NationStates Jolt Archive

If the so-called WMD are simply weapons of mass destruction then surely the USA is guilty of posessing the greatest amount - so how can the US be liberating others for the sake of a race in which it leads. The US has among oter things, mass produced VX gas, and developed many types of short (tactical) and long range nuclear weapons.

Can anyone justify the US's stock of weapons or it's liberations upon this ground?

I don't know about that, but there is one thing the USA was VERY hypocritical about.

During the 'Cold War' (which was every bit as phony as the War on Terror), the USA feigned anti-communism, yet no other nation was a greater contributor to the spread of communism. Anyone who challenges this idea is welcome to share their view or ask for a bibliography.

If the so-called WMD are simply weapons of mass destruction then surely the USA is guilty of posessing the greatest amount - so how can the US be liberating others for the sake of a race in which it leads. The US has among oter things, mass produced VX gas, and developed many types of short (tactical) and long range nuclear weapons.

Can anyone justify the US's stock of weapons or it's liberations upon this ground?

The thing is, there were UN resolution banning WMD in Iraq. It's not the WMD themselves the problem, it's the possession of illegal armament by Iraq that was the contention.

Every country is hypocritical, to one extent or another... but no, we should not be building more bombs while "disarming" other countries.

The US should be allowed to do what ever it feels like. So should every other country, we need to take a lesson from the 1400s dipolmacy do what in your best intrest forget about everyone else.

The US should be allowed to do what ever it feels like. So should every other country, we need to take a lesson from the 1400s dipolmacy do what in your best intrest forget about everyone else.
Hmm.. I am sure Hitler would have liked that. I wonder if the German Empire we'd have today, would be wonderful or not.

I don't think there are any treaties banning the US from having WMDs, I'm pretty sure there was a treaty banning Iraq from having WMDs, that's the difference.

The US should be allowed to do what ever it feels like. So should every other country, we need to take a lesson from the 1400s dipolmacy do what in your best intrest forget about everyone else.
IMHO it is thinking such as this that will ultimately result in the destruction of the world as we know it.

IMHO it is thinking such as this that will ultimately result in the destruction of the world as we know it.
But first and foremost, in the destruction of the US :)

If they go we all go I think - as if China and US fought, Russa would be dragged in by China and Western Europe by the US, then an ground war in easten europe - not good at all.

bBcause the US isn't ran by a phycopathic dictator or some other moron, who kills innocent poeple on purpose. America doesn't intend to use there weapons. Iraq if they had one definatley would, so would other countries like North Korea, or Groups like Al-Queda.

By the way I'm not a bush supporter or American

If the so-called WMD are simply weapons of mass destruction then surely the USA is guilty of posessing the greatest amount - so how can the US be liberating others for the sake of a race in which it leads. The US has among oter things, mass produced VX gas, and developed many types of short (tactical) and long range nuclear weapons.

Can anyone justify the US's stock of weapons or it's liberations upon this ground?

I think you're touching on something decient here, but the really ironic/hypocritical thing here is the fact that the US gave Iraq these weapons while Bush Sr. was VP and Rummey was in the cabinet and Powel was one of the join chiefs. But then again, that is more ironic than anything.

The US is definitely hypocritical in this issue.

There as never any evidence of WMDs in Iraq. Bush simply made up that reason to go to war with them. He talked about invading that suffering country the very first week he was in office; long before the September 11th attacks.

He wants cheap and abundant oil, and thought he could get away with it by relating the terrorists with Saddam Hussein, which no relation existed.

God bless a country which will go to a bloody war because they can't tell Arabs apart.

I think you're touching on something here
They never let war get in the way of good business do they?

However many western nations sell weapons to 3rd world countries - often to both sides during a war.

As for Iraq using WMDs - they did in the first Gulf war against the Kuwaitis I believe.

And Al Qaeda -It has been suggested, by a senior member I think they were actually planning September 11th style attacks upon nuclear power stations, which many scientists pointed out could cause meltdowns, but deceided it was too dangerous or something and settled for landmarks (this no way justifies it by the way)

But it does seem the US have no room to talk when it comes to blatant self-interest - fair enough you might think, but when it involves supporting revolutions and installing puppet dictators they have gone too far I think.

bBcause the US isn't ran by a phycopathic dictator or some other moron, who kills innocent poeple on purpose. America doesn't intend to use there weapons. Iraq if they had one definatley would, so would other countries like North Korea, or Groups like Al-Queda.

By the way I'm not a bush supporter or American

While it is undeniable that Saddam Hussein is a dictator who killed some of his people, much of the other assumptions that he would willingly plunge the world into WWIII is purely based on asinine American propaganda and very little else.

Think twice before posting such an arbitrary statement.

There as never any evidence of WMDs in Iraq. Bush simply made up that reason to go to war with them. He talked about invading that suffering country the very first week he was in office; long before the September 11th attacks.

He wants cheap and abundant oil, and thought he could get away with it by relating the terrorists with Saddam Hussein, which no relation existed.

God bless a country which will go to a bloody war because they can't tell Arabs apart.

There certianly was evidence that they had em! We gave them the bloody weapons, and we have records of the transaction in the 1980s!

note: sarcasm was used in the making of this post.

I think you're touching on something decient here, but the really ironic/hypocritical thing here is the fact that the US gave Iraq these weapons while Bush Sr. was VP and Rummey was in the cabinet and Powel was one of the join chiefs. But then again, that is more ironic than anything.

Actually, Rumsfield was a private citizen at the time, although he did act as a special envoy for Reagan. But even if the US didn't know at the time that he had already used chemical agents agents against Iranian troops (although I'm fairly sure I read somewhere that the White House did), what's really disturbing about shipping the materials to him is what legitimate use did we think he might have possibly had for weapons grade chemical and biological material?

Every country is hypocritical, to one extent or another... but no, we should not be building more bombs while "disarming" other countries.

Nay, Canada is the one example of a pure country without hypocrisy. I know it's true, just ask me, I'll tell you so! :p

Nay, Canada is the one example of a pure country without hypocrisy. I know it's true, just ask me, I'll tell you so! :p
Yes, I believe you: all other countries of the world are cynicyl hypocrites except the "paradise" Canada. Oh wait, I don´t. Canada is no better than anyone else.

Yes, I believe you: all other countries of the world are cynicyl hypocrites except the "paradise" Canada. Oh wait, I don´t. Canada is no better than anyone else.

Well for all her faults, Canada has a lot less to be ashamed of then many countries, however I will agree Canada is not the only country like this. Quite a few European countries have pretty good track records too.