Why? - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Why?

Posted by DR86 on Mar-31-2003 20:43:

Why?

I was thinking about this one....

Why is the US allowed to have weapons of mass destruction (i.e. A rather large nuclear arsenal and chemical weapons.)? Actually, why should any country have wepaons of mass destruction? Iraq damn well shouldn't have em, but Israel shoudn't either. The US shouldn't have em, but Russia shouldn't either. What do you think the world woul be like if EVERY SINGLE WMD was destroyed? Looks nice.....

Posted by malek on Mar-31-2003 21:12:

Of course, you are entirely right! But then it wouldn't adhere to the double standards mentality so important to the US administration.

Posted by JohnSmith on Mar-31-2003 21:19:

well.. i can see the concept. the same reason the police are allowed to have guns in the UK but nobody else is.

Apparently, someone has to have WMD, to make sure that no rogue country uses them for it's own personal gain. Unfortunately, the country that is supposed to be helping maintain peace has succumbed to corruption, and is now the rogue state that needs to be stopped from it's imperialism.

Posted by JudgeJulez on Mar-31-2003 21:26:

quote:
Originally posted by JohnSmith
well.. i can see the concept. the same reason the police are allowed to have guns in the UK but nobody else is.

Apparently, someone has to have WMD, to make sure that no rogue country uses them for it's own personal gain. Unfortunately, the country that is supposed to be helping maintain peace has succumbed to corruption, and is now the rogue state that needs to be stopped from it's imperialism.

hehehe....kind of like the old axiom "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Posted by JM on Mar-31-2003 22:29:

quote:
Originally posted by JohnSmith
well.. i can see the concept. the same reason the police are allowed to have guns in the UK but nobody else is.

Apparently, someone has to have WMD, to make sure that no rogue country uses them for it's own personal gain. Unfortunately, the country that is supposed to be helping maintain peace has succumbed to corruption, and is now the rogue state that needs to be stopped from it's imperialism.

what imperialism? u dont see the US soldiers dropping atomic bombs over baghdad do you? or using chemicals in its bombs.

you all must think saddam is an ethical and just man

>JM<

Posted by kal007 on Mar-31-2003 23:40:

All countries are corrupt.

Posted by occrider on Apr-01-2003 00:54:

Well if Iraq wasn't prohibited from having WOMDs then they would be allowed to have them. The UN doesn't prohibit nations from possessing chemical weapons. However, as a condition of truce Iraq signed an agreement saying they would not have any.

And the reason why countries will always have chemical weapons ... is because the other guy has them.

Posted by LiquidX on Apr-01-2003 04:37:

Posted by occrider on Apr-01-2003 04:47:

quote:
Originally posted by LiquidX
You forgot about that newly made bomb that the US is planning on dropping on Iraq??!

One that's worthless in its military application. Haha the only bombs the US are even going THINK about bombing baghdad with are bombs that are smarter than einstein.

Posted by JohnSmith on Apr-01-2003 08:45:

quote:
Originally posted by JM
what imperialism? u dont see the US soldiers dropping atomic bombs over baghdad do you? or using chemicals in its bombs.

you all must think saddam is an ethical and just man

>JM<

hmm.. Actually the US is using depleted uranium weapons, which are MUCH more deadly and heinous than anything saddamn has. and as for atomic weapons the us "Hasn't ruled out their use" according to Donald Rumsefled.

saddamn, ethical and just? far from it.

but the US being imperialistic? this is all too true.

Posted by malek on Apr-01-2003 10:15:

BTW did you know that uranium depleted (UD) ammos are considered as WMD by the UN? hehehehe that's funny

Posted by occrider on Apr-01-2003 17:20:

quote:
Originally posted by ahlamalek
BTW did you know that uranium depleted (UD) ammos are considered as WMD by the UN? hehehehe that's funny

Really? Where did you see this? Kind of surprising if you read the WHO examination into DU that I posted.

Posted by Izzy on Apr-01-2003 17:25:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Really? Where did you see this? Kind of surprising if you read the WHO examination into DU that I posted.

ya from what i read there in your post, seems like the UN never even objected to its use during the wars in the balkans, even citing that there is no proof that they are nuclearly harmful

Posted by occrider on Apr-01-2003 17:28:

quote:
Originally posted by Izzy
nuclearly

Been spending a lot of time in that texas sun?

Posted by occrider on Apr-01-2003 19:26:

Excerpt from the world health organization's fact article that was just updated in January 2003:

quote:

For the general population, neither civilian nor military use of DU is likely to produce exposures to DU significantly above normal background levels of uranium. Therefore, individual exposure assessments for DU will normally not be required. Exposure assessments based on environmental measurements may, however, be needed for public information and reassurance.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/