the stranger Posted February 10, 2003 Posted February 10, 2003 Here's the part I don't understand... How can we demand that other countries disarm, when we are in possession of the same weapons? (Iraq, Korea...) How can be scorn other countries for backing out of treaties when the Bush admin set this very precedent from day one? (Korea...) I could go on and on, but these two seem to be the main two right now...
realtrance Posted February 10, 2003 Posted February 10, 2003 None of it really matters any more, the war will start soon... damn. rt
NOT Bolt Rifles Posted February 10, 2003 Posted February 10, 2003 Hi stranger, [quote]How can we demand that other countries disarm, when we are in possession of the same weapons? (Iraq, Korea...) [/quote]Because we believe our way of life is better than theirs, and that we are less likley to use our weapons for immoral purposes.. [quote]How can be scorn other countries for backing out of treaties when the Bush admin set this very precedent from day one? (Korea...) [/quote]North Korea was in breach of the treaty before Bush came into office, it just was not widely publicised. "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams "I am a senior member, and thereby entilted to all the privileges and rights accorded said status" -- NBR
Dylan Posted February 10, 2003 Posted February 10, 2003 Because since the first and only time we used nukes we have not used them since. If Saddam or Bin Laden had nukes they would not hesiate for a momement to use them.
big K Posted February 10, 2003 Posted February 10, 2003 The world is a bias place.. everyone thinks that they are right and everyone else is worng. The more likly reality is that we are all wrong. You bring up a good point. Odd how we all strive to kill each other.. but do we really want to ? consider this.. middle of L.A. we place a set of big red buttons - these buttons detonate atomic bombs in oooo lets say the capital city of russia, afgan. china.. and who ever else you happen not to like..... then what we do is go to EACH of those cityies and place the same buttons to blow up L.A. washington new york. Same in the middle east. SO .. how long until some one hits a button - OR will we all realize that hey I really don't hate these people that much .. lets see if we can work though this? just food for thought, .. I don't know what I am talking about anyway. I think we all get nukes, or non of us do. don't ask some one to disarm will you still hold yours... like asking some one to put down their gun while you point yours at them.
NOT Bolt Rifles Posted February 10, 2003 Posted February 10, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by big K: [b]The world is a bias place.. everyone thinks that they are right and everyone else is worng. The more likly reality is that we are all wrong. You bring up a good point. Odd how we all strive to kill each other.. but do we really want to ? consider this.. middle of L.A. we place a set of big red buttons - these buttons detonate atomic bombs in oooo lets say the capital city of russia, afgan. china.. and who ever else you happen not to like..... then what we do is go to EACH of those cityies and place the same buttons to blow up L.A. washington new york. Same in the middle east. SO .. how long until some one hits a button - OR will we all realize that hey I really don't hate these people that much .. lets see if we can work though this? just food for thought, .. I don't know what I am talking about anyway. I think we all get nukes, or non of us do. don't ask some one to disarm will you still hold yours... like asking some one to put down their gun while you point yours at them.[/b][/quote]Big K, I cannot agree, there are some who would use nukes to destroy the world, it is up to us to see that they do not get the chance to do that. Unfortunatly, usually that can only be accomplished by having/using superior force. "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams "I am a senior member, and thereby entilted to all the privileges and rights accorded said status" -- NBR
Alndln Posted February 10, 2003 Posted February 10, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by the stranger: [b] How can we demand that other countries disarm, when we are in possession of the same weapons? (Iraq, Korea...) [/b][/quote]Only countries that refuse to join the nuclear club and play by the rules.The world cannot tolerate a rouge nation that puts itself in a position of wiping out the planet any time they feel like it. "A Robot Playing Trumpet Blows"
Jeebus Posted February 10, 2003 Posted February 10, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by lliB_retsoF: [b]Because we believe our way of life is better than theirs, and that we are less likley to use our weapons for immoral purposes..[/b][/quote]You mean like attacking Iraq for oil?
Mats Olsson. Posted February 10, 2003 Posted February 10, 2003 Not only do I oppose the planned attacks on Iraq, I also despise the tactics of the warlords. [url=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/31/1043804520548.html]US is misquoting my Iraq report, says Blix [/url] . What else are they lying about? (or rather, when was the last time they told the truth?) If they want allies, they better stick to honesty, as I see it, all credibility is lost. /Mats http://www.lexam.net/peter/carnut/man.gif What do we want? Procrastination! When do we want it? Later!
strat0124 Posted February 10, 2003 Posted February 10, 2003 Propaganda has filtered even to PBS, and I distrust even more than I ever have in my life. I love my country and its almost like watching a loved one drain away from disease, watching the cruel and damning tactics used to justify the end. Everytime I hear a politico say "protect our interests".....I wanna say....WHAT INTERESTS????? And define OUR. I hope that the people become de-anesthesized from the veil of propaganda and realize that the king has no clothes. Our political system is self-serving and places little emphasis on the individual, except on paper and soundbites. They all talk in soundbites and don't dare to venture out beyond the talking points. I pray we don't have to have total collapse of the government to fix it. Pray hard. God is not a Republican...or a Democrat. Jerry Falwell...do you hear that? Down like a dollar comin up against a yen, doin pretty good for the shape I'm in
P_J Posted February 10, 2003 Posted February 10, 2003 [quote] Because we believe our way of life is better than theirs, and that we are less likley to use our weapons for immoral purposes.. [/quote]Excuse my finglish, but that is exactly where US has gone wrong. You people are not alone in this planet, so you should listen to other "members", too. There is no doubt about that Saddam has to go, but war must be the very last alternative. With eyes of many european, the US is now the one to use weapons for immoral purposes. One country can't be the judge, it has to be UN's role. It's pretty scary how fast US government has broke the strong terror war alliance by childish statements we have heard during the last weeks. I think the "old Europe" is wiser because of their patience.. war is not a game! Ups.. normally I'm just lurking these politics topics .. but those B. Foster's staments (all over these forums) made me come outdoors. Back to the hiding place.
whitefang Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 I don't understand why the question was asked. Isn't hypocrasy our Gross National Product? Whitefang I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left!
Abnorm Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 [quote] How can we demand that other countries disarm, when we are in possession of the same weapons? [/quote]Good point, STRANGER. We are apparently so arrogant that we feel we have the right to tell other countries what leaders they can have, what form of government they should have, and what weapons they can own. Amazing! And we let Israel keep their nukes, but we won't let any of their neighbors have them. Well, their neighbors are going to have them eventually. We shall see what happens then. :cry:
ViLo Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by the stranger: [b]Here's the part I don't understand... How can we demand that other countries disarm, when we are in possession of the same weapons? (Iraq, Korea...) How can be scorn other countries for backing out of treaties when the Bush admin set this very precedent from day one? (Korea...) I could go on and on, but these two seem to be the main two right now...[/b][/quote]Because they attacked first.{killing civilians] Because sep/11 it was not the first Attack Because they call us Satan! Because they say it very loud "we hate America" And because THEY ARE CRAZY EXTREMIST'S! Jesus Is Coming, Make Music, Get Ready!
BlueSky Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by the stranger: [b]Here's the part I don't understand... How can we demand that other countries disarm, when we are in possession of the same weapons? (Iraq, Korea...) How can be scorn other countries for backing out of treaties when the Bush admin set this very precedent from day one? (Korea...) I could go on and on, but these two seem to be the main two right now...[/b][/quote]With regard to possession of the same weapons - By law and treaty the US has destroyed and/or is destroying all of its chemical and biologic stockpiles. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/index.html "In 1993, the United States signed the UN-sponsored Chemical Weapons Convention. In October 1996, the 65th nation ratified the convention making the treaty effective on April 29, 1997. Through ratification, the United States agreed to dispose of its unitary chemical weapons stockpile, binary chemical weapons, recovered chemical weapons, and former chemical weapon production facilities by April 29, 2007, and miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel by April 29, 2002." "In anticipation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, President Nixon terminated the United States offensive biological weapons program by executive order. The United States adopted a policy to never use biological weapons, including toxins, under any circumstances whatsoever. National Security Decisions 35 and 44, issued during November 1969 (microorganisms) and February 1970 (toxins), mandated the cessation of offensive biological research and production, and the destruction of the biological arsenal. Research efforts were directed exclusively to the development of defensive measures such as diagnostic tests, vaccines, and therapies for potential biological weapons threats. Stocks of pathogens and the entire biological arsenal were destroyed between May 1971 and February 1973 under the auspices of the US Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Departments of Natural Resources of Arkansas, Colorado, and Maryland. Small quantities of some pathogens were retained at Fort Detrick to test the efficacy of investigational preventive measures and therapies." With regard to nuclear weapons - This is not about being fair. The international treaties that address this issue are clear and nonproliferation of nuclear weapons is something most nations agree upon. With regard to the ABM treaty - This treaty was written for a time where mutually assured destruction was saving us from war. This is no longer the case and we are not developing a system to protect us from 100's of missiles, but more like 1 to 10 at a time. So mutually assured destruction is still valid and Russia and most nations are OK with this. No offence intended... Pascal Sijen Co-Founer www.abluesky.com
RobT Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Geenard Skeenard: [b] God is not a Republican...or a Democrat. Jerry Falwell...do you hear that?[/b][/quote]Amen to that brudda! RobT Famous Musical Quotes: "I would rather play Chiquita Banana and have my swimming pool than play Bach and starve" - Xavier Cugat
the stranger Posted February 13, 2003 Author Posted February 13, 2003 I would also like to ask all these pro war people what there religious affiliation is, too. I'm sure we could find some more glaring examples of hypocrisy.
whitefang Posted February 13, 2003 Posted February 13, 2003 Religion without hypocrasy is like a morning without orange juice. :thu: Whitefang I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left!
Chip McDonald Posted February 13, 2003 Posted February 13, 2003 It doesn't matter. Right now King George and the Republicans are busy blowing up not only Iraq - but NATO, by calling Germany and France everything in the book publicly, under the pretense that *Turkey* was attacked? Turkey? Maybe after the war starts, but not *yet*. King George had about a two week window of opportunity there where he *could* have gotten the world to back him in doing just about anything. Instead, we don't know *what* was going on with the U.S. government those few weeks... and now it's sort of a bit too late, and we're going to level Iraq at the expense of what has been built with NATO; presuming something happens later on to the U.S. - let's say North Korea gets kooky - they're not going to be there. Something to consider. Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien
sign Posted February 13, 2003 Posted February 13, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b]It doesn't matter. Right now King George and the Republicans are busy blowing up not only Iraq - but NATO, by calling Germany and France everything in the book publicly, under the pretense that *Turkey* was attacked? Turkey? Maybe after the war starts, but not *yet*. King George had about a two week window of opportunity there where he *could* have gotten the world to back him in doing just about anything. Instead, we don't know *what* was going on with the U.S. government those few weeks... and now it's sort of a bit too late, and we're going to level Iraq at the expense of what has been built with NATO; presuming something happens later on to the U.S. - let's say North Korea gets kooky - they're not going to be there. Something to consider.[/b][/quote]Glad to know there are some intelligent Americans left. Blowing up NATO will be very dangerous for the western world. The Netherlands will sent their Patriots to the Turkish border and guess who will deliver the Patriot rockets? Right: Germany!! King George and his friends keep on telling lies about almost everything that happens here. The French are not dumb nor cowards, and so are the Germans. They have learned their lesson. Yesterday I saw a Dutch young boy and his father on TV. The kid has signed for the US army and talked about his motivations. Scary, these boys have no fucking clue what will happen with their life the coming time. "When I come back I will be respected for the rest of my life" he said. Oh well. His father took him to a press conference with Rumsfeld in order to give the boy seccond thoughts. Father: my son who's a European has signed for etc.......how many casualties do you expect to be reasonable? Rumsfeld: The Iraque soldiers bla bla......but an answer? NOT! just running around in circles. The alchemy of the masters moving molecules of air, we capture by moving particles of iron, so that the poetry of the ancients will echo into the future.
Philip OKeefe Posted February 13, 2003 Posted February 13, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by big K: [b]I think we all get nukes, or non of us do. don't ask some one to disarm will you still hold yours... like asking some one to put down their gun while you point yours at them.[/b][/quote]There's a significant difference. If someone comes into MY house, kills some of MY people and then someone else walks in and offers to sell them "better" weapons with which to kill MORE people, then you'd better believe MY guns are coming out, and everything in my power that I can do to prevent those sales is going to be done. I'll defend myself and my family. The DPRK (N. Korea) and Iraq are both thugs. They both support terrorism and weapons proliferation. Neither can be trusted. Sorry, but that's my assessment. Yes, we have nukes. They want them. But what we do with ours vs. what they'll do with theirs are two completely different things. And the thought of a old, battered ship steaming up the Hudson with a small nuke aboard is too horrible to contemplate. Sadly, I fear that something like that happening is also only a matter of time unless we take very serious measures. :eek: IOW, I see us (the USA) using our "guns" as a defensive tool, while others want to use their "guns" to come into our house and kill our people. Yes, the USA is the only country to use nuclear arms in a conflict, but I think that, under the circumstances, that was the correct decision, as horrible as it was. An invasion of Japan would have cost countless more lives - both Japaneese as well as Americans, and an American president (in that case, Truman - a Democrat) made what I feel was the right decision - the lives of Americans being his primary responsibility. But while I can't see the USA using nuclear arms to go blow up downtown Baghdad "just because we don't like them", I CAN see Iraq or al-Qaida or the DPRK doing so. Al Qaida is responsible for thousands of American civilian lives lost here in the USA. Iraq gassed both Iranians as well as their own people (the Kurds) and has invaded neighboring countries. The DPRK also invaded their neighbors to the South, and are still technically at war with them. Such countries can not be allowed access to the most deadly and destructive weapons known to humankind. The potential consequences of allowing that are far too horrible to risk based on the historical record.
Aaron Carey Posted February 13, 2003 Posted February 13, 2003 Man some real sillyiness and typical rich brat whining going on...no surprise so hypocrites, we cant tell korea that they cant have nukes, but you all can tell turkey that they cant have an ANTI missile DEFENSE system? cool who are these morons that think iraq is about oil? Sadam offered us oil CHEAP many many many times, why wouldnt we just get it if this were for oil ? pretty much and about america declaring war and attacking iraq, sorry those with no memory whatsoever, the Gulf war of 91 never ended. The VERY things we're trying to enforce now are part of the articles of surrender so, since they never did comply, the war never ended. "damn those dirty americans, protecting us from the soviets all these years and feeding and medicating the world...how dare they" yeah americans have no rights to defend themselves
Yuri T. Posted February 13, 2003 Posted February 13, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Aaron Carey: [b]Man some real sillyiness and typical rich brat whining going on...no surprise so hypocrites, we cant tell korea that they cant have nukes, but you all can tell turkey that they cant have an ANTI missile DEFENSE system? cool who are these morons that think iraq is about oil? Sadam offered us oil CHEAP many many many times, why wouldnt we just get it if this were for oil ? pretty much and about america declaring war and attacking iraq, sorry those with no memory whatsoever, the Gulf war of 91 never ended. The VERY things we're trying to enforce now are part of the articles of surrender so, since they never did comply, the war never ended. "damn those dirty americans, protecting us from the soviets all these years and feeding and medicating the world...how dare they" yeah americans have no rights to defend themselves[/b][/quote]A couple good points. So many have forgotten about the end of the Gulf War and the fact that this is still an extension of it. We could have occupied Iraq and dealt with Saddam then but didn't. Saddam made a deal with the U.N. He reneged on it kicking out the inspectors. It's been years in the making. 9/11 just triggered a response. However, I would like to see just a little more patience and diplomacy from our administration though. Tact is not George's strong suit and dissing longtime allies is not the way to go. Plus Rumsfeld seems to have a "Shoot first and ask questions later" attitude. Still, many europeans don't want to get involved because then they too could be terror targets because they sided with us. Some would be well served to visit Normandy and see whose graves are there. Maybe remember whose boys fell for them in the first big one too. The US wasn't even attacked and we went. We may not be perfect but we were always there for 'em. Now we're the bad guy? All of this Anti-Americanism from europe is a slap in the face as far as I'm concerned. Sure, make nice to the big guy when your ass is in trouble. Afterwords turn your nose up at him and call him names. Besides this may be just the kind of diversion Al Qeada wanted. So many resources used up by the Iraq standoff. That will affect our deficit and economy for years to come. Economy in the dumps from war and terrorism fears. The world divided over Iraq and Israel. Sounds just perfect for Bin Laden. His plan might have been even better thought out than it seems. Remember the targets Twin Towers (symbol of our economy), Pentagon (center of our military power).
aliengroover Posted February 13, 2003 Posted February 13, 2003 Okay, I usually don't get involved with discussions like this but... I'm not going to say the US is practicing hypocrisy, but there's something really funky going on. This whole "weapons of mass destruction" is a load of crap. Yes, I'd assume Iraq has them, but who doesn't nowadays. All of a "sudden" these cats are a threat and we have to send some kids to unleash hell upon them. Okay...so where was this gung ho-ness with the USSR and China? And this whole "bomb the hell out of coutries who support terrorism"? I'm looking up and I don't see any bombs being dropped. Look, if you're going to attack Iraq, stop being political and just come out and say why. Stop with this looming threat nonsense and be for real. Biological weapons? Yeah, they'd use them, but at this stage I doubt it. Nuclear? NOBODY nowadays would dare use them because of one single reason: if you use them you know without a shadow of a doubt that as soon as yours are launched all hell will break loose, as everybody else with one will decide it's the "right" time to launch. And that's because in the case of somebody like Iraq, the targets wouldn't just be the US, and the other countries will not just sit there and not strike back HARD, with nuclear firepower if they have it. The only two countries that could do it and not have anybody else involved would be India and Pakistan. And the problem there is you'd be STUPID to launch weapons like that at your neighbor. This whole situation bothers me. Somebody's not talking. Peace If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking 'til you do suck seed!
Mats Olsson. Posted February 13, 2003 Posted February 13, 2003 To use the "you got help in WW2" argument to justify the START of a war is just plain stupid. If US was at war on their own turf, I'm sure that all European countries would help out really good. The attack on Iraq is a totally different scenario, at the moment there is NO war - but GWB & company wants to start one. From a lot of political, ethical and humanitarian perspectives is starting a war way way different from trying to stop a war. /Mats http://www.lexam.net/peter/carnut/man.gif What do we want? Procrastination! When do we want it? Later!
Gtoledo3 Posted February 13, 2003 Posted February 13, 2003 Right now Bush is making a speech. The gentleman before him actually called the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, unprovoked! I'm sorry, they were terrible, and I even lost people close to me, but you can hardly call the attacks unprovoked. Want mix/tracking feedback? Checkout "The Fade"- www.grand-designs.cc/mmforum/index.php The soon-to-be home of the "12 Bar-Blues Project"
ViLo Posted February 13, 2003 Posted February 13, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Philip O'Keefe: [b] [quote]Originally posted by big K: [b]I think we all get nukes, or non of us do. don't ask some one to disarm will you still hold yours... like asking some one to put down their gun while you point yours at them.[/b][/quote]There's a significant difference. If someone comes into MY house, kills some of MY people and then someone else walks in and offers to sell them "better" weapons with which to kill MORE people, then you'd better believe MY guns are coming out, and everything in my power that I can do to prevent those sales is going to be done. I'll defend myself and my family. The DPRK (N. Korea) and Iraq are both thugs. They both support terrorism and weapons proliferation. Neither can be trusted. Sorry, but that's my assessment. Yes, we have nukes. They want them. But what we do with ours vs. what they'll do with theirs are two completely different things. And the thought of a old, battered ship steaming up the Hudson with a small nuke aboard is too horrible to contemplate. Sadly, I fear that something like that happening is also only a matter of time unless we take very serious measures. :eek: IOW, I see us (the USA) using our "guns" as a defensive tool, while others want to use their "guns" to come into our house and kill our people. Yes, the USA is the only country to use nuclear arms in a conflict, but I think that, under the circumstances, that was the correct decision, as horrible as it was. An invasion of Japan would have cost countless more lives - both Japaneese as well as Americans, and an American president (in that case, Truman - a Democrat) made what I feel was the right decision - the lives of Americans being his primary responsibility. But while I can't see the USA using nuclear arms to go blow up downtown Baghdad "just because we don't like them", I CAN see Iraq or al-Qaida or the DPRK doing so. Al Qaida is responsible for thousands of American civilian lives lost here in the USA. Iraq gassed both Iranians as well as their own people (the Kurds) and has invaded neighboring countries. The DPRK also invaded their neighbors to the South, and are still technically at war with them. Such countries can not be allowed access to the most deadly and destructive weapons known to humankind. The potential consequences of allowing that are far too horrible to risk based on the historical record.[/b][/quote]Exactly Phil, Why is this so difficult to understand?? Of course I don't believe in killing anybody, or going to war, but I said it before and I say it now, to those who don'r understand and especially the ones that don't live in the US.... :rolleyes: Are we going to wait until they kill some more americans, some more innocent people?[sep/11] and then we will do something about it? Like Phil said, if somebody comes into my house and shoots my family, believe me even if I don't believe in killing I'm going to defend myself and my family. Jesus Is Coming, Make Music, Get Ready!
henryrobinett Posted February 13, 2003 Posted February 13, 2003 Reminds me that during the Cuban missle crisis, while our panties were all bunched about the Soviets bringing missles so close to our borders, we had many more nukes weapons as close to their borders in Turkey all ready to go. That's US hypocrisy. All the best, Henry Robinett
Yuri T. Posted February 13, 2003 Posted February 13, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Mats_Olsson: [b]To use the "you got help in WW2" argument to justify the START of a war is just plain stupid. If US was at war on their own turf, I'm sure that all European countries would help out really good. The attack on Iraq is a totally different scenario, at the moment there is NO war - but GWB & company wants to start one. From a lot of political, ethical and humanitarian perspectives is starting a war way way different from trying to stop a war. /Mats[/b][/quote]I think you misread me a bit. That was a response to the growing sentiment against the US and Americans in general. Nowhere did I say it was any kind of justfication. I'm very much on the fence with the Iraq situation. On the one hand. I believe in the U.N. If the UN is to be a viable and useful body for stability on the world it has to back up it's resolutions. It all good and fine to pass a resolution but when it has been flagrantly violated for ten years eventually there must be action. If your wacko neighbor is building pipe bombs in the basement and the police just said "Naughty naughty, stop doing that" what good would that do for your security? Sanctions don't work, nothing short of force has. Eventually the guy is going to use one. After he's already tested it on his own people. On the other hand. I think the US plays a double standard when it comes to Isreal. Yes it is one of the only democracies in the area. The problem is the founding of Isreal caused incredible shock waves in the Islamic world and right now neither side is giving an inch. This is the crux of the the terrorism biscuit. By the way, we can thank the British and the U.N. for a lot of these issues.
Gtoledo3 Posted February 13, 2003 Posted February 13, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Yuri T.: [b][QUOTE] I think the US plays a double standard when it comes to Isreal. Yes it is one of the only democracies in the area. The problem is the founding of Isreal caused incredible shock waves in the Islamic world and right now neither side is giving an inch. This is the crux of the the terrorism biscuit. By the way, we can thank the British and the U.N. for a lot of these issues.[/b][/quote]It always amuses me that Israel is referred to as a democracy...puh-lease :p Want mix/tracking feedback? Checkout "The Fade"- www.grand-designs.cc/mmforum/index.php The soon-to-be home of the "12 Bar-Blues Project"
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.