rickjump1 0 #1 October 16, 2006 I don't always agree with Andy, but tonight, I think he had it together...........[url](CBS) The following is a weekly 60 Minutes commentary by CBS News correspondent Andy Rooney. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I served in the United States Army for four years during World War II, so I never feel I have to worry about sounding unpatriotic when I’m critical of something my country does. Right now, I don't understand why we think it is OK for us to have nuclear weapons but it isn't all right for some other countries to have any. I don't think any country should have a nuclear weapon. And that includes ours. Seven countries admit having them. They are The United States, Great Britain, Russia, France, China, India and Pakistan. Israel may have them, but hasn't said so. North Korea has recently set off a nuclear bomb of some kind, and the leaders of the countries with the bomb - that includes us -are in a tizzy about that. We're a little late getting exercised about this. North Korea has always been more of a threat to world peace than Iraq ever was and if we were going to attack someone three years ago to make the world safer, we should have attacked North Korea, not Iraq. We're not so much afraid that North Korea will use the bomb against us as we are that they'll sell their nuclear technology to some little country or group of individuals who will use it on us. It could happen. It's not hard to understand why North Korea wants the bomb. If we Americans lived in North Korea instead of here, do you think we'd be in favor of our little country having it? You’re darn right we would. President Bush did the right thing when he presented the United Nations with our complaint against North Korea instead of declaring war on them. I'm not a big fan of the U.N. It's been an ineffectual organization but we've got to give it more power and the way to give it more power is to give it more responsibility. The U.N. should take the bomb away from North Korea; we should not. I've said it, and I'm glad. By Andy Rooney © MMV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #2 October 16, 2006 He contradicts himself. It should be taken away, but taking it away is unjustified. He does a lousy job at mixing comedy and commentary. Anyone that lets their eyebrows grow to such uncontrolled lengths is not to be trusted. People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #3 October 16, 2006 I think he is a little more serious this time.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #4 October 16, 2006 > He contradicts himself. It should be taken away, but taking it away is unjustified. ??? If someone speeds on a street you live on, it is perfectly reasonable to think that cops should give the guy a ticket, but still be against your neighbor shooting at cars who speed. That's not a contradiction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #5 October 16, 2006 That is a really lousy analogy. People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #6 October 16, 2006 I saw it, and an interesting thought came to me... He said, "Right now, I don't understand why we think it is OK for us to have nuclear weapons but it isn't all right for some other countries to have any." Then he moved to, "I'm not a big fan of the U.N. It's been an ineffectual organization but we've got to give it more power and the way to give it more power is to give it more responsibility. The U.N. should take the bomb away from North Korea; we should not." Then I thought back a couple of years ago to another truism Dave Chapelle parodied as a black President Bush. And then I thought,. "What if it were Kim Jong Il, and it would have sounded like: "To the U.N., I say, if you got a problem with me, you should sanction me. You should take your UN Army and attack North Korea. Oh, but you don't HAVE an Army, which means, you betta just shut the fuck up! Take it! That's right! We'll take YOU out, Khofi, and you'll be using those 16 languages on the streets of Pyongyang sellin' bare essentials!" Then I asked myself, "Self, Chapelle was right. Rooney is right. The UN has no real power, because they have no military force. How do we cure this?" And than, AHA! It occurred to me, "Let each of the nuclear powers donate a couple of nukes to the UN, making a UN arsenal of at least 16 boomers. Let the Security Council agree on who to let it loose upon and there we go. So, imagine the UN saying, "That flash of light you saw coming off of Ch'o do island? Yeah, that was one of the UN nukes. If you like it we've got more for you. Next to go is the Kangwon province. Then we'll hit North Hwanghae, then South. Next up is Pyongyang, which we'll do next "Fry Day." The UN would have power. They couldn't blame the US. Oh. Shit. Can't blame the US. Fuhgettaboutit... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #7 October 16, 2006 QuoteI don't think any country should have a nuclear weapon. And that includes ours. Why not completely dismantle ALL nuclear weapons and impose a total ban on them? Give complete control to the IAEA on all matters concerning atomic energy and nuclear weapons. Any country that wishes to defy the ban could then be turned over to the U.N.. If that does not curb a country's intent to build such a weapon then the international community would be justified in invading and putting a stop to any attempt of a nuclear build up."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skysurfer_Rob 0 #8 October 16, 2006 The problem isn't dismantling all the nukes...it's the power shift. No one is willing to give up their power first, which has to happen. Look at how slowly the US and Russia are dismantling their nukes. Every year, we send someone to Russia to make sure they are dismantling how ever many they said they would (I think the Stark treaty specifies), and they send someone to the states to do the same, and to make sure we aren't building our arsenal somewhere else. The bad part about North Korea is if they feel they are backed into a corner, they will use their bombs. The US, Russia, and anyone else that have nukes (besides Israel) are not going to use them. We have come to realize just how quickly the world would end once the first nuke is shot off from a superpower. North Korea does not, and will not follow this same idealism. The nuke is not a last resort for them, and thats what scares the hell out of me (although I'm thinking of volunteering for South Korea for a year, hehe)."Though I Fly Through the Valley of Death, I Shall Fear No Evil...For I am at 80,000 Feet and Climbing." SR-71 hangar entrance sign at Kadena AFB, Japan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
orange 0 #9 October 16, 2006 Multilateral disarmament has long been a global ideal by pacifists, the praciticalites of such an undertaking are immense. A global governing body controlling the staged decommisioning of a global nuclear Arsenal,spread across the continents and goverments. Ensuring that parity is being achieved along with responsible disposable of the by products is beyond what we can achieve in the world right now. What we need is one brave nation to offer up the unilateral disarmament of their weapons base...any takers???!! Its not unlike being the first one to put down your weapon in a room full of proven killers,all with weapons drawn (UK / US / France all included here and all cited for war crimes at one time or another)and saying "come on guys, this is just silly!" I imagine it would seriously increase your chances of being shot! Therein lies the ongoing problem of the arms race, thats without throwing in the added problem of odd despot dictatorship that wants to run the other way up the street and get nuclear as opposed to getting rid of it!xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx You have to step out the door to find yr density....or is that destiny? maybe both Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #10 October 16, 2006 QuoteThe bad part about North Korea is if they feel they are backed into a corner, they will use their bombs. N. Korea already feels as if they are in the corner, even though they are not. It is Kim Jong Il's Neopolian complex that is the main problem and the main problem of any country that insist that they need the bomb. Nobody wants to be the small guy on the block. Back in the sixties, I recall all of the atomic attack drills that we had in school. We would get under our desk to "protect" ourselves. I didn't actually realize exactly how idiotic doing such was as I has unaware of the tremendous power of such weapons. When I was in NBC warfare school (1980) only then did I realize how idiotic it was for any country to have such a weapon. It was stressed that any such conflict involving nukes would be a lose-lose situation for all involved. There is no winner. Everyone who has such weapons (and those who don't) knows this. Everyones says that they would never use theirs first. Everyone stresses that they only need them as an deterrent and that they are needed to maintian peace (peace through superior fire power). That is idiotic. Much like a Mexican standoff, as long as I'm pointing my gun at you there is little chance that you will pull your trigger. Kim Jong knows this and believes that he too needs that gun as he thinks (in his muddied mind) that the U.S. could possibly pull its trigger (or any other nuclear country). India and Pakistan are in such a standoff and have came dangerously close to pulling. Israel could possibly pull theirs (everyone knows they're armed) if Iran were to realize their ambition. If N. Korea continues on the path they are on, more countries are sure to follow. We (the U.S. and Russia) had a golden oppertunity to set the path to total disarment and failed to do such. Russia's weapons are still armed and are but a few degrees off target. The same with the weapons in the U.S.. It is the Cold War all over again (it never actually ended). How soon untill the "get under the desk drills" again? How idiotic."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #11 October 16, 2006 QuoteThat is a really lousy analogy. No, it's a great analogy.... 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
billvon 3,118 #12 October 16, 2006 > That is a really lousy analogy. OK, then I won't use an analogy. He feels that North Korea should be disarmed, and it should be done by the right group (the UN.) The USA is not the right group. That seems like an entirely reasonable opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #13 October 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteThat is a really lousy analogy. No, it's a great analogy. Especially since the UN has such a sterling history of actually making a difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #14 October 16, 2006 The USA should be the only country to have Nukes. That way we can rule the WORLD! Right Pinky? Are you thinking what I am thinking?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #15 October 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThat is a really lousy analogy. No, it's a great analogy. Especially since the UN has such a sterling history of actually making a difference.This would be like homecoming since the UN has been on the Korean Peninsula once before.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #16 October 16, 2006 Quote> That is a really lousy analogy. OK, then I won't use an analogy. He feels that North Korea should be disarmed, and it should be done by the right group (the UN.) The USA is not the right group. That seems like an entirely reasonable opinion. He also said: QuoteRight now, I don't understand why we think it is OK for us to have nuclear weapons but it isn't all right for some other countries to have any. He also says that no country should have them, but the statement above says that every country is justified to have them if we do. So, when he says that their weapons should be taken away, it should also mean that it is only reasonable if everyone else has theirs taken away too. I probably could have worded that to be more simple. Team America, fuck yeah, coming again to save the mother f***ing day yeah!People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #17 October 16, 2006 QuoteThe USA should be the only country to have Nukes. That way we can rule the WORLD! Right Pinky? Are you thinking what I am thinking?! We should have gotten the patent at least. People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #18 October 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe USA should be the only country to have Nukes. That way we can rule the WORLD! Right Pinky? Are you thinking what I am thinking?! We should have gotten the patent at least. Why? Nukes weren't invented in the USA. Szilard patented it in 1934 and assigned the patent to the (UK) Royal Navy in 1936. The first detailed designs for a gun type U235 bomb were made (in England) by Frisch and Peierls, the possibility of using element 94 (later called plutonium) came from England, and the gaseous diffusion enrichment process also came from England.... 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
beowulf 1 #19 October 16, 2006 details! Why let details get in the way of world domination? Just rewrite all the history books and no one will know the difference. Why just think Pinky we could rule world by rewriting all the history books!! Are you thinking what I'm thinking? I love that cartoon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #20 October 16, 2006 QuoteNukes weren't invented in the USA. Szilard patented it in 1934 and assigned the patent to the (UK) Royal Navy in 1936. Yep. He patented the idea of chain reaction and gave it to the Brits. But, if I recall, it didn't work back then. So he moved to the US and a couple of years later, he and Fermu figured out that uranium was the way to go. The Germans had figured out how to control the reaction. Having become Americanized, Szilard stole the idea of graphite rods and used them to help Fermi control the reactor he made under the bleachers at the Sussex football pitch in 1942. It was the first reactor ever invented (not visualized - actually demonstrating the technology.) edited to add: my bad, it wasn't in England. It was under the bleachers at the U of Chicago, which is in the US. It looks like Szilard moved to the US in 1938 where he talked Einstein into sending the letter to FDR and actually worked on the Manhattan Project. So I guess that the Bomb WAS invented in the US. As an aside, Szilard and Fermi patented the neutronic reactor in 1955 in the US. People in other places thought of nukes. The US paid for the invention of the Bomb. That's all. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #21 October 16, 2006 Actually - JAPAN paid for the invention of the Bomb. !!!! (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #22 October 16, 2006 QuoteActually - JAPAN paid for the invention of the Bomb. !!!! They got double charged. Me thinks they got ripped off."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #23 October 16, 2006 QuoteActually - JAPAN paid for the invention of the Bomb. !!!! They started it. Then again, it was a "preemptive strike." We finished it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #24 October 16, 2006 He did say, "I don't think any country should have a nuclear weapon. And that includes ours." You're right. Turn em in to the UN. Of course they won't stop hating us when Chavez gets a seat on the security council.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #25 October 16, 2006 Deja vu... we've been here before (a few times)... I was just trying to be a smart arse - sorry. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
