Are there 'good weapons of mass destruction and bad ones? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-30-2003, 09:39 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:10 PM
Part of the reason this thread was started was because there are some that feel that there it is hypicritical of the USA to have Nuclear weapons while at the same ensure that Iraq is disarmed.

The reason Iraq was disarmed was not simply because of its possession of WMD, but because of its behavior and violations which including invading and attacking 4 countries in the region in a small space of time without any legitamite provication.

The primary reason this USA has nuclear weapons is to deter the use of nuclear weapons, or other WMD. Deterence helped to prevent World War III which potentially could have led to the destruction of the planet or Soviet domination of the world.

Since the Cold War, the USA has substantially reduced its Nuclear force. Within 10 years, the USA will have less than 3,000 Nuclear War heads. Thats down from a Cold War high of over 20,000 Nuclear Weapons. In addition, the US military no longer has Chemical or Biological weapons. No other country in the world has reduced its stockpiles of WMD to the percentage degree that the USA has.

People here have said that the behavior of the country does not matter when it comes to WMD, which is nonsense. Behavior does matter. The USA's wise use and development of Nuclear Weapons have saved an uncountable number of lives.

The USA will continue to maintain its nuclear deterent at some level until the means of verfication and detection improve to such a degree that total disarmament is not a threat to national security.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 04:47 AM   #17
War Child
 
Marko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 739
Local Time: 12:10 AM
Sting
We meet again in short time
Please can you tell me what do you think about US using weapons that are baned by geneve convention (cluster bombs)?

Another thing - why did you decide to eliminate Sadam and 'free' Iraqi people right now? why didn't the world finish it 10 yrs ago when Iraqi people expected it, wanted it and than a lot of them died when you failed to fullfil your promises?

Deterance - who was the first on with A-bomb? We are talkin here about chicken and egg. If nobody made a-bomb than there would be no need for deternace... how do you know that it was you detering the soviets and not the another way around... What I'm saying is that if there was no big arms bildup there would be no need for deterance - which leeds to further arms bildup which leads........

PLEASE tell me do you realy think that US government has honest and rightfull intentions? I would realy like to know. And if you do, tell me why is there no action against some countries in South America, Africa, China, S. Korea, AND ESPECIALY Israel! How do you explain your close connection with country which invented the term 'terorist' by practising it (sp? sory), and where the civil freedoms (especilay if you are a muslim) are totaly neglected...

please give me you views on those subjects...
__________________

__________________
Marko is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 11:17 AM   #18
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:10 PM
Marko, well done.

Sting and Nbcrusader,
I realize everything you are saying. Yes I know the arms race is over, and yes I know that we have disarmed a large percentage of our nukes. But this is no reason to praise the US, we had the largest quantity, and Russia has disarmed a large percentage as well, in fact the US has used Russia's disarmed weapons to power cities here in the states.

But as Marko pointed out, if it wasn't for the arms race, we wouldn't be in the situation we are now. And by your logic because US holds the largest stick, we are the ones to determine who can and cannot have these weapons. So now we are the moral police to determine who will be a danger and who will not, and we will enforce this logic with a large arsenal of weapons?! So when the US gets their way, using your logic, the only ones that will be able to poccess these WMDs will be the US and their allies. So then what's the point? If only a group of friends have the sticks either they will bully the guys without them, the sticks will be obtained from the guys who don't have but want the sticks, or they will start turning on each other. I'm saying everyone put down their sticks and quit feeding me this defense crap.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 05-01-2003, 03:03 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:10 PM
Marko,

Hello! Thank you for your interesting questions.

"Please can you tell me what do you think about US using weapons that are baned by geneve convention (cluster bombs)?"

I don't see why the geneva convention would ban the use of cluster bombs. They are effective weapons against enemy infantry in the open. There is a lot of protest about them because some of the small bombs fail to detonate and later detonate when a civilian tries to tamper with it or a soldier tries to ensure it is deactivated.

But cluster bombs are not the only explosives that fail to sometimes detonate. There have been 2,000 pound bombs that have failed to detonate or a shell fired from a tank. Unexploded ordanance is a problem with any "battlefield". Cluster bombs are not the only bombs that sometimes fail to detonate. There for, I see no reason compared to other weapons, under which they should be banned.

"Another thing - why did you decide to eliminate Sadam and 'free' Iraqi people right now? why didn't the world finish it 10 yrs ago when Iraqi people expected it, wanted it and than a lot of them died when you failed to fullfil your promises?"

It is easy to forget the context under which the first Gulf War happened. Many Americans in the US congress did not want to use military force to push Iraq out of Kuwait, let alone go into Iraq and take out Saddam. They wanted to use Sanctions to get Iraq out of Kuwait.

George Bush Sr. in 1990/1991 realized Sanctions would not work and that military force would be required to remove the Iraqi Military from Kuwait. George Bush Sr. was able to assemble a large coalition to do this. But it was difficult to get the world and US public opinion to support the war effort that was required to remove the Iraqi Military from Kuwait. In the end Bush succeeded in getting the approval he needed to do just that. But because it was so difficult to get the support to remove Iraq from Kuwait with force, it was essentially impossible to get the support needed for overthrowing Saddam and occupying Iraq until a stable democracy could be formed. George Bush Sr. did what was politically possible in 1991.

In addition, after the war, Saddam's defeat and the destruction to his military had been so large, many felt it Saddam would not last much longer. In addition, it was strongly believed that the UN inspector would be able to disarm Saddam peacefully. The Sanctions remained in place and it was thought this could indeed prevent foreign supply and aid to Saddam. It was believed that despite it not being politically possible at the time to overthrow Saddam, that a strategy of containment would keep Saddam in a box he could not get out of until he fell from within.

The reality is that Containment weakened over the years. Countries bordering Iraq made a fortune from blackmarket smuggling. UN weapons inspectors only found and disarmed WMD that Saddam allowed them to. Saddam had no intention of fully cooperating. Saddam was also starting to make money despite sanctions. It was also found that Saddams internal security force was way to powerful for their ever to be a successful coup without foreign troops helping.

Saddam soon got inspectors removed from the country. He still had WMD that had not been destroyed and was now free to produce more. This was in 1998. Because of the failure of Sanctions, Inspections, and other elements of the containment policy against Saddam since 1991, and in light of the ability of international terrorist to strike the USA mainland on 9/11, it was felt that the USA and world could no longer afford to have Saddam in power or at least armed with a growing number of WMDs and potentially soon, nuclear weapons.

Invasion of Iraq in 2003 was chosen because in light of past events, it was the only effective way to ensure that Saddam was disarmed of his WMD capability. The failure of the containment regime around Saddam for the past 12 years and the experience of 9/11 made it politically possible in the USA to finally do this.




"Deterance - who was the first on with A-bomb? We are talkin here about chicken and egg. If nobody made a-bomb than there would be no need for deternace... how do you know that it was you detering the soviets and not the another way around... What I'm saying is that if there was no big arms bildup there would be no need for deterance - which leeds to further arms bildup which leads........"

The USA! Why did the USA build the A-bomb? The USA started to develop the A-bomb in the 1930s because the Germans already had a program that was well under way. The USA succeeded in its development process and went way ahead of the Germans. Having a fully developed A-Bomb in 1945, it was used against Japan to force a quick surrender, there by saving millions of Japanese lives.

In the years between 1945 and the first Berlin Crises(I think 1948) the USA only had two nuclear weapons. During that first Berlin Crises though, the USA flew hundreds of the type of Bombers that had dropped the A-Bomb on Japan to Germany. This convinced the Soviets that the USA had hundreds of nuclear weapons. The Soviets backed down and did not invade Western Europe. A perfect example of deterence preventing Soviet Aggression.

Deterence involves preventing another person from taking a certain course of action. Deterence did not just involve detering a Soviet nuclear attack on the USA. It was actually more appropriate to the term in regards to preventing a Soviet Conventional invasion of Western Europe.

We know it was the USA detering the Soviets and not the other way around, because of the unbelievable large military force that the Soviets maintained in Eastern Europe. These forces were very "Tank Heavy" and had lots of logistical supplies and support necessary for a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Tank or Armored divisions in the numbers the Soviets had them, were far more than what was required to defend against any NATO attack on western Europe. In fact, in the early years, the mis-match between NATO conventional forces and Warsaw Pact conventional forces was so extreme, that only NATO's use of nuclear weapons would stop a Soviet led, Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. The Soviets also had lots of bridging equipment that would be useless for defending Eastern Europe. The only reason to have such large amounts of this equipment would be for offensive operations into Western Europe in which bridging Equipment would be needed to get across rivers where NATO had destroyed all the bridges across in an attempt to stop or slow the Soviet advance. The Soviets unlike most countries never really disarmed from World War II. The Soviet Union maintained the worlds largest military force from 1945 to 1991.

During the early years of the Cold War, US nuclear Weapons were a deterent to a Soviet Conventional attack on Europe. In the later years of the Cold War when the Soviet Union had the ability to target the US mainland with Nuclear Weapons, US Nuclear Weapons became only a deterent against Soviet Unions use of such weapons. Using Nuclear weapons in response to a Soviet Conventional attack on Western Europe was no longer a possible deterent given a potential nuclear response to the USA mainland. The USA and NATO had to strenthen their conventional defenses of Western Europe in order to deter a Soviet Attack. US Nuclear Weapons now were only a deterent to Soviet Nuclear Weapons since the Soviets had achieved Nuclear Parity with the USA. Strangely, the Soviets achievement of Nuclear Parity with the USA, actually made a conventional war in Europe much more likely than before.

The ultimate answer to your question is that it is true that there would be no big arms build up if no one starting arming themselves to such a degree as to be a threat to someone else. It was Hitler that started the A-Bomb development in addition to building up his military and launching World War II. The USA in the 1930s had a tiny military. The Soviets were already developing a large military for Stalins aggresive plans. The Soviets maintained the large military they had built during World War II whent he war was over. They did not disarm and in fact continued to develop and field a huge inventory of conventional weapons and later nuclear weapons. It is the Germans and soon after the Soviets arms build ups and potential threat to global security that forced the USA to build up its military to prevent the attack that would of happened without such a build up.

"PLEASE tell me do you realy think that US government has honest and rightfull intentions? I would realy like to know. And if you do, tell me why is there no action against some countries in South America, Africa, China, S. Korea, AND ESPECIALY Israel! How do you explain your close connection with country which invented the term 'terorist' by practising it (sp? sory), and where the civil freedoms (especilay if you are a muslim) are totaly neglected... "

The US government has very honest legitamite intentions. It is the goal of the US government to provide security around the world to prevent any major disruption of the global economy. It is also the goal of the US government to increase free trade, economic development, and democracy through out the world, because a more democratic, less impoverished world, is a world that is safer to live in and less likely to experience war.

But the USA does not have infinite resources and cannot engage and solve every civil war or overthrow every single dicator on the planet. The USA reserves its resources for those dictators and wars that threaten US national and global security. After that there may be resources left over to help out in area's who's problems do not necessarily threaten US or global security, but not all of them.

In regards to US action against certain regions or countries. In South America, there is no serious US military action because the region is relatively stable compared to many other parts of the world. There is poverty and the drug trade, but the answer to many of these problems is a non-military one. There is no large military threat like, Iraq in South America. The military's of most South American countries are comparitively small to those in Asia, Europe and. Major war between countries in South America is rare to non-existent.

In Africa, there are many problems do to widespread poverty. Like South America though, most countries in Africa do not have well armed military's like those in Europe and Asia. The ability of any one country to occupy and annex another is rather limited. In addition, most of Africa is isolated from the world economy because of the lack of a developed market. There for, the civil wars and politically instability there normaly do not upset the global economy. This is why intervention in Africa is rather limited.

China although a potential threat to most of Asia has essentially been detered from taking major military action for nearly 50 years(with the 1979 invasion of Vietnam being the exception). China is not a democracy and there are human rights abuses in China. China has not engaged in actions like Iraq has that would require its regime to be changed from an international security and law perspective. While bringing democracy to China would be a great thing, it would require a military invasion that would be so costly and would outweigh the potential benefit. Consider also that China continues to develop a capitalist economy. There is less and less State intervention in the economy. There are also more political freedoms in China than say 20 or 30 years ago. I'd say by 2030 there will be democracy in China. There is currently no need to engage china from a military perspective, because China is not doing anything that would warrent such a response. Democracy and human rights will gradually come to china over the next few decades as China becomes more intertwined with the global economy and the governments power decreases relative to business and individual economic power.

S. Korea?!?! I think you mean North Korea. In the case of North Korea, the USA has not acted there because North Korea is not in violation of any resolutions passed under chapter VII rules, has not invaded any countries in over 50 years. Its large military, especially large inventory of 11,000 artillery pieces is a huge concern. Seoul, the capital of the South, is within 30 miles of the border with the North and in range of much of this artillery. Any US military operation to overthrow or disarm North Korea would do so in the context of hundreds of thousands of shells landing on Seoul. While the US military could eventially destroy most of this artillery, they could not do so before hundreds of Thousands of people in Seoul had been killed. This unique situation, where such a large city is in range of so much artillery, is not seen anywhere else in the world.

Now North Korea has nuclear weapons which makes any military operation against the North Korea even less likely now. North Korea could kill millions of South Korean and Japanese citizens in response to a US invasion to disarm the country and overthrow the government. The USA does not act with the military because the cost of doing so is currently much greater than the costs of containment.

But one should remember that North Korea's behavior is less threatening than most other countries do to the fact that the country has only invaded one country in its history and that was over 50 years ago. North Korea has successfully detered the possibility of US military action for decades. Now with Nuclear Weapons, this deterent capability has only increased. But there is essentially no reason for a US military attack on North Korea because the North's behavior in regards to international relations has not been very threatening for the past 50 years. This plus, North Korea's huge military and nuclear capability are the obvious reasons why the USA will seek to solve its problems diplomaticly through regional discussions with the North Korea and countries in the region.

Israel is a country that has been a victim of Arab aggression for over 55 years now. The USA would not act against Israel, one of the few countries in the world where Arabs are allowed to vote.(I don't mean Arabs in the occupied territories, but in Israel itself)
The USA helps Israel defend itself from the Arab countries that have refused to recognize Israel's right to exist and have invaded the country in multiple wars.

It is difficult for me to understand why anyone would consider overthrowing one of the few democracies in the Middle East. Israel has a very complicated task in defending itself and its population. Israel is not in violation of any UN resolution passed under Chapter VII rules. Iraq was in violation of 17 UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. Only resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules, are member states allowed to use military force to bring about their compliance. Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules are the most serious which is why they allow for the use of military force.

The Israely/Palestinian problem will only be solved when Palestinians develop a policy of non-violent action and recognize Israels right ot exist. There also must be a regional negotiation and recognition by all Arab governments in the region of Israel's right to exist. These things are necessary for there to be peace.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 03:17 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:10 PM
Bonovoxsuperstar,

"But as Marko pointed out, if it wasn't for the arms race, we wouldn't be in the situation we are now. And by your logic because US holds the largest stick, we are the ones to determine who can and cannot have these weapons. So now we are the moral police to determine who will be a danger and who will not, and we will enforce this logic with a large arsenal of weapons?! So when the US gets their way, using your logic, the only ones that will be able to poccess these WMDs will be the US and their allies. So then what's the point? If only a group of friends have the sticks either they will bully the guys without them, the sticks will be obtained from the guys who don't have but want the sticks, or they will start turning on each other. I'm saying everyone put down their sticks and quit feeding me this defense crap."

The problem with your logic is that you presume that all countries have been equel in their actions from a moral and legal standpoint. This is false just as it is false that your actions and morality are equal to those of an inmate at the nearest prison to where you live.

It is because the USA currently holds the biggest stick that democracy is on the rise and regions vital to the global economy are not disrupted or invaded by dictators. The USA and its allies have their military's to defend their economic, political, and physical security. They have every right to do this.

Inmates at prison don't have weapons for obvious reasons. Its not wise also to allow violent offenders now out of jail to be able to purchase a weapon. Behavior is what matters rather than who is armed and who is not. The USA has every right to determine that when the USA's security is threatened or comprised by the actions of another country.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 05:00 PM   #21
War Child
 
Marko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 739
Local Time: 12:10 AM
Sting...
you are eloquent, but totaly black-white... and maybe a little bit too naive... (I don't mean it as insult) it seems to me that you are full of ideals. Sadly I lost mine during my war (i was 15 than) and now I'm a bit of a realist (you might call me cinic ) and not even U2 songs can change that
israel right to defend? and what about palestinian right on their country?
sadly I haven't got the time to respond fully to you I will only say that we don't see eye to eye... and concidering your arguments - you are basicly saying that you will react only when it's in your interest. so beig - don't go on saying that oyu have honest itention of spreding democracy and freeing the world.
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY... and, generaly, that's the point...
__________________
Marko is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 05:17 PM   #22
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 12:10 AM
In the times of the cold war ussr competed in many things, sports, conventional weapons abc weapons...
also i'll never understand why any country needs more weapons then are neccessary to destroy the whole planet - some people in the kremel and in the whitehouse found out that it makes sense to produce them.

Thanks to the economical colapse of the USSR (manly because of the enormous $ (sorry rubels) spent for "defense technology" there was a way to deescalate.

I'm glad we had that deescalation period and i would love to see more weapons banned from this eath and a stop of development of new nuclear weapons which make it more likely that a-weapons will be used. Once they will be used from a superpower in post WW2 times - there will be no more taboo and even less trust in the morale reasons from the US.

This WMD thing remembers me at some parrents who smoke and tell their kids to not do so because it's dangerous for your health.

Isrel and the US aren't only victims of attacks because they have a different religion, it's also because there is a huge difference in what they are talking and what they are doing and both sides are ways to powerfull to be attacked in a conventional way from their oponents.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 05:29 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:10 PM
Marko,

"you are eloquent, but totaly black-white... and maybe a little bit too naive... (I don't mean it as insult) it seems to me that you are full of ideals. Sadly I lost mine during my war (i was 15 than) and now I'm a bit of a realist (you might call me cinic ) and not even U2 songs can change that"

Without any further explanation, I fully reject the labels. In fact, I would consider myself to be a realist as well.

"israel right to defend? and what about palestinian right on their country?
sadly I haven't got the time to respond fully to you I will only say that we don't see eye to eye... and concidering your arguments - you are basicly saying that you will react only when it's in your interest. so beig - don't go on saying that oyu have honest itention of spreding democracy and freeing the world.
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY... and, generaly, that's the point..."

The Palestinians do not have a superior right to an independent state than Israel. Both should have independent states and Israel does today because they accepted the UN Peace Plan back in 1947. The Arabs rejected it and attempted to slaughter all of the Jews in the 1948 war. In fact, there is not a single peace plan that the Palestinians have accepted. They have always chosen violence and terror, which is the chief reason they don't have an independent State today in addition to Arab countries attempts to wipe Israel off the map.

It would be foolish for a country to not act when its security and survival are depenent on acting. Please name me a country that does not act in its own interest. It is not dishonest to act in ones interests. Every country has limited resources and must take care of their own interest before acting to help others. I'm sure your parents would help you before they would help other childern.

Its easier to make money in a world that is filled with democracies and free markets which the USA is spreading. It is not evil to make money. Iraqi's have the best opportunity to make money in decades because the USA is bringing democracy to Iraq. This is money that Iraqi families will be able to make in order to provide them with a better future and more opportunities.

What is in the USA's best interest is often what is in the best interest of most countries involved in the Global economy. The two are intertwined and are not easily seperated. The USA can't act everywhere, but they can act in some places.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 05:44 PM   #24
War Child
 
Marko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 739
Local Time: 12:10 AM
Sting
As I said I didn' mean it as Insult or label... that's why I put smilies there...
those are impressions you left me with and that's all...

What's best for USA is best for everyone else? Please! You are kidding, you must be kiding... you are on that side and that's only your view... I hope you don't concider yourself totaly objective. I don't see how this is the best for me... There were some actions taken or not taken by the US concidering my country (and Bosnia) which were unhuman and totaly directed to wicked goals... only when you saw that Milosevi wasn't able to defeat us all you took different stand on our issue but that's totaly different too long story for this thread

I think that we should exchange e-mails so we could go to a deeper debate - or you can drop by in Zagreb and we can have a good chat over a few drinks ... I'm going now and there is so much to say... I won't be back untill toomorow afternoon (european time)... damn...
__________________
Marko is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 05:44 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:10 PM
Klaus,

"I'm glad we had that deescalation period and i would love to see more weapons banned from this eath and a stop of development of new nuclear weapons which make it more likely that a-weapons will be used. Once they will be used from a superpower in post WW2 times - there will be no more taboo and even less trust in the morale reasons from the US."

"This WMD thing remembers me at some parrents who smoke and tell their kids to not do so because it's dangerous for your health."

"Isrel and the US aren't only victims of attacks because they have a different religion, it's also because there is a huge difference in what they are talking and what they are doing and both sides are ways to powerfull to be attacked in a conventional way from their oponents."


The USA has no intention of using Nuclear Weapons unless there is a Nuclear Attack on the USA that threatens the entire nations survival. 60 years since the first A-bomb, further development has obviously not made it more likely that Nuclear weapons will be used. Nuclear Weapons in the hands of True dictators that have threaten world peace in the past are what would make the use of Nuclear Weapons more likely.

The smoking Parents analogy does not fit. #1 mere possession of Nuclear Weapons does not threaten anyone. It is the possession of such weapons dictitorial regimes with expansionist or terrorist intentions that make such weapons dangerous.

A car can potentialy be a very deadly weapon, but in the hands of a responsible sober citizen, it is not a threat to anyone.

Let me remind you that Israel gets attacked every month by Palestinian madmen. I can't believe you don't consider 9/11 to be an attack. Any military action that disrupts the international economy in someway and hurts the USA is an attack on the USA. Oh and Israel was attacked in 1948, 1956, 1967(Israel of course wisely pre-empted the attack), and 1973. So this idea that the USA and Israel can't be attacked is a false one.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 05:45 PM   #26
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:10 PM
Quote:
The problem with your logic is that you presume that all countries have been equel in their actions from a moral and legal standpoint. This is false just as it is false that your actions and morality are equal to those of an inmate at the nearest prison to where you live.
No I presume nothing of the sort and I also don't presume that the US has been and will be infallible in theirs. This is why I don't believe this kind of power should be in anyone's hands.

Quote:
The USA and its allies have their military's to defend their economic, political, and physical security. They have every right to do this.
Economic, Physical--yes, I'm not so sure about political then you start to cross the line of forcing your beliefs. But yes they do have the right to defend, but these weapons are designed so that our military can distance themselves from the battlefield while taking thousands of civilians lives in the process. How is this defense?

Quote:
Inmates at prison don't have weapons for obvious reasons. Its not wise also to allow violent offenders now out of jail to be able to purchase a weapon. Behavior is what matters rather than who is armed and who is not.
Two things here. One; any day you or I could turn into a criminal. You could run into the man who you know raped and killed your daughter and walked free and you can decide to take justice into you own hands. Revenge is a temptatious demon. Not everyone's track record speaks for their future.

Two; when guards enter a prisoners cell certain weapons are removed so that the prisoners don't have access to these weapons. But how can you 100% guarentee me that not one weapon of mass destruction made by a "good hand" doesn't fall into a "bad hand".

My point is that it's too much destruction to be placed in anyone's hands, and just because your government has the biggest stick at this point and it makes your bed comfortable at night, doesn't make it right for the rest of the world.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 05-01-2003, 05:54 PM   #27
War Child
 
Marko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 739
Local Time: 12:10 AM
Quote:
The problem with your logic is that you presume that all countries have been equel in their actions from a moral and legal standpoint. This is false just as it is false that your actions and morality are equal to those of an inmate at the nearest prison to where you live.


just to follow up on BVS - than Sting your logic is that US is pure white gold, US leaders are saints and nothing bad and evil never did or never will come out of the US. That's blind, and it's blindes that was developed with a good use of propaganda...
__________________
Marko is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 06:12 PM   #28
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 12:10 AM
"The USA has no intention of using Nuclear Weapons unless there is a Nuclear Attack on the USA that threatens the entire nations survival. "

According to my informations you are wrong.
G.W.Bush repeated that there can be a primary strike with nuclear weapons and he also gave the budget to design new small a-bombs which don't affect so big areas to make them usuable in war (and not just strategic like the current a-bombs).

We 100% agree that a a-bomb in the hand of the USA is much better than the a-bomb in unstabile countries (like pakistan, iraq, north-korea)
nevertheless, no a-bombs would be even better from my point of view

"Let me remind you that Israel gets attacked every month by Palestinian madmen."

right, we talk about this allready in another thread, ok?

"I can't believe you don't consider 9/11 to be an attack. "

it's an attack, a terrorist attack - you can't defend against suicide bombers with a-bombs or missile shields, or big armies you need good secret services for that.

!Oh and Israel was attacked in 1948, 1956, 1967(Israel of course wisely pre-empted the attack), and 1973. So this idea that the USA and Israel can't be attacked is a false one."

ok, can't be was the wrong word - but it's stupid to attack them because noone of their enemies has a chance to win (most WMDs in Arabia are in Isreal for example)

I'm sorry that i used "can't attack" instead of "it's foolish to attack"

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 05:54 AM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Saracene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia, some time after tea
Posts: 6,325
Local Time: 11:10 PM
I don't think there are "good" or "bad" WMD and they scare me no matter who possesses them. But I would concede that some WMD-possessing countries make me more nervous than the others. And I'm not sure what would be the realistic plan of making the world WMD-free without changing the entire human nature as we know it.
__________________

__________________
Saracene is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com