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?