iamshack

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 09:26 PM) Carlos flat out sucks on the road. And against lefties.

QUOTE (docsox24 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 09:14 PM) These are 3 really important innings in the rest of our season. lets man up boys! Oooh, I like your new avatar...

QUOTE (mcgrad70 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 08:03 PM) White Sox are breaking my heart with all of the RISP left on base. One of the worst offenses they've had in decades. Aren't we 3rd or 4th in the league hitting w/ RISP?

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 07:43 PM) Diaper duty! Did you check your PMs?

So now that the game is tied, where did everyone go?

Damn, I like the intensity in here....

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 05:48 PM) I can't think of any country that would willingly downgrade its status, wealth, influence, military power, standard of living, etc. (and not in a deliberate way of rolling with the inevitable to make it orderly if the nation is already declining). Show me a country that does that and I'll show you a country that sucks. I also don't see how a country wouldn't want to be more powerful, spread its influence across the globe, and such... yes we are talking about different countries in very different regions in the world, with different goals and views of themselves but when you make it a choice between "be more powerful" and "not be more powerful" I don't see too many leaders choosing the latter. Where are you getting that from my post? I said I agreed with you that all countries would want to maintain or improve stature. What I'm saying is that that is in no way analogous to building 35,000 nuclear weapons in some ill-conceived arms race. I think there are all kinds of progressive nations in the world that are perfectly happy letting the US and some of the other traditional powers worry about being dominant powers, meanwhile, they concern themselves with their own people, their own immediate regional issues, and focus solely on those for the benefit of their citizenry. That is maintaining or improving stature. What the US has done over the course of the last 65 years or so is entirely different.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 05:27 PM) Did B&B yesterday, gonna bust out 5 miles today. Great work, Rock! I did plyo today. Struggled a bit at first, but always love how I feel after I finish.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 06:25 PM) I don't know what you're getting at when you say "do the same as the US." If you mean "do what it can to preserve its position as the dominant superpower and center of the world" then yes. Absolutely. If you mean "build a s***load of nuclear weapons" then no. If you mean "want to keep itself as one of the haves while everyone except for a handful of others are have nots" then maybe. You made the statement that every country would do the same as the US were they in the US position. I'm not sure exactly what you were saying there. All I'm saying is that I disagree with you. I think that the vast majority of countries have no designs on being a world superpower. Maintaining or improving stature, yes. Being a world power similar to the US? Some, but I don't think the majority, let alone every nation.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 06:18 PM) ???? You made Balta proud just now Your argument is that every nation would do the same as the US, should it have the opportunity, correct?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 05:13 PM) Actually, even granting you that, I don't even know why this would be wrong. Acting out of self-interest to improve/preserve position is something every country does (and will always do lest another country do it first, see: Iran) That kind of thing is just not said out loud in diplomatic settings though, for reasons that should be pretty obvious. So you're arguing that every country throughout modern history has sought to dominate the world? This is second nature for all governments? I could not disagree more. Maintaining or improving world stature and building 35,000 nuclear weapons are simply not the same thing at all.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 05:48 PM) That isn't anywhere NEAR as easy to do as you're trying to make it sound. In the great words of Mr. Obama...."If it was easy, it would have been done already!" Look, again, I'm not arguing that it is easy, or that the situation is not complex. All I'm saying is don't treat me like I'm f***ing stupid. Admit the situation is what it is, and let's make decisions based on that. Let's not make up fake reasons and bs arguments to justify what the real result we're going for is - we want to control the supply of nuclear weaponry so as to continue our status as the only, or possibly in the future, one of, the world's superpowers - now was that so hard?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:31 PM) Technically that's happened in about 20 years, since the signing of START 1. Fair enough. So 20 years is acceptable? Especially when you realize that the reduction that's occurred to this point has, for all practical purposes, accomplished nothing. What is the practical and real difference between possessing 35,000 bombs and 4,000 bombs? Absolutely nothing. They've been dragging their heels on this and the only accomplishment is a numbers game, so they can say "we've eliminated 80% of our stockpile!"

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:18 PM) What more can you expect in terms of eliminating stockpiles? We've gone from 35k weapons to like 5k in 50 years. I'd say that's pretty good all things considered. 50 years? That is an acceptable period of time for you?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:12 PM) Talk to the U.S. Senate. There's an agreement sitting there to continue work on that. I'm sure you can guess which party thinks doing so is a terrible idea. And as long as this continues, I will not blame other countries for calling bulls*** on us. And as I said, I cannot really blame them.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:05 PM) Frankly...that's exactly the truth. The cat is out of the bag, pandora's box is open. Either we can pretend that it never was opened and have every country out there developing the bomb (does anyone remember the South African nuke program? The Brazilian nuclear weapons program?), or we can come to an agreement that acknowledges reality and works to the benefit of everyone else. It's not a "favor" we've done. It provides us the same strategic benefit that everyone else has...preservation of the status quo, and a chance to work in other ways towards improving it (i.e. the START framework) Well I'm not going to disagree with much of this. I certainly am in favor of mitigating damage at this point. I guess I would find our position a bit more tolerable if we spent less time proclaiming the evils of all the other nations wishing to explore nuclear weapons technology and more time trying to determine the best method of eliminating our gigantic stockpile.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:56 PM) Let's take a look at the countries that aren't signatories to the NPT. Israel, India, and Pakistan have chosen not to sign it, and North Korea pulled out of the agreement in 2003 while we were invading Iraq. First point is...they have every right to have done this under international law. There is no punishment for choosing to not join a treaty, and, with Israel as a case in point, there certainly has not been penalties. The question to ask then is...why have so many nations accepted that framework? Why does Iran, for example, continue to accept it, when simply pulling out of the agreement would leave them unencumbered and free to develop those weapons if they so desire? The answer is...it's not just the U.S.'s citizens who benefit from this framework and agree to it. Iran might want to develop a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes, but Iran isn't going to leave the NPT framework. Why? Because many nations benefit from a maintenance of that framework. Nearly all of Iran's trading partners benefit from that framework, and as such, they would have their situations hurt if Iran pulled out of it. Those citizens are most of the time more than content with the NPT framework as it is, because even if it may be a giant hill of horses*** to some eyes, it is a massive benefit to those citizens at the same time. Give me a break, Balta. What other option is there, really? So because there is little or no other alternative in this mess we have created, that somehow makes this beneficial to everyone? As if this is a favor we have done for the rest of the world? Now that we and the Soviet Union have designed and built enough weapons to destroy the entire world thousands of times over, we give the gift of the NPT to everyone! Hooray!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:55 PM) OK. If you want to fight for the little guy who also happens to like spitting on the other little guys, so that he can have a machine gun, in order to make a point that the big kid is just a big kid... go ahead. It doesn't buy you anything though, unless you are a radical cleric living in Iran. I'm not arguing for Iran. I'm pointing out how hypocritical the reasoning the US uses is. Not sure how many times I have to point that out.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:48 PM) Utley's back. Just in time for my fantasy playoffs...

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:41 PM) You keep arguing about whether the US has the right to be a grand decision-maker, or if they are omnipotent. I'm saying, it doesn't matter. If you are the big kid on the block, you want to protect your own best interests (like everyone else), but you also can make a choice to be a bully, or protect the interest of the majority of smaller kids on the block. Keeping nukes away from Iran is the latter, therefore, its the right course of action, in my view. And this haves and have-nots thing is playing into the argument that we SHOULD keep nukes out of Iran, because again, as it happens, that is in the best interests of the have-nots as well. What I am arguing is that it is BS and a matter of convenience that the US, under the guise of protecting the interests of the rest of the world, decides for the world who gets the bomb and who does not. I'm sorry, but it doesn't mean a whole lot to me when the country that has 4,000 bombs lectures other nations why they cannot have 1 bomb. You can argue I am naive and uninformed all you want, but it rings quite hollow coming from the position that our government is in. The bottom line is that we want to have the ultimate deterrent and trump card, and we want a few of our allies to have it, and no one else. And quite frankly, there is very little anyone else can do about it. Now if that is how the issue was presented, then it would be a lot more realistic and even trustworthy. But it isn't. And frankly, I don't blame other governments and citizens of those governments for seeing right through it as a giant hill of horses***.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:18 PM) Your idealistic one-liners are noble but uninformed and also useless to the discussion. Read my post again - and tell me what in it you disagree with. Tell me how a nuclear Iran is good for the world. Tell me how it isn't in our best interests to keep Iran away from nukes. Hah...It must be nice to be omnipotent. Explain to me what exactly the discussion is then, so perhaps I might be able to sustain your interest and pass your high threshold of what qualifies as useful here. I've never argued, nor will you find many that will argue, that it is in "our" best interests for Iran to have nukes. The point I am making is that you can come up with justifications all day and night for why we should be the decision-maker regarding who does and does not get nuclear weapons, as well as why it isn't a threat to the world that we have 4,000 of them. But my guess is that the have nots and the more progressive nations of the world would not find the issue so cut and dry. And when you were born into the side of the haves, it's a lot easier to convince yourself that your government is protecting the world, that your government is trustworthy and competent enough to maintain a huge stockpile of weapons large enough to destroy the world 1000 times over, that the governments of others are incompetent fools not to be trusted with the same tools that yours is, etc. Personally, this is the perspective I find most interesting about this issue. It does seem like it stimulated most of the discussion on the issue, doesn't it? Whether you choose to find it useful or informed, I could not care less.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:15 PM) Let me ask you the counter-argument then...why would I feel safer as a smaller country if my country were to attempt to possess the bomb on its own? I've never made that argument here. I just don't believe you would find the US government so trustworthy and competent had you not been born and raised here.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:15 PM) Forget the "rights" issue here, its meaningless. These are states dealing with each other. The fact that they signed the NPT is a nice discussion piece, but really nothing more. Simply put, its in the best interests of 95% of the world's countries and their populations that Iran does not have nukes. Therefore, many countries, led by the US, will work to prevent it. And I completely agree with them doing so. It doesn't matter what you think of US conduct, or of the fact that we've had nukes since 1944. Doesn't matter. What matters is what is best for people going forward. And hell, I would even say that Iran with nukes doesn't help its people much either. It's really easy to make this argument when you've got money down on the leading horse...

I have no idea what you guys are seeing in the behavior of the US government which would make other countries feel as "in good hands" as you are trying to argue here.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 01:57 PM) Why would I trust my own government not to screw it all up? Especially when you consider that the other nation, by virtue of having gotten there first, has already had the chance to develop a command and control system and learn from its mistakes in how to deal with the opened Pandoras Box. If I can't have a nuclear-weapon free world...then the fewer countries that have the bomb, the less chance there is for an exchange, and the less chance there is for a mistake. You might trust your own country if it had a history of being far less aggressive and power-hungry, did not invent the bomb in question, did not detonate the bomb in question, did not threaten others with the bomb in question, etc. I think it would help if we all took our red, white and blue glasses off and tried to see this from other perspectives.