for the USA peoples

[Lord Lanair]

*fetches self another cookie*

On child's rights- how have we not supported them, rug, except for that one solitary UN resolution?

whiteknight- um... your reasons for wanting to own nukes are interesting... but here's another point- If we stop building/get rid of our own nukes, that will not change any other country's stance, especially not our enemies'.  By continuing to build them, the US is keeping ahead of the Axis of Evil (for lack of a better name) in weapons amounts, ensuring we don't end up cowed out of fear because they can blow us up, and we can't retaliate.

[Perdition]

I gave knight one but I suppose you can have one too.

[underruler]

WTF are you referring to as the Axis of Evil?

[Rug]

Why exactly does the U.N. have the authority to declare it illegal?

Because you signed up to their authority, saying they make international law and you do not.

Was it "illegal" for Saddam to support terrorism?

If you can provide concrete proof that he was, yes.

Was it "illegal" for him to use chemical and biological weapons against his people?

Was it illegal for America to sell them to him?

The UN made it clear to Saddam that failure to comply would be met with force.

Yes, they did. And Iraq complied with the weapons inspectors. Then... America... invaded...?

If it makes itself into a toothless and powerless body, then we can't do anything about that

America is making it toothless by not respecting the authority and power the U./N should have. Would you support the creation of a U.N army that reports directly to the Secretary General, and would enforce U.N sanctions (not a feasibility, tbh, but this is theorectical)? If not, why not? It would give the U.N teeth, right?

Oh, yeah, and all member countries would have to supply their best technology, funding, and some men for this army, so it would be unequalled. Some pretty nasty teeth, huh? Or would you be happier if you ran the show?

Child rights issues....not really sure what you're referring to by that, i'd appreciate an explanation though i don't doubt that crap happens. I seriously doubt the US is making a determined effort to purposefully ignore child's rights

The USA is not party to the Intenational Rights of the Child, a treaty signed by 99% of the worlds countries, including ones with abyssal human rights records (Like Turkey).

Nukes......why should we make ourselves more vulnerable just because the rest of the world has decided to? Russia still has ICBMs, (i don't know for sure, but i believe Britain does, correct me if i'm wrong).

Yep, Britian has nuclear-capable ICBMs and a number of warheads. About 50, probably a little less. America has access to some 500+ nuclear weapons, and one heckuva lot of biological and chemical agents. Why does it need so many? YOu could keep maybe 30 low-powered tactical nukes, 10 middle-power strategic nukes, and one or two of your continent-levelling fusion weapons - nice enough deterrent, hm?

Don't get pissy at the US for wanting to have the capability to blast the hell out of something that attacks us.

You have so damn many of them, though, why do you need to continue proliferation? You could cut backto the numbers above and still cripple the kind of countries that might attack you in one go. Heck, if Britian, one of the more powerful nuclear-capable nations, tried something, you could exterminate the whole country with one weapon - So why do you need so many?

If we stop building/get rid of our own nukes, that will not change any other country's stance, especially not our enemies'.

The vast majority of your enemies are LEDC1 middle/far eastern states that couldnt afford 1/20th of the arsenal you have now if they fully bankrupted their country. YOu could utterly level any country that tried anything against anyone, right here, right now. You could destroy the world many, many times over if you were so inclined. So how the fuck can you justify wanting more?

WTF are you referring to as the Axis of Evil?

LEDC middle/far eastern countries that have resources the won't give you/embarressed America in the past/are communist/dislike Wal-mart/combination of the former.


1, Less Economically Developed Country. The term used for countries that score below a certain point on the Human Development Index, which is scored on a number of factors and is currently believed to give the most accurate picture of a countires development and the standard of living for all its citizens. As an aside, the country with the highest current HDI, Canada, (0.97), is also the most government-subsidised and welfare-statey country in the world, perhaps saying something about the effect that helping people in an active way has on improving their lives. But thats another issue.

[mole]

*points at everythign between his last post and the previous post* havent read that so have to excuse me if i repeat somthing.

the reaosn you shouldnt have so many nukes is because retaliation will be worse thantaking the brunt. put money into anti-missile systems. if you want to level a country then just carpet bomb its economy and military sector (also very illegal i seem to remmeber). making the country into a giant soup bowl, civilians and all will piss off its neighbours and you'll make more enemys in the long run than the one you obliterated.
you need missile defense not missile offense

[Lord Lanair]

I tend to agree with mole, but I'm not the Secretary of Defense here.  LOL

Rug- the fucking Int'l Rights of the Child agreement.... who cares?!?!?!  That's the only proof you're offering against the US?

Prove to me that we sold Saddam actual biochemical weapons, and then I'll agree that was a mistake (I don't know if it's illegal to do that).

Axis of Evil refers to those countries that are rogue states/building up a nuclear program now/supporters of terrorism.

For the record, I've never seen one communist nation that I liked.  <_<  

[Rug]

Rug- the fucking Int'l Rights of the Child agreement.... who cares?!?!?!

Er... Children who have more rights in Slovakia than they do in the mighty America..?

Hell, here's a copy of it. You did not sign this.

Prove to me that we sold Saddam actual biochemical weapons, and then I'll agree that was a mistake

Analysis of those weapons that were used against the Kurds produced two places of origin - those which are obviously USSR-made (due to production methods) and those which are obviously UK and US made. I don't have the book here, annoyingly ('How to build a Nuclear Bomb and other Weapons of Mass Destruction' - details the manufacture and use of NBCs through history. Interesting read.). Will look for that, tomorrow.

Axis of Evil refers to those countries that are rogue states/building up a nuclear program now/supporters of terrorism.

As 'Citizen You!' states, 'people poorer and/or browner than you'.

[li] UK is building up a nuclear program, still (very slowly, though). Axis of Evil?
[li] Define rogue state?
[li] If terror is defined as actions which cause panic and fear throughout the populace, we could possibly file the Bush Administration as terrorists?


Me neither, because Communism has never worked as intended. Marxist works have never been adhered to, due to the reasons stated previously.

[mole]

terrorism is a point of view. terrorists can also be called resistance or freedom fighters. such as the french 'resistance', it was infact a terrorist group

[whiteknight]

sorry for the absence....packing for return to college

so, lets get down to business

Because you signed up to their authority, saying they make international law and you do not.

if your commanding officer in the military tells you to do something that is unethical, you are required to disobey that order.  If the UN tells us to not free people who are opressed, well, you can finish the analogy.  We'll obey the UN when they prove worthy of the respobsibility

If you can provide concrete proof that he was, yes.

thats not evern worth arguing with.  if you really believe that saddam did not sponsor terrorism you're not informed enough to be in this sort of argument.

Was it illegal for America to sell them to him?

as long as you're asking for concrete proof, why don't you supply some for this?

Yes, they did. And Iraq complied with the weapons inspectors. Then... America... invaded...?

this statement almost makes me lose interest in this argument with you.  If you really believe Iraq was complying with the weapons inspections, you're deceiving yourself.  They were hiding and NOT cooperating.

Or would you be happier if you ran the show?

in a word: yes.  if that makes me a cocky yank, so be it.  The rest of the world isn't stepping up to the plate.  Yes, i know you Brits are supporting us, and we definitely appreciate it.  We also appreciate every other country that has helped.  But the bottom line is without the US, Iraq would still be under the tyranny of a ruthless dictator.

The USA is not party to the Intenational Rights of the Child, a treaty signed by 99% of the worlds countries, including ones with abyssal human rights records (Like Turkey).

I can't speak with any authority on this issue as i've never seen it before.  I didn't read through the whole document, but I imagine there may have been something decidedly anti-US(as so many of these new international documents are)  Barring that, yes, we may be wrong.  Nobody's perfect, and yes, I agree that child rights are important and should be addressed.  But that fact that I haven't heard any sort of news coverage on this argues against it being very important.
Additionally, go ahead and try to tell me that 99% of the children in the world are treated with more rights than they are in the US and i'll go ahead and laugh in your virtual face.

Yep, Britian has nuclear-capable ICBMs and a number of warheads. About 50, probably a little less. America has access to some 500+ nuclear weapons, and one heckuva lot of biological and chemical agents. Why does it need so many? YOu could keep maybe 30 low-powered tactical nukes, 10 middle-power strategic nukes, and one or two of your continent-levelling fusion weapons - nice enough deterrent, hm?

rug, i know you know more about nukes than this.  No single warhead is sufficient to level a continent.  We have overwhelming firepower, yes.  Why is this a bad thing.  Do you not want us to be able to defend ourselves through the threat of MAD?  I see no reason why your modified count is in any way morally superior to our current count.  Why does having more make us evil?
Additionally, once you reduce nuclear arms to that level, that makes the theory of a nuclear first strike viable.  If a country has a relatively low number of nuclear warheads,(like the numbers you've suggested) then another country has a legitimate chance of destroying all of those weapons with a single strike(nuclear or otherwise) rendering MAD(mutually assured destruction for those of you not familiar with this) worthless.  

also, for whomever asked for where Saddam is these days, theres this link
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6053746/
how do i know?  Well, when it comes to facts, I guess I trust MSN.  Granted theres always room for mess ups, but then, how do you KNOW that anything you read anywhere is true unless you saw it with your own eyes.

for mole

e reaosn you shouldnt have so many nukes is because retaliation will be worse thantaking the brunt. put money into anti-missile systems. if you want to level a country then just carpet bomb its economy and military sector (also very illegal i seem to remmeber). making the country into a giant soup bowl, civilians and all will piss off its neighbours and you'll make more enemys in the long run than the one you obliterated.
you need missile defense not missile offense

the US is in the middle of developing a missile defense system right now.  As a matter of fact, we spend quite a lot of money on it.  As i remember we got quite a bit of flack a few years ago (once again from european powers) about breaking a treaty for it.  Make up your minds folks, you can't have it every way.

I'll match you point for point.  You won't find me claiming the US is perfect, we're far from it.  But i'm sick and tired of the rest of the world trying to villify us for saving your asses.

[Rug]

if your commanding officer in the military tells you to do something that is unethical, you are required to disobey that order. If the UN tells us to not free people who are opressed, well, you can finish the analogy. We'll obey the UN when they prove worthy of the respobsibility

See: 'U.N toothless because America shits on it'.

thats not evern worth arguing with. if you really believe that saddam did not sponsor terrorism you're not informed enough to be in this sort of argument.

Who, when, why?

as long as you're asking for concrete proof, why don't you supply some for this?

Still lookin'.

this statement almost makes me lose interest in this argument with you. If you really believe Iraq was complying with the weapons inspections, you're deceiving yourself. They were hiding and NOT cooperating.

Ok, so maybe they weren't complying fully, but they were complying enough not to warrant a full scale invasion. They allowed the inspectors into many key sites, and they found precisely fuck all.

And, considering what American forces have found since the war, can you tell me that the Iraqi government misdirected the inspectors so they found nothing? NEITHER HAVE YOU, WITH FREE REIGN OF THE COUNTRY, FOR OVER A YEAR.

Does this, perhaps, indicate *gasp* there was nothing to find? Hence, your entire stated reason for going to war was, in fact, bullshit?

in a word: yes. if that makes me a cocky yank, so be it. The rest of the world isn't stepping up to the plate. Yes, i know you Brits are supporting us, and we definitely appreciate it. We also appreciate every other country that has helped. But the bottom line is without the US, Iraq would still be under the tyranny of a ruthless dictator.

Yeah... and Iraq and Afghanistan would still have infrastructure. Yeah, Saddam needed to go. No, he did not need to go now. If you'd toppled him in a way that didn't cripple his country, leaving you wide open to massive, legitimate, criticisms, and had stated your real reasons from the beginning, I would have far more respect for your actions in Iraq. If you had come out and said to the U.N 'We want to remove Saddam Hussein from power, because he poses a clear and present humanitarian threat to his own people, and a possible threat of war to the countries around him' I would've supported the war. Unfortunately, our governments tried to lie, fell on their asses, and have lost all respect from much of the left wing.

Additionally, go ahead and try to tell me that 99% of the children in the world are treated with more rights than they are in the US and i'll go ahead and laugh in your virtual face.

Point taken. Thing is, I believe the part of that document you didn't like is the part that bars companies from employing young children, including abroad. Which companies like Halliburton do. Not the majority, but still a worrying practice that should be illegal, hm?

No single warhead is sufficient to level a continent.

Code:

"In 1962, the former Soviet Union exploded a thermonuclear weapon at its Artic test-site at Novaya Zemlya with an explosive yield equivilent to that of the explosion of nearly 60 million tonnes of TNT... ... this is about the amount of destructive power required to level a few countries of Western Europe...

[li] USSR.
[li] 1962.
[li] Tell me American nuclear weapons aren't way more powerful than that in 2004.

Code:

"Some Chinese and American strategic nuclear weapons have yields as high as 5 megatonnes or more."

Even if that is an exaggeration, it is not a very large one...

If a country has a relatively low number of nuclear warheads,(like the numbers you've suggested) then another country has a legitimate chance of destroying all of those weapons with a single strike(nuclear or otherwise) rendering MAD(mutually assured destruction for those of you not familiar with this) worthless.

[li] America has the most advanced missile defences in the world, and very well hidden/protected missile bases. If you got struck first, have no illusions that one of those 5-mTers would be on its way back.

But i'm sick and tired of the rest of the world trying to villify us for saving your asses.

I'm sick and tired of Americans insisting their 'saving our asses' does anything but hinder.

[mole]

*nudges rug* where did they save us?

No single warhead is sufficient to level a continent. We have overwhelming firepower, yes. Why is this a bad thing.

...what?...

[whiteknight]

5 megatons is not big enough to level a continent.....sorry, you're wrong about that.

the point is right, now, you're right, if somebody first strikes us, we'll beat the hell out of them.
if we reduce our nuke numbers to what you're suggesting, first strike becomes a viable alternative.  and yes, we do have the most advanced missile defense systems in the world.  Unfortunately, they aren't anywhere close to perfect.  Until they are, I see no reason to lower the numbers we have

Who, when, why?

the first thing that comes to mind is the assasination attempt on George Bush Senior.  The others that come to mind are the terrorist training camps located within Iraq.  But i suppose you could try to ignore those if you didn't think the war was justified...

Ok, so maybe they weren't complying fully, but they were complying enough not to warrant a full scale invasion. They allowed the inspectors into many key sites, and they found precisely fuck all.

Imagine for a moment that you're in class, and your teacher thinks she sees you with drugs.  She asks you to open your backpack for her to prove theres no drugs.  you refuse.  you're also devious enough to have put the drugs somewhere in that intervening time that you refused(either to a friend or a secret compartment in your backpack.  Your teacher finally forcefully takes your backpack from you and doesn't find your drugs.  Does this mean you never had any?  No, it means you're smart enough to have done something with them.  If Iraq never had anything to hide, why in the world would they not have cooperated.  And don't kid yourself about how much they were cooperating, they actually expelled inspectors during Clinton's term and were doing everything possible to harry and frustrate the inspector's work prior to the war.
This is also beside the point in my opinion.  That was never the main justification for the war in my mind.  Saddam was an evil dictator.  He needed to be removed.  Destroying Infrastructure!  If you can provide me with what that word really even means then maybe we can discuss that.  You've heard that from a news show somewhere and have been throwing it around.  Buildings get destroyed in war.  Services like water and power too.  But dammit, we fix those sort of things.  The US has spent a rather large amount building crap like that up again. If you're gonna try to tell me that Iraq was better off with its "infrastructure" intact and with Saddam in power, well, then my talking to you now in this conversation won't do much good.

[mole]

the problem is with such long speaches and arguements is that eventually (and quite quickl;y somtimes) you realise that youve destroyed your own reasoning with examples its very stupid.

theres so many technicalitys in this i think ill just stopd posting in this thread. *gets out highlighter and begins going over whiteknights post*

[Rug]

5 megatons is not big enough to level a continent.....sorry, you're wrong about that.

I'll take it up with the writer of my source, if I ever meet him...

the point is right, now, you're right, if somebody first strikes us, we'll beat the hell out of them.

As a side note, your government has stated that they are perfectly willing to be the ones to use a first strike themselves. You are no longer content to use them as a deterrent.

The others that come to mind are the terrorist training camps located within Iraq.

I bet you could find 'terrorist training camps' in a heckuva lot of countries. Do you invade them all?

If you can provide me with what that word really even means then maybe we can discuss that.

Infrastructure is a simple word, and one I know full well how to use. I resent the fact that you see fit to insult my intelligence by implying that I do not know what it means. For the benefit of your comprehension, by infrastructure I was referring to basic amenities. Power. Water. Both of which were destroyed ~deliberately~ by American forces during the war, in order to weaken the Iraqi defences. A valid tactic, that probably worked. necessary? No. Much of Iraq is still without a dependable supply of electricity.

The US has spent a rather large amount building crap like that up again.

As opposed to in Afghanistan, which was missed off the American budget for aid, repeatedly?

If you're gonna try to tell me that Iraq was better off with its "infrastructure" intact and with Saddam in power, well, then my talking to you now in this conversation won't do much good.

There are other ways of toppling governments than going in with your full military force and annihilating all the key amenities there.

Your teacher finally forcefully takes your backpack from you and doesn't find your drugs. Does this mean you never had any?

Your teacher fully strip and body cavity searches you and all your friends. They still find nothing. Can they still legitimately argue you had drugs?

[whiteknight]

the problem is with such long speaches and arguements is that eventually (and quite quickl;y somtimes) you realise that youve destroyed your own reasoning with examples its very stupid.

granted, not the best example.  but the fact remains that just because they have not been found DOES NOT MEAN they do not exist.  I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence before rug, but i am now.  If you can't understand that just because something has not been found it doesn't mean they don't exist then you deserve to be insulted.

s a side note, your government has stated that they are perfectly willing to be the ones to use a first strike themselves. You are no longer content to use them as a deterrent.

i personally don't agree with first strike on our behalf.  That said, you've completely ignored the issue at hand, the fact that right now, first strike against us is not viable and if we reduced our numbers to what you're suggesting it would be

I bet you could find 'terrorist training camps' in a heckuva lot of countries. Do you invade them all?

no, but we do invade the ones that sponsor terrorists, use weapons of mass destruction against their own people, have ruthless dictators and are openly hostil towards us.

Both of which were destroyed ~deliberately~ by American forces during the war, in order to weaken the Iraqi defences. A valid tactic, that probably worked. necessary? No. Much of Iraq is still without a dependable supply of electricity.

with all due respect, how the hell would you know how to conduct a war.  An army deprived of things like water and power will not function as well as an army with it.  And we have been working to fix this "infrastructure" (which i still maintain is a buzzword activists like to throw around).  If you'd like to argue Iraq was better off with their infrastructure intact(and in 3rd world condition) in Saddam's control than with its infrastructure destroyed(and being rebuilt to better standards) and Saddam removed, I'd like to hear how you'd do that.

As opposed to in Afghanistan, which was missed off the American budget for aid, repeatedly?

i can't speak with any authority on this subject, though i'd like to hear where you obtained your information that we have not aided afghanistan with funds to rebuild "infrastructure"

There are other ways of toppling governments than going in with your full military force and annihilating all the key amenities there.

yes, there are.  and they're even more long and drawn out.  and i'm sure you know more about toppling governments than all the military leaders.  once again, with all due respect, i'd trust many people about how to effectively bring down a government than someone like you or me who has absolutely no military, diplomatic or any other relevant experience.