Why American Nukes are Justified - The Nuclear Non-prolifera

[Capitalist Imperial]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,75155,00.html

This was agreed upon, and signed, by the world community. It states that only the USA, Russia, China, Britain, and France can legitimately employ a nuclear arsenal.

Any more leftists who question why the USA can have nukes and any rogue state can't, I defer to this agreement.

The world community (except 4 nations) have agreed to this, so you leftists big on world-interest should have no problem with this.

[MEXCAN]

Rogue state ?????The US is a Rogue State !!!!!

[Eastside Revolt]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 12:20 am on Jan. 11, 2003
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,75155,00.html

This was agreed upon, and signed, by the world community. It states that only the USA, Russia, China, Britain, and France can legitimately employ a nuclear arsenal.

Any more leftists who question why the USA can have nukes and any rogue state can't, I defer to this agreement.

The world community (except 4 nations) have agreed to this, so you leftists big on world-interest should have no problem with this.


Of course the most powerful nations on earth, are gonna like the idea of being able to maintain power. As for the "world community" having agreed, it was either out of political/economic bullying, or becuase it was signed by governments who do not serve their people.

[Umoja]

Then why isn't a problem when India and Pakistan test weapons? What about the supposed Israeli Nuclear weapons program?

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from Umoja on 2:23 am on Jan. 11, 2003
Then why isn't a problem when India and Pakistan test weapons? What about the supposed Israeli Nuclear weapons program?

Those 3 countries didn't sign the agreement. So those are the 3 out of 4.

[IHP]

Quote: from exploitedclass on 5:10 am on Jan. 11, 2003

Quote: from Umoja on 2:23 am on Jan. 11, 2003
Then why isn't a problem when India and Pakistan test weapons? What about the supposed Israeli Nuclear weapons program?

Those 3 countries didn't sign the agreement. So those are the 3 out of 4.

Who's the fourth? Syria?

--IHP

[Invader Zim]

Agreement, What a load of rubbish!!!

The only good Nuclear weapons on earth are deactivated ones!!!!!!!!!!

Also how can anyone seriosly trust that insane Nazi Bush with Nukes exactly. I would rather let Al-Quida have them than him.

[truthaddict11]

Israel as nukes...

[Moskitto]

Israel and South Africa are both suspected nuclear powers, there is meant to be an absolute no nuke zone in africa as well.

[Anonymous]

That is terrifying! No matter who leads America, whatever happens to their policy they will always be one of the nations 'allowed' to have Nukes.

If i was a rogue state and wanted Nuclear Weapons id broke a deal with Russia 'colonisation' which could be argued to bring the state under Russia's authority and thus all matters in thus matter would be judged under Russia's banner. God knows the Russians would do it if they thought they could make some money.

[j]

Why should any country have the ability to demolish the world?

If the US and the international community is so up in arms over N. Korea withdrawing from the treaty then what about Israel? The US gives more money to Israel than any other foreign country. Why won't we take a stance against Israel's nuclear program?

I can't justify N. Korea's position nor do I agree with it. However, I do have a sense of why they might do this. The US and Britain have taken such a stance in the world that they are going to preemptively strike out against anyone who does not agree with them. (You are either with us or with the terrorists). N. Korea may see the need to defend themselves--especially after George Bush has declared them part of the "axis of evil."

On the other hand, N. Korea may be using this as a bargaining tool. They have done it in the past.

The whole US stance on Israel is so hypocritical when it comes to this treaty. Pakistan and India have been looked down upon for their nuclear programs but George and Co. say nothing about Israel!!!

Why should Israel be allowed nuclear weapons in direct opposition to the world community via the UN?

j

[mentalbunny]

I don't trust this agreement. It was not signed by the entire community therefore I do not think it should apply.

I agree with j, why should any country have the ability to demolish the world?

US policy is full of contradiciton and hypocrisy. No one should possess nukes and money should not be spent developing nuclear technnology, what good does it do? We only have a limited supply of uranium, etc anyway, we should be using this money for other things, like research into alternative energy sources and combatting poverty.

[Guest]

Its okay to ***** about America, but it seems you have blind eyes to the fact that the Russians are putting a new nuclear missile into production (Topel-M missile, a 3 stage missile).So Russia doing this is justified?

What a bunch of fucking hypocritics we have here.

[Anonymous]

Who said that Russia was justified?

[truthaddict11]

i am against nuclear weapons of all kinds

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Not one nation should have weapons of any kind, especially not nukes. But the arrogant Americans broke the SALT treatments and refuse to disarm

"We are a peacefull nation"- Monkey Boy aka Bush

And Bush agrees on this by continuening their nuclear production.

The greatest treat to the world is the USA because they have more "interrests" to defend.

[mentalbunny]

All nukes should be outlawed, simple as that. I have no sympathy for those countries developing nukes, i just wish they'd stop, how are we supposed to have peace of the smallest thing will set off nuclear war?!!

[Thine Stalin]

I support nations building nukes to curb U.S influence in their region.

South africa had nukes but disarmed them and stopped production, bravo for south africa.

But you're wrong about the smallest thing setting off a nuclear war, The united states and the soviet union were as close to war as any country can get without being at war, both had nukes, and some how 35 years and intense hateful feelings didn't lead to the apocolypse, nukes are fine, just don't let war hawks control them.

[truthaddict11]

Quote: from Thine Stalin on 5:28 pm on Jan. 12, 2003
I support nations building nukes to curb U.S influence in their region.

South africa had nukes but disarmed them and stopped production, bravo for south africa.

But you're wrong about the smallest thing setting off a nuclear war, The united states and the soviet union were as close to war as any country can get without being at war, both had nukes, and some how 35 years and intense hateful feelings didn't lead to the apocolypse, nukes are fine, just don't let war hawks control them.

how is Iraq having "nukes" stopping the US from invading them?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 3:34 pm on Jan. 12, 2003
I don't trust this agreement. It was not signed by the entire community therefore I do not think it should apply.

I agree with j, why should any country have the ability to demolish the world?

US policy is full of contradiciton and hypocrisy. No one should possess nukes and money should not be spent developing nuclear technnology, what good does it do? We only have a limited supply of uranium, etc anyway, we should be using this money for other things, like research into alternative energy sources and combatting poverty.


It was signed by all but 4 third world nations. The vast majority rules.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

It was signed by all but 4 third world nations. The vast majority rules.

I thought that you were captalistic

Nukes can prevent an invasion on Iraq, because if Iraq is invaded and Saddam looses, he commits suicide or something and with him is a great chance that he fires off the nukes.

And to avoid this scenery, and avoid the whole US population from extermination, the US won't attack.

[j]

Whether Iraq does or does not have nuclear weapons will not be a deterrent to US invovlment. If you look at history, we were heavily involved in fighting in Vietnam, indirectly in Afganistan--both of these wars were essentially fought against the USSR--which had nukes.

I heard on NPR today that the US is more concerned about Iraq than N. Korea because Iraq has used chemical weapons in the past. Shouldn't the rest of the world be concerned because the US has used the atomic bomb, twice? If Iraq is wrong for chemical weapons, the US is surely wrong for the atom bomb.

There is so much hypocrisy surrounding this situation the world is in right now. The US (while I am a constant and consistant critic of it--I wouldn't really want to live anywhere else) needs to wake up and realize that it is part of the world community. 9/11 should have been this wake up call. The US SHOULD have realized, damn our innocent civilians are at risk here--we need to act in their best interests. Yet, the US has turned up its nose to the international criminal court and is bent on waging a war the entire rest of the world is against (even fucking Canada!!!!). The actions of the US government are setting us up here. Instead of realizing that we can no longer go play in the rest of the world and not get attacked at home, the Bush adminstration has decided that he will attack, attack, attack, and hope nothing will happen here.

Anyone who supports war with Iraq might as well put a bull's eye on the USA. That is what waging war that no one else in the world (save Tony Blair) agrees with will essentially do. We can not let idiots like Bush set us up as targets.

j

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from CCCP on 6:32 pm on Jan. 13, 2003

It was signed by all but 4 third world nations. The vast majority rules.

I thought that you were captalistic

Nukes can prevent an invasion on Iraq, because if Iraq is invaded and Saddam looses, he commits suicide or something and with him is a great chance that he fires off the nukes.

And to avoid this scenery, and avoid the whole US population from extermination, the US won't attack.


Even if saddam has nukes, it would not be enough to destroy the whole US population.

Also, he does not have a vehicle to deliver them to the USA itself. He has no ICBM's, Subs, Ships, or aircraft cabable of penetrating US airspace or territory.

All he could do is detonate the nukes in his own theatre of operations, which will definately kill thousands of US troops if they were still in the area, but it will do more damage to the middle east than the USA.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 8:09 pm on Jan. 13, 2003

Quote: from CCCP on 6:32 pm on Jan. 13, 2003

It was signed by all but 4 third world nations. The vast majority rules.

I thought that you were captalistic

Nukes can prevent an invasion on Iraq, because if Iraq is invaded and Saddam looses, he commits suicide or something and with him is a great chance that he fires off the nukes.

And to avoid this scenery, and avoid the whole US population from extermination, the US won't attack.


Even if saddam has nukes, it would not be enough to destroy the whole US population.

Also, he does not have a vehicle to deliver them to the USA itself. He has no ICBM's, Subs, Ships, or aircraft cabable of penetrating US airspace or territory.

All he could do is detonate the nukes in his own theatre of operations, which will definately kill thousands of US troops if they were still in the area, but it will do more damage to the middle east than the USA.

CI what a kind harted person you are!!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from AK47 on 8:48 pm on Jan. 13, 2003
[quote]
CI what a kind harted person you are!!

Why do you say this? What I said was not hateful or emotional, it is just the facts!

[Smoking Frog II]

Quote: from AK47 on 10:39 am on Jan. 11, 2003
The only good Nuclear weapons on earth are deactivated ones!!!!!!!!!!

Also how can anyone seriosly trust that insane Nazi Bush with Nukes exactly. I would rather let Al-Quida have them than him.


So Bush is a fucking nazi. yeah. makes sense to me.

You fucking Americans just use nuclear weapons to get favourable conditions.

You fucking cowards. Why dont you kill the poor.
Oh! I forgot. They're already dead.

So why don't we blow up the middle east and take their rescources for our own? Oh yeah! I remember! That's what we gonna do.

Kill the children and rape the women. We are the aryan race. We, the USA will rule all.

wankers.

[Umoja]

Nuclear weapons have arguably saved lives, because it makes people fearful of war. It stopped the United States from going to war with China during the Korean war, it kept Vietnam from escalating... In general they have prevented so many potential conflicts, that they aren't the ultimate evil. Even if they were illegal, we'll just come up with something worse.

[truthaddict11]

but you are making the world go into another probally pemenant cold war with many countries having thier fingers on the button. i believe that thier is a chance for a nation to produce (and we have) weapons more devastating than a nuclear weapon but by allowing the use of nukes as insurance to prevent a conflict threatens the entire world with annihilation.

[mentalbunny]

The problem with people having their fingers hovering over the button of world destruction is that they might get jogged (hope you understand what I mean!) and press the button accidentally! And that really wouldn't do!!!!!!!! (and at the moment it's my bet that it would be Bush who pressed the button "accidentally"!)

[kylie]

null

[Don Amodeo]

Quote: from Smoking Frog II on 10:04 pm on Jan. 13, 2003

Quote: from AK47 on 10:39 am on Jan. 11, 2003
The only good Nuclear weapons on earth are deactivated ones!!!!!!!!!!

Also how can anyone seriosly trust that insane Nazi Bush with Nukes exactly. I would rather let Al-Quida have them than him.


So Bush is a fucking nazi. yeah. makes sense to me.

You fucking Americans just use nuclear weapons to get favourable conditions.

You fucking cowards. Why dont you kill the poor.
Oh! I forgot. They're already dead.

So why don't we blow up the middle east and take their rescources for our own? Oh yeah! I remember! That's what we gonna do.

Kill the children and rape the women. We are the aryan race. We, the USA will rule all.

wankers.


Aryan race, you make complete sense. The americans are all blonde haired blue-eyed pale-skinned racists who have been on america for thousands of years (sarcasm).
"So Bush is a fucking nazi. yeah. makes sense to me."
-The United States actually were the force who destroyed the nazis after their conquest of most of Europe.
"You fucking cowards. Why dont you kill the poor.
Oh! I forgot. They're already dead."
-The first american settlements were the poorer class who was discriminated against by yourselves, the english upper class. This process has continued for the last 250 years with poor immigrants going to America, finding work, and providing for their family. America is made up of everybody's poorer class, who joined together to rub it in your face and make a fortune over the last 200 years. So, no they're not dead, they're just richer than you now.
"So why don't we blow up the middle east and take their rescources for our own? Oh yeah! I remember! That's what we gonna do."
-Exactly, America is going to completely destroy the middle east in order to take the resources. Just like if somebody wants to rob a house, naturally, he has to burn it down first, so that there is nothing it in.
"Kill the children and rape the women. We are the aryan race. We, the USA will rule all."
-Kill the children and rape the women, huh. Thats what they do over there. Thats why the first womens suffrage movements took place in America, and the kids in america have become the ideal kids for those of us living in Europe who love the american culture. And I believe I touched on the Aryan thing before when I said America was the one who crushed the Nazi uprising in the forties.
In conclusion, Smoking Frog, I have decided that you are undeniably, an absolute fucking idiot. You say things that you think, that really have absolutely no connection, and in some cases are the direct opposites. I came to this site to try to get the viewpoints of intelligent leftists with interests in helping the poor, and instead I have come across fucking morons like you and DyerMaker in the process.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Good stuff, Don, Good stuff

[Stormin Norman]

Smoking Frog, I have decided that you are undeniably, an absolute fucking idiot

That fact is undeniable. I think they smoked away what little gray matter they did have.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 4:51 pm on Jan. 14, 2003

Smoking Frog, I have decided that you are undeniably, an absolute fucking idiot


That fact is undeniable. I think they smoked away what little gray matter they did have.

LOL, SN, good to see you here. I sure could have used your help with these dolts yesterday. They were coming up with some gems. Case in point: Dyermakers atrocious article).

BTW, is DyerMaker and Vox the same person? You alluded to that notion in another thread.

[mentalbunny]

Don Amodeo, you do know that the US proportionally has the most neo-nazis. Abd if you agree with the capis so much you should get out of all the other forums.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 10:05 pm on Jan. 14, 2003
Don Amodeo, you do know that the US proportionally has the most neo-nazis. Abd if you agree with the capis so much you should get out of all the other forums.

Proportionately speaking, germany has the most neo-nazis

[workingpoor]

Quote: from j on 3:59 pm on Jan. 11, 2003


If the US and the international community is so up in arms over N. Korea withdrawing from the treaty then what about Israel? The US gives more money to Israel than any other foreign country. Why won't we take a stance against Israel's nuclear program?

The whole US stance on Israel is so hypocritical when it comes to this treaty.

Why should Israel be allowed nuclear weapons in direct opposition to the world community via the UN?

j


My question is why do we let Israel get away with anything in the first place. We allow them to constantly bully and oppress the palentstinian people and then wonder why these people have resorted to guerilla tactics in their fight for freedom and from opression.

How does one recognize a country that has no land holdings?

[mentalbunny]

Workingpoor, I agree. In leviticus, chapter 19, it goes on about how the Israelites should treat foreigners who live in their country like fellow Israelites, but they don't seem to be doing that now, do they? I think someone needs to read their Torah, Mr Sharon!!!!

[truthaddict11]

i think Allen Ginsberg puts it best to CI about being in favor of nuclear weapons "Go FUCK yourselves with your atom bomb"

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 11:15 pm on Jan. 15, 2003
i think Allen Ginsberg puts it best to CI about being in favor of nuclear weapons "Go FUCK yourselves with your atom bomb"

yes, allen ginsburg. I would expect such dogmatic filth from a trogdalite such as that jellied liberal

[RedComrade]

""So Bush is a fucking nazi. yeah. makes sense to me."
-The United States actually were the force who destroyed the nazis after their conquest of most of Europe. "
As far as Bush goes he had nothing to do with it his gramps made the family fortune by dealing buisiness with the Nazis and came under suspicion from the authorities. Dont get me wrong im not saying Bush is a nazi hes prolly just an admirer but dont credit Bush for nything my grandparents did in WW2 that coward would have been at home wetting himself like he did in vietnam.