NationStates Jolt Archive

The Iran, and now the NK saga. Basically (as I'm sure most of you have already realised but I'm stating the obvious for the rest ;) ) it boils down to two questions.

Who, and on what criteria, should determine which countries are allowed nuclear deterrents, and why?

Currently it appears to be the USA (with the allies trailing in behind to agree), and I can't really see the logic of them saying that countries they like are allowed to have nuclear weapons but not countries they don't like.

So, discuss/flame/fluffle at will...

New Zealand (just give them to the hobbits and have done with it)

All countries should be allowed nucleat weapons.
Everyone being scared shitless of everyone else is the secound best path to world peace.

Finland.
(well, technically we do have nukes already... we just keep quiet about it)

EDIT: Fluffle, ok!?! Jesus, you keep hard bargaining! :fluffle:

New Zealand (just give them to the hobbits and have done with it)
Hobbits will just whine about how "It's too much power, waaah" and then destroy the nukes in the fires of Mount Doom.




Wait... that's not such a bad idea.

All countries should be allowed nucleat weapons.
Everyone being scared shitless of everyone else is the secound best path to world peace.
For a little while...

Nobody. No human should ever be given that much power, period.

Just worried we will do something we will regret before people realize that..

For a little while...
That's why it's only secound best.

That's why it's only secound best.
People are depressing.

... I can't really see the logic of them saying that countries they like are allowed to have nuclear weapons but not countries they don't like ...
Why not? That's how the world works, isn't it?

Personally, I think no one should have any. Alternatively, the idea of everyone having them, crazy as it sounds, is not too bad. There should be rules that if you use yours on someone else


You can't have anymore for at least ten years
The country you used them on gets a free shot at you (and if they can't because of your strike, some other country gets nominated to do it for them)

Only countries that have already demonstrated a willingness not to use them.

Why not? That's how the world works, isn't it?

Personally, I think no one should have any. Alternatively, the idea of everyone having them, crazy as it sounds, is not too bad. There should be rules that if you use yours on someone else


You can't have anymore for at least ten years
The country you used them on gets a free shot at you (and if they can't because of your strike, some other country gets nominated to do it for them)

I think once Nukes are used, rules kind of go out the window.

Only countries that have already demonstrated a willingness not to use them.

Good one....

Why not? That's how the world works, isn't it?

Ah sorry, I meant fairness. I was in a temporarily optimistic mood regarding the world, my mistake, thankfully it passed shortly after.:)

Only countries that have already demonstrated a willingness not to use them.

So, then America is out, right?

So, then America is out, right?
Those were peace nukes, completely different ;)

Lesotho.

Those were peace nukes, completely different ;)
The nukes that help; not the nukes that hurt.

Much as it causes me consternation, the decision is ultimately that of the United states to make. Despite her decidedly questionable aggression record, it is irrefutable that she and she alone is capable to dictate who possesses nucleur weaponry.

...........................Only Russia





























The Empire will rise again!!! (if you dont like it we will turn your nation into a new ocean ;) )

The Iran, and now the NK saga. Basically (as I'm sure most of you have already realised but I'm stating the obvious for the rest ;) ) it boils down to two questions.

Who, and on what criteria, should determine which countries are allowed nuclear deterrents, and why?

Currently it appears to be the USA (with the allies trailing in behind to agree), and I can't really see the logic of them saying that countries they like are allowed to have nuclear weapons but not countries they don't like.

So, discuss/flame/fluffle at will...
ALL nuclear weapons should be banned and destroyed.

A UN army comprised of nationalities of all stripes would police the world.

All violations of the UN Charter would be dealt with appropriately, and promptly.

Nice dream huh?

I say US and UK since they're the only countries that will take a stand. The UN has become too corrupt and lethargic to do anything. I say the US & UK being the countries that have done the most to secure world peace since WW2 should be those to arbitrate which countries get to start building nuclear weapons. And their decision should be "Absolutely no one" backed up with force. I advocate "Operation Rolling Thunder" times 1000 be used preemptively against Iran and North Korea before it's too late and we have two more madmen with nukes in the world. India & Pakistan worry me enough but that's beyond help now.

It's up to each individual nation to decide whether or not it wants to take the risk of having a nuclear deterrant. It's a simple issue of sovereignty. Whether or not we like said nations having it really isn't the question.

Of course, said nations might want to think twice before racing for that deterrant if the bigger nations are uneasy with them having it, and pre-empt them.

You roll the dice, you take your chances.

...........................Only Russia





























The Empire will rise again!!! (if you dont like it we will turn your nation into a new ocean ;) )

I fear it already is.

One could argue that MAD and Nuclear Weapons have made large scale war obsolete.

ALL nuclear weapons should be banned and destroyed.

A UN army comprised of nationalities of all stripes would police the world.

All violations of the UN Charter would be dealt with appropriately, and promptly.

Nice dream huh?
An odd dream. Nuclear weapons have been nothing but a tool of peace since 1945. Imagine what would have happened between the US and Russia if nukes hadn't existed to deter them.

Those were peace nukes, completely different ;)
I hear you brother! Nagisaki/Hiroshima- Truman's finest call.....except possibly his decision to defend South Korea against brutal communist expansion.

An odd dream. Nuclear weapons have been nothing but a tool of peace since 1945. Imagine what would have happened between the US and Russia if nukes hadn't existed to deter them.
Russia would have lost a "hot war"....woot

Finland.
(well, technically we do have nukes already... we just keep quiet about it)

Be warned Finnish neighbours, we have surströmming and we're not afraid to open the cans should it become necessary!

But seriously, I don't think any countries should be allowed nuclear arms.

Much as it causes me consternation, the decision is ultimately that of the United states to make. Despite her decidedly questionable aggression record, it is irrefutable that she and she alone is capable to dictate who possesses nucleur weaponry.
That's "nucular" weapons, but we thank you. :D

An odd dream. Nuclear weapons have been nothing but a tool of peace since 1945. Imagine what would have happened between the US and Russia if nukes hadn't existed to deter them.
That was the past. I am talking about the future.....

No nukes and a MoFo world army!!

Much as it causes me consternation, the decision is ultimately that of the United states to make. Despite her decidedly questionable aggression record, it is irrefutable that she and she alone is capable to dictate who possesses nucleur weaponry.

Kim Jong Il has decided otherwise.

Be warned Finnish neighbours, we have surströmming and we're not afraid to open the cans should it become necessary!

But seriously, I don't think any countries should be allowed nuclear arms.
Well then Norwegian/Swedish (i haven't been paying attention) person that shows how silly you are. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate diplomatic tool...as long as the other side doesn't have them.

That was the past. I am talking about the future.....

No nukes and a MoFo world army!!
GET........OUT....NOW! URGE TO MAIM RISING

Canada.

Well then Norwegian/Swedish (i haven't been paying attention) person that shows how silly you are. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate diplomatic tool...as long as the other side doesn't have them.
I don't doubt it; but what happens should the diplomacy fail?

I think their existance is a danger to all. The best example is Russia and the former Soviet states. For all we know, terrorists or criminals could quite easily have got hold of nuclear weapons materials after the break-up of the USSR and failings in nuclear security.

.. and please look at my location under my name, should answer your question.

I'm not sure, I have a few ideas:

Countries that meet certain standards of democracy.

Countries that meet certain standards of human rights.

Countries without a history of waging needless wars.

Or simply, nobody!

That was the past. I am talking about the future.....

No nukes and a MoFo world army!!
If globalization occurs, it will be due to free trade, not the UN.

Well then Norwegian/Swedish (i haven't been paying attention) person that shows how silly you are. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate diplomatic tool...as long as the other side doesn't have them.
Well, it's a draw anyways... they have surströmmning; the most advanced biological agent there is. So it's OK. There's no diplomacy after surströmmning, believe you me... no diplomat would meet you.

No countries should be allowed nuclear weapons, period. However, that is not to say that nuclear weapons have no use. Greenpeace, Wal-Mart, and everybody who's middle name is Howard should be given nuclear weapons.

I don't doubt it; but what happens should the diplomacy fail?

I think their existance is a danger to all. The best example is Russia and the former Soviet states. For all we know, terrorists or criminals could quite easily have got hold of nuclear weapons materials after the break-up of the USSR and failings in nuclear security.

.. and please look at my location under my name, should answer your question.
My bad. Why do so many of you commit suicide over there (i've always wanted to ask)? Have you ever tried to get suicide removed as the national sport? I'm sure football would be much more an evoked of national pride

If globalization occurs, it will be due to free trade, not the UN.
Right now, "free trade" has a perverted sense about it.

Well, it's a draw anyways... they have surströmmning; the most advanced biological agent there is. So it's OK. There's no diplomacy after surströmmning, believe you me... no diplomat would meet you.
"surströmmning"- is that those sweets containing sal ammoniac or is it the rotted fish?

Only countries that have already demonstrated a willingness not to use them.
Well, if there is a de facto guarantee that any existing nukes will never be used, then MAD sort of breaks down.

Much as it causes me consternation, the decision is ultimately that of the United states to make.
Not really. There are near a dozen nuclear powers in the world. Some are unfriendly to America and the US can't do shit about it.

I say US and UK since they're the only countries that will take a stand. The UN...
...is not a country and could never possess its own nuclear weapons.

Right now, "free trade" has a perverted sense about it.
WTF?? Free Trade rules! WTO '06 rockon!

My bad. Why do so many of you commit suicide over there (i've always wanted to ask)? Have you ever tried to get suicide removed as the national sport? I'm sure football would be much more an evoked of national pride
I detect a closet Swedophile here? ;) Hmm, maybe not.

Suicide? That could also be related to being invited to a surströmming lunch maybe? Actually, the suicide rate is much lower than it ever used to be.

As for the national sport, I think after this year's events icehockey should be it. We are the first nation to hold the olympic and world championship's gold at the same time. As for the football, at least in relation to the world cup, let's not talk about it!

Well, if there is a de facto guarantee that any existing nukes will never be used, then MAD sort of breaks down.


Not really. There are near a dozen nuclear powers in the world. Some are unfriendly to America and the US can't do shit about it.


...is not a country and could never possess its own nuclear weapons.
So what? I was talking about who gets to DECIDE who gets nukes not who has them. UN with nukes? scares me so much there's seepage (dies a little inside)

No countries should be allowed nuclear weapons, period. However, that is not to say that nuclear weapons have no use. Greenpeace, Wal-Mart, and everybody who's middle name is Howard should be given nuclear weapons.
Then all of a sudden you have 6 Billion people with Howard as a middle name:

George Howard Bush

Hilary Howard Clinton

Michael Howard Moore

etc.....

I detect a closet Swedophile here? ;) Hmm, maybe not.

Suicide? That could also be related to being invited to a surströmming lunch maybe? Actually, the suicide rate is much lower than it ever used to be.

As for the national sport, I think after this year's events icehockey should be it. We are the first nation to hold the olympic and world championship's gold at the same time. As for the football, at least in relation to the world cup, let's not talk about it!
I feel your pain. Bastard Portugese! At least the Germans or Brazilians don't win! I'm supporting Italy now- the lazy men of football

Well, only people who had Howard as their middle name as of June twenty-seventh, nineteen eighty-two.

If that doesn't work, well, they'll have to take a number then, I'm not sure I've got enough nukes in my basement... er... I mean I'm not sure enough nuclear weapons have been produced...

Then all of a sudden you have 6 Billion people with Howard as a middle name:

George Howard Bush

Hilary Howard Clinton

Michael Howard Moore

etc.....
Don't mention the "fat socialist weasel" in my prescence! I'm this close "-" to hating him as much as Ann Coulter

Bhutan. All nukes in the hands of Buddhist monks. There's a safe world.

Don't mention the "fat socialist weasel" in my prescence! I'm this close "-" to hating him as much as Ann Coulter

Now that's not a very nice way to talk about your president.

Right now, "free trade" has a perverted sense about it.
I'm sure you think it does, but free trade is not an ideology, it is a practice. It either isn't or is being carried out. Right now, it isn't.

WTF?? Free Trade rules! WTO '06 rockon!
Well, free trade is not really free trade.

US to Indonesia: We will trade with y'all

Indonesia: Free trade?

US: yup, we will be free to pay your workers next to nothing and we will be free to sell your production at huge profits

(...)

US: yup, we will be free to pay your workers next to nothing and we will be free to sell your production at huge profits

You forgot "Or else."

Well, free trade is not really free trade.

US to Indonesia: We will trade with y'all

Indonesia: Free trade?

US: yup, we will be free to pay your workers next to nothing and we will be free to sell your production at huge profits
All i have to say is give it time. Eventually, our culture will overwhelm theirs and they will deem religion to not be something worth killing for and their labor will organise based on Western models.
And once enough American money is invested in the country, war becomes next to impossible.

We are the first nation to hold the olympic and world championship's gold at the same time.
Because we fucking LET you. And back to scheduled programme...

Now that's not a very nice way to talk about your president.
Funny....but really Michael Moore's a fucking douchebag. And he's not my president just the leader of the free world. My leader's his second in command

Well, free trade is not really free trade.

US to Indonesia: We will trade with y'all

Indonesia: Free trade?

US: yup, we will be free to pay your workers next to nothing and we will be free to sell your production at huge profits
That's what industry's about. Besides if the Indonesians didn't have a factory to work at they'd earn absolutely nothing, not next to. However, free trade hasn't arrived until all subsidies are cut. That will allow benefits to all but unfortunately bloated 1st world industries are loth to lose their easy ride.

Funny....but really Michael Moore's a fucking douchebag. And he's not my president just the leader of the free world. My leader's his second in command
2nd?? Triumph? The insult comic dog..!?!

2nd?? Triumph? The insult comic dog..!?!
I'm not even going to dignify you with an explanation of what I meant.....or will I?

I'm not even going to dignify you with an explanation of what I meant.....or will I?
Ey! You left me guessing. ;)

Let the USA decide on the possession of nukes for everyone else, that's a great idea.. :rolleyes:

Let the USA decide on the possession of nukes for everyone else, that's a great idea.. :rolleyes:
As long as my country gets to keep theirs I'm with you!

As long as my country gets to keep theirs I'm with you!

:rolleyes:

I hope you got my sarcasm

Did that Swedish guy ever clarify what exactly surstrumning was?

:rolleyes:

I hope you got my sarcasm
Were you not being serious? My bad

Give every country in the world one long range nuke. That way, everyone country in the world knows that they are screwed if they use it.

Give every country in the world one long range nuke. That way, everyone country in the world knows that they are screwed if they use it.
How about giving them all one long range missile with a warhead full of genetically modified smallpox? Then if some country decides to go all Nazi Germany and slaughter members of an ethnic minority nobody could stop them without causing the end of the whole human species.

How about giving them all one long range missile with a warhead full of genetically modified smallpox? Then if some country decides to go all Nazi Germany and slaughter members of an ethnic minority nobody could stop them without causing the end of the whole human species.
Don't we want to stop genocide? I do. Then again you are a commie so your madness is understandable

Don't we want to stop genocide. Then again you are a commie so your madness is understandable
Who says we want to stop genocide? We merely want to expand it to include all people so it's not discriminatory.

I couldn't vote on the poll because the word "allows" implies that some "power" is going to grant a nuclear arsenal, and I don't theing any nation should have those weapons, to be honest. I think it's really kinda creepy the way my government parades around its "superpowerness" by deciding who gets to have the bomb and when. What's next? Who gets to have the wheel? Seems to me that if you can make it yourself with the resources legally available to you, you can make one. I'm just not sure any one nation has the right to decide others nations' capacities.

But then, I'm a pinko commie traitor, so what do I know?

The 'Im not racist, I hate everyone equally' saying taken to an abducto absurdium level, eh?

The strongest country gets to decide. This isn't about fairness. It's about keeping your country the strongest, and keeping your citizens safe. There is nothing wrong with that.

Iran is an enemy of the US, and the US, being much stronger than Iran, has the full right to stop Iran from gaining nuclear power. If China or Russia wanted to stop anyone from getting nuclear power, they, too, could try and stop that country.

Not every country deserves to have nuclear power; it is not a right. It is a right to have a military to protect your country, but the extent to which the country goes to gain military power can be restricted by other countries. After World War I and II, the Allies had an agreement to keep Germany's military power low. Was that wrong?

NK is led by a mad man. He should not have nuclear power. If you think NK should have nuclear power, then should some warlord in Africa also have nuclear power?

BTW, I know that NK claims to ahve nuclear power, is it now known that they do, or is there still no evidence?

I couldn't vote on the poll because the word "allows" implies that some "power" is going to grant a nuclear arsenal, and I don't theing any nation should have those weapons, to be honest. I think it's really kinda creepy the way my government parades around its "superpowerness" by deciding who gets to have the bomb and when. What's next? Who gets to have the wheel? Seems to me that if you can make it yourself with the resources legally available to you, you can make one. I'm just not sure any one nation has the right to decide others nations' capacities.

But then, I'm a pinko commie traitor, so what do I know?
Exactly, you know nothing. Besides following your logic means that individual people could have the right to build the bomb.
Them's that's got's the bomb decides who else gets it. America should at all times try to stop the dangerous in the world from developing such a fearsome weapon as it sees fit.

The obvious answer to the thread question is NONE. The major powers are too sane to ever use nuclear. (Well, I hope they are--but there are a few in power.........) Everyone else---why? There are plenty of other ways to kill enemies without killing the whole world and only the insane don't know that if one is used the user will be the deadder.

We should have a total disarmmament with international inspectors allowed to go anywhere in the world and not be withdrawn at the whim of a bloodthirsty leader. Anyone who takes the inspectors out or orders the inspectors out should be considered an international criminal.

Having said that----We all know it ain't gonna happen.

The strongest country gets to decide.
Survival of the fittest? And I'll bet you would argue against evolution. Ironic ain't it.

Survival of the fittest? And I'll bet you would argue against evolution. Ironic ain't it.

Ya, didn't you know, earth was created 6,000 years ago by God. What evolution?

Anyway, it isn't survival of the fittest. I am not advocating finishing off anyone. I am simply saying that the fittest should try to remain fittest, so they may protect themselves.

Ya, didn't you know, earth was created 6,000 years ago by God. What evolution?

Actually, this is a common mistranslation. In reality, God was created 6,000 years ago by Earth. It's all in the grammer.

The Iran, and now the NK saga. Basically (as I'm sure most of you have already realised but I'm stating the obvious for the rest ;) ) it boils down to two questions.

Who, and on what criteria, should determine which countries are allowed nuclear deterrents, and why?

Currently it appears to be the USA (with the allies trailing in behind to agree), and I can't really see the logic of them saying that countries they like are allowed to have nuclear weapons but not countries they don't like.

So, discuss/flame/fluffle at will...
No country should get nuclear detergent ... it's harmful to our health, and doesn't even clean our clothes as well as regular detergent. This is just another example of the greedy capitalists pushing their corporate expenses off on us consumers.

... Oh, deterrent ...

Obviously it should be the UN, but in reality every country is equal and deserves the right to nuclear weapons. In fact, if you think about it, the Usians should actually have to give them up for being the only aggressor to actually use them. The Usians used them on Japan, and, at the time, Japan honestly believed that the Usians would only use traditional methods of war, because not doing so is illegal under the UN and the Geneva Convention.

Exactly, you know nothing. Besides following your logic means that individual people could have the right to build the bomb.
Them's that's got's the bomb decides who else gets it. America should at all times try to stop the dangerous in the world from developing such a fearsome weapon as it sees fit.
And the US gets to determine who's dangerous by what? How much oil they sell us? How nice they are to us? Nope. Sorry. That's like giving the bully the keys to the playground.

No country should get nuclear detergent ... it's harmful to our health, and doesn't even clean our clothes as well as regular detergent. This is just another example of the greedy capitalists pushing their corporate expenses off on us consumers.

... Oh, deterrent ...
Thank you, Emily Litella!

That was hilarious!:D

Obviously it should be the UN, but in reality every country is equal and deserves the right to nuclear weapons. In fact, if you think about it, the Usians should actually have to give them up for being the only aggressor to actually use them. The Usians used them on Japan, and, at the time, Japan honestly believed that the Usians would only use traditional methods of war, because not doing so is illegal under the UN and the Geneva Convention.

One, the US was not the aggressor.

Two, the UN and the Geneva Convention didn't happen when the US did that, so it wasn't illegal.

Now, while I think that the US should have tried other methods before dropping a nuke, the nuke actually saved lives. If the US would have actually tried to defeat Japan by fighting an actual war, it is estimated that 1 million American soldiers would die, and I don't have an estimate for the Japanese, but I am sure millions would die.

So, stop blaming the US all the time.

And the US gets to determine who's dangerous by what? How much oil they sell us? How nice they are to us? Nope. Sorry. That's like giving the bully the keys to the playground.

More like giving the bully the keys to the shed where they keep all the construction equipment. Although if you set a sheet of metal up against a nuclear missile, it makes a really awesome slide.

Not that I would know...

Now, while I think that the US should have tried other methods before dropping a nuke, the nuke actually saved lives. If the US would have actually tried to defeat Japan by fighting an actual war, it is estimated that 1 million American soldiers would die, and I don't have an estimate for the Japanese, but I am sure millions would die.

So you are saying that Americans are worth more than Japanese?

I think I speak for the majority of the Forum when I say back to you:

Racist, sexist, anti-gay,
right-wing bigot go away!

So you are saying that Americans are worth more than Japanese?

I think I speak for the majority of the Forum when I say back to you:

Racist, sexist, anti-gay,
right-wing bigot go away!

If you check, he did mention a very high death toll for the Japanese as well. If anything, he appeared to be saying that soldiers are worth more than civilians.

More like giving the bully the keys to the shed where they keep all the construction equipment. Although if you set a sheet of metal up against a nuclear missile, it makes a really awesome slide.

Not that I would know...
Now THERE's a good time!

As to the WWII argument, the Geneva Convention wasn't drafted with nuclear weapons in play. And as hard as it is to imagine it, Truman saved at least a million lives by not wading into Japan conventionally. When you think your head of state is, in effect, God, your people are capable of damn near anything.

So you are saying that Americans are worth more than Japanese?

I think I speak for the majority of the Forum when I say back to you:

Racist, sexist, anti-gay,
right-wing bigot go away!

This is what I said: "I don't have an estimate for the Japanese, but I am sure millions would die."

1 millions Americans, and millions more Japanese. I can rightly assume that millions of Japanese would die because in order to defeat a country on their land, you have to kill way more soldiers than they kill.

So the US saved both American, and Japanese lives.

So you are saying that Americans are worth more than Japanese?

I think I speak for the majority of the Forum when I say back to you:

Racist, sexist, anti-gay,
right-wing bigot go away!
Aw, come ON. Save that awful chant-rhetoric for where it belongs -- re-creations of the late 60s for film and TV.

Drag out racist all the time and you get the boy-who-cried-wolf problem. That poster mentioned Japanese casualties as being even higher than those of US soldiers had we made a traditional amphibious assault. Not to mention the fact that the remaining infrastructure of the country would have been shredded as well (NOTE! That does NOT mean I think infrastructure is worth more than people).

If you check, he did mention a very high death toll for the Japanese as well. If anything, he appeared to be saying that soldiers are worth more than civilians.

As we discussed in class during the end of the year, I hope the next progressive president of the United States ratifies the international war crimes tribunal, so that US military officers and soldiers can be finally be tried for war crimes that they have done. When I hear of all the deaths the US has caused around the world, I'm embarassed. We should be more like other countries.

Nuclear weapons can never be removed be the knowledge to make them will live forever.

So who should get them?

Rich democracies, thats who.

As we discussed in class during the end of the year, I hope the next progressive president of the United States ratifies the international war crimes tribunal, so that US military officers and soldiers can be finally be tried for war crimes that they have done. When I hear of all the deaths the US has caused around the world, I'm embarassed. We should be more like other countries.
Which ones? Rwanda? Serbia? Somalia?

As we discussed in class during the end of the year, I hope the next progressive president of the United States ratifies the international war crimes tribunal, so that US military officers and soldiers can be finally be tried for war crimes that they have done. When I hear of all the deaths the US has caused around the world, I'm embarassed. We should be more like other countries.

Progressive? :eek:

But... that's code for bomb throwing freedom hating pinko red commie fascists!

Which ones? Rwanda? Serbia? Somalia?

Obviously not. He clearly meant Cuba, Canada, France, and Antartica.

As we discussed in class during the end of the year, I hope the next progressive president of the United States ratifies the international war crimes tribunal, so that US military officers and soldiers can be finally be tried for war crimes that they have done. When I hear of all the deaths the US has caused around the world, I'm embarassed. We should be more like other countries.

Please let me stab you.

Who should we be more like, Iran? NK? China? Russia? France? Germany? You think all these o so good countries haven't done stuff the US has?

Is that what they teach you in your school? The US is evil, the rest of the world is good?

Please let me stab you.

Who should we be more like, Iran? NK? China? Russia? France? Germany? You think all these o so good countries haven't done stuff the US has?

Is that what they teach you in your school? The US is evil, the rest of the world is good?
No.

Personally, I teach that the US is no better or worse than any other post-colonial-era first-world nation when it comes to international relations, and in some cases -- SOME CASES -- worse. I'm basically trying to bleed off the patriotic megalomania and replace it with a simple pride in a nation whose people are often maligned because of the actions of their government. I don't teach history or social studies, but I do get asked heavy questions all of the time, and I think it sends the wrong message to say "I'm not a history teacher, go ask him". As a music prof, I refuse to program uber-patriotic songs (Lee Greenwood and Toby Keith come to mind), but am pleased to do a new arrangement of the Star-Spangled Banner every four years. I'll program "America, the Beautiful" (especially the third verse, "O Beautiful for heroes proved...") and even "God Bless America", but if it's over the line into pure jingoism ("God Bless the USA"), I won't program it.

[Lewis Black] Think about it, if you worked with a guy who, whenever he walked into the room, shouted: "I'm the best guy in this whole company!!!" -- you'd get pretty annoyed after a while.[/Lewis Black]

No.

Personally, I teach that the US is no better or worse than any other post-colonial-era first-world nation when it comes to international relations, and in some cases -- SOME CASES -- worse. I'm basically trying to bleed off the patriotic megalomania and replace it with a simple pride in a nation whose people are often maligned because of the actions of their government. I don't teach history or social studies, but I do get asked heavy questions all of the time, and I think it sends the wrong message to say "I'm not a history teacher, go ask him". As a music prof, I refuse to program uber-patriotic songs (Lee Greenwood and Toby Keith come to mind), but am pleased to do a new arrangement of the Star-Spangled Banner every four years. I'll program "America, the Beautiful" (especially the third verse, "O Beautiful for heroes proved...") and even "God Bless America", but if it's over the line into pure jingoism ("God Bless the USA"), I won't program it.

[Lewis Black] Think about it, if you worked with a guy who, whenever he walked into the room, shouted: "I'm the best guy in this whole company!!!" -- you'd get pretty annoyed after a while.[/Lewis Black]


I agree. The US is in some cases worse, but in some cases better. I despise this notion among some Americans that the US is the most evil country to have ever existed, that it is a power hungry murderous country. Yet, these people, Americans, who seem to hate the US so much, stay in the US, and they aren't activists who are trying to change anything either. They are content with calling their country evil.

I agree. The US is in some cases worse, but in some cases better. I despise this notion among some Americans that the US is the most evil country to have ever existed, that it is a power hungry murderous country. Yet, these people, Americans, who seem to hate the US so much, stay in the US, and they aren't activists who are trying to change anything either. They are content at calling their country evil.
As is typical in the course of human interaction, the answer is usually somewhere between the two extremes.

I LOVE MY COUNTRY, EVEN WHEN IT'S REALLY, REALLY WRONG!

Hello? Can we be reasonable?

I HATE MY COUNTRY BECAUSE IT MEAN AND ARROGANT AND CONSUMERIST!

As long as that son-of-a-bitch Kim Jong Il, who will start a nuclear war is he isn't disarmed, doesn't have any nukes and Iran's president, in all his ignorant wisdom, actually use that part of their brain called "logic" and realise they would get owned in a nuclear war, I don't care about the rest of the world.

We should give all our nukes to the Marx brothers.

As we discussed in class during the end of the year, I hope the next progressive president of the United States ratifies the international war crimes tribunal, so that US military officers and soldiers can be finally be tried for war crimes that they have done. When I hear of all the deaths the US has caused around the world, I'm embarassed. We should be more like other countries.

No way, no US soldier should ever stand before foreigners and be sentenced by them. Military policy too.

No way, no US soldier should ever stand before foreigners and be sentenced by them. Military policy too.

Hear, hear! Americans are the ultimate in morality. Therefore, it is only reasonable that we be able to judge foreigners. However, they should, under no circumstance, be able to judge us. After all, it's not like an American soldier is capable of doing wrong anyways.

As is typical in the course of human interaction, the answer is usually somewhere between the two extremes.

I LOVE MY COUNTRY, EVEN WHEN IT'S REALLY, REALLY WRONG!

Hello? Can we be reasonable?

I HATE MY COUNTRY BECAUSE IT MEAN AND ARROGANT AND CONSUMERIST!


Typical liberal jealousy...

Typical liberal jealousy...

Let me be the first to say...


Bwuh?

Hear, hear! Americans are the ultimate in morality. Therefore, it is only reasonable that we be able to judge foreigners. However, they should, under no circumstance, be able to judge us. After all, it's not like an American soldier is capable of doing wrong anyways.

That is correct. I wouldn't want US soldiers judged by foreigners. Especially not by the UN, or some other group like it. The UN is very anti-American, and I don't want to put a soldier in the position of being judged by people who have a predisposition against them. If the soldiers have done something wrong, they will be judged in American courts, by Americans. And as long as the US is a strong nation, we have the right to judge other nations, and thus protect our citizens from any threat.

Don't get me wrong, though, I am not saying the US should be able to do whatever it wants, and go to war for any reason (I am opposed to the Iraq War), but the US still has the right to defend itself from enemies.

Maybe we should start cooperating with the UN then...

And as long as the US is a strong nation, we have the right to judge other nations, and thus protect our citizens from any threat.



Then by the same logic other strong nations should be allowed to judge us?

Then by the same logic other strong nations should be allowed to judge us?


Define strong nation and if China is one of them, exclude it.

Define strong nation and if China is one of them, exclude it.

China is not a strong nation? Who are you kidding? If China decided, today, to do a full scale invasion of Taiwan do you think we could stop them? Do you think we could remove an intrenched army 100 million men strong? We don't have enough bullets.

As for other strong nations...Israel, Russia, and Great Britain come to mind.

And how do I define such? I define 'strong nation" as any nation, should they become sufficiently motivated, could do large scale and lasting damage to the safety, economy, and welfare of the United States. And let us not forget that even after the soviet collapse, even after disarmament, Russia still has enough nuclear weapons to turn every major america city into a large, smoking crater.

And, even as bizare a hypothetical as this may be, should Russia and the US become involved in true full scale warfare, the fact that we would eventually win that war would be cold comfort to the tens of MILLIONS of americans that went up in smoke along with new york, chicago, los angeles, d.c., miami, houston, and most other large city you could name.

Nor would the survivers be all together enthused that we won, when they're staring in the face of a total, and global economic meltdown that would follow.

Let me be the first to say...


Bwuh?

Most liberals are simply unhappy the US has so much power in the world, and that we can pretty much do anything we want to.

China is not a strong nation? Who are you kidding? If China decided, today, to do a full scale invasion of Taiwan do you think we could stop them? Do you think we could remove an intrenched army 100 million men strong? We don't have enough bullets.

As for other strong nations...Israel, Russia, and Great Britain come to mind.


No I mean that China shouldn't be allowed to judge the US because it so internally f-up and treats its own people like shit, I sure wouldn't trust to properly judge foreigners. China is a strong nation but when you have over a billion people, you should be.

Useless though it may be, the UN is the best choice for now. Until it is replaced by some inter-superpower negotiating body (ie that represents the EU, USA, Russia, Japan, China and some others), it's best that it decide on such matters.

That is correct. I wouldn't want US soldiers judged by foreigners. Especially not by the UN, or some other group like it. The UN is very anti-American, and I don't want to put a soldier in the position of being judged by people who have a predisposition against them. If the soldiers have done something wrong, they will be judged in American courts, by Americans. And as long as the US is a nation, we have the right to judge other nations, and thus protect our citizens from any threat.

Don't get me wrong, though, I am not saying the US should be able to do whatever it wants, and go to war for any reason (I am opposed to the Iraq War), but the US still has the right to defend itself from enemies.

Fixed it for you.

China is not a strong nation? Who are you kidding? If China decided, today, to do a full scale invasion of Taiwan do you think we could stop them? Do you think we could remove an intrenched army 100 million men strong? We don't have enough bullets.

As for other strong nations...Israel, Russia, and Great Britain come to mind.

Yes, the US could stop an invasion of Chinese Taipei by the PRC. The PLAN has a very limited amphibious assault capability. Destroy that, and leave the rest to the Chinese Taipeiians.

No I mean that China shouldn't be allowed to judge the US because it so internally f-up and treats its own people like shit, I sure wouldn't trust to properly judge foreigners. China is a strong nation but when you have over a billion people, you should be.

You sort of prove my point. I was responding to the statement of:

And as long as the US is a strong nation, we have the right to judge other nations

No explination, no definition, simply the power of the nation grants us the authority to judge other nations. China is a strong nation.

And as long as China is a strong nation, they have the right to judge other nations

is kind of a chilling prospect isn't it? Considering, as you so well put it, they're pretty f-ed up.

Yes, the US could stop an invasion of Chinese Taipei by the PRC. The PLAN has a very limited amphibious assault capability. Destroy that, and leave the rest to the Chinese Taipeiians.

Erm, ok I'll give that to you assuming

1) we can get our troops into position in time

2) land based missles don't take out our fleet first

If those seem a given, replace "Taiwan" with "Tibet" and the logic more or less stands.

Erm, ok I'll give that to you assuming

1) we can get our troops into position in time

2) land based missles don't take out our fleet first

If those seem a given, replace "Taiwan" with "Tibet" and the logic more or less stands.

1. The US do not need troops on the ground. Chinese Taipei has quite a large and modern military. Not that it would be needed if the PLAN's limited amphibious capability was incapacitated.

2. Major US naval forces would not be close enough to the Communist mainland for land based Missiles to be a threat.

Here's the problem with letting everyone have the capability. Not everyone is as good at securing their arsenal as the US is.

Does anyone actually believe that Iran or North Korea wouldn't put their technology on the market.

Of the last two nations to acheive Nucular status, Pakistan has already proven that they can't secure their information. India on the other hand doesn't appear to have that problem.

In some freaky way, I think the ills of human "progress" will come hunting us in the future sometime. Eventually, we will suffer a nuclear apocalypse after a pandemic of small pox and swine flu, along with torrential storms and maybe an asteroid or two made of fecal matter - to be humorous and real...

To put it lightly, we worry about it now so we don't have to worry about it later, but the honest truth is we're still going to worry about it, regardless the outcome.

ADD - Well, to be optimistic, a discussion to try to resolve the problem wouldn't be bad - there's always a rain delay somewhere...

All countries should be allowed nucleat weapons.
Everyone being scared shitless of everyone else is the secound best path to world peace.
What happens when those nukes fall into the hands of some tinpot dictator like Kim or Ahmemajad (sp), who isn't afraid to use them?

Then by the same logic other strong nations should be allowed to judge us?

Yes, and they do, but they can't actually do anything except judge, and niether can we do a lot about their actions. That includes China and Russia. The reason the US can do a little more than just judge is because in many cases Europe backs the US, and the US still is stronger than China and Russia. And this is not only military strength. Its simply, overall strength. The main strengths would obviously be economic and military strength, but there are other things, like diplomatic strength.

Is it fair? Maybe not. Is it reality? Yes. Any other country in the US's position would do the same, and judge other nations. And of course, act if that is necessary.

The fact is, the US doesn't need to be fair to other countries, especially not its enemies. The first and foremost duty of the US government is to protect its citizens, even if that ment blowing up the whole world.

If for example, the whole world attacked the US, even if for a good reason (say the US nuked Canada), I would expect the US to nuke the whole world before going down. That is of course going to the extreme, but if Iran, as an enemy is looking for nuclear capability, the US must protect its citizens from this threat, and do anything it can to stop this from happening. The same goes for any country, like China, or Iran. So of course, if the US attacks Iran, the Iranian government has a duty of fighting the US, even though they don't stand a chance.

All countries should be allowed nucleat weapons.
Everyone being scared shitless of everyone else is the secound best path to world peace.

Some countries are too stupid to be scared.

Then by the same logic other strong nations should be allowed to judge us?

That's the natural order of things.

The fact is, the US doesn't need to be fair to other countries, especially not its enemies.

That won't help our image with the world. If the U.S. doesn't need to be fair to its enemies, then it only reinforces the point to not be fair to us. And then we're back where we started.

The first and foremost duty of the US government is to protect its citizens, even if that ment blowing up the whole world.

That would not help save the people. Destroying the world would kill the people, in addition to billions of innocent people.

If for example, the whole world attacked the US, even if for a good reason (say the US nuked Canada)

Why the Hell would we want to nuke Canada?

That won't help our image with the world. If the U.S. doesn't need to be fair to its enemies, then it only reinforces the point to not be fair to us. And then we're back where we started.



That would not help save the people. Destroying the world would kill the people, in addition to billions of innocent people.



Why the Hell would we want to nuke Canada?

When I say we don't need to be fair to our enemies I do not mean that we can go kill em. I am saying we can deny them nuclear power, even though we have it. That is simply the power we gained by becoming strong. Well, it might protect our citizens because we could kill the whole world before they killed us (hopefully). And anyway, I care much more for American citizens' lives than America's image.

I only gave the example of nuking Canada because Canada is such an innocent, cute country, and we have no reason to nuke Canada. So that would be a good reason for the rest of the world to attack the US.

i say that the cut off is an midnight tommorow, if u dont have it then u cant get it.

seriously now, playing by the rules doesnt always work especially if everybody that wants u dead wont play by them sooooo that means that we get the unfair advantage to balance things out.

btw go to www.carlosmencia.com and listen to the bit about nukes

When I say we don't need to be fair to our enemies I do not mean that we can go kill em. I am saying we can deny them nuclear power, even though we have it. That is simply the power we gained by becoming strong. Well, it might protect our citizens because we could kill the whole world before they killed us (hopefully). And anyway, I care much more for American citizens' lives than America's image.

I only gave the example of nuking Canada because Canada is such an innocent, cute country, and we have no reason to nuke Canada. So that would be a good reason for the rest of the world to attack the US.

We would nuke Canada because their large, flappy heads are full of vile lies. *nods*

I am here to address the China vs USA war issue. First off, I do not believe, and do not want this war to happen. It would do absolutely no good for anyone, anywhere. Chinese military is large, but their equipment is old. USA has a large well equipped well trained military in all departments. The war would be a stalemate, and it would eventually come to using nuclear weapons to break the stalemate.

In the end, millions would be dead, both coutries would be left in shambles, with millions dead, the economies ruined, and in poverty. It would disrupt the entire world in terms of trade. No groudn would be won, Taiwan would still be there, and nothing good would happen.


In my mind, I say leave the Chinese to the Chinese. China is a old civilization, this is just part of the Dynastic Cycle.

With the Bush doctrine of preemptive war agianst any nation they don't like that doesn't have nuclear weapons and negotiation with nations such as N Korea and Iran because they may have nuclear weapons. It would be totally stupid for the leadership of any nation in the world to not have nuclear weapons. It is obviously the only deterrent against US imperialism.

For those who listen to talk radio--I don't care if the motives of the administration were as noble as Rush and Sean say. It is the belief of the nations of the world that is important. And the world believes the US is a loose cannon and the only defence for a weak nation is nuclear. Even if that belief isn't true. A leader of a nation must protect his nation from the possible. That is the same arguement Bush uses, so it also applies to all other leaders.

I am here to address the China vs USA war issue. First off, I do not believe, and do not want this war to happen. It would do absolutely no good for anyone, anywhere. Chinese military is large, but their equipment is old. USA has a large well equipped well trained military in all departments. The war would be a stalemate, and it would eventually come to using nuclear weapons to break the stalemate.

In the end, millions would be dead, both coutries would be left in shambles, with millions dead, the economies ruined, and in poverty. It would disrupt the entire world in terms of trade. No groudn would be won, Taiwan would still be there, and nothing good would happen.


In my mind, I say leave the Chinese to the Chinese. China is a old civilization, this is just part of the Dynastic Cycle.

Did that Swedish guy ever clarify what exactly surstrumning was?
No, I didn't... it's fermented herring. It's fair to say that it has quite a "unique" smell when you open the can, a bit like the smell of rot. It's quite fun to serve if you have foreign guests, just to see the look on their face.

The Iran, and now the NK saga. Basically (as I'm sure most of you have already realised but I'm stating the obvious for the rest ;) ) it boils down to two questions.

Who, and on what criteria, should determine which countries are allowed nuclear deterrents, and why?

Currently it appears to be the USA (with the allies trailing in behind to agree), and I can't really see the logic of them saying that countries they like are allowed to have nuclear weapons but not countries they don't like.

So, discuss/flame/fluffle at will...


Nobody, dismantle all nukes.

Only countries that have already demonstrated a willingness not to use them.
Not the US then because they droped 2 on Japan.

USA - Russia - China - Britain - France.

Some forms of defense can be agreed upon for democracies.
Israel. India. Those kinds of countries.

Others are to be punished with severity for even dreaming that way.

In some freaky way, I think the ills of human "progress" will come hunting us in the future sometime. Eventually, we will suffer a nuclear apocalypse after a pandemic of small pox and swine flu, along with torrential storms and maybe an asteroid or two made of fecal matter - to be humorous and real...

To put it lightly, we worry about it now so we don't have to worry about it later, but the honest truth is we're still going to worry about it, regardless the outcome.

ADD - Well, to be optimistic, a discussion to try to resolve the problem wouldn't be bad - there's always a rain delay somewhere...
Boy, did you get that right.

As George Carlin said, "evolution is slow, smallpox is fast."