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

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

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.

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

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....

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!

x-files music plays.

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

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^

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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^

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amsterdam

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/l...nd-warrior.htm The technology described here isn't fiction but it started out that way , so how funny is sci-fi now??

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

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

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.

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

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.

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)

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!

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.

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.

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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 .

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/frontl...dix/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:"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by makor01

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

"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.

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