kallend 2,114 #26 June 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteWe have the world's biggest arsenal and use it often. when I read the word 'arsenal' my mind suddenly inserted a picture of a nasal sprayer - certainly changed the read of the comment But on reread, I can see that since about, ohhhhh, 6 billion people have some history or relationship, or ancestry, or live in country with the same, that obviously no actions for or against or on the behalf of, any other person or goal can be justified just with the simple - "how dare you try to do anything you self righteous nuts" type of argument. Even if the goal is positive or beneficial in general. Honestly, what the hell is the peace corp doing? Unless each member spends at least a decade living in filth and starving, what RIGHT do they have trying to teach people to irrigate and farm? The nerve. My definition of help does not include dropping bombs on people, even if it relieves them from starvation. YMMV.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #27 June 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteIts all well and good to hate the US... Hey thats pop-culture right now so why not join in.. I've said this before on these forums.. We have had people on the ground training guerrilla forces for years. If there isnt a regime change in Iran Israel will continue to be targeted. Why would that change if Iran was out of the picuture? Iran has backed Hamas financially, provides them weapons, intelligence etc for a long time. The groups would be alot less effective with that sort of backing... Do you remember the 3 ships that were stopped filled with weapons bound for Hamas from Iran? Probably not... Why would you? The United States are the bad guys right???? We refuse support to Hamas because they won't renounce violence. When did we renounce violence so we can be so self-righteous? We have the world's biggest arsenal and use it often. Because we are the Worlds Policeman and we have to be ready whenever duty calls. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Schoenauer 0 #28 June 16, 2006 QuoteI'd add that we have lost at least one functioning nuclear weapon (and likely a submarine full of them as well) Not all true Bill: SSN THRESHER and SCORPION were lost in the ’63 and ’68 respectively and both were nuclear attack submarines. Those are the only nuclear powered ships the US Navy has lost. The Thresher today rest in 8,400’ water off the cost of New England and I have not read that she was equipped the Nuclear weapons. As for the Scorpion she rests at bottom in 10,000’ of water south off the Azores and was equipped with two nuclear-tipped torpedoes. The US Navy has not lost any missile boats. All surface ship losses post the dawn of the nuclear age have been salvaged or like the Thresher and Scorpion lie un-reachable in deep water. Of those ships all being conventional powered, at one time during their US service, may have carried nuclear weapons but not at the time of their loss. These ships in their last days fall into three categories, they were: 1) Transferred to foreign military; 2) Intentionally sunk, weapons testing; 3) Lost while under tow to be scraped. The Air Force on the other hand have lost a few nuclear weapons some recovered and others not at least that was the conspiracy theorist say. There are three that are suspected were recovered, by others, off the coast of Somalia with in three months after a B-52 dumped them prior to crashing from electrical problems. The three salvaged nuclear weapons were then sold by arms dealers to Iran the same year in '91 for their uranium. It is suspected that the weapons were damaged by the salt water and could not be used in the original condition so uranium has to either be used as a durty bomb or placed in a new device. If Iran develops a nuclear weapon or has already and they use it on a neighboring country they will have just signed their own death certificate. I have a hard time thinking the international community will just look the other way. Lessons learned from the Cold War, some call WWIII, is that both Russia and the US understood the term M.A.D...Memento Mori Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twibbles 0 #29 June 16, 2006 QuoteBecause we are the Worlds Policeman and we have to be ready whenever duty calls. But should "World's Policeman" selectively choose his duty based on the severity of the crime, or self interest? There are far worst situations in the world then Iraq. Why not settle North Korea first? After all, the United States, the World's Policeman, and North Korea, the Axis of Evil, are still at a state of war. How about the Rwanda genocide? Libera? Should the World's Policemam be able to defy the will of the UN? I don't think the United States deserves to be The World's Policeman. Vigilante maybe. Eugene "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #30 June 17, 2006 QuoteQuoteBecause we are the Worlds Policeman and we have to be ready whenever duty calls. But should "World's Policeman" selectively choose his duty based on the severity of the crime, or self interest? There are far worst situations in the world then Iraq. Why not settle North Korea first? After all, the United States, the World's Policeman, and North Korea, the Axis of Evil, are still at a state of war. How about the Rwanda genocide? Libera? Should the World's Policemam be able to defy the will of the UN? I don't think the United States deserves to be The World's Policeman. Vigilante maybe. Eugene Ever been fishing? You don't always catch the biggest fish, but that doesn't mean you stop going. Why is it no other country has been willing to seriously try to stop the genocide in Rwanda? Why does the world always expect us to deal with situations like No. Korea while they stand on the sidelines and jeer, but do nothing? And then criticize the US for not being the worlds policeman? I honestly hope the day comes when a President of the US responds to the UN regarding another crisis by telling them to deal with it themselves, we have too many problems of our own and we are tired of giving the world a free ride. Tell me what you would do if that happened? Better think hard because if we don't deal with countries like N.Korea, who will? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #31 June 17, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteBecause we are the Worlds Policeman and we have to be ready whenever duty calls. But should "World's Policeman" selectively choose his duty based on the severity of the crime, or self interest? There are far worst situations in the world then Iraq. Why not settle North Korea first? After all, the United States, the World's Policeman, and North Korea, the Axis of Evil, are still at a state of war. How about the Rwanda genocide? Libera? Should the World's Policemam be able to defy the will of the UN? I don't think the United States deserves to be The World's Policeman. Vigilante maybe. Eugene Ever been fishing? You don't always catch the biggest fish, but that doesn't mean you stop going. You will never catch the biggest fish if you only fish in the pond where the small fish live. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #32 June 17, 2006 QuoteQuoteProactive? How does invading Iraq become a proactive measure to protect the United States? Why don't we look at this as a giant science experiment, since the liberals so heartily embrace science. We are injecting an antibiotic of democracy into a body filled with Islamic disease, in hope of healing the region. Iraq just happened to be the most accessable point of entry. Democracy has been around for tousands of years, its not a US invention. The majority of countries in the world are democratic. The Eastern block managed to get democracy without a US invasion and puppet government. What makes you think te world needs the Neo con Pax Americana dream? The only people that need that pipe dream is the Neo cons.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #33 June 17, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteBecause we are the Worlds Policeman and we have to be ready whenever duty calls. But should "World's Policeman" selectively choose his duty based on the severity of the crime, or self interest? There are far worst situations in the world then Iraq. Why not settle North Korea first? After all, the United States, the World's Policeman, and North Korea, the Axis of Evil, are still at a state of war. How about the Rwanda genocide? Libera? Should the World's Policemam be able to defy the will of the UN? I don't think the United States deserves to be The World's Policeman. Vigilante maybe. Eugene Ever been fishing? You don't always catch the biggest fish, but that doesn't mean you stop going. Why is it no other country has been willing to seriously try to stop the genocide in Rwanda? Why does the world always expect us to deal with situations like No. Korea while they stand on the sidelines and jeer, but do nothing? And then criticize the US for not being the worlds policeman? I honestly hope the day comes when a President of the US responds to the UN regarding another crisis by telling them to deal with it themselves, we have too many problems of our own and we are tired of giving the world a free ride. Tell me what you would do if that happened? Better think hard because if we don't deal with countries like N.Korea, who will? No one expects or wants America to 'deal with' North Korea, is that what your media is telling you?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
