IRAQ nuke attack
-
What are you talking about? First, the US has threatened to use nuclear weapons only if first attacked with weapons of mass destruction (and even then, it's highly doubtful any US official, elected or not, would want a nuclear strike to be part of their legacy.) (The first strike doctrine was bandied about in the 50s and again in the 80s, but mostly as an intellectual excercise and as a bluff and must be seen in the context of the cold war.) You are aware of the arms limitations treaties of which the US is a part and that the US has reduced the number of nuclear weapons it has as well as launch vehicles (the US has even followed arms treaties its Senate hasn't ratified.) Moreover, the US, Britain and France have multilayered safeguards on the use of their nuclear weapons. Iraq, North Korea and other rogue states have no such thing. (Even Russia still has protections, though there are plenty of other disturbing problems with Russia's stockpile.) Finally, if we use your logic, we are being "two faced" if we arm police officers but prohibit psychopaths and felons from owning guns (even if such a restriction is difficult to enforce.)
Joe Woodbury wrote: Moreover, the US, Britain and France have multilayered safeguards on the use of their nuclear weapons. Iraq, North Korea and other rogue states have no such thing. Such safe guards are of no use because they are controlled by leadership, and once moron leadership decided to turn them, the result is destruction... remember USA was the first to throw nuclear cake on Japan..
-
So the US wants to make sure SH doesnt make any nuke weapons cos he cant be trusted not to use them. They want the world to be a safer place without them. BUT They dont want any verifiable arm control placed on them, and they want to use first strike bunker busting Nukes. Isn't this a little two faced. You cant demand that your "enemies" dont develope the weapons that you have stated you intend to use. Dont misunderstand me I think SH is a threat to peace, but I kinda think that of Bush as well.
Bangerman wrote: You cant demand that your "enemies" dont develope the weapons that you have stated you intend to use. Of course this is two-faced. And even more, when it comes to international relations it is perfectly normal and acceptable behviour. Don't be naive. Bangerman wrote: I think SH is a threat to peace, but I kinda think that of Bush as well. You are effectively implying moral equivalency here between a democracy and a murderous tyrant. This either shows that you don't really know what you're talking about or that you're one of those soft-headed, bleeding heart liberals who think that all the world's problems are the West's fault. Frankly, until you know the difference between Richelieu and Woodrow Wilson you're just another uninformed poster trying to look intelligent. Brian Azzopardi. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
Bangerman wrote: You cant demand that your "enemies" dont develope the weapons that you have stated you intend to use. Of course this is two-faced. And even more, when it comes to international relations it is perfectly normal and acceptable behviour. Don't be naive. Bangerman wrote: I think SH is a threat to peace, but I kinda think that of Bush as well. You are effectively implying moral equivalency here between a democracy and a murderous tyrant. This either shows that you don't really know what you're talking about or that you're one of those soft-headed, bleeding heart liberals who think that all the world's problems are the West's fault. Frankly, until you know the difference between Richelieu and Woodrow Wilson you're just another uninformed poster trying to look intelligent. Brian Azzopardi. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
:):) Grrr :):) bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
Bangerman wrote: You cant demand that your "enemies" dont develope the weapons that you have stated you intend to use. Of course this is two-faced. And even more, when it comes to international relations it is perfectly normal and acceptable behviour. Don't be naive. Bangerman wrote: I think SH is a threat to peace, but I kinda think that of Bush as well. You are effectively implying moral equivalency here between a democracy and a murderous tyrant. This either shows that you don't really know what you're talking about or that you're one of those soft-headed, bleeding heart liberals who think that all the world's problems are the West's fault. Frankly, until you know the difference between Richelieu and Woodrow Wilson you're just another uninformed poster trying to look intelligent. Brian Azzopardi. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote Of course this is two-faced. And even more, when it comes to international relations it is perfectly normal and acceptable behviour So according to international relations it is perfectly normal for Iraq or any other country to demand no WMD from America. Isn't it? Brian Azzopardi wrote you're one of those soft-headed, bleeding heart liberals who think that all the world's problems are the West's fault. And not one of those soft-headed, bleeding hearts who think that all the world's problem are East or Iraq fault. Brian Azzopardi wrote you're just another uninformed poster trying to look intelligent. Sorry! he don't know that he can't be more intelligent in the presence of "most" intelligents like you. sorry for my bad English.
-
Bangerman wrote: You cant demand that your "enemies" dont develope the weapons that you have stated you intend to use. Of course this is two-faced. And even more, when it comes to international relations it is perfectly normal and acceptable behviour. Don't be naive. Bangerman wrote: I think SH is a threat to peace, but I kinda think that of Bush as well. You are effectively implying moral equivalency here between a democracy and a murderous tyrant. This either shows that you don't really know what you're talking about or that you're one of those soft-headed, bleeding heart liberals who think that all the world's problems are the West's fault. Frankly, until you know the difference between Richelieu and Woodrow Wilson you're just another uninformed poster trying to look intelligent. Brian Azzopardi. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: You are effectively implying moral equivalency here between a democracy and a murderous tyrant. A rose is a rose by it's smell, not by it's name. If you do like the tyrant does, calling yourself democracy won't make you the good guy.
If I could find a souvenir / just to prove the world was here [sighist]
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: Moreover, the US, Britain and France have multilayered safeguards on the use of their nuclear weapons. Iraq, North Korea and other rogue states have no such thing. Such safe guards are of no use because they are controlled by leadership, and once moron leadership decided to turn them, the result is destruction... remember USA was the first to throw nuclear cake on Japan..
-
Bangerman wrote: You cant demand that your "enemies" dont develope the weapons that you have stated you intend to use. Of course this is two-faced. And even more, when it comes to international relations it is perfectly normal and acceptable behviour. Don't be naive. Bangerman wrote: I think SH is a threat to peace, but I kinda think that of Bush as well. You are effectively implying moral equivalency here between a democracy and a murderous tyrant. This either shows that you don't really know what you're talking about or that you're one of those soft-headed, bleeding heart liberals who think that all the world's problems are the West's fault. Frankly, until you know the difference between Richelieu and Woodrow Wilson you're just another uninformed poster trying to look intelligent. Brian Azzopardi. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: You are effectively implying moral equivalency here between a democracy and a murderous tyrant. This either shows that you don't really know what you're talking about or that you're one of those soft-headed, bleeding heart liberals who think that all the world's problems are the West's fault. Nope, just America's fault at the moment as has been repeatedly stated by Al Quaeda and other anti-US groups. The sooner Bush is put back in his box and the US is controlled by intelligent citizens and not the current crop of clowns the better it will be for everyone, especially the innocent bystanders. Old Simon HB9DRV
-
Bangerman wrote: You cant demand that your "enemies" dont develope the weapons that you have stated you intend to use. Of course this is two-faced. And even more, when it comes to international relations it is perfectly normal and acceptable behviour. Don't be naive. Bangerman wrote: I think SH is a threat to peace, but I kinda think that of Bush as well. You are effectively implying moral equivalency here between a democracy and a murderous tyrant. This either shows that you don't really know what you're talking about or that you're one of those soft-headed, bleeding heart liberals who think that all the world's problems are the West's fault. Frankly, until you know the difference between Richelieu and Woodrow Wilson you're just another uninformed poster trying to look intelligent. Brian Azzopardi. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: You are effectively implying moral equivalency here between a democracy and a murderous tyrant. This either shows that you don't really know what you're talking about or that you're one of those soft-headed, bleeding heart liberals who think that all the world's problems are the West's fault. Oooooo. I'm not implying equivilence. I'm observing that the current US administration wishes to apply rules to other countries, not just IRAQ, that it will not follow for itself. It is not can can never be right to develop nuke weapons to attack none nuke states. Nukes should always be held on a none first use principle. Given a position of none first use you have the moral high ground to argue that IRAQ and other states should not have Nukes. But if you decide that you are happy to go for first use you lose the high ground and become another bully. Dont forget that the US wanted to invade IRAQ without UN approval. So dont give me any of that US flag waving, Nuke the bastards garbage and look at the wider imnplications of first use nukes. ;P
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: Moreover, the US, Britain and France have multilayered safeguards on the use of their nuclear weapons. Iraq, North Korea and other rogue states have no such thing. Such safe guards are of no use because they are controlled by leadership, and once moron leadership decided to turn them, the result is destruction... remember USA was the first to throw nuclear cake on Japan..
Shamoon wrote: remember USA was the first to throw nuclear cake on Japan.. And have you ever seen figures on how many lives were expected to be lost in an invasion of the Japan mainland? The usage at that time saved millions on Japanese lives. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
So the US wants to make sure SH doesnt make any nuke weapons cos he cant be trusted not to use them. They want the world to be a safer place without them. BUT They dont want any verifiable arm control placed on them, and they want to use first strike bunker busting Nukes. Isn't this a little two faced. You cant demand that your "enemies" dont develope the weapons that you have stated you intend to use. Dont misunderstand me I think SH is a threat to peace, but I kinda think that of Bush as well.
Bangerman wrote: They dont want any verifiable arm control placed on them, You apparently are ignoring history here. The US wanted no restricted air zones (post WW2) so each country was free to keep survalence on each others military areas. It was the European goverments that refused to agree with this. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Bangerman wrote: You cant demand that your "enemies" dont develope the weapons that you have stated you intend to use. Of course this is two-faced. And even more, when it comes to international relations it is perfectly normal and acceptable behviour. Don't be naive. Bangerman wrote: I think SH is a threat to peace, but I kinda think that of Bush as well. You are effectively implying moral equivalency here between a democracy and a murderous tyrant. This either shows that you don't really know what you're talking about or that you're one of those soft-headed, bleeding heart liberals who think that all the world's problems are the West's fault. Frankly, until you know the difference between Richelieu and Woodrow Wilson you're just another uninformed poster trying to look intelligent. Brian Azzopardi. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
I'm sorry to disagree with you, of course there's a difference with democracy and tyranny, but don't be so simplistic to believe only because you have an elected president that will stop him from doing terrible things. If you’d only read a little more, you’d discover that, even if in democracy power use is much more controlled, many so called “democracies” committed such crimes as well. I believe Peterchen's response is excellent, let repeat it: A rose is a rose by it's smell, not by it's name.
-
Joe Woodbury wrote US has even followed arms treaties its Senate hasn't ratified What about CTBT? sorry for my bad English.
CTBT is a big farce. It only extends the two-faced nature of nuclear capable countries. They have developed the nuclear technology and have enough data to create nuclear weapons. They want the other countries to sign the CTBT. This is why France finished its nuclear tests and then later signed the CTBT. Without struggle, there is no progress
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: You are effectively implying moral equivalency here between a democracy and a murderous tyrant. This either shows that you don't really know what you're talking about or that you're one of those soft-headed, bleeding heart liberals who think that all the world's problems are the West's fault. Oooooo. I'm not implying equivilence. I'm observing that the current US administration wishes to apply rules to other countries, not just IRAQ, that it will not follow for itself. It is not can can never be right to develop nuke weapons to attack none nuke states. Nukes should always be held on a none first use principle. Given a position of none first use you have the moral high ground to argue that IRAQ and other states should not have Nukes. But if you decide that you are happy to go for first use you lose the high ground and become another bully. Dont forget that the US wanted to invade IRAQ without UN approval. So dont give me any of that US flag waving, Nuke the bastards garbage and look at the wider imnplications of first use nukes. ;P
-
Bangerman wrote: They dont want any verifiable arm control placed on them, You apparently are ignoring history here. The US wanted no restricted air zones (post WW2) so each country was free to keep survalence on each others military areas. It was the European goverments that refused to agree with this. "I will find a new sig someday."
Are you sure about this? It sounds really strange US or any nation accepting anyone flying over the country with no restrictions. Anyway, this has nothing to do with arm control. All images adquired from a plane flying over the country could be perfectly taken from a satelite. Arm control means revealing all weapon development (biological, quimical, etc), which of course no country in the world would accept, if not forced to. This can't be revealed by a plane flying over a country.
-
So the US wants to make sure SH doesnt make any nuke weapons cos he cant be trusted not to use them. They want the world to be a safer place without them. BUT They dont want any verifiable arm control placed on them, and they want to use first strike bunker busting Nukes. Isn't this a little two faced. You cant demand that your "enemies" dont develope the weapons that you have stated you intend to use. Dont misunderstand me I think SH is a threat to peace, but I kinda think that of Bush as well.
Bangerman wrote: Dont misunderstand me I think SH is a threat to peace, but I kinda think that of Bush as well Both are undemocratically elected leaders, both are dangerous, and one of them openly admits to having weapons of mass destruction. Who's the enemy again?
Dylan
"In meetings, the person who is least competent usually does the most talking. Talking is a direct substitute for competence, at least in the minds of other people. Five minutes after you leave a meeting, you won't remember what anyone said but you will remember who did most of the talking. Withing a day your mind will translate that into a notion that the talker was unusually knowledgeable" - Scott Adams, Dilbert and the way of the weasel
-
Shamoon wrote: remember USA was the first to throw nuclear cake on Japan.. And have you ever seen figures on how many lives were expected to be lost in an invasion of the Japan mainland? The usage at that time saved millions on Japanese lives. "I will find a new sig someday."
Yeah, with about Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the war probably would've have lasted a few more years with many many many more causalties on both sides. Jason Gerard "This almost never matters, except quite often."
-
Bangerman wrote: Dont misunderstand me I think SH is a threat to peace, but I kinda think that of Bush as well Both are undemocratically elected leaders, both are dangerous, and one of them openly admits to having weapons of mass destruction. Who's the enemy again?
Dylan
"In meetings, the person who is least competent usually does the most talking. Talking is a direct substitute for competence, at least in the minds of other people. Five minutes after you leave a meeting, you won't remember what anyone said but you will remember who did most of the talking. Withing a day your mind will translate that into a notion that the talker was unusually knowledgeable" - Scott Adams, Dilbert and the way of the weasel
Dylan Kenneally wrote: Who's the enemy again? The one who has still gazed thousands of Kurds and probably also Iranians. (BTW, what is the score of GW with the death penalty in Texas ?)
I hurt so bad inside I wish you could see the world through my eyes It stays the same I just wanna laugh again
-
Bangerman wrote: Dont misunderstand me I think SH is a threat to peace, but I kinda think that of Bush as well Both are undemocratically elected leaders, both are dangerous, and one of them openly admits to having weapons of mass destruction. Who's the enemy again?
Dylan
"In meetings, the person who is least competent usually does the most talking. Talking is a direct substitute for competence, at least in the minds of other people. Five minutes after you leave a meeting, you won't remember what anyone said but you will remember who did most of the talking. Withing a day your mind will translate that into a notion that the talker was unusually knowledgeable" - Scott Adams, Dilbert and the way of the weasel
C'mon, you know the answer. The one who lies and tells you he has no WMD when he does. The one who has used such weapons to kill his own people. The one who's in power indefinetely, because his people won't dare to depose him for fear of their lives. The one who invaded Kuwait 10 years ago. SADDAM HUSSEIN Get a brain! Regards, Alvaro
Well done is better than well said. -- Benjamin Franklin (I actually prefer medium-well.)
-
C'mon, you know the answer. The one who lies and tells you he has no WMD when he does. The one who has used such weapons to kill his own people. The one who's in power indefinetely, because his people won't dare to depose him for fear of their lives. The one who invaded Kuwait 10 years ago. SADDAM HUSSEIN Get a brain! Regards, Alvaro
Well done is better than well said. -- Benjamin Franklin (I actually prefer medium-well.)
Don't get me wrong, SH is clearly an evil man, and something has to be done to help the people of Irag. But bombing helps nobody. Alvaro Mendez wrote: The one who lies and tells you he has no WMD when he does Maybe he does. But I live in a democracy, which cleary states that you are inocent until proven otherwise. Care to show me some evidence? Alvaro Mendez wrote: Get a brain! Get a grip, and have a word with yourself. Really, come on... On the issue of war with Iraq: Why him? Why now? What next?
Dylan
"In meetings, the person who is least competent usually does the most talking. Talking is a direct substitute for competence, at least in the minds of other people. Five minutes after you leave a meeting, you won't remember what anyone said but you will remember who did most of the talking. Withing a day your mind will translate that into a notion that the talker was unusually knowledgeable" - Scott Adams, Dilbert and the way of the weasel