Why the world must be rid of WMD

Quote:

---

Behind the locked door is an iridescent wall of the mutated and misshapen, hundreds of bell jars and vacuum-sealed bottles in which human foetuses float in formaldehyde. Some appear to be sleeping, fingers curling their hair, thumbs pressing at their lips, while others with multiple heads and mangled limbs are listless and slumped. Thankfully, none of these dioxin babies ever woke up.

One floor below, it is never quiet. Here are those who have survived the misery of their births, ravaged infants whom no one has the ability to understand, babies so traumatised by their own disabilities, luckless children so enraged and depressed at their miserable fate, that they are tied to their beds just to keep them safe from harm

---

Two chances the US will destroy its nuclear arsenal.
Fat Chance, and No Chance.

Yeah, everyone else would jump right at the chance of removing their WMD's right plender?:rolleyes:

No but you expect other countries to not produce any in case they're a threat to the US.
Why should they ?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
No but you expect other countries to not produce any in case they're a threat to the US.
Why should they ?

---

So you are for proliferation of nuclear weapons? Strange a supposed anti-war person would be for that. Doesn't make any sense to me. But then again a lot of your points are full of contradictions I guess one more doesn't matter.

X

WMD do not kill. Incorrect and Arrogant Foreign Policies do, be they Saddam Huessien's or George Wannabe Bush's. WMD need not be destroyed. Ignorance, Intolerance and Arrogance should.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
So you are for proliferation of nuclear weapons? Strange a supposed anti-war person would be for that. Doesn't make any sense to me. But then again a lot of your points are full of contradictions I guess one more doesn't matter.

---

Where did I say I'm for the proliferation of nuclear weapons ?
Once again, a pro-war person putting words into other peoples' mouths.

I'm anti nuclear weapons.

And show me some contradictions ?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KayJay
WMD do not kill. Incorrect and Arrogant Foreign Policies do, be they Saddam Huessien's or George Wannabe Bush's. WMD need not be destroyed. Ignorance, Intolerance and Arrogance should.

---

But seeing as we're living in the age of representative democracy - ie. dicatorship through democracy - then we'll always have ignorance, intolerance and arrogance.

I say we just destroy the weapons, and keep tabs on equipment that would be required to produce those weapons.

Not contradictions. Spin. Misdirection. You keep ignoring the facts that show the other side of the arguement and only look at the small things that make the US bad. Quite frankly, as an American, you ****ing make me sick plenderj. Using every chance you have to bash my country. Go to hell.

No I don't ignore anything. You have sweet ****all proof of anything.

I don't bash your country. I never have.
I bash your appaling foreign policy in countries.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cander
Spin. Misdirection.

---

And speaking of spin and misdirection, your country is one to talk about that!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cander
Quite frankly, as an American, you ****ing make me sick plenderj.

---

And by that logic you should be sick of half your own population for being against the war in the first place too!
Get off your moral high-horse.

AMERICA RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
Where did I say I'm for the proliferation of nuclear weapons ?
Once again, a pro-war person putting words into other peoples' mouths.

I'm anti nuclear weapons.

And show me some contradictions ?

---

Just by saying why should other countries get rid of and not develop nuclear weapons just because the US wont (which they have been reducing since the end of the cold war btw) suggests to me that you don’t care if other countries have/develop these weapons.

And as for contradictions you seem to try to always use reverse logic, which totally goes against what you believe. You always seem to use the "Well if the US does it, it’s ok to do...." argument. Then go on and complain about the US for doing the same thing. Guess that is what I don’t understand. You should either be for or against something. Like with nuclear weapons. You say you are against them but seem to not care the N. Korea is developing them, only how its OK for the US to have them why not N. Korea.


Maybe I’m missing something but that’s what I am getting from you. Also you tend to get really emotional about things and tend to throw out a lot of highly charged left wing stuff that really has no substance when you look at the facts behind the issue. I just think you should broaden your horizon and try to look beyond the narrow scope you seem to be locked in. You might learn something new :)

X

YEAH WHAT KLEINMA SAID!!!!!!!

We can't get rid of them.

Just think, in a world without WMDs, having even just one would give you a huge military and political advantage.

Which of course will start an arms race.

And we'd be back at square one.

Behold the human race.

Quote:

---

And by that logic you should be sick of half your own population for being against the war in the first place too!
Get off your moral high-horse.

---

The polls say over 70% are for the war. That isn't half. ****, we had narrower margins when our president was elected.

Switzerland rules!!!!
You might think otherwise - but your knives are unimaginative and your chocolate tastes like poops...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by siyan
We can't get rid of them.

Just think, in a world without WMDs, having even just one would give you a huge military and political advantage.

Which of course will start an arms race.

And we'd be back at square one.

Behold the human race.

---

Exactly. So people are against nukes. Good for them. Its a totally pointless point of view.

Suppose for a minute that I'm against cars, because they pollute. Suppose then that all cars are destroyed. Somewhere, someone will create one. Then more people will. Then the pollution will start all over. You know why? Because they know how. The analogy is flawed, but the concept is valid. Once technology exists, it not only exists in physical form, but in our minds.

If the US destroyed its nuclear weapons, there would be no counterweight against that person, group, or country that would inevitably develop them. This whole stance against nuclear weapons may make people feel good inside but it serves no purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nishantp
Exactly. So people are against nukes. Good for them. Its a totally pointless point of view.

Suppose for a minute that I'm against cars, because they pollute. Suppose then that all cars are destroyed. Somewhere, someone will create one. Then more people will. Then the pollution will start all over. You know why? Because they know how. The analogy is flawed, but the concept is valid. Once technology exists, it not only exists in physical form, but in our minds.

If the US destroyed its nuclear weapons, there would be no counterweight against that person, group, or country that would inevitably develop them. This whole stance against nuclear weapons may make people feel good inside but it serves no purpose.

---

it still doesn't change my opinion that all the effort and resources that mankind has spent on developing military technology has been a bloody inefficient and unproductive use of time.

Lol and i thought I was agreeing with you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by siyan
it still doesn't change my opinion that all the effort and resources that mankind has spent on developing military technology has been a bloody inefficient and unproductive use of time.

---

I think mankind was a waste of time. For one, we always have some that will steal, want, kill, or do all three for either what they believe in, or what they don't want to work for. Since we have those few individuals that don't work in our societies, we have to have things to stop them. That is where all that military technology comes into play. Since we had to develop it to stop other men, I feel that mankind is inefficient and a waste of time. We should cease to exist so all the weapons will also. :)

(I am a starting to get drunk, ...)

But WMD do have their uses... in World War 2, the taking of main land Japan would have cost an estimated 3.5 million American lives alone, and thats not including Japanese loses. Surely saving those 3.5 million with the use of such weapons is better than not using it at all, and having a huge loose of life?

Just something to think about...

So we'll kill 1 mil people to save the lives of 3.5 mil people in the process of an engagement that took the lives of 2 mil people, which was started as a retailiation for killing 4 mil people which genocide was conducted to exact revenge for killing 1 mil people which was a result of anger over displacement of 5 mil people which was.....

:confused:

:lol:

You think to much KayJay.

I don't know the figures of attacking Japan with the nukes, but is 1 million (going by your statistics;)) civilians worth more than 3.5 million conscript soldiers?

The other stuff doesn't come into play. ;)

105,000 killed as a direct result of the bomb, but I don't have after effect figures. :(

The others do come into play, and that is the crux of the issue. We are Homo Spaiens, not Homo Erectus, to be content and informed of just the here and now. We are the torch-bearers of our collective history, something that is in scant regard in the world today. Of course those who do not give a stinking fart about history, by and large, do not have any, and that is human nature; we do not give a damn about something we do not have. A contracdiction that is in dire need of a resolution.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KayJay
The others do come into play, and that is the crux of the issue. We are Homo Spaiens, not Homo Erectus, to be content and informed of just the here and now. We are the torch-bearers of our collective history, something that is in scant regard in the world today. Of course those who do not give a stinking fart about history, by and large, do not have any, and that is human nature; we do not give a damn about something we do not have. A contracdiction that is in dire need of a resolution.

---

Actually... they don't.. as I we were discussing the method of America defeating mainland Japan and that how the use of Nuclear weapons in this case was right/wrong. ;)

WMD are just that, weapons; tools; instruments. They need a purpose, a motive, and an intended consequence of their application. Without that their use is impossible, and there is no pint in justifying their use without justifying the motives/causes of their use. So why did the US of A want to defeat Japan?

IMO, this world needs one really powerful country like the US to keep a check on other countries... even if we have to bully other them. Imagine a world where all countries were equal in military power. Countries would always be fighting with each other because no one would be scared of no one. In today's world, every country is scared of the US. Thus, I wouldn't be wrong in saying that the US has been the biggest factor in maintaining world peace since the last world war, and preventing another one. As France, Russia and China have shown, they don't care about world peace. If Iraq one day would have acquired Nuclear weapons, I doubt they would have cared.

If the US is the biggest bully around, I don't care as long as I know I'm living in a safer world.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
IMO, this world needs one really powerful country like the US to keep a check on other countries... even if we have to bully other them. Imagine a world where all countries were equal in military power. Countries would always be fighting with each other because no one would be scared of no one. In today's world, every country is scared of the US. Thus, I wouldn't be wrong in saying that the US has been the biggest factor in maintaining world peace since the last world war, and preventing another one. As France, Russia and China have shown, they don't care about world peace. If Iraq one day would have acquired Nuclear weapons, I doubt they would have cared.

If the US is the biggest bully around, I don't care as long as I know I'm living in a safer world.

---

Huzoor!, apko apni "Hara Patr" milney walah hai kya? Itna joothey chamakna kuch uchith nahin dikta :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KayJay
Huzoor!, apko apni "Hara Patr" milney walah hai kya? Itna joothey chamakna kuch uchith nahin dikta :rolleyes:

---

well, I cant really understand that. mere hindi bahoot karab. (my hindi is very bad). I'm getting better at it every day though. When I visited India last summer, I learned how to tell the cab driver to **** off if he was asking too much. Apart from that, I can understand simple sentences but not anything complicated :o

now where's my beer?

Was asking how long U have been a citizen of the US of A or are U in the process of becoming one.

Anyways, good luck being in a safe country of a very unsafe world where people drop bombs on whole nations and behead governments. Ur lucky to be living a safe country. Lets pray it remains so.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KayJay
Was asking how long U have been a citizen of the US of A or are U in the process of becoming one.

Anyways, good luck being in a safe country of a very unsafe world where people drop bombs on whole nations and behead governments. Ur lucky to be living a safe country. Lets pray it remains so.

---

Oh.

Well, I was born in the US of A, my mom was born in the US of A and my dad was born in the US of A.

And for your curiosity, my dad's dad was from India (during the british era I believe). My mom, like everyone in America, can trace her roots to Europe. My paretns got divorced some 9 years ago (when i was 15)

And I'm all out of beer now

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
IMO, this world needs one really powerful country like the US to keep a check on other countries... even if we have to bully other them. Imagine a world where all countries were equal in military power. Countries would always be fighting with each other because no one would be scared of no one. In today's world, every country is scared of the US. Thus, I wouldn't be wrong in saying that the US has been the biggest factor in maintaining world peace since the last world war, and preventing another one. As France, Russia and China have shown, they don't care about world peace. If Iraq one day would have acquired Nuclear weapons, I doubt they would have cared.

If the US is the biggest bully around, I don't care as long as I know I'm living in a safer world.

---

erm...if you're just as strong as they are, then you SHOULD be afraid of them. its deterrence.

if you're a lot stronger, then you shoudlnt'. like the US today.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
Just by saying why should other countries get rid of and not develop nuclear weapons just because the US wont (which they have been reducing since the end of the cold war btw) suggests to me that you don’t care if other countries have/develop these weapons.

And as for contradictions you seem to try to always use reverse logic, which totally goes against what you believe. You always seem to use the "Well if the US does it, it’s ok to do...." argument. Then go on and complain about the US for doing the same thing. Guess that is what I don’t understand. You should either be for or against something. Like with nuclear weapons. You say you are against them but seem to not care the N. Korea is developing them, only how its OK for the US to have them why not N. Korea.


Maybe I’m missing something but that’s what I am getting from you. Also you tend to get really emotional about things and tend to throw out a lot of highly charged left wing stuff that really has no substance when you look at the facts behind the issue. I just think you should broaden your horizon and try to look beyond the narrow scope you seem to be locked in. You might learn something new :)

X

---

I think Jamie's made a point, not expressed his opinion...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman
I think Jamie's made a point, not expressed his opinion...

---

Well then keeping the same standard across his "points" would be nice. :)

X

Quote:

---

Originally posted by siyan
erm...if you're just as strong as they are, then you SHOULD be afraid of them. its deterrence.

if you're a lot stronger, then you shoudlnt'. like the US today.

---

next time I make a post sometime around 2am, just ignore it :)