Reply With Quote
If Sarkozy is so concerned, why doesn't he start his own damn war?
Nuclear, I think you're missing one of the biggest differences between a conventional bomb and a nuclear one, which is the political one.
It's one thing for a conventional bomb, such as a fertilizer truck bomb, to go off. But a nuke going off, even a small one, would send (unwarranted) terror throughout the populace. It would have much more of a effect politically/psychologically than the actual destructive effect.
If Sarkozy is so concerned, why doesn't he start his own damn war?
WC, I don't think you'll be able to convince anyone online that you were trying to "trick" NukeFM, and you just didn't make a mistake.
After all, we have no way to test your credibility. Of anyone, you should know about double-checking sources.
You have to ask that to him. I'm just pointing out how US allies are starting to wear thin on the current Administration unilateralist policies and undecisiveness. Don't you agree with Sarkozy words?
Slightly, but I also think that it's our decision whether to back things up or not. Sarkozy has been ing about Obama since he snubbed him at some meeting. I'm fine with letting the international community determine whether or not they can 'trust' us, and I'm not quite ready to let Sarkozy determine whether they do or not.
Frankly, I'll be GLAD if nations trust us less. Maybe they won't ask us to defend them as much, or for economic help.
Bingo.
It's hilarious how all of sudden conservatives act like they give a what France thinks/says.
I thought it was Obama who went to Europe a couple of months ago asking for more military help from European countries in Afghanistan.
I also thought this Administration wouldnt' be unilateralist. However, I can't remember of a more unilateralist American administration since Hoover's presidency.
It's just that they're full of surprises and one never knows what the are they doing. I don't think this is only a problem to US allies or the international community. The thing is: do you trust this administration words? For example, do you trust that this administration indeed has a strategy for Afghanistan?
You've forgotten "the Decider" already?
Hmmm.... it's amazing the heavy use of ad hominem and strawman arguments over here.
Just for the record, as a rule I don't answer to people that use them; I'm not used to have conversations with that kind of person.
so...you forgot.
And do you think we'll get any noticeable amount? Until we do, I really don't care what Sarkozy says.
I would say that attacking Iraq with the help of only UK and a few token soldiers from other nations is somehwat unilateralist.
I'm fine with unilateralism as long as we're not doing something stupid, like invading a country. But changing our mind about whether to install a missile defense shield for another country with our own money? Yeah, I'm ok with that.
Again, I'm ok with the international community trusting us less; maybe they'll ask less of us.
Eh, I'm not saying, per se, that Sarkozy is a blowhard, therefore his opinion must be wrong. But I'm certainly implying that it may color his opinions.
Again, even if we ARE seen as flaky, what are the explicit negatives associated with that, Mogro?
I dont trust my government, period.
Red, Blue, Green...doesnt matter. The sooner Americans just band together in their complete distaste for their government, the better off we will be.
Instead we have cheerleaders and infinite patience with one's chosen doctrine, whatever it may be. Because the President is a <insert affiliation here> and I support <same affiliation here>, then I will defend their policy with vigor.
Supporting a candidate over another is great, more power to you. But after the election your loyalties to that candidate should be completely suspended from your conscience and every move they make criticized.
Just an opinion.
I know that. Terror is one thing but deaths are another. A dirty bomb may not even cause any deaths. I'd take superficial terror over deaths.
That's impossible to do without developing substantial nuclear technology (enough to get a nuclear weapon). Worst case scenario, there is a mild cleanup. You can't contaminate that badly without a substantial nuclear production program. I suggest you just shutup on this, you don't know what the you're talking about.
Eh, I don't know. Superficial terror oftens leads to horrible law that violates civil rights/liberties. Not to mention the effect that distrust of one's neighbor can have on a population.
I'll ask again: What is France going to do about anything anywhere?
I did make a mistake. I did want to see his reaction since a neutron is a type of baryon, but I used the wrong word. I don't care if you believe me or not.WC, I don't think you'll be able to convince anyone online that you were trying to "trick" NukeFM, and you just didn't make a mistake.
After all, we have no way to test your credibility. Of anyone, you should know about double-checking sources.
How exactly do you expect to get any noticeable amount if nobody can trust this Admnistration strategy?
At least it was supported by a fair bunch of countries and the support of many others was seeked.
Maybe you are. But the problem isn't exactly the changing of mind, rather the way it was changed. In the domain of military and diplomatic relationships, countries like the US are supposed to have some reliability and to try concert their positions with their allies to a reasonable degree.
Maybe they'll also provide you less. But the problem is that this administration announced that their approach would be the exact opposite. After all, what's your position relatively to a more unilateralist or multilateralist approach and what's the position of the Admninistration?
That comment wasn't directed to you or about Sarkozy. I find the theory that Sarkozy decides his diplomatic stances because of some alleged snub from Obama or that he holds some kind of grudge against him that influences his speechs so far-fetched and childish (especially considering he held the same view even before Obama was elected) that I wouldn't lose time mentioning it, except to clarify this point.
Ask yourself how your behaviour would change towards a contractor, a business partner, a co-worker, etc that you perceived as flaky.
You haven't answered this question: The thing is: do you trust this administration words? For example, do you trust that this administration indeed has a strategy for Afghanistan?
I don't, making wars of convenience rather impossible. See how that works?
In spirit, yes. But the US obviously determined the majority of policy and did the heavy lifting.
Yes, but my definition of reasonable is, say, if the US changes its mind about putting a US-funded missile defense, that's the US's business. Unless it was to be located in France, who cares what they say?
George Washington spoke of keeping this country disentangled from allegiances, both allies and enemies. I think he was spot on.
My position is we shouldn't go to war unilaterally unless we have either A) been attacked or B) have solid evidence that we are going to be attacked and it's presented to the people. And by "going to be attacked" I mean in the near future, not some nebulous 10 years down the road.
The Administration has obviously taken a multilateralist approach. Is this a misstep? Perhaps in the eyes of France, but Russia seems to have appreciated it.
Why do you think politicians are immune to the same sort of bias that everyday humans are susceptible to?
If a coworker reneged on a deal he had with another company in order to gain favor with a different company, that's his business. If he does that to me, then I'll look into it.
I trust they have SOME sort of strategy. I don't think it's static by any means and will be dictated by conditions on the ground and changing scenarios.
Do I trust the administration's word? Not wholeheartedly, of course. Obama's shown no love for civil liberties, for instance. I believe him when he says he wants to push health care, because his actions have backed him up. That's when I'll believe him; when he takes action to back his words up.
Well, there's the problem of assuming commitments just to unilaterally disregard them.
I could respect that if that was the philosophy of this administration. Hard to believe when the President was just campaigning among his allies asking for military support.
That's far from obvious. Do you only apply multilateralism to enemies but not to allies? [QUOTE]The Administration has obviously taken a multilateralist approach. Is this a misstep? Perhaps in the eyes of France, but Russia seems to have appreciated it.
I don't. I'm just immune to unreasonable theories about that.Why do you think politicians are immune to the same sort of bias that everyday humans are susceptible to?
Right.If he does that to me, then I'll look into it.
Is that a leap of faith or something else?I trust they have SOME sort of strategy.
The same people who warned us about the FAILED Iraq-WMD connections are sounding alarms about the media exaggerating the Iranian nuclear threat....
Common DreamsAli Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, reaffirmed Monday that a date would soon be set for the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect the planned nuclear enrichment facility near Qom about which the Iranian government informed the IAEA on Monday a week ago.
If Iran really does permit full, ongoing IAEA inspections of the facility, then it cannot be used for weapons production. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted Sunday that Iran cannot use the Natanz plant for bomb-making because it is being regularly inspected by the UN.
Scott Ritter, an experienced inspector himself, dispels the myths about the new Qom facility and urges against new economic sanctions on Iran as counter-productive. Greater transparency and more inspections should be the demand of the West, he says.
Oh, oh, Chumpy...
SAUDIS WILL LET ISRAEL BOMB IRAN NUCLEAR SITE
Sunday September 27,2009
By Gordon Thomas and Camilla Tominey
Daily ExpressINTELLIGENCE chief Sir John Scarlett has been told that Saudi Arabia is ready to allow Israel to bomb Iran’s new nuclear site.
The head of MI6 discussed the issue in London with Mossad chief Meir Dagan and Saudi officials after British intelligence officers helped to uncover the plant, in the side of a mountain near the ancient city of Qom.
The site is seen as a major threat by Tel Aviv and Riyadh. Details of the talks emerged after John Bolton, America’s former UN ambassador, told a meeting of intelligence analysts that “Riyadh certainly approves” of Israel’s use of Saudi airspace.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband acknowledged that the danger of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East was “particularly potent” and refused to rule out military action altogether but he insisted: “We are 100 per cent focused on a diplomatic solution.”
Gordon Brown, US President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have warned Iran’s leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he must allow in weapons inspectors or face more sanctions.
Thanks. Just wondering how they would do it.
Seems like they would have to do it several times.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
