So Syria says "We where never building nukes"

[Taso]

Worked during the Cold War. Everyone was afraid of launching a nuke because they knew we'd all die. Instead of the USA invading the USSR to disarm them, we leaked them our silo security secrets, so they could use the same measures on their silos to make sure no madmen launched them.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is some picture proof of Syria "cleansing" the area after Isreal bombed the [censored] out of Syria's plans to build a nuclear reactor. Syria has said they never even had a building on that land.....umm guess they forgot about the little spy in the sky.

The before and after pics...kind of interesting I think.

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-...7102502100.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

What if Syria really was trying to secretly build a nuke?

Didn't we secretly build a nuke, too? And huge stockpiles of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons that we still maintain?

If Syria is trying to build a nuke, it may be cause for concern, most notably for Israel. But Israel has stockpiles of nukes and a massive conventional advantage over Syria anyway. Why would Syria not want to provide some deterrence capability against Israel or others? We might want to keep tabs on how things progress just so we know if those nukes end up somewhere that threatens us. But we certainly aren't justified in using force to stop Syria from trying to defend itself using the same means we and Israel are justified in using to defend ourselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not, if they're an enemy?

[/ QUOTE ]

So it is your position that use of force is justified so long as you first apply the label "enemy"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily, I'd say it depends on the particulars.

[ QUOTE ]
Is that the kind of country you want to live in? No thanks. I'd rather live in a country that valued freedom, self-determination, and didn't resort to things like murder unless in self-defense. I wouldn't mind (and would in fact prefer) if that country were a bunch of badasses who'd mess any invader up should anyone dare. But there's a huge difference between that and justifying preemtpive strikes and dictating what other sovereign nations can and can't do in their own country -- especially when we're dictating that they can't do the very same things we do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I generally would prefer that my enemies, opponents or adversaries be not as well-equipped as I may be. I don't want my poker opponents to be equally skilled with me, either. If they are, we all lose to the rake.

I think in the case of Syria it depends on many particulars.

I'm just taking issue with the blanket statement that we aren't justified in denying certain weapons to an adversary or enemy. Depending again on the particulars, with one adversary you may not care much but with another it could be a very big deal. I'm trying to point out that depriving your enemies of some strategic or tactical capabilities may at times be good for you. A fixed view to the contrary, that everyone should be equal in capability, even your opponents, might be somewhat akin to a "self-weighting" strategy. That is not to your advantage and may be to your disadvantage. Again, the individual case could require much analysis and judgment.

[mrick]

israel claims syria builds nukes --> israel blows to kingdom come a building in syria --> israel claims nukemaking facility in syria is destroyed --> syria removes all remaining debris from bombed area --> ERGO syria was building nukes alright!!

brill

[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]





People love to trot this picture out to bash the US government, and they love to pretend it never happened when they bash the US government.



[/ QUOTE ]i + other people "trot" the picture out to bash bush/rumsfeld hypocrisy...

and i don't pretend "it never happened" when i happen to bash the us government. wtf

u r trying to voice some sort of lame support for the war and ur choking is that it??..

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ QUOTE ]
I generally would prefer that my enemies, opponents or adversaries be not as well-equipped as I may be. I don't want my poker opponents to be equally skilled with me, either. If they are, we all lose to the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

To help you with this analogy, each country trying to constantly outdo its adversary militarily IS the rake. A $500 billion dollar rake for the American taxpayer every year. Imagine if we pulled back and just worried about national defense rather than national offense, and put the savings into our infrastructure, our schools, or gave it back to the people. Our win rate would go thru the roof.

[mrick]

Many years ago:

1950: The British intelligence service MI5 has been brought into the hunt for the missing atomic scientist Bruno Pontecorvo who has not been seen for about seven weeks. Confirmation he had fled to Moscow came in March 1955 when he appeared at a news conference in Russia.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
u r trying to voice some sort of lame support for the war and ur choking is that it??..

[/ QUOTE ]

HAW HAW HAW. You're new here, right? Hint: pointing out that many war opposers have selective memory does not make me a war supporter.

[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]
pointing out that many war opposers have selective memory does not make me a war supporter.

[/ QUOTE ]what "selective memory"?? people who bash the us government for the iraq war pretend the sadam-rummy handshakes never happend??..

plz explain this bit of nonsense you wrote "People love to trot this picture out to bash the US government, and they love to pretend it never happened when they bash the US government."

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I generally would prefer that my enemies, opponents or adversaries be not as well-equipped as I may be. I don't want my poker opponents to be equally skilled with me, either. If they are, we all lose to the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

To help you with this analogy, each country trying to constantly outdo its adversary militarily IS the rake. A $500 billion dollar rake for the American taxpayer every year. Imagine if we pulled back and just worried about national defense rather than national offense, and put the savings into our infrastructure, our schools, or gave it back to the people. Our win rate would go thru the roof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, but we didn't bomb Syria's purported Korea-technology nuke project: Israel did. Given Israel's location and neighbors, Israel has much more reason than we would have had to consider removing a Syrian nuke project as a forward-looking act of defense.

I don't think the USA should have gone into the Iraq war. Israel though cannot have a hostile border state (which also supports terrorist militants) having nukes. Just...can't have. Israel has every reason to not want Syria or Iran to have nukes.

If the USA were to border a country which supported terrorism against us, and which harbored militants who often fired rockets at us across the border, and if that country was believed to be working on nuclear weapon development: well, I'd want those projects terminated ASAP - and my guess is that you probably would too. I wouldn't give a damn if it were their "right" to develop nukes or not, or if it were their "right" to have equal means to defend themselves. If they're sending and supporting terrorist and militant attacks against the USA: they don't get nukes, period. Period. PERIOD. No matter what it takes to stop it. Just pretend for a moment that Mexico or Canada were hostile and doing something like that: shelling us, supporting and sending suicide bombers. WTF! We'd flatten the problem out pretty darn fast, don't you think? And they wouldn't get nukes no matter what.

I don't think that's analogous to the Iraq war, which I think was and is a misguided fiasco. I do think it's analogous to Israel's situation, and Israel is actually in much greater potential peril than would be the USA under such a scenario, Israel being so tiny geographically.

I'm not unhappy seeing Syria deprived of the means to develop nukes, because they are adversarial to the USA and to our interests abd allies. Israel, though, must take the situation far more seriously.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pointing out that many war opposers have selective memory does not make me a war supporter.

[/ QUOTE ]what "selective memory"?? people who bash the us government for the iraq war pretend the sadam-rummy handshakes never happend??..

plz explain this bit of nonsense you wrote "People love to trot this picture out to bash the US government, and they love to pretend it never happened when they bash the US government."

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously not ALL war opposers have this selective memory (since I am a war opposer!). But many who are more concerned with bashing republicans than actually opposing the war itself will use this picture to bash the current administration as hypocrites but then forget that the US gave WMD to iraq later when they're pushing the "ZOMG BUSH LIED" line.

Yeah, Bush Lied about lots of things but this isn't one of them.

Iraq had WMD. ANyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.