America’s what one country can do and not do policy

yi yi zhi yi - use a barbarian to control another barbarian

tu si gou peng - when the rabbit hunting is over, cook the hunting dog

so they raised Saddam then attacked him later.. they're just good students of Chinese wisdom..

I'm well aware, I've seen that on the History Channel a bunch of times and read about it for class.

You can't be serious as to think we should get rid of WMD.  No country is going to put this genie back into its bottle.  If there is such an agreement, the benefits of cheating are endless.

And according to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty articles I, II, and III, the Iranians have to justify to us that they are not going to use their nuclear technology for purposes that would undermine the nonproliferation effort, as stated below:

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agencys safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this article shall be applied to all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.

2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this article.

well said.  (love the classic cars too!!!). 

Reading the posts above about the famous WMDs, there is a very big contradiction about WMD search. UN weapons inspectors were searching Iraq for these weapons. If they found them, this would be obviously evidence that Iraq had them. But if they didn't find them, as it finally happened, then that is only taken as evidence that Iraq was not "telling them what material he has and allowing them to shut it down OR has moved them to a neighboring country, eg Syria".

In other words, if they found weapons that's proof Iraq had them and if they didn't it's proof Iraq was hiding them. That means nothing the UN inspectors could do could be accepted as evidence that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, since only evidence that it did is counted. Heads I win, tails you lose.

It is quite logical that in order to perform a genuine test of a theory you must permit the possibility of evidence that would count against it. If you do not, the test cannot be genuine, because a test that is run with the presumption that nothing could count as a failure of the test is no real test at all, its most likely a joke.

about DU missiles, they are used primarily for bunker busting, this is because they can burrow deeper in the fortified bunker due to the heavy nature of the depleted Uranuim.  Now the word depleted should mean that it isn't radioactive any more, however that isn't a proven fact.  For example after the bombing of Kosovo, occupying forces moved in from all over the world.  One branch of these policing forces were Italian, they made their base in an area near enemy bunkers that had been hit by DU bunker buster missiles.  Most of them later came down with leukemia, this was on the news in most europian counties.  Italian scientists found out that some fragments of the DU bombs were in fact radioactive.  This caused a panic in Yugoslavia in general, i saw the new rports for months on Greek Television news as well as German (ihave a satelite dish) many people living near DU fragments came down with leukemia and the radioactive fragments were eventualy cleaned up.  At that time all countries outside the US that had GU bobms pulled them out of play, i know Greece and Turkey did cause i saw it on the news.  An inqury by the American Government was to be established on just how depleted was this Uranium, but it never happened.

Now, for DU used in armor as an aplique kit for an Abrams, it is supposedly of low radiation.  This to me may be true since i have a cousin in the Greek army and he has driven in an Abrams (Greece has purchased a number of them).  But in its bunker busting form it isn't so "clean".  Why i don't know, perhaps if this inquiry was actually done, we would have an answer.

Furthermore Cluster Bombs are also weapons of mass destruction according to the UN and still they are used everywere by America.  These weapons can't be trusted, along with the other weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear, biological etc, in the hand of ANYONE!  Be it american or what not.  And last time i checked, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and a number of other countries all have these weapons.  Are they deemed responsible enough?  Who judges these things?  America shouldn't be a hypocrite, tell the truth.  No weapons of mass destruction for anyone. 

Thank you.

I'm referring to nukes, America has never used nukes in the past 60 years, countries like Iran probably wouldn't be so restrained.

And if you want me to apologize for my country's overthrow of dangerous communist governments like in Nicaragua, Grenada, and Chile, I'm sorry for you because I won't, and if I were President I would have done the same thing.

why is america allowed to possess wepons of mass destruction, and other countries arn't?  those countries are more likely to get invaded/ or put into a situation where they have to defend themselves.  yet its those countries that have them taken away, or told they arnt allowed.  i can understand a countries desire to defend themselves, but the threat to the US and the rest of north america is small compared to the middle east, and other 'hot spots'.  there is just the threat of terrorism over here, and i dont see how people can justify starting a war over terrorism;  it happens every day in other places all over the world.

Wow, wait, do you believe Al-gazeera should be allowed to air?  Are you mad or just another terrorist?  They incite more terrorism and encouge it!  They are terrorists in case you haven't noticed!

/quote

Al-Jazeera is no worse thanb American news.  Its common American propoganda in the US news outlast to bash Al-Jazeera but they are all the same thing.  Al-Jazeera is really just the Fox news of the Arabic world, except that they are more liberal.  For example at least Al-Jazeera expressly states in biases, which are of course anti-american but also anti-Gaddaffi, anti-dictator, pro-reform and pro -moderate.  Compared to large amounts of the Arab world its actually pretty modern.  They also conducted a poll showing most Algerians would rather return to French rule than have the curretn dictatorships they have now..no american news channel would ever be so subversive.