quote:

Originally posted by Hydrok:
because we have a system that allows for us to have nukes... because a crazy president cant just say, fire the nukes... congress wouldn't allow it, however other countries where the leader is also the military commander, with no checks in place are a bit more suceptable to instantanious bouts of aggression.

Wrong! According to Global Security, the "Gold Codes" in the "nuclear football" are distributed daily by the NSA "to the White House, Pentagon, STRATCOM, and the TACAMO aircraft. Use of the Gold Code constitutes an order to execute the SIOP by the National Command Authority (NCA). The National Command Authority (NCA) consists of the President, the Secretary of Defense, or their duly deputized alternates and successsors." No involvement of Congress anywhere. So, yes, Dubya could launch the missiles tomorrow (or today), all by hisself (Rumsfeld counts as an appendage).

Boy, Hydrok, for someone supposedly in military intelligence (well, for anybody, but especially for someone supposedly in military intelligence), you sure are misinformed about a great deal of the US military.

quote:

Originally posted by redrepublican:
Not to mention to us. They can blackmail us and use Israel as a hostage.

Uh, only if they want to be a smoking glass sheet themselves. Cold War? MAD doctrine? Hallooo?

quote:

If they were irresponsible, they would be nuking such apparent enemies.

Right, because nuking a non-nuclear hostile nation is the height of irresponsibility *cough*Hiroshima*cough*.

quote:

Originally posted by cheertori:
I don't know about ya'll, but I am 110% behind President Bush and the War. If it wasn't for President Bush the Iragi people would not have the freedom that they have now. Just last week Iraqi men and women, yes women were voting! For many of those people it was their first time. You can imagine their how free they felt. Also, if you only watch your local news channel, you ARE NOT getting the facts about the war in Iraq! You serousily need to watch Fox News Channel. They tell you BOTH sides of the story, not just what THEY want YOU to know.

Yay! Instead of being throw in jail without charge and tortured by Saddam's thugs (and having the same happen to their family members as a leverage technique), they are now free to have that done to them by Americans! O the joy!

Plus, they have the bonus freedom of being unable to walk the streets, for fear of "kidnap-for-profit" - something they didn't have (at least, to the same extent) under Saddam! Everybody now! "Oh, say can you see..."!

And God bless Fox news for giving you all te info! Just ask Bill "Abu Gharib isn't news" O'Reilly! He'd never lie to you!

quote:

Originally posted by ampmaster:
hey sheeb Saddam knew we were comin and he knew what we were looking for if you had a brain in your skull would you keep thoe weapons? no you would not they are probally in Iran or somewhere or at the bottom of the Persian Gulf

Clearly, you don't meet your own "brain in skull" criteria. Why would Saddam abandon WMDs, if he had them? It was (is) very clear that the US was out to kill him or jail him for life (CIA assassination attempts in the 90's, the sham of a "trial" being conducted as we speak). He knew that the US overthrowing him would be the end of his "golden palace" lifestyle (and the beginning of a "bread and water" one). Therefore, he fought with everything he had - which wasn't much.

Why on earth would someone with that mentality, in that situation, throw away their most potent weapons? Your GOP rhetoric is utterly without logic.

Why does America have to police the world. Instead of believing they are the solution, they should maybe take a look at themselves and realize they are the problem. What right do they have of barging into other countries to prevent production of WMD's when you already have more than any other country. Is it because Americans are 'responsible'? Sure, we saw how responsible the American governent was when they went to war with Iraq over false information. They have no right to meddle in other countries' affairs and change governments at their whim. You might say they are protecting the people of Iraq, but Americans should worry about protecting American lives, not Iraqis. Other countries like China may not necessarily like the American style of government, but that does not mean they invade America and overthrow the government.
Or Americas other excuse might be revenge for 9/11. Well they shouldn't be so short-sighted and should realize that the 9/11 attacks were a form of revenge in themself. After 50 years of meddling in other countries' affairs, is it so surprising when they get a dose of their own medicine?

hey sheeb Saddam knew we were comin and he knew what we were looking for if you had a brain in your skull would you keep thoe weapons? no you would not they are probally in Iran or somewhere or at the bottom of the Persian Gulf

After the swift fall of Baghdad, we found mass graves filled by a dictator; we found some capacity to restart programs to produce weapons of mass destruction, but we did not find those weapons. wow Bush just burned himself and so close to christmas its ok i dont expect much

peace out girl scouts

been watching your own movie again doc?

I say we just take a few massive subeterrainum bombs cased in Cobalt-Thorium G, link them to a bank of computers, and create a doomsday machine. Of course such a device is pointless as a deterrerent if nobody knows it exists.

Less nukes worldwide would help. But pigs still don't have the right genes to grow wings, so I suppose I'll just keeping dreaming.

I think its a bit of a stretch and a lie to say that the United States has a well balanced political system. It is more riddled with corruption and problems than anything...

Also, just because a nation doesn't have an exact replica of our political set up does not mean it is un-balanced and any less capable of dealing with nuclear weapons than the united states is.

because we have a system that allows for us to have nukes... because a crazy president cant just say, fire the nukes... congress wouldn't allow it, however other countries where the leader is also the military commander, with no checks in place are a bit more suceptable to instantanious bouts of aggression.

So why is it considered acceptable for the United States to have nuclear weapons, but not for any other nation to have them?

Hypocritical much?

Look out yall shes already been brainwashed

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ejke47:
bush is a nutbush is a nut[fjdksf/QUOTE]

I don't know about ya'll, but I am 110% behind President Bush and the War. If it wasn't for President Bush the Iragi people would not have the freedom that they have now. Just last week Iraqi men and women, yes women were voting! For many of those people it was their first time. You can imagine their how free they felt. Also, if you only watch your local news channel, you ARE NOT getting the facts about the war in Iraq! You serousily need to watch Fox News Channel. They tell you BOTH sides of the story, not just what THEY want YOU to know.

bush is a nutbush is a nut

quote:

Risk, if Iran indeed develops nuclear weapons, then they are a huge threat to Israel. I

Not to mention to us. They can blackmail us and use Israel as a hostage.

All counter-terrorism measures of this country would be extremely crippled.
Israel has proven that it will not use its weapons irresponsibly. Look at the current situation she faces:

Hoistile Egypt.
Hostil Syria.
Hostil Iran.
Hostile Lebanon.
Hostile Saudi Arabia.

If they were irresponsible, they would be nuking such apparent enemies.

Besides, the Israelis have proven that they are able to kick *** without nukes.

quote:

Nukes act as a deterant, thats why there haven't been any huge wars since 1945.

That may be true, but now we're all in fear of someone actually USING their WMDs because then it would be the end of the world...literally. Kind of a vicious cycle.

quote:

Nukes act as a deterant, thats why there haven't been any huge wars since 1945.

Perhaps, but I assume you don't support a country like Iran developing nukes.