Your talk has no head, hence I prefer to not to discuss any further

the question about who first used nuclear weapons is moot, the US isn't pointing nukes at anybody or using them as bargaining chips, or calling for the annihilation of any other nation

they are using it as bargaining chips. telling countries like North Korea to cease development or else,
US being the only country that has used WMD before, will surely use it again if they think they need to (why else will they still have WMDs to defend themselves ,  thats what every body seems to be doing these days   )

nilla:

they are using it as bargaining chips. telling countries like North Korea to cease development or else,
US being the only country that has used WMD before, will surely use it again if they think they need to (why else will they still have WMDs to defend themselves , thats what every body seems to be doing these days )

I thought I was the only one seeing a bunch of people holding placards saying "NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, THE REST OF THE WORLD ARE WRONG AND ISRAEL AND THEIR PAPA AMERICA IS RIGHT"

lol

medube lets debate and let your superior arguments win, you're giving up too easily for me. rwhy are u resorting to insults?

my talk has no head, i am answering nonsense - discuss the issues and prove me wrong, defend your assertions.

I have never and will never defend america, unless i feel what they are doing is right. read my posts properly

pray tell how is the US using their nukes as a chip against NK? all they said is - we wont give u the oil you need, nor the technology or food aid they want if they continue weapons development, which they will sell to anybody regardless of intentions.

Britain, France, Russia, India, Pakistan, China, and the US all have WMDs continue to blame the US for everything, they need to keep their weaepons for

strategic deterrence, read up about the cold war.

pray tell how is the US using their nukes as a chip against NK? all they said is - we wont give u the oil you need, nor the technology or food aid they want of they continue weapons development, which they will sell to anybody regardless of intentions

Doesn't that look like a bargaining chip to you (in bold prints)

Selling to anybody regardless of intention. Since when has that being a problem. Sellers don't really care about their customers (e.g cigarette makers, even though it causes cancer).

pray tell how is the US using their nukes as a chip against NK? all they said is - we wont give u the oil you need, nor the technology or food aid they want if they continue weapons development, which they will sell to anybody regardless of intentions.

CMON dude, its implied, noone would take US assertions seriously if it wasnt for their military might, they would just go doing what their doing. The US is a superpower because they have the most devastating weapon known to man. When the US asserts they do not have to say we will use nukes on you if you do not listen, everyone knows the possibility is always there, and noone has forgotten about Nagasaki. And the same goes for Israel. Hezbollah use their pussy tactics because they know if they fought a conventional war they would be annihilated, and no Arab nation would dare invade Israel in this day and age because they would probably get nuked.

that means france, india, pakistan, china and co are also superpowers right?

the reason US is a superpower today stems largely from their ecomomic strength. Russia has just as bad if not more nasty weapons than the US

when egypt and co invaded israel they didnt get nuked, israel beat them hands down in a conventional war, thats why they wont attack, israel will defeat them and they know it.

The US has not and CANNOT threaten to use nukes on NK if they don't listen, u know why? cuzz russia and china wd never ever stand for that.

@ nilla what is being used as a bargaining chip is economic weapons - food fuel, resources, thats why they are under sanctions

@ debosky, sorry i didn't answer your question well.
but i think shango did.

anyways Hezbollah is not pointing nukes at Israel. Why does the US have military in most countries, thats not right (those countries can say they are pointing their weapons right on them)

The US has not and CANNOT threaten to use nukes on NK if they don't listen, u know why? cuzz russia and china wd never ever stand for that.

but they can use it if they want to.

I don't think the U.S would nuke NK, and North Korea knows that, thats why it kicked out weapons inspectors and continued nuclear production. They have an army of 1.2 million and they have nukes. This is no Iran or Afghanistan. George Bush can start the war but he would never raise another army as great as this one. And America would go bankrupt fighting the war. So how do you win, by using aid, and food which North Korea desperately needs.

nilla what do you mean you should sell to anyone without intentions what kind of devils advocate are you playing dont you know what hezbollah hamas or the taliban would do if they got their hands on a nuke?

nilla what do you mean you should sell to anyone without intentions what kind of devils advocate are you playing don't you know what hezbollah hamas or the taliban would do if they got their hands on a nuke?

I am not playing devils advocate. But the reason given here on why NK should not have nukes is so they dont sell to terrorists abi?

I dont like terrorists, but i believe every country has a right to own WMDS.

Other countries sell weapons, so NK has a right to sell weapons too.

do you know how many submarines russia has underwater all over the world?

the US is protecting its interests in those countries, it doesn't want the mistakes of the past (Germany almost taking over the whole of europe, saddam invading a peaceful country) to repeat themselves

nukes have little if anything to do with the current situations, but let me warn u. hizbollah has absolutely no scruples, if iran gave them a nuke, they would use it against israel, they are firing hundreds of rockets a day, they want to destroy israel don't forget that.


@ zeb i was saying NK wd sell to anyone who could afford it regardless of the user's intentions, they sold missile and other technology to iran, part of what hisbollah is using against israel today

the US is protecting its interests in those countries, it doesn't want the mistakes of the past (Germany almost taking over the whole of europr, saddam invading a peaceful country) to repeat themselves

Mistakes of the past. can Iraq have millitary stationed in the US?

Na real wa for Medube.

So Hizbollah, US, Isreal, France are all on the same plane? Is Hizbollah a country? Is it the Lebanese army? Why should there be two militant forces in one country and why should a millitant group possess weapons and missiles that some countries cannot boast of? So according to your warped judgement, it is alright for OPC, MEND, to possess weapons and nukes because Nigeria, Cameroun, Ghana and USA possesses them?

And you accuse debosky of talking nonsense?

nilla:

I am not playing devils advocate. But the reason given here on why NK should not have nukes is so they don't sell to terrorists abi?

I don't like terrorists, but i believe every country has a right to own WMDS.

Other countries sell weapons, so NK has a right to sell weapons too.

You don't like terrorists, but you believe every country has a right to own WMD's eg Nuke's. You are driving me to drink with your logic. So terrorist supporting and financing states like Syria and Iran should own nukes right? why stop there everybody has the right to smoke cocaine, rape, and steal and so on and so forth

Debosky i get your point

nilla:

Mistakes of the past. can Iraq have millitary stationed in the US?

i repeat the US has no right to be in iraq right now, i was talking of the 1991 gulf war over the invasion of kuwait, which led to US troops being in Kuwait. All the countries the US have bases agreed to have them there,

Iraq is an abberation i do not support. if by some arrangement the US and iraq agree to have bases in each others countries, so be it

nilla:

Mistakes of the past. can Iraq have millitary stationed in the US?

I wonder why people just feel they have to say something when they dont know what they are talking about. Why does the US have its army stationed all over the world?

1. During the cold war, it was imperative for both super powers (US and USSR) to not only protect their interests and allies but to also be militarily prepared for the possible. Why do you think Russia attempted to place missile launching pads in Cuba and the US had to mount an air and sea blockade on Cuba to prevent that?  All these was to prevent the USSR from expanding its communist territory and prevent a repeat of Hitlers attempt to conquer its neighbors.

2. Why is the US in the middle east? Why did we have the first gulf war in 1991? Was it not because of Saddam's attempt to annex kuwait?

zebudaya:

You don't like terrorists, but you believe every country has a right to own WMD's eg Nuke's. You are driving me to drink with your logic. So terrorist supporting and financing states like Syria and Iran should own nukes right? why stop there everybody has the right to smoke cocaine, rape, and steal and so on and so forth

Debosky i get your point

If you read my earlier posts, you would notice when i said. Personally i dont want any country to have WMD. But if some have, then everybody else has a right to (for the love of me i would never understand why humans love to create things that destroy their fellow humans.  i hear you all, defense)
Syria and Iran can have WMDs if other countries have (nobody should say some people are more responsible, b/c its not the country that determines how responsible people are)
Everybody has the right to smoke.
Nobody has the right to rape or steal (cos it has negative impact on others)

nilla there is a world system in place that regulates how we deal with each other as nations/states

there is the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty - countries have FREELY signed on NOT to have nuclear weapons, NK signed it freely.

Iran also did, so why are they reneging on what they committed to?

it is not a case of being more responsible, it is a case of honoring your word

nilla:


If you read my earlier posts, you would notice when i said. Personally i don't want any country to have WMD. But if some have, then everybody else has a right to (for the love of me i would never understand why humans love to create things that destroy their fellow humans. i hear you all, defense)
Syria and Iran can have WMDs if other countries have (nobody should say some people are more responsible, b/c its not the country that determines how responsible people are)
Everybody has the right to smoke.
Nobody has the right to rape or steal (because it has negative impact on others)

Iran and Syria having nukes doesnt have negative impact on others right? Why should i read your previous quotes when the one you are posting now are driving me nuts because of your are always contradicting yourself, No nation should have nukes, oh Iran and syria can have WMD's bla bla bla,

zebudaya:

Iran and Syria having nukes doesnt have negative impact on others right? Why should i read your previous quotes when the one you are posting now are driving me nuts because of your are always contradicting yourself, No nation should have nukes, oh Iran and syria can have WMD's bla bla bla,

When you find quotes of me contradicting myself let me know.
Like i said read my earlier posts, thats if your interested.

nilla:


If you read my earlier posts, you would notice when i said. Personally i don't want any country to have WMD. But if some have, then everybody else has a right to

nilla:

Syria and Iran can have WMDs if other countries have (nobody should say some people are more responsible, b/c its not the country that determines how responsible people are)

Don't drink and drive oh but if some do it you can do it too

@ zebudaya

u pick what you want. see my quote

Personally i don't want any country to have WMD. But if some have, then everybody else has a right to (for the love of me i would never understand why humans love to create things that destroy their fellow humans. i hear you all, defense)
Syria and Iran can have WMDs if other countries have (nobody should say some people are more responsible, b/c its not the country that determines how responsible people are)

@ nilla

if syria and iran had nukes perhaps you wouldnt be in the US today, for sure Osama would have gotten his hands on one and used it by now! Think!
That some have nukes does not mean EVERYONE must have and can handle having one! Since some people can take 2 beers without getting drunk and then drive, then EVERYONE is allowed to drink and drive? Still think! It is not about posting!!!!

Very "brave hizbollah freedom fighters" deliberately hide behind civilians to fire rockets at Isreal!

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FB1C6A0B8FD0DD62

[flash=530,370]http://www.youtube.com/p/FB1C6A0B8FD0DD62[/flash]

That some have nukes does not mean EVERYONE must have and can handle having one! Since some people can take 2 beers without getting drunk and then drive, then EVERYONE is allowed to drink and drive? Still think! It is not about posting!!!!

Dearie, i did not say must have, but rather have a right to.
Handling one, by that you completely have faith in the ones that have, but will not have faith in some of the ones that dont have (but are thinking of having)

nilla:



Dearie, i did not say must have, but rather have a right to.
Handling one, by that you completely have faith in the ones that have, but will not have faith in some of the ones that don't have (but are thinking of having)

What is the difference between "must have" and "have a right to have"? Basically nothing but semantics!
Having a right to have means they can have one if they so wish, to use for what? How do you trust those who have repeatedly vowed to wipe out another sovereign nation from the surface of the earth?

now your confusing me . I thought you guys said Hezbollah wanted to wipe out Israel. and the last time i checked you guys were claiming Hezbollah is not a country (and as such should not have military personnel or weapons).
I never said an organization or people have a right to WMDs but rather countries.

and also there is a difference between MUST and right to.

nilla i'm sure you know IRAN supplies Hezbollah with weapons, what makes u think they won't give Hizbollah nukes if they got it?? Iran has been using Hezbollah since its creation to fight its proxy war against israel, like i said those Hezbollah dudes have no scruples, if they got their hands on it, they will use it

I still say it you have to wipe out terrorist financers, set off car bombs in their SUV's, snipe them when they are at soccer games, sabotage their businesses by blowing them up at night to minimize casualities once they feel hunted they would stop financing the terrorists.

Syria North Korea and Iran are not responsible enough to have Nukes. I have faith that the U.S would not nuke anybody without being attacked heavily first. But hamas, iran, and hezbollah would use on themselves just so they can wipe out Israel. More virgins for everyone in Heaven.

that means france, india, pakistan, china and co are also superpowers right?

the reason US is a superpower today stems largely from their ecomomic strength. Russia has just as bad if not more nasty weapons than the US

when egypt and co invaded israel they didnt get nuked, israel beat them hands down in a conventional war, thats why they wont attack, israel will defeat them and they know it.

The US has not and CANNOT threaten to use nukes on NK if they don't listen, u know why? cuzz russia and china wd never ever stand for that.

@ nilla what is being used as a bargaining chip is economic weapons - food fuel, resources, thats why they are under sanctions

The difference is Russia has an arsenal that could wipe out the US, and the nuclear arsenal of India will never rival that of the US, and they could not take out the US like the US could take out India. Ofcourse the US will resort to lesser weapons like economic sanctions first, why use a nuke when there are other less dramatic avenues, if push comes to shove the US will use its nukes, the US knows damn well Iran isnt going to be getting nukes or weaponizing their uranium anytime soon thats why they are taking their time with economic sanctions and the likes, if they knew Iran would acquire weapons tommorrow they would nuke Iran, just look at Nagasaki. In the right circumstance the US will use its weapons. Giving it to allies doesnt mean they loose the edge, they still have the larger more sophisticate arsenal

dude do you actally know why nagasaki was nuked? to make the japanese surrender and to stop further killings. if that didn't happen the world war would have dragged on for at least a year more with many more lives lost.

I don't support nuclear weapons, and i don't support wars, i just try to be as objective as i can.

but in that regard i think the US has been very circumspect in its use of weapons.

B T W even iran cannot be nuked just like tha, since russia has strategic interests and will not allow it to happen.