weapons of mass destruction

Post Reply New Topic

I don't understand why the united states is allowed weapons of mass destruction while certain other countries aren't. Now if the united states was the boss of the world i'd understand. But i dont believe the united states is. Shouldn't what happens in other coutries be none of the united states bussiness. And doesn't this make the united states look like nothing but a big bully

It's because the USA can be trusted with nuclear weapons and very few others can. Just ask the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The biggest and the strongest. But not as strong as Rome in her prime.

For a little over 200 years, very few people f*cked with the Romans.

ruveyn

I don't care what arguments Iran and North Korea make about the unfair nature of this reality. When you deny the freedom of the majority of your population, you don't get to b***h about whats fair.

True! only the nations that keep their own people in a willingly free ignorance and deny freedom of other countries are allowed to get these weapons.

United States have repeatedly violated a full range of rights of other people, in the name of freedom, and what do we get? A shadow of what should have been a great country, ruled by lobbies and fighting the monsters it once summoned.

Your arguement hinges on the assumption that the United States and Iran/North Korea are morally equivalent. I contend that any position like this cannot be considered viable. The United States may not be your cup of tea, but they have a constitution, free elections and a mostly respect the international consensus. NK/Iran are pariah states that regularly attempt to thwart the international system. Reject any outside interference, despite the fact they have international obligations and regularly bayonet their own people. The difference is not simply one of degrees. If you consider these two subject groups to morally equal, I suspect your judgement.

Btw, I am not an American, I am an Aussie and I am for the most part quite happy with the United States

Well, you used unfairness and denying freedom of those who want have some mass destruction weapons. I just felt that the current owners of weapons of mass destruction don't give a dime about fairness or freedom.
So yes they are morally equivalent, but on the lower end of the scale. Do I give a reason for countries looking to acquire weapons of mass destruction? Not at all

Sad the people of the Bikini atolls do not fit in the US constitution. And the international consensus is "march with us or we'll call French fries Freedom fries"

Random examples. I don't condemn US individuals or ideals though, I condemn the gap between the method and the idea.

PS: I really like Australia

@ 91 I can not believe you are bringing in moraltiy into this. All morals are subjective. And you should realize that. How does any countries culture become more superior than anothers? And i did not know that our constitution says the united states can defend itself and keep others from doing so. IF so please let me know.

Life isn't fair.

IM curious what you saying is unfair. Im mentally ill an sometimes things need to be speeled out for me.

True, North Korea and Iran have consistently shown themselves to have little or no interest in what the rest of the world thinks. I won't make the argument that Kim or Ahmadinejad are the most stable or trustworthy people on Earth, or even that there's any comparison between them and the United States.

However, if you want to bring the question of morality into this argument...

Ask the people of Rwanda how moral the U.S. is, after the Clinton administration's inaction to condemn the genocide in 1994. Ask them how righteous we are after we lobbied the U.N. to pull out all peacekeeping forces, and forbade officials from using the word "genocide" for weeks after it started.

Ask the people of Afghanistan how moral the U.S. is, after we used their country as a chessboard and their mujahadeen as pawns for "the Soviet Union's Vietnam", and then left the country in total disrepair as fast as we could after the Soviets were gone. Remember how exactly the Taliban was able to take power in the first place?

Ask the people of Iraq how moral the U.S. is, after we supported Saddam in the 80s (and turned a blind eye to him gassing Kurds), and then invaded--TWICE--for the purpose of protecting our oil interests. Ask them how they feel about us, when we refer to their loved ones as "collateral damage".

Ask the people of Chile how moral the U.S. is, after the CIA under Nixon aided in the coup to overthrow Allende (who was democratically elected, by the way), and in his place put into power Pinochet. Ask the thousands of Chileans who were ultimately interned and tortured under Pinochet's regime. Ask them how committed they think we are to democracy-- and while you're at it, ask Venezuela too, and Guatemala, and Brazil, and all the various other Latin American countries where we have at one time or another intervened on their democratic processes and assisted coups because we didn't like the outcome of the election.

Oh, yes, and "mostly respecting international consensus" is how we managed to gain such a bad reputation with the international community, right?

I shall add Greece just for the respect of my host country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mili ... %80%931974

WMD's found!

In the cases of Iran and North Korea, both countries have shown open hostility to their neighbors, bordering on genocidal intent.

For the most part the world at large recognizes this and wouldn't trust them with an easier means to their threats.
Not to mention more nukes in the world means a greater chance for a terrorist to get a hold of one.

I still question if even India and Pakistans should have nukes since they've been at each others throats before over the Kashmir issue and very likely will do so again in the future.

Thank you for all your input.