Re: Nukes!!! Why but O why
why does US "have" to attack any country in the first place?
Re: Nukes!!! Why but O why
myvoice,
Ofcourse, US will weigh her own national interests before deciding which country to bomb or threaten or whatever. Having said that all your would've-could've-should've scenarios for Cuban missile crisis, Taiwan etc are irrelevant. Posturing aside, let me know when US has ever attacked a nuclear-armed enemy? Never. So any country that possesses nuclear weapons thinks it has a reasonable chance of avoiding any direct hits from US or its henchmen. This is all assuming they can protect their nuclear assets as well, and/or can create a perception of a threat, that if US indeed attacks, some of these nuclear weapons may be used against US on US soil (either through a missile or a dirty bomb or what have you). This is the effective deterrent. Whether it will keep on working, only time will tell. It has worked so far.
Re: Nukes!!! Why but O why
Considering there are only 7 or 8 in the world faisal. 90% of them friendly or danda driven, economic or military, do you think 1 makes a good data point? You are a numbers guy...tell me.
Re: Nukes!!! Why but O why
well myvoice recounted several data points. Consider those.
Re: Nukes!!! Why but O why
We ar etlaking about 8 powers right? Do you think US will not engage any of those eight because they are nuclear or because they are either friendly or leveraged economically by us, i.e. CHINA and India. So the irrelevance that you refer to is quite relevant because we are talking 8 out of 190 countries in the world. out of which 1 or 2 or 3 who might play this card. What makes you think made Pakistan change its stripes after 9/11. They were nuclear...they could have stayed supporting the taliban, they could have not supplied over 500 of it's citizens to Guantanamo? why did they change their stance?
When countries have nothing BUT the nuclear weapon, they are more willing to play ball because having it makes sense if you can sustain yourself independently. Neither Iran, nor NK can do that. And certainly Pakistan couldn't/can't.
China would prefer NK not have the weapons than have it. Any conflagaration of hostilities in the region means the 9% growth driven by FDI comes ot a screeching halt, it means capital flight, it means collapse of a highly leveraged banking sector. For the very same reasons China will never get of line...not now...not in 30 yrs.
Re: Nukes!!! Why but O why
The US has only had 1 nuclear powered enemy. Not a very representative sample to apply that standard.
Re: Nukes!!! Why but O why
[QUOTE]
Every time I hear this argument about the US not attacking countries with WMD, I have to chuckle. Have you ever considered that the US never attacked countries with nuclear weapons because they never did something to the US or its allies that would have required an attack?
[/QUOTE]
MV, please tell us what did Iraq do to US since 1991? Please enlighten us on the hardship faced by many US and its allies due to the menace that Iraq was?
Re: Nukes!!! Why but O why
[QUOTE]
We have not attacked them for 50 years and are not attacking them today because we feel there are better ways of dealing with the problem.
[/QUOTE]
Would that be because they do not have any oil? because you are certainly not going to admit that this war on terrorism seems like war on muslim countries.
Re: Nukes!!! Why but O why
Kaleem tell me what the ROI is on spending close to 300 Billion and over 1000 lives in oil...even the breakeven would do.
Re: Nukes!!! Why but O why
Matty, be patient my brother. The saga is not over yet. This is a long term game, all the facts have not come out yet. When all the numbers are added up you will see who won and who lost.
P.S. You might want to ask the same question to Bechtel, KBR, and other corporations involved in the operation occupation and they will supply you with numbers.
Re: Nukes!!! Why but O why
Let me get this straight...you are not willing to provide even a breakeven forecast for the billions being spent on supposed oil and you are still suggesting it is for oil? If you went to your manager with that kind of business case, you will be outsourced to India.
Re: Nukes!!! Why but O why
Like I said, wait a few years, let the oil fields be secured and pumping full capacity. We will see who will benefit at that point.
Matty, I have business partners in India. So if they send my work there, I will make sure my friends get a cut.
Re: Nukes!!! Why but O why
^ china/India will benefit.
Let me put it to you another way. Saudi has larger reserves than Iraq. Saudi per capita GDP was around $20k a year up until the 80's. It is currently at $4k a year. Arabs are just dumbasses man...we should turn over this to Israel. A country that can make lush greenfields from sand dunes. That is how I would present the business case. The people of Iraq qould benefit under that management. It is about the people.
Re: Nukes!!! Why but O why
- Saudi does not have larger reserves than Iraq.
- Saudi's GDP went down the tank or with the tanks that were sent to protect it from (unfounded threat from Saddam back in 91).
- Turning over land to Israel...why not at least they will stop illegal occupation.
Re: Nukes!!! Why but O why
^^ Actually Saudi Arabia wanted to foot the bill and they did see Saddam as a threat.
Re: Nukes!!! Why but O why
^^ Yes they did see him as a threat, only after they were shown doctored pictures from the Satellite showing Saddam's troops moving towards the Saudi border.
They wanted to foot the bill, yes right, like they had a choice... We charged them is more like it for a threat that did not exist....hmmm I guess history repeats itself.