If nuclear bomb is a bad thing, why does US have it?!

[Cognescenti]

Israel is now the only state with nuclear weapons that does not admit to having such weapons. It has always refused to allow international inspection of the Dimona facility, and is among the few states that have refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/892941.stm
<snip>
The question that you have ALL refused to answer is the DOUBLE STANDARD!!!

Where are the sanctions for Israel? The USA and British forces have killed over 1 million people since US imposed sanctions in Iraq over a LIE.....yet Israel is continuing to violate UN resolutions and NOTHING is done...and we KNOW that's the TRUTH!! The USA and Britain ILLEGALLY invaded Iraq completely ignoring the UN and the majority of the world...where are the sanctions?

Do none of you get that? What part of that do you NOT understand?

And, Cognescenti, don't assume you know what talents I may or may not possess. Never assume anything.

Hana

I am beginning to think you don't like Israel. why would Israel sign the NPT when the public secret is they already have nukes? That makes no sense. When they are non-signatories they do not have to allow international isnpections. They chose not to sign for a reason. You can say it is a double standard all you want but it is a bit like starting a farm in the Sahara and then complaining about the lousy rainfall. I think it is fair to say the US and Western Europe are not worried that the Israelis are going to use a nuke on them. In fact, the Israelis have been through at least one war in which their existence was threatened (1973) and the elected not to use nukes. Let's just say that such a level of confidence does not exist in regard to Iran. This isn't about "fairness". It's not a cricket game. This is about avoiding WWIII and nuclear armagedon in the Mideast. BTW, while we are on the subject of cheating....Iran lied to the IAEA and got busted. You can see why there is a credibility issue (among other reasons).

You want sanctions on Israel...YOU do it. Fine with me.

Then there is this: "The USA and British forces have killed over 1 million people since US imposed sanctions in Iraq over a LIE..."

When making a wildly hyperbolic statement of this sort, be prepared to back it up. Are you talking about UN sanctions? 1 million??? Please, that is preposterous. And, please tell us what "LIE" you are taking about. Come to think of it...never mind it will be off topic.


"And, Cognescenti, don't assume you know what talents I may or may not possess. Never assume anything. "

Aj carmaba! :-[

 

[*Hana*]

I am beginning to think you don't like Israel. why would Israel sign the NPT when the public secret is they already have nukes? That makes no sense. When they are non-signatories they do not have to allow international isnpections. They chose not to sign for a reason. You can say it is a double standard all you want but it is a bit like starting a farm in the Sahara and then complaining about the lousy rainfall. I think it is fair to say the US and Western Europe are not worried that the Israelis are going to use a nuke on them. In fact, the Israelis have been through at least one war in which their existence was threatened (1973) and the elected not to use nukes. Let's just say that such a level of confidence does not exist in regard to Iran. This isn't about "fairness". It's not a cricket game. This is about avoiding WWIII and nuclear armagedon in the Mideast. BTW, while we are on the subject of cheating....Iran lied to the IAEA and got busted. You can see why there is a credibility issue (among other reasons).

You want sanctions on Israel...YOU do it. Fine with me.

Then there is this: "The USA and British forces have killed over 1 million people since US imposed sanctions in Iraq over a LIE..."

When making a wildly hyperbolic statement of this sort, be prepared to back it up. Are you talking about UN sanctions? 1 million??? Please, that is preposterous. And, please tell us what "LIE" you are taking about. Come to think of it...never mind it will be off topic.


"And, Cognescenti, don't assume you know what talents I may or may not possess. Never assume anything. "

Aj carmaba! :-[

The LIE that you question is the LIE that virtually every person on the planet has heard the USA Government admit to on more than once occasion. Remember all the missing WMD that they KNEW were in Iraq? Notice how the war in Iraq went from protecting the USA from the mean ole', WMD welding Iraqis to the "war on terror". Did you conveniently forget about all the pretty words Bush uses to "justify" his war?

Aside from the 200,000 Iraqis slaughtered during the Gulf War, an additional 1.5 million civilians have died since 1991 as a result of the sanctions, according to UNICEF reports and the Red Cross, many from what normally would be treatable and curable illnesses. Of these victims, 600,000 are children under 5 years of age. Maternal mortality rates have more than doubled, and 70 percent of Iraqi women suffer from anemia. Given the tons of depleted uranium used during the Allied attacks, cancer rates have skyrocketed: the childhood leukemia rate is now the highest in the world. Most of the leukemia increase is in southern Iraq where the bombing was heaviest.

The United States destroyed much of the civilian infrastructure of Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War. Over a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians were killed because of the war: Philadelphia Inquirer, January 2003Philadelphia: “…158,000 Iraqi men, women and children died during and shortly after the Persian Gulf war.”

Since then hundreds of thousands have died because of U.S. imposed sanctions:

“While estimates vary, many independent authorities assert that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children under five have died since 1990, in part as a result of the sanctions and the effects of the Gulf War. An August 1999 Unicef report found that the under-five mortality rate in Iraq has more than doubled since the imposition of sanctions.”

U.S. Navy Secretary John Lehman estimated that 200,000 Iraqis died in the Gulf War, but many more have died since. UNICEF estimates that well over a million Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S-led sanctions regime, in place for the last decade. Some 500,000 children have died, and an estimated 4,000 die from various preventable, sanctions-related diseases, every month, says the U.N. agency.

How many more statistics would you like. And notice they all use the same US IMPOSED SANCTIONS?? I'm surprised you even questioned that as it has been an accepted phrase since the US IMPOSED SANCTIONS. By the way, I was being very generous in the numbers...I said over 1 million SINCE the US imposed sanctions. Many sources say over 1 million BECAUSE of the sanctions and far more since the illegal invasion. So, my stated 1 million was significantly lower.

You can try to justify Israel having nuclear power while they and the USA doesn't want any other country in the world to have them...but when they turn around and use them on their "friends" one day, remember this post.

Actually, I have no problem whatsoever with Israelis, just as I have no problem at all with Americans. I do, however, have a major problem with their corrupt governments, which as I have said, are more of a threat to their own people than any outside forces are.

Hana

 

[Keltoi]

If every country in the world had nuclear weapons would the world be a safer place? Would mutually assured destruction stay the hand of every world leader and dictator? Possession of nuclear weapons probably stopped the U.S. and the Soviet Union from world war, but I don't believe M.A.D.(mutually assured destruction) will stop every country from using this technology.

 

[wilberhum]

If every country in the world had nuclear weapons would the world be a safer place? Would mutually assured destruction stay the hand of every world leader and dictator? Possession of nuclear weapons probably stopped the U.S. and the Soviet Union from world war, but I don't believe M.A.D.(mutually assured destruction) will stop every country from using this technology.

I was just thinking just how much safer I would feel if every man, woman, and child carried a gun. :skeleton:

 

[Keltoi]

I was just thinking just how much safer I would feel if every man, woman, and child carried a gun. :skeleton:

That sort of goes along with a study I heard about on the radio today. It seems gun violence has increased with the increase in gun control measures. Perhaps if more victims had firearms there would be less victims.

 

[Pygoscelis]

That sort of goes along with a study I heard about on the radio today. It seems gun violence has increased with the increase in gun control measures. Perhaps if more victims had firearms there would be less victims.

Chicago and Toronto are similar in size, population, and culture. Toronto has very strict gun control, Chicago has more lax control. Toronto, on a bad year, has 40 gun homocides. Chicago, on a bad year, has 400 gun homocides. That alone should speak volumes. It is at the very least a very strong correlation.

The proposition that the answer to gun crime is to ADD MORE GUNS is nonsensical.

 

[Woodrow]

I was just thinking just how much safer I would feel if every man, woman, and child carried a gun. :skeleton:

I didn't know you had moved here to Texas?


Odd thing ever since Texas legalized concealed weapons it seems less people are carrying them. speaking for myself I used to always carry a hand gun. But I stopped carrying one about 5 years ago and no longer even own any fire arms.

Individuals can be trusted a lot further than Nations can. It would be very rapid chaos if every Nation had nukes. The biggest problem is the smaller nations would be forced to use them. They are very expensive to keep and they will ruin a military budget of a small country very fast, leaving them with the discovery that they can no longer afford a standing military unless they use the Nukes and try to gain more territory.

 

[wilberhum]

I didn't know you had moved here to Texas?

Now that's really funney. I moved from Dallas to Seattle in July, 2005.
I hated Texas. Now that I'm in Washington, it dosn't look so bad.
But I have to find a better sign for my scarcasm. I say junk that is so off base that I think it is impossable that any one would take it seriously. But guess what? People take dumb statements and eat them up.

Safer if everyone carries a gun!
Amazing, :skeleton:
Wilber

 

[Keltoi]

There are actually people, myself included, who believe the right to carry concealed weapons is a good thing. Perhaps that is the effect of my Okie/Texas upbringing, but that is how I feel. I guess it is different when you are raised in a gun culture.

We should probably stay on topic though...

 

[Woodrow]

What do nuclear weapons cost a nation? Here in the US because of them we have seen a drop in education standards, a reduced size conventional military, reduced health care for the elderly etc.

Here we see nuclear weapons spending ranked against all other federal government spending from 1940-1996, as documented by the Office of Management and Budget. The bar at a the extreme left is for national defense and totals $13.2 trillion. We have deducted our estimate of nuclear weapons-related spending from this bar. Next comes Social Security, at a nearly $7.9 trillion. Bear in mind however that much of this is not spending per se but funds collected from payroll taxes and redistributed to older Americans or placed in the trust fund. Coming in at a number three is nuclear weapons at almost $5.5 trillion. Welfare is a close fourth followed by interest on the national debt. I realize that the type on this is rather hard to read but the chart is in your packet and may also be found on page 5 of the book. What this chart demonstrates, among other things, is that nuclear weapons spending over this 56-year period exceeded the combined total federal spending for education; training, employment, and social services; agriculture; natural resources and the environment; general science, space, and technology; community and regional development (including disaster relief); law enforcement; and energy production and regulation. On average, the United States has spent $98 billion a year on nuclear weapons.

Source: http://www.brook.edu/fp/projects/nucwcost/schwartz.htm

Nukes are bad and only someone with no concern for his country men would desire them

Having them will cripple a small nation faster than an invading army would. Plus it would be something the people could not fight back against. Nukes are leeches that will suck a country dry and be paid for by the citizen least able to afford it.

 

[mahdisoldier19]

If that they state is true, why not allow inspections? :skeleton:

They actually do Allow Inspections, in fact they allow any typical human being to come and visit their stations.

But what do you view as inspections?

 

[yigiter187]

They actually do Allow Inspections, in fact they allow any typical human being to come and visit their stations.

But what do you view as inspections?

us is not the owner of this world...us hasnt got a right such as inspecting ıran or other muslim countries..ıran is totally the right one

 

[Keltoi]

us is not the owner of this world...us hasnt got a right such as inspecting ıran or other muslim countries..ıran is totally the right one

The U.S. wouldn't be inspecting anyone, it is the IAEA who does the inspecting, and it is a U.N. organization.

 

[yigiter187]

The U.S. wouldn't be inspecting anyone, it is the IAEA who does the inspecting, and it is a U.N. organization.

un =us no difference ı think un does what us wants

 

[Keltoi]

un =us no difference ı think un does what us wants

If that was the case they would be in Iraq right now helping the government get on its feet. You don't seem to understand that U.N. actions are based primarily on the Security Council, which never agree on anything and nothing gets done.

 

[Cognescenti]

The LIE that you question is the LIE that virtually every person on the planet has heard the USA Government admit to on more than once occasion. Remember all the missing WMD that they KNEW were in Iraq? Notice how the war in Iraq went from protecting the USA from the mean ole', WMD welding Iraqis to the "war on terror". Did you conveniently forget about all the pretty words Bush uses to "justify" his war?


Aside from the 200,000 Iraqis slaughtered during the Gulf War, an additional 1.5 million civilians have died since 1991 as a result of the sanctions, according to UNICEF reports and the Red Cross, many from what normally would be treatable and curable illnesses. Of these victims, 600,000 are children under 5 years of age. Maternal mortality rates have more than doubled, and 70 percent of Iraqi women suffer from anemia.

That's what I supposed you were talking about. You are co-mingling argumetns in favor of the war with arguments to impose sanctions at least 10 years earlier. Look...one of the main arguments opposing the US/UK attack on Hussein's regime was that "sanctions were working" They were, sort of, but economic sanctions have....guess what...economic consequences. Hussein's regime and their troublemaking (gassing Kurds, slaughtering Shia, invading Kuwait, starting a war with Iran where perhaps 2 million people died) were not going to give up and move to Switzerland just because some guys in powdered wigs showed up and politely asked.

The figures you cite, though likely augmented (epidemiological studies in Iraq are difficult) largely apply to the time before the "oil-for-food" program. Look how that turned out. Hussein had literally billions of dollars in US currency lying about the country in secret hideouts. He had a dozen palaces with gold plated bathroom fixtures. Uday had a new car every week, the finest imported brandys and champaigne and hand-crafted custom shotguns. They were buying surface to surface missiles right up to the end. They were paying off all sorts of people to keep the shell game going. Hussein was building whole cities in the desert for his Tikriti loyalists. They were smuggling very large quantities of oil.

The problem wasn't so much the sanctions. You could say it was more about bad shopping discipline on the part of Hussein. One of Uday's Bentleys or Mercedes could have funded iron pills for a million women for a year. In fact, it was worse than that. The suffering of the Iraqi people (partly at the discretion of the regime) was used as a political wedge to break the sanctions and to unite people behind Hussein himself. If that isn't cynnical....no it's way past cynnical and into the evil realm.

Given the tons of depleted uranium used during the Allied attacks, cancer rates have skyrocketed: the childhood leukemia rate is now the highest in the world. Most of the leukemia increase is in southern Iraq where the bombing was heaviest.

"Skyrocketed"? Oh please. You do realize that depleted Uranium is less radioactive than unprocessed metallic Uranium? How could anyone possibly claim an accurate rate of leukemia prevalence in Southern Iraq under these conditions? That has agenda written all over it. Convince me if can. Show me the scientific data...not website hyperbole. I'm listening.

The sanctions were imposed by the United Nations....were they not? Every memeber state of the Secuirty Council voted "Aye" including our great buddies the French, the Russians and the Chinese. It was tied to undeniable past evidence of Iraqi WMD's. Remember...they actually used the things on the Kurds. The fact that they had no usable WMD's at the start of GWII is immaterial to the decision to impose sanctions in 1990. Generally, btw, the use of the word "lie" is restricted to the knowing telling of falsehood..unless of course, one has a political ax to grind.

You can try to justify Israel having nuclear power while they and the USA doesn't want any other country in the world to have them...but when they turn around and use them on their "friends" one day, remember this post.

I am not going to lose sleep over that.

Actually, I have no problem whatsoever with Israelis, just as I have no problem at all with Americans. I do, however, have a major problem with their corrupt governments, which as I have said, are more of a threat to their own people than any outside forces are.

Hana

Ah....the old "I don't hate Americans..just their government" line.

Here is another good one...."some of my best friends are Americans"

 

[Hashim_507]

Its all about power and world domination.

 

[yigiter187]

If that was the case they would be in Iraq right now helping the government get on its feet. You don't seem to understand that U.N. actions are based primarily on the Security Council, which never agree on anything and nothing gets done.

ı havent seen a useful beneficial jobe done by security council...

 

[Keltoi]

ı havent seen a useful beneficial jobe done by security council...

There hasn't been in awhile, but that is a separate thread.

 

[*Hana*]

Ah....the old "I don't hate Americans..just their government" line.

Here is another good one...."some of my best friends are Americans"

Don't try to pretend like you even have 1/2 a clue what I do and do not like. BTW, I don't have any American friends, just as I don't have any Swedish friends, German friends, Iraqi friends, etc., etc., etc. By your logic, I'm suppose to hate every ethnicity because I don't have friends in that country. I hate the Iraqi government too....does that mean I also hate Iraqis? I hate my own pathethic, prime minister, should I hate all canadians too?

As for the response to my old post....believe whatever you want...you will anyway. The truth is there but if you choose to keep your blinders on go for it, it doesn't effect me one way or another. I could continue with the back and forth where you dismiss my facts without providing any of your own....and why? Because you can't. all you have is lip service and the accusation of using biased websites. So, do and believe whatever you like. But, when the tables are turned, (and they will), I'm looking forward to your whining and your "I'm a victim" speech.

To use your style of writing: stopping this conversation is kinda like beating your head against wall....it feels so good when you stop.

Ta Ta

Hana