• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Malala Yousafzai and Kailash Satyarthi Are Awarded Nobel Peace Prize

Well this thread made it through 1 page before going off topic.
Grats to both recipients they deserve it
 
What's your point, beyond playing 'gotcha'?

If Iran gets nuclear technology it's because we allowed it. Wrong? That's not any different than giving it to them, unless you're insistent that it's not literal enough?

India had them and the Pakistani's were insisting they needed a deterrent, I'm sure some US President agreed to let it happen.

Everyone's got an idea of how the world really works, but those theories are ultimately worthless without hard facts to back them up.
 
Well this thread made it through 1 page before going off topic.
Grats to both recipients they deserve it

Yes, you're right.
 
I wonder how many of those who rush to (rightfully) laud Malala will also then rush to abandon all other Afghan girls to their fate :(.

if you mean that you have to support long term occupation of Afghanistan and expanding foreverwar in order to laud this girl for her accomplishments, no, that is incorrect.
 
This award is a joke. Gandhi never won one.
 
What's your point, beyond playing 'gotcha'?

If Iran gets nuclear technology it's because we allowed it. Wrong? That's not any different than giving it to them, unless you're insistent that it's not literal enough?

India had them and the Pakistani's were insisting they needed a deterrent, I'm sure some US President agreed to let it happen.

Um. Pakistan developed them definitely without our permission. We aren't omnipotent.
 
if you mean that you have to support long term occupation of Afghanistan and expanding foreverwar in order to laud this girl for her accomplishments, no, that is incorrect.

Naturally. Malala is an amazing girl because she stood up for the rights of people whom we will abandon once again to the tender mercies of the Taliban because - meh - it's all a bit of a bore, and tiring really, and hearing about it on the news is so exausting.

There is definitely a disconnect between celebrating freedom and education for girls and then abandoning millions of girls to a regime that will abuse them and keep them trapped.
 
Naturally. Malala is an amazing girl because she stood up for the rights of people whom we will abandon once again to the tender mercies of the Taliban because - meh - it's all a bit of a bore, and tiring really, and hearing about it on the news is so exausting.

There is definitely a disconnect between celebrating freedom and education for girls and then abandoning millions of girls to a regime that will abuse them and keep them trapped.

we can't make the Middle East into a liberal western democracy through any amount of external force. the reform has to come from within. Saudi Arabia and Iran need to step up and clean up their neighborhood.
 
It's a pretty tiered operation.

by which you mean..... ?

But I mean by failed state we're talking like, Syria levels of failed state in which no one force could co-ordinate an effective response to an invading force.

:raises eyebrow: Oh. You mean like Somalia, where none of our invading forces ever faced a co-ordinated or effective response? Hitting the sites in Pakistan would mean being Hours at Best from possible support once you hit the ground, if we even had the resources to support all those efforts.

but I suppose someone holding the keys and would fire off a few at US.

That I don't know. I would think that having a Pakistani IAD system managing to shoot down some Osprey's/Helo's or having an effective ground response pinning down / trapping / overruning a team are more likely scenario's. And the more likely target of a sudden-key-turn is probably India.

Perhaps I should drink more coffee and stop talking nonsense.

This is one of the reasons why we need to take proliferation so seriously. Current stability is not a guarantee of future results, especially in dictatorships or semi-dictatorships.
 
we can't make the Middle East into a liberal western democracy through any amount of external force. the reform has to come from within.

Local Support is directly proportional to the belief that it has a good chance of succeeding. More Iraqi's came out to vote than Americans did, relative to our populace, in their election, and despite the threat of car bombs, which Americans do not face. They did that because they had US military on their street corners, ensuring that the process would at least be able to succeed. You don't get the latter without the former.

You absolutely can export Democracy through external force. That is how come we have Democracy in (to name two immediate examples both of whom did not have Western societies on which to build Western forms of government) Japan and India.

Saudi Arabia and Iran need to step up and clean up their neighborhood.

:lol: by that you mean "engage in proxy war with each other, further messing up the neighborhood, as both seek out regional hegemony and likely nuclear weapons"? Because that is the actual result of what you are proposing :)
 
Local Support is directly proportional to the belief that it has a good chance of succeeding. More Iraqi's came out to vote than Americans did, relative to our populace, in their election, and despite the threat of car bombs, which Americans do not face. They did that because they had US military on their street corners, ensuring that the process would at least be able to succeed. You don't get the latter without the former.

You absolutely can export Democracy through external force. That is how come we have Democracy in (to name two immediate examples both of whom did not have Western societies on which to build Western forms of government) Japan and India.



:lol: by that you mean "engage in proxy war with each other, further messing up the neighborhood, as both seek out regional hegemony and likely nuclear weapons"? Because that is the actual result of what you are proposing :)

India didn't get democracy from external forces. It came from within.
 
Local Support is directly proportional to the belief that it has a good chance of succeeding. More Iraqi's came out to vote than Americans did, relative to our populace, in their election, and despite the threat of car bombs, which Americans do not face. They did that because they had US military on their street corners, ensuring that the process would at least be able to succeed. You don't get the latter without the former.

You absolutely can export Democracy through external force. That is how come we have Democracy in (to name two immediate examples both of whom did not have Western societies on which to build Western forms of government) Japan and India.

this is an entirely different situation. you're dealing with a holy war here between sects of Islam that has been going on for eons. adding another endless war isn't going to fix anything there.

:lol: by that you mean "engage in proxy war with each other, further messing up the neighborhood, as both seek out regional hegemony and likely nuclear weapons"? Because that is the actual result of what you are proposing :)

if that's going to happen, it will happen regardless of how much we pour into the region. we've been heavily involved in the Middle East for decades, and it's more unstable there than ever. another war won't fix it.

what we should actually do is to build America into a country where the tech, infrastructure, and standard of living are so good that the rest of the world wants to imitate it. it's time to nation build here at home and leave regional conflicts to the regional hegemons.
 
Um. Pakistan developed them definitely without our permission. We aren't omnipotent.

Russia got them without our permission. Everyone else, needed us not to prevent it.
 
Russia got them without our permission. Everyone else, needed us not to prevent it.

While our superior monetary and military might allows us to apply a large degree of influence in the world, it's dangerous to assume that somehow translates into omnipotence. Nations have paid for that type of arrogance heavily throughout history.
 
While our superior monetary and military might allows us to apply a large degree of influence in the world, it's dangerous to assume that somehow translates into omnipotence. Nations have paid for that type of arrogance heavily throughout history.

Trust me, we got our fingers in everyone's pie, just ask the NSA. ;)


Go outside with a sign that says "I'm AL-Queada!" and hold it upwards towards the sky. See how long it takes a spy satellite to send some men in black suits and sunglasses to your door? :lol:
 
Trust me, we got our fingers in everyone's pie, just ask the NSA. ;)


Go outside with a sign that says "I'm AL-Queada!" and hold it upwards towards the sky. See how long it takes a spy satellite to send some men in black suits and sunglasses to your door? :lol:

Seinfeld-Leaving.gif
 
this is an entirely different situation. you're dealing with a holy war here between sects of Islam that has been going on for eons.

:yawn: warfare is the natural state of mankind. You want an area soaked in warfare driven by religious and geographic differences, with heavy ethnic tensions overlaid to boot? It's called Europe.

if that's going to happen, it will happen regardless of how much we pour into the region

That is incorrect. Up until currently the US has been a deterrent for both actors.

we've been heavily involved in the Middle East for decades, and it's more unstable there than ever.

That is false. The US is the only major force for stability in the Middle East and it is precisely when and where we are least active that there is the most instability. Take a look at Syria v Bahrain and ask yourself which one features more heavy US involvement in, say, the 2009-2011 era and then ask yourself which is today more stable.

what we should actually do is to build America into a country where the tech, infrastructure, and standard of living are so good that the rest of the world wants to imitate it. it's time to nation build here at home and leave regional conflicts to the regional hegemons.

That's a great idea. We can call it "the 1990s", and it will never, ever, end.

Hey, however, in realityland, how good are you at farming?
 

I don't know for absolute sure we allowed the Pakistani's nuclear tech but we did originally introduce them to it.

In 1953, Foreign minister Sir Zafarullah Khan publicly stated that "Pakistan does not have a policy towards the atom bombs". Following the announcement, on 11 August 1955, the United States and Pakistan reached an understanding concerning the peaceful and industrial use of nuclear energy which also includes a $350,000 worth pool-type reactor.

Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sometimes peace is achieved by means of self defensive posturing or ability.
 
Russia got them without our permission. Everyone else, needed us not to prevent it.

On the contrary, both India and Pakistan - for example - managed effectively to develop their capacity in secret, and proved capable of effecting strategic surprise on us. China, too, we were in no position to stop.
 
India didn't get democracy from external forces. It came from within.

:lamo

Yeah. :lol: India decided to develop 1) a concept of itself as a continuous polity and 2) a dedication to representation through a Parliamentary structure because that was it's organic development path. :lamo

Two Centuries of British Rule that fostered both of those things were completely coincidental :lol:

Man, I usually keep you on "ignore", but that... that was gold. So glad I clicked on that one :D
 
On the contrary, both India and Pakistan - for example - managed effectively to develop their capacity in secret, and proved capable of effecting strategic surprise on us. China, too, we were in no position to stop.

Unless you're a spook with high clearance or former intel official from the past, I don't believe it. China we couldn't stop or North Korea but India and Pakistan, not so sure.
 
Unless you're a spook with high clearance or former intel official from the past, I don't believe it. China we couldn't stop or North Korea but India and Pakistan, not so sure.

:raises eyebrow: Both of those instances are available in the open-source material.

US Intelligence and the Indian Bomb

India Nuclear Test takes US Intelligence by Surprise

Nuclear Black Markets: Pakistan, A.Q. Khan and the rise of proliferation networks

AQ Khan: The Godfather of North Korea's Bomb
 
:lamo

Yeah. :lol: India decided to develop 1) a concept of itself as a continuous polity and 2) a dedication to representation through a Parliamentary structure because that was it's organic development path. :lamo

Two Centuries of British Rule that fostered both of those things were completely coincidental :lol:

Man, I usually keep you on "ignore", but that... that was gold. So glad I clicked on that one :D

That's the most asinine thing I ever heard. Did the US get democracy from british rule as well? Colonizing a country doesn't mean you are giving them democracy.
 
That's the most asinine thing I ever heard.

Well I'll just keep my comment about what that means about you to myself :)

Did the US get democracy from british rule as well?

Yup. :) That's why the Revolution started off as colonists demanding their rights as Englishmen.

Colonizing a country doesn't mean you are giving them democracy.

That's correct, it isn't a requirement. It is, however, a possible happy transfer that has happened multiple times in history.
 
Well I'll just keep my comment about what that means about you to myself :)



Yup. :) That's why the Revolution started off as colonists demanding their rights as Englishmen.



That's correct, it isn't a requirement. It is, however, a possible happy transfer that has happened multiple times in history.

Saying colonization and democracy are the same thing is akin to saying sitting and standing are the same. Whatever. I will leave you to your incorrect opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom