So when did Saddam comply with the terms of the treaty he signed after he failed to invade a neighbor and provide the UN with proof of the destruction of his arsenal?

Mabye Eple or Harmless Rabbit can provide that documentation for me?

First of all, what the hell are you talking about? I don't know where you would get the idea that i think that the us is morally equivalent to north korea, or even that i think of things in term of moral superiority. Why do you capitalize YOU like somehow i am selfish to expect you to actually address something i posted when you quote it.
Its not about addressing what i think is more important, it is about quoting me and then making a jump from what i said to something that is not at all anywhere near what i said.
I merely said it was hypocritical, which it is for the us to try to deny other countries what we have used to our advantage. Nuclear weapons.

Your earlier reply to that:How are those even related? Were you attempting to imply that i was advocating nuclear proliferation? That i think that everyone should have equal access to nuclear weapons? I don't think anyone should have nukes. Maybe i just misread you because there is nothing in my post that says anything like that. You also didn't say it wasn't hypocritical, so am i to just assume then that your reply contains implicit agreement with what i said in mine? Yes, that is what i will do. Thank you for implicitly agreeing with me about america's hypocritical stance on nuclear weapons.

I don't care what you say, just don't quote me and then make an unwarranted jump in logic in an attempt to discredit me. Just because i say it is hypocritcal doesn't mean i want everyone to have nuclear weapons.

Thats good, so you don't mind if we stop them?

I don't believe anyone should have nuclear weapons, i also think that in a pefect world the us, or russia, wouldn't have opened this can of worms. I know the world probably wouldn't be a better place if anyone could get their hands on a nuclear arsenal. I don't think that n. korea should have nuclear weapons, but i don't see how the us is in any position to deny them that and not look like the hypocrites that we are.

You do know that so far nuclear weapons have saved more lives then they have taken? In a perfect world we wouldn't have been attacked by Japan in 1941 and then been faced with the most massive invasion in history in 1945, one that would put D-Day to shame.

I don't care if we look like a hypocrite. This is about survival and world power, its not a game. If some backwards nation like N.Korea wants to be a nuclear power, its in our best interest to prevent it. Its not about being fair.

Unless you have some statistics from the bizarro nonnuclear universe to back up that claim i don't think you can make it.

We don't just look like hypocrites, we are hypocrites. But i agree, it appears to be in our best interest that n. korea stays nuke free.

Minor correction - "....what we have used to THE WORLDS advantage." That's not an arrogant statement, that is a fact. If someone's gotta have em, bet your ass the civilized world would unanimously vote for us to be in control of 'em.

Before you say it - france ain't civilized.

In my opinion, we need to let Israel deal with Iraq, Russia and China deal with NK, and we just mind our own business.

If they can't do it, THEN we help. But in my opinion we need to fix our OWN problems before we deal with anyone else's.

At this point i highly doubt that the rest of the world would want us to be the sole controllers of nuclear weapons. Not after the commencement of the current administration's "strike first ask questions later" policy. And please explain to me how we have used nukes to the world's advantage more than to our own.

I think that the civilized world would be just fine if there were no nuclear weapons. You'll notice that the only people who really want them now are us and third world dictators. What kind of company does that put America in?

So France doesnt want them? England? They have them, and France tested them in 94.

You mean after the "ten years of bullshit and spin", who gives a flying fuck what other countries want. Here in America we are only accountable to our own people, you know, consent of the governed?

"So THAT's where Saaddamn hid 'em!"

This is such a naive post.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ustwo
[B]You do know that so far nuclear weapons have saved more lives then they have taken? In a perfect world we wouldn't have been attacked by Japan in 1941 and then been faced with the most massive invasion in history in 1945, one that would put D-Day to shame.

Can you illucidate a little here? Where would this massive invasion have been? Im not following.

Estimates say that to get Japan to surrender would have cost 100,000 Japanese lives and up to 60, 000 American lives. The bombs reduced the number drastically.

Well basically if we wouldn't have dropped the bombs we probably were looking at an invasion of Japan which very easily could've taken us out of the war if we would've failed. The bomb was a quick secure finish.

If your going to say some one has Wmd and go to war over it, you better be able to pass the test yourself. The US has some of the exact same weapons we were saying Iraq had, so we should get rid of them also.

Why Sante Fe?

What is your reason? We are not playing schoolyard games. We are playing a game called survival. Everyone knows we have nukes, chemical weapons and most likely bios too. Who is calling for us to dismantle? Only people IN the us that are being protected by those same weapons.

Look at Saddam's posturing, Look at N Korea's do you think they would get rid of their weapons if we got rid of ours? If we disarm, we will be vulerable to attack.

Do you honestly thing the Saddams, Stalins, Hitlers, Tojos, Ayatolla's and others to play your fair ball game? If they did, they wouldnt be the murderers they are. And with Europe's and the world track record of apeasement and waiting too long, The US's bombs are the main thing to stop the next one before it gets out of hand.

The whole Hiroshima thing isnt that clear cut. There are still heeps of prominant historians who disagree about the need to drop two nuclear weapons on Japan. There are very strong arguments for both sides. I personally hugely doubt weather there would have been a massive invasion of the USA though.

The power of the UN was meant to fluxuate with outside conditions after WWII. After Wilson's League of Nations essentially failed the day Pearl Harbor was bombed, the agenda of the UN changed. There's no way to get back to it until Armageddon comes along...

I think the invasion referred to above was the necessary invasion of Japan (if we hadn't dropped the bombs), which would have cost a huge amount of American lives.

The stastics I have read (in my 25yrs as a Naval Officer) indicated that we would lose approximately the same number of casualties as we had already incurred in the Pacific theatre by invading Japan.

I know we had plans to invade Hokkaido in the fall of 1945 and Tokyo in the Spring of 46. That is the massive invasion.

The dropping of the two bombs saved American lives which was the goal. George Patten said "our job is not to be brave enough to die for our country but to be good enough to help the other poor bastard die for his"

Istill believe that. We don'live in a perfect world where everyone plays by the rules or abides by treaties.

Here's the quote from General Patton:

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

Actually the number estimated was 2-3 million Japanese lives and 200,000, to 500,000 American casualties. This was based off the resistance we faced in Okinawa and the suicidal nature of the Japanese civilians there. They jumped off cliffs rather then surrender to the US forces who they assumed were going to do horrible things to them. Anyone who thinks Japan would have surrendered without the A-bombs being dropped doesn't understand the mentality of the WWII Japanese. Even after the bombings it was only the direct intervention of Hirohito that got the armed forces to surrender (and they still tried a coup d’etat). My grandfather at the time was on a transport waiting to invade the main land. He was a survivor of the Iwo Jima invasion, and said everyone on the ship thought he was going to die in Japan had the invasion taken place.

Any historian who thinks that Japan would have surrendered without an invasion and without the use of the A-bomb is just someone trying to wish away history. The Japanese main strategy for the invasion was to cause as MANY US causalities as possible, and hope that the high death toll would make Americans back home lose stomach for the war and allow Japan a negotiated surrender. Even as it was, we did not get an unconditional Japanese surrender since we let the Emperor remain and not face war crime charges. Contrary to what was said in the press, the Emperor was NOT a figurehead but was deeply involved in the war and sanctioned such activities as the bio-weapons program in China, and he was well aware of the conditions of the US/UK/AU prisoners of war. We thought it worth keeping him, rather then face the invasion.

Ummm.... Yes, we have lot and lots of them! But, we don't use them on our own population or to invade other countries.

Saving lives was not the primary issue. The Soviets were already moving troops into Kamchatka to launch an invasion. The bombs were dropped to hasten the surrender of Japan to the US, and avoid a possible partition issue with the Soviets.

We still would have dropped them either way. From a damage standpoint we could have killed just as many firebombing the cities (like we did in Tokyo) but we knew the psychological impact was needed. The fact that Russia was doing a land grab made ending the war more urgent, but it was still up to the Japanese.

Apparently matthew330 does because he is the one who said
Actually, one way or another we are accountable to the rest of the world. Contrary to what you may think, we aren't actually the only country in the world, in fact, there are actually a lot more people who aren't americans, than there are people who are america.

Okay, Einsteins, what threat does the US present toward freedom loving peoples over the world?

I hope that United States has more control over there womd than Irak had. So it is not needed to be controlled by UN.

I hope that they never is going to be used. Not even one.

Are any of you really afraid of your government or are you just looking for a reason to bitch?

So we saved Soviet, Japanese and American lives. ISnt that a good thing?

Absolutely, I firmly support our use of atomic weapons against Japan.

Well, why is the States dictating what "Freedom" is for countries that do not have the same culture?

They also bully countries economically.

And in referance to an earlier post saying that a country cannot get rid of their weapons for doing so the countries that have them will use them....
what about the countries that don't have any right now? Why aren't they being attacked? I also think that if a leader is crazy enough to use them, it doesn't matter if the target country has them as well.
Just my opinion.

How are we dictating what Freedom is???

By going in and blowing up their cities looking for WMD's, not finding any then looking around and saying "We freed you!", be happy.

Prosegeunce,

You would rather live in Saddam Iraq or the IRaq with 80% locally democratic leaders? Where you are now getting paid to work? And the IRaq were you can talk without getting killed for it?

I pick Canada. Thanks for asking.
WHICH do YOU think I should take? Do I have an option now?

I have trouble believing the Bible in most aspects, but I believe there are people that beileve it to be true. I agree and disagree with what you said here.

I disagree in the fact there is a way if religion and greed could be set aside there would be a fighting chance,

I agree in the fact that what you said probably is the case.