quote:

speed, we pay 60% of the UN's bills and they spend it on parties and new cars. Its full of a bunch of flabbing idiots, It was a good Idea, but its so filled with corruption its a virus

how much would you expect to pay if we have the most powerfull economy in the world and we are the one's that abuse the veto right.
...there is no way in hell i can possibly understand what makes your mind malfunction so badly.

quote:

Want proof? I've got it if you ask.

could you give some bullet points, sounds interesting.

quote:

I was given the opourtunity to firght in this war, and put my life on the line to change the course of a region of the world thats been at war for a thousand years with itself

the region has not been at war with itelf for a thousand years, before saddam sat the iraqi monarchy, a pro british institute which enjoyed considerable unity. Prior to world war one the Ottomans rules the area of iraq - the conquest of baghdad coming in 1534...and subsequently enjoying close to 400 years of peace. Arabs rules the lands, with a few Turks in high positions, previous to Ottoman rule the region was ruled by the Safavids, and long before that Mesopotamia was the seat of some truly great powers, including the Babylonians and the Assyrians.

So please rid your mind of the false claim that the region has been in constant strife, because that is just not true, the very reason for the difficulties is the partition of the Ottoman Empire post WW1, and the mishandling of the mandate given to the western powers...iraq should never have been unified in the way it is, it bred conflict and conflict breeds strong leaders to keep the peace....Saddam is a very result of western imperialism.

quote:

You are a fool for supporting their arms build up

First off, when will you learn that calling me a fool gets you nowhere? And second, when did I say I supported North Korea?

quote:

you would abandon them because you dont think the world needs a hero

I would abandon him because my concerns are with American lives. Too many American soldiers are dying when they needn't be. My first priority is the health and well-being of the citizens of my own country. Not all of the soldiers in Iraq think like you do. Quite a few have become disillusioned with the purpose for their presence.

quote:

we pay 60% of the UN's bills and they spend it on parties and new cars. Its full of a bunch of flabbing idiots, It was a good Idea, but its so filled with corruption its a virus

I think we all can agree that the UN is useless and bloated.

quote:

that clearly shows how Clinton and the others thought about foriegn policy too.

Ironic, though, that Clinton's foreign policy dealt with terrorism more effectively than did the foreign policies of Reagan or either of the Bush's. Want proof? I've got it if you ask.

Edit: never mind I shouldn't taunt the newbie

were have u been your whole life gorge bush is a bad president

quote:

No, not really. "Because we can" (or some variant) is not an acceptable answer. You just sort of flip-flopped through your whole post. I'm not even sure if you really did answer any of the questions.

Yeah, I do that sometimes. I was getting tired and trying to be eloquent while revising as I went and trying not to repeat myself. I also was trying to be creative in my descriptions of nukes and their effects (references to radioactive elements and unnatural erosion, respectively).

Part of the post below was:
We don't remove nukes from countries that have them because they would be justified in using them against us, or at least be justified in calling us up for war crimes (I think).

North Korea's leader(s) may have reasons other than being bat*hit insane to develop nukes, one at least being the argument you referenced: that we have nukes and they do not and we do not like them.

More countries having nukes would make a bad situation more terrible, especially since countries don't pursue WMD tech unless they feel it may be needed sometime.

And finally...
We have nuclear weapons, it's too late for us to lose them. But why we feel justified in holding a stockpile and not letting others do so is at least partially along the idea that we trust ourselves to act properly (the checks and balances system) and that we will only use them for defense, where others (Kim Jong Il, for example) are those who we fear would use a nuclear weapon in an offensive strategy. Retaking South Korea by nuking the larger cities would closely resemble a train colliding with a vegetable cart.


I hope that makes better sense. I caught myself trying my hand at eloquence again, and it may not be as witty as my bias toward it makes it seem to be.

quote:

it so happens that the US rules the UN, check what country's hold the most power

speed, we pay 60% of the UN's bills and they spend it on parties and new cars. Its full of a bunch of flabbing idiots, It was a good Idea, but its so filled with corruption its a virus

quote:

US's 300 million population effectively can hold more international power than the joint population of the other big four nations wich totals up to 1,7 billion.

When our forefathers escaped the opression of kings and queens in europe we can to the new world to persue freedom, and that we did, BUilding a goverment that gives the people the power to control the goverment. Our goverent will never be able to be fully hated because WE elect our leaders and they eventually leave. to continue the cycle of power. Democracy is a form of goverment that gives the pople a voice.

quote:

US has issued around 80% of the vetoes in the past 20 years

and only a few of those a republican has been in office... that clearly shows how Clinton and the others thought about foriegn policy too.

quote:

fairly clear that WE ARE THE ONE's MOST USING IT TO OUR ADVANTAGE.

I dunno, the Oil for food scandall seemend to be a prety good example of how money hungry jerks take from america for their own benefit. oh and by the way, Nothings happening in the balcans, we probably rejected that resolution so we can use that money in Iraq. your always complaining about policing the world, now all of a sudden you care? just not about the middle east then eh?

quote:

so closed minded

Im not one of those individuals. I have a very strog stading on supprting this war, not for the republican agenda but for a promising future, If we can win there imagine what kind of Item can be imported from there, their land is useless for farming, (except for the "fertile cresent") Grasslands are much better suited for that. But Iraq if it were industrialised could provide all kinds of things, we wouldnt have to depend on china for over priced computers, The middle east is much more suited for industrial workings. It a small idea but when other middle eastern countries see how well democracy is doing we can finally start to bring the pieces back togathe over there. who care that theyeve been fighting eachother their whole lives. It TIME for change anyway. If I had to think for a second, you europeans are just blowing smoke, your the ones closed minded, the Earth canot be preserved the way you want it, its going to change wheter yo like it or not, you want to see real change stay the course in Iraq, free the people and begin seeing what can happen. I dont expect gun hating war protesting closed minded squackers to understand the war, but believe it or not there are desireable sideeffects to staying. I was given the opourtunity to firght in this war, and put my life on the line to change the course of a region of the world thats been at war for a thousand years with itself I would accept that opourtunity, to save the world from itself. Iraq is ready for change, how about you?

quote:

Isolationism worked well enough for us before the first World War. The US is not the world's nanny. Other countries need to own up to their responsibilities as well.

you are so foolish. We are a major power in the Un for a reason. Isolation is a good way to wind up crashing our econonmy, our is intertwined with chia, tha why almost everything says "made in china" Like it or not we need to keep the world stable and on its feet, Ignoring problems kill people, it may not be you, but somone who lives in the dessert, born to the poorest society the world has to offer, He sure needed your help, but you would abandon them because you dont think the world needs a hero, As long as the world is at war I know I will stand and do my part to help it, Im bringing my life to the table to save future lives and democracy.

quote:

If we own nukes to prevent others from nuking us, why can't NK have nukes to prevent others from nuking them?

North Korea cannot be trusted with them, The Usa can because we dont have just one guy ruling our country, its called the seperation of powers. if you ask me, Nobody needs nukes, they are wepons with imense destructve power, we have ours for the Mutually assured destruction plan. Its called Deterrance. Nort Kore is in no threat unless they build more of those wepons. You are a fool for supporting their arms build up, the dictator is a fool, at any one moment he could give the order to detonate one on south korean soil, Our President dosnt even have control over our nukes, they would be launched ONLY if another country were to launch them at us, ours are protected Deep underground in silos where they have been kept for deckades, Nort Korea was threatened by noone and decided to build these bombs, and Noone builds them for the Heck of it, they cost too much, and they require too much land to test on. They Have a reason, its not a threat from the EU or the USA, nor from russia. Think clearly man, North Korea has a right todefend itself but noone needs nukes to do it.

quote:

2. because the UN was created to prevent genocide and it should be able to do its job. but with those fat money hungry lards ruling the UN it dosnt work

it so happens that the US rules the UN, check what country's hold the most power, and what country's have vetoed the largest ammount of resolutions. We win by a landslide difference. The idea beind the UN is that ALL it's participant's decide on global matters by consesus and vote. OUR idea is that WE DECIDE on global matters according to WHAT SUITS US BEST, and if we happen to disagree with THE REST OF THE WORLD ON ANYTHING, we use our handy veto right, wich statistically means that the US's 300 million population effectively can hold more international power than the joint population of the other big four nations wich totals up to 1,7 billion.
It so happens that since the 1980's the US has vetoed 43 resolutions, infront of the total 19 of the other 4 members, more than twice as many.

Unsurprisingly, most of these vetoes never make the news in the US, or are greatly downplayed, thus the perception that the UN is uneffective, when in reality it is the US wich has made most use of it to accomplish or disallow anything it has willed.

Some outstanding vetoes that are definitly worth mention include:

US veto of a Resolution that promotes the protection and fair treatment of Palestinian civilians. Following link ilustrates >> http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/s01270.htm

US veto of a Resolution calling to renovate the peace keeping forces deployed in the Balcans. Following link ilustrates >> http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/s01270.htm

There are many more, but those give a fairly accurate idea of what the US typically opposes, and what it uses it's power for.

Historically, the Soviet Union was responsible for the largest ammount of vetoes, before someone brings this up against me I'd like to put it into context. The US officially oposed the integration of Soviet republics into the UN, thus the Soviets vetoed American interests wich where damaging to the Soviet Union. This behaviour can be classified as a REACTION to US policy's, not an offensive action by the Soviet Union.
It is also worth mentioning that almost all of the soviet vetoes where placed in years ranging from 1946 to 1965. whereas the US has issued around 80% of the vetoes in the past 20 years.
I think this clearly illustrates the partisan use of our veto rights in the UNSC, and completely undermines your statement of the UN's uselessness, as it is fairly clear that WE ARE THE ONE's MOST USING IT TO OUR ADVANTAGE.

thank god your not old enough to vote.

Alright.. here is my problem with americians exactly (okay some, not all, I agree with you clp13) you guys are so closed minded and don't take time to stop and assess exactly what you're saying or do research into what you believe. You just listen to whatever you're told to listen to (and I'm sorry I'm generalizing here, there are Americans who are very well educated on different matters, sorry for those out there) You just regugitate (sp) information. Alright, it is probably true that I do the same thing time to time, but atleast when I post i try to be as educated as possible.

quote:

1. because we have the power to.

And that's supposed to mean something?

quote:

2. because the UN was created to prevent genocide and it should be able to do its job. but with those fat money hungry lards ruling the UN it dosnt work

Yes, because ignoring genocide makes you money.

quote:

3. we own those nukes to prevent other countries from nuking us. and we can be trusted with them because were smarter than the terroists when it comes to using frepower.

If we own nukes to prevent others from nuking us, why can't NK have nukes to prevent others from nuking them?

quote:

4. wether you like it or not were part of this world and we shouldnt seclude ourselves from it.

Isolationism worked well enough for us before the first World War. The US is not the world's nanny. Other countries need to own up to their responsibilities as well.

quote:

I dont think your that heartless are you?

I don't know. You tell me. You told me everything else about me.

The simple fact of the matter is this: the United States can't claim to know what is right for the rest of the world because the United States does not know what is right for the rest of the world. We do not have that kind of moral authority. The United States takes it upon itself to dictate to the rest of the world. How does this accomplish anything? It doesn't. We babysit other nations and then we are forced to keep babysitting. They never learn to protect themselves. They never, in a sense, grow up because they are forever taken care of by the United States. That's not meant to be insulting to other nations, but it's unfortunately a bit true.

The great irony of this all is that the world was a much nicer place before the United States became a superpower. It makes you wonder if the state of the world and our control over it are related?

And for future reference, keep your assumptions about me out of your arguments. They do nothing for it. Actually, they make me laugh. You couldn't me more wrong about me. Stick to the facts. Leave psychology to Freud and company.

quote:

Why shouldn't they be allowed to have nuclear technology

hes a loose canon duh! if you want to die be my guest but dont take me wit you! I care

quote:

Why? Why is it our duty to keep the rest of the world in line?

1. because we have the power to.
2. because the UN was created to prevent genocide and it should be able to do its job. but with those fat money hungry lards ruling the UN it dosnt work
3. we own those nukes to prevent other countries from nuking us. and we can be trusted with them because were smarter than the terroists when it comes to using frepower.
4. wether you like it or not were part of this world and we shouldnt seclude ourselves from it.
you must be one of those people who see another geting muged and dosnt do anything. I cannot stand by and watch my fellow man destroy itself. I dont see how you can. oh yeah, you dont care. thats what seperates me from you. I care about this good earth I live on. your someone who goes by day after day in the same path, in some stupid desk job where all you worry about is what goes on inside your own state. while the rest of the world blows itslef to peices you sit and party with your friends. you take your freedom for granted while men fight and die to protect you, you then agree with Kerry about his remarks about the troops. you are a sad sad sad American. No wonder why this worlds so messed up. You need to get out more and see the world around you. If you walked a mile in their shoes you would most likely care more than this. See the starvation while you sit there and eat to your hearts contempt kids starve and die from severe starvation. and you just dont care? I dont think your that heartless are you? Its time to stop thinking about yourself. Sacrafice the good of the one for the needs of the many.

No, not really. "Because we can" (or some variant) is not an acceptable answer.

You just sort of flip-flopped through your whole post. I'm not even sure if you really did answer any of the questions.

After the Cold War, we likely aren't going to be letting our stockpile disappear completely until everyone else's nukes go.

Will they believe that those uranium rocketships we've got hidden away are solely for defense if they are constantly told that we are the enemy? NK likely feels justified in thinking just that: that we may be willing to bomb or invade them if they don't have something to stop us from doing so. The Korean War likely didn't smooth out good relations with them, and now they see us acting in the Middle East. It may not even matter why we do it: what we say needn't be the truth if we want to groom a place for invasion. Kim Jong Il may think he's doing something for his country, that we as Capitalists must be removed. He may feel we are willing to shoot first, and must be preempted. He may have a desire to expand into S. Korea and want a credible threat handy in case we try to defend it again. I don't know.

Disarmament could help improve relations with other countries if we show we aren't trying to control them with an aerial chopping block but it's in our best interest militarily as a country with enemies to keep nukes on hand to prevent unnatural erosion of US soil.

So in answer to...

quote:

Why don't we do anything about that? [...] Why? Why is it our duty to keep the rest of the world in line? What right do we have to tell other countries that they can't possess nuclear technology while we ourselves have enough to decimate most of Europe? How is the United States any more trustworthy with that kind of power? Really?

It's easier to have a country not start a nuclear weapons program. Otherwise they walk into a sixty-way Mexican standoff and pull out a gun. Whoever yields first risks getting shot from all sides. Our leaders have a responsibility to the country that requires telling the others to lower their guns first, as to do otherwise could invite death. This can be extended to any other member of the international community holding a 'gun', and that is why disarmament is so tricky, with all involved being asked to lower their guns a little bit more. Naturally, prevention is preferred, as the Mutually Assured Destruction meme tends to mean that no one will launch nukes. It also can be interpreted as "no one will build nukes unless they have a good reason to, as it wouldn't make sense to just make them to not be used." A good waste of money, otherwise.

And why is the US more trustworthy than others to hold the coveted Plutonium Parcel? We don't really trust anyone else to limit themselves to two bombings, or to reconstruct the destroyed cities and economy afterward. Note that we is the operative word in that sentence: it's said from an American point of view. That's why we feel trustworthy to have nukes. Other countries may vary.

quote:

Answer my questions, Xray. If you don't, I'll be forced to assume that you can't.

Whoops. Ah, well. I answered them now, I suppose.

Answer my questions, Xray. If you don't, I'll be forced to assume that you can't.

quote:

They didnt just build a nuke to see if they could.

Do you know this? Perhaps NK figured that if other countries have nuclear technology, they could go ahead and research their own. There's nothing to show that they'd ever use such technology because no country is stupid enough to fall afoul of the United States. If they did anything with that nuke other than test it, we'd blow their country to kingdom come. We've done it before and NK knows that we'd do it again in a heartbeat. That's enough to make anyone think twice before attacking someone--especially a US ally--with a nuke.

quote:

we must punish this renegade country for its actions.

Why? How is NK a rogue nation? Why shouldn't they be allowed to have nuclear technology? Pakistan has nukes and their relationship with us is sketchy at best. Why don't we do anything about that? These are valid questions and I'd like to see them answered without any personal insults, if that's possible.

quote:

Being a super power isnt easy because you literally carry the weight of the world

Why? Why is it our duty to keep the rest of the world in line? What right do we have to tell other countries that they can't possess nuclear technology while we ourselves have enough to decimate most of Europe? How is the United States any more trustworthy with that kind of power? Really?