Draft U.S. Paper Allows Commanders To Seek Pre-emptive Nuclear Strikes(N.Korea/Iran)

[Torog]

Draft U.S. paper allows commanders to seek preemptive nuke strikes(N. Korea/Iran)
Kyodo News ^ | 05/01/05
Posted on 05/01/2005 12:22:02 PM PDT
Sunday May 1, 5:39 PM

Draft U.S. paper allows commanders to seek preemptive nuke strikes
(Kyodo) _ The U.S. military plans to allow regional combatant commanders to request the president for approval to carry out preemptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks on the United States or its allies with weapons of mass destruction, according to a draft new nuclear operations paper. The paper, drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. Armed Forces, also revealed that submarines which make port calls in Yokosuka, Sasebo and Okinawa in Japan are prepared for reloading nuclear warheads if necessary to deal with a crisis.

The March 15 draft paper, a copy of which was made available, is titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" providing "guidelines for the joint employment of forces in nuclear operations...for the employment of U.S. nuclear forces, command and control relationships, and weapons effect considerations."

"There are numerous nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal) and about 30 nations with WMD programs, including many regional states," the paper says in allowing combatant commanders in the Pacific and other theaters to maintain an option of preemptive strikes against "rogue" states and terrorists and "request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons" under set conditions.

The paper identifies nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as requiring preemptive strikes to prevent their use.

But allowing preemptive nuclear strikes against possible biological and chemical attacks effectively contradicts a "negative security assurance" policy declared by the U.S. administration of President Bill Clinton 10 years ago on the occasion of an international conference to review the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Creating a treaty on negative security assurances to commit nuclear powers not to use nuclear weapons against countries without nuclear weapons remains one of the most contentious issues for the 35-year-old NPT regime.

A JCS official said the paper "is still a draft which has to be finalized," but indicated that it is aimed at guiding "cross-spectrum" combatant commanders how to jointly carry out operations based on the Nuclear Posture Review report adopted three years ago by the administration of President George W. Bush.

Citing North Korea, Iran and some other countries as threats, the report set out contingencies for which U.S. nuclear strikes must be prepared and called for developing earth-penetrating nuclear bombs to destroy hidden underground military facilities, including those for storing WMD and ballistic missiles.

"The nature (of the paper) is to explain not details but cross spectrum for how to conduct operations," the official said, noting that it "means for all services, Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine."

In 1991 after the end of the Cold War, the United States removed its ground-based nuclear weapons in Asia and Europe as well as strategic nuclear warheads on warships and submarines.

But the paper says the United States is prepared to revive those sea-based nuclear arms.

"Nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles, removed from ships and submarines under the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiative, are secured in central areas where they remain available, if necessary for a crisis," the paper says.

The paper also underlined that the United States retains a contingency scenario of limited nuclear wars in East Asia and the Middle East.

"Geographic combatant commanders may request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons for a variety of conditions," the paper says.

The paper lists eight conditions such as "an adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S. multinational or alliance forces or civilian populations" and "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."

The conditions also include "attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons" and countering "potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces."

[XTC]

Iam not sure how I feel on this issue. Yes Korea is a threat against the US. But I dont think launching a nuclear holocaust fuck bomb before they do is the right answer. People will die a agonzing death. War should be the last answer to anything that poses a threat.

[Torog]

Iam not sure how I feel on this issue. Yes Korea is a threat against the US. But I dont think launching a nuclear holocaust fuck bomb before they do is the right answer. People will die a agonzing death. War should be the last answer to anything that poses a threat.
Howdy XTC,

I'm curious,do you think that western civilization,should take the first hit ? Do you think that Los Angeles,London,Tokyo or Tel-Aviv,should be nuked first-before we respond ? Why do you feel that we should allow our enemies to strike first..possibly killing over a million folks at once ? Do you think that Israel,should be forced to use every wmd in it's arsenal,to defend it's self ?

Have a good one...

[XTC]

No I dont. But there are better answers than just doing what they are doing. If the US Strikes first, then I am sure Korea or Iran with hit us with the second blow and vice a versa. Perhaps some kind of treaty, meeting, you get the picture. Talk it out before the world goes into some kinda of nuclear holocaust

[Torog]

No I dont. But there are better answers than just doing what they are doing. If the US Strikes first, then I am sure Korea or Iran with hit us with the second blow and vice a versa. Perhaps some kind of treaty, meeting, you get the picture. Talk it out before the world goes into some kinda of nuclear holocaust
Howdy XTC,

Well I'm glad,that you ain't one of them civilians,who're willing to sacrifice millions of Free World citizens..just to be 'fair',to the enemies of Freedom. If we do it right the first time..there will be no 'second-blow'..the sad thing is,is that the citizens of N. Korea and Iran,want freedom..but it is they,who will suffer the most. Kim il Jong and the mullahs of Iran,are basically insane,yet sane enough to succeed in the near-term..if we stand-by and do nothing. Alot of folks,are hoping that Israel will take care of Iran..but that stills leaves NK..we need RNEP's,to destroy their wmd stockpiles and nuclear weapons factories. On the one hand,Iran wishes to destroy Israel and the US,on the other,NK wishes to destroy Japan and possibly England,and of course,South Korea.

Have a good one ....

[nuance]

Well the minute you decide to launch a nuke, nothing matters anymore. You can all start praying for the "god that's on your side". The retaliation will be, to back XTC, a fucking nuclear holocaust fuckfest and everyone gets a piece of the action. Every nation and terrorist organization with a grudge against USA will participate and soon there will be nothing left of this planet. Try self-defending yourself with inalienable right to carry handguns then or fleeing for you life with your 5-liter SUV, dipshit. But it doesn't matter, does it, since you're "going to a better world".

[Torog]

Well the minute you decide to launch a nuke, nothing matters anymore. You can all start praying for the "god that's on your side". The retaliation will be, to back XTC, a f*cking nuclear holocaust f*ckfest and everyone gets a piece of the action. Every nation and terrorist organization with a grudge against USA will participate and soon there will be nothing left of this planet. Try self-defending yourself with inalienable right to carry handguns then or fleeing for you life with your 5-liter SUV, dipsh*t. But it doesn't matter, does it, since you're "going to a better world".
Howdy nuance,

There's no reason for the russians or chinese to join in..not sure about France tho,I reckon that they will be pissed off,that we interfered with their lucrative contracts with NK and Iran..but they'll git over it..we weaned France and Russia, off the oil-for-food program kick-backs,and they seem to be just fine.

I reckon,that you'd rather be a NK slave-laborer or an infidel,payin the dhimini tax..than you would want to be free..I'd rather die fighting,as a free man..than as a coward.

Have a good one....

[XTC]

Howdy nuance,

There's no reason for the russians or chinese to join in..not sure about France tho,I reckon that they will be pissed off,that we interfered with their lucrative contracts with NK and Iran..but they'll git over it..
Have a good one....


You miss the whole point of his post

[nuance]

Howdy nuance,

There's no reason for the russians or chinese to join in..not sure about France tho,I reckon that they will be pissed off,that we interfered with their lucrative contracts with NK and Iran..but they'll git over it..we weaned France and Russia, off the oil-for-food program kick-backs,and they seem to be just fine.

I reckon,that you'd rather be a NK slave-laborer or an infidel,payin the dhimini tax..than you would want to be free..I'd rather die fighting,as a free man..than as a coward.

Have a good one....

1) Read
2) Comprehend

With strong emphasis on the second point. Sure, if someone's attacking, I'll defend myself and my country if needs be. But with a nuke? HAVE YOU COMPLETELY LOST YOUR FUCKING MIND? Over 100 000 civilians died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that's just the ones that died in the blast and soon after. If the US marines are so fucking great as you keep suggesting, surely a ground attack dismantling the enemy's nuclear facilities would do the job if a peaceful solution cannot be reached. Nuclear weapons are the most horrid invention that man has made and above all, USA should stop their nuclear weapons programs here and now. If USA starts blasting around WMD's, how do they differ from the so called terrorists?

[amsterdam]

while i dont agree with a preemptive nuke strike,i will say that nuclear weapons today are much different today than 50 years ago.you dont have to level an entire city.you can tacticaly nuke part of it.

[nuance]

while i dont agree with a preemptive nuke strike,i will say that nuclear weapons today are much different today than 50 years ago.you dont have to level an entire city.you can tacticaly nuke part of it.

Yea but knowing USA, you'd drop 60 megatonnes to take out a bunker. Surely there are other weapons that are able to take out a part of a city without causing a fallout.

[amsterdam]

a neutron bomb,it only kills people and leaves the buildings intact.pretty cool stuff.

[F L E S H]

Yes, let's bomb the motherfuckers! I think they haven't suffered enough. I think the first step towrds freeing the North Koreans should be to kill half of them in a horrible death known as nuclear holocaust, then they will love America and happily help us get rid of Kim Jong Il. Then we'll open up a McDonald's in Pyongyang and everything will be in its right place.

America, Fuck Yeah!

[amsterdam]

Yes, let's bomb the motherfuckers! I think they haven't suffered enough. I think the first step towrds freeing the North Koreans should be to kill half of them in a horrible death known as nuclear holocaust, then they will love America and happily help us get rid of Kim Jong Il. Then we'll open up a McDonald's in Pyongyang and everything will be in its right place.

America, Fuck Yeah!


north korea aint shit.there leaders are pee-ons and all they can do is shoot missles into the sea of japan,scary.let them starve themselves to death.

why even waste a bomb on them.

[Hydrizzle]

Yeah, but what's to stop them from smuggling a nuke in on a boat or plane and detonating it in San Francisco bay harbor? Sounds feasable to me. I think the idea of pre-emptive strikes is good against these tyrannical dictators and despots. Something needs to be done to keep the Kim-Jong-Ill's in check. If threats of nuclear bombs is all he understands, then so be it.

[nuance]

Bush = a tyrannical dictator. How about a pre-emptive nuke strike on Washington? No wait. He's a corporate puppet. There's a difference. Got to remember that one. :cool:

[GHoSToKeR]

Seriously, i'm speechless.. :(

[amsterdam]

Yeah, but what's to stop them from smuggling a nuke in on a boat or plane and detonating it in San Francisco bay harbor? Sounds feasable to me. I think the idea of pre-emptive strikes is good against these tyrannical dictators and despots. Something needs to be done to keep the Kim-Jong-Ill's in check. If threats of nuclear bombs is all he understands, then so be it.



i agree,but that guy is a pussy.no one gives ashit about him and thats why he is always trying to flex his small muscles. :(

[Hydrizzle]

A pussy with a nuke is quite dangerous. This pussy could be used by other powers to attack the US or Japan (China...).

Nuance, I would love to hear some FACTS on how bush is a "tyrannical dictator". Dictator=absolute power, which he doesnt have, because this is a democracy. If you want to know about tyrannical dictators, why don't you get your facts straight and read up about Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam, Tojo, Hugo Chavez, etc, etc, etc...

All the Bush bashers really have no cognitive arguments against him... just vague comments about how he murders civilians and get money for himself, help the Saudis, blah blah blah Michael Moore said so blah blah blah.

[amsterdam]

A pussy with a nuke is quite dangerous. This pussy could be used by other powers to attack the US or Japan (China...).

Nuance, I would love to hear some FACTS on how bush is a "tyrannical dictator". Dictator=absolute power, which he doesnt have, because this is a democracy. If you want to know about tyrannical dictators, why don't you get your facts straight and read up about Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam, Tojo, Hugo Chavez, etc, etc, etc...

All the Bush bashers really have no cognitive arguments against him... just vague comments about how he murders civilians and get money for himself, help the Saudis, blah blah blah Michael Moore said so blah blah blah.


you are my new hero!

be careful though,some people around here are RABID!

[amsterdam]

I HAVE GONE ROUND AND ROUND WITH THESE FOLKS

[Hydrizzle]

Yeah I'm just starting... my mission to make them understand the US isn't all that bad, and all the bad thing you hear about Bush are mostly vague "facts" pulled out of some coprorate news guy's ass. The REAL failings of Bush no one talks about. (can we say, he spends way too much money, and he is way to easy on illegal immigration?)

[amsterdam]

Yeah I'm just starting... my mission to make them understand the US isn't all that bad, and all the bad thing you hear about Bush are mostly vague "facts" pulled out of some coprorate news guy's ass. The REAL failings of Bush no one talks about. (can we say, he spends way too much money, and he is way to easy on illegal immigration?)


agreed!

[Funken Monken]

Yeah I'm just starting... my mission to make them understand the US isn't all that bad, and all the bad thing you hear about Bush are mostly vague "facts" pulled out of some coprorate news guy's ass. The REAL failings of Bush no one talks about. (can we say, he spends way too much money, and he is way to easy on illegal immigration?)


I'll give you coupld of facts:
He's a dumb fuck with a DUI record who could not run a business to save his fucking life, and is about as articulate as roadkill.

FACT mate.

But hey, thats democracy in action.
Also, dont forget (another fact for you, courtesy of MOD, Janes defense almanac, DOD reports last 2 decades and the iran/contra dossiers) that most off that killing Saddam did, most of them guns had a nice 'Made In USA' stamp right on them!

[amsterdam]

I'll give you coupld of facts:
He's a dumb fuck with a DUI record who could not run a business to save his fucking life, and is about as articulate as roadkill.

FACT mate.

But hey, thats democracy in action.
Also, dont forget (another fact for you, courtesy of MOD, Janes defense almanac, DOD reports last 2 decades and the iran/contra dossiers) that most off that killing Saddam did, most of them guns had a nice 'Made In USA' stamp right on them!


so its the united states fault saddam hussein commited war crimes?now ive heard it all.

[amsterdam]

i have a gun that says glock on it but it wouldnt be their fault if i shot someone.

[amsterdam]

w talks like most people.i mess up when i speak everyday?

and he got a dui back in the days?big deal?

people relate to him.he comes across as a regular joe.

you do know w scored higher on his college entrance exams and officer training tests than john kerry.

[Funken Monken]

Sorry dude, forgot you cannot detect the subtle nuances of irony in the English language.
Your government supplied the guns to Sadam.
Is that clear enough?
This is a published fact, and the sources are both reputable and neutral.

[Funken Monken]

you do know w scored higher on his college entrance exams and officer training tests than john kerry.

With the funding behind his educaton. Id fucking hope so.

[amsterdam]

no i know,so what?

again,so we are responsible for the mass murder that regime commited because they had some american made weapons?i guess because everyone in the middle east carries an ak-47 russia is responsible for the crisis?ironic.

[amsterdam]

and the chinese too,all those chinese made RPG.

[Funken Monken]

no i know,so what?

again,so we are responsible for the mass murder that regime commited because they had some american made weapons?i guess because everyone in the middle east carries an ak-47 russia is responsible for the crisis?ironic.

Responding to the claim made by another poster.

I'm reading your response and that great phrase "he who is without sin...." keeps crossing my mind....

So what? SO DONT BE SO SURPRISED! You think they were dusting crops with them weapons? Regime needs hardware - 1st supplier, your Govt. OK it was a while back, but the fact remains. And OK so my jibe about 'stamp' clearly went over your head, I forgot...sorry, so I'll specify for you that there is a difference between 'supplying' and 'manufacturing'. I'm not saying your government manufactured them.

[amsterdam]

yep it was over my head.lol.its just that your accusation is sooooooo tired.its like reading the new york times.

so we supplied the weapons 25 years ago,our fault?france sold them anti tank missles a week before we went in,china sold them guns for the past 40 years as did russia.

so that means that because we supplied them with guns 25 years ago,we are responsibe for what they did with them.

that even sounds silly.

[Hydrizzle]

Funken, if you want to bring up what our countries did in the past to fuck up the world, the US has NOTHING on Britain. They fucked up so many damn countries with thier colonialism, it isn't even funny. Oh, and your incorrect about Iraq having US-made weapons; they have Russian and Chinese-made weapons. I don't see any M-4's, I see Kalishnakovs. I don't see American tanks or planes, I see Russian migs and PT-76's.... Maybe your thining of the Taliban, which we did supply, then they betrayed us.

BTW, Funken your "facts" about Bush being innarticualte and can't run a business, are actually opinions.
Just to define:

Fact: something that can be proven right or wrong with physical data.

Opinion: Something that CANNOT be proven right or wrong with physical data.

[GHoSToKeR]

Of course an opinion can be proven...

[Hydrizzle]

The definition of an opinion is that it cannot be proven...

[GHoSToKeR]

"Opinion:

a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty."

An opinion is a personal belief or judgement, like this definition says... It isn't based on fact or truth, but it can still be proven.. If I said "It is my opinion that there are at least three white people in America" you could go out and prove it.

[Hydrizzle]

Well, that's not an opinion, thats a fact! An opinion would be: the best ice cream is vanilla. A fact would be: vanilla ice cream is white

opinion: Rainy weather is bad.
fact: it's raining outside!

opinion: Pulp Fiction is the best movie
fact: Pulp Fiction was directed by Quentin Tarantino

see where i'm getting here?

[GHoSToKeR]

Okay, yeah, I get it..

But Bush did fail at business (http://alaric2rh.home.sprynet.com/science/bceo.html)... And he is damn sure inarticulate (http://www.bushisms.com/index1a.html).. You only have to listen to him to see that. So saying that he is inarticulate and can't run a business would be a fact, not an opinion.

[Hydrizzle]

Sure, I agree. My opinion is the same as your. However, just because he is inarticulate and a bad businessman does not make him the devil.

[GHoSToKeR]

No, that would be the forked tail and horns lol

[Hydrizzle]

Dude your avatar is fucking strange wtf is that supposed to be? Some ghoul on weed?

[GHoSToKeR]

Haha, nah dude, it's Salad Fingers.. You can find him here (http://www.fat-pie.com/flash.htm), if you scroll down a bit.. Theres 5 Salad Fingers cartoons on that page. I wouldnt suggest watching them if youre too stoned, lol :) (You should watch some of the other cartoons on that page, too.. They're all pretty messed up but good)

[psychocat]

I am sick and tired of the US trying to dictate who can and can't have weapons that they themselves have been stockpiling for years.
I believe that is what is known as being a friggin hypocrite.

[Hydrizzle]

So you think the US should just let a bunch of crazy dictators in 3rd-wrold countries have nuclear programs? Sounds like a recipie for nuclear holocasut to me....

[psychocat]

so its the united states fault saddam hussein commited war crimes?now ive heard it all.

Since they were instrumental in helping the Ba-ath party to gain power and did squat to remove him years ago when they had the chance I guess the answer would have to be yes.

[psychocat]

So you think the US should just let a bunch of crazy dictators in 3rd-wrold countries have nuclear programs? Sounds like a recipie for nuclear holocasut to me....


Why are they crazy ??
Because US media says they are??
Why should the US (who are the only country ever to actualy use nukes against people) be the only ones to be able to defend themselves??
Isn't dictating exactly what the US is trying to do by going round telling others what they can and can't do????

[Hydrizzle]

Yes, we are the only ones to ever use a nuke, but I'd say we had a damn good reason. In case you don't remember 25,851 casualties just in Iwo Jima. Think of the number of dead on both sides if we would have invaded mainland Japan. Thier warrior mentality of no surrender, die with honor would have caused massive casualties. So the nukes, without a doubt, saved lives. Did you know that more civilians died in Japan as a result of firebombs than the nukes? Little known fact. So who should the world be afraid of? Let me tell you, a government with a dictator who hold ALL THE POWER! IF Kim-Jong says launch a nuke, then launch a nuke they shall. They aren't crazy because the US says they are, they are crazy because they put themselves before thier people. Did you know there is mass starvation in N. Korea? Whole villages forced to cannibalism? Tell me what's not crazy about that. Any gov't that wantonly kills its own citizens is, in any rational person's mind, crazy!

Oh, but we're not talking to rational people here....

[GHoSToKeR]

"Any gov't that wantonly kills its own citizens is, in any rational person's mind, crazy!"

Any government that wantonly sends its own citizens to be killed should be, in any rational persons minds, crazy.

Any government that wantonly starts wars and kills people for it's own benifit should be, in any rational persons mind, crazy.

Whats your point?

[psychocat]

"Any gov't that wantonly kills its own citizens is, in any rational person's mind, crazy!"

Any government that wantonly sends its own citizens to be killed should be, in any rational persons minds, crazy.

Any government that wantonly starts wars and kills people for it's own benifit should be, in any rational persons mind, crazy.

Whats your point?


A voice of sanity in a wilderness of stupidity , well said ghost.

[Hydrizzle]

"Any gov't that wantonly kills its own citizens is, in any rational person's mind, crazy!"

Any government that wantonly sends its own citizens to be killed should be, in any rational persons minds, crazy.

Any government that wantonly starts wars and kills people for it's own benifit should be, in any rational persons mind, crazy.

Whats your point?


There is a difference here.... the citizens that we send "to be killed" are volunteers. That means they know and understand that they will be shot at! Yet they join anyways. The people that ruthless dictators kill are innocent civilians. They did NOT volunteer to be shot at! See where I'm getting here?

It's not like we have a draft, we have a 100% volunteer military. Obviously that counts for nothing in your books.

I can't argue with your 3rd point, because that would just be re-hashing the same old pro-war vs. anti-war argument.

[Psycho4Bud]

April 23 (Bloomberg) -- North Korea should refrain from testing nuclear weapons and return to negotiations about its arms program, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000101&sid=aES5CqefPKeQ&refer=japan

But this can't be right! It's the U.S. making demands on this poor lil' third world country not the United Nations. One of the forums libs should inform this rag paper of the truth. :D

[GHoSToKeR]

I see your point about soldiers etc volunteering as opposed to being drafted, but it's not the men on the ground I am talking about. It is the government that decides to actually send these men to war, as opposed to just having them for defence purposes.

Yes, you do have a 100% volunteer military, but the people who recruit for the armed forces often target young, easily-lead males. Also, a large amount of the people who volunteer for the armed forces do so because they are impoverished, and have no other means of income. The recruiters know this, and often recruit in more impoverished areas. Most people who join the armed forces often don't want to go to war, and don't expect to. Then your government starts a war and these men have no choice.

I admit that this is slightly different to a dictator murdering his/her civilians, but you must be able to see my point.

America says that these people shouldn't be allowed nuclear capibility, but then have nuclear weapons themselves. Why shouldn't they be allowed to defend themselves if America can?

NB: I disagree with nuclear weapons - in fact, any weapons - completely. I'm just trying to make you see the irony of the situation.

[Hydrizzle]

I see your point about soldiers etc volunteering as opposed to being drafted, but it's not the men on the ground I am talking about. It is the government that decides to actually send these men to war, as opposed to just having them for defence purposes.

That's what a military is for; going to war... we fight wars on foreign soil so we don't have to fight them here.


Yes, you do have a 100% volunteer military, but the people who recruit for the armed forces often target young, easily-lead males. Also, a large amount of the people who volunteer for the armed forces do so because they are impoverished, and have no other means of income. The recruiters know this, and often recruit in more impoverished areas. Most people who join the armed forces often don't want to go to war, and don't expect to. Then your government starts a war and these men have no choice.

They have no choice? Go pick up a dictionary, and look for the word "volunteer" that means they signed up voluntarily. No one in this country is MADE to go to war. If someone joined the army then bitches about having to go Iraq, well then they are just stupid and should not have joined the military.


I admit that this is slightly different to a dictator murdering his/her civilians, but you must be able to see my point.

"slightly"??!?!?!??! How is a volunteer army fighting a internationally declared war only "slightly" different from a dictator murdering citizens? The soldiers who get killed at least have a chance to fight back! Damn you got some fucked up definitions.


America says that these people shouldn't be allowed nuclear capibility, but then have nuclear weapons themselves. Why shouldn't they be allowed to defend themselves if America can?

The country in question right now is N. Korea, and Iran to a lesser extent. N. Korea has the 4th largest military in the world, so who the hell do they need to defend agaisnt? The US? If they even thought about nuking us, thier whole penninsula would become a glass-lined crater. Oh, and the worries of the civilized gov'ts out there is not whether ruthless dictators can defend themselves, it's if they will use thier nukes in agression. This is a possibility, since Iran's stated goal is the destruction of Isreal. N. Korea's stated goal is the downfall of the US and capitalism around the world. THAT's why they shouldn't be able to defend themselves.


NB: I disagree with nuclear weapons - in fact, any weapons - completely. I'm just trying to make you see the irony of the situation.

Face it, weapons are here to stay. Nothing anyone can do will change that. I would rather have WMD's in the hands of rational gov'ts than dictators. Already too many countries own nukes that shouldn't (Pakistan, India, France) The fact is, Ghost, that you are spoiled by the luxurious lifestyle you live in the industrialized world, and have no idea about the suffering or evil that is prevalent throughout alot of the 3rd world.

Tell me, do you think any country that wants a nuke should just be able to purchase one? What would YOUR criteria be for the dispersal of nuclear weapons?

[GHoSToKeR]

"the worries of the civilized gov'ts out there is not whether ruthless dictators can defend themselves, it's if they will use thier nukes in agression."

The point I am trying to make is that it is more likely that AMERICA will use nukes in an act of aggression. WHY should they be allowed to do this?

"The fact is, Ghost, that you are spoiled by the luxurious lifestyle you live in the industrialized world"

We all are, my friend, we all are.

"Already too many countries own nukes that shouldn't (Pakistan, India, France)"

You forgot to add the US to that list.

"Tell me, do you think any country that wants a nuke should just be able to purchase one?"

Quite the opposite. If it was up to me, NO country would have nukes.

[Hydrizzle]

I don't think you actually read my post... I asked you what would your criteria be for a country to own or purchase a nuke? Please don't asnwer "no country should have nukes", because that's not realistic.

Also, tell me why you think that the US is liable to use nukes in agression? If that is so true, why didn't we nuke Iraq and Afghanistan? Why don't we just go ahead and nuke N. Korea before they are a real threat? Ill tell you why, because the US isn't like that!!!!

I know you will bring up Japan, but I suggest you backread to my comments about how the nukes actually saved lives in the long run.

Please answer my question.

[amsterdam]

i thought we should have used a tactical nuke in fallujah,just wiped out one side of the city to let them know we meant buisness.but hey,thats just me.

[Hydrizzle]

The rest of the world would have loved that....




He won't answer that question, by the way

[amsterdam]

i know,compassion,its a bitch.

[GHoSToKeR]

I'm not a politician, member of the government or armed forces, and I don't know jack about nuclear weapons, nor am i professor or anything similiar. How am I supposed to answer the question? How am I going to say what my criteria for allowing countries to possess nuclear weapons would be?

Oh, and you say the US would never use nukes!?! Have you read the title of this thread?!?! "Draft U.S. Paper Allows Commanders To Seek Pre-emptive Nuclear Strikes(N.Korea/Iran)"

[amsterdam]

wouldnt you want to be prepared?better safe than sorry.

[GHoSToKeR]

prepared for what, amsterdam?

If nobody had nukes, then we would not need nukes. In fact, even if we were to be attacked by a nuclear weapon or device, we still would not need nukes to retaliate. Our armed forces are quite capable of attacking without the use of nuclear weapons.

As stated earlier, America is the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons. If I am to be scared of a nuclear attack or a nuclear war starting anywhere in the world, I should be scared of the US.

[psychocat]

I don't think you actually read my post... I asked you what would your criteria be for a country to own or purchase a nuke? Please don't asnwer "no country should have nukes", because that's not realistic.

Also, tell me why you think that the US is liable to use nukes in agression? If that is so true, why didn't we nuke Iraq and Afghanistan? Why don't we just go ahead and nuke N. Korea before they are a real threat? Ill tell you why, because the US isn't like that!!!!

I know you will bring up Japan, but I suggest you backread to my comments about how the nukes actually saved lives in the long run.

Please answer my question.

So are you saying that the US should be the only country to decide who should and shouldn't have nukes??
Do you not believe that using force to make somebody do what you want them to is dictating to them??
I believe the US is the biggest threat to world peace so why not start by nuking them??
Who gave the US the right to decide what is "good" and what is bad ?
Without the interference in other countries America would have no reason to feel threatened , therefore there would be no need for them to have the largest stockpile of WMD in the world.
Why is it OK for the US to have them ?
Protection against enemies??
If thats the case then surely everyone should be able to defend themselves from outside interference. Nukes for everyone ?

[Hydrizzle]

Ok.... Ghosttoker, the reason I wanted you to answer the question so bad is because you talk like you know what countries should have nukes... I just wanted to know what countries you would like to have nukes that dont already. I wanted to know what criteria the US violated to not allow them nukes... This is the problem with liberals today.... they complain about how shitty things are, but when pressed for solutions, they clam up and start making exuses....


I'm not a politician, member of the government or armed forces, and I don't know jack about nuclear weapons, nor am i professor or anything similiar. How am I supposed to answer the question? How am I going to say what my criteria for allowing countries to possess nuclear weapons would be?

Your entire argument is based on "no-one should have nukes" Well guess what? Me the crazy conservative guy agrees with you! No-one should even have a knife!! The world should be a fuzzy happy place where no one suffers or dies. But that ain't the case, my friend... the world is a cruel, unforgiving place. There is many evil people in the world, some in power over entire countries.... The fact is, nukes exist, they were invented in the past, and now that they are here, we better take care they don't fall into the wrong hands.


Oh, and you say the US would never use nukes!?! Have you read the title of this thread?!?! "Draft U.S. Paper Allows Commanders To Seek Pre-emptive Nuclear Strikes(N.Korea/Iran)"

I didn't say the US would use nukes for agression lke you suggested, but they would use them for thier own defense and the defense of thier allies (South Korea, Japan).

Your comment about the US being the ones who haved used nukes in the past, so they are the ones to be afraid of can be countered by this segment of an earlier post of mine....


Yes, we are the only ones to ever use a nuke, but I'd say we had a damn good reason. In case you don't remember 25,851 casualties just in Iwo Jima. Think of the number of dead on both sides if we would have invaded mainland Japan. Thier warrior mentality of no surrender, die with honor would have caused massive casualties. So the nukes, without a doubt, saved lives. Did you know that more civilians died in Japan as a result of firebombs than the nukes? Little known fact. So who should the world be afraid of? Let me tell you, a government with a dictator who hold ALL THE POWER! IF Kim-Jong says launch a nuke, then launch a nuke they shall. They aren't crazy because the US says they are, they are crazy because they put themselves before thier people.

Let me tell you the countries that you really should be afraid of... Pakistan, China, and South Korea. These are the countries that SHOULD NOT be owning nukes. And if Iran ever gets 'em, then they will be on the list too.

[psychocat]

Interesting !!!!
Why have you made no attempt to answer my question about the US policy of telling everyone else what they may or may not do whilst threatening all who refuse to comply.
That is dictating isn't it , isn't the US supposed to be against dictators??

[amsterdam]

Interesting !!!!
Why have you made no attempt to answer my question about the US policy of telling everyone else what they may or may not do whilst threatening all who refuse to comply.
That is dictating isn't it , isn't the US supposed to be against dictators??


do you know what a dictator is? :confused:

[GHoSToKeR]

do you know what a dictator is? :confused:These are dictators:

[GHoSToKeR]

Ooooooooh I thought you said dicTAKERS :p

[amsterdam]

that was a good one,made me laugh in my office and everyone stared.

[Hydrizzle]

No I don't think psychocat knows the kind of dictator i'm talking about.... I'm talking about the ruler of a country who has absolute power.

The US doesn't tell other countries what to do, they do what they want. However, we bribe them with finantial and military aid. If any poor country wants to go against us and watch thier economy go down the drain, they are free to do so. As for the US telling people they can't have WMD's well I think that makes perfect sense! Oh, and we tell Japan and Germany that they can't have a military for a good reason.

[psychocat]

No I don't think psychocat knows the kind of dictator i'm talking about.... I'm talking about the ruler of a country who has absolute power.

The US doesn't tell other countries what to do, they do what they want. However, we bribe them with finantial and military aid. If any poor country wants to go against us and watch thier economy go down the drain, they are free to do so. As for the US telling people they can't have WMD's well I think that makes perfect sense! Oh, and we tell Japan and Germany that they can't have a military for a good reason.
Amsterdam trying to bring my understanding of the word dictator into question wasn't really answering my question was it??
Just makes you look a twat.

The interference that brought Pinochet to power was US backed so your theory of the US being against dictators seems to apply only to certain dictators.
The rise of the Ba-ath party in Iraq was also US backed , funny that really considering who the last leader of the party was don't you think?
As for economic power isn't it western banks that refuse to cancel third world debt the reason why the west gets to dictate prices on the world market.
As for Germany and Japan they are as much linked financialy with Europe and the US that they are now considered allies so they are in the same boat so to speak.
If the US tells others they can't have WMD then why should the US be allowed ?, if I phrase it this way do you think you could give a real answer this time since your answer of "it makes perfect sense" is just bullshit and not an answer.Why does it make sense ? So that they can continue the John Wayne act? Who gave the US the right to be so hypocritical ?

[amsterdam]

well genius,when you are at war with a super power like russia,you have to weigh your options,support a evil dictator or support an evil empire.

support of these regimes(pinochet,marcos,shah.)were entirely defensible in the context of the cold war.we were fighting a larger battle.given the soviet union posed thye greatest threat to freedom and human rights in the world,the united states was RIGHT to attach less significance to the status of pinochet,marcos and the shah.

now the cold war is over,so why are we supporting unelected regimes in pakistan,egypt and saudi arabia?ONCE AGAIN,the liberaL fails to ask the relevant question.what is the alternative??during the 70's,jimmy carter decided that the longtime ally of the united states,the shah of iran,was a despot.applying TYPICAL LIBERAL LOGIC,carter decided that he could not continue to support the shah.indeed,he actively aided in the shahs ouster.the result,of course,was the reign of the ayatollah khomeini..if the shah was bad,khomeini was worse.

to avoid this kind of disaster,america should be slow to destabalize the flawed regimes of pakistan,egypt,and saudi arabia.

[psychocat]

[QUOTE=amsterdam]well genius,when you are at war with a super power like russia,you have to weigh your options,support a evil dictator or support an evil empire.
TYPICAL LIBERAL LOGIC,

Liberal ?? LMAO
Is that supposed to be an insult ? Sorry but I don't see it that way at all.
Why do some people think that insulting remarks have any place in a discusion ? I don't subscribe to any major political party and really don't care wether someone else does , could you give me your definition of "liberal" ?
The support of a regime that does exactly what Saddam was doing is justified because it serves the agenda of the US ? That is so hypocritical and typical of self serving meglomaniacs like the US goverment.
Surely the support of any sort of evil (as you put it) makes the supporter as guilty as the perpetrators ??
And as for your opening quote of "genius" I must thank you for recognising that compared to you that's exactly what I would be.

[pisshead]

what amsterdam engages in is doublethink (if you've read 1984)...and ad hominem attacks. he thinks by throwing out the world liberal...it somehow ends the discussion and makes him right. i've noticed half the people he calls liberals have no idea why, and have said they aren't liberal. me included. what amsterdam doesn't realize is that he supports, if we use the current definition of the world liberal, the most liberal president we've ever had, george w. bush.

he's not smart enough to realize both parties are the same and are bringing this down country, not by accident either, these people aren't dumb. they're using age old propaganda using a fake left and right to engineer society. a select few people are currently consolidating everything in this country as a giant electronic control grid of taxation and surveillance and tracking is being put in place.

get ready for the water and power and oil "shortages" that will be used as an excuse for more control and higher prices. and then we'll get our own IMF riot. your power will be shut off if you use too much, just like your water...i know people won't believe this until it happens, and then when it does happen they'll accept it becase they'll have been told it's necessary because we're running out of resources and we've got to conserve, we're in a war on terror after all! this is called propaganda and social engineering, controlled by a few.

you also pit one group against another. julius caesar wrote about this in the battle for gaul, how to basically build your empire by doing this. rulers have had thousands of years to perfect this, and it still goes on today. we're a modern day empire with television and technology.

amsterdam can't think outside of the box that's been created for him and cares more about what's happening halfway around the world than he does at home. he's in this little left/right camp that makes no sense, as both parties destroy the constituion and bill of rights.

[amsterdam]

[QUOTE=amsterdam]well genius,when you are at war with a super power like russia,you have to weigh your options,support a evil dictator or support an evil empire.
TYPICAL LIBERAL LOGIC,

Liberal ?? LMAO
Is that supposed to be an insult ? Sorry but I don't see it that way at all.
Why do some people think that insulting remarks have any place in a discusion ? I don't subscribe to any major political party and really don't care wether someone else does , could you give me your definition of "liberal" ?
The support of a regime that does exactly what Saddam was doing is justified because it serves the agenda of the US ? That is so hypocritical and typical of self serving meglomaniacs like the US goverment.
Surely the support of any sort of evil (as you put it) makes the supporter as guilty as the perpetrators ??
And as for your opening quote of "genius" I must thank you for recognising that compared to you that's exactly what I would be.


ISNT THAT WHAT YOU WANT YOUR GOVERNMENT TO DO??i wouldnt want to be an american if our government didnt look out for our interests.isnt that what all governments do??

[amsterdam]

did pisshead quote 1984?can anyone say jackass?get a real argument instead of refering to science fiction NOVELS

[pisshead]

eric blair knew what he was writing about when he wrote that book.

same with aldous huxley, brother of the first head of UNESCO.

i'm sure you know all about eric blair, right?

[amsterdam]

as a matter of fact.

[Hydrizzle]

Lol, pisshead, I remember you saying you never even read George Orwell.... turns out your full of it again....

Psychocat, you don't seem to understand just how dangerous nukes are. That's why the US doesnt allow anyone to have them. The countries they are trying to deny are all shitty ass dictatorships or communists. If you can't figure out why these countries should not have WMD's then you are more naive than i thought. Oh by the way calling me a twat doesn't prove shit.

You say "If the US tells others they can't have WMD then why should the US be allowed ?"

Ok..... you need to understand that we ALREADY HAVE NUKES!!!! You can't just say "the US shouldn't have nukes!" neither should China or ANY country! Your not being realistic. Let me ask you a question, which many other libs have not been able to answer... its quite simple really.... ok here goes:

What would your criteria be for countries to own or buy nuclear/biological weapons that don't already?

Please, for the love of god, don't tell me that no country should have nukes. Thats just not realistic.

[amsterdam]

could it be orwell??????????????????sneaky!LOL.

[Hydrizzle]

How much do want to bet, Amsterdam, that no one can answer that simple question. I got $50 on it.

[pisshead]

show me where i said that. give me the link. you're full of shit.

i still know more about the life of eric blair, and how the ideas for that book (which is nothing new in history) came about. it's obvious you don't really care.

same with aldous huxley. the speeche he gave towards the end of his life are really intriguing. don't bother reading them though, way over your head.

[amsterdam]

you are right about one thing,i dont care.the guy wrote a book?join the club,yippi-skippi!

[Hydrizzle]

Oops, it was Morlboro man who said that. Oh well I mix you guys up so easy.... seems like you 2 are clones... conspiracy theory clones....

[pisshead]

my favorite conspiracy theory is the 19 freedom hating hijackers who managed to warn administration members not to fly, made record put options anonymously (impossible!), and evaded our air defense as they sat there helpless (while also running a drill of exactly what was happening as it was happening, even though no one ever knew such a thing could happen!) for as long as they did.

those are some real good tinpot flotsam and jetsam terrorists there. all commanded by their leader who hides in caves!

[amsterdam]

x-files music plays.

[pisshead]

ad hominem attacks don't add credence to your conspiracy of 19 freedom hating muslims.

[Hydrizzle]

They arent freedom-hating muslims... they hate us because we supprot Isreal and Saudi Arabia.... really they just hate us for meddling in thier politics...


Nee-nee-nee-nee-neeeee-neee

^X-files music^

[pisshead]

bush said they hate freedom. are you calling lord bush a liar?

[psychocat]

They arent freedom-hating muslims... they hate us because we supprot Isreal and Saudi Arabia.... really they just hate us for meddling in thier politics...


Nee-nee-nee-nee-neeeee-neee

^X-files music^


I believe what they hate amog other things is the hypocrisy of the US , the meglomaniacal leaders who believe the US has any right to tell others how they should run their countries and of course the arrogance that makes them believe they are better than others.
The US is notoriously paranoid , they always seem to seek out enemies where none existed.

[psychocat]

did pisshead quote 1984?can anyone say jackass?get a real argument instead of refering to science fiction NOVELS

You can't miss the cameras monitoring every move.
The media censorship and manipulation.
The demands for ever tighter restrictions imposed on the general public.
The hysteria is the result of spin and bullshit but the results are the same , just an excuse to gain more power and more control.
These were science fiction but like a lot of sci- fi it has become reality.

Just because you dismiss something as sci - fi doesn't mean anything , try reading Jules Verne or how about the idea of sattelites (first put forward by a sci - fi writer) or maybe you would prefer the writings of these sites :
http://spaces.msn.com/members/zaphodsheads/Blog/cns!1pSxr6XsAtAaQgOgn4BQNx-Q!194.entry
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/land-warrior.htm The technology described here isn't fiction but it started out that way , so how funny is sci-fi now??

[pisshead]

yeah, this is 2005, it's not 1960 anymore, technology has radically taken over our daily lives (and it could be used for good, and is going to increasingly be used for monitoring and surveillance and tracking and taxing and following...drones will be taking over our air defense and military...

and we'll have robot police walking around and people will still call it freedom.

if anyone knows about the inventor tesla...his ideas could revolutionize the way we live, and this was decades ago...but those in power who use the fascism and the socialism to control people choose not to use it, but to suppress it.

[amsterdam]

I believe what they hate amog other things is the hypocrisy of the US , the meglomaniacal leaders who believe the US has any right to tell others how they should run their countries and of course the arrogance that makes them believe they are better than others.
The US is notoriously paranoid , they always seem to seek out enemies where none existed.


that is a stupid point.stupid.japan,al queda.we didnt seek them out.did you even go to school?jesus christ that is funny. :D

[Hydrizzle]

Yes, Pisshead, I am calling lord Bush a liar, in fact I don't even like him. however, i do support the war b/c it ousted a brutal dictator... if bush has to lie to America to make us do what right, then more power to him. I wish Clinton would have lied to get troops into Rwanda... maybe 800,000 people wouldn't have been slaughtered by machetes...

Bye the way, no-on e still has answered my question: what criteria would all you liberals use to decide which countries can have WMD's that dont already?

Once again I state that no-one will be able to answer this.

[pisshead]

well, i'm not a liberal, so i dont qualify to answer.

[Hydrizzle]

Answer it anyway. No bullshit, no links to random sites, no saying "no-one should have nukes" just list, if you could make that coice, what criteria would you use.

[Hydrizzle]

Haha, just asI thought, no one on this board has any real answers, only complaints. I bet the only ones who could answer such a simple question are me, Amsterdam, Torog, and Yocass. All you liberals and conspiracy-theorists have shown your stupidity once again.

(prove me wrong by giving a freakin' answer)

[pisshead]

i think only countries whose names include united states of america or isreal should have them. if you have dark skin and speak arabic, maybe you shouldn't be able to have them?

is this a trick question? do you have the real answer?

so when do we start the invasions of all those other countries that have them? we gots us lots of liberatin' to do!

[Marlboroman]

Im not a liberal either but im going to answer your dumb ass question, with a statement instead of a list.

By the geneva convention no WMD's are suppossed to be produced. This was put in place to specifically control their production and use.(thats a good thing)

So.... by his agreement countries that dont already have them are subject to invasion for accuiring them.

SO... the subject sort of dies off after you say that.

There is no criteria, there never will be a criteria, because the UN and US wont allow it. It would be a total waste of time to write a list of would be criteria to a dead subject.

anmd not to mention I was never a part of this conversation.... I am the one who never read Orwell.

[GHoSToKeR]

Hydrizzle, your insistance that people should answer your question, and then insulting them for not bothering to do so, just makes you look imature. You're not winning the argument by a long shot - give it up.

[Hydrizzle]

It simply proves my point that liberals (if you not that then what the hell are you; all of your view are crazy liberal), have only complaitns and no real answers. All they do is moan about how the government is so bad, and America is sooooo horrible... there is no evil in the world but America... blah blah blah Michael Moore blah!

[psychocat]

Answer it anyway. No bullshit, no links to random sites, no saying "no-one should have nukes" just list, if you could make that coice, what criteria would you use.

The obvious answer is simple really ,no country has the right to tell another country what they can and can't have, no country that would use them should be allowed them , the US is simply using bully boy tactics and nothing else.
If you believe that the US has the right to tell others what to do then you really need to refresh yourself as to what freedom means , freedom for one is elitist, but then thats typical of the US to believe it doesn't have to toe the line just like everybody else.
Answer my question if you think you can :
Who gave the US the right to decide who is good and who is evil ?

You obviously need to educate yourself as to why the US has had so many enemies .

[psychocat]

IRAN
In 1946, the Soviet Union occupied parts of Northern Iran that had previously been attached to the Soviet Union. Truman demanded a Soviet retreat and succeeded in having the Russian troops removed. This overlooked event signified a basis for cooperation with the Soviet Union. The U.S. government ignored the Soviet acquiescence and headed into the Cold War. The next major Iranian event occurred in 1954 when Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh threatened to nationalize the oil industry. He was forced to resign and the U.S. had its colleague, the anti-Communist and anti-nationalist Shah Pahlevi, firmly in power. The State Department failed to realize that the Shah considered Iran his personal fiefdom and that the uneven economic progress he brought to Iran did not have the support of the masses, especially those inclined to a more rigid Islam. This lack of foresight proved fatal to the Shah and American interests in Iran.

In 1979, the Iranians deposed the Shah and an Islamic movement, led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, gained control. Instead of using diplomacy with the new government and demonstrating restraint, U.S. policy reflected its bias against a regime that did not follow its dictates. Despite Iran's protests, the Carter government, with advice from the ubiquitous Henry Kissinger, allowed the Shah to enter the U.S. for medical treatment. This event provoked extreme groups in Iran to seize the American embassy and hold U.S. citizens as prisoners. The Shah eventually returned to Panama and died in Egypt. Relations with Iran rapidly declined to a total separation. The U.S. quickly lost any economic and strategic advantages it had established in Iran.

U.S. policy planners could not admit mistakes and their policy towards Iran continued on a destructive path. In Iraq's war against Iran, the U.S. provided arms and support to Saddam Hussein. U.S. moved warships into the Straits of Tiran to guard the straits and protect Kuwait against possible Iranian aggression. The only aggression in the Straits was the bombing of a U.S. warship by the Iraqi air force, which at that time was considered a U.S. friend. The Iran/Iraq war, encouraged by U.S. military support to Iraq, caused massive destruction to both countries and to their Kurdish citizens. The hostilities in the Straits of Tiran damaged Iranian shipping and brought death and losses to their flimsy navy. In a coda to the macabre concerto, a U.S. warship shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in Iran territorial waters, and all on board perished. After all these catastrophes, the U.S. has tried to establish friendly relations with Iran. The Iranians are obstinate.

Two recent events have impeded any rapproachment between the United States and Iran. The American occupation of Iraq has strengthened the Shiite majority in that country and made the U.S. suspicious that Iran will influence its co-religionists to favor Iranian policies. U.S. antagonism, pushed by Israel's fear of Iran, has provoked Iran to pursue nuclear weapons. Words lead to more bitter words and not any positive action. Iran's relations with America are as strained as the first day that the U.S. assisted the Shah after his downfall.

IRAQ
U.S. policy towards Iraq has been the reverse of its policy towards Iran. The U.S.caused Iran to become an enemy and later tried to coerce Iran to become a friend. The U.S. supported Iraq in the 1980's, and almost over-night, like Jekyll becoming Hyde, turned itself into an enemy of Iraq. Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait changed America's attitude. Within one month, U.S. led forces in the Persian Gulf war destroyed Iraq. U.S. policy built up an intended friend, determined the intended friend was actually an enemy and then saved the enemy country by destroying it.

Accurate Iraqi casualty figures in the Gulf War, killed and wounded, have been difficult to verify. Estimates range from tens of thousands to 300,000. The PBS program Frontline broadcast its acceptance of the following figures:

According to "Gulf War Air Power Survey" by Thomas A. Keaney and Eliot A. Cohen, (a report commissioned by the U.S. Air Force; 1993-ISBN 0-16-041950-6), there were an estimated 10-12,000 Iraqi combat deaths in the air campaign and as many as 10,000 casualties in the ground war. This analysis is based on enemy prisoner of war reports. The Iraqi government says 2,300 civilians died during the air campaign. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/appendix/death.html

Did all of this have to happen? By being cordial to Saddam Hussein for many years, the United States reinforced the Iraqi leader's power. State department dispatches indicate that Ambassador Glaspie gave Iraq a "green" light to invade Kuwait, or at least did not apply sufficient pressure to prevent the invasion.

Iraq had legitimate complaints: Kuwait had siphoned oil from the shifting sands of Iraqi territory: Kuwait owed a prostate Iraq some remuneration after having defended Kuwait against a possible Iran incursion: Kuwait walked out of discussions on the complaints and totally rebuffed Iraq. The United States could have arbitrated these complaints or forced the parties to comply with its directives. The U.S. policy makers had options. They chose to be complacent and indirectly paved the path to a punishing war.

The post-war policy continued a ferocious pattern and U.S. and British planes bombed Iraq for the next ten years. The bombings destroyed more "command and control" facilities and "radar bases" than Iraq could possibly have had. This senseless and vicious policy transformed Iraq from an emerging country with moderate prosperity into an impoverished country with a starving population. Statistics from a "UN Report on the Current Humanitarian Situation in Iraq, Mar. 1999:"

[Hydrizzle]

Ok..... you need to understand that we ALREADY HAVE NUKES!!!! You can't just say "the US shouldn't have nukes!" neither should China or ANY country! Your not being realistic. Let me ask you a question, which many other libs have not been able to answer... its quite simple really.... ok here goes:

What would your criteria be for countries to own or buy nuclear/biological weapons that don't already?

Please, for the love of god, don't tell me that no country should have nukes. Thats just not realistic.


Apparently you didn't read that, and spewed the exact same garbage about how "no-one should have nukes" that I predicted you would. Thank for proving my poijnt yet again. STILL you liberals fail at answering such a simple question.

Allow me to reitterate: No country that has nukes right now is going to just throw them away! So tell me, what countries woudl you like to have nukes? As far as I know the only ones trying are N. Korea and Iran, both dangerous countires with abysmal human rights records.

[psychocat]

It simply proves my point that liberals (if you not that then what the hell are you; all of your view are crazy liberal), have only complaitns and no real answers. All they do is moan about how the government is so bad, and America is sooooo horrible... there is no evil in the world but America... blah blah blah Michael Moore blah!

I have an answer for you , in fact I have a lot of answers.
Firstly the US should stop interfering in the politics of other countries.
The armed forces that are being used to impose the will of the US on other nations should be back home protecting the borders of America because that is their real purpose for being.
I am still waiting for your definition of a liberal ??
Does supporting the death penalty make me a liberal ?
Does believing we should have the right to beat the living shit out of burglars make me a liberal ?
Does wanting to shoot all people who use the word liberal as an insult make me a liberal ?
Does the fact that I hate all religion (dividing people by belief) make me a liberal ?
Please explain to me how you come to the conclusion that I or anyone else here is liberal ?
Or maybe you think that by making your feeble remarks that I will somehow forget that you really have no idea ??
Forget the attempts at veiled insults, be a man and say what you really think , because thats what I'm going to do right now.
You are a fucking moron.

[makor01]

The armed forces that are being used to impose the will of the US on other nations should be back home protecting the borders of America because that is their real purpose for being.

Atcually thats the border police's job. Hasnt been the job of the military since youve been alive. You are Wrong there.

[Marlboroman]

It simply proves my point that liberals (if you not that then what the hell are you; all of your view are crazy liberal), have only complaitns and no real answers. All they do is moan about how the government is so bad, and America is sooooo horrible... there is no evil in the world but America... blah blah blah Michael Moore blah!

You keep calling us "liberals" even tho we keep trying to tell you that we dont fit into either mold.

If you bother to read what we write you might see it yourself. Keep listening to the hate mongers that spout things like this...

"Liberals hate the Bush Administration. Since the Bush Administration is an Administration of Moral Values and work to defeat Terrorism, Liberals hate morals, values and love Terrorism"

-Bill O'Rielly


"Talking Points" is convinced that the USA cannot defeat terrorism and any other evil if it constantly has to respond to allegations of conspiracy, smoke screening the issue, and staging justifications to entice the American public to support the President's war against the evil doers.

"Talking Points" feels that it has spent enough time on this issue and will not waste anymore time on this so that we can pursue real stories that matter, because we're looking out for you.

By definition makeing Bill O'Rielly a Bigot.

bigot

n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own



But look here, proof you can learn from hate mongers.

"The doom of a nation can be averted only by a storm of flowing passion, but only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in others."
- Adolf Hitler

Here is why you bring religion into political matters when you want less opposition..

"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge"
- Adolf Hitler


Peace.

[psychocat]

Atcually thats the border police's job. Hasnt been the job of the military since youve been alive. You are Wrong there.

The point of having an army is and should be to defend oneself and not to go around building empires on the backs of those less fortunate than yourselves.
That is a simple premise to understand and also the reason why no foreign troops should ever occupy (liberate hah ) foreign lands.
Britain is vilified for it's previous empire building yet the US is guilty of exactly the same thing right now.

[Hydrizzle]

Still, psychocat, you fail fail fail at answering the question. If you aren't liber, then what the hell are you? A revolutionary? You think we should go to some socialistic utopian society where there is no bad things? Why can't you just answer the question instead of saying THE EXCACT THING I PREDICTED YOU WOULD!!?!?!??!

It just makes you look like an idiot.

YOU, sir a fucking moron, to believe in conspiracy-theory garbage like that. "no-one should have nukes!!! The US was the first to use it so they should'nt have it! WAA WAA!"

How about some solutions instead of bitching about how big&bad the US is, you whiney little bitch.

[GHoSToKeR]

Saying nobody should have nukes is neither ridiculous nor a conspiracy theory. In fact, I don't see how it could even come close to being anything even remotely similiar to a conspiracy theory.

Secondly, Hydrizzle, I don't see why you are resorting to name-calling and profanity to get your point across. I'm sure Psychocat understands your view, as do I, but why insult him (us) for having a differing opinion?

I'd like to see you come up with some solutions, Hydrizzle. You can theorize and dream up solutions all you want, but the fact of the matter is that nobody is going to listen to your solutions, so why waste your breathe? Your 'solution' would probably make little sense and not be feasible, which goes the same for mine.. so why bother?

Thirdly, we can bitch all we want. I'm sure you bitch about a hundred things every day, so before you go telling us not to bitch you might try and shut the fuck up yourself, first? No? Then please, keep your 'suggestions' to yourself.

[Hydrizzle]

The solution is already being done, but not to the extent I'd like.... when some madmen threaten pece, we go attack them... its that simple. I think we shoudl have attacked Iran and N Korea a long time ago, and any other regiems that might (keyword: MIGHT) have nukes. Meanwhile, all of you propose that somehow we magically get rip of all the nukes all these countires already have, or you propose that anyone who want nukes, should have them on the sole premise that "well, the US has them, and they are assholes, so why not let some other assholes have them!"

Bye the way I was only insulting in response to an insult directed at me.

[psychocat]

The solution is already being done, but not to the extent I'd like.... when some madmen threaten pece, we go attack them... its that simple. I think we shoudl have attacked Iran and N Korea a long time ago, and any other regiems that might (keyword: MIGHT) have nukes. Meanwhile, all of you propose that somehow we magically get rip of all the nukes all these countires already have, or you propose that anyone who want nukes, should have them on the sole premise that "well, the US has them, and they are assholes, so why not let some other assholes have them!"

Bye the way I was only insulting in response to an insult directed at me.

To believe there is no peaceful solution makes you exactly what I said you were.
In fact what I should've said is you are a narrow minded moron.
It is exactly because of your kind of logic that the US feels the need to protect itself , the simple answer is don't fuck with others and they are not so likely to want to fuck with you.
A lot of the "threats" to America are a direct result of US bully boy tactics , trying to shove ones opinion down the throats of those who think differently doesn't make anyone right just ignorant.

[GHoSToKeR]

"A lot of the "threats" to America are a direct result of US bully boy tactics"

Thats what it boils down to. America sticks its 'nose' in to another country's business, then the country gets pissed with America, then America says that this country is a hostile threat and is threatening democracy all over the world then wants to bomb the hell out of it. Its disgusting.

[U4EUH]

ionno niggas this shit seems an awful lot like that cold war bullshit