April 18, 2003

Nuclear weapons was only 'stabilizing' back during the Cold War because both the US and the USSR knew that to decisively knock out the other's nuclear capability, the pre-emptive strike has to be so massive (due to the multiple delivery threads, as pointed by JEC252) that the resultant fallout will cause a nuclear winter so severe that the remaining population that was not affected by the initial attacks will simply die from radiation sickness and starvation... We don't even need to add the retaliatory strikes! Even if a selection of individuals managed to live under some remote mountains, when their provisions runs out and have to resurface, they will find the level of radiation so high that nothing will grow!

The term 'nuclear deterrent' was applicable during the Cold War. Back then the ICBMs and what not were mainly 'strategic weapons' - causing long-term damage from very long range - hence the deployment of re-entry vehicles. However, the current range of nuclear weapons being looked at (and dreamed of) by the Middle East and Indian sub-continent states are what the US and USSR called 'tactical' weapons - ranges of couple of thousand miles, relatively small warheads which is capable of knocking the key apparatus of the enemy but not causing massive post-strike fallouts.

In terms of Middle Eastern politics, most power being held by relatively small number of people, these tactical weapons are desirable since once the leaders of the regime (who are usually also the military as well) are removed by the initial nuclear strike, the aggressor can sent in conventional forces to 'acquire' its new territories.

---

April 18, 2003

If you look at war as an economic enterprise (and I'll be going back to this point later), the stance of the French is entirely understandable. First of all the American Civil War was a war of ideology (slaves or no slaves) and at the same time a war of economics (again, slaves vs. no slaves). From what I can understand, for the Union, ideology was more important while for the Confederates, economics was prominent. However, both sides have a strong mixture of both sets of believes and hence the situation of ‘brothers against each other and fathers against sons’ situation came about. I understand that the Civil War is a very emotional subject to a lot of Americans still and have no intention of picking a fight, but for a non-participant, all this ideology means next to zero.

Now, if you’re a non-participant in such war (such as France was), the logical conclusion is: “There’s a war and there’s money to be made. Who should we support?” (I regret that this example is a very simple; however, I don’t have the time and the full depth of knowledge to write this out, as there are volumes of books available for further studies.) The logical answer is: “The side that is winning - because whoever wins and if we’re supporting the winning side, we’ll be able to continue with this relationship which we believe will lead to lots of trade deals! MONEY!!” Although this is a very simplistic account of what happened, this essentially was the driving force behind the French switching to support the ‘winning side’ during the war.

If you think all this is BS, I would like to point out that wars, with the exception of a few, are primarily driven by perceived economic and political benefits. Why else would the US only allow American companies to ‘bid’ for contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq? The process is very simple:

1) The cost of rebuilding Iraq will run into the tens of billions of dollars
2) Iraqis are allow to sell oil into the market to obtain revenue
3) Oil revenue is used to pay for the reconstruction of infrastructure (and possibly improve on previous installations)
4) American companies are used as prime contractors for the rebuilding
5) American companies earns higher profits which leads to higher GDP and increased tax contribution
6) Taxation is funneled back through the budget to pay for the cost of war

Economics 101...

---

April 19, 2003

If any dirt has to be dug, the process of which the state of Israel was created has to be taken into account. The 'Zionist' were in effect terrorist and would not stop until a Jewish state was created out of the then Palestine. So the people who created Israel were heroes (or founding fathers) of the Jewish state or from the Arabs' point of view - terrorists!

So the fact that Israel was created by terrorists and as a result of terrorism, should it not be a target of President Bush's 'War on terrorism' and be invaded to force a 'regime change'. Also, since the Israelis launched a surprise and undeclared attack against Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq (thanks Vlad Impaler for pointing my poor knowledge of modern history), the US should lead its international allies to repel the invading Israelis out of occupied territories.

To add to all that, the fact that the state of Israel has in its procession weapons of mass destruction, shouldn't the UN be sending in weapons inspectors into the country to investigate these weapons. The fact that the Israelis have ignored several UN resolutions dated from 30 years, isn't it time the US, as the only super power on this planet, put pressure on the Jewish state to disarm or face the might of the US military?

April 20, 2003

The French point of view was to prevent war, while the US's approach is to end in war. Of course the French was working against the US. Whether the removal of Saddam Hussein will actually enhance the security of the US remains to be seen - it's way too early.

---

April 21, 2003

So, can anyone give me an explanation of the action taken by the Israelis against the Palestinians:
1) Economic isolation
2) Political isolation
3) Humanitarian isolation

Is this the action of a good neighbor? Are the entire Palestinian population terrorists? After all, Israel is sitting on a piece of land that is formerly called Palestine - so who has more right to be there - the Palestinians who has been living there or the Jews who emigrated there?

Also, why are the Israelis building Jewish settlements on Palestinian territories? If this happens anywhere else in the world, this would considered an act of aggression! But, no Israel can get away with it because Jews have been oppressed for centuries. Well, don't give me this load of BS!! The oppressor here is clearly the Israelis! The very people who have over centuries developed the most over-inflated inferior complex in the history of mankind and now they've some very advance weapons and are using them against a bunch of people - who have every right to want the Israelis out because the Israelis are sitting on their country!! - who have nothing more powerful than their own bodies and will power.

All you Israel apologist - GIVE ME A BREAK!!! See the facts! Do some research! Understand the world!

The very action of the Palestinians are no more than what the American people did at the time of the American Revolution. What makes the actions of the American patriots be classified as 'right' and now classify the Palestinians as 'wrong'?

Now, if you can still tell me that the actions of Palestinians can be classified as wrong, you're also suggesting that the United States of America has no right to exist since it is after all founded by a bunch of 'terrorist'!!

---

April 22, 2003

I have to agree that 'two wrongs don't make a right'. However, what kind of a voice are they allow to have? If someone can tell me or give me convincing examples of Palestinians having the power to 'self determine' via legitimate channels, I'm all ears.

Link to 2CPU.com Forum