Chemical weapons

Nitron

yaname wrote: I think Japan "earned" that right, not the U.S. Japan was the victim. The US pulled the trigger. It's much harder knowing you were responsible than dealing with the tragedy IMO. But then again, the US is probably the only country with a conscience, so other people probably wouldn't understand. - Nitron

"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb

Nitron

I work with people whose parents were Kuwaiti citizens during the 1990 invasion, and have heard some horrible stories. Families who lost everything they ever had and were left with nothing. The general opinion in the arab world from people I know is that the US is viewed as a hope for liberation. The peace-mongers have a very narrow view and fail to see the bigger picture IMO. Sure it's easy to protest and criticize a war, but what is the best solution for the good of the people? Just turn a blind eye? Do nothing? I can't help that the US cares about the rest of the world, nor can I help the fact that if your country was in need of help, the US would be there to assist. - Nitron

"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb

Chris Losinger

Nitron wrote: but what is the best solution for the good of the people? do you know that up until just after 9/11, Colin Powell was working hard to ease the sanctions on the Iraqi people? he made statements to the effect that he thought "containment" was working, and that there was no need to worry about Iraq: "Iraq isn't going anywhere. It's in a fairly weakened state. It's doing some things we don't like. We'll continue to contain it. But there really was no need at this point, unless there was really quite a smoking gun, to put Iraq at the top of the list." (Powell talking to the NY Times). so, it's clear that some people in high places think (or did think, or still think but value their job more) that it might be better to help the people by bringing them into the rest of the world, rather than by bombing them. -c

When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.

Bobber!

yaname

Nitron wrote: It's much harder knowing you were responsible than dealing with the tragedy IMO. I'm sure the innocent victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have gladly switched places.

jan larsen

:omg::wtf: Nitron wrote: It's much harder knowing you were responsible than dealing with the tragedy IMO. Try to apply this to Nazis/Jews, gives a hole new angle doesn't it? "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus

jan larsen

Rohit Sinha wrote: And besides, I think it can be argued that because the US has used those weapons, they know what kind of catastrophic effect it can have, and don't want it to happen again. The continuing process of developing and testing those weapons, says that this is NOT the case, allthough they probably wants to be the only nation with WMD capabilities. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus

jan larsen

Nitron wrote: No. Just take them out of the hands of people who wouldn't hesitate to use them. I am pretty certain the US would surely "hesitate", as would other countries who have such power. Maybe you didn't notice, but your government has said it would like to be able to use nuclear weapons in preemptive strikes. Nitron wrote: Well, not when oil's involved. From what I can tell is that France and Russia don't want in on it because they have oil deals that they don't want to lose. Although only the US is is interested in the oil What about that makes it un-democratic?... "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus

Nitron

You forgot to read the last part of the message: But then again, the US is probably the only country with a conscience, so other people probably wouldn't understand. - Nitron

"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb

jan larsen

I DID read it, but wouldn't comment on such an absurd postulate. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus

Brit

Jonny Newman wrote: I still think its [edit]funny* ironic[/edit] that the US is so anti-WMD when it is the only country to have used them against another country. (Hiroshima Nagasaki) Har har. Aren't we funny. The Germans were the first to use chemical weapons (WWI). Biological weapons are very, very old - going back to when armies would catapult corpses (dead from contagous diseases) over the walls of cities they had under seige. In more modern times, the Japanese in WWII put infectous disease into the water supply of the Chinese. And, despite the fact that the US has been involved in a number of wars since the atomic bomb was dropped, the US hasn't used atomic weapons in those wars (example: Korea and Vietnam). The proliferation of nuclear weapons means a continuous lowering of the situations in which they will be used. The US has shown its resistence to using nuclear weapons in the case of Vietnam. No one can expect that other countries will show the same degree of restraint. ------------------------------------------ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin In an encampment expecting daily attack from a powerful enemy, self-preservation is paramount to all law. - Thomas Jefferson