|
|
#42
12-04-2004, 12:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Yawn....So what
So your point is???? [/ QUOTE ] Why should the U.S. expect other countries to adhere to international weapons bans if the U.S. does not? Why should the U.S. expect Iran not to develop nuclear weapons? 
|
|
#43
12-04-2004, 03:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Yawn....So what
[ QUOTE ]
Why should the U.S. expect other countries to adhere to international weapons bans if the U.S. does not? [/ QUOTE ] With the exception of WWII we've never used WMD's on anyone, Saddam has multiple times. [ QUOTE ] Why should the U.S. expect Iran not to develop nuclear weapons? [/ QUOTE ] Other than being a troll, what is the purpose of this question? Do you know what Iran is like? Are you ok with them having nukes?
|
|
#45
12-04-2004, 03:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Yawn....So what
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr /> Why should the U.S. expect other countries to adhere to international weapons bans if the U.S. does not? [/ QUOTE ] With the exception of WWII we've never used WMD's on anyone, Saddam has multiple times. </font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr /> Why should the U.S. expect Iran not to develop nuclear weapons? [/ QUOTE ] Other than being a troll, what is the purpose of this question? Do you know what Iran is like? Are you ok with them having nukes? [/ QUOTE ] Where do you think Saddam got the weapons he used? From the U.S. No, I don't want Iran to have nukes. I don't want the U.S. to have them, either. I don't think the U.S. will be successful in getting other countries like Iran to dump nuclear programs if the U.S. does not do the same.
|
|
#46
12-04-2004, 03:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Yawn....So what
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the U.S. will be successful in getting other countries like Iran to dump nuclear programs if the U.S. does not do the same. [/ QUOTE ] Do you honestly think that if we destroyed all of our nukes Iran it would actually decrease Irans urge to build nukes? I am speechless.
|
|
#48
12-04-2004, 02:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
International Weapons Ban????
"Why should the U.S. expect other countries to adhere to international weapons bans if the U.S. does not?"
*************** Huh??? Fool! ONCE AGAIN....the US NEVER ratified this agreement. Therefore the US is free to use these weapons. If other countries want to ban napalm, guns, bullets, and fight with swords and arrows...then more power to them. Geez...I guess when your mother gave you the speech that 'if all the other kids were jumping off the cliff would you jump to....", you must have told her 'yes. I would jump with them'.
|
|
#49
12-04-2004, 02:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: International Weapons Ban????
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
"Why should the U.S. expect other countries to adhere to international weapons bans if the U.S. does not?" *************** Huh??? Fool! ONCE AGAIN....the US NEVER ratified this agreement. Therefore the US is free to use these weapons. If other countries want to ban napalm, guns, bullets, and fight with swords and arrows...then more power to them. Geez...I guess when your mother gave you the speech that 'if all the other kids were jumping off the cliff would you jump to....", you must have told her 'yes. I would jump with them'. [/ QUOTE ] The international weapons ban I was referring to is the ban on nuclear weapons that the U.S. is trying to get Iran to adhere to.
|
|
#50
12-04-2004, 04:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: International Weapons Ban????
The thing is that banning certain weapons is good for everyone involved.
This is the Prisoner's Dilemma, yet again at work. Using certain weapons is always better than being forced not to use them, but you really don't want your opponents to use this weapon. The only reason that you should outlaw a weapon is because your opponent will outlaw it as well. This applies to any rule of war, for example, only attacking military personnel, not citizens. Americans really want their opponents to attack the military personnel, not the citizens. Why should your opponents not be allowed to attack citizens? There's only one non-moral, pratical reason (war is a pratical thing). And that is that you are willing to not kill citizens either, or not use a weapon, as the case may be. Rules of war apply to everyone. No country is going to inflict rules of war on itself without some incentive with it's opponents. I doubt either India or Pakistan, for example, would hesitate to nuke each other if they didn't know the other side had nukes too. The only time a nuclear weapon has been used in the history of civilization was when the US, but none of the US's enemies (Japan) had nukes. Now, you may accuse me of equating nukes to napalm to attacking civilians, and yes, they're very different. But they are all rules of war, and so they all act this way, which brings me back to my original point. The only reason that any country applies rules of war on itself is that it wants it's opponents to apply those rules of war.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
