reason why the antiwar movement did not catch on in US
- Thread starter epicstruggle
- Start date
RussSchultz said:
Theoretically, ITER should solve that problem. Theoretically:
http://www.energy.gov/HQPress/releases03/janpr/pr03026.htm
My favorite image from the war:
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/wankers.jpg
I guess we see how the Iraqi's felt about the war protesting human shields.
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/wankers.jpg
I guess we see how the Iraqi's felt about the war protesting human shields.
RussSchultz said:
Wake up. The US doesn't give a damn about Rwanda, Zimbabww, Congo, Uganda or anything else. The major reason to oppose this war is the rampant hypocrisy of the United States. Is it oil, is it racism, who knows? But the bottomline is we'd never waste the effort intervening in an African country, meanwhile we wasted no time in going into the Balkans and Iraq. Liberating people, my ass...
Sxotty said:
The reason the US doesn't really do it, is because the US doesn't really care.
By the way, the only reason the anti-war movement didn't catch on, and the ONLY reason we went to war at all is because of 9/11. Which we now all know was planned by Saddam. Hmmm...Not sure what Osama's role was anymore... Oh, I know, maybe he doesn't exist since we couldn't catch him.
There are enough logical holes to drive the titanic through, but that's ok, mindlessly listen to your government and the genius who is our un-elected president.
By the way, if all we find is 1-2 WMD war heads, that's not significant enough to count for anything, and will be pretty hillarious.
Deflection
Newcomer
Nagorak said:
Hypocrisy is rampant among human beings.
Backpeddaling, see above.
DemoCoder said:
As far as solar, it doesn't hurt to try, does it? Not to mention you're forgetting wind, geothermal and hydro power. Also, I don't remember a solar panel ever melting down and killing everyone nearby. Nuclear meltdowns are at least as big of a problem. Sure, maybe it's not likely, but when it happens (and it will, no matter how many safe guards you put up), it's always going to be a major disaster. Maybe it would work if all the nuclear plants were down in Antarctica or on the moon, but that's not too likely is it?
By the way, the toxic waste is a much bigger problem than you make it out to be. Yeah, it might seem like a good idea to put it in all one place but 1) no one wants it in their backyard. 2) transporting it there is hazardous and what happens when (not if) a major spill occurs. 3) the half life of radioactive waste is ridiculously long, and the idea that it won't eventually get loose is absurd. 4) If you think about the cost of maintaining a toxic waste dump for the next few eons, it no longer seems very cost effective, does it?
But that's typical western thinking, just put the problem off till tomorrow. That's why the US government is a few trillion dollars in debt. Everyone is concerned about the threat Saddam could have presented in the long term. Maybe a more realistic concern is the threat this sort of thinking is going to present in the long term. It doesn't matter if you're an individual, a corporation or a company: you can't keep going deeper into debt indefinitely. Unfortuantely the morons in congress just gung-ho to either spend the money or give outrageous tax counts-- neither of which are at all acceptable when we're already so far in debt.
Anyway, unless the western world wakes up and seriously adjusts its life style, the whole world is going to be trashed anyway. I'm afraid to think of how it will be if all the third world countries adopt the same attitude. Right now, gas guzzling cars are at least as big a problem (if not more) than power plants. In terms of pollution, power plants are actually a lot cleaner than cars, because the plants have been forced to install very effective scrubbers and such that just don't exist on the exhaust pipe of a car. Actually, make that an SUV, the type of vehicle we all know is best for hauling groceries around town.
And while power plants have gotten cleaners in recent years, the average fuel economy of the US has dropped since the late 80s, so things on that front are just getting worse.Deflection said:
You can make ricin in your house, and you can probably learn exactly how by searching the internet. Finding ricin doesn't count as having WMD.
Finding a handful of warheads does not count as a threat. The WMD threat from Iraq was nonexistant.
In fact the whole idea is pretty ridiculous, because any dictator that uses WMD on the US would just get nuked into oblivion. Contrary to popular belief, dictators are not suicidal: they like being in power.
The only people who would use chemical weapons are terrorists, and then it's a moot point because they already can just make ricin themselves. The thing about terrorism is it requires only a few people to pull off. You can't stop terrorists by attacking countries, you can't fight a "war on terrorism". Law enforcement can deter it somewhat, which is how most terrorist plots are foiled. But, the truth is, the US is no safer today than it was 5-10 years ago.
Funny how we didn't start a war on terrorism after white boy Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma city building. Based on the past few years, maybe we should be equally concerned about white militia groups as middle eastern terrorists?
I disagree with just about everything you say.
On the contrary. Finding one single <strong>nuclear warhead</strong> in Iraq would be complete justification for the war, as would finding any weapons-grade nuclear material in enough volume to create an actual weapon, be it a dirty-bomb or an actual warhead.
That's a Cold-war era assumption that may be less valid now. During the Cold War, our massive nuclear arsenal served two purposes. Deterrent through the MAD policy, and providing us with the only possible way to neutralize the Soviets' nuclear arsenal. Small chance of that, if the Soviets could launch before our missiles hit their targeted silos, but when the alternative is the complete obliteration of your civilization, you play every odd.
However, any dictator that nukes America will not have the ability to destroy the country like the USSR could have, for the foreseeable future at least. America's convential forces are more than capable of disarming him of his wmd capability. Knowing that, I think a rational American leadership would consider a conventional response, and if they deemed it possible to effectively neutralize the threat conventially, they would actually choose that method to spare the civilian populace. A more measured response to such an attack is not out of the realm of possibility.
Saddam could have stayed in power if he had simply completely co-operated with the weapons inspectors. And don't say that he did and the US lied about it. Even Hans Blix admits to a pattern of evasion. Here's a good brief on just what Saddam may have been evading:
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1998/mj98/mj98albright.html
No, attacking Afghanistan had no effect on Al Quaeda. Your attitude seems to be that you can't stop terrorism, at all, ever. But it's that very attitude, and the accompanying decision to accept terrorist blackmail instead of fighting back, that allows terrorists to win.
Nagorak said:
On the contrary. Finding one single <strong>nuclear warhead</strong> in Iraq would be complete justification for the war, as would finding any weapons-grade nuclear material in enough volume to create an actual weapon, be it a dirty-bomb or an actual warhead.
Nagorak said:
That's a Cold-war era assumption that may be less valid now. During the Cold War, our massive nuclear arsenal served two purposes. Deterrent through the MAD policy, and providing us with the only possible way to neutralize the Soviets' nuclear arsenal. Small chance of that, if the Soviets could launch before our missiles hit their targeted silos, but when the alternative is the complete obliteration of your civilization, you play every odd.
However, any dictator that nukes America will not have the ability to destroy the country like the USSR could have, for the foreseeable future at least. America's convential forces are more than capable of disarming him of his wmd capability. Knowing that, I think a rational American leadership would consider a conventional response, and if they deemed it possible to effectively neutralize the threat conventially, they would actually choose that method to spare the civilian populace. A more measured response to such an attack is not out of the realm of possibility.
Nagorak said:
Saddam could have stayed in power if he had simply completely co-operated with the weapons inspectors. And don't say that he did and the US lied about it. Even Hans Blix admits to a pattern of evasion. Here's a good brief on just what Saddam may have been evading:
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1998/mj98/mj98albright.html
From The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists said:
Nagorak said:
No, attacking Afghanistan had no effect on Al Quaeda. Your attitude seems to be that you can't stop terrorism, at all, ever. But it's that very attitude, and the accompanying decision to accept terrorist blackmail instead of fighting back, that allows terrorists to win.
Similar threads
