US refusal to sign document on bilogical weapons

[Beefcake]

Hey SWulfuie, you don't think the US has a nutball(s) in command now do ya?  

[batdog]

Hey Beefcake..you from Viginiey?  

[AKSWulfe]

Originally posted by Beefcake:
Hey SWulfuie, you don't think the US has a nutball(s) in command now do ya?    

I'm not enough of a nutball to think that a single nutball has any power in the U.S. to start a war.
-SW

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

[AcId]

I usually don't jump in on stuff like this (probably for good reason) but, SWulfe, I don't consider those in power here in the US a single individual by far. The Prez doesn't control his particular party, rather I believe it's the other way around. So, if a semi-large group of nutballs wants to go hog wild and take over the world all they need is a good reason to sell it to the population.

Crap now I'm a conspiracy theorist. Please don't take me too seriously, it's just a jaded view of our govt. that I have    

Edit: The above is the reason I don't post this stuff, that and because I mis-read some earlier posts.  

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

[AKSWulfe]

That's why I said no single person. Beefcake said "you don't think the US has a nutball in command", I responded to the singular reference. I agree, if enough nutballs get together in the U.S. then they can get a war going (atleast for 30 days)... BUT if we get enough nutballs in power, I think we got more to worry about than a war.
-SW

[Vulcan]

This is exactly why the won't and shouldn't sign. The Iraqi's won't let UN Inspection teams go where they want to check weapons manufacture. A while back one of the teams was headed by a NZer, IMHO NZers are about as good a choice as you can get for neutrality (except for Rugby of course). Yet the Iraqi's wouldn't let this guy around and booted him out in the end.

Why sign up to restrictions when its blatantly clear nations like Iraq have this weaponry, are not scared of using, and have even used it on their own people.

I'd much rather Uncle Sam keep his big stick, certainly makes me feel safer knowing people like Saddam have a pistol pointed at their head to keep them 'relatively in line'.


 

Originally posted by StSanta:
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.

[Professor Fate]

Bush's administration once again breaks with world opinion.  

Glad to see someone still able to think for themselves instead of jumping on the we are the world bandwagon.  I like my country I like it's independence, it's strength and freedom.  Heck I know it's not perfect but I got faith it will work for the better.

--------------

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:1

[Hangtime]

Every American supports elimination of these weapons.. but we'll not sign a worthless document that provides neither inspection or enforcement.

Get used to it World.. we're gonna keep what we got, and we ain't givin it up unless you can prove yours is gone too. We may have a dipshit for president; a pack of idiots in the house and senate, but our Sec Of State is another matter. Don't diddly w/him.. I'm tellin yah.  

[mietla]

Originally posted by StSanta:
Bush's administration once again breaks with world opinion.

who gives a flying donut about "world's opinion". US government's jobs is to serve the people of the USA, not kissing someone's bellybutton and beg them to like us.

Besides, what the hell is the "world's opinion"? Is it Blair, Putin, Saddam, or Castro?

Who give a hoot what French, British or Cubans etc think. If they want to keep their murderers alive and feed them for life, that's their prerogative, but don't tell us what to do.

When we extradite a criminal to France, we don't do it on a condition that they have to execute him, but when Frech extradite a creep, they always demand a promise that he'll not be executed.

They'd rather give haven to the criminal on the run than let him be judged according to the US law.

[Jigster]

Originally posted by Hangtime:
...but our Sec Of State is another matter. Don't diddly w/him.. I'm tellin yah.  

ROFLMAO...I bet someone watchs Dennis Miller  

[Eagler]

"We may have a dipshit for president; .."

Me don't think so nor do I think the leaders of the world do after they have met him. They are probably relieved he says what he means and does what he says, not like our last pres who checked the polls before he took a dump. It's good when ppl don't except much, usually shows their short sightedness. The gift of gab does not make one intelligent. His cabinet is stellar, time will spell this out.

I agree with you about the house and the senate  

[Wotan]

plain and simple

we need to research and develope these weapons in order to understand how they will work , be deployed etc.........

If sometime in the future a biological agent is released and we have no understanding of how it was developed or how it works or how it was delivered there would be no way to to contain it.

As for the US maintaining "huge stockpile of offensive biological weapons"

BS


Of course what biological agents we do maintain can also be considered a deterent to those who would use them. However the likelyhood of a "rogue nation" deploying these weapons is small.

The greater threat would be from groups terrorists etc.. Under this situation we would be limited in our ability too track dwn those responsible.

Sarin / tabun (C5H11N2O2P ) can be made at home. these are chemical weaopons.

small pox and other biological weapons why not hard to develope but from a deployment standpoint are much harder to deliver effectively.

[StSanta]

Who do you want with bio-weapons Santa? Someone will have them despite any treaties being signed.

Well, the first country to develop the nuke, the county with the largest amount of nukes is also the only country to ever have used the nuke.

That very same country is arguing that other nations should not be allowed to have biological weapons, whereas it itself should.

Don't give a damn about world opinion? *Fine*, it's quite the isolationist approach well known from the pre-war years.

Bush is building more and more suspcicion and is a great scare monger, but when it comes to hypocricy, he's even worse.

At least be consistent and non hypocritic; I initially respect Bush for being plain and simple about his plans and ideals, but this double-tongue'ness is annoying.

[Dowding]

These isolationist leanings seemed to be looked on as a good thing over the pond.

But people who advocate isolationism fail to understand diplomacy at its most fundamental level. It's a dirty, but necessary, game you play to ensure you have at least some influence over events outside your immediate borders.

This seemingly simple-minded 'I'm alright, Jack' attitude might seem like a breath of fresh air.

To me, it's a metaphorical 'shrug of the shoulders' - an admission of the lack of any new ideas to solve/aleviate world problems.

Where is the US alternative to the Bioweapons treaty?

[funkedup]

Read my post Dowding.