Still Hating America.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
In the case of Iran, I think they're more worried about those crazy Israelis (who are more worried about those crazy Iranians). And Pakistan is more worried about India. I don't think either believes the US would push a button on them.

North Korea, on the other hand, has some more legitimate fears.

i think Iran has serious doubts about whether the U.S. will push the button if they attack Israel, and same with Pakistan about India. I don't think either government has any doubt about what will happen if they use their nukes against the U.S.

Edited to fix Israel vs. Iran.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Arms race? Did you get the memo? THE COLD WAR IS OVER. We are not going to get into an arms race with North Korea, Iran, or any other rogue nation that gets a missile. They can't afford it.

Iran probably can. NK can't, but like the Soviets, that doesn't mean that they won't.

In an age when rogue nations are obtaining the ability to deliver nuclear tipped missiles into the US

Please name one country that fits this description.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
I agree with you, and I think it should be our explicit policy to encourage that interconnectedness to keep it that way.

One way to do that would be to revive the Doha round. The problem is that is not really a top priority of the party that currently controls congress.

Originally posted by Adder
Actually, the number of countries that have developed ICBMs in the last, oh, twenty years or so stands at 0 doesn't? Iran can't reach the U.S. N.K. can't reach the U.S. I can't think of anyone who has developed this capability in the recent years.

That said, the technology can't be THAT hard to get, so, yeah, it is reasonable to assume that someone will get there eventually. Personally, our foreign policy should be directed toward preventing the development of the techonology, but yes, I agree, it will happen eventually.

Some people think that NK can reach the West coast. And if they can't they soon will be able to. Pakistan I think has some pretty good long range missiles, so if some nut takes over there they night be able to hit us. Like I said, even a poor nation can eventually get the capability to get an ICBM and put a nucler tip on one. But a poor nation will never be able to get that many. So we just need the ability to hit a few. By the time a nut job gets a hold of one, I would like our military to have some chance of taking one out.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
What countries are you talking about? Why do you speak in generalities? Is it because only mythical countries fit your description? What countries are pursuing arms that they would otherwise not pursue if we were not engaged in SDI?

You should answer each of these yourself.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
One way to do that would be to revive the Doha round. The problem is that is not really a top priority of the party that currently controls congress.

I agree.

Some people think that NK can reach the West coast.

Even if that is true (which it likely isn't), why would they want to?

Pakistan I think has some pretty good long range missiles, so if some nut takes over there they night be able to hit us. Like I said, even a poor nation can eventually get the capability to get an ICBM and put a nucler tip on one. But a poor nation will never be able to get that many. So we just need the ability to hit a few. By the time a nut job gets a hold of one, I would like our military to have some chance of taking one out.

"If," "might" and "some chance" lead me to think that this is something to research, but not something to place at the center of our security policy.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
... what if Hitler had not declared war on the United States after Pearl Harbor would the US have declared war on Germany?

I'd probably still be chowing on Jaegerschitzel and downing copious amounts of Weltenberger Helles at Suppenkuche every other weekend.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I don't think so - I think the best argument against missle defense is that our money is better spent elsewhere -- that the real battles these days need other tactics (conventional forces particularly), and surveilance and field-oriented technology (drones, fuel cells, web monitoring technology, robotic units, teenage mutant ninja turtles, etc.). But, I'm fairly aggressive on tech spending, perhaps because it fuels my livelihood, and think at least seeding technology in a wide range of areas makes sense.

Friend of mine works at Lockheed, on this dohickey. He doesn't talk about it much, but the project seems to be moving along at a fair clip when I googled to find the press release he recently sent out his friends to help explain what it is he does for a living.

Warning: rocket scientists seem to have no better (and no worse) luck on e-dating sites as anyone else.

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Adder
1. Isn't this essentially saying that they lack of political muscle to force an immediate withdrawl, and thus are thus adopting a tactic that they think is more likely to be effect?

They have the political muscle to force a withdrawal. They could cut off funding to the troops or any other government operation Bush likes, or the entire Federal government. If they shut down the government, Bush would be forced to pull out or set himself up for impeachment by illegally spending funds.

The democrats have the power to do this, but they won't. They don't have the guts.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'd probably still be chowing on Jaegerschitzel and downing copious amounts of Weltenberger Helles at Suppenkuche every other weekend.

mmm... Jaegerschnitzel....

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
They have the political muscle to force a withdrawal. They could cut off funding to the troops or any other government operation Bush likes, or the entire Federal government. If they shut down the government, Bush would be forced to pull out or set himself up for impeachment by illegally spending funds.

The democrats have the power to do this, but they won't. They don't have the guts.

You are using "political muscle" to mean "governmental ability." I was not.

Moreover, illegally spending funds does not always lead to impeachment.

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Spanky
One way to do that would be to revive the Doha round. The problem is that is not really a top priority of the party that currently controls congress.

Free trade is not in the interest of most voters because most voters get most of their money from wages and free trade with low wage countries bids down the price of labor. China's minstry of commerce estimates that 30% of US white collar jobs will be offshored by 2010. China intends to transition from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy by taking these jobs.

Corporate profits in the US are at a historic high because wage competition from other countries has depressed wage growth for most workers. The democrats are right to oppose free trade with low wage countries like China. It's not in the interest of most voters.

Article on how US companies want Indian and Chinese engineers because they're cheaper than US engineers. http://news.monstersandcritics.com/i...urced_to_India

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'd probably still be chowing on Jaegerschitzel and downing copious amounts of Weltenberger Helles at Suppenkuche every other weekend.

Damn, I haven't been there in years. Next LT SF get together has to be at Suppenkuche.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
One way to do that would be to revive the Doha round. The problem is that is not really a top priority of the party that currently controls congress.

Is it a top priority of the minority party -- which controlled teh Congress for most of the past five years?

S_A_M

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't want to talk about this any more because I would rather chill than deal with you on this one, since you seem to be in a particularly overbearing frame of mind. The other people disagreeing with you can have my proxy.

Note that he's spending much of his time arguing with folks that are agreeing with him.

I'm in the middle of a deal where the other side keeps drawing lines in the sand over minor issues: "Dammit, we're not going to accept your notice provision - we either want notice by pony express to be permitted or we're walking away from the deal." Every issue is one where they are right, we are wrong, it is simple, and we either do it or the world ends. I keep wondering if it's Spanky on the other side.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Note that he's spending much of his time arguing with folks that are agreeing with him.

I'm in the middle of a deal where the other side keeps drawing lines in the sand over minor issues: "Dammit, we're not going to accept your notice provision - we either want notice by pony express to be permitted or we're walking away from the deal." Every issue is one where they are right, we are wrong, it is simple, and we either do it or the world ends. I keep wondering if it's Spanky on the other side.

Does he tell you how stupid you are every time he rolls on a point?