Visit the Ironworks Gaming Website Email the Webmaster Graphics Library Rules and Regulations Help Support Ironworks Forum with a Donation to Keep us Online - We rely totally on Donations from members Donation goal Meter

Ironworks Gaming Radio

Ironworks Gaming Forum

Go Back   Ironworks Gaming Forum > Ironworks Gaming Forums > General Discussion
FAQ Calendar Arcade Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-10-2004, 04:03 AM   #31
Link
Jack Burton
 

Join Date: May 15, 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 40
Posts: 5,888
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Black Baron:
Edwin\ No WoMD were found in iraq, therefore Saddam had none in the first place. Excellent deduction. /Edwin

So there are no Womd in Iraq.
Did any one check Syria?

Jan\ It reminds me of that time waaaaay back /Jan, when police raided some house when searching for drugs. The drugs owner hid it in his friends house, so the judge deducted that he had none.

Untill USA checks Syria, this isue is unsolvable.
The only WMD in the region are in Israel, Black Baron.
Perhaps we should check there first?
[/QUOTE]And Pakistan Skunk. And India Skunk. And Russia Skunk. So quick to point the finger at Israel.

And Skunk, what's your opinion on Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait? What's the commonality between them I wonder?
[/QUOTE]And why not point the finger at Israel?
Link is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2004, 04:47 AM   #32
Cerek the Barbaric
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
 

Join Date: October 29, 2001
Location: North Carolina
Age: 62
Posts: 3,257
Quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:

Yes, I realize that Skunk has a habit of bringing up Israel on a regular basis, regardless of whether the thread is actually about Israel or not.

Rubbish. It has everything to do with Israel. It is because of Israel's nuclear stockpile that every other country in the middle east is seeking weapons of mass destruction, or is expected to be seeking them.
[/QUOTE]Rubbish Too. How many times has Israel actually used nuclear weapons against another country? And what countries has Israel threatened (or actually attacked) besides Palestine?

Something you seem to forget is that Israel IS being attacked on a daily basis. These other countries don't want nuclear weapons as a "safeguard" against the threat of Israel. They want them so they can use them against Israel. Israel has never threatened to attack or "wipe out" all the countries around them, but it is a well-known (and well documented) fact that all of the countries around Israel DO want to wipe them out. So it is a blantantly false and ridiculous claim for these countries to say they want nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the threat of Israel.


Quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
Remember that WAR was declared on Iraq on the SUPPOSITION that it had WMD's. War was not declared on Israel despite the actual EVIDENCE that it has and maintains a nuclear stockpile.
"WAR" has not been declared on Israel??? [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] Gee, I bet that's a surprise to them since the citizens there cannot go to the market or get on a bus without facing the very real possibility of being blown up by a Palestinian suicide bomber. Palestinians may not have "officially" declared "War" on Israel, but they have voiced their commitment to wipe Israel out and their actions back up this commitment - so I think it is safe to say that "war" HAS been declared on Israel and is being carried out on a daily basis.

And Israel was not invaded despite the EVIDENCE that it has a nuclear stockpile because - UNLIKE IRAQ - Israel HAS NOT USED those nuclear weapons against other countries despite being under constant attack by another country.


Quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
War is the LAST TOOL OF RESORT of the UN, Cerek, not the first. And the US does not provide the bulk of troops - INDIA PROVIDES THE MOST (and has done for the last TWENTY years), with Germany second and Britain third.
Really? That's news to me.

Quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
And the first tool of the UN is SANCTIONS - which does not need the US military to implement. And the US is blamed for the failure of those sanctions to be implemented because it casts it veto to prevent them.
And the SANCTIONS of the U.N. have proven to be largely ineffective.

As for blaming the US for the failure of those sanctions because of their veto, I can only reiterate that the US must carry an awful lot of weight in the U.N. for thier single veto to carry so much power.
__________________
[img]\"http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/cerek/cerektsrsig.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Cerek the Calmth
Cerek the Barbaric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2004, 07:05 AM   #33
Mouse
Ironworks Moderator
 

Join Date: March 1, 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,788
Just to bring a bit of clarity to the issue of WMD's, you might like to take a gander here.

It would seem to be in terms of realpolitik it's really no problem for a state to possess WMD's (or the capability to produce them) just so long as it's not a rogue state.

Now, would someone care to explain how the international community should define what exactly constitutes a rogue state?
__________________
Regards

Mouse
(Occasional crooner and all round friendly Scottish rodent)
Mouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2004, 07:19 AM   #34
johnny
40th Level Warrior
 
Ms Pacman Champion
Join Date: April 15, 2002
Location: Utrecht The Netherlands
Age: 59
Posts: 16,981
Probably countries that threaten their neighbours, or have shown acts of aggressiveness in the past, like Iraq and North Korea.

Remarkable in your link is that Ethiopia is one of the suspected holders of weapons of mass destruction. Now there's a country that has a shortage of just about anything, food, water, medical supplies, clothing, you name it.... but hey.... at least they have weapons of mass destruction.

Now why in gods name would a broke ass country like Ethiopia need WoMD's ? What exactly was the government thinking when they purchased them ?
__________________
johnny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2004, 08:51 AM   #35
Yorick
Very Mad Bird
 

Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 53
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally posted by johnny:

Remarkable in your link is that Ethiopia is one of the suspected holders of weapons of mass destruction. Now there's a country that has a shortage of just about anything, food, water, medical supplies, clothing, you name it.... but hey.... at least they have weapons of mass destruction.

Now why in gods name would a broke ass country like Ethiopia need WoMD's ? What exactly was the government thinking when they purchased them ?
The reason? The civil war that caused the famine in the first place Johnny.
__________________

http://www.hughwilson.com
Yorick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2004, 08:54 AM   #36
Yorick
Very Mad Bird
 

Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 53
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally posted by Link:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
The only WMD in the region are in Israel, Black Baron.
Perhaps we should check there first?
And Pakistan Skunk. And India Skunk. And Russia Skunk. So quick to point the finger at Israel.

And Skunk, what's your opinion on Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait? What's the commonality between them I wonder?
[/QUOTE]And why not point the finger at Israel?
[/QUOTE]Did you bother to read the post I was replying to? That would be four nations in the area with nuclear weapons, not the one Skunk was so quick to (as usual) try and isolatingly point out.
__________________

http://www.hughwilson.com
Yorick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2004, 09:06 AM   #37
Yorick
Very Mad Bird
 

Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 53
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:

Rubbish Too. How many times has Israel actually used nuclear weapons against another country? And what countries has Israel threatened (or actually attacked) besides Palestine?

Something you seem to forget is that Israel IS being attacked on a daily basis. These other countries don't want nuclear weapons as a "safeguard" against the threat of Israel. They want them so they can use them against Israel. Israel has never threatened to attack or "wipe out" all the countries around them, but it is a well-known (and well documented) fact that all of the countries around Israel DO want to wipe them out. So it is a blantantly false and ridiculous claim for these countries to say they want nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the threat of Israel.
Truth. Well said. Factual and intelligent opinion about those facts Cerek. Well said.

Quote:
"WAR" has not been declared on Israel??? [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] Gee, I bet that's a surprise to them since the citizens there cannot go to the market or get on a bus without facing the very real possibility of being blown up by a Palestinian suicide bomber. Palestinians may not have "officially" declared "War" on Israel, but they have voiced their commitment to wipe Israel out and their actions back up this commitment - so I think it is safe to say that "war" HAS been declared on Israel and is being carried out on a daily basis.

And Israel was not invaded despite the EVIDENCE that it has a nuclear stockpile because - UNLIKE IRAQ - Israel HAS NOT USED those nuclear weapons against other countries despite being under constant attack by another country.
Cerek, how many of the nations that declared war on Israel actually signed peace treaties? I know Egypt did, and Egypt got Sinai back. Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda and various other Palestinian, Syrian, Jordanian, and other Arabic groups are certainly at war with Israel. Israel are in a constant state of war.

Again however, you show remarkable grasp on what the matters in the area actually are, compared to what's often presented.

Quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
War is the LAST TOOL OF RESORT of the UN, Cerek, not the first. And the US does not provide the bulk of troops - INDIA PROVIDES THE MOST (and has done for the last TWENTY years), with Germany second and Britain third.
Really? That's news to me.[/QUOTE]I wonder if there is any proof of this? Would make a nice post. Proof to back up unusual assertions. What a concept.

Quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
And the first tool of the UN is SANCTIONS - which does not need the US military to implement. And the US is blamed for the failure of those sanctions to be implemented because it casts it veto to prevent them.
And the SANCTIONS of the U.N. have proven to be largely ineffective.

As for blaming the US for the failure of those sanctions because of their veto, I can only reiterate that the US must carry an awful lot of weight in the U.N. for thier single veto to carry so much power.
[/QB][/QUOTE]Cuba anyone? Those annoying Americans. Invading Cuba while the rest of the world argued for sanctions. And Iraq too. Those French Russian and Chinese were so addamant about not doing business with Iraq. And all the while the USA ignored what sanctions could do. Tsk tsk.
__________________

http://www.hughwilson.com
Yorick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2004, 09:15 AM   #38
Yorick
Very Mad Bird
 

Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 53
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:

War is the LAST TOOL OF RESORT of the UN, Cerek, not the first. And the US does not provide the bulk of troops - INDIA PROVIDES THE MOST (and has done for the last TWENTY years), with Germany second and Britain third.
http://www.factmonster.com/spot/un1.html

Ooh Look. These people disagree with you. Have you heard of Pakistan? They have nuclear weapons. And, they were the largest UN peacekeer contributors in 2001 with over 4,000 personelle.

However the United States appeared to FUND 27% of peacekeeping costs in 2003

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...#Peace-keeping
Manpower alone does not win a war. Tanks? Planes? Guns? All conveniently forgotten it seems. So too the US position on arrears.

[ 06-10-2004, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]
__________________

http://www.hughwilson.com
Yorick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2004, 09:20 AM   #39
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
Quote:
Rubbish. It has everything to do with Israel. It is because of Israel's nuclear stockpile that every other country in the middle east is seeking weapons of mass destruction, or is expected to be seeking them.
Exactly. I remember reading how Palestinian leaders stated that if Israel would scrap its weapons program, they'd love to enjoy a rousing round of Kumbaya with their Jewish neighbors. I remember Syria saying that while they liked Israelis, the Israeli nuke program forced them to compete in an arms race. Boy, skunk, thanks for solving the world's problems for us once again.
__________________
Timber Loftis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2004, 09:38 AM   #40
shamrock_uk
Dracolich
 

Join Date: January 24, 2004
Location: UK
Age: 42
Posts: 3,092
Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
And what countries has Israel threatened (or actually attacked) besides Palestine?
Lebanon in 82. Egypt & Syria (although I will admit they aren't examples of unwarranted Israeli aggression, but they are other countries that have been attacked by Israel). Iraq. I'll think of a couple more no doubt.

Quote:
Something you seem to forget is that Israel IS being attacked on a daily basis. These other countries don't want nuclear weapons as a "safeguard" against the threat of Israel. They want them so they can use them against Israel. Israel has never threatened to attack or "wipe out" all the countries around them, but it is a well-known (and well documented) fact that all of the countries around Israel DO want to wipe them out. So it is a blantantly false and ridiculous claim for these countries to say they want nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the threat of Israel.
Very valid points. However it is perhaps only natural that when the casualties are so one-sided and the war of defence so preemptive in nature that some people would view Israel as an aggressive state.

Quote:
And Israel was not invaded despite the EVIDENCE that it has a nuclear stockpile because - UNLIKE IRAQ - Israel HAS NOT USED those nuclear weapons against other countries despite being under constant attack by another country.
I also suspect that the close proximity of Israel's enemies in a geographical sense would make the firing of nuclear weapons somewhat hazardous for the Israeli citizens.
Quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
War is the LAST TOOL OF RESORT of the UN, Cerek, not the first. And the US does not provide the bulk of troops - INDIA PROVIDES THE MOST (and has done for the last TWENTY years), with Germany second and Britain third.
Really? That's news to me.[/QUOTE]Innacurate, but the general thrust is correct re. the small American contribution. As of April 2004, according to the UN summary of Civilian Police, Troops, and Military Observers the [total] numbers are (just a comparative selection)

United States = 562
India = 2,930

But we can compare with:

United Kingdom = 550
Zambia = 933
South Africa = 1,460
Senegal = 1,037
Nepal = 2,290
Mali = 298
Morocco = 858
Kenya = 1,826
Jordan = 1,804

The largest contributor is Pakistan with 7,680, closely followed by Bangladesh with 6,362.

Perhaps most suprising are countries like:
Ethiopia = 1,882
Kenya = 1,826
Ghana = 2,790
Nigeria = 3,398
Uruguay = 1,883


Quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
And the first tool of the UN is SANCTIONS - which does not need the US military to implement. And the US is blamed for the failure of those sanctions to be implemented because it casts it veto to prevent them.
And the SANCTIONS of the U.N. have proven to be largely ineffective.

As for blaming the US for the failure of those sanctions because of their veto, I can only reiterate that the US must carry an awful lot of weight in the U.N. for thier single veto to carry so much power.
[/QB][/QUOTE]To respond jointly to this, and your earlier criticism about me blaming the US for UN failures:

It's not a question of 'weight', that's the whole point of the Veto. The US veto carries just as much weight as the UK veto or the French veto, just we don't use it often. It's far easier to block something (as the US does all the time) than it is to get things going (as you found over Iraq) but all you experienced there was the French doing what everybody else has to put up with all the time from America.

The US owns the UN, it carries immense weight, more than any other and naturally seeks to dominate it. An analysis of the UN without taking into account US behaviour is meaningless. It would be like teaching anatomy with half the organs missing. Therefore when the UN fails to act because of US veto, criticism of the UN by a mis-informed public is unjustified in my opinion.

Surely the American opinion can best express my point:

The very success or failure of the UN as an organization rests on its ability to fulfill American interests. After the UN blocked America's war on Saddam, we hear how the UN is "no longer relevent" and "product of a previous era" etc etc. The American's define the very success of the UN by its ability to implement US policy and this more than anything shows why an analysis of the UN (and subsequent complaints over inaction) have to include the US to be meaningful.

For the rest of the world, the UN did not falter in the face of US pressure and therefore is not seen to have failed. The inability of the UN to prevent America attacking Iraq is seen more as a function of unilateral behaviour by the superpower than a failure of the UN. When a country is seen as uncontrallable (the true definition of a rogue state?) then naturally nobody is particularly suprised when the UN cannot control it, and indeed, i doubt many expected it to be able to.

As a slight note, thanks for your earlier reply Cerek and also for keeping it civil. I've just re-read my last sentence (the 'desk' one) and it does sound a bit unecessarily 'acidic', so my apologies for that.

[ 06-10-2004, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]
shamrock_uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Expert difficulty Loudhy Miscellaneous Games (RPG or not) 9 03-09-2004 09:33 PM
Military Lawyer Slams U.S. Terrorism Tribunals Chewbacca General Discussion 1 01-22-2004 06:09 AM
Expert on BG1 Agent Smith Baldurs Gate & Tales of the Sword Coast 17 06-22-2003 05:05 PM
What are Expert Skills? Lunaticlord Miscellaneous Games (RPG or not) 5 05-01-2003 06:00 PM
NOT A NEWBIE, NOT AN EXPERT IntrospectiveIdeals Baldurs Gate II Archives 22 07-13-2001 06:37 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved