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

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.