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

[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?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.

[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)"