<p>Do we [our military] feature[s] nuclear, biological, or chimical weapons?</p>
<p>If, by "we", you mean the United States military, then yes, it has stockpiles of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. They're really not used anymore, but that doesn't make the US's policy on foreign possession of WMDs any less hypocritical.</p>
<p>Yeah we have them still, and keep them I think somewhere in Arizona. However, we wouldn't use them unless we have to..</p>
<p>good! good!</p>
<p>"If, by "we", you mean the United States military, then yes, it has stockpiles of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. They're really not used anymore, but that doesn't make the US's policy on foreign possession of WMDs any less hypocritical.</p>
<p>Gzhang:
Let's just say you (a responsible citizen) have a hunting knife (you hunt) and a revolver (for personal protection) Three houses down the street from you resides a sex offender (sort of like a hunter) and two more houses down a violent 11 year old bully. (just think what he could do with a gun) By your logic you are allowed to have both a knife and a revolver, therefore both the sex offender and bully neighbors should be allowed to have a knife and a revolver.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's just say you (a responsible citizen) have a hunting knife (you hunt) and a revolver (for personal protection) Three houses down the street from you resides a sex offender (sort of like a hunter) and two more houses down a violent 11 year old bully. (just think what he could do with a gun) By your logic you are allowed to have both a knife and a revolver, therefore both the sex offender and bully neighbors should be allowed to have a knife and a revolver.
[/quote]
By my logic none of us should be allowed to have a knife and revolver.
Besides, hypothetically speaking, how would you know that I'm not an insecure Columbine-type? Who would I be, then, to pass judgements on my neighbors and their weapons?</p>
<p>Hmm! even better!</p>
<p>This is really good!</p>
<p>Plz help on this one, but first of all, know that I am a conservative, very! Im close to being radically consetrvative. OK?</p>
<p>Many would even add to past posts that plenty of resources are employed to develope stronger, more destructive & more 'freedom-friendly' weapons of MD. Which is debatable.</p>
<p>If t's said: US' policy of possession of WMDs, is hypocritical, and Saddam, Qaddafi, Alassad, aal-Sa'uood, Pakistan, and even Binladen's supporters, therefore, all had/have a justification to possess those types of weapons. How do i respond? </p>
<p>If I say: "We have 'em, we just don't use them." Implying that their usage is unethical (wrong) I shall be reminded of Aug. 1945 in japan and many other incidents around the globe, then if I say "Ok, in all these times we HAD to use them" and imply that we have perfect wisdom, self-control, ethical grounds and moral standards to determine when it's neccessory to apply those weapons.
By this, I put myself in a diffecult position and am forced to reconsider my perspective, unless I want to be a real red-n... sorry, I mean, real bigot and insist on my view (because it's MY view) via closemindness and shaky arguments.</p>
<p>Also, mo offense, but isn't our democratic system fair, then why wouldn't our military be 'us'? isn't it serving us?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Gzhang:
Let's just say you (a responsible citizen) have a hunting knife (you hunt) and a revolver (for personal protection) Three houses down the street from you resides a sex offender (sort of like a hunter) and two more houses down a violent 11 year old bully. (just think what he could do with a gun) By your logic you are allowed to have both a knife and a revolver, therefore both the sex offender and bully neighbors should be allowed to have a knife and a revolver.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who gave the US right to judge whether someone is sex offender or upstanding citizen? United Nations was against it, as far as I remember. Who is aggressor then?
Who is terrorist: radical Islamists, killing some several thousands in NYC or Bush, who killed 1/2 million people in Iraq for their own good (right, yap)?
Not to say either are good. But both think they're right.
US is putting coat of holy righteousness on and it doesn't want to fit. Neither does it fit on Bin Laden. </p>
<p>I'm truly shocked to see that some people still support Bush. Seriously.</p>
<p>Islamists are the terrorists, because they are the "other team".</p>
<p>Just like American Football man, you support your team even when they brk the rules, right?</p>
<ul>
<li>We are the more powerful party, we draw the rules and set the standards with either our military (like nowadays) or international media (MTV, Holleywood, etc, like it has been in the last several decades) ... We determine who is terrorist and who is not. It's US Vs. THEM, remember, and remember you are one of US. Again, just like in the NFL.</li>
</ul>
<p>
[quote]
Islamists are the terrorists, because they are the "other team".</p>
<p>Just like American Football man, you support your team even when they brk the rules, right?</p>
<ul>
<li>We are the more powerful party, we draw the rules and set the standards with either our military (like nowadays) or international media (MTV, Holleywood, etc, like it has been in the last several decades) ... We determine who is terrorist and who is not. It's US Vs. THEM, remember, and remember you are one of US. Again, just like in the NFL.
[/quote]
Wrong :)
Hint: real war!=Hollywood war.</li>
</ul>
<p>gzhang: "By my logic none of us should be allowed to have a knife and revolver."</p>
<p>To you gzhang I would say you need to study history with much greater depth.</p>
<p>"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry</p>
<p>
[quote]
gzhang: "By my logic none of us should be allowed to have a knife and revolver."</p>
<p>To you gzhang I would say you need to study history with much greater depth.</p>
<p>"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry
[/quote]
I gave you an opinion and you are attempting to refute it with another opinion. Neither of us is using historical facts to support our evidence. By the way, Patrick Henry was one of the more fanatical of the Founding Fathers. He was completely against the Constitution and pretty much any form of federal government, for that matter.</p>
<p>Also, note that I never said that the United States military should be disbanded. I said that it is hypocritical for the United States to go around invading other people's nations to rid them of WMD when we so avidly produce it ourselves. That is my opinion and not a policy suggestion. </p>
<p>If you want a policy suggestion, I say destroy all chemical and biological weapons stockpiles. There is absolutely no reason that we will ever need to use them--our conventional munitions are more than effective. It is the equivalent of a hunter using a hand grenade to hunt deer.
As for the nukes, our only choice is to keep them. Without MAD the world will be headed straight for nuclear apocalypse.</p>
<p>Common sense says not to give a firearm to a recently paroled felon. Common sense also says that police and law enforcement officers use guns.</p>
<p>In the world of international relations, Iran/North Korea/Iraq are the recently paroled felons, and America is the world police. We decide, because the rest of the world has proven time and time again that they cannot bear the responsibility of making these decisions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Common sense says not to give a firearm to a recently paroled felon. Common sense also says that police and law enforcement officers use guns.</p>
<p>In the world of international relations, Iran/North Korea/Iraq are the recently paroled felons, and America is the world police. We decide, because the rest of the world has proven time and time again that they cannot bear the responsibility of making these decisions.
[/quote]
Way to be the epitome of ethnocentricity.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that we are just as evil to the Iranians as they are to us. To the Iranians they are the world police and we are "Great Satan USA". It's all relative.
And last time I checked, neither Iran, North Korea, nor Iraq have blown up the world yet. Sure, Saddam used some SCUDs on the Kurds. So what? We round up random people who may look like terrorists and ship them off to Cuba to be tortured. And we've killed over 200,000 innocent Iraqis through "collateral damage". If we are the world police, then this is sure as hell police brutality.</p>
<p>"Sure, Saddam used some SCUDs on the Kurds."</p>
<p>Are you suuurre?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3hRaDye4zA%5B/url%5D">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3hRaDye4zA</a></p>
<p>The old realist view of IR is best summed up in one phrase.</p>
<p>"The strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must." ~ Thucydides</p>
<p>Is it right? No. Is it reality? Yes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Keep in mind that we are just as evil to the Iranians as they are to us. To the Iranians they are the world police and we are "Great Satan USA". It's all relative.
And last time I checked, neither Iran, North Korea, nor Iraq have blown up the world yet. Sure, Saddam used some SCUDs on the Kurds. So what? We round up random people who may look like terrorists and ship them off to Cuba to be tortured. And we've killed over 200,000 innocent Iraqis through "collateral damage". If we are the world police, then this is sure as hell police brutality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We saved the world. Twice. Iran and North Korea haven't. We have proven that we can be responsible, while many of the other nations have not.</p>
<p>We may not be perfect, but we are closer to that state than our enemies. </p>
<p>Not everyone is entitled to nukes, just like not everyone is entitled to own an assault rifle of handgun. You have to earn the right to get these weapons...</p>
<p>Britain and France wanted to appease Hitler. They signed treaties, hoped for peace, and didn't want to start the war against someone who is probably not intending to do harm to anyone. Besides, they did not have any right to attack a sovereign country.</p>
<p>Think about that my liberal friends.</p>