New Draft For War On Terror

[cchalogamer]

im guessing the page full of posts that disappeared right b4 i posted was one of yours and now its down from 4 pages to 2....wow ouf course 90% of the crap discussed was worthless crap and flaming anyway...

 

Now back on topic:

 

Im one of thoes ppl that doesnt give a . about he distruction level left behind, if we nuke you we want you to die and suffer if possible, but it's the actions of other world powers that bothers me about even the smallest of nukes...

[IUMaestro]

this is a VERY simple question but I want attempts to answer it. Especially the right-wingers.

 

 

How do you justify the obvious irony of attacking a country on belief they have harmful weaponry, only to flaunt your own first strike nuclear weapons?

 

 

i guess i don't understand the complex ideas here... what the hell? i know it's legal since we govern international law pretty much, but ALL treaties, declarations, paperwork aside - how is this "right" from a simple human point of view?????

Edited September 12, 2005 by IUMaestro

[Verran]

How do you justify the obvious irony of attacking a country on belief they have harmful weaponry, only to flaunt your own first strike nuclear weapons?

543632[/snapback]

I have a new hero. This is all of my thoughts summed up into one question. Thank you!

 

I understand the difference between the US and terrorist countries, please don't start on that "we're good, they're bad" or "he kills his own people". I know that. I'm asking where are the actual rules?

 

We invade and decimate them because we think they have nukes, all the while waving ours in their faces. Now we threaten a -pre-emptive- NUCLEAR strike. So they can't even have facilities that -could- make them, meanwhile we can not only have them, but we can point them at whoever we want saying "you'd better not blink"?

 

Again, yes I know that our country is the "good guys", and they're the "bad guys", but who decides that? Is this just at GW's discretion? Does he decide who can have nukes and who can't?

 

IMO, I kinda look at it like D3. The first guy to launch a nuke is the "bad guy". Nukes may be more tame today than they used to be, but it's still a NUKE. I don't understand why you can't just use a big bomb or a missile or something that doesn't carry all the stigma of a nuke...

[andrusk]

Like I said in my deleted post. Tactical Neutron Bombs are the only way to go. No nasty after taste, just melted people. It wouldnt really have the effect of a nuclear bomb and could easily be targeted to just take out a very sugrical area of terrorists. Technically it is "Nuclear" but its not as destructive to the infrastructure.

[LoArmistead]

this is a VERY simple question but I want attempts to answer it. Especially the right-wingers.

How do you justify the obvious irony of attacking a country on belief they have harmful weaponry, only to flaunt your own first strike nuclear weapons?

i guess i don't understand the complex ideas here... what the hell? i know it's legal since we govern international law pretty much, but ALL treaties, declarations, paperwork aside - how is this "right" from a simple human point of view?????

543632[/snapback]

 

Well, the only way to explain it is "We're good, they're bad", but not in idiot terms. We are 'good' in a sense that we have rules that prohibit us from violating international law. We know we aren't going to do anything wrong. Our government is a democracy governed by the many.

 

Iraq was 'bad' in a sense that they were no democracy, they were a dictatorship. The buck began and ended with Saddam. he alone could decide whether or not he wanted to launch a nuke. Plus, his government had deep ties with Al Qaeda. It was for the benefit of the world that Iraq not have nuclear weapons available to give to a bad cause... like Al Qaeda. We already know that Saddam had monthly meetings with Muqtada Al Sadr. Saddam had used his weapons in the past and proven to the world he had no self control, and that he was a threat to anyone he was angry at. For these reasons the UN took it upon themselves to extremely limit the number of nuclear missiles Iraq is allowed to have. And those few missiles they were allowed to have (for self defense reasons) were kept under close watch by UN weapons inspectors like Hans Blix.... until Saddam kicked them out for 5th time, and wouldn't let them examine certain weapons facilities...I wonder why?

 

The reason we can brag about our nukes? Becaue we are the most powerful nation on earth, and I'm not saying this in an "arrogant American" tone, but it's true. There are more people out there that would rather see us dead than any other nation on this earth. We are both the biggest good guy and the biggest bad guy on the planet, and we have to have the means to defend ourselves. It's not like we are trigger-happy. Think about it, of all the nukes we've had, how many have we actually used against our enemies? Two. Nagasaki and Hiroshima, 60 years ago. Those were the first and last atomic bombs we used against other people. The reason we have reign over our weapons is because we aren't a threat to the world..and we are less likely to use them anyway. The reason Saddam's nuclear weapons construction was strictly limited is because he was a threat, and had proven in the past that he was irresponsible with his weapons, thus, internationally speaking, he lost the right of free reign over his nukes.

[IUMaestro]

Lo - that was pretty good.

 

Well put. I'm still not sure that I have strong feelings either way, which is why I never think I'm right about this kind of stuff.. but yea. Nicely put Lo

 

Awwww Hans Brix... aww your breakin ma barrrsss Hans.

[Kash]

That was beautiful. I'm sure even Verran and slapnuts will appreciate that. I can see KB cheering u on......

 

(Sorry, had to say it, especially since all my posts were deleted)

[LoArmistead]

Yes the mods definitely layed the smackdown upon offtopic posts in this thread didn't they...

 

Now my post will be even beautiful...er because I've edited it for spelling

[Verran]

Well, the only way to explain it is "We're good, they're bad", but not in idiot terms.  We are 'good' in a sense that we have rules that prohibit us from violating international law.  We know we aren't going to do anything wrong.  Our government is a democracy governed by the many. 

543696[/snapback]

You're completely right. In this case, it is obvious to everyone that our intent is good. My fear, however, is that we're leaving something as powerful as nukes to the discretion of the president's perception of "good" and "bad".

 

What I mean by this is that a line must be drawn. Actual RULES need to be in place. Something as important as this needs more justification than "they're the bad guy". I mean if we were talking about retaliatory (is that a word?) attacks, then I'd be right with you. But we're talking about FIRST STRIKE. I will again say that I think whoever launches a nuke first is the bad guy. If you're going to be the first to fire in a nuke standoff, you better have a LOT better justification than "good" and "bad".

 

Also, didn't we basically tell the UN to F-Off when we started the war? Didn't they all say we couldn't do it, and we did anyways? Again, I understand the difference, but as far as actual rules, doesn't that make us pretty bad in the eyes of the world?

 

Maybe there are very specific rules to and guidelines for what a country has to do before we can launch a nuke on them, but to me it sounds like we're trying to make the line "fuzzier".

 

Iraq was 'bad' in a sense that they were no democracy, they were a dictatorship.  The buck began and ended with Saddam.  he alone could decide whether or not he wasntede to launch a nuke. 

543696[/snapback]

Yes, we have checks and balances for this kind of stuff. But again, it kinda sounds like we'd be removing some of them with this new bill. How far can we push it before we near the same situation?

 

The reason we can brag about our nukes?  Becaue we are the most powerful nation on earth, and I'm not saying this in an "arrogant American" tone, but it's true.  There are more people out there that would rather see us dead than any other nation on the planet.  We are both the biggest good guy and the biggest bad guy on the planet, and we have to have the means to defend ourselves.

543696[/snapback]

This is an excellent point, no buts. It's completely true. We need to be able to defend ourselves because we are threatened more than anyone else. It's easy for others to tell us to back down when buildings aren't falling over in their countries.

 

It's not like we are trigger happy.

543696[/snapback]

I'd agree, but I'm not convinced that GW is 100% unbiased on the issue either.

 

There has to be a happy medium. On one hand, most people don't want GW sitting on his office with his finger on a hot launch button. On the other hand, if congress has to get through a filibuster just to OK a launch, then what's the point?

 

Think about it, of all the nukes we've had, how many have we actually used against our enemies?  Two.  Nagasaki and Hiroshima, 60 years ago.  Those were the first and last atomic bombs we used against other people. 

543696[/snapback]

Again, a very good point. Our track record does speak pretty highly of our ability to be rational.

 

Awwww Hans Brix... aww your breakin ma barrrsss Hans.

543734[/snapback]

....Arrrik Bawwwdrin......

[bigred]

I propose they just put me in charge of it... give me the military, permission to ignore the UN and NATO's wishes... and permission to just crush anyone who so much as looks crosseyed at the US and our friends.

 

 

 

and no I'm not joking either. I could bet you that a policy like that would scare many extremists into behaving and talking it over instead of trying to scare us.

 

 

 

sorry, little bit of stress... little wound up... little hyper...

[NCC10281982B]

Oh Boy. ^

[demigod]

I propose they just put me in charge of it...  give me the military, permission to ignore the UN and NATO's wishes...  and permission to just crush anyone who so much as looks crosseyed at the US and our friends.

and no I'm not joking either.  I could bet you that a policy like that would scare many extremists into behaving and talking it over instead of trying to scare us.

sorry, little bit of stress...  little wound up...  little hyper...

543767[/snapback]

 

 

bigred's statement is a little scary, but it does bring up a good point. It really makes you wonder that if it was easier for us to launch a nuke or invade some country, and/or if that decision was just up to one man, how often would we be attacked then? Would 9/11 happened if Bin Laden knew that bigred would launch a nuke first and ask questions later? I think this bill may be a good idea, if we keep ourselves under control and stick with the track record or principles we have now.