Is this a good idea?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Dont Hurt Me, Dec 4, 2003.

  1. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #1
    Looks like Germany wants to sell and build nuke plants (plutonium) for China as long as China gives them ( now get this ) a promise they wont use the material for bombs!:confused: why not develope alternate sources instead China? any opinions?http://www.spacewar.com/2003/031204115145.1bn9vr9d.html
     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    Well, coming from a country that posseses and continues to develop WMDs I can't see how we have the moral high ground to stand on and demand that no one else possess or develop them.

    And from a strategic perspective, if there is a lesson to be learned by foreign powers about our invasion of Iraq, it's that the sooner you get your hands on some nukes, the less chance you have of being invaded by the US.

    Kind of odd though, considering the Germans just decided to stop their own nuclear power industry and dismantle it. I doubt this will actually take place. Looks like it has been tried, and denied, before.
     
  3. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #3
    Germany has been cultivating its relationship with China for a long time now. VW is the largest manf. of autos there, Shanghai's mag lev train was built by the Germans, as is the new city in Shanghai. The Germans support the one China policy. Germany is also the first country that China has allowed its citizens to freely travel to.

    That said, China is rapidly becoming a super state with the technology to match. Their first man in space.... China also has a massive pollution problem due to the abundance of brown coal energy plants. While I do not support nuclear energy, it would make sense for China.

    China is going to obtain the technology whether we want them to or not. The tiger has been unleashed and there is no stopping it now. While it is not a good idea to have nuclear technology spread around the world, we have little choice when it comes to China.

    As mactastic says, who are we to deny them when we can't even abide by the treaties that we have signed?
     
  4. Dont Hurt Me thread starter macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #4
    why not wind farms and solar collectors? then again why dont we have more of this? i know... Oil companies.:rolleyes: it is a finite source.
     
  5. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #5
    China recently enacted the most stringent vehicle MPG standards the world has ever seen. Rather than exempting SUVs from the big picture they will be required to meet the same standards. Oil is China's largest import and if they are to avoid the same trap the US has fallen into then they need to ensure that they use as little as possible. Either that or start rebuilding their army so that they can too, start fighting unjust wars in the middle east for the control of the oilfields.

    It would be interesting to see how much China has invested in renewables. Anyone know?
     
  6. G5ROCKS macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    #6
    China has had nuclear weapons for decades. Moral high ground doesn't depend on not having of having particular weapons. There is nothing moral about being defenseless or immoral about being armed. China lacks moral high ground because it is not a legitimate government yet and has serious problems with human rights abuses. Someday, with reform, that may not be the case.

    The sooner you don't invade your neighbors, don't thumb your nose at UN resolutions for years and years, and don't support an anti US terrorists orgainzation out of your country that flys airplanes into buildings in American cities, the less chance you have of being invaded by the US. Ask Iraq and Afghanistan.

    It would not be odd for the Germans to basically sell off their own nuclear industry to China. China probably doesn't have the same kind of environmental regulation that Germany might (certainly they don't have the same kind of freedom to protest against such industry), and it would allow German industry to avoid the financial losses that such a shut down might bring.
     
  7. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #7
    Why isn't China a legitimate government? It is recognized by the US and the UN..... Is it that you find their style of government offensive?

    The US is one of the most significant abusers of human rights across the globe yet nobody is clamoring for reform here.

    The US has supported many terrorists throughout the years yet you seem to think that the US should be immune from the backlash that such support is bound to create. Such thinking ignores the reality of imperialism throught the last thousand or so years.
     
  8. G5ROCKS macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    #8
    You are correct. I find their style of government offensive. I find the style of government that bans certain religions, locks up people for advocating democracy, and crushes peaceful student protests with tanks to be offensive and illegitimate in a moral sense. I find a government that is not at the consent of the governed but that the consent of the government to be offensive. Of course, the government of China is legitimate in the legal respect that it is recognized.

    You may be of the opinion that the US should not have responded as it did, but it is also a reality that this has consequences.
    [​IMG]
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    Oh maybe the moral high ground has something to do with using said weapons against innocent civilians then?

    And of course it has everything to do with possessing particular weapons. Thats why we went after Saddam right? Not because he was an evil bastard, but because he could threaten us with WMDs right? If we thought Saddam was hording all the bottle rockets in the world, would support for an invasion have been so broad? (At least in this country.)

    And seriously, claiming they are an illegitamate government is going a little far. Would you like to rephrase that one before I debunk it for you?

    [edit]
    Ah good you did it already.
    And FWIW I find their style of government offensive as well. Let's give them Most Favored Nation trading status as a reward.
     
  10. G5ROCKS macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    #10
    Does France lack moral high ground because it has nuclear weapons? Did those in Rwanda have moral high ground because they didn't use nuclear weapons in that genocide? I really don't think that is the case.

    We didn't go after Saddam because he had WMD. We we after Saddam because he was an evil bastard who wasn't coming clean on his WMDs. Chirac and Blair have WMD, but we don't go after them because they are Chirac and Blair, and they are not evil bastards.

    As for China, it's a tough issue. Do you trade and try to influence change in that country, or do you cut off trade and create an economic catastrophe? It isn't an easy decision. As was the case in South Africa, should we have cut off all trade, or should we have encouraged it so as to influence reform? Again, there aren't easy answers to these questions.
     
  11. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #11
    nice try, mr. revisionist history
     
  12. G5ROCKS macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    #12
    Read the context.
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    I read your context. You stated that we didn't go after Saddam because of his lack of proof of a negative, namely that he didn't have WMDs. That is what conservatives like to refer to as "revisionist history". It could also be called, not quite so charitably, a lie.

    Prewar, all the focus was on these supposed WMDs that he had on a 45 minute trigger spread throughout the areas north south east and west of Baghdad. We were warned that Saddam was working on infiltrating our country with remote drones capable of distributing WMDs over American cities. We were told that as soon as troops crossed a specific line there were orders to use chem/bio weapons. Suddenly, after "major combat operations" were deemed over, and when the hunt for WMDs went cold we were after Saddam because he was an evil bastard. If you don't agree with that timeline, your head is much farther in the sand than I had previously thought.
     
  14. G5ROCKS macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    #14
    I don't think you understand my meaning because you are running off on something that is tangential to my point and calling me a liar. Calling someone a liar and taking a single sentence outside the context of the paragraph it was in just isn't good for civil discussion.
     
  15. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    Dude, read VERY CAREFULLY. I made sure NOT to call YOU a liar. You are taking it too personally. If I had said "you are lying about this" then you could get mad, but I said the argument you made could be construed as a lie. Do not mistake the two.
     
  16. G5ROCKS macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    #16
    You were very careful not to call me a liar while calling me a liar. Thank you. Also, thank you for editing you post in which you originally did not call me a liar while calling me a liar.

    Finally, you still haven't seemed to understand the point of my post, which was that the combination of evil (including support of terrorism) and defiance on WMDs (he never did comply with the UN) is largely what got Saddam deposed, not WMD alone, or being an evil bastard alone. WMD alone don't make someone a threat, IMO. As an example, I cite Blair and Chirac.

    In any event, I think that 9/11 was the singular reason we invaded Iraq. Without 9/11, the policy of a low intensity air war with sanctions in place might have continued for many more years, IMO.
     
  17. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #17
    You are welcome. Now kindly explain how 9/11 leads to Iraq. I think Iraq was a major distraction from the real war on terror. Show me that it was the absolute vital next step in stopping al Qaeda. That no other action would have done more to prevent the growth of terror.
     
  18. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #18
    that's not how the war was sold. the administration stated unequivocalably, and on numerous occasions, that hussein had the weapons.
     
  19. G5ROCKS macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    #19
    How 9/11 leads to Iraq.
    1. Pre 9/11: Iraq is an unstable place in the Middle East, under UN sanctions and a despot with a history of aggressive behavior and support of terrorism and the US and UK are flying combat missions there on a daily basis to enforce the no fly zone to keep him from making even more mass graves. While 1998 saw significant military action in Iraq in terms of bombing, there is no immediate reason to not just continue with the sanctions and air war.

    2. 9/11 happens. Wake up call. US decides that the status quo is not acceptable in the Middle East because it breeds terrorism that isn't just over there, but very much over here. But first, the immediate people who carried out 9/11 are attacked and deposed in Afghanistan.

    3. Saddam's Iraq is seen a geographic and political lynchpin in the region. It has kept US forces in Saudi Arabia indefinitely (a sore spot for many in the region), and he is feared, rightly so. A strategic decision is made that the best way to protect against terrorism in the long term is to destroy the condition that breed terrorism. It is thought that depotism and poverty drive the kind of fanaticism that leads people to be terrorists, so the idea of getting rid of despots in the region and promoting freedom comes to mind quite readily to some. Saddam is one of the biggest despost in the region, and one who is conveniently under UN sanctions and combat air patrols because he refuses to comply with UN resolutions. In addition, he's a know supporter of terrorists and has a history of developing WMD. That combination was acceptable to the US before 9/11, but it wasn't acceptable after 9/11.

    4. How will it end up? It's too soon to tell. It would be good if many other countries would send large numbers of troops to internationalize the occupation as they move to a representative government in Iraq. We just don't yet know how this story will end.

    5. I'm not saying that this was the vital next step (there may have been other steps that would have done more, it is impossible to say). I'm arguing that 9/11 was the thing without with which the invasion of Iraq wouldn't have taken place. sine qua non is the latin phrase, I think.

    zimv20,
    It was a reasonable conclusion that Saddam had such weapons, and he never complied with the UN. You might also remember that the US also said that there wasn't a "smoking gun."
     
  20. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #20
    A "known supporter of terrorists"???

    Where did you get you info from? Where's the proof. The only proovable case I've ever heard of Saddam supporting terrorists concerns his standing offer to give Palestinian families of suicide bombers a cash reward.

    Given Iraq and Isreal's status as enemies and the complexity of the situation between Isreal and the Palestinians (and Muslim world in general), this hardly amount to unequivically supporting terrorism.


    When did the US say that? It certainly wasn't before the war. Before the war they never used such concrete language.

    The administration kept their wording intentionally vague. Except for the occasional demonstration--such as Powel's demonstration of the bogus mobile bio-weapons factory and the fake connection to terrorists operating in Kurdish territory--they were careful to only imply Saddam was an immediate threat with WMD capabilities, never to come right out and say it.

    Basically, the administration ran a FUD campaign to scare/mislead the American people into believing Iraq was a serious threat to our country. No real evidence existed to prove such beliefs, but the administration was successful in selling the idea anyway.

    I personally blame the spineless Democrats in congress for letting Bush and Co. spread these lies practically unanswered and for rolling over on the Iraqi resolutions and the Patriot Act. Shameful...

    Taft
     
  21. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #21
    Why would it be good? The need for the war was sold under false pretenses. Why should the rest of the world get involved when the US has cherry picked the financial rewards? Also, the lack of a post war plan has directly led to the chaos that is occurring there today. That means that the security of foreign troops is decreasing every day. We only need to look at the huge percentage of NGOs and other organizations that have pulled out or severely decreased their presence in Iraq. As soon as the entire reconstruction of the country is internationalized, then we might see some interest on the part of other countries. Until then it is wishful thinking and only avoids the fact that the US occupation has thusfar been a total and utter failure.
     
  22. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #22
    One question on Iraq, when did someone being a "evil bastard" become an acceptable reason to launch a war under international law? If it is, we have an awful long list of countries waiting for our troops to "liberate" them. Of course, I'm assuming that the decision on who is an "evil bastard" and who is not is to be made by Bush alone. Otherwise, there are a few countries that have made that evaluation of ol' Dubya and they just might have a claim for preemptive war. Hell of a way to run a foreign policy.

    As to China, I have no sympathy for many of the actions of the Chinese government, but isolation of the largest country in the world is just plain stupid. If we have as our goal a more democratic China then engagement with it is the only real course.

    The presence of Chinese nuclear weapons are a fact of life and have been so for many decades. It is not for our country to make unilateral decision on who can have these weapons or not. I'm all for a nuclear free world, but that must be reached through multilateral action through treaties, not by saber rattling from the US. We have never indicated, by the way, that we are willing to disarm to the point that the Chinese and many other countries don't have legitimate concerns about our arsenal.

    The German deal on nuclear reactors might be of concern if you have the position that all use of nuclear technology is too dangerous and should be outlawed. Unless we are willing to dismantle our own power plants or can show how these German designed one are especially dangerous then we have no leg to stand on to register a complaint.
     
  23. G5ROCKS macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    #23
    When he didn't abide with terms of the cease fire he signed in 1991, his evil bastardness became unimportant as to whether launching a war agaist him was an acceptable under international law. It was acceptable at that point, and any point thereafter. It was convenient that he was an evil bastard, because it's a lot easier to get public support for getting rid of an evil bastrad than someone's kind grandmother, even if she violates terms of a cease fire, but his being an evil bastard was not a requirement for legally taking him out by military force.

    So far as the other countries being run by evil bastards go, take them one at a time, and not all by military force. Saddam was a rare combination. Like you said about China, engagement is the only real course in some cases.

    Ugg,
    It would be good because the larger numbers of security forces on the streets in Iraq would assist in providing a stable environment for the Iraqi people to develop an representative government. The occupation is by no means a total failure, and, if the Iraqi people end up free and prosperous, it will have been a great success. The outcome is not yet known. Before you are too sure, remember that the advance on Baghdad was said to be bogged down and not going well, but it ended up that it wasn't bogged down after all.

    Taft,
    First, yes Saddam had ties to terrorists in addition to Palestinian groups. Iraq wasn't the top terror supporting state, but it was one of them. This is one of those "known knowns" that Rumsfeld got that foot in mouth award for. The Council of Foreign Relations is a place for you to start looking.

    Second, the question of a smoking gun was brought up before the war, and the lack thereof was a big debating point. The administration said specifically they didn't have one, but they didn't need one becuase the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud.

    Finally, I implore you to give the Democrats a little credit. They believed what the Bush administration said in part because they got that same information from the Clinton administration before the bombings in 1998, and there wasn't any evidence that the situation had changed with Saddam.
     
  24. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #24
    your evil-bastard/defiance-of-UN arguments are straight out of the WH playbook from april and may.

    i know those arguments and your repeating them isn't going to make me forget how the war was sold.

    go back to august '02 through the start of the war and revisit what the WH was saying then. it's a lot different than the rapid backtracking that was done in april and may.
     
  25. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #25
    Here are some headlines from the cfr's website under the sections "The War on Terror":

    Foreign Policy Expert Judt Argues that Bush's Pre-Announced War with Iraq Impedes the War Against Terrorism

    New Yorker Writer Danner Argues that Intervention in Iraq Could Bring the Terrorist Threat Closer to America

    Former National Security Council Staffer Benjamin Says Iraq and Al-Qaeda Are Enemies, Not Allies


    Hmmm...where is the information pointing to the supposed link between Saddam and terrorists?

    Outside of your assertion that "yes Saddam had ties to terrorists in addition to Palestinian groups," I haven't seen a single concrete peice of evidence demonstrating a link between Saddam and known terrorists. Since you are attempting to make the case, I emplore you: show me some evidence!

    Which implies what? That Saddam has WMD's and has the capability to use them against us. Now that we are in Iraq and have full access to the country, where are the WMDs?

    As I said in my previous post, the administration did a very good job of convincing the American people that we had to act out of self-preservation. Basically, "attack them, or they'll attack us." Now that we are in Iraq, that mentality is demonstratably false.

    You are right that the administration admitted to not having a smoking gun before the war. That was my mistake. However, that fact doesn't indemnify them from how wrong they were. They misconstrued the evidence and made the wrong call: Iraq was not a threat to the US. They should be held accountable for that blunder.

    Yes and no. Yes they were given information that Saddam was violating UN resolutions from the Clinton administration and possibly still trying to develop weapons. They were given the same information from the Bush administration. The difference is that the Bush administration told them that the only course of action was a full scale war. This is not something the Clinton administration had told them.

    I think the congressional democrats are complicit with the Bush administration in going to war in Iraq. They went along with Bush and gave him permission to go to war in order to look good politically. That is simply not a good reason to authorize such a serious action.

    Taft
     

Share This Page