Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Page 1 of 8 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 76

Thread: Why Is It Ok For Usa & Uk To Have Wmd?

  1. #1
    echidna's Avatar Poster
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vladivostok
    Posts
    397
    so why should the UK and USA be openly packing these weapons, while telling others that they cannot?

    the USA maintains that their arsenal is a deterrent [this deterrrent incidentally, seemed to do nothing against the S11 kamikazes], yet it is unreasonable for N Korea to have a [much smaller] similar deterrent

    apparently it is reasonable for the USA/UK to wage war against Iraq in the name of disarmament [despite not finding any WMD]

    the USA has been blocking anti-testing and anti-missile measures for decades now, so why should we believe that they want [real] disarmament?

    why should we be concerned about the nature and actions of other regimes, when the USA blocks the formation of an international criminal court unless the USA gains immunity from war crimes prosecutions in that court?

    It seems that the politics of the big stick is the rational, and since the guy with the stick wants everyone in the middle east to drop their sticks except israel [who has a number of the biggest sticks] why should we trust that the USA is equitable in it's aspiration for peace when it wants to hold WMD indefinitely?

  2. The Drawing Room   -   #2
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    It is VERY simple.

    We sincerely believe our views to be righteous and correct.

    We can't avoid appearing arrogant, so we don't waste time trying.

    We do have the biggest and best sticks, and we carry them with pride, as (remember) our cause is righteous.

    We aren't going to give up our goodies just because YOU think we should; after all, we don't know WHO YOU ARE.

    We don't mind if friends (Israel, U.K., etc.) have big sticks, too-we trust their custodial capabilities.

    We really get nervous when countries like North Korea become nuclear-capable, because we regard them as politically unstable (remember-the decision is ours to make: big sticks, etc.)

    I could go on, but that would be....arrogant?
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

  3. The Drawing Room   -   #3
    echidna's Avatar Poster
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vladivostok
    Posts
    397
    So it is purely subjective
    do you accept that many people in N Korea might feel the same way about their sticks as you do about the USAs?
    both the USA and N Korea have been talking up the fight for years so both should have the right to fear [although i quite sure that the USA is the more fearsome - who have you seen N Korea attack in the last 40 odd years? while i can think of at least 6 nations that the USA has attacked during that time

    i don't beleive that US/UK interests are or have been historically righteous or correct quite the contrary
    [and i'm from an ex UK colony so i'm supposed to be part of the 'willing' gang]

    BTW israels primary reason for gaining nuclear capability is to act as leverage against the USA, so that the USA essencially cannot restrain israel
    [israel has been and is a good regional pit bull for the USA, but if you really wanted to reign them in and they felt threatened enough, they would simply start a nuclear escalation which the USA couldn't stand
    israel has had total military dominance in the reagion thanx to US support well before they declared their capability, they have no need of a deterrent apart from their overwhelming conventional forces]

    my point is that i and a lot of people around the world think that WMD just make the world a lot more dangerous not any safer
    did the deterrent have any efficacy upon the S11 kamikases? i doubt it
    but i'm sure that the overwhelming perception of arrogance impressed upon them

    PS why particularly did the USA think that bombing the rubble where afganistan used to be, would punish the S11 crew? [ie. the saudis]
    saudi A is still touted as nominally a US ally in the region despite the fact that almost all of the S11 hijackers where saudi and that saudi A provides far more support for 'anti-american' fundamentalism than afganistan could provide it's own people
    PPS are you of the opinion also that guns don't kill people, people do? also why do you characterise killing machines as 'goodies'? and why do you 'really get nervous' when you've got the best and biggest sticks

  4. The Drawing Room   -   #4
    FuNkY CaPrIcOrN's Avatar Poster
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Louisville Kentucky
    Age
    42
    Posts
    7,412
    *EDIT*

    Not going to get into this.Too busy drinking my Beer and eating Steak.....God Bless America.

    *EDIT*

  5. The Drawing Room   -   #5
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    Echidna-

    I should have also mentioned (by way of clarification) that our foreign policy decisions are made with the aid of a crystal ball of unknown origin and an ancient, dog-eared book that only Bush is allowed to read.

    That is to say, we keep our own council; ex-U.K. colonials are not normally part of the President's advisory staff.

    I hereby turn you over to Mr. FuNkY CaPrIcOrN, who may or may not choose to "Tell you why..".

    FC-if you please?
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

  6. The Drawing Room   -   #6
    echidna's Avatar Poster
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vladivostok
    Posts
    397
    i know too well that the USA keeps it own council
    it's probably why most of the world don't agree

    the system of crystal balls and the old book seems a bit reckless
    with the firepower at your disposal
    is this a new system dubya has instituted? what did you do for the hundreds of years before that?

  7. The Drawing Room   -   #7
    Rat Faced's Avatar Broken
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Newcasil
    Age
    52
    Posts
    9,076
    That is to say, we keep our own council; ex-U.K. colonials are not normally part of the President's advisory staff.
    So.......there is no one from the East Coast of the USA on his advisory staff?














    Had to get that in.....

    An It Harm None, Do What You Will

  8. The Drawing Room   -   #8
    Rat Faced's Avatar Broken
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Newcasil
    Age
    52
    Posts
    9,076
    As to the topic....


    Ever hear of Pandora's Box?

    The USA, UK, France, USSR, China, Israel etc etc etc etc have all got NBC capability, and once attained, there is no going back. You cant unlearn the knowledge.....much as i wish we could.

    You have to therefore try and stop the spread of this technology the best you can, which is fair enough, and everyone (or most people ) would agree with it.

    To use this 'fact' as a political weapon on issues that have absolutely nothing to do with NBC...as was the case recently, is immoral.

    To then not defend Hospitals from the looting of desperatly needed medical supplies because no troops were available....while they are available to defend the Ministry of Oil (where there was no threat) is also immoral.

    The slaughter of people that dont agree with your point of view (Saddam, the early years) is also immoral.


    What im getting at is that there is NO right answer, and so attacking one country for an immoral act that cant be corrected (eg possesion of NBC) is in its own way 'immoral', you have offered no way of safely disposing of all the crap we have made......in fact im not sure that there IS a way. Even if (and that is an IF that is verging on the impossible) you got ALL the powers involved to totaly disarm in this way. If only 1 country didnt, then no one would.


    Please forgive my use of the word "Moral", which should NEVER be used in political debate, as what is moral one place is immoral in another...and neither of the places has a right to judge on the other.

    Unfortunatly I cant think of another word that expresses the opinion, but is universally acknowledged...Im just a drunk uneducated Brit............without a large map of the world on his wall either.

    An It Harm None, Do What You Will

  9. The Drawing Room   -   #9
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    Rat-
    It's a tough go all around when it comes down to the 'WHY' of things.

    I have a theory I can currently apply only to the U.S.:

    As our President is limited to two four-year terms, the U.S. can only pursue (with any degree of coordinated resolve) any particular path for eight years; not really long enough to effect (with any real assurance) long-term change-that is to say, changes cannot be etched in stone.

    The effect of this circumstance is, for purposes here, two-fold:

    No 'good' or 'worthwhile' plan or philosophy can be safeguarded from interference or outright repeal; the ultimate political check.

    Likewise, no 'bad' or 'worthless' plan/philosophy would survive, either.

    So-the only influence, or sustaining force, for any idea-good or bad-must ultimately stem from the citizens who either will or will not be swayed.
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

  10. The Drawing Room   -   #10
    echidna's Avatar Poster
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vladivostok
    Posts
    397
    i must disagree the USA has been running an arms race time trial
    This is a lot of militarism
    i think that the US knows but won't admit that it is more politicaly expedient, to distract and profiteer though oil and arms trading manipulated by conflict propagation with or 'official' US deployments, in order to ignore the fact that the USA needs to address it's internal economy and trade deficit
    The scale of domestic poverty crime and the prison population is already the stuff of legend, people must notice but are still unswayed to spend their tax on other than like this:
    Reagans last go in 1989 was $376.2 billion [or was that bush 1 & co.]
    George Bush [part I] military budgets were as follows:
    1990 358.7 billion
    1991 316.5 billion
    1992 328.6 billion
    1993 312.1 billion
    Clinton's military budgets (during his first term) were as follows:
    1994 290.3 billion
    1995 272.1 billion
    1996 265.6 billion
    1997 254.4 billion
    Clinton's military budgets (during his second term) were as follows:
    1998 265.3 billion
    1999 270.6 billion
    2000 280.8 billion
    2001 305.4 billion
    2002 343.2 billion
    2003 396.1 billion reference
    it is very consistent and who knows how much the CIA turns over
    these funds prop up vast amounts of the US economy
    and goes to encorage intense resentment in the majority world where these funds end up causing death, pain and suffering

    i think i can remember some other states with central planning and millions of people working for the governmet

Page 1 of 8 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •