How big of a reality is it that.....

[Guest Cancer Marney]

The non-proliferation treaty. Nuclear weapons.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Never mind, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

 

And yeah, I do, if anyone would agree to enforce it.

[Guest Powerplay]

Regardless of which, we still HAVE THEM. Saying we're the only ones allowed to have them is totally and utterly hypocritical, regardless of whether or not we protect them better than these other rogue nations. We should set the example by starting to disarm our own WMDs...

 

...but that will never happen.

Tyler, which nation is less likely to have it's WMDs fall into the hands of terrorists?

 

Which nation is less likely to actively use those against another nation?

 

Which nation harbors terrorists who attack other countries?

 

Which nation has been a wild card in the Middle East for a long time now?

 

Which nation will more responsibly take care of their weapons?

 

Edit: Also, which nation is more likely to have WMDs used against it?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I do, if anyone would agree to enforce it.

Well then, there's "hypocrisy" for you. You think chemical weapons should be distributed to everyone, it seems, along with a free bag of chips, but you balk at nukes. Why?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The point, of course, is that someone could hide a nuke and blah blah blah, mutual assured destruction would be impossible. However, we posess the capabilities to absolutely obliterate other countries without resorting to VX nerve gas and other such agents... so why don't we rid ourselves of those God-forsaken devices?

[Guest Powerplay]

The point, of course, is that someone could hide a nuke and blah blah blah, mutual assured destruction would be impossible. However, we posess the capabilities to absolutely obliterate other countries without resorting to VX nerve gas and other such agents... so why don't we rid ourselves of those God-forsaken devices?

Because we want to have defenses against them because there are wild cards like Syria out there whose WMDs could go wandering off with a terrorist.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

You missed my point, I don't support chemical, biological, OR nuclear weapons... and personally, I don't think anyone anywhere should have them, nor should they be engineered and whatnot. I'm also not stupid enough to think that this would be enforcable, but... why do we even have them? They're obviously weapons of evil... they do horrible, horrible things to the people they don't kill. Why don't we eliminate those from our stockpiles?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

It's like trying to put a genie back into a bottle. You can't eliminate knowledge. Better to keep it visible and on a leash than try to deny it exists while it's biting off your head.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The point, of course, is that someone could hide a nuke and blah blah blah, mutual assured destruction would be impossible. However, we posess the capabilities to absolutely obliterate other countries without resorting to VX nerve gas and other such agents... so why don't we rid ourselves of those God-forsaken devices?

Because we want to have defenses against them because there are wild cards like Syria out there whose WMDs could go wandering off with a terrorist.

Perhaps I'm not seeing what your point is here. We may need some to ensure ourselves with the technology to minimize casualties of our own troops, but we don't need massive stockpiles of these said weapons.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Um, we don't have massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. Since we don't use them, there would be no point.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

In no way does our arsenal contain VX, Bollitunum, Anthrax, etc. types of weapons?

[Guest Powerplay]

In no way does our arsenal contain VX, Bollitunum, Anthrax, etc. types of weapons?

Not in massive amounts. Only so we can test defenses against them. You've been arguing massive stockpiles, Tyler, not just having them.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Fair enough, I was misinformed. I don't think we should have the capacity to launch such attacks in any respect, but to have several for research purposes would obviously be prudent.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Considering America is looked at as the "biggest baddest" country by the entire world, why would be illlogical to expect other countries to want to strive to get weapons for themselves that can provide an adequate defense, I mean isn't that one reason Iraq was attacked/invaded while N. Korea being just as evil, is just gonna have a talking to? N. Korea can fight back because they possess better weapons, and that seemed like a deterent for just taking a pre-emptive strike against them like we did in Iraq.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Why is Syria mentioned? Because they harbor terrorists, they support terrorism, and they helped Iraq. Let their dime-a-dozen despot rot if he chooses to make idiotic decisions. I have NO sympathy for ANY of the little despots in that region.

                     -=Mike

Jesus fucking Christ...

 

It hasn't even been a week, and you've already accepted the Administrations allusions to "Unoffical Axis of Evil member Syria" as Gods Own Word. For fucks sake, they haven't even come out and said anything incriminating about Syria, other then "They're high on our list of terrorist-harboring nations".

 

If you are going to be Rumsfields parrot, at least wait until he fucking says the phrase you intend to regurgitate ad naseaum.

Does "Hezbollah" mean anything to you? Hamas?

 

Damascus houses more terrorist hq's than anywhere in the world.

 

and I agree in principal with getting rid of Terrorist organizations but the US should do it too, since you have things like the KKK,Aryan Nation,etc.

While I don't support them by any means, these examples fall more under hate groups than terrorist organizations. And with that, they can hide behind the 1st Amendment.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Here's a few things I've learned from just a little research and reading papers.

 

Syria despite being in possesion of Chemical Weapons has never used them on anyone, unlike Iraq. Syria hasn't been DIRECTLY connected to any terrorist actions in over 20 years, They DO harbor terrerist ghroups but the groups are kept on a tighter leash and are monitered to an extent.

 

Syyria is ruled by a Rival Branch Of The Same Ba'Ath party that led Iraq but it is not led by someone as insane as Saddam Huessin, Syria hasn't committed genoicde Like Iraq has.

 

If there's no proof they intend to USE the wapons...then why invade?

Why Syria?

 

To paraphrase Bush, we won't distinguish between those who ARE terrorists and those who harbor them.

 

You're bad either way.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I agree with giving up the Iraqi Government officals but why shopuld they destroy THEY'RE weapons??

 

They have the right to defend themselves. AMerica has WMD, shouldn't you have to give them up too?

 

and I agree in principal with getting rid of Terrorist organizations but the US should do it too, since you have things like the KKK,Aryan Nation,etc.

The KKK and Aryan Nation are so weak they're not even worth mentioning. And ANYTIME they commit a crime, they get DRILLED by the country, so it's not like they're even REMOTELY harbored here.

 

Syria bankrolls terrorist groups. That ALONE makes them untrustworthy.

-=Mike

[Guest NoCalMike]

To paraphrase Bush, we won't distinguish between those who ARE terrorists and those who harbor them.

 

You're bad either way.

-=Mike

I guess except when it is Kosovo and it is Clinton wanting to do it instead.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Cause Mike's on record as anti-Kosovo action. [/sarcasm]

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Actually, he is, along with every conservative that ever walked the earth.

[Guest Powerplay]

Actually, he is, along with every conservative that ever walked the earth.

Wow, thanks for generalizing me in there, Tyler. I really appreciate it. I supported the Kosovo action for the same reasons I supported the action in Iraq: It was the right God damn thing to do.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I'm usually described as a conservative, and I was all for our action in Kosovo, regardless of the wishy-washy way went about it.

 

Besides, it was hilarious when we blew up the Chinese embassy.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Actually, he is, along with every conservative that ever walked the earth.

Wow, thanks for generalizing me in there, Tyler. I really appreciate it. I supported the Kosovo action for the same reasons I supported the action in Iraq: It was the right God damn thing to do.

Easy Powerplay, liberals are the openminded ones, remember?

 

I would describe my stance on Kosovo as similar to SG's.

 

EDIT: Happy B-X? I didn't want to type a whole thing out, so I went with the closest one. I'll put SG in instead... happy?

[Guest B-X]

Jesus, here comes the Marney the Crutch stuff again.

[Guest Some Guy]

Actually, he is, along with every conservative that ever walked the earth.

Name 5 Conservatives in Congress who opposed military action in Kosovo. They may have questioned the timing of it, considering the the Monica deal was huge at the time and Clinton was being impeached and stuff. None that I can remember degraded our military, questioned its tactics, and claimed we are losing, like many leftists I've heard (not Congressmen, per say). But taking out Milosevic(sp?) was the right thing to do, he was slaughtering people, Muslims if I recall, but that can't be I thought we were fighting a war on Islam. Crap! Shit! Fuck! Gall Darn It! There goes teh truth getting in the way of a good story. I'm waiting for someone to show up on TV and give George Carlin's "they were cutting in our action" line and be serious about it.

[Guest EricMM]

Let me see if I'm understanding the basis of Tyler's comments. He probably meant that some Conservatives have gone on record saying that Kosovo was just Clinton's attempt at "Wagging the Dog" or draw attention away from the current political scandal.

 

I certainly feel that genocide is worth stopping. The U.S. doesn't always step in but when it does and it succeeds it's a great thing.

[Guest DrTom]

He probably meant that some Conservatives have gone on record saying that Kosovo was just Clinton's attempt at "Wagging the Dog" or draw attention away from the current political scandal.

Actually, his blatant attempt at wagging the dog was the strike he ordered on Iraq *on the eve of his impeachment hearing.* It's not that I disagree with attacking Iraq, but what had they done right then that they hadn't been doing during the previous years of Clinton's presidency? If people don't want to give the appearance that they're wagging the dog, perhaps they shouldn't try so hard to cultivate it.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

Really when it comes right down to it, I think the US won't attack Syria because if they do, China, Russia, India, etc. will have free reign to do what they want in their own spheres of influence and the US won't have a leg to stand on opposing them. Everyone saw how after 9/11 the US didn't say squat about Chechnya anymore, it would be the same thing here.

 

Also, if anything more does happen, it will be less because of Bush (although he will get the blame) and more because guys like Wolfowitz pushing their Zionist agenda in the DoD.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Five Congressmen? Sure.

 

Tom DeLay. John Ashcroft (former senator). Dennis Hassert. Don Nickles. Judd Gregg. Richard Lugar.

 

All of them had criticisms of the war itself, not of Clinton. Half of them (DeLay, Ashcroft, Gregg) said the war was going to fall flat on its face and Clinton would be to blame.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Why do we even have chemical weapons? It seriously is a bit hypocritical.

So we can create defenses against them, same with our Biologicals. As stated a while back, ours are defensive in nature.

Syria hasn't used there's so maybe there's are defensive too? Look at the area they live in, they need the defense.