It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Look I really don't want to get into a fight over the legitimacy of nuclear weapons, I have stated my points and you have stated yours, I respect them. I am not in a fighting mood atm
[edit on 2-3-2005 by drfunk]
Originally posted by CazMedia
the 3rd possibillity is that most of the intelligence gathered before the war pointed to nations believing the WMD threat was legit and took actions based on their unanimous UN resolution pretty much saying there was.
Once there we discovered the truth that Saddam was hiding all along but couldnt lose face for saying he DIDNT have any WMD's.
The weapons were either not there or have been moved to syria or other places.
Syria can and has made plenty of trouble for itself, it wont take much from the USA to need to show to expose their support of terrorism.
Well, im not for making threats with nukes by waving them around diplomatically....i DO support a position where the USA states we would not use these weapons except as a deterrant or in a specific circumstance. The fact that this country spends billions on these weapons makes all that $$$ a waste if diplomatically we then say...were never going to use them. Just by saying, we reserve the right to use them means we are getting some of the value of having these weapons.
its like they are warning them in somany ways but not dam right out politicaly saying mess with us we nuke you to cinders, which i think they cant really say as its not very diplomatic is it??
No it wouldnt, as by definition the user of a WMD would have to have a stated goal to erase all people of one persuasion. If the USA only used ONE or even TWO nukes against targets in Syria, which included "innocent" people within the blast range...this would be a use of a WMD, not genocide....
The intentional use of WMD's against a small nation like Syria which IS a national group would be genocide.
THATS RIGHT! Thats exactly what im talking about....Syria, its leaders and its armed forces need to understand that THEY will decide if this happens to them based upon their actions. This wont happen just because they are Syrians...who cares WHO my enemy is...if your threatening this nation, our allies, regional stabillity, dealing with terrorists, or doing something thats going to arouse the millitary attentions of other nations, you need to be very aware that you could be picking a fight you will lose. Do i WANT to nuke you no, but dont think i wont if you give us the reason to.
Millions would die, without justice, regardless of whether they are innocent or not, men, women and children just because they are of Syrian descent and they reside in Syria.
Isnt this just a fancy way of saying we're no better than they are as humans go? Im fine to admit that. We Americans arent really that different of better than Syrians, we just have more options and influence than they do. Trying to take the high road and showing restraint is just artificial ways to say, were better than you.
You American's may want to justify the use of nuclear weapons with differing opinions on definitions and by saying "they say death to america so it's okay for us to say death to islam" but by doing this you are just making yourself just as bad as those who call for your own death.
Now there are people that expouse hatred, but some of us just say, we have enemies that need to be dealt with.
I am sick of whingers on this board "islam is nothing but a religion of hate and evil" and post links to junk like free republic and other hatemonging websites that justify your pitiful hatred.
Lets be clear on a few key things here.....
You do not reach out to your islamic brothers in tolerance and forgiveness of their sins but you all are the cheersquad to support the use of military force against muslim nations. You call for the reaching of the gun to combat their hatred instead of reaching for tolerance, brotherhood and understanding and constructing a better world for all our children.
Sure this is much of the reason we changed testing methods, but not the sole reason, nor was it done because of TANGIBLE effects but because of POTENTIAL effects....meaning while i agree environmentally nukes are polluters, we took preventative measures to reduce the POSSIBILLITY, not the actual occurance of problems associated with nuke testing.
You know that it's a fact that nuclear testing stopped happening in the atmosphere and above ground in the US because of the potential effects of fallout on the population and the increasing availability of public knowledge on the effects of nuclear weapons.
Originally posted by Veltro
Originally posted by jsobecky
For those crying foul, what do you say about bin Laden's supposed order to Zarqawi to hit targets inside the US? Do all the sanctions you are in favor of for Johnson apply to UBL also? A simple yes or no will do.
Err...last time I checked, Osama Bin Laden wasn't an elected U.S. Congressman so your argument is slightly off.