I think we may be developing a new international danger: DRMDs (Discarded Rationales of Mass Destruction).

I heard somewhere else that, using Bolton’s tortured logic, Saddam should have mass-executed all of his scientists to show true good-faith compliance with UN mandates. Or emulated my home state (Texas) and started turning out textbooks that would poison young Iraqis’ minds with pseudo-science.

Now I am sitting at my computer saying WTF.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

*flops*

The future is here my friends�embrace it.  The administration is obviously using technology from the movie Minority Report!  I�m so proud�what will our boys think of next?

Pretty damn ridiculous statement to make and I�m a mindless warmonger!

“The Matrix is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.”

What’s the best defense against any nation these days? Possessing nukes. Anyone thinks of attacking and they launch them--so you better think twice.
Yeah, that’s cynical, but would we dare attack any nation with nukes? NFW!

Dean for President.

At the risk of sounding stupid or ill informed here, but am I correct in thinking that there is actually only one country in the world that has demonstrated a willingness to actually use WMD, (Hiroshima, Nagasaki WWII) and also has the largest stockpiles of all varieties of such weaponry? (I refer of course to the US)

I am sure there are some rather high brow ways of explaining what appears to me as hypocrisy, when the US aggressively disarms countries who may or may not have the exact same weapons that the US is itself pointing at the world. I just fail to see the justification for that, when as the evidence shows the US is the only country in the world that has demonstrated a willingness to actually use these things on people. Maybe I am just missing some globally accepted point, that makes it ok for some and not ok for others to use the same methods in warfare?

The U.S. is the only nation to have used atomic weapons, but we are far from the only ones to have used WMD’s (under the definition I understand). WMD is actually a political term, it isn’t a term comonly used by the military. The military calls these weapons NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical), and saddam used chemical weapons in the iran/iraq war, and against the kurds. The use of atomic bombs in ww2 has to be put into perspective when you realize that during that war all sides saw attacking civilian targets as justified (the US and Britain bombed German cities regularly, and the Germans bombed British and Russsian cities), and the deaths at nagasaki and hiroshima were just a small fraction of civilian deaths during that conflict.

I think what freaks me out the most is that recent polls (recent, mind you), indicate that staggering numbers of American citizens still think that Saddam and Osama are synonymous.  There are some extremely tenuous fragments of evidence to indicate that Saddam might have “reached out” to these guys at some point, but there’s no real evidence of money changing hands, of weapons being provided, or of anything else.

Most people, when questioned, replied that their conviction that there was some sort of connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda was, at its roots, based on a “feeling” that these people with “Anti-American” sentiments were probably cooperating with each other.

Amazing how “feelings” can lead to sincere belief that something is “true.” Never works for me, but I’m one of those namby-pamby, navel-gazing, always riddled with self-doubt types.

Well, I’m becoming increasingly convinced that humanity’s destiny is to annihilate itself in some beautifully, spectacularly idiotic way.  I just hope I can have lots of toys to play with in the meantime.  I really don’t care if dogs inherit the earth-- they probably deserve it more.

Serai

Your statements caused me mild distress, which necessitated this long-winded response.

Having had first hand experience with what the US Air Force called �special weapons�, I�ll give you my perspective.  First, from a military point of view, nuclear weapons are just another weapon.  This is not my opinion and I don�t mean to come off in a �matter of fact� tone, but it is true.  I understand fully the moral implications of their use and the damage they can cause.

From the late 1970s and much of the 1980s, I was stationed in the UK.  When we had exercises �war games�, they were fought conventionally for the first 4 days, and then nuclear forces were introduced on the fifth day.  In the book �The Third World War�, by General Sir John Hackett, Royal Air Force Upper Heyford was cited as one of the first bases hit by nuclear weapons and I read that book while I was at that base!  It was of course a work of fiction, but he used real military units, tactics, and scenarios in describing how a third European war might go.  I tell you this to show that I have given nuclear weapons a great deal of thought; perhaps more than many people.

When you said:

I am sure there are some rather high brow ways of explaining what appears to me as hypocrisy, when the US aggressively disarms countries who may or may not have the exact same weapons that the US is itself pointing at the world.  I just fail to see the justification for that, when as the evidence shows the US is the only country in the world that has demonstrated a willingness to actually use these things on people.

I assume you are discussing Iraq.  As you know, Iraq invaded Kuwait and US and coalition forces expelled the Iraqis from Kuwait.  The Iraqis then surrendered and signed a paper that said, �If you guys stop killing us, we will do what you ask�.  We asked them to get rid of their long-range offensive weapons systems and dismantle their �unconventional� weapons programs in a verifiable manner.  They inarguably did not dismantle their programs verifiably.  I am not saying the Iraqis had deployed WMD systems prior to the current conflict.  I�m just stating that they were playing a pretty stupid game by not cooperating with the verification teams if they didn�t have WMD.

Recall that Iraq fired SCUD missiles at Israel during the first conflict�what in the hell did Israel have to do with Kuwait?  And it is of course a war crime to target civilian population centers.  What would have happened if Israel had responded, which they had every moral and legal justification to do?!  WWIII may have started.  Would you prefer that the �72 virgins in heaven� crowd had nuclear warheads to put on their missiles?

I�ll be willing to bet you have been sleeping relatively well in spite of the fact that the bad old Yanks have all those nuclear weapons pointed at �the world� .  How well do you think you�d sleep if Iran, Iraq, or North Korea had them?  Iraq and North Korea in particular have, in recent history, launched offensive invasions against their neighbors with the intent of gaining territory! 

The use of weapons in WWII has to be looked at in the context of those times.  It was estimated that there would have been 1 million US and 8 million Japanese casualties if we invaded Japan conventionally.  There was some debate about whether we (the US) should stage a demonstration of the devices for the Japanese, but eventually it was decided to use them militarily.  I believe the main consideration was if the Japanese didn�t surrender after the demonstration, we wouldn�t have any weapons to use militarily.  After the two weapons were dropped on Japan, there were no more available for several months! Yes it was terrible and yes many people died, but when you compare 120,000 to 9 million, it seems it was a rational trade off; especially in a war where 100 million plus people died (kind of what Valhalla said earlier).

I have absolutely no explanation that would justify the US policy of nuclear nonproliferation.  I guess it�s fair that everyone should be allowed to have these weapons to �defend themselves�. You should however ask yourself, �What if the Nazis had developed a functioning nuclear weapon?� Since one of their first targets would have undoubtedly been the �floating aircraft carrier� and troop marshalling area called England, it�s feasible that we would not be talking right now if they had.  What if the Russians had developed nuclear weapons before us?  They also have a �little� recent history in invading neighboring countries and annexing them.  We dropped the bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945.  The Russians declared war against the Japanese on August 8, 1945, with the intent to seize as much Japanese territory as they could!  I tend to think that the face of Europe and the world would have been markedly different if the Russians developed nuclear weapons before us.

Umm ok Bill thanks for the clarification on some of those points, I don’t pretend to be knowledgeable when it comes to this subject really, so I was asking from a laymans point of view.

I don’t think any single country has the right to insist others disarm for no valid reason other than ‘we don’t much like them, and they’ve done bad stuff in the past.’ You could pretty much use that excuse against any country, the US and UK included.

It looks to me as if the US government is saying ‘Hey it’s ok for us to have them because we’re the good guys, you can trust us...’ Well I think the days when the Anglo American alliance were viewed as the good guys by default are a way behind us, it’s probably high time they started applying their expectations of other countries to themselves.

(Please note, this is just my personal view, and not intended as a statement of facts, just my opinion...)

Mild Bill writes: “ Would you prefer that the �72 virgins in heaven� crowd had nuclear warheads to put on their missiles?”

They do - in our “ally” Pakistan, the sugar daddy and home base for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, supporter of terrorists active in Kashmir and India. Possibly the source of nuclear technology sold to Iran and North Korea.

If the Islamists get a nuke, it’s going to come from Pakistan, directly or indirectly. They’re one coup away from getting the Pakistani button.

Unfortunately, we aren’t doing anything about that. I guess Bush isn’t keen on making trouble with a nuclear power of 250 million people, whose military hasn’t been chewed up by two unsuccessful wars and a decade of sanctions.

Instead, we’re pinned down in Iraq, stretched thin, and worn out.

And all we’ve found is a couple of weather balloon vans. (The idea they’re biological agent labs is laughable. If I’m not mistaken, the trucks had canvas sides. Even the dumbest Dr. Evil tyrant wouldn’t be so stupid to make WMD agents, especially bio, in a space that doesn’t protect against leaks into the environment. [Even North Korea puts their nuclear reactors in reasonable containment structures. WMD agent labs with canvas sides would be like building a reactor in a circus tent.] I’d think a mobile biowarfare lab would have some kind of sealable chamber, perhaps with negative air pressure to keep leaked agents inside the van.

On the other hand, if the trucks were generating a flammable, but otherwise harmless, gas, canvas would be ideal. It doesn’t matter if hydrogen gets out of the van, but it does matter if it collects in a pocket and is ignited by a stray spark. So a van constructed to allow leaked hydrogen to escape would be safe. An airtight van would not be needed, or desirable.)

Serai

You should try to answer my previous questions:

1.  What if the Nazis were the first to possess atomic weapons?
2.  What if the Russians were the first to possess atomic weapons?
3.  What if Islamic fundamentalists possessed atomic weapons?

Perhaps if you could answer those questions, especially number 3, it would help explain the US position.  Like I said before I can�t really justify US policy, but in this most imperfect world would you prefer the US being the world�s leading nuclear power or one of the three scenarios mentioned above :? 

Jon H

Certainly the Pakistanis have atomic forces, but they are few in number, range, and yield and their purpose is to counter India.  Pakistan is also not an Islamic fundamentalist state, like Iran.  We have over 8,000 high-yield warheads deployed and the Pakistanis have a couple of dozen very low-yield ones.  I don�t see Pakistan being stupid enough to allow their weapons to fall into the hands of terrorists or Islamic fundamentalists.  I think the Pakistanis like Karachi and Islamabad as much as we like New York and Los Angeles.  I think it would cause them considerable discomfort to have a few dozen MK21 re-entry vehicles rain down on their cities.

Certainly there may be Yo-Yos over there who would like to use these weapons against us, but it would be delusional to think they could without �massive� retaliation.

On Pakistan you said:

Unfortunately, we aren�t doing anything about that. I guess Bush isn�t keen on making trouble with a nuclear power of 250 million people, whose military hasn�t been chewed up by two unsuccessful wars and a decade of sanctions.

Your estimation of the US being afraid to take on Pakistan is unfounded; they are not a threat to us, so why would we attack them?  One Trident submarine parked out in the Indian Ocean or one B-52 from Diego Garcia could effectively lay waste to Pakistan in minutes.  I often get criticized for my �warmongering� on this site. I do not advocate our use of nuclear weapons, but I don�t consider it warmongering to state obvious facts.

And I do not think Iraq was a serious threat to us prior to this conflict.  I think we should wait until we are attacked, verify where the attack came from, and then obliterate the initiators of that attack, but that�s just me:).  This Iraq thing is making us look a �little� foolish (I wonder what Dubya is going to say about that in his speech tonight?).

I would also have been reminding all those nice Islamists about those Tridents, Minutemen, Peacekeepers, and Advanced Cruise Missiles we possess, not as a boast, just as a memory jogger.  I actually pity any country or group insane enough to use nuclear weapons against us!  If that happens, the gloves will come off (especially with the Saudis and the Pakistanis) and the outcome will not be desirable for the enemy or anyone that supported them.

Les mentioned North Korea earlier and I would like to discuss that situation.  First, if I was running the show, ALL US forces would be removed from S. Korea.  I�ve spoken to people who have been stationed there recently and they tell me anti-American sentiments are quite high.  When you go to Seoul there are signs in shop windows that say �No Americans Allowed�.  I applaud the administration for starting to remove US troops away from the DMZ. What they really need to do is redeploy the entire 8th Army, especially the 2nd Infantry Division, out of that country.  We have two very large air bases there at Kunsan and Osan; I say shut them down!  I say to the S. Koreans, �No problem Cochise�we�ll just leave Seoul to those 12,000 artillery pieces your brothers in the North have aimed at you�.  I�ll bet Samsung won�t be pumping out many DVD players after that happens.  I would think Kia and Hyundai might also experience production delays after a �visit� from the North.

The N. Koreans are not a serious threat to us!  The Japanese and the S. Koreans are the ones who should be worried about N. Korea.  The Japanese especially, with their $3 trillion + economy, need to get up off their pacifists asses and deal with this.  They have actually threatened to preemptively attack any deployed (readied) N. Korean missile sites.  Since their forces have no real offensive capability, I don�t see how they could accomplish that, but at least they are finally considering action.

Since the S. Koreans apparently view us as more of a threat than the North, I propose we totally withdraw our forces to �ease their concerns�.  We did it in Europe.  When I first arrived in Europe there were 8 major US combat air bases and 25 fighter squadrons.  There are currently 3 major combat air bases and 8 fighter squadrons.  Last time I checked there were no Russian hordes charging across the German frontier!

So for the most part, Warmonger 1st Class Mild Bill says, �Shut �em down and bring the troops home!�

Bill in an ideal world we shouldn’t have to choose whose boot we are under, it’s a sad fact that when you give too much power to a single nation they become oppressors.

Ideally the UN would hold the role of world court, and the US would be part of the police force. It seems instead that the US wishes to disregard the UN when it suits them to do so, and yet on the other hand use the UN directives as justification for condemning other countries when they fail to comply. That to me is pretty hypocritical. It’s like telling your neighbour to obey the law or you’ll personally go round and break his legs…

If the US was willing to apply the same rules to itself that it uses to judge other nations I would be a lot happier about seeing them as a dominant world power.

Oh and as for your 3 questions, well to be honest I couldn’t answer them because they never happened, so we will never know, all I do know is we have the US taking over where they left off, and that’s not really much better in my opinion.

Ah, finally a subject we don�t agree on .  I fully understand how non-Americans view us�with a bit of apprehension and even resentment.  On the UN, I was under the impression that every nation on Earth uses that organization as it suits them!  Correct me if I am wrong, but did Britain get a UN Security Council resolution for the Falklands War?  As France threatened to veto the US�s proposed resolution on Iraq, they were sending troops to the Ivory Coast�did the French get a resolution?  Did the Russians get a resolution when they rolled into Prague or Budapest or Afghanistan in the 1970s? 

To the best of my knowledge, there have been only a handful of UNSC resolutions passed that authorized force.  I can only think of three:

1.  The US initiated a resolution to remove Soviet ballistic missiles from Cuba (1962)
2.  The US initiated a resolution to remove Iraq from Kuwait (1990)
3.  The US initiated a resolution for the unconditional surrender of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban government (2001)

Do you see the subtle pattern?  Can you think of any other countries that sought UN approval prior to committing forces? 

The UN serves an important role, but only the most optimistic optimist could possibly expect justice from countries like Libya, sponsors of terror who admitted blowing up Pan Am flight 107 over Lockerbie, Scotland or Syria, large scale sponsors of terrorists, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad.  I don�t even want to think about the other host of thugs and despots we would have to receive justice from.

It appears we are at an impasse on this, so I shall now propose we just agree to disagree:)

...all I do know is we have the US taking over where they left off

You can’t seriously think that the US is taking over where Nazi Germany or Stalin’s USSR left off. You may not agree with the method’s or reasons for the war in Iraq, but it is absurd to compare the actions of the US (and the UK, lest we forget) to either of those.

Val hegemony is hegemony, be it Nazi communist islamic or capitalist. To impose capitalism on the world is just as detrimental as any of the others, especially when the nation doing the imposing does so for it’s own benefit.

Bill I didn’t say any of the other countries didn’t pull the same stunts with the UN, what I said was it doesn’t mean it’s not hypocritical to do so, when you are using non compliance with the UN as a reason for war.

My whole point here was that I fail to see why any single country thinks it has the right or the ability to dictate world policy. Simply saying ‘ooh look at those nasty guys over there they want to rule the world too, you know you don’t want them!’ Doesn’t make me want the US running the show either…

Serai is right about hegemony.

And with Herr Ashscroft and his brownshirts stirring up sentiment wherever possible, we’re not too far off from falling into fascism, ourselves. Margaret Atwood was damned prescient in “A Handmaid’s Tale” and the creation of a religious state.

Ahhhhhhh! 

I have one word to back my position�HISTORY.  I believe that teaching history in our schools should be equal with teaching math and science.  It never ceases to amaze me how people�s lack of understanding of history tends to skew their opinions and attitudes.

It is helpful to compare an entity with a like entity; using ideal standards is also nonproductive and helps build a fallacious argument.  The entity called a country can not be directly compared to the entity called the individual.  I believe the term for doing this is called �The Pathetic Fallacy�, where people assign human attributes to non-human entities (OK, I twisted the pathetic fallacy a bit, but you get me point�I hope )

A work of fiction, written by the (dramatic gasp) Canadian Margaret Atwood, adds little value to the discussion.  Next you�ll be throwing in George Orwell�s book 1984!  Most everything in the �fable� The Handmaid�s Tale, is not new�it already happened and the US Constitution was written to help ensure it did not happen here!  Anyway, I think it�s more instructive to look at real history than a work of science fiction to form a viewpoint.

During WWII for example :

Britain goes to war with Germany.  The US passes the Lend Lease Act and sends billions of dollars in aid and equipment to Britain.  To the best of my knowledge, the US forgave most of the Lend Lease debt and did not impose its will on the British or any other ally after the war.  The Russians on the contrary, did indeed practice wholesale hegemony with its �imposed allies�.

After the allies defeated Japan and Germany in WWII, the US set up democratic forms of government and spent billions of dollars to rebuild those countries� infrastructures (The Marshall Plan).  They did not permanently occupy those nations or bankrupt them by making them pay war repartitions.  (Note:  I fault The Treaty of Versailles with helping to create Nazi Germany!  The demand on the Germans to pay reparations for WWI caused serious economic decline and incredible inflation rates.) Japan and Germany ultimately become two of the largest economic powers on Earth directly because of US �hegemony��what a horror story! The Russians on the contrary, annexed neighboring countries into the Soviet Union and installed �their form� of government in others.

Countries are distinct entities that do not share the same attributes of the individuals they are composed of.  Please explain to me where the entity called the United States acted or acts poorly in comparison to other like entities in history!  I just can�t get over how all the world�s problems are placed at the feet of America.  In my estimation, the imperial Europeans directly caused most of today�s problems�not the USA!

Wasn�t the current state called Israel once part of an area called British Palestine?  Did we Americans name it that because it sounded �catchy?� Wasn�t it the British who arbitrarily carved out many of today�s Middle Eastern countries (including Iraq)?  Wasn�t Vietnam once called French Indochina?  How about the Dutch East Indies or the Belgian Congo?

Now it�s my turn to use fiction to make a point.  How many Westerns have we seen where the bad guy walks into the saloon and calls out the �slowest draw�?  Did you ever see him ask for the �average draw� to step out?  Doesn�t he usually want to challenge the �fastest draw?� How many times has the bartender been called out or the piano player?  I don�t recall ever seeing a movie like that�generally the bad guy tries to make a name for himself by taking out the big guy, the honcho.  Well the US is currently the honcho and his powder is dry, the sun is at his back, and his Colt 45s shoot true�Yippie-ki-yay!!! :dance:

And don’t forget the loose cannon with his finger on the trigger.

Is that anything like a cat on a hot tin roof whose goose is cooked!?  Achtung...Mixed metaphors are VERBOTEN!!!

Wow, I didn’t know that Canadiens were anathema. Gee, someone writes a book of some relevance, and it’s dismissed because she’s a Canucklehead?

Surreal.

I happen to have been a history teacher, Bill. Spare me the b/s.

I guess history teachers lack a sense of humor�the Canadian thing was that!  I worked for a Canadian company for several years, so I feel like that gives me the right to have a laugh at their expense.  Interesting how you just say I�m full of shit and don�t address what I�m saying.  I merely stated that compared to other countries (Serai�s olde anciente lande especially) the US has acted quite well.  And if you used works of fiction when you taught history, I pity your students...a book of some relavance...paaaa-leeez!!!  Why don�t you use Star Wars as an example of hegemony by a corrupt �empire�?  They�d love Darth Vader

...and it�s dismissed because she�s a Canucklehead?

No, it is dismissed because it is Fiction. How about using Monty Python and the Holy Grail to teach about the crusades?

I personally think that we should use Hogan�s Heroes episodes to instruct our youth about the true nature of Nazi Germany.  I think the guys that fought WWII get too much credit�the Germans were a pushover.  All you had to do was give them some struedel and they would tell you all their secrets!  Their officer corps was filled with inept Colonels and fat bumbling Generals.  They did however have luscious frauelein secretaries named Helga und Hilda.  The Germans were just paper tigers; FDR kept the war going so long because he was invested in defense stocks.  Truman was forced to further the farce because its proponents had compromising photos of Truman with small girls!  There�s a theory worthy of Konscientious Konspiracy Ken.