Why the Hell does the US care so much - ????????????????????

[Lardlad95]

Why do they care who has nuclear weapons?

Who gives a damn?

You act like as soon as saddam gets them he's gonna attack isreal.

THe man isn't stupid, he isn't suicidal he isn't gonna attacl any one

they are a fucking nagotiation tool morons.

But you know what he's gonna blufff and eventually he will back down

he doens't want a nuclear war anymore than anyone else.

Stalin had nuclear weapons he hated the US...never attacked

China still isn't attacking us

our two biggest former enimies. Niether attacked up.

What the hella re we scared of? That Saddam is going to bluff us to death?


(by the way I realize that this sin't the most fact ladden post in the world but I'm pissed off right now)

[American Kid]

When aren't you pissed off, Lad? ;)

The administration has claimed to have secret "insider info" on what Saddam has and he's capable of doing with it. We just sent out the 3rd infantry division to the Persian Gulf. We've got aircraft carriers strewn about the whole place. We're jerking off Turkey, Jordan, and a number of other countries in the vincinity to use their land as starting-off points (apparentely a possible mission of the 3rd division is going to be siezing the Northern oil fields before Saddam can destroy them; more than likely what we need Turkey for).

My read on the situation is it's inevitable we're going to stop dropping fucking bombs on their heads very soon. When they start, and the administration makes public their "insider info", it had better be damn good. Or there's gonna be hell to pay.

-AK

[RedComrade]

Therell be hell to pay if they dont give the info be4 they attack ak. This government needs to give the info be4 we drop the bombs not as we drop em. Seriously tho if the american government decides to declare war even if the inspectors dont find anything or dont provide their evidence untill they start it will be a major blow to america and the worlds perception of us. Surely you cappies are in favor of releasing the evidence before the war because you can understand the consequences if we dont. It will seriously compromise confidence in america and will help to fuel already militant anti american sentiment the world over; and the repercussions wont just be hittin in some embassy over ther well feel it right here as investors take the money to other countries that are not continually pulling men from the workforce to go fight slowing the economy.

[Panamarisen]

AK,
If it´s POSSIBLE that a country MAY BE ABLE to attack yours, is NO REASON for you to attack THE FIRST "JUST IN CASE" -as I had to remember Stormin Norman! Some country may be CAPABLE of doing ANYTHING..., so what? The important point here is: is it ACTUALLY DOING IT, SO I GOT TO DEFEND MYSELF?

It´s not a matter of "insiders info", but of International Law!


HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from American Kid on 9:09 pm on Jan. 3, 2003
When aren't you pissed off, Lad? ;)

The administration has claimed to have secret "insider info" on what Saddam has and he's capable of doing with it. We just sent out the 3rd infantry division to the Persian Gulf. We've got aircraft carriers strewn about the whole place. We're jerking off Turkey, Jordan, and a number of other countries in the vincinity to use their land as starting-off points (apparentely a possible mission of the 3rd division is going to be siezing the Northern oil fields before Saddam can destroy them; more than likely what we need Turkey for).

My read on the situation is it's inevitable we're going to stop dropping fucking bombs on their heads very soon. When they start, and the administration makes public their "insider info", it had better be damn good. Or there's gonna be hell to pay.

-AK

I wouldn't be able to take the administration seriously if they showed all this secret information after they take over Iraq. You know it is going to be somewhere the inspectors never looked, the world is going to wonder why it showed up now and everybody is going to wonder why we didn't tell the inspectors to go there in the first place. Why raise more suspecions of our activities and motives?

I say, when you place people's live in danger, place civilians in danger, place america in danger by using something like "pre-emtive" attacks, stiring up more hate towards america, all your claims of WMD programs can't be backed up by teams of inspectors using sophesticated hardware to detect WMD programs. You are the first to get documents and you edit out 8000 pages from it before handing it off, you call out nations to attack and label them enemies to the world. I say all secrets are off, and you tell everybody what is happening. Secrets are one step away from lies, and I don't think anybody should go to war and die for lies.

These actions along with the actions of us not joining some treaties, breaking some treaties. Really doesn't put us in good lighting, and this "secret stuff" isn't helping.

[Lardlad95]

The Us has nuclear weapons everyone gets nuclear weapons

their actions towards nations that gain them, have them and their not following through with the disarmament treaty with russia proves one thing;

that the US wants to remain the policement of the world

[timbaly]

Bush has already stated that he won't let the US military might be matched by any other nation. We already know that the US is using the world policemen and defender of the free act to reap the other lands dry of their natural resources. They defend their own interest before the rights of people all the time.

[peoplenotprofits]

Gangs don't like competition from other rival Gangs.

[American Kid]

I've been, across the board almost, horribly misunderstood.

I was merely stating what I thought was going to happen. I was trying to be realistic and stating plainly how I thought things were going to go down.

There's no need to lecture me about the morality of what's happening. I'm pretty positive we're all on the same page.

Similarly wary.
-AK

[Tkinter1]

"that the US wants to remain the policement of the world"

If the US doesn't who will. Super powers should be the policemen of the world.

[American Kid]

They should definetely "assist."

Again, if they don't, who will?
-AK

[Panamarisen]

To say the least, a government like the U$ should be the last one to act as the policeman of the world: they ain´t got the minimum legitimation or moral reason to stand like that.

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[timbaly]

If they are to be the legitimant policemen of the world they should look out for the people of the world not self interest. Does a police officer shoot people that he doesn't like for no reason? Well, a good one doesn't. Now the U.S. has been known to kill world leaders they don't like and installing dictatorships left and right. They pay the monarchs of saudi arabia for oil, while the saudi people live poorly. The U.S. has no morals and is an unfit policeman.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Panamarisen on 6:00 pm on Jan. 4, 2003
To say the least, a government like the U$ should be the last one to act as the policeman of the world: they ain´t got the minimum legitimation or moral reason to stand like that.

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!


Show me another world power that has less blood on their hands.

[Panamarisen]

DC, guess ANY OTHER ONE!:

Only the U$, for God $$$, has acted SO greedly along History. If it wasn´t for this main worshipping of materialistic "goods", and the NECESSARY slavering of people all over the world to conquest this astonishing power and richness for a relatively such a small number of other people, I would be able to TRY to understand politics like the U$´. But this is not the case. There has been no real social goal behind this attitude.

For sure, the U$ got the record of all kind of Human Rights violations, International Laws violations, mass assasination of civilians, etc., openly or through the criminal CIA, supporting governants as criminal as the Agency in the five continents. You don´t need to be the late USSR to assasinate people as if they were cattle: you can do it also the U$ way, i.e., underground.

Anyway, the main point was that NO COUNTRY should adopt the role of being the policeman of the world (remember there is something -once efficient- called the UN), and that NO COUNTRY should act agressively against another one just because the latter is ABLE to attack the former. A country should only DEFEND itself if attacked.


HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[Sirion]

U$A has never, is not, and wil never be our worlds policemen. Mafia is a better word for them.

I agree with Panama that UN should us its role to avoid having a world police-state. After all, such a country will always become extremely nationalistic, and where much nationalism exist, imperialism will blossom if the necessarry force is there (U$A is a good example of this). These nations will, sooner or later, be ruined through corruption, enemy attacks or revolts from the surpressed. If U$A doesn't change, the last one is likely, as we see more and more demonstrations all around the world aainst U$ imperialism, especially in U$A. One day...