Six Arab states join rush to go nuclear - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1026052
Describing Moslems, Sulla wrote:...the kind of people that did the Beslan Massacre or 9/11 or the London bombings...


What kind of person are you?

The kind that did the crusades, Sabrah and Shatillah, or the holocaust?

Or the kind that breathes oxygen and needs self esteem?
User avatar
By Sulla123
#1026058
You missunderstand me I think. I am not saying all Muslims and in all history. But right now the people most likely to use a Nuke would be the same terrorists that did Beslan Massacre or 9/11 or the London bombings. And their best chance of getting one would be to have a Muslim state with nukes fall into tormoil. For example Pakistan. And having 6 or 7 more countries like that is very scary.
User avatar
By The Antiist
#1026077
I can't find anything else about this anywhere else. I'm not quite sure whether to believe this or not.

But if it is true, I think there definately is a strategy these countries have discussed with each other to execute. But I don't think I'm too fond of it. Then again, maybe we should thank Israel, the UK and the U.S. for it's contributions of appeasements.
By Falx
#1026483
Falx - You are oversimplifying problems.


Isn't that nice, now you look like you know something without saying anything.

You can always claim reality is more complicated than what someones model says it is, and you know, you'd always be right. Here's the 22,607 lines that take to prove that 2+2=4. But was that necessary to learn it in the first grade?

If someone feels that what I said is over simplified they can always check out the underlaying economic indicators of both the 80's and today, the nationalism, religious extremism and political position of the countries in the middle east.
User avatar
By Sulla123
#1026504
Falx sorry you are oversimplying. For one thing its not 2+2=4 its more like 100 people playing a game of poer with thousands of cards.


Because rhe price of oil is up again and the economies of the whole region are overheating like they did in the early 80's. Remember Iran? The other reason is that it makes the western backed dictators seem more like moderators.


This statment is oversimplfied. Of course high oil prices have something to do with the problem. But it is far from the main one. And the region not being free and democratic is not something that just the wests fault. Their is a struggle going on in every country in the middle east. A struggle for the people to decide how Islam fits into the goverments. How western thought fits in. How modern liberal ideas fit in. How they will choose and implement modern economic thoughts. How and what parts of their culture work well and what parts do not. Not to mention the tribal, sectarian and ethnic divisions. All this is being held in check by the undemocratic goverments in the region now. But it will have to be solved at some point. And if shows us this will probobly not be an easy process. We of course can go on and talk more about specifics but I still say your statement is oversimplied and does a diservice to discussions of the problem.
By Falx
#1027105
For one thing its not 2+2=4 its more like 100 people playing a game of poer with thousands of cards.


Quite ironic that you should pick another example that can be easily studied using mathematics no more ambiguous than 2+2=4.

This statment is oversimplfied.


So is the one above this line.

Of course high oil prices have something to do with the problem. But it is far from the main one
.

You are right, the main one is democratic intervention from the West, see Iraq, Afghanistan today. What I mean by that is that if it were not for the artificially inflated price than no country in the region would have the wealth necessary to keep itself from falling apart to the various groups with in it. Saudi Arabia before the 20's is the perfect example, chronically short on earnings, the central government was likely to have gone bankrupt and been dissolved long ago if it wasn't for oil revenue.

All this is being held in check by the undemocratic goverments in the region now. But it will have to be solved at some point. And if shows us this will probobly not be an easy process.


There is no such thing as a solution, the interests of the groups can be at best kept in a stalemate by outside powers. Fail that the whole region will go up in a massive unending war as was the case before the British came.

We of course can go on and talk more about specifics but I still say your statement is oversimplied and does a diservice to discussions of the problem.


Please do.
User avatar
By Sulla123
#1027131
Quite ironic that you should pick another example that can be easily studied using mathematics no more ambiguous than 2+2=4.
Looks like you miss some of the finer points of poker.


So is the one above this line.

Sorry if you cant see the added layers of complexity from having 100 people whos hands you do not know or exact motives and plan.s

You are right, the main one is democratic intervention from the West, see Iraq, Afghanistan today. What I mean by that is that if it were not for the artificially inflated price than no country in the region would have the wealth necessary to keep itself from falling apart to the various groups with in it. Saudi Arabia before the 20's is the perfect example, chronically short on earnings, the central government was likely to have gone bankrupt and been dissolved long ago if it wasn't for oil revenue.


Iraq, Afghanistan both have chances to have well functioning democracies if they can overcome tribalism, corruption, sectarian fighting etc. Well its possible in Saudi Arabia that is would have fallen. But the house of Saudi has proven they are adept at keeping power. Even if oil does help.



There is no such thing as a solution, the interests of the groups can be at best kept in a stalemate by outside powers. Fail that the whole region will go up in a massive unending war as was the case before the British came.


Well here you have a selective memory. You only choose to go back to the time directly before the British. At one time the region was united and was the leader in science and freedom. So the bigger question is what changed. And I do not believe for a minute that its all the fault of outside influence. As a matter of fact probobly a large part of the problem is a lack of will to look internaly for the real reasons. But I do believe there are answers but I think they will not be easy.

[/quote]
Last edited by Sulla123 on 05 Nov 2006 21:31, edited 1 time in total.
By Falx
#1027143
Looks like you miss some of the finer points of poker. Sorry if you cant see the added layers of complexity from having 100 people whos hands you do not know or exact motives and plans.


Let me ask you this, what is the highest level probability course you have taken? I will not go into game theory as that would derail this whole discussion but it's something you might want to look into.

Iraq, Afghanistan both have chances to have well functioning democracies if they can overcome tribalism, corruption, sectarian fighting etc.


Yes, all those 10 year periods before either Britain or the US decides to declare war on them is plenty of time for a stable, democratic regime to form from the last brutal dictatorship that was imposed on them.

Well its possible in Saudi Arabia that is would have fallen. But the house of Saudi has proven they are adept at keeping power. Even if oil does help.


The country didn't exist until 1902, by 1930 it was so far in debt that it could not pay the annual tribute to the desert tribes. If it wasn't for the consessions and money that came of those Ibn Saud would have lost the country due to the simple fact he couldn't afford to keep it running.

At one time the region was united and was the leader in science and freedom.


And before that it wasn't, was, wasn't, was, what's your point?

And I do not believe for a minute that its all the fault of outside influence.


Ottoman influence doesn't count?
User avatar
By Sulla123
#1027217
Seems we should distil this down to the main points and go on.

Our basic point of contention seems to be how much of the extent of the problem is outside influence. I asume you are well read and if that is true we have both read a lot about the region and its history and conflicts. But it seems we have come to different conclusions. Either that or you just like being argumentative:)

Also I would say that we could discuss solutions but from your other posts it seems you believe there are not any. So I wonder how much more we have to talk about on this subject?
By Shade2
#1027306
I am for Poland having nuclear weapons also. It would ensure our security against Germny and Russia.
User avatar
By Sulla123
#1027319
Well I have to say I do hope that Poland gets to stay free and prospers even more:)
By Falx
#1027609
Either that or you just like being argumentative:)


Yeah, that's the one.

As for solutions, a stalemate, like I've said, is as good as it's going to get. There is simply too much history in this place for any side to live peacefully with the others without outside coercion.
User avatar
By Sulla123
#1027650
I tend to be a little argumentative at times also if I am not carefull.

As for stalemate being the best I think and hope you are wrong. I hope they have something better to look forward to.

There is now a thread on heinlien's politics whi[…]

You don’t see anything wrong with renters determi[…]

So, we have evidence that migrants often voted in […]

it is very difficult to determine who the stupid[…]