NationStates Jolt Archive

*Bush is doing exactly what he accused Saddam of doing--the irony is kicking

Bush Opposes Nuclear Weapons Inspections in U.S.
The Bush administration has announced it now opposes international weapons inspections as part of an international nuclear weapons treaty. The policy shift was announced during last week's arms control meeting in Geneva. The State Department issued a statement that said allowing weapons inspectors into the United States and other countries "would have been so extensive that it could compromise key signatories' core national security interests and so costly that many countries will be hesitant to accept it." But critics of the US policy say that without inspections the international community will have no way to verify if countries are abiding by the treaty.

According to the Washington Post, arms control specialists say the Bush administration's decision virtually kills a 10-year international effort to lure countries such as Pakistan, India and Israel into accepting some oversight of their nuclear production programs.
www.democracynow.org

And you're surprised at this because?????

MK, as a friend, watch out for how many threads you're posting.

You think it might be because the world already knows the US has enough WoMD to destroy the world several times.

It would be the equivalent of looking for fish in the ocean, everyone knows the ocean is full of them!

MK, as a friend, watch out for how many threads you're posting.
I just filled my quota for the day

so if everyone knows they are there, then what is the harm in letting people in to see them?

so if everyone knows they are there, then what is the harm in letting people in to see them?

So if everyone knows they are there, what is the point of letting people in to see them?

We don't have a history of using our chemical weapons to suppress civil strife.

so if everyone knows they are there, then what is the harm in letting people in to see them?


Your question was answered above - US security interests. And also as stated above, everyone knows the US has enough nukes to blow up the world, so there's no real reason for inspections. The US won't be dismantling their nukes under UN supervision anytime soon. What would be the point of the inspections then? There may indeed be reasons to have inspections of US nukes, but my point is that whatever those reasons are, they are not important enough for the US to compromise its security.

if everyknows they are there then they shouldnt have a problem letting people in to see them to see if the US is telling the truth as to the amount of weapons, the types of weapons and who knows what other factors.

Someone has to keep the US in check. The US isn't gunna check itself. Why shoudl everyone just believe what the US tells them without seeing it for themselves. What security interests could keep people out?

What about these other countries that also have seciruty interests? THeir secirity doesnt matter? You can't have it both ways. Its not like the US doesnt have a shady history itself.

MK, as a friend, watch out for how many threads you're posting.
I am getting a little tired of the outrageous topics which he never bothers to subsequently defend.

Oh yes, facts are so offending.


Only ignorants or fascists (also ignorant) can support Bush. Do you really think he is protecting america? If this keeps up, you'll see how protected you will be in the future...

if everyknows they are there then they shouldnt have a problem letting people in to see them to see if the US is telling the truth as to the amount of weapons, the types of weapons and who knows what other factors.

Someone has to keep the US in check. The US isn't gunna check itself. Why shoudl everyone just believe what the US tells them without seeing it for themselves. What security interests could keep people out?

What about these other countries that also have seciruty interests? THeir secirity doesnt matter? You can't have it both ways. Its not like the US doesnt have a shady history itself.

Let me play the Empire music as I re-read this post! "BAHM BAHM BADAH....."

There that is much better!

Relax. For all the shrubs first strike talk, you don't have to worry. Too many people wouldn't go for that!

I will stand by the belief that is the US deployed a Nuke as a "precaution" there would be an armed revolt. Nobody is going to belive a first strike with a nuke was warrented.

Again what is gained by looking? We have enough weapons to destroy the planet several times.

So what if we lied.

OH MY GAWD THE US SAID THEY HAD 10000 warheads and they really have 11000! Let's go to war!

Ok no a serious comment ;)

One reason for not allowing inspections is that we tend to have more sophisticated delivery systems.

What is to say that an inspector doesn't make notes for his own country?

You think it might be because the world already knows the US has enough WoMD to destroy the world several times.

It would be the equivalent of looking for fish in the ocean, everyone knows the ocean is full of them!

Actually, we have "only" enough to depopulate the World (give or take- enough to kill the human race eventually through radiation and starvation even if the blasts don't hit.

And now the fun part...

As for destroying the world literally, it takes approximately 10^32 Joules to destroy Earth (eventually it will reform, but this will fragment it into continent-sized chunks). This works out to about 23.8 Zettatons (Zetta, Exa, Peta, Tera, Mega, Kilo, FYI.) The largest bomb ever was the 50 Megaton Tsar Bomba, so we'd need half a trillion of the biggest bomb in the world to destroy the Earth literally.

Doomduckistan, I'm not stupid, surely you don't believe that the US has enough nuked to blow up the world?

If MKULTRA wants a serious answer to his question....

1. It's time-consuming. This is an election year, Bush doesn't need to waste his time showing nukes to inspectors who already knew they were there.

2. How do we know that the inspectors there won't send numbers of the WoMDs to other countries? Example: A French inspector tells France the US has 15,000 nuclear warheads, the French then build their number to 16,00 to go over the US.

3. Why do you need to know the exact number when it is common knowledge that there is enough to destroy, excuse me, depopulate the world?

I don't know if this was posted or not, but I think Bush is denying the inspectors access to our WMDs because there are no UN resolutions passed barring us from having WMDs.

As for destroying the world literally, it takes approximately 10^32 Joules to destroy Earth (eventually it will reform, but this will fragment it into continent-sized chunks). This works out to about 23.8 Zettatons (Zetta, Exa, Peta, Tera, Mega, Kilo, FYI.) The largest bomb ever was the 50 Megaton Tsar Bomba, so we'd need half a trillion of the biggest bomb in the world to destroy the Earth literally.

Shhhhhh. Don't give them any ideas...

Doomduckistan, I'm not stupid, surely you don't believe that the US has enough nuked to blow up the world?

There are some who really believe that- it's a rather common misconception... I think it stems from people have lower expectations of gravitational binding energy and what it does to the energy output needed to destroy the world.

Sorry, it just annoys me when "the World = Human Beings". It's a strange pet peeve.

Anyway, I agree- we know there are more than enough WMDs in America to blow up anything and everything living (besides cockroaches? ;) Yet another meme, whereas Cockroaches can survive radiation, many people have the misconception that they can survive a nuclear blast), and that's all that matters.

As for destroying the world literally, it takes approximately 10^32 Joules to destroy Earth (eventually it will reform, but this will fragment it into continent-sized chunks). This works out to about 23.8 Zettatons (Zetta, Exa, Peta, Tera, Mega, Kilo, FYI.) The largest bomb ever was the 50 Megaton Tsar Bomba, so we'd need half a trillion of the biggest bomb in the world to destroy the Earth literally.

Out of curiousity...is that the amount of energy to destroy the earth from the surface or from the core? (It would surely be a massive difference...)

Shhhhhh. Don't give them any ideas...

*Puts Portugal on the Axis of Evil list*

That will teach you! ;)

Doomduckistan, I'm not stupid, surely you don't believe that the US has enough nuked to blow up the world?

If MKULTRA wants a serious answer to his question....

1. It's time-consuming. This is an election year, Bush doesn't need to waste his time showing nukes to inspectors who already knew they were there.

2. How do we know that the inspectors there won't send numbers of the WoMDs to other countries? Example: A French inspector tells France the US has 15,000 nuclear warheads, the French then build their number to 16,00 to go over the US.

3. Why do you need to know the exact number when it is common knowledge that there is enough to destroy, excuse me, depopulate the world?that answers my question

why does America still have nukes if the govornment doesnt want any one else to have them. George Bush is a threat to international security... i admit not in the same way as sadam but whereas sadam was crazy dubya is just fick!

why does America still have nukes if the govornment doesnt want any one else to have them. George Bush is a threat to international security... i admit not in the same way as sadam but whereas sadam was crazy dubya is just fick!
uhm.. Mutually Assured Destruction. No one who has nukes now will dissarm unless everyone dissarms and no one trusts that everyone will dissarm. Besides, what would happen if everyone did disarm but one country left a couple nukes together? Then when a war started, they could do a ton of damage to the other country without worrying about getting nuked back.

1. It's time-consuming. This is an election year, Bush doesn't need to waste his time showing nukes to inspectors who already knew they were there.

2. How do we know that the inspectors there won't send numbers of the WoMDs to other countries? Example: A French inspector tells France the US has 15,000 nuclear warheads, the French then build their number to 16,00 to go over the US.

3. Why do you need to know the exact number when it is common knowledge that there is enough to destroy, excuse me, depopulate the world?

I think the real issue here is not the act of barring inspectors but the consequencesof the act.Basically we will have a treaty that may or may not be being adhered to.Also countries such as India and Israel will be less likely to accept some form of oversight in their programmes.These could make it easier for nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of terrorists which I'm sure we agree is the last thing we want.Seems to me to be a good reason for Bush to find time,even if we have a fair idea of the weapons capabilities.However we will just have to run the risk of an arms race between the US and France. :D

The U.S. does not need to be inspected for weapons because:

A. Everyone knows we have WMD's and lots of them.
B. It would be a large waste of money to account for all weapons they know we have.
C. Even if the U.S. was not abiding the treaty, who really gives a damn? No one is going to use WMD's, and if they do it doesn't really matter now does it? We'll all be dead so I don't really give a shit.
D. It does not matter if we loose the ability to inspect Pakistan/Israel etc... they are not Psycotic Dictatorships bent on ruling/destroying the world. They don't like eachother let them sort out their own differences. Why should I care if they kill eachother?


and remember: KERRY AND EDWARDS!! full of so much sh** it takes 2 Johns to hold it all. ;)

I am getting a little tired of the outrageous topics which he never bothers to subsequently defend.

MKULtra is just doing his usual inflammatory conspiracy theory chicken-little the sky is falling routine. He never references anything but one website, nothing else. And that website's about as credible as Michael Moore ...

He just likes to get everyone riled up by starting lame threads that he knows will garner him oodles of attention, so there's no need to particpate in and defend his own threads.

http://www.digitalend.com/pics/attention_whore4.jpg

The U.S. does not need to be inspected for weapons because:

A. Everyone knows we have WMD's and lots of them.
B. It would be a large waste of money to account for all weapons they know we have.
C. Even if the U.S. was not abiding the treaty, who really gives a damn? No one is going to use WMD's, and if they do it doesn't really matter now does it? We'll all be dead so I don't really give a shit.
D. It does not matter if we loose the ability to inspect Pakistan/Israel etc... they are not Psycotic Dictatorships bent on ruling/destroying the world. They don't like eachother let them sort out their own differences. Why should I care if they kill eachother?


and remember: KERRY AND EDWARDS!! full of so much sh** it takes 2 Johns to hold it all. ;)

I was more worried about the other countries not abiding by the treaty.Also it's worth pointing out that we do not have the ability to inspect Pakistan or Israel.Also that the Pakistani Government was not elected but came to power in a military coup.Then again it's also worth noting that Israel has broken more UN resolutions than Iraq did.

I think we should look at his record as President, i mean he in my eyes is a truely great leader and War leader aswell.
People say "well the econemy isnt good though" but fail to remember they were hit by the worst terror attacks ever seen in 2001 and so any econemy and yes even the great america will take time to heal.
I am from England and this country's leader "Mr Blair" is hated here because he is weak.
Mr Bush was strong and kept America beating on September 11th 2001 and he continues to do so.
Iraq has been difficult but that sort of country was always going to be a long term mission, and men have died but compared with Veitnam's 50,000 american force personel dead, Iraq is a walk in the park.
John kerry is not a leader, people think he is because he was a soldier in veitnam but that does not make him a man who can stand up to the koreans and terrorist and beat them.
Mr Bush beleives in america and we must be greatfull for a man who will risk his Presidency for the safety of the american people and for people in the world who want to be free and believes in freedom.

PLEASE VOTE FOR MR BUSH IN NOVEMBER, REMEMBER HE IS A STRONG LEADER IN BAD TIMES.

MKULtra is just doing his usual inflammatory conspiracy theory chicken-little the sky is falling routine. He never references anything but one website, nothing else. And that website's about as credible as Michael Moore ...

He just likes to get everyone riled up by starting lame threads that he knows will garner him oodles of attention, so there's no need to particpate in and defend his own threads.

http://www.digitalend.com/pics/attention_whore4.jpg
I defend my posts rabidly and I dont look ANYTHING like that freak LOL

This message is hidden because MKULTRA is on your ignore list.

If you don't like reading MKULTRA's trash just do this!!!

I defend my posts rabidly and I dont look ANYTHING like that freak LOL

Have you NOT dug this hole deep enough. You do have a way of digging that is unrivaled. Are you a miner?

Have you NOT dug this hole deep enough. You do have a way of digging that is unrivaled. Are you a miner?

Now don't be insulting miners! ;)

Maybe a latrine digger! ;)

To be brutally honest - if a WMD was used in New York tomorrow the US really had it coming.

You think it might be because the world already knows the US has enough WoMD to destroy the world several times.

It would be the equivalent of looking for fish in the ocean, everyone knows the ocean is full of them!


so when a countrie has that many weapons

why the hell do you have to make more!!!!!

and if you have sutch huge weapons
that offcourse nobody will ever use since it's the end of the world
then why the hell you make them in the first place

you know
just spend the money on healthcare orso
instead of figuring out ways to kill ppl

This message is hidden because MKULTRA is on your ignore list.

If you don't like reading MKULTRA's trash just do this!!!
I agree--my posts are not for the faint of heart

Have you NOT dug this hole deep enough. You do have a way of digging that is unrivaled. Are you a miner?
its only by disagreeing with people that you can ever really lern anything

its only by disagreeing with people that you can ever really lern anything

What have you learned?

To be brutally honest - if a WMD was used in New York tomorrow the US really had it coming.

:)

You really crave attention don't you?

What have you learned?
fight till your dead

that answers my question

Your welcome, his question has been answered no further need for discussion.

Madmaarten, I'll try my best to address that post of yours.


so when a countrie has that many weapons

why the hell do you have to make more!!!!!

I may be wrong on this but I'm pretty sure we aren't producing many any more? Somebody else may know more about your question.

and if you have sutch huge weapons
that offcourse nobody will ever use since it's the end of the world
then why the hell you make them in the first place

Well, we started producing nuclear weapons so that the Soviet Union wouldn't turn the Land of the Free, to the Land of the Glowing People.

you know
just spend the money on healthcare orso
instead of figuring out ways to kill ppl

Good point, but it's a lot more fun to figure out ways to kill people. Nano-technology anyone?

have they ever inspected them before?

have they ever inspected them before?

Nope!

Nope!
so why now? thats right Bush is in office

Bush is a warmongering bumpkin with no regard for the rule of law. No one should be at all surprised that the argument by which he unilaterally declared an illegal war against Iraq is now resisted when we are expected to act as we demanded that they did.

Bush is a warmongering bumpkin with no regard for the rule of law. No one should be at all surprised that the argument by which he unilaterally declared an illegal war against Iraq is now resisted when we are expected to act as we demanded that they did.
missed the point didnt you

missed the point didnt you

Which was?

Bush is a warmongering bumpkin with no regard for the rule of law. No one should be at all surprised that the argument by which he unilaterally declared an illegal war against Iraq is now resisted when we are expected to act as we demanded that they did.
ok your frist part is your opion. the second part is false. sadom broke the cease fire so it was not illegal. next time post the facts and not your opion that you try to pass it as fact

ok your frist part is your opion. the second part is false. sadom broke the cease fire so it was not illegal. next time post the facts and not your opion that you try to pass it as fact

Even if that were true that is no example of me missing any point.

1) it may be only my opinion, but what is the point that is missed by my expressing it? Perhaps the point was that I should abandon my own opinion and take yours in its place? Perhaps you should go back and read the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence and the writings of Jefferson and company, and maybe then you will get the point.

2) yes, Saddam violated the cease-fire agreement that he entered into with the United Nations, such as he did on planes asigned to U.N. details over the No Fly Zones. He had* initiated no attacks against any other military forces of any member nations, nor against any people of any other nations than his own. Under the Rule of Law the U.N. had the sole authority to initiate military actions in response to these violations. The U.S. had no such authority. The point here is the Rule of Law. Bush broke it to wage an illegal war, which I believe shows evidence of 2/3 of part (1), above.

* please correct me with a neutral news link if I am mistaken.

As for him being a bumpkin, I apologize for any negative stereotyping of country people, and I realize that I was wrong, he is in fact a rich Connecticut yuppie. He just acts like a bumpkin.

Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but the reason inspectors are denied acess to ours, is because we arn't breaking a peace treaty by having them, unlike Iraq. Iraq by having them, violated the Gulf War Treaty.

EDIT: ahh, good, someone did, I guess he isn't unaware of politics like the other guy.

Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but the reason inspectors are denied acess to ours, is because we arn't breaking a peace treaty by having them, unlike Iraq. Iraq by having them, violated the Gulf War Treaty.

EDIT: ahh, good, someone did, I guess he isn't unaware of politics like the other guy.

Oh yeah that's right... and Bush backed out of all non-proliferation agreements as soon as he took office, didn't he? Good to know nothing's illegal for us, huh?

Oh and... Saddam broke a treaty by having them? ...uhhmmm... I guess he must have used them all when we attacked him, right? That must be why there aren't any now.

It's simple, the U.S are the good guys, so it's okay for them to have WMD, while it's not okay for the bad guys to have it.

So why is the U.S the "good guys" and the rogue states the "bad guys"? Because America is in control, America is the world superpower, therefore they are the good guys.

It's always the way it works, face reality all of you. The party in power is always the "good guys".

Okay that sounded a bit harsh, I'm not in a good mood.

I agree with the people that say, who cares how many times the U.S can depopulate the Earth with it's firepower. The point is, once is enough, and the U.S has FAR more than that, which everyone knows quite well. Don't need any inspectors telling us that.

Oh, and why does the U.S invest money into military spending? Simple, more ADVANCED weaponry. Keep the edge over your competition. Stagnation leads to defeat. Imagine science fiction for a moment, I know it's far fetched, but reality is just a lesser version of that. Now imagine you are in control of a nation's safety and future. Don't you want to have more powerful, more precise, more diverse weaponry available?

We don't have a history of using our chemical weapons to suppress civil strife.
There's always a first time for everything...

C. Even if the U.S. was not abiding the treaty, who really gives a damn? No one is going to use WMD's, and if they do it doesn't really matter now does it? We'll all be dead so I don't really give a shit.


The depleted uranium shells that the U.S. and Great Britain are currently using in Iraq are classified as illegal WMD's by UN Resolution.

The depleted uranium shells that the U.S. and Great Britain are currently using in Iraq are classified as illegal WMD's by UN Resolution.

So is NAPALM....so we call it INCINDIGEL instead. ;)

2) yes, Saddam violated the cease-fire agreement that he entered into with the United Nations, such as he did on planes asigned to U.N. details over the No Fly Zones. He had* initiated no attacks against any other military forces of any member nations, nor against any people of any other nations than his own. Under the Rule of Law the U.N. had the sole authority to initiate military actions in response to these violations. The U.S. had no such authority. The point here is the Rule of Law. Bush broke it to wage an illegal war, which I believe shows evidence of 2/3 of part (1), above.


Actually it was stated that any member of the UN Security Council could use force, not the UN. The UN has no troops.

Actually it was stated that any member of the UN Security Council could use force, not the UN. The UN has no troops.

As part of a U.N. authorized force.

:rolleyes: this surprise me at all!

That's because there are no WMDs in the US. You are receiving faulty intelligence information from the rest of the world.

Bush is a warmongering bumpkin with no regard for the rule of law. No one should be at all surprised that the argument by which he unilaterally declared an illegal war against Iraq is now resisted when we are expected to act as we demanded that they did.

Agreed. If the US doesn't want other countries to have WMDs, then they shouldn't have any themselves. If they want countries to disarm, then they should as well.

The US government is full of hipocrites.

Agreed. If the US doesn't want other countries to have WMDs, then they shouldn't have any themselves. If they want countries to disarm, then they should as well.

The US government is full of hipocrites.

I fear that all thought tends towards hypocricy, and that only the truly vigilant can be truly honest.

Agreed. If the US doesn't want other countries to have WMDs, then they shouldn't have any themselves. If they want countries to disarm, then they should as well.

The US government is full of hipocrites.


Well that is a little fancifal at best.

The US destroys its weapons.

Everybody else goes "Hey the US doesn't have nukes anymore! We don't need them!"

Surrrrreeeeeeeee......

If the US doesn't want anybody else to have weapons, then they have done a rather poor job about it.

Countries that glorify death (Alllah Ackbar!) should never have a nuclear capability.

Well that is a little fancifal at best.

The US destroys its weapons.

Everybody else goes "Hey the US doesn't have nukes anymore! We don't need them!"

Surrrrreeeeeeeee......

If the US doesn't want anybody else to have weapons, then they have done a rather poor job about it.

Countries that glorify death (Alllah Ackbar!) should never have a nuclear capability.

Truly true. We cannot just get rid of our weaponry, as the principle of M.A.D. is still in effect. However, what are we hiding? Since we can only offer guesses, mine is that we have been researching new forms of nuclear weaponry that were forbidden under treaties that we have, under Bush 2, backed out of.

"Reliable intelligence" has proven that we have been.

*Insert generic Bush/America bashing comment HERE*

Damn guys, get some new material.

*Insert generic Bush/America bashing comment HERE*

Damn guys, get some new material.

Sorry, but that really should read ' "Bush=America" bashing'.

The chief reason we don't want weapons inspectors in the US is the same reason the French, the Brits, the Chinese, the etc., don't want them. The possibility of spies being amidst their ranks.

Also, the reason why inspectors were in Iraq (and other places) is because there were resolutions and stuff passed by folks like the UN and such that demanded those countries disarm.

And, anyways, might makes right, so that can always be fallen back on.

Nope!

Actually, US WMD's have been inspected before. Not by UN inspectors, and only bio weapons, but they have been. In the late 80's/early 90's, there were a series of tri-lateral inspections between Britain, the US, and the USSR, then Russia, looking specifically at biological weapons, or in the US and Britain, the de-activated programs dating from the 60's. If you were to look at how much of an effect this had on the Russian biological weapons program, you would see why Bush is so reluctant, for it had no effect what so ever. On top of this, when the Russian inspectors went to the US, they fabricated evidence of a program that was in use, and also claimed that facilities that had been de-activated for 30 years could be quickly reactivated for rapid production of pathogens in weaponised form. That in itself is reason for Bush to not want foreign inspectors on US soil, let alone the chance that spys could be present in the inspection teams.

On the matter of Iraq, just read a book by Tom Marigold called 'Plague Wars'. In 2000, Iraq had possibly the most advanced biological weapons program in the world, surpassing what the US inspectors had learned of the (potentially still active) Soviet program in the early 90's, when the Iraqi program had been running for a fraction of the time. It didnt have large production facilites, but the pathogens it could have produced would have had such a devastating effect that quantity would have been almost meaningless. Even the fact that Iraq had the potential to unleash these on the world is reason enough for the war and saddam's ousting. A wargame run in 2000 by the pentagon, showed that with just 2 aerosols, and 4 bottles, Saddam's agents could have caused the deaths of more than half of the US population, let alone what it would have done to the rest of the world. That's a scary thought, no matter whether or not you support the war.

Even if that were true that is no example of me missing any point.

1) it may be only my opinion, but what is the point that is missed by my expressing it? Perhaps the point was that I should abandon my own opinion and take yours in its place? Perhaps you should go back and read the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence and the writings of Jefferson and company, and maybe then you will get the point.

2) yes, Saddam violated the cease-fire agreement that he entered into with the United Nations, such as he did on planes asigned to U.N. details over the No Fly Zones. He had* initiated no attacks against any other military forces of any member nations, nor against any people of any other nations than his own. Under the Rule of Law the U.N. had the sole authority to initiate military actions in response to these violations. The U.S. had no such authority. The point here is the Rule of Law. Bush broke it to wage an illegal war, which I believe shows evidence of 2/3 of part (1), above.

* please correct me with a neutral news link if I am mistaken.

As for him being a bumpkin, I apologize for any negative stereotyping of country people, and I realize that I was wrong, he is in fact a rich Connecticut yuppie. He just acts like a bumpkin.

so the bill of rights that gives you the right of free speach does not give me the right to call you on passing opion as fact?

so the bill of rights that gives you the right of free speach does not give me the right to call you on passing opion as fact?

Who said anything about you not having the right to spew bullshit? I certainly didn't.

1) I said that Bush is a warmongering bumpkin with no regard for the rule of law; it is my opinion that this is a fact;

2) you said that I had missed the point;

3) I asked what point?

4) you said that what I said was just my opinion;

5) I asked, even if it is, again, what point have I missed?

6) you suggested that I was opposed to your right to say that it was.



You really need to take some time in a rhetoric class or three. Hopefully it can teach you to follow the logical course of a discussion and thus stay on topic.



Again, WHAT POINT WAS I MISSING?

Who said anything about you not having the right to spew bullshit? I certainly didn't.

1) I said that Bush is a warmongering bumpkin with no regard for the rule of law; it is my opinion that this is a fact;

2) you said that I had missed the point;

3) I asked what point?

4) you said that what I said was just my opinion;

5) I asked, even if it is, again, what point have I missed?

6) you suggested that I was opposed to your right to say that it was.



You really need to take some time in a rhetoric class or three. Hopefully it can teach you to follow the logical course of a discussion and thus stay on topic.



Again, WHAT POINT WAS I MISSING?
ok if i have to do your thinking i will lead you by the hand. here it is, why did they decide to try and inspect now? hint maybe because they dont like Bush?

ok if i have to do your thinking i will lead you by the hand. here it is, why did they decide to try and inspect now? hint maybe because they dont like Bush?

Maybe because the U.S. is currently in violation of UN resolutions by using DU missles.

Maybe because the U.S. is currently in violation of UN resolutions by using DU missles.


Actually that is Depleted Uranium BULLETs.

If the other Nuclear countries allow investigations, then you might have an argument.

Here's some food for thought:

Human culture (depending on how you define it) is about 5,000 years old. We've developed language, mathematics, the arts and our own compicated ways of life. That took at least 5,000 year.

A full-blown nuclear exchange between two nuclear well-armed parties can begin the destruction of all that in a little over thirty minutes.

And for what, most likely? Ideology, greed, or even personal pride of one individual. Billions die, thousands of years of achievement go down the drain.

Maybe what we need is a threat to humanity's existance so unifying that we can look beyond labels, and see that we're all humans, and thats what matters.

JiangGuo

ok if i have to do your thinking i will lead you by the hand. here it is, why did they decide to try and inspect now? hint maybe because they dont like Bush?

From the first post of the thread: [QUOTE]Bush Opposes Nuclear Weapons Inspections in U.S.
The Bush administration has announced it now opposes international weapons inspections as part of an international nuclear weapons treaty.[QUOTE]

This is a new treaty being negotiated. The inspection of nuclear, biological and chemical facilities are to ensure that they are not being used to produce weapons. The US Government has recently announced plans to produce bunker-busting nukes- what's that about? Daisy-cutters will blow a big enough hole in the landscape.

Here's some food for thought:

Human culture (depending on how you define it) is about 5,000 years old. We've developed language, mathematics, the arts and our own compicated ways of life. That took at least 5,000 year.

A full-blown nuclear exchange between two nuclear well-armed parties can begin the destruction of all that in a little over thirty minutes.

And for what, most likely? Ideology, greed, or even personal pride of one individual. Billions die, thousands of years of achievement go down the drain.

Maybe what we need is a threat to humanity's existance so unifying that we can look beyond labels, and see that we're all humans, and thats what matters.

JiangGuo
*APPLAUSE*
Until then, I will welcome anything that harms the US, because they have it coming, as someone else said earlier.

Actually, if you look at Bush's claims to be working toward the goal of peace, and then look at his refusal to allow weapon inspectors into the country, you come to the realization that he has no clue how to make peace.

Leadership by example is the only way that lasting peace can be formed. Bush wants every other country to disarm, yet he refuses to even let the UN peek at what we've got in our weapon stashes. This also makes it more obvious than ever that the United States will never have international respect as long as a Bush is in office.

To those talking about it being a "waste of time" in an election year: I say you're full of it. If Bush cared about anything but his war in Iraq and his oil then he'd find the time. Regardless of the side from which you view the issue, it's an important one. It's given more ammunition to Bush's detractors, and taken credibility from his supporters.

The above has been my opinion. It can't be proven, nor will you ever disprove it in my mind. Agree, disagree, or decide not to care, any of the above work. To all those lauding Bush and his regime (I'm sorry "administration"), I leave you with someone else's words and I hope that you think about them. Think about the words and what they imply about the current US.

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
Colin Powell
February 5, 2003

ok if i have to do your thinking i will lead you by the hand. here it is, why did they decide to try and inspect now? hint maybe because they dont like Bush?

Letting you do my thinking for me makes about as much sense as voting for G.W. Bush.

Maybe that was why. Again, how did anything that I posted even suggest that I was unaware of that possibility?

That being the reason is also your opinion. I have never stated anything to suggest that that was not the reason, not to suggest that you do not have the right to express your opinion. Really, who have you got doing your thinking for you? I hope you're not paying him too much.

You have your opinion, I have mine, and we both have the right to express them. Only a true fucktard would think that my expression of my opinion would indicate that I have missed the point of yours.

My opinion is that Bush is a warmongering bumpkin with no regard for the rule of law. Yours is that the U.N. does not like him. Can you let find a place in that big roomy head of yours for the idea that these opinions might both be true? Hey, maybe the U.N. does not like Bush because he is a warmongering bumpkin with no regard for the rule of law?

:rolleyes: ...didn't think so...

Letting you do my thinking for me makes about as much sense as voting for G.W. Bush.

Maybe that was why. Again, how did anything that I posted even suggest that I was unaware of that possibility?

That being the reason is also your opinion. I have never stated anything to suggest that that was not the reason, not to suggest that you do not have the right to express your opinion. Really, who have you got doing your thinking for you? I hope you're not paying him too much.

You have your opinion, I have mine, and we both have the right to express them. Only a true fucktard would think that my expression of my opinion would indicate that I have missed the point of yours.

My opinion is that Bush is a warmongering bumpkin with no regard for the rule of law. Yours is that the U.N. does not like him. Can you let find a place in that big roomy head of yours for the idea that these opinions might both be true? Hey, maybe the U.N. does not like Bush because he is a warmongering bumpkin with no regard for the rule of law?

:rolleyes: ...didn't think so...

does your momy know you write like that?

does your momy know you write like that?

http://www.wackyweaselworld.com/flameINC/images/FU27.jpg

does your momy know you write like that?

Did your momy ever teach you how to spell "mommy"?

Did your momy ever teach you how to spell "mommy"?
wow you caught a typo such a big boy you are

wow you caught a typo such a big boy you are

That's what she says to me, every night, breathless, after she's tucked you in.