Musharraf declares state of emergency. Will Bush?

viking1

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Posts
4,600
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Just another thought. Mabee THIS is the end of the world as we know it.
A Nuclear Holocaust.
Think about it... It's timed about right, isnt it?
2008-2009 Election time, Shrub stays in office... tensions arise
2009-2010 Middle east tensions escallate, war continues, world terrorists place themselves in strategic locations,
2011-2012, battles continue, China steps in and threatens US with force, Nobody complies... Nuke's fired. Civilization on a world-wide scale are destroyed.

Hopefully for all of us on this planet - this will NEVER occur.
But somebody better step up to the plate and start doing what's right, otherwise our worst nightmares could come true.
There are some seriously deranged individuals that are out of control. One of which, is right in our own country.

No such luck...
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
The irony in this scenario (and I'm sure there are many) is that Bush need do nothing illegal to achieve this, so his hands remain 'clean'. He would merely be acting to protect the nation from 'domestic terrorists'...

Good point. Wasn't the Reichstag fire in 1933 blamed on agitators and used as a pretext for rapidly cementing Nazi Party control of Germany's government? I'm sure it was justified as a necessary move to better defend the nation.

It should be remembered that the Bush administration is not above manipulating US Homeland Security alerts (remember those?) on flimsy evidence, despite the opposition of Bush's own Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge.
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
30
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
A vital requirement for martial law is military control of the judiciary, this happens (typically) alongside a curfew, travel restrictions and so on. Are those things happening in the continental US today?

Interesting points...let's examine more closely, shall we?

On the judiciary front, GWB has installed two of his conservative slawarts into the nation's high court during his terms, one of them into the role of Chief Justice...a very young man, at that. One who will shape the direction of the court for the next few decades. Also, you might recall a bit of furor in the USA in recent month regarding the dismissal of several dozen US Attorneys. And while it create a flap, none of the dismissed prosecutors have been restored to their positions and none of GWB's replacements have been removed. There are the portions of the PATRIOT Acts that exist to allow arms of the executive to operate absent constitutionally mandated judicial oversight...and I won't even begin to dicuss the gross nightmare that was Alberto Gonzales' time as the US AG.

Suspension and disregard of constitution? Have you heard of "free speech zones (aka First Amendment zones :rolleyes:)?" Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of habeas corpus? The Geneva Conventions? FISA suveillance process?

Travel restrictions? Perhaps you're unfamilar with the ramifications of the Real ID program that keeps popping up. Or that you can no longer enter OR leave the USA without a passport. I won't go into the retarded "safety" measures that have been enacted for air travellers, but they aren't getting any saner. I used to make diving runs to Mexico with only my driver's license. Don't get me started on taking a trip to Havana...


I'm not saying that martial law is coming...just that if those are the indicators you're watching for the possibility to exist, then you'd have to be either blind or in massive denial to claim they aren't already present.

I don't personally believe GWB will attempt any power plays to remain in office beyond his current term. If he did, I don't believe he'd ever be able to appear in public again. There's a huge numebr of people here who despise his sorry ass, and there is also a high number of armed citizens in this land (many with recent military experience, ironically, thanks to him). You do the math.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Interesting points...let's examine more closely, shall we?
On the judiciary front, GWB has installed two of his conservative slawarts into the nation's high court during his terms, one of them into the role of Chief Justice...a very young man, at that. One who will shape the direction of the court for the next few decades. Also, you might recall a bit of furor in the USA in recent month regarding the dismissal of several dozen US Attorneys. And while it create a flap, none of the dismissed prosecutors have been restored to their positions and none of GWB's replacements have been removed. There are the portions of the PATRIOT Acts that exist to allow arms of the executive to operate absent constitutionally mandated judicial oversight...and I won't even begin to dicuss the gross nightmare that was Alberto Gonzales' time as the US AG.

Well, I'm not sure if you're working to some other definition of martial law, I restated the generally accepted key markers. Also, and most importantly - I asked, was this happening right now. I don't believe it is and said so. You may have missed that I also said I could understand how it must feel like it may be. BTW, slightly off topic but since when has seeding the judiciary and other key posts with administration friendly 'yes men' been in any way a recent, innovative or unprecedented political strategy in the US?

Back to reality, the future is yet to be determined I believe, unless of course you have access to some incredible technology. While a little crystal ball gazing is all well and good, either to form a plan for action, or as mere intellectual musing, it doesn't fundementaly alter the veracity of what I said, IMO. BTW, yes, I'm sure she wasn't speaking literally, or at least I assumed so.

Also, I didn't say current events augur well for the future, as it happens, I don't believe they do but I also suspect that constitutional subversion will be but one of many testing issues facing the US (and the rest of the world) in the coming years.

Suspension and disregard of constitution? Have you heard of "f
ree speech zones (aka First Amendment zones :rolleyes:)?" Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of habeas corpus? The Geneva Conventions? FISA suveillance process?

Travel restrictions? Perhaps you're unfamilar with the ramifications of the Real ID program that keeps popping up. Or that you can no longer enter OR leave the USA without a passport. I won't go into the retarded "safety" measures that have been enacted for air travellers, but they aren't getting any saner. I used to make diving runs to Mexico with only my driver's license. Don't get me started on taking a trip to Havana...

Disregarding Cuba (which in terms of US foreign policy is truly a farce of the finest order), yes I was, but then it's not possible (in theory) to enter the UK without a passport, or if leaving by a manned post to leave so it's not like it's something I don't live with on a regular basis. Perhaps familiarty has bred tolerance but it's never caused me much hassle, other than waiting in line.

Safety measures (well, sure that's what they're called) don't constitute travel restrictions in the sense I meant as was plainly obvious, you're bright enough to know that. They are impediments certainly but they don't restrict ones ability to travel in the way martial law could although one could argue the effect is broadly similar, they 'merely' increase the hassle, cost and time involved in doing so. Increased border security, tighter airline secuity to martial law.....in a single leap. Sorry, that was sarcasm.

I'm not saying that martial law is coming...just that if those are the indicators you're watching for the possibility to exist, then you'd have to be either blind or in massive denial to claim they aren't already present.

Again, I was speaking to the actual present, not HG's hypothetical future. As I also said I'm speaking, or rather, voicing my opinion on this issue as I see it from the outside looking in. That viewpoint has disadvantages, but it also has advantages.

I don't personally believe GWB will attempt any power plays to remain in office beyond his current term. If he did, I don't believe he'd ever be able to appear in public again. There's a huge numebr of people here who despise his sorry ass, and there is also a high number of armed citizens in this land (many with recent military experience, ironically, thanks to him). You do the math.

Neither do I as I have said at least once in this thead but based on that understandng, how does math come into this - other than in the hypothetical I posed, (see, I can do it too).

The question to ask is surely not what may happen - but has any key article of the constitution been suspended? By that I mean suspended as opposed to having been given short shrift, as I mentioned?

I appreciate these may appear and quite probably feel the same but, really, they're not. By way of illustration; chat with some lawyers in Karachi (you'll find a fair few in hospital), they'll tell you what a suspended constitution and martial law really means.

Yes, the US may be on the right (or rather, the wrong track), but in this context, I think you have a ways to go.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I understand why you say that, but objectively I think it's a serious overstatement. A vital requirement for martial law is military control of the judiciary, this happens (typically) alongside a curfew, travel restrictions and so on. Are those things happening in the continental US today?
Much of this is actually happening here, now; but it is being done more covertly. I'm not sure what you mean by "military control of the judiciary;" would executive control of the judiciary not be pretty much the same thing? I'm not talking about simply stacking the courts - every executive has done that. I'm talking about firing any federal prosecutor who pursues cases "uncomfortable" to the executive branch. Curfew has not been declared, but some analogs have been put in place over the last 6 years. Travel restrictions, in most cases, are not wholesale, but can be deployed ad libitum without explanation.
Subverting the constitution is one thing, suspending or openly refusing to abide by it (by for example, simply refusing to leave office after an election on the pretext of abc) is something else entirely. I can only speak as an outsider but I simply do not see that happening, the risks to US' stability both domestically and internationally are too high, for no obvious benefit.
Again, the Constitution has not been declared officially suspended, but significant portions have been declared officially "suspendable" on a whim. By uttering either the phrase "national security" or the phrase "enemy combatant", the executive branch invokes its "right" to suspend amendments 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 14, and more insidiously, amendments 1 and 5. Those are supposed to be basic and inalienable, but they are completely suspended/disregarded routinely and without repercussion. Secret courts are STRICTLY forbidden by constitution and by law, but are commonplace due to "national security." Indefinite incarceration is strictly forbidden, incarceration without formal charges is strictly forbidden, torture is strictly forbidden - but they occur on a frequent and ongoing basis. The right to face your accusers is unconditionally guaranteed, but that right is circumvented if only you are declared to be an "enemy combatant." How do you get that designation? Can't tell you, it's a secret.
It should be remembered that the Bush administration is not above manipulating US Homeland Security alerts (remember those?) on flimsy evidence, despite the opposition of Bush's own Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge.
Don't forget Rummy Rumsfeld's "snowflake" memos. In those memos, he advocated keeping the public in a state of panic by periodically upping the alert level (among other completely unethical manipulations.)

When I saw the Musharraf headline in The Washington Post, I immediately imagined George and Dick commenting during their daily breakfast meeting: "Shit, why didn't we think of that? Martial law would make our agenda so much easier than the subterfuge we've been using!"
 

Osiris

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Posts
2,666
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
183
Location
Wherever the dolphins are going
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Basically Musharraf has proven just what his plan was all along. He brought Bhutto back to appease the opposition. "Insurgents" tried to kill her and fail. He declares martial law and lays waste (just as he did before) to the offices of government that opposed him, declares a "state of emergency", and claims back the office he gave away.

Transparent, but not stupid.
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
At least not in that blatant a manner.

well, yes. and if by some minuscule chance it DOES happen, it won't be because the Bush administration is planning terrorist attacks against its own country. Maybe Al-Qaeda will try to stage something in a misguided attempt to flavor the outcome of the election, thinking that it would work the same way as it did in Spain, though here no doubt such a move would backfire and have the opposite effect. If we were hit hard the week of the election, then reasonably a state of emergency might be declared and Bush may hold on to power for a few weeks or a month, but I don't believe at all that our Constitution is so flimsy that it would go on any longer than that. Congress, the media, and most importantly the American people would not stand for it.
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
DC, some of the subtle things you've listed that the current administration has done to undermine the Constitution are right on, and most people don't understand the importance of what they see as nuances in the way the executive is expressing its power. But every high-school dropout knows about the presidential 2-term limit. There's no way to subtly circumvent that.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
DC, some of the subtle things you've listed that the current administration has done to undermine the Constitution are right on, and most people don't understand the importance of what they see as nuances in the way the executive is expressing its power. But every high-school dropout knows about the presidential 2-term limit. There's no way to subtly circumvent that.
I doubt that anyone in the current administration has any hopes or dreams of suspending the22nd amendment; that's not even really a threat. Really, that is the least significant constitutional suspension that could happen, and was farthest from my mind when I talked about other suspensions.

ANY suspension of amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 14 - under any guise or excuse - trouble me much more. I really could not give a flying fuck about the 22nd amendment, it's just window dressing, really.

The media mumbles a little bit about the patriot act and enemy combatant designations; the congress passed the patriot act and clams up about the enemy combatant issue; and the courts (stupidly and illegally) endorse constitutional violations.

Again, I'll say that I find dismantling the key elements of the constitution to be more sinister than a wholesale suspension of the entire document.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Much of this is actually happening here, now; but it is being done more covertly. I'm not sure what you mean by "military control of the judiciary;" would executive control of the judiciary not be pretty much the same thing?

I'm not talking about simply stacking the courts - every executive has done that. I'm talking about firing any federal prosecutor who pursues cases "uncomfortable" to the executive branch.

It's not really what I mean, DC it's intrinsic to defining Martial law. Hasn't some level (at least) of De Facto control of the Judiciary been been in the hands of the Executive, pretty much since day one through the means you suggest (and I did to HG)? Taking the next logical step would include doing what you suggest, and yes I see evidence of that happening, as I assume do you. I agree, it's a dangerous step.

What's missing from this is an evident understanding of what Martial Law really means, or rather the understanding I'm working from. You are talking about abuse of constitutional process by a civilian government primarily through other civilians, not directly and (key here) unilaterally by the miliitary. Dictatorship usually (but not necessarily) runs on a broadly similar track, but it's not the same thing.

Some definitions:

Cambridge Dictionaries Online - Cambridge University Press
Martial Law definition
Martial law administrator legal definition of Martial law administrator. Martial law administrator synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


Curfew has not been declared, but some analogs have been put in place over the last 6 years. Travel restrictions, in most cases, are not wholesale, but can be deployed ad libitum without explanation.Again, the Constitution has not been declared officially suspended, but significant portions have been declared officially "suspendable" on a whim.

No it hasn't (and analogues exist in the UK too) and in fairness while it's not a prerequisite for martial law, typically they fit hand in glove. I already discussed travel 'restrictions'. I wasn't meaning airport security on which HG left on an obscure tangent, after all I'm subject to those in the UK and when I come to the US and elsewhere, unless he (or you) are suggesting the UK is under Martial law also? That said, I don't like them. I think they are largely self serving and ineffective but that's only one piece of a much bigger and more complex picture.

By uttering either the phrase "national security" or the phrase "enemy combatant", the executive branch invokes its "right" to suspend amendments 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 14, and more insidiously, amendments 1 and 5. Those are supposed to be basic and inalienable, but they are completely suspended/disregarded routinely and without repercussion.

Yes, but not nationally, unconditionally and for all citizens, at least so far as I'm aware? They're the key requirements aren't they; unconditional and national? The subversion of selective amendments for any reason is a dangerous thing, I've said that here many times. That such subversions routinely go unchallenged, or rather unchallenged to the point of enforcing their reversal is a dangerous precedent.

Again, as I said to HG, I think events of the last 5/6 years don't bode well for the US. But right now, from my perspective (and that's all it is), I can't agree that a state of Martial law exists in the US homeland, not even a De Facto one, but you're certainly on the right track.

Secret courts are STRICTLY forbidden by constitution and by law, but are commonplace due to "national security." Indefinite incarceration is strictly forbidden, incarceration without formal charges is strictly forbidden, torture is strictly forbidden - but they occur on a frequent and ongoing basis. The right to face your accusers is unconditionally guaranteed, but that right is circumvented if only you are declared to be an "enemy combatant." How do you get that designation? Can't tell you, it's a secret.Don't forget Rummy Rumsfeld's "snowflake" memos. In those memos, he advocated keeping the public in a state of panic by periodically upping the alert level (among other completely unethical manipulations.)

Indeed, the situation in Guantanamo (as the usual example) is untenable, despicable and immoral and IMO in flagrant violation of just about every relevant statute, domestic or international one cares to mention. However it's not occuring the continental US, last time I checked. If Martial law were declared in a US dependency that wouldn't automatically mean Martial law applied to the continental US would it? That was why I specifically said to AE - "In the continental US".

Of course, I'm sure such things do occur on the mainland too, and that is something about which you (et al) should be very concerned. However I don't think such things are anything recent.

Rumsfield's strategy of periodic hikes in threat status was pretty transparent and yet, dissapointingly effective. I've commented on this and related diversionary tactics here before.

When I saw the Musharraf headline in The Washington Post, I immediately imagined George and Dick commenting during their daily breakfast meeting: "Shit, why didn't we think of that? Martial law would make our agenda so much easier than the subterfuge we've been using!"

Indeed, I can imagine. But for the reasons I mooted, it seems unlikely. The fact the citizens of the US feel (rightly) their constitutional rights and protections are being eroded and trampled upon doesn't mean the country is in a de Jure state of Martial Law. I can understand why some may feel it's in a De Facto state, but I'm not sold on that, not yet.

This may sound odd, but it's almost as if some posters here want such a situation to come to pass, so they can 'fight for their rights' in a more hands on fashion, planning for riots almost 18 months in advance of a highly unlikely hypotethical scenario. After all, if Bush refuses to vacate, he'll pretty much have to give up any (remaining) pretext of acting in the nation's best interests, and the doom-mongers will have their day. Of course, by then it may not matter.

I'm not including you in that, DC you have too much sense, and a military background not to realise the futility of such a wish. But many like to talk the talk, without being willing to walk the walk. I can't help but suspect that is a key factor in how the erosion of rights has been such a pushover for the Bush admininistration, and one they count on. Of course that's not a situation unique to the US.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
It's not really what I mean, DC it's intrinsic to defining Martial law. Hasn't some level (at least) of De Facto control of the Judiciary been been in the hands of the Executive, pretty much since day one through the means you suggest (and I did to HG)? Taking the next logical step would include doing what you suggest, and yes I see evidence of that happening, as I assume do you. I agree, it's a dangerous step.
Yes, your comment about de facto control is mostly accurate; it has been around from day one - but with a little "glitch" in the system. Some of the judicial appointments are "for life," and some are "for term." The ideal is that there will be balance from one administration to the next, but with the appointments, firings, and reappointments of the current administration, it has effectively dismantled that area of "checks and balances."
No it hasn't (and analogues exist in the UK too) and in fairness while it's not a prerequisite for martial law, typically they fit hand in glove. I already discussed travel 'restrictions'. I wasn't meaning airport security on which HG left on an obscure tangent, after all I'm subject to those in the UK and when I come to the US and elsewhere, unless he (or you) are suggesting the UK is under Martial law also? That said, I don't like them. I think they are largely self serving and ineffective but that's only one piece of a much bigger and more complex picture.
No, I wasn't referencing the standard "security measures" as travel restrictions, and there are no blanket restrictions on domestic travel - yet. The federal push for the "RealID" have troubling implications, though, that could pave the way for such things. I've not asserted that we are currently under martial law, just that the way is being paved for it to happen. When various citizen protections are slowly taken away, it's a much more absolute, secure means than suddenly stripping them all with one sweeping decree.
Yes, but not nationally, unconditionally and for all citizens, at least so far as I'm aware? They're the key requirements aren't they; unconditional and national? The subversion of selective amendments for any reason is a dangerous thing, I've said that here many times. That such subversions routinely go unchallenged, or rather unchallenged to the point of enforcing their reversal is a dangerous precedent.
I'm not sure that I see much difference between "unconditional and national," and "applicable to any citizen at any time without justification." The president has (illegally) been given "authority" to designate any person an enemy combatant, which "authorizes" the government to put that person in a military detention center indefinitely without charges, without the right to challenge the designation, without counsel, without notifying any other person or entity of that detention, and without justification. His advisors are smart enough to limit its usage, but the potential for abuse beyond what is currently happening is just staggering.
Indeed, the situation in Guantanamo (as the usual example) is untenable, despicable and immoral and IMO in flagrant violation of just about every relevant statute, domestic or international one cares to mention. However it's not occuring the continental US, last time I checked. If Martial law were declared in a US dependency that wouldn't automatically mean Martial law applied to the continental US would it? That was why I specifically said to AE - "In the continental US".
Not that we know of, anyway. There are some huge military bases or installations in the CONUS that are restricted, or have enormous restricted areas. In the 40 months I was stationed aboard Camp Pendleton, there could have been several detention centers on base that I would never have known about... and it's not the largest base, by any stretch of the imagination.
This may sound odd, but it's almost as if some posters here want such a situation to come to pass, so they can 'fight for their rights' in a more hands on fashion, planning for riots almost 18 months in advance of a highly unlikely hypotethical scenario. After all, if Bush refuses to vacate, he'll pretty much have to give up any (remaining) pretext of acting in the nation's best interests, and the doom-mongers will have their day. Of course, by then it may not matter.

I'm not including you in that, DC you have too much sense, and a military background not to realise the futility of such a wish. But many like to talk the talk, without being willing to walk the walk. I can't help but suspect that is a key factor in how the erosion of rights has been such a pushover for the Bush admininistration, and one they count on. Of course that's not a situation unique to the US.
I agree that some do seem to want something bad to happen. I'm obviously not one of those, but I don't want to be naive, either.

We may not have martial law, but I think that in order to take back any of our guaranteed-but-subverted liberties, we are going to have to take them back by force. We may indeed be moving toward the need for riots in the streets.
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
The US will support any goverment which furthers US interests in the region. The only reason the turmoil in Pakistan is a concern is because they have nuclear weapons. And there is concern that those weapons will find their way into enemy hands and shift our established influence the region. It is curious how India is so silent regarding this turmoil in Pakistan. They would have the most to fear from a fundamentalist Muslim government armed with nuclear warheads.

We have supported and aided worse governments and dictators throughout the world and will continue to do so. Pinochet, Marcos, Saddam Hussein, Samoza come to mind. Why should anyone be suprised that we are supporting Musharaff? As if Bhutto is any better? We have meddled in foreign governments and politics to ensure our security at home and continued way of life. This is nothing new to us. American politicians may champion human rights and democracy and we as a country would like to believe we are do-gooders the reality is human rights abuses and egregious corruption mostly are overlooked to keep American interests abroad- fuel for revolutions as it turns out.

What I don't understand is that if the Cold War is over wouldn't the logical conclusion be to disarm all nuclear warheads in the world and eliminate the possiblity of a nuclear holocaust once and for all? Wasn't that the ultimate goal of ending the Cold War? Why hasn't this ever been brought up? US and Russia have reduced their nuclear stockpiles and perhaps ceased making nuclear weapons but wouldn't the world be much safer if ALL these weapons from all countries are destroyed? All such weapons are tracked so systematically destroying these nuclear weapons is possible.

We wouldn't need to worry as much about Pakistan or other rogue countries using nuclear war as blackmail. Why perpetuate even the possiblity of another Cold War?
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
All such weapons are tracked so systematically destroying these nuclear weapons is possible.

The Case of the Missing H-Bomb
Soviet Nukes Missing
Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today: Russian Officials Deny Claims Of Missing Nuclear Weapons
Broken Arrow to Faded Giant - Lost Nuclear Weapons
Loose Nukes - Council on Foreign Relations
BBC News | AMERICAS | Fears over missing nuclear material

Plus, Iran and North Korea aren't exactly eager to publicize details of their nuclear weapons programs. I don't think Israel has even admitted to having the bomb, even though everyone knows that they do. There's no way to guarantee that they all get destroyed, and even if they did, there's no way to guarantee that new ones don't get produced. I have no problem with reducing the number of nuclear weapons, the less of them there are the less the chance that one will fall into the wrong hands, and mutually assured destruction isn't much of a deterrent to some crazy religious nut/terrorist. Getting rid of all of them, however, is unrealistic. It's not in the United State's interests to completely dismantle their nuclear arsenal when it can't be guaranteed that the entire world will do the same.

Also, I thought the Cold War was about "defeating Communism"- aka ensuring that the USA was the only remaining super-power in the world. When was it ever about dismantling nuclear weapons? Keeping huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons was part of the strategy used by both the USA and USSR in the Cold War, but since when were we building up our weapons stockpiles just so we could eventually dismantle them?
 

Boobalaa

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Posts
5,535
Media
0
Likes
1,185
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
There has been a "Shia Revival" going on for the past 28 years..beginning with Khomeni in Iran in 1979 with the kidnapping of the American hostages. Khomeni marked the beginning of a new kind of Shia Fundamentalist Movement..One of exporting "revolutionary islamic" ideas to other countries.,,i.e. Hezbollah in Lebanon which he actually expolited, sending his Republican Guard, since the southern lebanese shia were already having troubles with encrouching palestinian refugees(mainly Sunni) and Israeli Troops, and the Christian philangist..remember the lebanese Civil War? ; There were already Ayatollah's in Lebanon creating their own resistance before Khomeni came along.
He marketed himself out to be the Ayatollah of Ayatollahs..The head man who spoke for all the rest. What he ended up doing was #1, scare the hell out of Sunni regimes such as Saudi Arabia with their Sunni Wahabi and Salafi extremists sects...and Egypt and Jordan with their less extreme, but still anti-shia Muslim Brotherhood...and #2..making a USA super power wary and confused about The Shia.
The USA has always done business with Sunni-led regimes..because the majority of Muslims are Sunni and all Monarchs, and dictators the USA does business with are Sunni's..
Enter George W. Bush!..and fast forward to the present time in Iraq!..Iraq is/will be the very first ONLY, never ever happened in history before..SHIA ARAB LED GOVT...We're talking over 1400 years of history!!..I mean this just 'rocks the boat" all to shit!
It wasn't as if the USA just found out about Pervez in Pakistan a few days ago..Naw..naw..naw..this shit has been simmering and then boiling for months, years even..The Shia in other countries around Iraq watch TV and see the possibilities..and talk to one another about possibilities..
You wonder why NONE of pakistan's neighbors are in the media giving their opinions?..because they don't have to..Big Daddy USA is doing all the talking, as well as supplying them all the weapons they can afford..as long as they keep supplying that $95.00 (and going up) a barrel Oil, the USA with keep them in charge..
So Kids?..make some popcorn and get ready for the sequel..It ought to be very interesting..and one last lil observation..Mostly all of the "terrorist" terroist that George W. speaks of when ever he says he need to protect us from the terrorists..are ALL SUNNI Extremists..Al Qeda and the Taliban, included..and mostly funded by a bunch of rich, fat Arabs in Saudi Arabia, where a third of the oil the USA consumes originates
 

tripod

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Posts
6,666
Media
14
Likes
1,834
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
These last several posts have been VERY informative and are all correct on a bunch of counts.

NineInch was right... there will NEVER be a full scale nuclear weapons reduction. There will always be some secret weapons held back just in case... every country will do it. Israel having nuclear weapons and not admitting to having them is a HUGE problem in the region and just serves to further undermine a rational and level headed nuclear policy that we as citizens of the world should all be interested in implementing.Iran's so-called nuclear program being a direct blowback from Israel's secretive ways.

It is chilling that India is staying silent... I wonder what the hell is going on?

What is this? Day three or four of his military crackdown and the suspension of the constitution? Musharraf's regime seems to be screwing up the longer that this goes on... most of the people are now against him (especially the political class) and his days are now numbered, he has almost sealed his doom. I can see his support from his army start to really decrease here in the next few days... if this continues to go on for weeks... the army will no doubt have to arrest him, then we will have another "general" in charge of the country! Sheesh!!!!!
 

Not_Punny

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
5,464
Media
109
Likes
3,056
Points
258
Location
California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Two months ago, the biggest nuclear mistake in history happened right here in the good ole U S of A.

Hurricane Katrina is NOTHING compared to what would have happened to Louisiana if the plane had hit any bumps.

When is the U.S. going to dismantle nuclear power??

Nucelar mistake