A United Nation Question....

In the UN Charter it states that "Weapons of Mass Destruction" shall not be owned or operated or whatever.

Iraq apparently has a big boo-boo by having them, right?

But America, having enough nukes, correct me If Im wrong, to toast the planet.

So how does this work out?

it\'s about intent

countries with dictators + nukes = bad

Exactly what mm said. Which, to add on to it...

For example, supposing that Iraq had WMD, it would be REALLY bad especially for the surrounding nations (espeically Israel). If Iran, or any of the other dictator controlled nations in the Middle East had nukes, mix Islamiofacist with weapons that could kill millions, also bad. It has been shown that terrorist will stop at nothing to get what it wants (which is, to terrorize and kill millions of the enemy, in this case, the US and the free world). So a nuke, in these nations that are "friendly" to terrorist, is not good. North Korea having nukes is also bad given the instability of one Kim Jong Il (could easily use them against, say, South Korea or Japan before we would get there to help. This in turn would mean that both South Korea and Japan would have to develop their own nukes to make sure the balance of power is not shifted to North Korea). And if said person were to make threats, unlike the US where the people could throw the bum out, he is there for life AND could do anything he want. Even kill millions of people along the way if he wanted. Not to mention, unlike the US, they are litterally STARVING their own people so that they could keep our nukes. Is this a nation you want to have WMD?

US on the otherhand...HAS NEVER USED A NUCLEAR WEAPON AFTER WWII. I will tell you that, we also have no intention of using one again unless forced to. 50 odd years and we have NEVER used a nuclear weapon. Even if using one could\'ve, say, ended the Vietnam war in our favor. Or elminated all of our enemies in one fall swoop. This nation is not run by some crazed madman (despite what everyone says) bent on destroying the world.

Plus Iraq was under specific weapon sanctions after the first Gulf War.

Originally posted by mm
it\'s about intent

countries with dictators + nukes = bad

You know you could of just said North Korea and have done with it

[clips]

Originally posted by Simchoy
Exactly what mm said. Which, to add on to it...

For example, supposing that Iraq had WMD, it would be REALLY bad especially for the surrounding nations (espeically Israel). If Iran, or any of the other dictator controlled nations in the Middle East had nukes, mix Islamiofacist with weapons that could kill millions, also bad. It has been shown that terrorist will stop at nothing to get what it wants (which is, to terrorize and kill millions of the enemy, in this case, the US and the free world). So a nuke, in these nations that are "friendly" to terrorist, is not good. North Korea having nukes is also bad given the instability of one Kim Jong Il (could easily use them against, say, South Korea or Japan before we would get there to help. This in turn would mean that both South Korea and Japan would have to develop their own nukes to make sure the balance of power is not shifted to North Korea). And if said person were to make threats, unlike the US where the people could throw the bum out, he is there for life AND could do anything he want. Even kill millions of people along the way if he wanted. Not to mention, unlike the US, they are litterally STARVING their own people so that they could keep our nukes. Is this a nation you want to have WMD?

US on the otherhand...HAS NEVER USED A NUCLEAR WEAPON AFTER WWII. I will tell you that, we also have no intention of using one again unless forced to. 50 odd years and we have NEVER used a nuclear weapon. Even if using one could\'ve, say, ended the Vietnam war in our favor. Or elminated all of our enemies in one fall swoop. This nation is not run by some crazed madman (despite what everyone says) bent on destroying the world.

but..but...oh egad! you made some good points i have to agree. but i also feel the u.s. have to control these regimes in unison. all arab countries cannot hate the u.s. for NO reason, no wait i live in america where some are hated just for the color of skin..anyway it must be a reason..maybe the us. policies are geared too much toward favoring israel. i totally agree with you on all your views,.. there are just blatantly some wackos running countries that clearly shouldn\'t be. i just felt the u.s. should have went with the world body as far as iraq is concerned

you think racism only exists in the US? Go check out Ireland and their mini catholic and protestant wars.

Catholicism is a race?

[clips]

Originally posted by ViVi
you think racism only exists in the US? Go check out Ireland and their mini catholic and protestant wars.

i don\'t think racism exists only in the u.s. read i stated no wait. meaning people will hate you for whatever reason. even if i go to china, japan i might be hated by some just for my color. hell in some anime they still draw black people with big lips  . Not sure if thats just how they view us or whatever..i understand i could also be hated in arab countries just for the fact that i\'m from america. all i\'m saying is imo it gotta be a reason for the hatred, other than they are just jealous of us.

While Catholics vs. Protestent thing isn\'t in itself, racist (more relgious violence then racism), it is, inadvertently, racist given the make up of Catholics and Protestents (Irish are Catholics, Anglo-Saxons are Protestent).

As for why the Arab world hates us, two words, freedom and modernity. America represents both. Freedom, which the fanatical Islamofacist hate because they feel, it is "against Islam", and modernity for, for intent and purpose, modernity left Islam behind (some by choice for modernity is "against their religion"). Part of it, IS jealously. Look at the Arab countries, compared to the the US and other Western nations in terms of wealth productivity (in other words, what does the Arab world produce [other then oil] to help lift them from poverity?). Even in the oil nations, because the wealth never makes it to the common people, MOST still live in extreme poverty. The ecomony, is so dependent on oil that, if the oil were to stop flowing, these nations would be back in complete poverty.

And of course, ignorance is another reason why the hate us. For the dictators to stay in power, they HAVE to have an enemy. That enemy, is the US...Jews, and the "west" in general. All in the name of religion.

Note, there is less "hate" of the US in more "secular" nations like Turkey and Indonesia. However, even in these nations, they do have "fundamentalist" leanings and extremist groups that could change that if they were ever to take power.

Yes, like EVERYTHING, this doesn\'t mean ALL Arabs/Muslims (majority of Muslims are not Arabs) believe this. Just those that choose to follow their dictator, do so with their religion. The only way this can change, is if the the moderates in the religion becomes change this perception, DON\'T expect this to happen anytime soon.

As for the UN, until they solve the Congo crisis, Zimbabwe crisis, Ivory Coast crisis, Kosovo (its still unstable no matter what Clark says), then I would care what they do.

Okay thanks.

Thats what I was guessing.

Yeah, me too. If you gave control of the world\'s supply of weapons to pacifists, you\'re okay.

If you give them to power-hungry, sadistic Turkish dictators.. well.. you just don\'t want that.

Its about time we kicked the spineless UN out of NY and withdraw from it just like we did from the League of Nations.  The UN is worthless.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Its about time we kicked the spineless UN out of NY and withdraw from it just like we did from the League of Nations.  The UN is worthless.

yeah

:rolleyes: Might is Right:rolleyes:

Might (aka the US) is always right considering Europe has degenerated into a band of sniveling pacifists and the UN as a whole is a malfunctioning entity that is a waste of money - mostly US dollars at that.

Europe lost its backbone after World War 2.  This isn\'t a personal attack on Europeans, but it seems Europe is now led by the French and their endless attempts to make everyone except the US happy.  I guess they are still pissed that French is no longer the language of diplomacy.