<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Sep 19 2003, 08:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Sep 19 2003, 08:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You know of course that inalienable rights only apply to US citizens . . . <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you've signed geneva convention, then PoW's also should enjoy some rights, don't you think?
Edit: In a thread like this my sarcasm detectors are useless. People are just saying most unbelievable things so one just has to assume everythings said in normal tone of voice <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Ok then. Here's the itemized version of <a href='http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm' target='_blank'>The Geneva Convention</a>. I read through a chunk of it and it's a real bureaucratic zoo.
Please highlight the areas that have been violated so that everyone here can discuss the specifics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention. The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28), religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38), access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think every newssource in the internet didn't just come up with this stuff.
Ok, so the U.S. broke some of the Geneva convention... Can you do anything about it? No. Is there anything the U.N. can do about it? Yes. Will the U.N. do anything about it? No. Just goes to show you how outdated and pointless the U.N. really is.
<!--QuoteBegin--Crisqo+Sep 19 2003, 11:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo @ Sep 19 2003, 11:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ok, so the U.S. broke some of the Geneva convention... Can you do anything about it? No. Is there anything the U.N. can do about it? Yes. Will the U.N. do anything about it? No. Just goes to show you how outdated and pointless the U.N. really is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If the most powerful country in the UN decides to step on the rules there is not much to do. It's not an excuse to breake rules. You are saying that USA should do what it wants only because it can?
Since US wants to act as world police, it should abide the rules. If it doesn't, it just an corrupt cop doing its own thing. This is excactly why USA shouldn't be doing the policing. Ultimate power corrupts ultimately.
Someone evil minded might call USA a 'rogue state' for these things.
Edit: And I'd like to know what UN can do about it.
Edit2: Some more ranting...
If people of the USA now accept that their government bypasses treaties and conventions, you are abandoning the moral values that your country is supposed to stand for. Third reich had to start somewhere and if you let Bush's government do whatever it wants, it just WILL do whatever comes in to its mind. Bush is starting to look like the next Hitler more and more every day.
Edit3: I can just see the stupid smile on Bush's face: "Gee, people are used to me p**sing off the whole world. They don't seem to care about it anymore so I guess we could still take one or two countries. Some small ones just before the election to get my groove on. Hmmm, maybe France? I never liked those toad-eaters anyway"
I don't know for some reason, I really doubt the U.S. will turn into nazi Germany and go on an invading spree. I mean, who are we going to take over? America Jr.? Mexico? Not likely.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are saying that USA should do what it wants only because it can?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm saying the U.S. does what needs to be done...regarding Iraq anyways, not to sure about the geneva convention thing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Since US wants to act as world police, it should abide the rules. If it doesn't, it just an corrupt cop doing its own thing. This is excactly why USA shouldn't be doing the policing. Ultimate power corrupts ultimately.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It may appear to be corrupt, but it's only because the U.N. (which must be equally corrupt, I mean France would veto anything we threw at them concerning Iraq because of money coming from there) forced us into go into Iraq by itself.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Sep 19 2003, 09:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Sep 19 2003, 09:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And this thread is not Anti-USA like you seem to believe. Am I anti-usa if I ask why USA can brake geneva convention and bunch of others by treating pows like it does? They can't even defend themselves and that's right against your constitution! Bush administration is breaking your own god damn constitution and Washington and Lincoln must be rolling in their graves for that. No one seems to care! And don't say everyone else does it because other UN nations that signed the treaties don't do that.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Did I not clearly state at the bottom of my post that I'm not labeling anyone "anti-American"? Please completly read the post before you message back about it. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Also, I did cleary state that I didn't like Bush didn't I?
And Ryo, I couldn't agree with you more, the war WASN'T justified and I didn't support it myself. Just kinda of odd that people say there was nothing bad about this guy when he obviously ENJOYED killing and torturing his own people.
And Crisqo made a good point. You're calling America corrupt, and yes it is corrupt in some areas, and not looking at other countries. You act like America is the only bad nation in the world. France was obviously trying to keep they're money coming from Iraq yet NONE of you stop and talk about that. (besides Crisqo of course) Am I wrong or did a top British official commit "suicide" because of Iraq. Yes, I am suspicious of this, a top official of the British government who knew alot about why America and the UK went to war ends up dying. So if you can accuse America of doing all this bad stuff (not saying that we don't) then I think it's resonable to have suspicions about the British govenment having <i>some</i> hand in this mans death. Just throwing some stuff out there for you guys to chew on.
<!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Sep 19 2003, 02:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Sep 19 2003, 02:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ok then. Here's the itemized version of <a href='http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm' target='_blank'>The Geneva Convention</a>. I read through a chunk of it and it's a real bureaucratic zoo.
Please highlight the areas that have been violated so that everyone here can discuss the specifics. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Har har har, you really think the U.S Adheres to that? Laff
Well, the banned "chemical" weapon we were claimed to have used was napalm. The scene was taken from a video of a semi-experimental warhead that was being employed to clear out cave structures. It wasn't actually napalm, but can best be described as a directed fuel air explosion.
The Russians used it to some good effect in Chechnya to clear the tunnel structures the rebels were moving back and forth through.
If we were to find NBC in Iraq it would likely be mustard, V-series, or the children of their known sample of production grade anthrax. The possible fissile material enrichment facility we had to blow in place because the minerals were dumped and the cave was waaaaaay too hot. Was covered on the news a few days after the fall of Baghdad.
The one article that did pique my interest was the discovery of trace amounts of Sarin on material in a lab that appeared to have been abandoned. It was by no means enough of an amount to declare, but Iraq's manufacture capability during and post-Iran war was not very good.
Basically to produce and employ Sarin they had to load the shell and prepare it for transport shortly after the chemical was synthesized. They have never to my knowledge had the capability to produce it in a stable weaponized form. So if they had it, we'd likely only find the broken down byproducts of its degradation. And finding traces would lead one to believe they had a small amount recently, but it can by a stretch of the imagination be made in a lab screw-up while generating certain forms of pesticide.
Do I think they have them? Maybe Do I think we'll find them? Maybe Did they do enough shady stuff to make me think they had 'em? Yuppers
<!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Sep 19 2003, 06:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Sep 19 2003, 06:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Sep 19 2003, 02:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Sep 19 2003, 02:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ok then. Here's the itemized version of <a href='http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm' target='_blank'>The Geneva Convention</a>. I read through a chunk of it and it's a real bureaucratic zoo.
Please highlight the areas that have been violated so that everyone here can discuss the specifics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Har har har, you really think the U.S Adheres to that? Laff <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Har Har, you think ANYONE does? If any nation can get away with it, they will.
Please people try and understand, rules and laws dont mean a thing to nations if they can get away in the breaking. I'm tired of seeing, oh the US must be evil they broke such and such. Show me a nation that WOULDNT if it was in the US' position.
However, if the US wants to police the world, it should back down on camp X-ray, give them a fair trial and at least basic rights (ie decent living and food). Hell they could make themselves seem like the good guys for a change. Imagine this, Mr. Bush appears on your screen, apologises for the abuse of human rights in Cuba camps, admits the US did the wrong thing, and promises to fix it up.
It would make a change, and its never too late to do the right thing.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Sep 19 2003, 08:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 19 2003, 08:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Sep 19 2003, 06:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Sep 19 2003, 06:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Sep 19 2003, 02:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Sep 19 2003, 02:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ok then. Here's the itemized version of <a href='http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm' target='_blank'>The Geneva Convention</a>. I read through a chunk of it and it's a real bureaucratic zoo.
Please highlight the areas that have been violated so that everyone here can discuss the specifics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Har har har, you really think the U.S Adheres to that? Laff <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Har Har, you think ANYONE does? If any nation can get away with it, they will.
Please people try and understand, rules and laws dont mean a thing to nations if they can get away in the breaking. I'm tired of seeing, oh the US must be evil they broke such and such. Show me a nation that WOULDNT if it was in the US' position.
However, if the US wants to police the world, it should back down on camp X-ray, give them a fair trial and at least basic rights (ie decent living and food). Hell they could make themselves seem like the good guys for a change. Imagine this, Mr. Bush appears on your screen, apologises for the abuse of human rights in Cuba camps, admits the US did the wrong thing, and promises to fix it up.
It would make a change, and its never too late to do the right thing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah right, good luck seeing that aplogie. The U.S is becomming the gestapo :/
Like Bush would apologize. I wish he would but I don't think that will ever happen. His excuse for not apolgizing would be something sooo ridiculous, like "If we back down other countries will think we're weak and invade us.", that no one would even think he was serious. That's just how Bush works, sadly. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Hey I think he should, I dont think he WILL. It would be a really good move by the US if they did though.
The US is becoming the Gestapo? BECOMING? If you mean by bullying and meddling, then its been the Gestapo for years. So why quit now? So far, its worked. The US is not the great Satan people are continually making it out as - even with Bush at the helm. All nations do bad stuff, so why are you being so hard on the US for doing it?
Every single other nation on the planet would do so if given the opportunity. So dump on the US all you want. You cant show me an alternative, you cant demonstrate another nation any better. I see a whole stack of complaints about the US' policy, and not a lot of realistic solutions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Har Har, you think ANYONE does? If any nation can get away with it, they will.
Please people try and understand, rules and laws dont mean a thing to nations if they can get away in the breaking. I'm tired of seeing, oh the US must be evil they broke such and such. Show me a nation that WOULDNT if it was in the US' position. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nations will generally adhere to the Geneva Convention because it means their POWs will be treated well if they treat the other sides' POWs well. It's in the best interest of most nations to adhere to it, because in most conflicts each side will take prisoners from the other. If one side breaches it, the other side has an excuse to treat the POWs in their possession badly.
However the enemies the US are facing don't have any American POWs. Hence the US rides roughshod over the Geneva Convention because, basically, they can do it with no fear of consequences aside from ethical qualms. Now if a nation is going to declare itself the world policeman as such, they must adhere to the laws of the world. Camp X-Ray has made a huge black mark against the US, and the Iraq conflict has also blackened the US's name. If the US is going to take the path of world policeman, then it must abide by the laws of the world.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Sep 20 2003, 01:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 20 2003, 01:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The US is not the great Satan people are continually making it out as - even with Bush at the helm. All nations do bad stuff, so why are you being so hard on the US for doing it?
Every single other nation on the planet would do so if given the opportunity... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> that sounds to me like " If i didnt mug this guy, someone else would have!, I mean, hes going to get mugged anyway, why should I get his cash " what im saying is, you cant justify wrongful acts beacause a) someone else might do the same, b) you cant think of an alternative.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Sep 20 2003, 04:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Sep 20 2003, 04:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Har Har, you think ANYONE does? If any nation can get away with it, they will.
Please people try and understand, rules and laws dont mean a thing to nations if they can get away in the breaking. I'm tired of seeing, oh the US must be evil they broke such and such. Show me a nation that WOULDNT if it was in the US' position. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nations will generally adhere to the Geneva Convention because it means their POWs will be treated well if they treat the other sides' POWs well. It's in the best interest of most nations to adhere to it, because in most conflicts each side will take prisoners from the other. If one side breaches it, the other side has an excuse to treat the POWs in their possession badly.
However the enemies the US are facing don't have any American POWs. Hence the US rides roughshod over the Geneva Convention because, basically, they can do it with no fear of consequences aside from ethical qualms. Now if a nation is going to declare itself the world policeman as such, they must adhere to the laws of the world. Camp X-Ray has made a huge black mark against the US, and the Iraq conflict has also blackened the US's name. If the US is going to take the path of world policeman, then it must abide by the laws of the world. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Amen.
But most nations will adhere to the Geneva convention? Maybe most Western countries will, but I have a suspicion that it doesnt hold much weight in the Middle East, or in Asia for that matter. It really only bothers western nations who have a voting public to appease.
Most opponenets of the US are not democratic, and are completely convinced that the Americans are butcher's who offer no quarter. They would have no problems executing American POW's if they thought they could get away with it. And since they already think the other side does that, its also justified in their opinion.
<!--QuoteBegin--Melatonin+Sep 20 2003, 05:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Sep 20 2003, 05:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Sep 20 2003, 01:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 20 2003, 01:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The US is not the great Satan people are continually making it out as - even with Bush at the helm. All nations do bad stuff, so why are you being so hard on the US for doing it?
Every single other nation on the planet would do so if given the opportunity... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> that sounds to me like " If i didnt mug this guy, someone else would have!, I mean, hes going to get mugged anyway, why should I get his cash " what im saying is, you cant justify wrongful acts beacause a) someone else might do the same, b) you cant think of an alternative. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not "Someone else MIGHT do the same", its ANYONE else would do PRECISELY the same if given the same circumstance. Doesnt make it more or less right, it just does away with the moral higher ground certain other nations try and take.
<!--QuoteBegin--Kheras+Sep 20 2003, 02:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kheras @ Sep 20 2003, 02:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The scene was taken from a video of a <b>semi-experimental warhead</b> that was being employed to clear out cave structures. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe I'm totally off with this and remember wrong but that just reminded me of a treaty that USA, Russia and few other nations signed that they wouldn't develope any new nuclear powered weapons. And yet, we see these brand new mini-nukes in use? "Oh but surely other nations would do it too if they just could" *rolleyes* Why bother signing treaties in the first place if you are going to break them anyway?
Edit: And the reason why USA is watched most is because it's the most dangerous nation in the world. If the most dangerous nation starts breaking the rules it's serious. When it starts breaking the rules much more than others, then you should be scared.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Sep 20 2003, 06:52 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Sep 20 2003, 06:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Kheras+Sep 20 2003, 02:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kheras @ Sep 20 2003, 02:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The scene was taken from a video of a <b>semi-experimental warhead</b> that was being employed to clear out cave structures. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe I'm totally off with this and remember wrong but that just reminded me of a treaty that USA, Russia and few other nations signed that they wouldn't develope any new nuclear powered weapons. And yet, we see these brand new mini-nukes in use? "Oh but surely other nations would do it too if they just could" *rolleyes* Why bother signing treaties in the first place if you are going to break them anyway?
Edit: And the reason why USA is watched most is because it's the most dangerous nation in the world. If the most dangerous nation starts breaking the rules it's serious. When it starts breaking the rules much more than others, then you should be scared. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Why sign treaties if you dont intend to uphold them? For your own advantage, because you see that to be currently in your best interest. Then when it is no longer in your best interest, simply back out if you can.
And no, its not the most dangerous nation in the world. Its only dangerous to trash heap nations like most Middle Eastern ones, and a few Asian nations as well. The French dont lose sleep over the possibility of a US attack, nor do the Germans. Nor do any legitimate Western nations.
However, savage theocracies, communists, despots and general people oppressors have a LOT to worry about. Whats even funnier is that the other Western nations who wish to balance things out a bit are helping to bring down the US, which is exactly what these trashheap nations want
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Sep 20 2003, 02:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 20 2003, 02:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Nor do any legitimate Western nations. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I would like to know what is a legimate nation. And are western nations only legimate? Is some Mid-eastern country non-legimate because its government has formed differently than ours?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, savage theocracies, communists, despots and general people oppressors have a LOT to worry about. Whats even funnier is that the other Western nations who wish to balance things out a bit are helping to bring down the US, which is exactly what these trashheap nations want<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Balance is allways nice. Everyone likes balanced NS games.
The device is not nuclear in any way, shape, or form.
We have already developed "mini-nukes". Maybe not fusion weapons as small as we would like, but I think the plan was to develop tactics. Either that or develop cleaner reactions. Unless, of course, nukes that fit in briefcases and artillery shells do not count as mini. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would like to know what is a legimate nation. And are western nations only legimate? Is some Mid-eastern country non-legimate because its government has formed differently than ours? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marine may be following the "Jammer View" of government which is that no nation apart from a democratic capitalist one deserves the right to exist. Myself and others disagree with this.
The simple fact is that the US occupies a position of immense power. It is virtually unchallangeable in military terms. Even allies of such countries get nervous around such awecome power. Saying the French and Germans have nothing to fear is perhaps incorrect; these nations are watching the power of the US being thrown around against the wishes of the world majority. What if the US decided that France was a legitimate target (they have nukes!). Of course that's an extreme and unlikely example. But the US has shown that it doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks. Hence if the US chose to, they could invade France, and no-one would be able to stop them. Is it any wonder that nations are trying to get their own nukes when the US has behaved as it has?
Admins note: I'll leave this open although quite a few minute violations occured. Watch yourselves, though, or I'll intervene.
Nems note: Any discussion about what "the US" are or are not to do will end fruitless, because the United States (note the plural even in the nations name) are, as any country, by far too heterogenous to make a generalized description fitting. The question should be about the United States governments policy circling around the idea of the 'American Millenium', and why / whether the rest of the world should / has to tolerate it.
Ummmm, I dont know if I'm allowed to reply now, I'm a bit worried some of Nem's comments may have been directed towards me. Please if I'm doing something wrong, humiliate me publicly because otherwise it'll never hit me.
Im gonna go ahead and post, but I might get nuked here...
If you are not democratic, then you teeter on the edge of being a "dodgy" nation. If you are not democratic and suppress your own citizens basic rights, then you are officially dodgy. I might have to back of from saying unlegitimate because that implies that it is in some way illegal, which it isnt. But if you do such things, then you have a lot to fear from the current US administration. However, if you are say.... French and just really really @#)%^ the Americans off, you have no fear (or you shouldnt) of any military retaliation. The same stands for Britian, Australia, Germany, Italy, Spain and just about every single democracy current existing.
If you happen to be in a trash nation that spends its entire budget on military, with the civilians in poverty, lacking basic health support and food, while the Rich live in splendour and give money to terrorists, then watch out. Unless you happen to be Saudi Arabia, but lets not go there.
Yes, the French do have nukes, which is one of the best reasons for concluding that the Americans wont attack them. No one wants to take on someone with nuclear weapons.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Sep 20 2003, 04:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Sep 20 2003, 04:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The question should be about the United States governments policy <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's what this whole discussion is about. I'm not accusing any american of doing the 'bad stuff', but I'm accusing USA's current government. You can see this from my posts so make no mistake there. Sorry if someone got the wrong idea.
Ryo: Agreed.
Marine01:<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ummmm, I dont know if I'm allowed to reply now, I'm a bit worried some of Nem's comments may have been directed towards me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least I haven't noticed anything like that <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you happen to be in a trash nation that spends its entire budget on military, with the civilians in poverty, lacking basic health support and food, while the Rich live in splendour and give money to terrorists<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How much USA used of its budget on military last year? While almost 13% of people in the USA are living in poverty. While rich corporations live in splendour and exploit poor countries.
It depends a lot of what angle you are looking at this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->spends its entire budget on military, with the civilians in poverty, lacking basic health support and food, while the Rich live in splendour and give money to terrorists,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah Dread beat me to it but anyways:
Us spends a very large amount of it's budget on it's military. Proportionatly more than many "trash" nations.
Many US civilians live in poverty.
The US does not provide it's citizens with health care, and many Americans do go hungry.
The gap between rich and poor in the US is very large, and it's worth mentioning that US citizens give money to organisations like the IRA.
Thus does the US have to fear itself?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you are not democratic, then you teeter on the edge of being a "dodgy" nation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For almost all of human history, the governments have have existed have been non-democratic and oppressive. Are we thus to conclude that almost every government has been "wrong" or "dodgy"? It depends very much on one's point of view; An American looks at China and sees oppression, a Chinese person looks at America and sees anarchy and disorder. It's wrong for us to simply classify one government type as the only legitimate form of government that can exist. Not everyone wants to be a democracy.
The military budget is also in large part responsible for our advances in technology in all sectors, and employs a ton of people. DoD is virtually the only source for funding into pure research outside the medical community.
Understand that it encompases all that research, all utilities fees on all DoD facilities, upkeep of those facilities, salaries for everyone that works there, salaries for all military personnel, upkeep of ordnance and weapon systems, health and retirement benefits, construction, demilitarization of areas for civilian use, environmental cleanup, disaster relief duty, licenses to the evil Microsoft (ton of money goes there), etc ad nauseum.
And...uhh... puhleeze. We do not have starving people in the US. You want to see what it looks like? Glance over at Ethiopia and Somalia. A person working a minimum wage job in the US is in the top 15 percent of wage earners globally. Welfare benefits in most areas (other than Texas) total at least as much when you add it up. Starving is having no food and dying in disease and despair, it is not having to eat a ham sandwich instead of filet mignon. They also get medical treatment, not the best but it is free. Most folks can get all their checkups and immunizations for free provided they are willing to wait around at the clinic. I stopped once I got good insurance. Heck, even illegals get emergency medical treatment for free.
If you earn 50k+ a year, you are in the top 20% for the US as well. The bottom 50%? Individuals or couples filing jointly earning less than 26k a year, and it covers much more than just the folks who are permanently in that bracket. You have old folks, college students, high school students, and other part-time workers to count.
We spend as much or more than the defense budget on welfare and federal wage-based assistance programs, same with social security. In fact, it would please you to know that if we took all that money and simply divided it evenly among those that qualify we would have zero people under the poverty level. Hooray for efficiency. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Sep 20 2003, 06:52 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Sep 20 2003, 06:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Kheras+Sep 20 2003, 02:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kheras @ Sep 20 2003, 02:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The scene was taken from a video of a <b>semi-experimental warhead</b> that was being employed to clear out cave structures. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe I'm totally off with this and remember wrong but that just reminded me of a treaty that USA, Russia and few other nations signed that they wouldn't develope any new nuclear powered weapons. And yet, we see these brand new mini-nukes in use? "Oh but surely other nations would do it too if they just could" *rolleyes* Why bother signing treaties in the first place if you are going to break them anyway?
Edit: And the reason why USA is watched most is because it's the most dangerous nation in the world. If the most dangerous nation starts breaking the rules it's serious. When it starts breaking the rules much more than others, then you should be scared. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Umm, warheads don't have to be nukes. And this warhead was by no means a "nuke" or a "mini-nuke". Don't know where you got that piece of info. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Kheras+Sep 20 2003, 03:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kheras @ Sep 20 2003, 03:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The military budget is also in large part responsible for our advances in technology in all sectors, and employs a ton of people. DoD is virtually the only source for funding into pure research outside the medical community. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'll be nice today and not get started on 'pure research' and the other so-called benefits of DoD spending, mainly because you are dragging the thread Off-Topic. The qualifiers set up were generalized - any other country puts parts of its defense budgets into research and logistics, as well. You'll be able to prove those standards wrong on many instances by differentiating, true, but ask yourself how often that'd also work in 'dodgy' countries.
Comments
If you've signed geneva convention, then PoW's also should enjoy some rights, don't you think?
Edit: In a thread like this my sarcasm detectors are useless. People are just saying most unbelievable things so one just has to assume everythings said in normal tone of voice <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Please highlight the areas that have been violated so that everyone here can discuss the specifics.
<a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html' target='_blank'>Please?</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention. The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28), religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38), access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think every newssource in the internet didn't just come up with this stuff.
/my two cents
If the most powerful country in the UN decides to step on the rules there is not much to do. It's not an excuse to breake rules. You are saying that USA should do what it wants only because it can?
Since US wants to act as world police, it should abide the rules. If it doesn't, it just an corrupt cop doing its own thing. This is excactly why USA shouldn't be doing the policing. Ultimate power corrupts ultimately.
Someone evil minded might call USA a 'rogue state' for these things.
Edit: And I'd like to know what UN can do about it.
Edit2: Some more ranting...
If people of the USA now accept that their government bypasses treaties and conventions, you are abandoning the moral values that your country is supposed to stand for. Third reich had to start somewhere and if you let Bush's government do whatever it wants, it just WILL do whatever comes in to its mind. Bush is starting to look like the next Hitler more and more every day.
Edit3: I can just see the stupid smile on Bush's face: "Gee, people are used to me p**sing off the whole world. They don't seem to care about it anymore so I guess we could still take one or two countries. Some small ones just before the election to get my groove on. Hmmm, maybe France? I never liked those toad-eaters anyway"
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are saying that USA should do what it wants only because it can?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm saying the U.S. does what needs to be done...regarding Iraq anyways, not to sure about the geneva convention thing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Since US wants to act as world police, it should abide the rules. If it doesn't, it just an corrupt cop doing its own thing. This is excactly why USA shouldn't be doing the policing. Ultimate power corrupts ultimately.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It may appear to be corrupt, but it's only because the U.N. (which must be equally corrupt, I mean France would veto anything we threw at them concerning Iraq because of money coming from there) forced us into go into Iraq by itself.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did I not clearly state at the bottom of my post that I'm not labeling anyone "anti-American"? Please completly read the post before you message back about it. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Also, I did cleary state that I didn't like Bush didn't I?
And Ryo, I couldn't agree with you more, the war WASN'T justified and I didn't support it myself. Just kinda of odd that people say there was nothing bad about this guy when he obviously ENJOYED killing and torturing his own people.
And Crisqo made a good point. You're calling America corrupt, and yes it is corrupt in some areas, and not looking at other countries. You act like America is the only bad nation in the world. France was obviously trying to keep they're money coming from Iraq yet NONE of you stop and talk about that. (besides Crisqo of course) Am I wrong or did a top British official commit "suicide" because of Iraq. Yes, I am suspicious of this, a top official of the British government who knew alot about why America and the UK went to war ends up dying. So if you can accuse America of doing all this bad stuff (not saying that we don't) then I think it's resonable to have suspicions about the British govenment having <i>some</i> hand in this mans death. Just throwing some stuff out there for you guys to chew on.
Please highlight the areas that have been violated so that everyone here can discuss the specifics. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Har har har, you really think the U.S Adheres to that? Laff
The Russians used it to some good effect in Chechnya to clear the tunnel structures the rebels were moving back and forth through.
If we were to find NBC in Iraq it would likely be mustard, V-series, or the children of their known sample of production grade anthrax. The possible fissile material enrichment facility we had to blow in place because the minerals were dumped and the cave was waaaaaay too hot. Was covered on the news a few days after the fall of Baghdad.
The one article that did pique my interest was the discovery of trace amounts of Sarin on material in a lab that appeared to have been abandoned. It was by no means enough of an amount to declare, but Iraq's manufacture capability during and post-Iran war was not very good.
Basically to produce and employ Sarin they had to load the shell and prepare it for transport shortly after the chemical was synthesized. They have never to my knowledge had the capability to produce it in a stable weaponized form. So if they had it, we'd likely only find the broken down byproducts of its degradation. And finding traces would lead one to believe they had a small amount recently, but it can by a stretch of the imagination be made in a lab screw-up while generating certain forms of pesticide.
Do I think they have them? Maybe
Do I think we'll find them? Maybe
Did they do enough shady stuff to make me think they had 'em? Yuppers
Please highlight the areas that have been violated so that everyone here can discuss the specifics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Har har har, you really think the U.S Adheres to that? Laff <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Har Har, you think ANYONE does? If any nation can get away with it, they will.
Please people try and understand, rules and laws dont mean a thing to nations if they can get away in the breaking. I'm tired of seeing, oh the US must be evil they broke such and such. Show me a nation that WOULDNT if it was in the US' position.
However, if the US wants to police the world, it should back down on camp X-ray, give them a fair trial and at least basic rights (ie decent living and food). Hell they could make themselves seem like the good guys for a change. Imagine this, Mr. Bush appears on your screen, apologises for the abuse of human rights in Cuba camps, admits the US did the wrong thing, and promises to fix it up.
It would make a change, and its never too late to do the right thing.
Please highlight the areas that have been violated so that everyone here can discuss the specifics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Har har har, you really think the U.S Adheres to that? Laff <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Har Har, you think ANYONE does? If any nation can get away with it, they will.
Please people try and understand, rules and laws dont mean a thing to nations if they can get away in the breaking. I'm tired of seeing, oh the US must be evil they broke such and such. Show me a nation that WOULDNT if it was in the US' position.
However, if the US wants to police the world, it should back down on camp X-ray, give them a fair trial and at least basic rights (ie decent living and food). Hell they could make themselves seem like the good guys for a change. Imagine this, Mr. Bush appears on your screen, apologises for the abuse of human rights in Cuba camps, admits the US did the wrong thing, and promises to fix it up.
It would make a change, and its never too late to do the right thing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah right, good luck seeing that aplogie. The U.S is becomming the gestapo :/
The US is becoming the Gestapo? BECOMING? If you mean by bullying and meddling, then its been the Gestapo for years. So why quit now? So far, its worked. The US is not the great Satan people are continually making it out as - even with Bush at the helm. All nations do bad stuff, so why are you being so hard on the US for doing it?
Every single other nation on the planet would do so if given the opportunity. So dump on the US all you want. You cant show me an alternative, you cant demonstrate another nation any better. I see a whole stack of complaints about the US' policy, and not a lot of realistic solutions.
Please people try and understand, rules and laws dont mean a thing to nations if they can get away in the breaking. I'm tired of seeing, oh the US must be evil they broke such and such. Show me a nation that WOULDNT if it was in the US' position.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nations will generally adhere to the Geneva Convention because it means their POWs will be treated well if they treat the other sides' POWs well. It's in the best interest of most nations to adhere to it, because in most conflicts each side will take prisoners from the other. If one side breaches it, the other side has an excuse to treat the POWs in their possession badly.
However the enemies the US are facing don't have any American POWs. Hence the US rides roughshod over the Geneva Convention because, basically, they can do it with no fear of consequences aside from ethical qualms. Now if a nation is going to declare itself the world policeman as such, they must adhere to the laws of the world. Camp X-Ray has made a huge black mark against the US, and the Iraq conflict has also blackened the US's name. If the US is going to take the path of world policeman, then it must abide by the laws of the world.
Every single other nation on the planet would do so if given the opportunity... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
that sounds to me like " If i didnt mug this guy, someone else would have!, I mean, hes going to get mugged anyway, why should I get his cash "
what im saying is, you cant justify wrongful acts beacause a) someone else might do the same, b) you cant think of an alternative.
Please people try and understand, rules and laws dont mean a thing to nations if they can get away in the breaking. I'm tired of seeing, oh the US must be evil they broke such and such. Show me a nation that WOULDNT if it was in the US' position.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nations will generally adhere to the Geneva Convention because it means their POWs will be treated well if they treat the other sides' POWs well. It's in the best interest of most nations to adhere to it, because in most conflicts each side will take prisoners from the other. If one side breaches it, the other side has an excuse to treat the POWs in their possession badly.
However the enemies the US are facing don't have any American POWs. Hence the US rides roughshod over the Geneva Convention because, basically, they can do it with no fear of consequences aside from ethical qualms. Now if a nation is going to declare itself the world policeman as such, they must adhere to the laws of the world. Camp X-Ray has made a huge black mark against the US, and the Iraq conflict has also blackened the US's name. If the US is going to take the path of world policeman, then it must abide by the laws of the world. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Amen.
But most nations will adhere to the Geneva convention? Maybe most Western countries will, but I have a suspicion that it doesnt hold much weight in the Middle East, or in Asia for that matter. It really only bothers western nations who have a voting public to appease.
Most opponenets of the US are not democratic, and are completely convinced that the Americans are butcher's who offer no quarter. They would have no problems executing American POW's if they thought they could get away with it. And since they already think the other side does that, its also justified in their opinion.
Every single other nation on the planet would do so if given the opportunity... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that sounds to me like " If i didnt mug this guy, someone else would have!, I mean, hes going to get mugged anyway, why should I get his cash "
what im saying is, you cant justify wrongful acts beacause a) someone else might do the same, b) you cant think of an alternative. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not "Someone else MIGHT do the same", its ANYONE else would do PRECISELY the same if given the same circumstance. Doesnt make it more or less right, it just does away with the moral higher ground certain other nations try and take.
Maybe I'm totally off with this and remember wrong but that just reminded me of a treaty that USA, Russia and few other nations signed that they wouldn't develope any new nuclear powered weapons. And yet, we see these brand new mini-nukes in use? "Oh but surely other nations would do it too if they just could" *rolleyes* Why bother signing treaties in the first place if you are going to break them anyway?
Edit: And the reason why USA is watched most is because it's the most dangerous nation in the world. If the most dangerous nation starts breaking the rules it's serious. When it starts breaking the rules much more than others, then you should be scared.
Maybe I'm totally off with this and remember wrong but that just reminded me of a treaty that USA, Russia and few other nations signed that they wouldn't develope any new nuclear powered weapons. And yet, we see these brand new mini-nukes in use? "Oh but surely other nations would do it too if they just could" *rolleyes* Why bother signing treaties in the first place if you are going to break them anyway?
Edit: And the reason why USA is watched most is because it's the most dangerous nation in the world. If the most dangerous nation starts breaking the rules it's serious. When it starts breaking the rules much more than others, then you should be scared. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why sign treaties if you dont intend to uphold them? For your own advantage, because you see that to be currently in your best interest. Then when it is no longer in your best interest, simply back out if you can.
And no, its not the most dangerous nation in the world. Its only dangerous to trash heap nations like most Middle Eastern ones, and a few Asian nations as well. The French dont lose sleep over the possibility of a US attack, nor do the Germans. Nor do any legitimate Western nations.
However, savage theocracies, communists, despots and general people oppressors have a LOT to worry about. Whats even funnier is that the other Western nations who wish to balance things out a bit are helping to bring down the US, which is exactly what these trashheap nations want
I would like to know what is a legimate nation. And are western nations only legimate? Is some Mid-eastern country non-legimate because its government has formed differently than ours?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, savage theocracies, communists, despots and general people oppressors have a LOT to worry about. Whats even funnier is that the other Western nations who wish to balance things out a bit are helping to bring down the US, which is exactly what these trashheap nations want<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Balance is allways nice. Everyone likes balanced NS games.
We have already developed "mini-nukes". Maybe not fusion weapons as small as we would like, but I think the plan was to develop tactics. Either that or develop cleaner reactions. Unless, of course, nukes that fit in briefcases and artillery shells do not count as mini. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marine may be following the "Jammer View" of government which is that no nation apart from a democratic capitalist one deserves the right to exist. Myself and others disagree with this.
The simple fact is that the US occupies a position of immense power. It is virtually unchallangeable in military terms. Even allies of such countries get nervous around such awecome power. Saying the French and Germans have nothing to fear is perhaps incorrect; these nations are watching the power of the US being thrown around against the wishes of the world majority. What if the US decided that France was a legitimate target (they have nukes!). Of course that's an extreme and unlikely example. But the US has shown that it doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks. Hence if the US chose to, they could invade France, and no-one would be able to stop them. Is it any wonder that nations are trying to get their own nukes when the US has behaved as it has?
Nems note: Any discussion about what "the US" are or are not to do will end fruitless, because the United States (note the plural even in the nations name) are, as any country, by far too heterogenous to make a generalized description fitting.
The question should be about the United States governments policy circling around the idea of the 'American Millenium', and why / whether the rest of the world should / has to tolerate it.
Im gonna go ahead and post, but I might get nuked here...
If you are not democratic, then you teeter on the edge of being a "dodgy" nation. If you are not democratic and suppress your own citizens basic rights, then you are officially dodgy. I might have to back of from saying unlegitimate because that implies that it is in some way illegal, which it isnt. But if you do such things, then you have a lot to fear from the current US administration. However, if you are say.... French and just really really @#)%^ the Americans off, you have no fear (or you shouldnt) of any military retaliation. The same stands for Britian, Australia, Germany, Italy, Spain and just about every single democracy current existing.
If you happen to be in a trash nation that spends its entire budget on military, with the civilians in poverty, lacking basic health support and food, while the Rich live in splendour and give money to terrorists, then watch out. Unless you happen to be Saudi Arabia, but lets not go there.
Yes, the French do have nukes, which is one of the best reasons for concluding that the Americans wont attack them. No one wants to take on someone with nuclear weapons.
That's what this whole discussion is about. I'm not accusing any american of doing the 'bad stuff', but I'm accusing USA's current government. You can see this from my posts so make no mistake there. Sorry if someone got the wrong idea.
Ryo: Agreed.
Marine01:<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ummmm, I dont know if I'm allowed to reply now, I'm a bit worried some of Nem's comments may have been directed towards me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least I haven't noticed anything like that <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you happen to be in a trash nation that spends its entire budget on military, with the civilians in poverty, lacking basic health support and food, while the Rich live in splendour and give money to terrorists<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How much USA used of its budget on military last year? While almost 13% of people in the USA are living in poverty. While rich corporations live in splendour and exploit poor countries.
It depends a lot of what angle you are looking at this.
Ah Dread beat me to it but anyways:
Us spends a very large amount of it's budget on it's military. Proportionatly more than many "trash" nations.
Many US civilians live in poverty.
The US does not provide it's citizens with health care, and many Americans do go hungry.
The gap between rich and poor in the US is very large, and it's worth mentioning that US citizens give money to organisations like the IRA.
Thus does the US have to fear itself?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you are not democratic, then you teeter on the edge of being a "dodgy" nation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For almost all of human history, the governments have have existed have been non-democratic and oppressive. Are we thus to conclude that almost every government has been "wrong" or "dodgy"? It depends very much on one's point of view; An American looks at China and sees oppression, a Chinese person looks at America and sees anarchy and disorder. It's wrong for us to simply classify one government type as the only legitimate form of government that can exist. Not everyone wants to be a democracy.
Understand that it encompases all that research, all utilities fees on all DoD facilities, upkeep of those facilities, salaries for everyone that works there, salaries for all military personnel, upkeep of ordnance and weapon systems, health and retirement benefits, construction, demilitarization of areas for civilian use, environmental cleanup, disaster relief duty, licenses to the evil Microsoft (ton of money goes there), etc ad nauseum.
And...uhh... puhleeze. We do not have starving people in the US. You want to see what it looks like? Glance over at Ethiopia and Somalia. A person working a minimum wage job in the US is in the top 15 percent of wage earners globally. Welfare benefits in most areas (other than Texas) total at least as much when you add it up. Starving is having no food and dying in disease and despair, it is not having to eat a ham sandwich instead of filet mignon. They also get medical treatment, not the best but it is free. Most folks can get all their checkups and immunizations for free provided they are willing to wait around at the clinic. I stopped once I got good insurance. Heck, even illegals get emergency medical treatment for free.
If you earn 50k+ a year, you are in the top 20% for the US as well. The bottom 50%? Individuals or couples filing jointly earning less than 26k a year, and it covers much more than just the folks who are permanently in that bracket. You have old folks, college students, high school students, and other part-time workers to count.
We spend as much or more than the defense budget on welfare and federal wage-based assistance programs, same with social security. In fact, it would please you to know that if we took all that money and simply divided it evenly among those that qualify we would have zero people under the poverty level. Hooray for efficiency. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Maybe I'm totally off with this and remember wrong but that just reminded me of a treaty that USA, Russia and few other nations signed that they wouldn't develope any new nuclear powered weapons. And yet, we see these brand new mini-nukes in use? "Oh but surely other nations would do it too if they just could" *rolleyes* Why bother signing treaties in the first place if you are going to break them anyway?
Edit: And the reason why USA is watched most is because it's the most dangerous nation in the world. If the most dangerous nation starts breaking the rules it's serious. When it starts breaking the rules much more than others, then you should be scared. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Umm, warheads don't have to be nukes. And this warhead was by no means a "nuke" or a "mini-nuke". Don't know where you got that piece of info. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'll be nice today and not get started on 'pure research' and the other so-called benefits of DoD spending, mainly because you are dragging the thread Off-Topic. The qualifiers set up were generalized - any other country puts parts of its defense budgets into research and logistics, as well.
You'll be able to prove those standards wrong on many instances by differentiating, true, but ask yourself how often that'd also work in 'dodgy' countries.