Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StSanta on July 26, 2001, 07:51:00 AM
-
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?
-
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 ]
-
<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
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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 ]
-
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
-
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 ]
-
BBS philosofers :rolleyes:
-
Eagler, you just took the words out of Saddam’s mouth. ;)
-
Santa, you ever heard of negotiation? Maybe that's why Americans are the best salesmen in history? :)
-
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. :rolleyes:
[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Fatty ]
-
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 ]
-
Hey SWulfuie, you don't think the US has a nutball(s) in command now do ya? :D
-
Hey Beefcake..you from Viginiey? :)
-
Originally posted by Beefcake:
Hey SWulfuie, you don't think the US has a nutball(s) in command now do ya? :D
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 ]
-
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. :D
[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: AcId ]
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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 :p
-
"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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Read my post Dowding.
-
Dowding, what do you think Bush and Powell are doing? Just going on vacation when they visit other countries? He and the US are isolationist because they don't sign treaties we think aren't good (the implementation, not the concept mind you)? Bush doesn't represent you, or any other non-American. He represents the USA. He is putting his country's interests first. If that means pissing you and the world off by not signing a half-assed or harmful to the economy of HIS country treaty, then so be it.
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
To me, it's a metaphorical 'shrug of the shoulders' - an admission of the lack of any new ideas to solve/aleviate world problems.
Or maybe it's simply acknowledging that you are "d*mned if you do, d*mned if you don't."
Nothing the US does is going to please the entire world or even a part of it.
We're castigated for what we gave in blood and treasure during WW2. We didn't do enough, we didn't do it early enough, we didn't do it fast enough, we didn't do as much as we think we did.
Post-war, the Marshall plan was simply a sinister gimmick to expand American business at the expense of the Euros who were doing so well without it.
We caused the Cold War. We caused the Soviet Union to arm themselves to the teeth. We caused the Soviet Union to fail economically.
Now we're not doing enough to help the Soviet Union. We're not polite enough to China. We're not doing enough in the Balkans. We're not doing enough in Africa.
Wait... we're doing too much to help the Soviet Union; it's preventing them from progressing by themselves. We're too polite to China but we don't give them enough trade. We're doing bad things in the Balkans.
:rolleyes:
Maybe we've just had enough of the bellyaching. If it looks so d*mn easy, why not let the rest of the world give it a go for a while? After all, things were perfect prior to the US becoming a strong leader on the world stage.
Ahhhhhhhhhh! The GOOD old days... from say.... 1914-1945!
Yeah, you guys take the reins. We're going underground for this next one. ;)
I promise you this... hell will freeze before any of the sons in my family line leave the US to fight in a foreign land.
-
My fear is definitely not that the US is abandoning treaties because they are useless, but it is abandoning them for internal political expediency. The issues are irrelevant provided the previous administration is proved to have been in error.
Let me make it crystal clear that I don't think the US administration is set-up for anything else other than to serve the American people. I've never claimed that. But the US has a responsibility to the rest of the world in how it deals with it's bio-, chemical and nuclear arsenal. It's the same responsibility carried by the UK, France etc as bastions of democratic freedom. We have to show that we are 'better' than the dictators out there.
I believe the issues being discussed are Kyoto and the Bio-weapons treaty. Those are areas that are not political in origin (unlike China, Russia, Africa or the Balkans), but have been turned into political pawns over recent years.
Now, important issues as pawns is all well and good with me; but provided some positive actions come from it.
Why shouldn't the largest stockpiler of bioweapons team up with the Russians and draw up a new treaty?
Toad, I'm 22 y/o - I've never been in charge of the world, 1914-1945 or any other period. Surprisingly, I can't quite remember that far back - but I'm sure I didn't vote for any of the parties concerned. :p
I think you've taken every anti-US argument you've ever heard made, from whatever quarter (some that were often peddled the USSR, Iraq and China), bundled them all together and come with a viewpoint reeking with self-pity. :) Concise, well-written and about as far off the mark (IMO) as you could want to be.
-
As usual Dowding, we disagree in a few areas.
1. I, personally, have HAD it with the world griping over US leadership. We're not perfect but we're a d*mn sight better than we get credit for. The constant carping from the cheap seats, from countries that A) Either totally porked their period of "world leadership" or B) couldn't lead a thirsty horse to water deserves to be answered.
Come on down off the bleachers and get in the game. Time for the US to tend to its own problems for a while. The untold resources we squandered trying to make the world a "better place" should have been spent HERE, given the return on the investment we've gotten. What a difference THAT amount of money could have made for OUR poor, elderly and sick! Education problems? We'd have more than enough resources to address that as well.
You get the idea. Why wear yourself thin for people that hate you no matter what you do?
I don't think I'm the only one in the US with this view, either.
2. Kyoto? Bioweapons? There's two sides to every story. Kyoto DOES place a larger burden on the US and gives some really major polluters a free ride. Surely we can do better? Isn't that a leadership function?
Bioweapons? Yes, we have them. We've got a huge stockpile of nukes, too. Haven't had to use either one of those since 1945.
What are you worried about? No wars, no problems. Don't start nothing, won't be nothing.
We're not the ones that go around invading the next door neighbors and slaughtering ethnic or religious minorities, in case it escaped your notice.
You want a treaty to make you "feel" safer? I feel pretty safe already... real safe in fact. Security doesn't stem from pieces of paper; history is littered with treaties broken by gunfire.
Summing up once again, the US has had a role of world leadership for the last 60-odd years. We really didn't want it but there wasn't anyone capable of doing it after WW2. Now we deserve a break. Things have turned out well enough that now there are dozens of nations that think they can handle things much more proficiently.
Good on 'em, I say. We've got problems we've let slide here for the last 60 years that need immediate attention and need ALL our resources.
So, we'll go tend our own knitting for a while and you folks mind the store.
Good luck!
-
"I don't think I'm the only one in the US with this view, either."
Nope, you are not.
-
So much for becoming part of the EU.
Ya see, this goes alot deeper than alot of people realize.
One of the pre-conditions for joining the European Union (EU) is you're country cannot utilize capital punishment. What does this do to the USA?? Well believe it or not, the EU and the Euro are becomming quite powerful and it will continue to get stronger.
If the US does not start playing the international "game" with thing like capital punishment, bio weapons, sulfur emmisions, and global warming we could find our selves out in left field. All countries have to trade and socalize internationally or they will find themselve in dire straits.
If the EU does become a powerful trading unit, and for the most part tends to look elsewhere for trading commodities the ole US of A could find them taking a back seat to many other things.
I am not pro-EU or pro-European, it is just that sometimes the USA needs to get off their high horse and look at problems from a world perspective vice just looking out of their window into our back yard!
This is just my opinion and not necessarily the opinion of my family.
Swager out!
PS Toad I agree with you 100% :)
[ 07-28-2001: Message edited by: Swager ]
-
Toad, I've stated my opinion and you've stated yours. We disagree.
It seems to me neither is likely to budge. I think your view of the world is screwed; you probably think mine is fubar'd. ;)
<edit added smiley - seemed unduly harsh without it.>
[ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
[/QUOI'm not enough of a nutball to think that a single nutball has any power in the U.S. to start a war. TE]
Lyndon B. Johnson ring a bell?
-
We're not the ones that go around invading the next door neighbors and slaughtering ethnic or religious minorities, in case it escaped your notice.
I bet the CIA has played a role in South American and other places :).
Also, what nation is the only one to have used a nuke offensively? :D.
-
Great post Toad. There's no way for us to win on the world stage because some country will always cry like a stuck pig regardless of our policy choice. Better to take care of our own.
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Also, what nation is the only one to have used a nuke offensively? :D.
Santa, you are playing a 56 year old card...
It was much, MUCH different circumstances.
Would the war have ended? At the expense of how many American lives? British lives? Russian lives? Chinese lives? Japanese lives? etc..
-SW
-
Swager, how do explain all the world trade that goes on with the REALLY "bad" nations then? They haven't been ostracized or "left out".
Trade will continue; always does if there's a market. Failure to sign a bio weapons treaty? Hey, the world still trades with nations far worse than that.
Dowding, your view seems to be that the US should do most of the heavy lifting yet have no more say than a nation (or nations) that barely contributes at all. Want a larger voice? Take on a larger role. Simple. In fact, please have the UK take over leadership, particularly in the areas of supplying the forces and money to police the world.
Santa, please compare and contrast the CIA's role in any South American nation you wish to choose with that of the present Serb/Muslim situation (slaughter) in the Balkans.
Then, please discourse on the state of the German atomic weapons program and the Japanese atomic weapons program at the end of hostilities. Comment on whether or not THEY would have used the weapon if they had it. Lastly, you can comment on whether or not the two weapons used were justified given the casualty projections... on BOTH sides... had the US invaded the Japanes home islands.
Nice troll, but really old bait.