US hypocracy....... What to do! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://slate.msn.com/id/2099425/ Whirlwind,,,,
Think how many people that money could feed and educate, but its better to get that military complex vote going for Bush eh?
The US will again use her nuclear weapons soon enough, they call it tactical, I call it madness. Quite simply one can now understand why NK wants nukes herself. The US has started a nuclear arms race again, the US is causing this. She isn't reacting to anything. Rumsfeld wants to use tactical nukes in Afghanistan to knock out those caves. Russia in her white paper is starting to reconsider her nuclear stance as well as a reaction to the ratcheting up of nuclear tensions from Washington. Pulling out of the ABM treaty, and now this, the US is raising the stakes. While most of us were too concerned with Al Q we can only imagine what this administration has done with nukes.
Fcuk me! That's alot of nuclear weapons! Anyway, they aren't needed anymore are they? And waht's so tactical about a tactical nuke? A nuke is a nuke right? Or is it using a smaller explosion by using less materials. Like a Mini-A-Bomb??
And waht's so tactical about a tactical nuke? It’s a smaller warhead, which is not like a Hiroshima weapon. But nevertheless causes lot’s of damage, and has the same horrid effects on the region. Its purpose is to be used against military targets like bunkers, and caves. This is only going to increase nuclear tensions.
Ah, the fabled "Bunker Buster". So how is the use of nuclear weapons supposed to help in the search for nuclear weapons? And how does the US justify trying to stop people getting nukes when they're willing to use them willy nilly?
the tacticle nukes were designed to take out (collapse) the caves in Afganistan, like a suped up bunker buster. I'm not sure but i think they are hydrogen fusion bombs, which means that there is little/no radiation afterwards. Not sure on that last one though.
Fusion requires a fission reaction to start in a bomb, and is thus reserved as a booster to strategic weapons. Tactical nukes are lower yield, giving the harmful effects to a smaller area, though the mechanisms required for the smaller devices generally used are dirtier. If full-scale development had continued, we would have much cleaner, more efficient nukes. Though this means nothing to the people their being dropped on.
yes! we've found th nukes in Iraq!! - a fire works factory!! we got the biological weapons too - a pharmacy!!! forget having a war with Israel, they'll never have nukes, they're rich, got powerful weapons and Scientists have come out confessing nukes but forget that, Iraq is a threat to world peace!!!!
If Iraq is a threat to world peace, then why did the entire EU and Russian Federation vote the US as the greatest threat to peace? Whirlwind....
Obviously because the EU is in league with Iraq Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No other explanation.
So you believe that Iraq under Saddam was never a threat to world peace? From the last century, USA was the primary force to defeat all the three greatest threats: Germany, Japan and Italy. EU and Russian Federation? What happened to the rest of the world? The greatest threat to the world now is terrorism and USA will defeat them as well even without the help from the countries whose butts were saved by USA before including the ungrateful EU and Russia. Just wait and see!
Hmm..."terrorism" is kind of nebulous. I've noticed that just about everything today is declared under "terrorism", say some nation does something someone else doesn't like, they're called terrorists, or some criminal goes and holds up a shopping mall, he's now a terrorist...anyone who hijacks an aircraft or something is now a terrorist...I think the word is beginning to lose its meaning and becoming a media buzzword. But that aside, "terrorism" and all that it entails is definitely a world problem. I don't think many people disagree with that, even if they have different definitions of terrorism. The disagreement comes with how to DEAL with terrorism, and I think that the first step there is to figure out WHY terrorism occurs. A lot of people will talk about religious reasons, or whatever, but always underlying that are economic issues. People don't start wars over religion, they start them over economic issues, or because whoever they're against did horrible things to them or their people. You hear about how the US helped Osama way back when, and sure, maybe we were right, or maybe we weren't. But the thing is, we left him out to dry. THAT'S why he hates us...and the same sort of rationality can be seen in most of the people that hate the US, and the West. Generally the people in charge have very specific and valid reasons to hate us. I mean, if some country went in and killed your neighbors for some cash, or land, or etc, wouldn't you be kind of pissed off? If a country does this enough, they're bound to piss off some people who will actually do something about it. So what does this have to do with combatting terrorism? Well, once we understand the cause, we can work on PREVENTATIVE measures to stop terrorists from forming. Just killing people who are already terrorists just pisses off more people; terrorists to us are freedomfighters to others, are soldiers to other, etc. When you start killing off an "army of the people" as many see these terrorists, you start pissing the people off. Then more people join this army of the people...killing terrorists ruthlessly is ruling by fear, and we all know that fear and oppression are "bad things". Now, I suppose the attack on this will be "then what do you propose we do? acquiesce to the terrorists' demands, and get killed by them?". To that I say no, I really do think that terrorists who actually attack our people should be killed, I mean, we have a right to live...but, we shouldn't enact policies which piss more people off, we should actually work to help humanity instead of selfishly. Help educate people, let people be ruled by who they wish, but warn them, in a friendly manner, that they will be killed if they attack you. Eh...I forgot where I was going with this...oh, yea...so, anyway, my solution to stop terrorism: Stop messing in the politics of other nations unless a) we're asked or b) they present a real and PRESENT danger to the stability of the world. In case a), don't pansy out halfway through, if you're going to do something, do it right the first time. In case b), getting support from our allies should be incredibly easy... So yea, why don't we fight the war on terrorism by stamping out the root cause instead of just killing people and using terrorism as an excuse to build friendly nations to obtain natural resources... And more on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, I've got it! They sold them to {insert the next country to attack here}. Damn, I'm smart, eh?
So you believe that Iraq under Saddam was never a threat to world peace? Saddam was menace back in the 80's when every major western power supported him. After 1991 and especially after 1998 he was a meek shell of himself. He didn't threaten anyone seriously and he didn't even control all of Iraq. From the last century, USA was the primary force to defeat all the three greatest threats: Germany, Japan and Italy. EU and Russian Federation? What happened to the rest of the world? Italy? LOL...anyways, the EU didn't exist so they couldn't have done anything. The Russians, well they can be credited with defeating Nazi Germany more then anyone else. You did the puff compared to what the Soviets were doing in the East. The USSR would have won imo anyways without the Normandy invasions; all that really did was secure that Western Europe didn't end up Soviet. Japan the US did most of the work indeed... The greatest threat to the world now is terrorism and USA will defeat them as well even without the help from the countries whose butts were saved by USA before including the ungrateful EU and Russia. Just wait and see The US is not going to win a war against terrorism, especially as long as she is killing and pillaging nations. You are dealing with an enemy potentially more serious then the USSR, and Nazi Germany really ever was. There people reside next door or down the street, there is potential army of 1.3 billion. The US cannot fight alone; do you think the US would be in Afghanistan without China? Russia? Pakistan? I don't think so, the US needs the world. Especially after the grand intel. failures of the US as of late. The EU and Russia warned you like good allies (not yes men) not to go into Iraq for the reasons you are seeing now. If anything the US' war on terror has made it only worse. Good Job!
It does seem like everyone is calling everyone else a terrorist, whether it applies or not...of course since we're (I'd say a lot of people here, not all, but most) in the "west" we see more of the terrorism calls being targetted at everyone else (and even ourselves in the case of the US/France relations...), I'm pretty sure that on "the other side" the West is called terrorist as well, it's a media buzzword Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
America invented nukes, used nukes, are the only country to ever use nukes, started the nuclear arms race, continued the nuke arm race even when there was no one to race with (after Russia fell), us used biological weapons (agent orange in vietnam) AND THESE STUPID POLITICIANS HAVE THE BOTTLE TO FIGHT OTHER COUNTRIES BECASUE OF THEIR "WEAPONS OF mASS DESTRUCTION" America made the Taliban regime in Afghanistan when it suited America but when it didn;t it had a war. .
that $6 BILLION was just on Nukes nothing else and that is nothing compared to the campared to the annual US budget of almost $400 BILLION dollars a year on weapons. thats more then the combined milatry budget of the following 22 countries on the list!! all of this while 41 million Americans are either, homeless, below the poverty line, illiterate or without medical insurance.
