|
|
 |
|
If you believe nuclear weapons should not be outlawed completely, then you can't go around saying
'such and such is not allowed them' - after all why stop there? 'I, because I am a large country,
believe that no one else should be allowed guns.' A similar statement - and equally ridiculous. You
either ban a weapon completely, or allow any country to possess them. I'd go with the former with
nukes any time. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No country has the right to interfere in the development of any country which is basic human right
law as well. And even if a country is developing a nuclear program the USA does not have the right
to suppress the development of that nation by force, sanctions or any other means. If it does not
like it it can only leave the nation alone in disapproval of its actions because the only nations
that are a real threat are the ones who have already developed these program and are now dictating
their term on other developing nations. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
When has fairness or justice had anything to do with international politics? The leaders of America
and every other country are able to make these sweeping statements about what is just and right with
a complete lack of irony. It boggles my mind. I mean let’s be honest folk’s American aggression
and self centered approach to international politics is hardly trend setting. Literally ever nation
or political group in history has convinced itself that if it has the power it should use it. If I
could take America’s nuclear weapons away I would but I wouldn’t trust anyone else with them
either. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Why should the world trust the US with nuclear weapons and not be allowed to have them themselves?
This is typical American arrogance. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
How wonderful the Americans are they are truly unique nobody in the history of mankind has used so
many weapons of mass destruction against so many .they have used napalm atomic bombs agent orange
they even use a coined phrase "when guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have will have
guns"mugabe tortures people but the Americans are again unique because they give shelter to those
they torture and look again they are so good that if Saddam killed 200,000 in twenty years the
Americans killed over 1,500,000 in 4 years they have such brave men they can and do kill thousands
and always mostly innocent civilians with no chance of death or injury and they create so much
hatred that they manage to make their enemies become so deadly that they kill themselves .now i bet
you cannot disagree the Americans are the greatest.......OH DID I MENTION" when nuclear weapons are
outlawed only the outlaws will have guns""so i guess if you want to be there become an outlaw . |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I don't see the US doing anything to take away Israel's 200 nuclear weapons.
Given that the US is the only country to use nuclear weapons on another country, and the hundreds of
instances of US terrorism against other nations since World War II, it's clear that the US IS
the greatest danger to the world, not any other country.
Edit:
The replier obviously doesn't have a clue.
The nations that are the greatest danger in having nuclear weapons are the countries that already
have them. |
| |
 K9  22 Apr 2008 21:38
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I don't understand the concept of defensive nuclear weapons or technology. I generally think the
idea is disgusting and pretty clearly rooted in money or power trips. The idea that someone else
better not try to make a bomb as powerful as me or else i will bomb them doesn't hold water in any
sense. Why should the first country be allowed to have such a bomb, let alone tell another country
they cannot.
Its common sense gone crazy. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
He he debater I am to but I think on my own that was the easiest resolution ever I want more like
that one |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Well you see the problem with arguing for this resolution, primarily for me, is that rational
leaders would only ever attempt to acquire them for defensive purposes |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The nuclear cat is out of the bag and dangerous countries and dangerous organisations and dangerous
individuals could make crude nuclear detonations or just dirty bombs with parts ordered on-line.
Its too late for America to save the world from nuclear holocaust. Head for the hills with your
trusty rifle and hunker in your bunker. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The United States believes itself to be the cop of the world, protecting all the world from rogue
nations and yet it remains to be one of the most dangerous and over-stocked nuclear powered and
armed countries in the world.
As the only country in the world to have ever used nuclear weapons in anger and the country with the
highest quantity of active and ready to fire nuclear weapons.
By 'pose' a threat, I wonder if the poster means that they threaten the USA's control over the world
by wielding its massive destructive force.
Iran? Is it a threat? It's only a threat if you believe that it will use it against you when you
yet again try to bully them. China? Russia? It's funny how America seems to find no problem in not
bullying the more powerful nations, it only picks on those countries that do not agree with
America's aims and cannot at adequately defend themselves at the time being.
I also have a problem with the idea of 'dangerous' countries, they seem dangerous to me, because
they challenge the dominance of the United States of America over the world. They are not dangerous
because they suddenly want to take over the world, but because they have different ideals,
philosophies and ideas. The US finds this dangerous because it challenges the economic and military
hegemony that has existed since the Second World War.
Are there responsible countries? Does America get a monopoly on being the responsible user of
nuclear power? It seems strange to consider it responsible having killed and maimed two hundred and
twenty thousand people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now it uses its weapons to bully other countries
into complicity. Just because another country that doesn't agree with Western democratic society
doesn't make it dangerous or irresponsible.
Using military force to prevent the development of nations is nothing more than holding the world to
ransom. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
