Weapons of MASS destruction.
 

Out of curiosity, when was the last time the US allowed the United Nations to send a team into the US and check out their weapons of mass destruction?
How willing and honest would they be?

Every country in the world should. We all have treaties and should be checked for compliance. I wonder what Bush would say when we failed the inspection.

Hmmm, I don't recall the US ever signing a peace accord which outlined UN inspections of our facilities. Perhaps when that document is signed the inspections would start.

If that were to happen, we would stop funding the UN, and then the UN would cease to exist.

Agreed. Don't expect the top dog to be willing to give up anything.

Nothing better could happen.

IMO if the UN was really what it was supposed to be (in theory) I dont think there would be a great need for WMD. The blatant hypocracy within its foundation perpetuates the absurd dog and pony show it has become.

I find it annoying it even still exsists. Everything seems to happen with a few phone calls and a diplomat here and there. Its one place the word veto will eventually shake the very foundation of the world.

To stop funding you have to start funding first.
Last Time i checked all nations of the security council were in dept (i think exept france but i'm not sure) As far as I know the US has still to pay at least $800 millions.
All in all the UN still waits for 2.6 billions (1.7 billions still from the last year ...).

Well there's that and the fact that the second largest contributer to the UN is Japan, who hasn't got a permanent seat in the UN security council and no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever - how's that for pathos?

the U.S Gov't could never stand the glare of world scrutiny and could not "project" power if they were held up to hipocracy.
The "do as I say and not as I do" operational theory is strongly at work in the U.S. I'm afraid.

Agreed and agreed!

I Agree with this.

What treaty did we sign that said we coudlnt have WMD? We have them, so does England, Russia, China, France, etc... If we sign a treaty after a failed invasion, then you have a case.

You miss the point, which as i see it is the fact that, it is hypocritical for the US to attempt to prohibit the proliferation of nuclear weapons since 1. The US opened that particular can of worms and 2. The US still has enough nukes to kill everyone on the planet THIRTY NINE TIMES OVER.

So you think its hypocritical to for the US to want Iraq, Iran and North Korea to NOT have nukes? And you base that on what logic? We dont care that France and England have them. Why? Cause all thats said and done, they are stable nations. Why you think its NOT in the Worlds best interests to stop places like Iran, IRaq and N Korea from creating nuclear stockpiles is beyond me.

Problem with that is that all UN security council members have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (in it's original form) and that people like Rumsfeld don't care about its stipulations.
No, maybe it's just hypocritical that the US won't allow inspections and that the leaders of North Korea and Iran who don't care much for inspections either, should allow inspections or risk detruction/war/invasion/etc.

And France broke the treaty by testing weapons in 94, lets inspect France!!!!! Are we still making nukes? Do we put nukes in space? That is the Non Proliferation Treaty in a nut shell.

We are not allowing inspectors? Who is calling for inspectors in the USA? When did we sign a treaty that said we would allow inspectors?


Are you for real Dami? It post like this that make me think that mabye Coulter is correct when she says liberals always work against America's best interests.

Double Post

1. Chirac is a hypocrit, has been in power for far to long and France deserves better - 2. You're saying Rumsfeld hasn't commisioned studies on "putting nukes in space"? "making small tactical nukes"? oh yeah that's right: "study, not build, new nukes" :rolleyes: just another way of using US tax payers money in a times of economical crisis :)
What made you think that Dami³ (btw hello) was a liberal? News travels fast, mind you I'm a European liberal, the kind Coulter hasn't written a book on yet :)

O you are the worst kind of liberal than. I never said anything about Rumsfeld. And were is studying against any treaty? You are shouting that we are breaking a treaty, and should be inspected, and all you have to show for proof is vitrol.

While i couldn't care less if the states allowed any auditing whatsoever, your statement is kind of funny because the US uses the UN constantly to carry out IT"S foreign policy.

If anything, the UN is runs on the whims of the USA.

For example, the USA has vetoed resolutions something like 28 times where Israeli war crimes are concerned.

Would you like me to post a list?

Or, most recently, when George W Bush went before the UN asking for and ulitimately receiving international assistance with Iraq. The United States is streteched beyond its capacity to administer a peace in Iraq.

Whether you like it or not, the usa NEEDS the UN.

The UN seems like a utility tool for the US.

Or more likely the UN and the world needs what the US can offer.

Doubtful, let’s just say we all need each other, just for kicks.

The UN is just an organization that helps those in power, stay in power.

We need a more democratic allegiance of nations.

Without the UN, we would still exist. Withouth the USA, the UN would not. And we would still be able to do everything we needed to get done.

Really???

Then why is is that George W Bush went before the UN four weeks ago on his knees looking for help / money / troops in administering the peace in Iraq???????

The entire world is snickering at him and his government.

Here's a link to Georgie Porgie's speech in September 2002 where he (Bush) was talking tough to the UN.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020912-1.html

Here's my favourite quote from that speech.....

"... Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"

Now, one year later, here's Georgie Bush on his knees before the UN General Assembly on September 24, 2003.

Here, you read it...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s952270.htm

Another damned if you do, damned if you dont senario. What is wrong with asking others to foot some of the bill for the peace and prosperity they are going to benifit from once the US did all the hard work? If it were up to Canada, France and Germany, Iraqis would still be getting killed enmass, Saddam would still be playing tricks with the world and sooner or latter a war would have happened, but on HIS terms.
The US asked for help, you turned your back, we went in. Now we ask you to chip in, and you do, once the scary part was over. I think it was rather logical, and good economic sense to ask for the nations that will benifit from this to help pay the cost. Snicker all you want, the fact is the world sold out the Iraqi people, I am snickering at the cowards in Europe that would rather say" i was right" rather than " I helped".

Just a suggestion--- Your point is promoted so much more effectively if the conversation isnt brought to a personal level. It's something I certainly have been guilty of in the past, but at the end of the post I don't see it being any better of a debate becasue of doing it nor creating solid, factual foundation for conversation that anyone lese would want to join.

Just my opinion; nothing more.

Jesus the irony is so thick. I am constantly reminded that americans have less sense of irony than Norwegians (my half-american half-gf said that, not me). Jesus I would be laughing at the whole whing as Bush went off begging for money to rebuild Iraq, but it choked as I heard haw fucking cocky every American dared be about it. IT IS A FUCKING SHAME! if I were American, I would fucking shoot myself for being in a country who screws up in such a spectacular manner. First, they go to war over some dodgy bs evidence, then they flip off the entire UN and start a pathetic "coalition"consisting mainly of countries without any relevance or power whatsoever (hello micronesia). Then they fuck up, things get more expensive than expected, and they come back going "HELLO THERE WE NEED MONAY" "DON'T YOU WANT PEACE AND PROSPERITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST? YOU BASTARD YOU!"

No I don't want our country or any other not responisble for the bombing taking the bill for some far-fetched oil adventure which fucked up. If I learn that my tax money shall go to funding an american colony, I'll collect some stones and take a walk towards the American emabssy ASAP.

For the record this american thinks it is a shame too. I think we've clearly bitten off more than we can chew and still get el presidente reelected. We don't wan't to have to deal with all the ramifications of our unilateralism on a unilateral level. So we tell the rest of the world to fuck off and then come back to panhandle with our tail between our legs.

You dont want to pay, then you dont get to take any credit when the Middle east is more stable, more peaceful and more productive in the next 20 years. I think BUsh was awful nice letting you guys have a second chance to do the right thing. And look how many nations jumped at the chance, now that the dirty work is done.

Fucked up? How in what way? Last I read, 80% of Iraq has power, food, and locally elected democratic leaders? The only problems are Tikrit and Baghdad, which are full of Party loyalists that are scared that they will loose their favored status and be held accountable for their crimes. The rest of the nation is ok. Compare that to last year, compare the deaths to last year. I would say that its been a very good success. Too bad people cant see the forest for the trees.

If things are so hunky dory, why are you asking for money, braniac?

And sure, you go ahead take the credit, i don't give a fuck, just don't take my tax-money and spend them on cleaning up your mess.

Why not ask for money? It makes sense to ask for money. And since Europe WILL benifit from a peaceful, stable Iraq, then why not ask them to pay for it? Brainiac?

So getting too big expenses and needing money was the plan from the start? Or maybe you don't really need it, since you sound so causual about it? No problem then. Europe already profited from an unstable Iraq (hello France and Germany), so don't count on their help. Here in Norway, we produce our own oil, and apart from that, what do Iraq have that we need? Are we averting major arabic attacks here? Seriously, you go fix your problems, get yourself out of it. You were the ones who told the UN how useless they were, you have no right to come and demand money now just because you took on more than you can handle.

I guess time will tell, but I doubt this action will make the middle east more stable. I am certain that the US is hated a bit more around the world, how this makes you guys safer in the long run, I don't know. Like I said..time will tell.
hehe...now thats funny...thanks for that:p It's amazing how differently people see things...wow.

THE DIRTY WORK????

Are you on crack?

THIS IS THE DIRTY WORK.

Blowing the shit out of Iraq was easy. You got to test some of your nice weapons, use them up so you need to order more from Lockhead Martin, and help feed the bottomless pit that is the industrial military complex.

Now building Iraq, that's a whole lot messier. It's going to cost WAAAAAYYYYYY more money, its already cost more americans their lives than the war, and it's going to be a quagmire.

Thanks George for letting us foreigners have a second chance. I really appreciate it. Your short myopic strategy for peace through war has enflamed an already unstable region and fed the flames of international terrorism.

Thank you james t kirk, I would have said that if i had teh brains.

This is the third time you you expressed the atitude, " We have oil so let the IRaqis die" Is this Norways take or just yours? I guess we could have taken that stance in WW2.

I am sure we were hated right after we bombed Japan but I dont think the world hates us anymore for that. 20 years down the road when Iraqis are watching HBO, getting fatter and enjoying a stable nation, terrorsits will have much fuel for their fire.

The dirty work was getting the world ready for war. It was HARD and drity to go in. It was easy and clean to say fuck it, let Saddam mess with the world, and play games untill he is ready to wage war on his terms. Bush could have done it, and he would have been loved for it. Just like Clinton did with Saddam and N Korea. But he did the the dirty work, he took out a problem before it was a major blow out. Now when helping out is the most logical conclusion, the world reluctantly is doing what is should have helped do at first.

A little raid in the middle east that turned bad is not exactly comparitable with WW2. And please, spare me for that wack logic making it NOrway's problem that you guys destroyed Iraq's infrastructure.

Let me give you a brief overview of my opinios here, so you won't need to pin any on me:

You guys attacked that country on dodgy evidence and fucked up, now you need money, and come begging to the UN including Norway for help even though you earlier told us how useless we were. I am opposed to us giving any support to your agendas, I want my tax-money to do better things than cleaning up your fucking mess.
The fucking end.

I agree on the "dirty work" tho, lying to the entire world and spreading bs to justify the war must have been hard, and it certainly was dirty.

And that is why Norway is a second rate nation with no real contribution to the world theater. When you need a hand though, feel free to call on the US, we will most likely help you out. Its what we do.

We contributed with fighter jets in Afghanistan (fucking stupid right-winger government). And some mine-seekers and oter post-war personell in Iraq. Even that is something in a war which has nothing at all to do with our interests or responsibility. Twist and turn it any way you want, the US did a war, now you must pay the bill. It's that fucking simple.

O.K. first off, we signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We haven't been proliferating nukes or nuclear materials to other countries, unlike a few suspected others. Let me say this, the Iraq War was not about just the WMD. It was about freeing an opressed nation that would help serve our interests. It's that simple. We felt that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were a threat to us, we are eliminating that threat as we speak. We are still searching for WMDs, they will be found, which is part of that threat. Stabilizing the Middle East is a goal for the United States, because of a free Iraq, the MidEast will be able to become more stable without such a rogue nation there. A stable MidEast gives a chance for the Roadmap to Peace to work better. Those are just a few items of what benefits the United States and the region around Iraq. Believe me when I say this, you may not like the fact that we're there, but we are, and we will continue to be there until the job is done.

Can we please stop the Norway flaming as well, Norway has traditionally been a neutral country and I would like to keep them that way, because they can bring some very good perspectives and ideals to the table when discussing things like peace.

Well, that's all hunky dory about you finishing the job an' all, but I believe the point here is that you will have to take the bill. In Norway (I will, at some point stop referring to Norway in every post, but this time it felt right), we have a saying that goes "if you want to play, you'll have to take the pain" (it rhymes in Norwegian, that makes it more snazzy). The US should have known that this could be the outcome, and they should be able to handle it without the help of us "useless" countries. Surely they didn't go to war without calculating some losses? I am sure many European countries will be happy to hand out emergency aid if needed, but the burden of the reconstruction of Iraq belongs to the ones who started the war in the first place.

Again, it's amazing how some people see things. You do realize that most people love thier country and don't want to be anything like the US? I know I'd rather live in a country that was liked and respected rather than on that was feared and loathed.
Not unless it's full of conditions, but I can accept that.
I'm not sure how you managed to link that, but I don't see any similarities at all:rolleyes:
You really think Iraq is going to look like this in 20 years? Hardly a lofty goal. Give me a break dude.

Oh no, I agree with you eple, but it does kind of disgust me that some countries, like FEL said, would rather be right than willing to help. And feel free to make references to your country man, we Americans do it all the time, why shouldn't you? I was trying to stop all that crap that had the "Norway sucks!" undertone to it, which it doesn't, that's what I meant about the Norway flaming.

This is a question of billions of dollars, not being right or wrong. Countries who opposed to the attack in the first place are in their full right to refuse to partake in the reconstruction. It's not like these countries are neglecting a responsibility. Sure, we will offer aid if emergency strikes, but the reconstruction shall be done by those responsible for the attack, which will probably earn good money when the reconstruction is done. This isn't a pissfight, this is real politics, should we waste money on reconstructiong an american oil colony or not?

Ok but when the world is more peaceful remeber YOU didnt want to help make it that way.

Heh, jesus, do you ever stop....

Peace, war, unrest, terror, disaster, wonder, any general changes in the world the next few hundred years will be related to the role of the US. Norway have mainly involved itself in global affairs trough attemps at negotiations for peace (Oslo-agreement etc), or involvement in global envirolental treaties (f.e.Johannessburg) our ways are not trough millitary intervention, nor funding of such. If this should turn out to be all in vain, so be it, but I won't regret supporting our role as a peaceful nation(more or less, if you don't count those supposedly killed by our 5 fighter jets in Afghanistan).

Fine, we could sit as people are being killed and claim to be peacefull too, but our president took the hard, tough stance and attempted to make the world better. Its easy to be on the high horse when you are not risking anything.

Wow, your English is excellent and even better than a lot of American posters on this board. Is English an official language of Norway?

So tell me Eple did those Oslo accords work??? Oh yeah thats right...

Furthermore we don't get oil from Iraq, all in all we get about 15-20% of our oil from Saudi Arabia.

Also if anybody hates the U.S. they can piss off. If memory serves if it weren't for us Norway and the rest of the civilized world would either be eating brats and Drinking Heinkens, or cow-towing to the A-Japs.

That is right, we singlehandedly defeated the nazi/japanese menace. So piss off all of you america hating, free speech expressing A-jap cow-towers.

If we want to be unilateral asses now, you really have no right to complain, because, decades ago, in the process of looking out for ourselves, we found it convenient to also liberate you. Its been a long time since WW2, but i clearly remember all of europe agreeing to give up its right to criticize the U.S. for ever after. So piss off.:rolleyes:

Ask any former Eastern Block National how Europe would have let them get rolled over by Soviet Tanks. It took the threat of American bullets to save them. We have a long standing tradition of bailing Europeans out, WAAAY before we are directly threatened. And as per usual, we never ask for thanks.

All I'm saying is its a spit in the face when all those fucks forget when we stuck out our necks for their security. If it were up to the French Saddam would still be in power, and would have a nuclear arsenal (tks yu~ Osirirak). Maybe their lucrative oil contracts where a factor in there staunch opposition. Perhaps it was the fact that they were the biggest hardware supplier to the Iraqi Military. And as far as the weapons go, you are delusional if you really think Saddam didn't have them. Also Iraq was a hub of terrorism, if not al-queda there were several other well noted terrorist organizations and celebrities there (Abu Nidal, Ansar Al- Islam, ANO, various support for Palestinian terrorist organizations... http://www.terrorismanswers.org/sponsors/iraq.html). Fact of the matter the only reason other nations opposed the war was to cock block the U.S. THe U.N. is a joke and wouldn't exist if it weren't for the U.S. seeing as to we foot 25% of the bill for it as well as man support for its various operations. Bush sent the U.N. to the plate and in very convincing fashion they struck out looking. Like he said on the eve of war "THe World shares our assesment of the Danger posed by Saddam, but not our resolve".

What on earth is a "cock block?"

If it's such a delusional stance to think that there were no WMDs in Iraq then why even look for them? Everyone should "know" they're already there, unless everyone is delusional. It must be tough living in a world of delusional people and delusional countries...

Jojo_PeiPei, why doesn't the US just threaten to pull their funding if the UN doesn't just agree with everything the US say? Surely the UN can't go one without the US's 25%, right? I mean, why fund a joke?

1) cock block is when someone stops you from getting ass, usually seen when a girl stops her friend from getting freaky with a guy she doesn't approve of.

2) U.N. inspectors missed/didn't find weapons when they were there. Once people started defecting the weapons came out. Do you really put it past Saddam to halt weapons programs? I mean for Christ's sake he had programs running when there were inspectors in his country, again, would you put it past him to have them running when the inspectors were gone? 17 resolutions violated over 10 years, pretty shaky record if you ask me...

3) Part of the reason the U.N. is a joke is because of the way the U.S. is able to use it for its own purposes. It's not a bunch of "nations" coming together for the common greater good, its a bunch of regimes coming together to try and keep there shit on lock down.

Besides we fucking started the band, why should we have to leave it when the dysfunctional members start bitching? And they can't go on without U.S. funding, the U.N. almost went under a few years back, they nearly closed the New York branch becasue they couldn't afford, who was it they bailed them out... Oh yeah thats right the U.S.

It is probably also spit in the face to squander the international support that the us had as a nation post-9/11 on a war that many people, many americans, still feel was unjustified.

I thought the us was a big supplier of hardware to iraq. Wait, no, that was after he had gassed his own people, but before he reached "evil dictator" status so i guess its fine. Besides, its not like the us would ever let an abusive government or two slide on sticky issues if we didn't want to deal with the consequences... ahem pinochet... ahem saudi arabia... ahem china.

Well, he did have a vial of botulism. As for delusional, well you're right, saddam was obviously only 45 minutes away from launching some kind of devastating bioterror attack on the us or its allies, just like our leaders said he was.;)


A little over simplified. Maybe they saw that the us was lying to its citizens and the world. Maybe the knew that the idea of iraq as a credible threat to anyone was laughable. Maybe they just believed, like many americans, that this war was a foolish political move for a president having economic problems and trouble reigning in corporate deceptions. Dismissing it as simply a cock block maneuver is silly when there are so many other reasons to not support this war.

I think its funny how those of you who praise the invasion of Iraq take the moral highground now about freeing the opressed peoples of Iraq (now that no WMDs are to be found). Well, how come this wasnt an issue when they were at war with Iran? Sorry i just dont buy it.

I think I missed something.... some of you are posting that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.... really? When?

As far as freeing the people....how exactly has their life changed?

Why thank you. English is a second language here, we are taught english from age 7. We hardly dub any movies, and are one of the countries in Europe most influenced by the US, so most Norwegians speak pretty good English.
Heh, I said I am pleased with our role as a a nation which seeks peaceful solutions, not that it always work. And it's not like earlier military campaigns like Iraq2 has done great things for world peace either (Vietnam).

And please, stop tryng to pin some "anti-american" badge on my chest. I do not hate America or American citizens. There is a great difference between respecting a country and it's culture and zealously endorsing every policy enforced by it's government.

As far as oil is conserned, it's not always about what you gain, but maybe what others don't gain....There have been made speculations on wether the main goal was to restrict France and Germany's easy access to oil purchased from Saddam's regime. Thus revealing the whole thing as a way to further tilt the power balance between the growing EU and the US in favour of the US. This may sound like paranoid speculations, but from an historical perspective, it wouldn't really be too surprising.

Okay... I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and calm down for a minute. You know a thread is going bad when we're at the "my granddad saved your granddad's ass in WWII" argument.

As for the original topic, Russia and the US both routinely inspect each other's stockpiles of nuclear weapons, it's part of one of the START treaties, I can't recall which one. Suffice to say that the US is very honest and forthright about its nuclear capabilities.

edited for bad grammar*

edited again for misspelling grammar

Amen Sparhawk! Man, I don't even know what thread I'm posting on anymore. I was going to say that I firmly agree that the United States (and every other member of the UN for that matter) should indeed be audited and required to destroy any and all weapons of mass destruction. The fact is that we don't need them, we're not going to use them and they damage our credibility when we're trying to boss the rest of the world around by telling them they should destroy theirs. Weapons of mass destruction are a ridiculous fancy of the past; we have much more practical ways of slaughtering our enemies now.

More practical way to slaughter enemies? How much more practical can you get than using a 100 mega-ton warhead to erase a whole nation.

Nukes are now a deterrent against these little nations with their 1 or 3 litlle bombs.

The US has more than enough bombs, and the UN and the rest of the world knows how many there are.

Nukes are impractical because you can't drop just one. MAD is still in effect so if anyone uses nukes you can bet that that person is going to recieve the collective scorn of the rest of the world and is also probably going to get nuked themselves. They also create incredibly toxic clouds of fallout and can also render entire areas unlivable for years. Hardly a practical solution to anything.

Nice reconmike, I love your perspectives on the military and military related posts. Anyways, yeah, the United States and Russia frequently check up on each other, so there isn't really a need for the UN to audit the United States, because whatever we find in Russia, and whatever Russia finds here is made public. Plus, the P5 of the UN can't really do anything without being under a microscope anyways.

WOW!!!

The posts on this thread got a little overheated and off subject. As far at the poll, no I do not think the U.S. should be audited for weapons of mass distruction(does anyone else HATE this term?) by the U.N. The U.S. has not signed any U.N. treaty requiring that they allow such inspections and in my opinion, no nation should be required to give up parts of its sovereignty at the mere whim of the U.N.

That being said, if a nation or group of nations can convince or coerce a nation to agree to such inspections, then they have every right to do so. As has been said, Russia and the U.S. do have scheduled and regular inspections. These inspections exsist becaue they are in the best interests of both countries. Iraq agreed to inspections after the Gulf War. The U.N. carried out those inspections as they should have.

Yes we should let every 3rd world nation, ruled by who knows what kinda of psychopath, hold a trump card over us.

Last time I checked, I dont' have 39 lives, so a country that can kill us one time is one time to many.

Do me a favor and tell me it is not hypocritical. Then you will actually be addressing what i was saying in my above post.

While I don't think the U.S. should have begun a policy of unilateral, preemptive agression, it would be foolish to not try and keep the genie in the bottle. Nuclear weapons and chemical/biological weapons are horrific and every attempt should be made to prevent the further development and proliferation of them. The U.S. recently destroyed old stockpiles of WMD's stored in Alabama(I think it was Alabama) and there are ongoing reductions in our nuclear arsenal. Can the U.S. do more? Of course we can, but we did not build up the arsenal overnight and we will not be getting rid of it anytime soon. To not try to limit proliferation would be "Ostrich Politics" , just sticking your head in the sand and hoping for the best - not a reall good plan when the stakes are so high.

Heh, why don't you just hire some Iraqi experts? It seems those guys are great at getting rid of supposed WMD's incredibly fast.

This isn't a nice game of chess. If you think the US is the moral equivalent of North Korea then you are far removed from reality. I'm sorry I don't address what YOU want addressed, but there is more to this issue then what just YOU think is important.

I don't understand some peoples logic:

1) They admit that we, the US, gave Saddam WMDs.
2) They also claim that Saddam never had any WMDs.
3) They claim that because Saddam never had any WMDs, though we gave him some, the war is not justified.

What?

If nothing else, the war in Iraq is the US cleaning up the mess that it started years and years ago. It should serve as a learning experience for our higher-ups to not make deals with murderous dictators.

Lets not forget that the US also stopped our dealing with Iraq, while many of our 'allies' went for the money.

BTW those missles that hit the hotel in Baghdad the other day were made in France.

Psycopaths in charge? How about coke heads? Even a stroke victim, not everything can be firing right in the thought plant after one of those.

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.