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

No, that would be the forked tail and horns lol

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

Haha, nah dude, it's Salad Fingers.. You can find him here, 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)

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.

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amsterdam

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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....

---

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????

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....

"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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

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?p...eQ&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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR

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?

"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.

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.

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.

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




He won't answer that question, by the way

i know,compassion,its a bitch.

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)"

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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 ?

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR

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....

Quote:

---

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.

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??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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??

---

do you know what a dictator is? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amsterdam

do you know what a dictator is? :confused:

---

These are dictators:

Ooooooooh I thought you said dicTAKERS :p

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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 ?

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.

[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.

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.

[QUOTE=psychocat]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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??

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

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?

as a matter of fact.

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.

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