-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
*confused* why is it ok for US to have WMD when Iraq can't
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I wouldnt be so sure about that, besides NK and Pakistan the US are the only other Nation thinking of and publically speaking of using/wanting to use Nukes.....
And with Rumsidiot at the helm I would expect everything horrable. This guy has lost his mind as evidenced by his weekly hate tirades about Germany.
StageLeft
No Lifer
Because for one thing nobody can take it from the US without a good ass whooping and for number 2 the US isn't likely to use it against Mexico, Canada, or rebel militias up in Ohio. Iraq has an Imperial take-over-countries attitude and WMD are a good part of that effort.
I think WMD asside the world has a responsibility to take on oppressive regimes such as the one in Iraq and NK. That's opening a big can of worms though since so much of the world does not live under self-representation.
I think WMD asside the world has a responsibility to take on oppressive regimes such as the one in Iraq and NK. That's opening a big can of worms though since so much of the world does not live under self-representation.
dabuddha
Lifer
yes but don't take things out of context
we said we'd only use nukes IF they use any biological weapons or other WMD
granted i haven't heard his so called "tirades" as you call them but if its regarding Germany's pacifist behavior, it's understandable.
At least he's not talking about nuking Germany or about a pre-emptive strike like some other idiotic country
well, last thing he did was putting Germany in the same ballpark as Lybia and Cuba. I don't know what his agenda is, but no german politician could get away with something like that. This guy is simply nuts and a threat and if he ever comes here and is on public display he will receive some rotten tomatoes from me personally - well at least the ugly arrogant american stereotype has a first class role model now...
There was only one cheap shot during the election (I know off) it wasnt from Schröder but from the Ministry of Justice and she had to leave Office because of the statement...
Rumsfeld is taking cheap shots at Germany and also at France already for several weeks and is just acting extremly arrogant - the only result this will have is increased US resentment among the german population - if thats his goal , his means are right on...
I would have links but they're are in german - his statements didnt find much resonance in the US press but I read some sidenote about it also in the NY-times (about the old Europe and Germany/France is irrelevant escapade)
Okay, thanks anyway. I think Rumsfeld is probably expressing a bit of frustration at the current German administration. I'd have to think Germany's stance on Iraq is not unexpected by the US, they were extremely reluctant in their involvement in the Gulf War, but it is also probably a little tit for tat.
Nitemare
Lifer
Originally posted by: Zakath15
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Why not give everybody a gun, criminals mass murderers and prisoners included?
They already all have guns, that's the problem. I'd rather give my sister and mother a gun, teach them how to shoot.
I did not know that all prisoners had guns and isn't it considered an illegal act for a felon to own a gun?
HomeBrewerDude
Lifer
Becasue Iraq appears to be much more likely to use WMD.
Eakers,
Nuclear weapons have prevented war but international politics must recoginize that in the wrong hands they will unleash a nuclear war. The nuclear weapon is one of the strongest preventions of conflict in the world, but in the wrong hands it can lead to a dissaster the human species may not survive. Although we as a nation aren't happy when someone gets the weapon we are not likely to try to forcibly disarm them as long as the nation itself understands and follows the principle of MAD.
If for example the US had the sole goal of preventing all nations from aquiring WMD at any cost we would have forceibly disarmed Israel, South Africa, India and Pakistan. We want nations to sign the NPT because WMD are horrible things and must never be used again. To prevent their use we must prevent unstable nations from aquiring them. These are nations that are controlled by a single individiual without regard to the population and those nations that are based on fundemental religious regimes that are out of touch with reality. Neither of those criteria describes any of the nations that have Nukes, but it does describe quite a few that are trying to aquire them. Those that seek so aggressively to aquire them at this time are mainly nations that are unstable enough to actually use them. Once used the device will be used again in retaliation and maybe many times more.
We cannot allow nuclear weapons to ever be used against humans again.
Nuclear weapons have prevented war but international politics must recoginize that in the wrong hands they will unleash a nuclear war. The nuclear weapon is one of the strongest preventions of conflict in the world, but in the wrong hands it can lead to a dissaster the human species may not survive. Although we as a nation aren't happy when someone gets the weapon we are not likely to try to forcibly disarm them as long as the nation itself understands and follows the principle of MAD.
If for example the US had the sole goal of preventing all nations from aquiring WMD at any cost we would have forceibly disarmed Israel, South Africa, India and Pakistan. We want nations to sign the NPT because WMD are horrible things and must never be used again. To prevent their use we must prevent unstable nations from aquiring them. These are nations that are controlled by a single individiual without regard to the population and those nations that are based on fundemental religious regimes that are out of touch with reality. Neither of those criteria describes any of the nations that have Nukes, but it does describe quite a few that are trying to aquire them. Those that seek so aggressively to aquire them at this time are mainly nations that are unstable enough to actually use them. Once used the device will be used again in retaliation and maybe many times more.
We cannot allow nuclear weapons to ever be used against humans again.
The US does not use them on their own people, Iraq does. The US only used WMD's 2 times in our history (Nukes, Both over Japan) Iraq used them frequently during the Iran -Iraq war (Chemical and Biological Weapons)
BTW I did not do any research so maybe the US has used chemical or biological weapons in the past but I am sure they have never used them on innocent civilians.
BTW I did not do any research so maybe the US has used chemical or biological weapons in the past but I am sure they have never used them on innocent civilians.
Cheese78CA
Senior member
Lets not put down anyone here. I posted this in the other thread.
Saddam invaded a neighbor he should not have and proved he is a threat to Middle East stability. The UN resoluted to send inspectors in to ensure Iraq disarms and doesn't rearm. The French pushed to sanction the oil-for-food program for France's own interest. However, Sadam couldn't rearm without the eyes of the inspectors over his back. Thus, in 1997, he accused American inspectors of spying and kicked them out. The rest of the 77 inspectors withdrew from Iraq in show of solidarity to their American counter parts.
Clinton sent 2 aircraft carriers to pressure Sadam into compilying with UN resolution. The French, once again, interjected and demanded UN sanctions be ended with unlimited oil sales by Iraq. Being the clever chess master that Sadam is, he seemingly responds to French's goodwill and let the American inspectors back in Iraq. Sure, Sadam has shown he'll wittingly throw a bone to let the world to salivate over. Almost as soon as he let them in, he bans all inspectors the following year in 1999.
The UN has let Sadam slide too long. Former Russian states like Kazakhstan disarmed of all its nuclear arsenal peacefully--the inspectors got in and got out. The proposed war is the result of the threat Sadam demonstrated in 1992, years of non-compliance to disarm and failure of tried diplomatic negotations due to Sadam's lack of sincerity. Removing the possible connection with Al Qaeda would simply be killing two birds with one stone. Sadam is a threat to the Middle East region and in the post 9/11 world, he is a threat to the US.
Oh, the oil interest? "Why is France so pro-Saddam? It's the motive (wrongly) ascribed as behind U.S. enmity toward him: oil. French commercial deals with Middle East terrorist states dominate its foreign policy. It was a French company that risked U.S. sanctions by investing in Iranian oil production and it is French interests that benefit from the tie with Saddam." * Sure, to the victor gets the spoils, but the opportunity would've never presented itself had Sadam changed his ways and came clean. However, that is certainly not the main reason the US is going into war for. The evidence presented by Powell yesterday showed Sadam has no intention of disarming inspite of tired diplomatic efforts and the will of the UN Security Council for a peaceful resolution. He's still playing the cat and mouse game he's mastered in a period of over 10 years.
* Dick Morris, political consultant to Bill Clinton thoughts
Why should the French and the Germans care that Sadam is a murdering tyrant who threatens thousands of innocent lives? Between those two countries, at least 70 French and German companies do business with Saddam. They make money off him! That is the reality of it. They will tolerate any kind of blackmail from the Middle East because: 1) They are afraid to strike back, 2) They make money off the murderers and 3) They know that, ultimately the U.S. will protect them from the villains. They are like children who criticize their parents while accepting their protection.
Saddam invaded a neighbor he should not have and proved he is a threat to Middle East stability. The UN resoluted to send inspectors in to ensure Iraq disarms and doesn't rearm. The French pushed to sanction the oil-for-food program for France's own interest. However, Sadam couldn't rearm without the eyes of the inspectors over his back. Thus, in 1997, he accused American inspectors of spying and kicked them out. The rest of the 77 inspectors withdrew from Iraq in show of solidarity to their American counter parts.
Clinton sent 2 aircraft carriers to pressure Sadam into compilying with UN resolution. The French, once again, interjected and demanded UN sanctions be ended with unlimited oil sales by Iraq. Being the clever chess master that Sadam is, he seemingly responds to French's goodwill and let the American inspectors back in Iraq. Sure, Sadam has shown he'll wittingly throw a bone to let the world to salivate over. Almost as soon as he let them in, he bans all inspectors the following year in 1999.
The UN has let Sadam slide too long. Former Russian states like Kazakhstan disarmed of all its nuclear arsenal peacefully--the inspectors got in and got out. The proposed war is the result of the threat Sadam demonstrated in 1992, years of non-compliance to disarm and failure of tried diplomatic negotations due to Sadam's lack of sincerity. Removing the possible connection with Al Qaeda would simply be killing two birds with one stone. Sadam is a threat to the Middle East region and in the post 9/11 world, he is a threat to the US.
Oh, the oil interest? "Why is France so pro-Saddam? It's the motive (wrongly) ascribed as behind U.S. enmity toward him: oil. French commercial deals with Middle East terrorist states dominate its foreign policy. It was a French company that risked U.S. sanctions by investing in Iranian oil production and it is French interests that benefit from the tie with Saddam." * Sure, to the victor gets the spoils, but the opportunity would've never presented itself had Sadam changed his ways and came clean. However, that is certainly not the main reason the US is going into war for. The evidence presented by Powell yesterday showed Sadam has no intention of disarming inspite of tired diplomatic efforts and the will of the UN Security Council for a peaceful resolution. He's still playing the cat and mouse game he's mastered in a period of over 10 years.
* Dick Morris, political consultant to Bill Clinton thoughts
Why should the French and the Germans care that Sadam is a murdering tyrant who threatens thousands of innocent lives? Between those two countries, at least 70 French and German companies do business with Saddam. They make money off him! That is the reality of it. They will tolerate any kind of blackmail from the Middle East because: 1) They are afraid to strike back, 2) They make money off the murderers and 3) They know that, ultimately the U.S. will protect them from the villains. They are like children who criticize their parents while accepting their protection.
The US would never use WMD against its own citizens, NOT!
Our policy is that might makes right. That coupled with the 'our sh!t doesn't stink' despite massive evidence that it does, syndrome and you have the US position pretty much summed up. A fly in the ointment, however, is that despite our rather lousy record and disregard for justice over our own interests, I can't think of a country in the world that I would trust more, with the possible exception of Canada. The current adminsitration is threatening to undo all that with a corrupt notion that we can act preemptively to remove threats to our world superiority. That puts us right square in the camp of evil. We are in danger of becomming the Axe of Evil. Bush and the looney tunes chicken hawks are at cause. We depperately need regime change here in the US. We should never have allowed a looser in the White House. There is wisdom in the people when they vote without terror in their hearts.
Our policy is that might makes right. That coupled with the 'our sh!t doesn't stink' despite massive evidence that it does, syndrome and you have the US position pretty much summed up. A fly in the ointment, however, is that despite our rather lousy record and disregard for justice over our own interests, I can't think of a country in the world that I would trust more, with the possible exception of Canada. The current adminsitration is threatening to undo all that with a corrupt notion that we can act preemptively to remove threats to our world superiority. That puts us right square in the camp of evil. We are in danger of becomming the Axe of Evil. Bush and the looney tunes chicken hawks are at cause. We depperately need regime change here in the US. We should never have allowed a looser in the White House. There is wisdom in the people when they vote without terror in their hearts.
Cheese78CA
Senior member
The US intent was not to destroy as was Sadam's and thus far less than thousands killed. Not that it justifies the US' actions any, but it is the lesser of two evils. It's a dark part of the US' past that we shouldn't forget and we should always be careful of. The US isn't perfect and the most qualified people don't always take office, but imperfection is human. That being said, there are many rogue states in the world. The US just has the biggest stake in Iraq because if removing Sadam's dictatorship is a "deal", the oil makes it a "hot deal". The US would've never had to come to this bridge if Sadam had came clean. Granted, he has to do a lot to prove he's cleaned his act up, but that's the result of aggression and over ten years of non-compliance. The Germans and the Japanese were disarmed after WWII. They may not agree to our foreign (big-bullying) policy today, but they certainly don't despise us as a country. Compared to the time Sadam was given, he hasn't shown one inkingly of intent to disarm and that is a major catalyst to a never resting region.
Come back in a few years when you have lived a little, you are either to young or to uninformed to debate a issue like this. I will never understand why people think this is about oil. It's almost funny really. Do you really think our president is willing to sacifice soldiers lives for OIL..... Please.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
