Hypocrasy of the USA

[mightypotato]

The United States is going around to all the countries of the world to get them to disarm their nuclear/chemical/biological weapons, or as Bush has popularized the saying "weapons of mass destruction"....sounds good eh? But then you realize, hey the USA has these "weapons of mass destruction" too! Shouldn't they be getting rid of theirs? Well, that's the good old US of A for you...everyone has to bend to their will. The United States has more nuclear and chemical weapons now than Iraq has ever had. And the fact that Bush has publically stated that he would consider using them just reinforces my point. How can you use WOMD on a country that you are trying to disarm? Same thing goes with North Korea, if the USA wants other countries to disarm, they should disarm themselves.

[WadeFulp]

At 2/28/03 02:20 PM, mighty_potato wrote: The United States is going around to all the countries of the world to get them to disarm their nuclear/chemical/biological weapons, or as Bush has popularized the saying "weapons of mass destruction"....sounds good eh? But then you realize, hey the USA has these "weapons of mass destruction" too! Shouldn't they be getting rid of theirs? Well, that's the good old US of A for you...everyone has to bend to their will. The United States has more nuclear and chemical weapons now than Iraq has ever had. And the fact that Bush has publically stated that he would consider using them just reinforces my point. How can you use WOMD on a country that you are trying to disarm? Same thing goes with North Korea, if the USA wants other countries to disarm, they should disarm themselves.

There's a little different between the USA and Iraq. The USA doesn't USE our weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has in recent times. The only reason we still have some chemical and biological stuff is we might need it to find a cure if it was used against some country some day, and some of it may not be easy to destroy. As far as nuclear, the USA would never use one unless a country was trying to nuke someone else, and even then I don't think it would ever be necessary. However there are still many nuclear nations, India, Pakistan, Israel, Russia, China, UK, etc. So as long as these countries have them we need them to be sure everyone stays in check. We have been reducing our inventory of these weapons over time, as has other countries. So I think everyone is slowing standing down, but we may never be completely rid of them and that's just the way it's going to be. It's a problem that may never disappear, so learn to deal with it. However we don't need these weapons in the hands of crazy people like Saddam. The countries that have them are responsible.

[Mr-Y]

Yeah, I agree that we should all get rid of the weapons of mass destruction in the world. Small amounts of these weapons should always be secured. It doesn't matter which country the next one lands in (during a war, not just during a test) or who sends it - the death of civilians could be huge, and that's not good.

Hey Wade why don't you post in White America? It's been one of the largest topics in the politics section in the NG BBS for a while.

[TheEvilOne]

You're an idiot.

We aren't making everyone disarm, just the nations *cough*Iraq*cough* that have proven to be unworthy to be equipped with such weapons. It would be nice if the whole world could agree to destroy all of their nuclear arsenals, but we aren't going to be so foolish as to disarm ourselves first and leave ourselves open to attack. Think of it like this--if Saddam had nukes and we didn't, he'd nuke us in 2.3 seconds. This is why we are attacking them--because a brutal dictator who has used such weapons against his neighbors and even his own people should not be allowed to acquire more chemical or biological weapons, or take the next step and develop nuclear weapons.

Next time, try thinking before you open your mouth.

[TheEvilOne]

Just in case it wasn't clear who I was calling an idiot, it was the author of the original message.

[NEMESiSZ]

The USA hasn't been sanctioned by the UN, that's the difference.

[Ted-Easton]

Sanctioned by the UN or not, Iraq has every right to these weapons. Not the US, not the UN, not anyone, has the right to try to take them away from him.
All these people trying to do "what is right" are only doing what is best for themselves, and sometimes not even that. As long as they posess these same weapons, they cannot condemn Iraq for having them, and as long as they are not Iraq, they have no right to take them away.

[Slizor]

Wait, you're only allowed WMD if you don't use them?

[lapslf]

Well, isn't that the law in the US? you can have a weapon if you don't use it? ;)

[Perseph0ne6]

At 3/1/03 09:01 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: Sanctioned by the UN or not, Iraq has every right to these weapons. Not the US, not the UN, not anyone, has the right to try to take them away from him.:

I think maybe you're forgetting how Saddam has used these weapons in the past, and I say Saddam because we are talking about the actions of a tyrant, not of an entire nation of people. Instead of using his arsenal to defend the people of his country he used them to hurt his own people, and destroy his nieghbors. We aren't talking about Iraq rights as a sovriegn state, we are talking about WMD in the hands of a madman.

[Perseph0ne6]

At 2/28/03 02:20 PM, mighty_potato wrote: The United States is going around to all the countries of the world to get them to disarm their nuclear/chemical/biological weapons...:

Urgh, no its not the United States who wants Irag, and North Korea to disarm, its the United Nations. The only controversy between the US and nations such as France and Germany is how long we should give Iraq to disarm, NOT if we should.

[Ted-Easton]

Tyrant or not, Iraqi or not, Saddam could be a drooling kid with Down Syndrome, no one has the right to tell him what weapons he can and cannot have.
It is a soveirgn country, and nothing gives the US or the UN the right to push their ideals onto the leadership of it.

[NEMESiSZ]

Yeah, god damn their ideals....with all their anti-gassing your own people and free elections and whatnot.

[mightypotato]

OK, what I'm trying to say is, if you are going to disarm one country, all of them should be disarmed. Also, the hypocritical thing that I think I forgot to point out was that the US is willing to use WOMD on Iraq to stop them from makeing WOMD. Oh how I miss the Cold War days and the MAD Principal.

[TheEvilOne]

At 3/1/03 08:06 PM, mighty_potato wrote: OK, what I'm trying to say is, if you are going to disarm one country, all of them should be disarmed. Also, the hypocritical thing that I think I forgot to point out was that the US is willing to use WOMD on Iraq to stop them from makeing WOMD. Oh how I miss the Cold War days and the MAD Principal.

Okay, maybe I was a little hasty in calling you an idiot (it really irks me when people say that we shouldn't have weapons if Iraq can't have them), but my opinion on Iraq disarming before we do stands.

As for us not ruling out the nuclear option against Iraq, I think it's pretty obvious that nukes will not be used. I don't think the option is ever ruled out when we launch a large-scale invasion, but nukes would only be used in the event of Iraq trying to use WMDs against us, our allies, or his neighbors in the region.

I'm sorry for being so quick to call you an idiot; maybe you did put some thought into it. But I still disagree with you.

[JudgeDredd]

At 3/1/03 08:06 PM, mighty_potato wrote: OK, what I'm trying to say is, if you are going to disarm one country, all of them should be disarmed. Also, the hypocritical thing that I think I forgot to point out was that the US is willing to use WOMD on Iraq to stop them from makeing WOMD. Oh how I miss the Cold War days and the MAD Principal.

Correct! If Iraq had Powerful Nuclear weapons, America wouldn't be going to War right now ...without Iraq striking first that is!

[JMHX]

At 3/2/03 01:01 AM, Judge_DREDD wrote:

At 3/1/03 08:06 PM, mighty_potato wrote: OK, what I'm trying to say is, if you are going to disarm one country, all of them should be disarmed. Also, the hypocritical thing that I think I forgot to point out was that the US is willing to use WOMD on Iraq to stop them from makeing WOMD. Oh how I miss the Cold War days and the MAD Principal.

Correct! If Iraq had Powerful Nuclear weapons, America wouldn't be going to War right now ...without Iraq striking first that is!

Pre-Emptive War is Terrorism. Oh well, we're selective about our terminology when it's us getting ready to destroy the buildings.

[Mr-Y]

Yeah, Saddam has done a lot of shit before, to his own citizens, and that's definitely crazy. U.S. has used WOMD before too... nuclear weapons against Japan. I'm not saying that the U.S. was right in doing that, since it killed a lot of innocent civilians. I guess if they didn't drop the bombs the Japanese, who were allied with Hitler in WW2, and who destroyed Pearl Harbor, maybe even more people would've been forced into war and killed on both sides.

[TheEvilOne]

At 3/2/03 08:10 PM, Mr_Y wrote: I guess if they didn't drop the bombs the Japanese, who were allied with Hitler in WW2, and who destroyed Pearl Harbor, maybe even more people would've been forced into war and killed on both sides.

That was the whole reasoning behind dropping the bomb. They felt that they would rather drop the bomb than launch an invasion of Japan, which would have cost many, many lives on both sides.

[Mr-Y]

Well, I was just wondering what the opinions of the people here were about the United States' use of WOMD against Japan in the second world war - was it necessary?

[Mr-Y]

At 3/2/03 08:21 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: That was the whole reasoning behind dropping the bomb. They felt that they would rather drop the bomb than launch an invasion of Japan, which would have cost many, many lives on both sides.

True, an invasion of Japan would have cost many lives on both sides. Many Americans and Japanese would've have lost their lives in the invasion, and plus, something had to be done against Japan and the rest of the Axis. Anyone else with more good points or bad points of the use of the weapons of mass destruction during WW2 against Japan?

[NEMESiSZ]

What makes the USA so great is we are the reluctant warrior. You can be sure if war with Iraq breaks out, all other options have been exhausted.

[RoboTripper]

At 3/2/03 09:02 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: What makes the USA so great is we are the reluctant warrior. You can be sure if war with Iraq breaks out, all other options have been exhausted.

That is a crazy thing to say. Far from reluctant, the US has manufactured wars throughout its history just to fight with somebody. Notably, the blaming of the U.S.S. Maine explosion on Spain in order to go to war with them, and the manufacturing of the Tonkin Gulf incident to give an excuse to kill Commies in Nam. Iraq is just the latest unfortunate to get caught in the crosshairs.

[RoboTripper]

At 3/2/03 08:32 PM, Mr_Y wrote: Well, I was just wondering what the opinions of the people here were about the United States' use of WOMD against Japan in the second world war - was it necessary?

I would guess that pretty much everyone was for the bombing when it occurred, but over time many people have wondered about its necessity. This is partly due to the fact that the bombings had long-lasting effects on the Japanese population like a very high occurence of Leukemia.

Another problem is that the wide radius of the blast from the nukes made it impossible to avoid an extremely high number of civilian casualties.

Also, the use of WoMD makes it hard for the US to point fingers at other countries - by using the weapons, the "Pandora's Box" was opened. I mean, what does the US have to say to Iraq about their uses of gas? "Yeah, we nuked a couple hundred thousand people, but your gassing of a couple thousand Kurds in unnacceptable." The use of the nukes emboldened other countries since any use of WoMD by them pales in comparison to our own.

You could make the case that nuking a country (provided they were WoMD-less) could shorten any war and actually lower casualties. But the horror of WoMD are as much a deterrence to their use as the sheer numbers they kill. The way they effect the human body and their long-lasting effects are what makes them terrifying.

[Soundbyte2kx]

The main reason we want to disarm these rogue nations is because, unlike us, they have no balancing opposite during their period of nuclear development. When we were cranking out nukes, we had russia to keep us from using them (because using one would mean immediate annihliation of our known country from them) Likewise, India and Pakistan balance. To a lesser degree, north and south korea balance. However, Iraq has no balance to it's weapons program. as a result, we want them to put the nuke down before they hurt somebody.

The only other alternative is to get another nation-state in the middle east to develop it's own weapons program, but no nation out there really hates iraq. Iraq sells its oil cheaply to iran, saudi arabia, etc. and they turn around and sell it at a profit to the west. In turn, most of the war machine that Iraq has in operation was manufactured in germany, and sold to them by German dealers. They also sell oil really cheap to France.

Plus, chemical and biological warfare is foul play under any curcumstances. There's a reason the stuff was banned after world war one...

[Soundbyte2kx]

And nearly forgot, the nukes we dropped probably saved the lives of millions of people. American and japanese soldiers had clashed numerous times during the war in the pacific, and based on the psychological profile of japanese soldiers (that the individual is less important then the whole) it was a fairly safe assumption that if America were to invade Japan, potentially every single individual man, woman, and child would have stood resistant against us. casualties would have been in the millions. We dropped one bomb, and the second drop was against the will of the people in the manhattin project. But it's sheer power was sufficient to convince the people not to fight.

[Grinwald]

At 3/2/03 09:49 PM, DenkSmoker wrote:

At 3/2/03 09:02 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: What makes the USA so great is we are the reluctant warrior. You can be sure if war with Iraq breaks out, all other options have been exhausted.

That is a crazy thing to say. Far from reluctant, the US has manufactured wars throughout its history just to fight with somebody. Notably, the blaming of the U.S.S. Maine explosion on Spain in order to go to war with them, and the manufacturing of the Tonkin Gulf incident to give an excuse to kill Commies in Nam. Iraq is just the latest unfortunate to get caught in the crosshairs.

Talk about idiocy. It's clear and proven that Saddam has violated sixteen (that's one more than fifteen, for people like you) United Nations mandates. Note, that's not the sinking of a boat or anything of that nature, it's a documented list of blatant retraction from UN mandates. Saddam is not a victim, but he has created millions of them. Stop defending a murderous nerve-gasser.

As for the US... we have those missiles but have never used them. If Saddam had nuclear missiles, he would use them. And that's not just according to me, that's backed up by Dr. Khadir Hamza, former director of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. Read the book "Saddam's Bombmaker." It's good.

[JMHX]

If someone told me to spout things in order to sell a few books and my name in the news, I think I'd do it, too. One book doesn't make a war.

[Empanado]

That's your problem, yanks. That's exactly your problem. (Not for everyone, i see some people who actually think here.

You believe anything that gets your country up, but nothing that gets it down

i mean, you see on the news: "Saddam is going to nuke the U.S. riding on a big green-haired poney and with a hat made of burritos, and he said the people from the U.S is stinky." and you believe it.
You read on the newspaper: " millions of people all over the world protest against an "oil war" in different cities o' the planet: Rome, London, Barcelona, Madrid, Paris, Santiago, Etc etc etc"
And what do you think? "poor idiots, they don't realize that we're saving them"

You think yourselves of "The Warrior", "The Democratic example", when you can't even get the president you voted for. More than the 50% voted for Gore, but a bunch of Senators turn your ass out everytime the want, and they choose Bush.
What's the big link between Al Qaeda and Irak?
Just a sound record. Not even one of your fake FBI or CIA videotapes. Just a crappy sound record that DOESN'T PROVE A SHIT. As Bush sees that isn't enough for any other country besides yourselves, he makes up this whole WOMD thing. What do they have? some crappy missiles that can barely get to other countries. Can they get to the White House with those missiles? no, they can't. Nor to any other citie of the U.S., nor even any place of America. (by the way you nationalists bastards, your country isnt called AMERICA, it's called THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. America is a continent, not a country, morons.)
And you might say "but they can get those missiles to any point of their close terrain" well, THAT'S THE POINT OF THE MISSILES, IDIOT. To use them as defense. And anyway they're destroying them to keep the big farty Bush baby happy. Open your freakin eyes, YOU WONT FIND A SHIT ON THAT COUNTRY. You'll better go catch Osama. Oh, i forgot, you don't want to get into that topic 'cause you didn't catch'im. Well that's a pity. Im thankful to God for living in a quiet country like mine (at least at this time) and not in a country full of morons who just can't see they are NOT the "warriors" or the "eagles" they're just a big country with big weapons and a president with shit on his head.

Oh, and Mr. Fulp, if you spend so many time on the net and the PC developing this very good site, you could take some time to read some of your country REAL facts.

And maybe some of the rest of the world. Is well known all over the planet that is not easy to find an "american" that really knows a shit about anything at all.

[RoboTripper]

At 3/3/03 03:21 PM, Grinwald wrote:

At 3/2/03 09:49 PM, DenkSmoker wrote:

That is a crazy thing to say. Far from reluctant, the US has manufactured wars throughout its history just to fight with somebody. Notably, the blaming of the U.S.S. Maine explosion on Spain in order to go to war with them, and the manufacturing of the Tonkin Gulf incident to give an excuse to kill Commies in Nam. Iraq is just the latest unfortunate to get caught in the crosshairs.

Talk about idiocy. It's clear and proven that Saddam has violated sixteen (that's one more than fifteen, for people like you) United Nations mandates. Note, that's not the sinking of a boat or anything of that nature, it's a documented list of blatant retraction from UN mandates. Saddam is not a victim, but he has created millions of them. Stop defending a murderous nerve-gasser.

I wasn't really talking about Saddam... I can't see where I defended him or called him a victim. Your response is totally off the subject and gets into something that has been discussed ad nauseum before you got here. But to reply: obviously I realize that he has violated UN "mandates". But I: a) don't put a lot of faith in the US-dominated UN or their US-proposed resolutions, b) feel that the inspections are working fine, and c) don't feel threatened by Iraq since they are under the international microscope.

As for the US... we have those missiles but have never used them. If Saddam had nuclear missiles, he would use them. And that's not just according to me, that's backed up by Dr. Khadir Hamza, former director of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. Read the book "Saddam's Bombmaker." It's good.

I doubt that Hamza is a mind-reader. If Saddam had nuclear missiles, who could tell if he would use them? Hamza probably just said that shit to sell books and make a name for himself. If Saddam had nuclear weapons I don't think he would use them... why would he? All he has to do is play nice and he can sit in his 7 or 12 or whatever number of palaces he has and live in luxury and power for the rest of his life. Not that I'm saying it would be a good thing if he got nukes, but the perception that he would just start randomly nuking people has no basis.