend for America to do as it pleases when it comes to military action. It is a rogue nation that has repeatedly committed war crimes and has no intention of being bound by international law and treaties while being all too happy to point out when other countries do likewise. Then tell me why a country would want to attack the US.

Regarding your comments about Iraq and Kurds, you should know that America did not care about the Kurds. If supporting/protecting the Kurds is somehow beneficial to US interests, then it will be done. If not, then to hell with them. America and other countries have supplied Iraq with weapons and supported them in the past. Please read about the history of US-Iraq relations and see for yourself how hypocritical and manipulative the US has been. America was informed that Iraq had no WMD's. It chose to ignore this information and plow ahead anyway in the hope that something might be found.

As for your comments about civilian deaths - who are you kidding? Do you really think that the US military actually cares about foreign civilians. How can they? For any military personnel, American or not, you can't expect them to care much about civilian deaths especially when they're high above in the sky dropping bombs at the press of a button. They just do their job and their orders are often based on false information, misunderstanding, or just plain evil intentions. Hasn't the information released from Wikileaks taught you anything? Maybe the military are getting better at covering up civilian deaths, but they're certainly not trying to actually reduce them.

By ImJustSaying on 11/5/2010 1:53:17 AM , Rating: 1

