Nukes

How come although Bush has thousands of nuclear weapons, he refuses to allow other countries who want them, to have them. Like iran or korea. Does he think that those countries think that theyre safe whie bush has nukes. And how can Bush tell other countries what to do, hes president of america, not the fucking world.

If you had a nuke, would you let me have one?

we have our nukes for our safety and we should make sure that threatening countries shouldn't get them.. If only america had nukes that would of been awesome :cool:

Because if the US let other countries develop their own nuclear weapons, they couldn’t sell them to them…

because america really really really loves the nuclear non-proliferation program. well it actually really really really loves altering it so it can make loads of money and defeat countries by default.

but what america loves most? igoring the START agreements.

What possible train of thought follows the lines of "We possess weapons which allow us nearly-assured defense against any and all hostile forces. Let's not do anything whatsoever to stop those forces evening the odds!"?

And Bush doesn't have thousands of Nuclear weapons, the world developed and increased them after World War II during nearly five decades of Cold War. Blaming him because of the actions of the last six decades, well...

And Bush doesn't have thousands of Nuclear weapons, the world developed and increased them after World War II during nearly five decades of Cold War. Blaming him because of the actions of the last six decades, well...That's what I was thinking.

well they are purely under his command.

well they are purely under his command.Not really. Once again, you think we have an absolute monarchy.

isn't it required that they are launched by him and his secretary of defence? correct me if i'm wrong. but i thought that he was the only one that was capable of launching them with the defence secretary.

isn't it required that they are launched by him and his secretary of defence? correct me if i'm wrong. but i thought that he was the only one that was capable of launching them with the defence secretary.
And the approval of Congress.

is the approval of congress actually necessary? i never thought it was. i was in the belief that it could be done direct from air force one or automatically and/or directly by the president under the MAD scenario.

can they be launched without the president?

OMG Bush is so evil ahhhh!

What the hell is going on here? Ok for one thing - Bush cuddles with nuclear missles every night. Santa droped them off for xmas one year - so see they are bushes and its all his fault.

Ok now to talk for real. Pakastan and Inda have nukes pointed at eachother and may actually use them someday - that is scary enough. But lets arm korea with nukes so that they can play diplomatic hardball and choose sides over the IP conflicts. Nice wipe charmin.

Bush does not have indiscriminate command over the missles. There is this small little club called the Military, that actually does not receive commands from the president outside of his commander in cheif position. Even then we are safe because such action requres a state of war - which can only be declared by congress. (You might here that vietnam wasn't a war. Well that is because it was a conflict under the command of nix. IF it would have gone on longer - command would have went to congress and they would have issued all out war at that point)


but what america loves most? igoring the START agreements. I am sure our government wakes up and says "Gee... I wonder how we can screw the world up..." I dunno why everyone looks poorly at the states. You know what... the same thing that runs our government runs the rest of the worlds. The three evils Greed, Money, and Politics.

I dunno of an honest politition and all we can do is try and vote for which everone lies the best. The system has been screwed since business succefully got to the governement.

Anyways, If you wanna say that America loves ignoring agreements - look at the history of 90% of diplomatically active contries. I am sure you can find some cases of broken treeties. And also - that would be our government, not us. Thanks though for a nother head-in-ass summerization of america.

Bipper

Letting North Korea or Iran have nukes isn't much different from letting a child who has a reputation of beating up other children get ahold of a very sharp pair of scissors.

"And also - that would be our government, not us." that is why i said america not amiercans.

how many nukes woulkd it take to defeat any enemy? certainly not the thousands which are held.

Why did you quote that line to make that point? lmao.

Anyways - I don't think we have thousands - that would be over kill. But you gotta have bigger guns than your untrustworthy counterparts.. right?

bipper

the start agreements and the ones made after now limit the us nuclear aresenal to 2500 operatioal warheads.

the us also failed to meet the chemical weapon agreements set to it.

the start agreements and the ones made after now limit the us nuclear aresenal to 2500 operatioal warheads.

the us also failed to meet the chemical weapon agreements set to it.Did the US agree to that?

yeppity. bush asked for the deadline of the chemical weapons agreement to be moved forward 2 years because he was failing to meet it on time.

the start agreements and the ones that came after (slot etc.) were signed by the us government and russia.

yeppity. bush asked for the deadline of the chemical weapons agreement to be moved forward 2 years because he was failing to meet it on time.

the start agreements and the ones that came after (slot etc.) were signed by the us government and russia.Did Russia meet them, out of curiosity?

both are miles short of the 2200 sort agreement (2200 not 2500 sorry for the mistake). however it is of note that even though both were failing putin a few years ago asked for an even further reduction to 1500. bush declined.

america's arsenal is though due to grew with the development of micronukes.

What does it matter.. we have guns - we dont really use em. Yeah i could see if we were untrustworthy - which we don't see ourselves as :p

Sides - When you might be expected to bail frace out of another war, or slam down tyrany across the globe - you might need an insurrance policy.

But wow - we are still on the top and number one... We must be doing somthing wrong!

The bail france thing was a bit rude, but i think its more rude to treat the people you were once allies with, and whom proved their valour to you several times, with such disrespect. it stinks like cheese... bad cheese. Would they treat us so badly if we became a third world? Would they help us? Doubt it.
Bipper

oh dear the french wouldn't follow america into committing a war crime. what a crying shame that was. i mean how dare they not break international law? the government should know better and just bulldoze over all the treaties and laws made to prevent aggressive wars in this world. the cheek of them.

america is wholly trust worthy being involved in more wars than any other. being more aggressive than any other. and currently breaching it's own signed treaties on everything from war crimes, human rights, nukes, wars etc.

"Would they treat us so badly if we became a third world? Would they help us? Doubt it." and america always helps out the third world which is why it ignored the niger crisis in october.

america is wholly trust worthy being involved in more wars than any other. being more aggressive than any other. and currently breaching it's own signed treaties on everything from war crimes, human rights, nukes, wars etc.

Whoa there. If America wan't in one of those war chances are you'd be screwed by Hitler. Rev. War was out freedom. Civil War helped to work up to even more freedom for different races. Oh ya we tried to help out in Vietnam. Don't complain about treaties either. Other countries have broken more and by far worse ones.

Because we cant save the world when certain people are always against us.

But hey wouldn't we be evil if we jumped into niger *ponders* by your standards .. yup. Seems hypocritical. America itself fights to give people freedom. WE can only do so much. If that means clearing up saddam and getting oil for our president ( or whatever the unninformed blame it on ) well - we will. And we will solve issues while we are there.

Have some respect for human life cloud - I know you have little respect for embryos but we have soilders over there dying for freedoms cause. We all get somthing outta the war. ITs an all win situation - minus for the innocence killed - but thier own people do most of that.

But you sit infront of you computer and laub insults at america, and nit pick at everything. Enjoying the spoils of progress that you are so against!

Bipper ARgs

about the hitler thing. before the second world war america was quite isolationistic. it had had a few wars, phillipines, canada, mexico ww1 etc. but didn't like to do much else. after the second world war and the start if the cold war. it became a habit it fight wars by proxy. and with the creation the jewish state in israel to control portions of the middle east.

i don't think there are worse treaties to break than those on human rights, wars and weapons. except global warming but america refuses to sign them anyway so never mind.

"but thier own people do most of that." that's why the american army isn't equipped with planes and tanks and guns. because they're all peace loving tree hugging hippies in camo. bombings were not in baghdad before the illegal war. they are now. what changed between now and then? america decided to break international law and fight an agressive war. that is why their own people are now just a teeny weeny bit restless about this entire thing.

but this is all off topic about the nukes.

LMFAO - sorry - that deserves nothing. I already explained why america had to get on the offencive after WWII..

Great job though - Its been a while since i have seen such a biased post.
thanks for that..

bipper

sorry i missed the post in which you explain why breaking international law was cool.

It was inbetween your posts on why look out for eachother is bad

there is no excuse for war crimes. end of. we ddin't like the nazis doing it. we didn't like sadamme doing it, we didn't like serbia doing it. i don't like america doing it.

but war crimes are just another treaty america has broken like the weapons agreements and human rights.

So lets say bush enslaves canada... you cant do anything because of treaties.

how does this make sence.

Bipper

actually you can. he attacked another (allied) country. thus allowing war.

Ok, Scottish government takes over and enslaves the citizens to mine in deep dark unhealthy caves.

Sorry buddy.. we cant help? I would if i could ( I tried to enlist but i am a severe asthmatic and cannot physically do much :cry: So you know i aint just saying tthat i would help )

Bipper

if it was genocide or recognised by the un as something which needed action taken against it then it would also be fair in love and war.

What of the curds and other oppressed people?
That right there makes it fair to me. I know we labeled the war for Weapons of mass destruction - but yeah.

I think bush is the biggest weapon of mass destruction at times :) But heh - he has his good points

Bipper

i don't see any good points in bush.

and yes if the UN had labeled the kurd oppression a problem then invasion would have been fine. but one must remember that in recent years iraq has not been the greatest oppressor of the kurds, turkey has.

Yes, Turkey is opprssive - but Iraq has been a bigger thorn in our side. Killing two birds with one stone I belive. And the UN requires a strict 100% agreement for anything right? I belive it does. That really makes it hard to get much done.. But in hindsight - I really would of like the UN's blessing to go in there.

I jsut hope everything turns out ok - i mean for everyone. All this violence (on our side and theirs) is really getting to me. We should all just live to be respectful of eachother and try to move on - together. It may be doubtful, but i am hopeful

Bipper

oh dear the french wouldn't follow america into committing a war crime. what a crying shame that was. i mean how dare they not break international law? the government should know better and just bulldoze over all the treaties and laws made to prevent aggressive wars in this world. the cheek of them.

Breaking international law?

You mean like firing on airplanes after a ceasefire? You know, the thing Iraq did seventeen times and which was each individually a legally accepted justification for war?

actually flying planes over someone else's territory is grounds for shooting at them.

un doesn't need a 100% vote. it does from those with the veto. (which is why the war in serbia was illegal but....... it was still right because russia was being an ass). personally i don't like the veto at all.