US refusal to sign document on bilogical weapons

[StSanta]

Citing "national security", the US has refused to sign the latest document that's been created in order to try to stop or control the production and stockpiling of biological weapons.

It's obvious that the US has huge stockpiles of these. Equally obvious is it that the US don't want the Iraqi's to have the same.

Bush's administration once again breaks with world opinion. Could someone explain to me why this is not a hypocritic decision clearly showing the two tongued nature of US policy at the moment?

[Creamo]

We are the biggest, baddest nation on the planet, and that really entitles us to NO explanation. Shut up and maybe we’ll import your beer so you can buy wooden shoes.

(Iraq will just use them on some ethnic groups there anyway.)

--

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]

[Maniac]

<We are the biggest, baddest nation on the planet, and that really entitles us to NO explanation>

Please do explain, i think that is what we want...

Regards

[AKSWulfe]

Who do you want with bio-weapons Santa? Someone will have them despite any treaties being signed. Certainly you know history better than that. One example: Versailles Treaty of 1919 had a part that stated Germany could not manufacture powered aircraft and could not have an airforce. Fast forward 20 years and what do you have?

Question is, who would you rather have the bio-weapons.. the U.S. and other allies or other countries that have nutballs leading the country or have nutballs leading the country that rotate out of power every couple weeks to be replaced by another nutball?
-SW

[Dowding]

Versailles would have been irrelevant if not for the Wall Street Crash and vice versa.

Why should any developing country pay any attention to the international community, if the richest, most powerful democracy shows a similar disregard?

[AKSWulfe]

Originally posted by Dowding:
Why should any developing country pay any attention to the international community, if the richest, most powerful democracy shows a similar disregard?

Disarming the powerful nations is a way to allow rogue nations and other smaller unstable nations to become tyrant nations and uncontrollable.

Until we can disarm countries that have crazy fools that run around controlling the nation like they are Marion Barry (Iraq for example), then we certainly can NOT disarm the larger countries.

Think about what that would do.
-SW

[blur]

Okay folks, time to clear this up.

The United States stands alone in the universe as the only beacon of Truth, Justice, Human Rights and Democracy.
That’s why it’s incumbent upon us to spend billions of dollars on weapons of mass destruction.

Is this perfectly clear?

As far as treaties go, ask any Native American how well the U.S. honors its agreements.

[Ripsnort]

Blur, there are countries that would fit your beliefs of politics alot better, I suggest you move to China or Cuba, you'd 'fit in better' there..oh, and North Korea too.

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]

[AKSWulfe]

Why do you bother responding to him Rip? You know he only does those one shot posts that are usually off the wall and/or filled with angst towards his own nation.

He is right about the Native American thing though.
-SW

[Eagler]

Originally posted by SWulfe:
He is right about the Native American thing though.
-SW

What do you mean, we gave them bingo and gambling...before that we gave them rifles and "firewater"  

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Eagler ]

[Saintaw]

BBS philosofers  

[blur]

Eagler, you just took the words out of Saddam’s mouth.  

[funkedup]

Santa, you ever heard of negotiation?  Maybe that's why Americans are the best salesmen in history?  

[Fatty]

Hrm, there's the treaty that leaves half the world out, checks in a half assed manner, doesn't do anything if violated.  As a matter of fact, pretty much everyone there admitted in so many words that it was junk.

Most of the outrage is that the United States would dare speak ill of this wonderful accord they've been working nearly 7 years on.    

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Fatty ]

[funkedup]

I think it's similar to the Kyoto thing.  

I'm sure the US will eventually agree to some emissions reductions treaty.  People here don't like smog either.  Hell, I've owned nothing but low-emission high-fuel-economy cars, and I've worked on alternative-fuel vehicle projects (natural gas, electric, methanol, etc).  Now I'm helping hospitals, universities, and other large building owners to reduce their consumption of gas and electricity.  But the Kyoto treaty was flawed (in too many ways to list here), and our new, more reasonable and realistic government will negotiate some better terms.

Same with the biological weapons.  The US wants to eliminate bio-weapons, but the BWC compliance accord is a porked document negotiated under the incompetent Clinton regime.  The Bush administration just wants to get some better terms, then I'm sure the US will support it.

I'm sorry if this makes the rest of the world annoyed and impatient, but my country is still recovering from one of the most corrupt and extremely left-wing governments in our history.  It's not going to happen overnight.

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]