11th April 2003, 9:22 PM
Oh come on... sure he didn't say much of anything that was true (the one truth was that Iraqi forces wouldn't use chemical or biological weapons), but he wouldn't care if the next US President was Republican or Democratic all that much... not once the war had started already...
Uh, no. It is no more moral for us to have any of that stuff than it is for them... which is to say not very... however, I wouldn't advocate getting rid of all our nuclear weapons. That would not be smart as long as other people the world either have them or could have them... while they should NEVER be used, it wouldn't send a good message to terrorists or rogue nations if we said 'we now have no nukes'... to some extent they do deter some kinds of attacks...
However, Iraq has none of those and has no nuclear weapons program. He could not have had a functioning nuclear program inspectors in the country... nuclear facilities are large and not easily hidden at all... and Sadaam wasn't anywhere near getting any nukes or nuclear materials of note either. He tried since before the first Gulf War, but didn't succeed because not easy to get nukes or have a nuclear program in a nation as closely watched as his was...
Oh, and we'd probably santion lots of nations if started nuclear prgrams... such as the sanctions we have had on Pakistan right now over that very issue... but Canada or Germany or somng? Probably not... though since they most likely won't try that anytime soon if ever I don't think it'll be an issue. Like most Western nations that don't have them (ie all of them except Britain and France) we have plenty to protect them... though if they're ever needed it won't really matter for anyone because most people would probably be dead...
Quote:Quote:Originally posted by Dark Lord Neo
I don't think anyone should have weapons of mass destruction and I have said this before, but you can't apply double standards to everything as the American government tends to do(and not just in this area)
I still don't belive that there would be the same reaction if Canada or Germany or one of the other western nations without them anounced that they were starting a nuclear weapons program
This is like saying that it's wrong for cops to have guns if convicted killers can't have them too. There would not be the same reaction if one of these nations started such a program because they are peaceful and civilized nations. Iraq was neither. Double standards are definitely necessary sometimes.
Uh, no. It is no more moral for us to have any of that stuff than it is for them... which is to say not very... however, I wouldn't advocate getting rid of all our nuclear weapons. That would not be smart as long as other people the world either have them or could have them... while they should NEVER be used, it wouldn't send a good message to terrorists or rogue nations if we said 'we now have no nukes'... to some extent they do deter some kinds of attacks...
However, Iraq has none of those and has no nuclear weapons program. He could not have had a functioning nuclear program inspectors in the country... nuclear facilities are large and not easily hidden at all... and Sadaam wasn't anywhere near getting any nukes or nuclear materials of note either. He tried since before the first Gulf War, but didn't succeed because not easy to get nukes or have a nuclear program in a nation as closely watched as his was...
Oh, and we'd probably santion lots of nations if started nuclear prgrams... such as the sanctions we have had on Pakistan right now over that very issue... but Canada or Germany or somng? Probably not... though since they most likely won't try that anytime soon if ever I don't think it'll be an issue. Like most Western nations that don't have them (ie all of them except Britain and France) we have plenty to protect them... though if they're ever needed it won't really matter for anyone because most people would probably be dead...