It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

so... will usa destroy their nukes too?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 08:54 PM
link   
bush fights to free the world of nuclear weapons but i was just interested what does he say about their nukes?

i don't think it's fair, i mean bush is no less dangerous and crazy than saddam




posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   
We keep them for a good reason.

I just don't understand how when a country pursues making them they are terrorists or are warmongers and psychos, but when we have ours they are kept for peace. I think it kinda sets a double standard here...



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I completely and totally agree with you there.

But I am torn between two decisions:

Abolish the nukes and risk attack, or keep them and become worldwide hypocrites. I cannot decide which.

The army can keep us from being attacked, but another deterrent is fear of being nuked. Every country knows that if they nuked us, we would nuke them back: American sentiment for you there.

If it were up to me, I would have every nuke on the planet abolished. But it isnt up to me.



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyberGhost
bush fights to free the world of nuclear weapons but i was just interested what does he say about their nukes?

i don't think it's fair, i mean bush is no less dangerous and crazy than saddam


Do you try and think before type or did you give up, finding the attempts too painful?

Saying Bush is as dangerous as Hussein is so stupid that responding to it would only sully the respondant.

Not understanding that the U.S. maintaining its nuclear inventory is beneficial to peace for the free world whereas unconventional weapons in the hands of unstable tyrants and dictators is very detrimental to world peace and should be avoided at all costs certainly indicates that the attempts were too painful and you indeed gave up.

Do you feel I'm being too harsh? Speaking unkindly? My response is short-tempered because I get tired of superficial-thinking people parroting stupid things they get from equally stupid people.

One thing is worse. Other similarly mental degenerates completely and totally agreeing with such a statement, then semi-contradicting their total agreement and in the process, almost making sense and then in the end, jumping right back into stupidity.

In case history is not your strong suit, let me help you. Were it not for the fact that we created nuclear weaponry, WWII in the Asian theater would have gone much further than it did, killing thousands upon thousands more on both sides. After WWII the world quickly fell into a "Cold War" (the bullets thrown my way during that time weren't so cold), and it was kept at a "Cold War" status because of nuclear weaponry. Were we still at the conventional-only level, the world would have most likely fallen into another blood bath, this time with the Commies of the Soviet Union. The threat of nuclear response made it way too costly, and thereby avoided.

Nukes saves lives, stupidity kills.



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
So we shouldn't be pissed that India and Pakistan making Nuclear Bombs because it is keeping peace over there?



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   
This is the exact question i want to find an answer to.


I find it unfair that Bush is telling every1 to disarm their nuclear capabilities but is U.S doing it aswell? NO why??????????????????



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Originally posted by CyberGhost
bush fights to free the world of nuclear weapons but i was just interested what does he say about their nukes?

i don't think it's fair, i mean bush is no less dangerous and crazy than saddam


Do you try and think before type or did you give up, finding the attempts too painful?

Saying Bush is as dangerous as Hussein is so stupid that responding to it would only sully the respondant.

Not understanding that the U.S. maintaining its nuclear inventory is beneficial to peace for the free world whereas unconventional weapons in the hands of unstable tyrants and dictators is very detrimental to world peace and should be avoided at all costs certainly indicates that the attempts were too painful and you indeed gave up.

Do you feel I'm being too harsh? Speaking unkindly? My response is short-tempered because I get tired of superficial-thinking people parroting stupid things they get from equally stupid people.

One thing is worse. Other similarly mental degenerates completely and totally agreeing with such a statement, then semi-contradicting their total agreement and in the process, almost making sense and then in the end, jumping right back into stupidity.

In case history is not your strong suit, let me help you. Were it not for the fact that we created nuclear weaponry, WWII in the Asian theater would have gone much further than it did, killing thousands upon thousands more on both sides. After WWII the world quickly fell into a "Cold War" (the bullets thrown my way during that time weren't so cold), and it was kept at a "Cold War" status because of nuclear weaponry. Were we still at the conventional-only level, the world would have most likely fallen into another blood bath, this time with the Commies of the Soviet Union. The threat of nuclear response made it way too costly, and thereby avoided.

Nukes saves lives, stupidity kills.

Bush is as dengerous as Saddam in the eyes of the middle east that is but not every1 agrees that Bush is a sane leader hell he invaded Iraq cos he "thought" they had WMD, if thats not insane what is??

[Edited on 11-2-2004 by drunk]



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Bush isn't telling everyone to disarm.

Man, pull your collective heads out of your dogmatic rears, read and comprehend last century's history and be honest with yourselves.

While you're at it, look to the future of the world if the stable, peace-loving nations did not have unconventional options. Would you like to be the nation to try and stop a territory-hungry China?



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Bush isn't telling everyone to disarm.



O.K he's not directly telling every1 to disarm he's doing it indirectly i:e invading countries for allegedly posessing
WMD.

Plus i remember his motto slogan "if you're not with us you're against us"

[Edited on 11-2-2004 by drunk]

[Edited on 11-2-2004 by drunk]



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Have a few more drinks Drunk.



regards
seekerof



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Have a few more drinks Drunk.



regards
seekerof

Meaning????



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   
What was the reason total war between Russia and the USA never happened??? Nuclear weapons and MAD.

Whats the reason the Pacific Campain in WW2 ended soo quickly? Nuclear Weapons

What is one of the greatest inovations of the 20th century that has brought us untold wealth and power? Nuclear weapons (power in a sense of both military and electric type power)

What has kept you safe from foreign threats of invasion? Nuclear Weapons

Yes it would have been good if they were never made but we would be living in smaller cities, polluting the enviorment even more wtih our power companies, and still might have a world war on our hands that might have never have ended.



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 09:42 PM
link   
hehe, sounds weird, but is totally true:


Nukes save lives.



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mouko_ryuu
hehe, sounds weird, but is totally true:


Nukes save lives.

Yeah if we dont ever use them.



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 09:45 PM
link   
And of all the nukes we've ever had, how many have we used?



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   
"Meaning?"

Meaning exactly what it implied.......
I just figured that between you, me, and the wall, a few more drinks might make you a bit more coherent and understandable?


regards
seekerof



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Just because a country doesnt agree with the US's ideologies doesnt mean they have less right to soveriegnty than the USA does and with soveriegnty comes the right to arm themselves as they see fit. I agree nukes are a detterant to nukes... so what gives america the right to decide who does and doesnt get detterants... Bush is a mad-man and has is responsible (directly or indirectly) of countless civilian deaths... just because the deaths he's responsible for werent in his own country doesnt make him less sane than Saddam... Everyday what i see in the news about America and her actions my resentment for 'the land of the free' grows (and keep in mind the media here in Aus is pretty pro-american and likes to portray america as the honourable peace makers). The US defies the UN and supports other countries that do the same (Israel) but then has the nerve to ask the UN for help to fix a country that they # ed up to start with... america is the biggest hypocritical state in the world and i would love to see the day when their 'empire' crumbles!



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
"Meaning?"

Meaning exactly what it implied.......
I just figured that between you, me, and the wall, a few more drinks might make you a bit more coherent and understandable?


regards
seekerof

Maybe you need the drinks not me, you think i am talking jibberish do you?



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I wish someone would ask Bush sometime "so when are we going to destroy our WMD's?"



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by specialasianX
Just because a country doesnt agree with the US's ideologies doesnt mean they have less right to soveriegnty than the USA does and with soveriegnty comes the right to arm themselves as they see fit. I agree nukes are a detterant to nukes... so what gives america the right to decide who does and doesnt get detterants... Bush is a mad-man and has is responsible (directly or indirectly) of countless civilian deaths... just because the deaths he's responsible for werent in his own country doesnt make him less sane than Saddam... Everyday what i see in the news about America and her actions my resentment for 'the land of the free' grows (and keep in mind the media here in Aus is pretty pro-american and likes to portray america as the honourable peace makers). The US defies the UN and supports other countries that do the same (Israel) but then has the nerve to ask the UN for help to fix a country that they # ed up to start with... america is the biggest hypocritical state in the world and i would love to see the day when their 'empire' crumbles!


OMG im sick of yall anti-bush tree huggers who think everyone in the world is wholesome. Ok lets go on common ground an dust say you are right...Bush is a mad man. BUT in our country there are deterents to launchin nukes and major consequences for not following SOP. Is it wrong to disarm the rest of the world???? Maybe. Is it wrong to disarm dictators and tyrants with no checks and balances?? HELL NO. Let jsut pretend saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He could use then when and wherever he wants with out ever askin anoyne else or being detered by anyone. Aslo to prove teh nukes save live theory if Saddam had nukes or NK has nukes guess what is stoppin them or had stopped them from using them??? yes again the answer is nuclear weapons



new topics




 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join