Educate Me - What gives us the right?

[camstory]

I afraid this is going to be one of those questions that everyone just feels is not worth answering b/c its a stupid question, or it matters not b/c it has no relevance. I am going to ask it anyway b/c it hangs in my head like a plastic bag caught in a tree and rattles its annoyance and distracts me from all the other questions everyone are asking about it.

What gives us, as in US, or anyone the right to dictate who gets to have nuclear weapons? Its not that I don't understand why we think Iran should not have the bomb. I think the answer as to why we are trying to control the proliferation of nukes may be as simple as, 'us, and the rest of the kids with the brass knuckles, got together and decided no one else should have brass knuckles.' But that does not answer the question of what gives us the right. And if the answer is generally understood to be that, there are some things that possess such consequence, that one must sometimes overlook what is just in order to safeguard against a possible greater injustice, than one of the many more learned here will be able to give me that as a satisfying answer. I ask b/c it seems a most basic question, yet I have not heard it as part of any discussion. I think it would be right at the top of the discussion if I were one of those being told what I was not allowed.

If it is a stupid question, I can handle be told it was a stupid question for me to ask, but please don't dismiss me in my stupidity, educate me.

 

[LaceyRoyce]

I try not to state my politics TOO much in places related to my camming.

So I will simply say (having grown up in New Zealand not america)

Thank you for asking this question.

 

[Rose]

I don't think it's a stupid question. There's a lot of insightful answers that could come from this. I've wondered similar things about the government myself but was too confused by politics in general to ask or spend much time thinking on it.

 

[LolasLiger]

I would turn the question around and ask what gives the US (and the other four "recognised" nuclear powers...France, Britain, Russia and China) the right to continue to hold (and continue developing) nuclear weapons, especially as they are all signatories of the NPT?

Virtually every nation on the planet is a signatory of the NPT, and virtually every nation wants nuclear weapons to be banned. The few countries that have developed the weapons, or are working on developing them*, are doing so more for sabre-rattling purposes. In each case, nuclear weapons are an extension of the their respective cold-wars.....North and South Korea, India and Pakistan, Israel and Iran. And in each case, they have been supported by one or more of the Big Boys (despite public announcements of alarm and demands that they new countries stop their nuclear ambitions).

No country is so nihilistic that they would actually use their newly acquired weapons, except as a last resort if they were invaded and about to be over-run. So why are they developing them? The same reason that Russia, China and America did. They want to look important.

But historically, I would have to agree with you that America had acted like a bully when it came to who should/could have the weapons. Everyone knows about the Cuban Crisis and how America claimed that they could not countenance having missiles so close to their borders. But what most people ignore is that the Russian rationale for placing them in Cuba was because America had ICBMs in Turkey, right next door to the USSR.

And they got mighty miffed at France going it alone with their own nuclear developments, unlike nice Britain who agreed to be tied to the US nuclear program.

* not including the official five in the existing nuclear club.

 

[southsamurai]

What gives us, as in US, or anyone the right to dictate who gets to have nuclear weapons? Its not that I don't understand why we think Iran should not have the bomb. I think the answer as to why we are trying to control the proliferation of nukes may be as simple as, 'us, and the rest of the kids with the brass knuckles, got together and decided no one else should have brass knuckles.' But that does not answer the question of what gives us the right. And if the answer is generally understood to be that, there are some things that possess such consequence, that one must sometimes overlook what is just in order to safeguard against a possible greater injustice, than one of the many more learned here will be able to give me that as a satisfying answer. I ask b/c it seems a most basic question, yet I have not heard it as part of any discussion. I think it would be right at the top of the discussion if I were one of those being told what I was not allowed.

a very tricky question, with no way to answer that is based in logic. who you ask will greatly influence what answer you get. "right" in and of itself means so many things to so many people that it muddies things.

now, for my view of it . theres several reasons why proliferation needs to be checked. nukes are too damn dangerous to exist. alas that like any weapon in history from the sharp rock to handguns, once invented, it cannot be unmade. with a little knowledge a rudimentary nuclear device can be made by anyone with enough money to obtain the materials. its disgustingly simple to make. thus, simply dismantling the ones in existence doesnt fix the problem. ( i very much wish it did) once created, any technology that can be used as a weapon becomes a threat. only those who possess that weapon have the ability to use it for defense... often against the same weapon. the first guy to have a bow and arrow had a serious advantage over the dude still throwing rocks. but when everyone has a bow? well then at least you know going in that you could get shot too. sound familiar? its the old "mutually assured destruction" theory.

thats why the US and other weaponized nuke nations wont, and cant, get rid of them entirely. now again, what gives the big 4 (plus the little 3) the right to say no one else can have them? well you are very correct. we got the brass knuckles, so we got the might. and as much as it sucks in geopolitics, and in gang warfare, might makes right. luckily the nations that currently have nuclear strike capability are fairly stable overall. they can mostly assure over the course of decades that the power structure isnt going to go away or shift radically ( tho look what happened to the USSR!) people in power tend to like staying in power, so they arent as likely to get stupid and wreck the whole playground just because they can. notice im not fool enough to say it cant happen, it could. its just not likely to in the near future. now if iran had nukes? i wouldnt want to bet money that we wouldnt see a nuclear strike in the next decade. the same could be said of many unstable or irate governments.

when it comes right down to it, of all the nuke capable nations the US is the only one ever crazy enough to use them, and that was before anyone knew how horrid they are. i hope that the memory of hiroshima and nagasaki never fades. if it does? then even NATO, and the US, couldnt be trusted with nukes. (and i trust that only as far as human greed for power is around) luckily the threat of use is so far a deterrent to the use.

a "right" to police nuke capability? nah, no one has the right per se. the onus of responsibility? yeah, that we're stuck with. we made it first, we drove one half of the arms race with the USSR, so we must try and keep in check the monster we unleashed.

 

[Mirra]

Yeah... I think southsamurai is at least in the same chapter as me on this even if not the exact same page. We created a most terrible weapon and used it TWICE which was at least one time too many and maybe two times too many depending on who you ask. The right to say who can and cannot have nukes belongs to no one. It is in the WORLD's interests to care who has them however.

 

[IsabellaSnow]

Interesting point and I have thought of it many times before. I also think it is rich as America is the only country who has ever actually used nuclear weapons, yet they are the country who fusses most about it! Quite probably because of this, let's face it, if someone were to send a nuclear bomb out, it would probably be aimed at the states. It's big, which means harder to defend. if someone sent one to england for example it being a small country we'd probably be able to set it off course conveniently sending it to france (old grudges and that), whilst sending it to America it would probably only hit somewhere else in America if set off course (or maybe they'd send it to Canada... I hear there are grudges there too).

Nuclear weapons should never be used. Their only use of existence is that they are a defence, as in "They have a bomb so I better not bomb them". What is very scary is if someone very blood hungry ends up in charge of somewhere they might actually use one. I also think that if America is so upset about other people having weapons they need to stop selling them weapons! It's like buying something in a shop then the shopkeeper mugging you and taking it from you afterwards!

 

[mynameisbob84]

:-D

 

[Wabi_Sabi]

An army of ludicrous proportions and a willingness to test it out? - oh and a sense of righteousness is always handy when going down the 'do as I say not as I do' road.

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

It's not just us as in the USA.

The Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty was set up back in the 70's and signed & ratified by most nuclear capable countries. When you hear the news talk about "our" objection to say Iran having a nuke or, having nuke technology, they are speaking about our objection to it, as in everyone who signed and still holds to the treaty.

Watching American dumbed down news networks gives you the impression that the USA is the only country on earth intelligent enough to object to nukes. It's not just us, currently it's just about every civilized industrial nation on the planet saying "Iran does not need a nuke weapon program" and we, in our arrogant USA sort of way make it out like its just us... not that whole long list of nations saying it too.

Really, check it out, we are not the only country on the planet who worries about this shit. :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pa ... ion_Treaty

Also, for over 50 yrs the IAEA has been running around the globe trying to keep track of this shit, and cleaning it up, taking old stocks out of countries that no longer want it and can't dispose of it and lots of other fun stuff. The USA is one member out of many.

http://www.iaea.org/About/

An example of what they/we do: http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/200 ... istan.html

So... you have to translate US media speak into world speak.... it's not that we (the USA) say Iran shouldnt have nuclear weapons/tech, it's that WE (the collective members of the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) say they shouldn't.

For various reasons, a few of which are they (Iran) ratified the treaty and now are suspect in violating it by doing what they said they wouldn't... make weapons grade material. The UN for the most part has no problem with them making power plants, but, they also started a weapons research program and that is one of the things they agreed not to do with the ratification of the treaty.

It's one of those thing... "what weapons? we're making electricity here, really thats all... pish, it's nothing to worry about trust us *big grin*" while doing suspect stuff like buying centrifuges and other equipment you don't need to have unless.... you're trying to make a bomb.

So the IAEA has inspectors.... which Iran agreed to allow to do their job as per the treaty. Oh noez, they kicked them out and said piss off and stop looking over our shoulder.

Treaty violations.... which makes the rest of the treaty honoring world very nervous. Thus all the fuss.

USA media/news.... remember it's dumbed down for an audience with short attention spans and a bad case of "we are #1" arrogance. If you actually try to educate them with the news/media most of them get all pissy and call you a globalist intellectual elitist liberal scumbag.
:lol:

So it's not just the USA saying "you cant have nuclear weapons"..... it's the entire village screaming it at a few nations, and with good reason. They don't play well with others. They say stupid shit like "we will erase Israel off the map" and that makes all of them freak out because hey.... remember we're just one Mohamed fucking a sheep cartoon away from being on their nuclear shit list.

Some kids just shout not be given the sharp scissors, ya know?
:lol:

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

On the japan bomb thing....
We used 2 bombs during wartime, and they were tiny bombs. When we set firestorms off in Dresden and Japanese cities, it was far more devastating and lasted far longer.

We used those bombs to end the war, and more specifically to AVOID a land invasion of Japan. If we had not dropped those bombs that forced Japan to surrender, we would have had to invade not one island but 100's, and fight the Japanese on their own turf. That alternative would have cost us millions of Allied soldiers, Japanese civilians, bankrupted us and drawn WW2 out for another 10 years.

Read up on how difficult it was to hold outlying islands like Okinawa. Imagine how hard and horrible a land invasion of Japan would have been.

Dropping 2 bombs which killed 166k for one and 80k for the other saved the lives of millions by ending that war immediately after.

War is messy. To end it sometimes toy have to do horrific things to break the back of the enemy.

It was the right thing to do, to an enemy that by tradition would have not surrendered in a conventional land war. The carnage would have been unimaginable.

Plus it showed the entire world what a nightmare weapon it was and could be, and I think that has kept everyone else from ever setting one off in a war since, because the nukes we have today make little boy look like an M-80 in a mud puddle. Setting a modern nuke off would be and is unthinkable.

Thus, we have the treaty and the IAEA scurrying around the globe trying to make sure no one ever does.
:dance:

 

[southsamurai]

dang paulie! deep and acurate, as well as 100 percent on the money. i wish i had been as thorough as your post lol.

 

[IsabellaSnow]

makes 9/11 seem pretty petty in numbers doesn't it? I do get the reasons why it's been justified, but those bombs were dropped on innocent civilians. I do not agree with terrorism of any kind, to me that is terrorism. You can make it sound heroic or like it had to be done, and maybe it did. But those people driving that plane probably felt the same way. To them they were fighting a war. And lets face it, look at the amount both Britain and America have killed in their countries, for practically no reason. I just think if you act like the bombs had to be dropped on Japan, then you shouldn't get so upset when it happens to your own country. It did happen a long time ago though and that happened recently, so I guess the wounds are still fresh. But I'd imagine middle eastern countries currently have every right to want to destroy/bomb England and America, we wouldn't hesitate to in their shoes.

I dated a Saudi Arabian guy and was shocked to find that he had pictures of Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and another terrorist/ruler that we are extremely against on his phone. And he supports them. He was never racist against English, but he had grown up seeing the effects. I was still shocked and don't agree with him, but things look very different from their perspective.

 

[Shaun__]

he had pictures of Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden

That makes like zero sense. Those two would have happily killed each other. Was he just picking people George Bush did not like or did he have no understanding of what the different powers in that general part of the world believe in?

 

[IsabellaSnow]

he had pictures of Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden

That makes like zero sense. Those two would have happily killed each other. Was he just picking people George Bush did not like or did he have no understanding of what the different powers in that general part of the world believe in?

I believe it was a "my enemies enemy is a friend" type of thing. A lot of people really really hate America. From their point of view I'd probably hate America too. Many dislike/hate England too, but not to the same extent as far as I'm aware. But most people do not pass their hate onto individuals. Also let's face it, I'm sure he was a lot more aware of what's actually going on than we are. I mean would you think someone from the middle east knows most about your government/politics than you do? As far as I could tell with him Arabic countries tend to stick together, all his friends were also Arabic but from totally different countries. Very nice guys, but god freaky how different the culture is! From the way they treated me I could tell they were good people, very kind and generous, always made me feel incredibly welcome, but some things they did if an english guy did them I'd be a shocked, they didn't think twice about it.

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

makes 9/11 seem pretty petty in numbers doesn't it? I do get the reasons why it's been justified, but those bombs were dropped on innocent civilians.

The Japanese were brutal to civilians, in china and other places. To a degree it made the nazis look like girl scouts. Everyone had dirty hands to some degree, that is war and I was in o way shape or form trying to make it "heroic". It's a fact of warfare.

And a great deal of the casualties in WW2 were civilian, it is only in recent years we have adopted the idea that in war, you don't use civilian targets to demoralize the enemy. We set firestorms on civilian targets 100s of times, for the sole reason of demoralization. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targets of demoralization, to break the will of the civilian population to fight.

We don't do that anymore and Gods help us if we ever have a WW3... we'll lose because we have no stomach for war anymore. You accidentally drop a drone bomb on the wrong house and the internet reports it before the dust settles. Perhaps that'll keep us out of wars in the future. Imagine today having to choose the option to vaporize a city to break an enemies will to fight.

I do not agree with terrorism of any kind, to me that is terrorism.

Terrorism is what the Japanese did in Nanking china. Dropping an atom bomb is warfare.

You can make it sound heroic or like it had to be done, and maybe it did. But those people driving that plane probably felt the same way. To them they were fighting a war. And lets face it, look at the amount both Britain and America have killed in their countries, for practically no reason. I just think if you act like the bombs had to be dropped on Japan, then you shouldn't get so upset when it happens to your own country.

I agree, we shouldn't be in these countries. It is our mistake we don't prosecute the administration who started it all. Be that as it may, we are there and we are pulling out in 2014.

However, comparing 9-11 to japan and soldiers just doing their duty is absurd. These are not soldiers they are religious terrorists. There is a difference. It's sort of an insult to soldiers to put religious terrorists in the same class.

It did happen a long time ago though and that happened recently, so I guess the wounds are still fresh. But I'd imagine middle eastern countries currently have every right to want to destroy/bomb England and America, we wouldn't hesitate to in their shoes.

The exploitation of the middle east started before the 1st world war. After WW2 the allies double crossed many in the middle east. it was all about the need for... you guessed it, fuel. However the East didn't get the dirty end of the stick, quite a few ended up fabulously wealthy.

Religion and religious zealots fucked up the countries that are today in turmoil. YOu see today, it does little good to support them when they fight for freedom, the slightest insult from anyone and they turn on you and kill you. We just lost an ambassador and 3 others over a fucking youtube video.
In Libya... fat lot of good it did us to support them when they revolted. Also in Egypt... So they have dirty hands too.

We should pull out of the east and let them butcher each other, because if you help them and you don't walk on eggshells every fucking day, you can wake up one morning with a bullet in your head from the people who were oh so glad you were there to help.

They are doing it daily in Afghanistan. Do they all have good reasons? I'd have to agree, they probably do. We are stupid to have allowed the last administration to take us in there.

So maybe we're just paying for our stupidity.

However, 9-11 was a direct attack on us by an religious faction, not a nation per se. It makes the lines a lot more blurry to fight back. Who do you fight? Everyone involved, so it was decided. A stupid idea, but hey... consider the lot who lead us in there.

When they go insane and burn our embassy over a youtube video, I have a hard time feeling any empathy for any of them.... sorry. The USA has been, admittedly not very well, but we have been trying to remedy the bush administrations global fuck ups. We support rebels ousting dictators, we support democracy, we pulled out of Iraq, we agreed to pull out of Afghanistan in 2014. We train, arm and support local police and governments.

We are trying. And they murder our ambassador over a youtube video, they turn their guns on us after we accidentally burned a few holy books, and we freely admitted and apologized for it.

What do they do... riot and kill over it.

Excuse me for not having a whole lot of pity for them. If not for the religion, none of this middle eastern mess would have happened from 1914 to now.

A youtube video FFS.

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

Now that I re read what happened, it really doesn't help anyone want to listen to their "position" or reasons.

They protest about the youtube video
The US embassy puts out a clear condemnation of it and people trying to insult/hurt muslim people's feelings.

THEN, they burn the embassy, and kill 4 diplomats.
and then they burn another one and kill another diplomat.
AFTER we said we condemn the video and people who do that shit.

Fuck these people. Honestly.... WTF?

 

[JickyJuly]

What gives any country the right to have nuclear weapons? Nothing good can come of it. Even if you're not worried about the people of any given culture or people in general, nukes are devastating
to other living things as well.

That aside, we live in a country that doesn't care about your rights unless you're white, have a penis, don't openly stick your penis in other men, claim to be part of the acceptable religions and make an adequate amount of money yearly. Can't really expect liberties to be part of the decision making involved in dealing with other countries when even the people who are footing the bill in this country don't get much respect.

 

[Shaun__]

I believe it was a "my enemies enemy is a friend" type of thing. A lot of people really really hate America. From their point of view I'd probably hate America too. Many dislike/hate England too, but not to the same extent as far as I'm aware. But most people do not pass their hate onto individuals. Also let's face it, I'm sure he was a lot more aware of what's actually going on than we are. I mean would you think someone from the middle east knows most about your government/politics than you do? As far as I could tell with him Arabic countries tend to stick together, all his friends were also Arabic but from totally different countries. Very nice guys, but god freaky how different the culture is! From the way they treated me I could tell they were good people, very kind and generous, always made me feel incredibly welcome, but some things they did if an english guy did them I'd be a shocked, they didn't think twice about it.

Saddam really disliked America, but he hated Iran. Papers found after his death said he still thought getting our help against them was possible. The political climate of the Middle East is very complicated, and some people just can not work together due to religious or tribal differences. It is much more likely that your friend was the Middle East equivalent of a bigoted redneck and had no idea that he was supporting opposing views.

 

[Mirra]

That aside, we live in a country that doesn't care about your rights unless you're white, have a penis, don't openly stick your penis in other men, claim to be part of the acceptable religions and make an adequate amount of money yearly.

Damn... I was feeling powerful till you got to those last two. My bubble has been burst.

 

[Red7227]

he had pictures of Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden

That makes like zero sense. Those two would have happily killed each other. Was he just picking people George Bush did not like or did he have no understanding of what the different powers in that general part of the world believe in?

Those guys were powerful leaders and characters in their own way. Arabs in particular and Muslims in general feel disenfranchised by the progress in the west. In terms of power and influence, the Middle East is a complete non event. Saddam created an Iraq that was modern, secular and egalitarian. Europeans traveled to Iraq on holidays for medical treatment because Iraq's hospitals were more advanced than a lot of Europe. Bin Laden protested the presence of the US in Saudi Arabia, placing Muslim values above the sycophantic toadying that the Saudi royal family was engaged in. To understand their roles think of Saddam as the JFK of the middle east and Bin Laden as the Martin Luther King. Yes they were killers and terrorists, but so is the US in the eyes of most of the world.

 

[Just Me]

What gives any country the right to have nuclear weapons? Nothing good can come of it. Even if you're not worried about the people of any given culture or people in general, nukes are devastating
to other living things as well.

That aside, we live in a country that doesn't care about your rights unless you're white, have a penis, don't openly stick your penis in other men, claim to be part of the acceptable religions and make an adequate amount of money yearly. Can't really expect liberties to be part of the decision making involved in dealing with other countries when even the people who are footing the bill in this country don't get much respect.

I disagree that nothing good can come of it. Playing devil's advocate, I think nuclear weapons have kept another world war from happening. 60 plus years of relative peace is quite a good incentive to have them. Of course that perspective comes from being from the USA. There have been many wars since World War II, but they have all been brush fires compared to the carnage of World War I and II. The world would be a very different place without nuclear weapons, and not necessarily for the better.

 

[Shaun__]

he had pictures of Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden

That makes like zero sense. Those two would have happily killed each other. Was he just picking people George Bush did not like or did he have no understanding of what the different powers in that general part of the world believe in?

Those guys were powerful leaders and characters in their own way. Arabs in particular and Muslims in general feel disenfranchised by the progress in the west. In terms of power and influence, the Middle East is a complete non event. Saddam created an Iraq that was modern, secular and egalitarian. Europeans traveled to Iraq on holidays for medical treatment because Iraq's hospitals were more advanced than a lot of Europe. Bin Laden protested the presence of the US in Saudi Arabia, placing Muslim values above the sycophantic toadying that the Saudi royal family was engaged in. To understand their roles think of Saddam as the JFK of the middle east and Bin Laden as the Martin Luther King. Yes they were killers and terrorists, but so is the US in the eyes of most of the world.

Saddam was a nonreligious man who thought rape rooms were a good idea, and Bin Laden wanted his ideal of the Muslim religion to take over the world. Saddam's lack of faith would have made him a target of the holy war. They were both monsters even to their own people. They ruled with fear not love.

 

[Red7227]

Saddam was a nonreligious man who thought rape rooms were a good idea

The Americans would never do that, oh wait....

 

[schlmoe]

Those guys were powerful leaders and characters in their own way. Arabs in particular and Muslims in general feel disenfranchised by the progress in the west. In terms of power and influence, the Middle East is a complete non event. Saddam created an Iraq that was modern, secular and egalitarian. Europeans traveled to Iraq on holidays for medical treatment because Iraq's hospitals were more advanced than a lot of Europe. Bin Laden protested the presence of the US in Saudi Arabia, placing Muslim values above the sycophantic toadying that the Saudi royal family was engaged in. To understand their roles think of Saddam as the JFK of the middle east and Bin Laden as the Martin Luther King. Yes they were killers and terrorists, but so is the US in the eyes of most of the world.

I was pretty disgusted to read this poor analogy, not solely as an American, but as somebody who values things like peace, tolerance, and equality (especially in Dr. King's case). While JFK & Dr. King were not perfect, the only thing they have in common with Saddam & Bin Laden is that they are all dead and gone. I feel nothing but pity for you if you believe this analogy...no matter the rationalization.

Now if you would have said Hitler and Pol Pot, that would be a different story.

***BTW, if you were a person of note and this was published in the media, you'd most likely be rooming with Salman Rushdie. Bin Laden's followers would take a dim view of your comparison of him to an infidel such as Dr. King

End of thread hijack...

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

If your boyfriend has pics of saddam and bin laden in his wallet and you didn't immediately run in the other direction, I'd have to ask why.

Those guys are not JFK and MLK. If you draw that parallel I probably dont have to ask why.

 

[Airwolfe]

If your boyfriend has pics of saddam and bin laden in his wallet and you didn't immediately run in the other direction, I'd have to ask why.

Those guys are not JFK and MLK. If you draw that parallel I probably dont have to ask why.

Young and dumb, full of Arab cum.

 

[Airwolfe]

And a great deal of the casualties in WW2 were civilian, it is only in recent years we have adopted the idea that in war, you don't use civilian targets to demoralize the enemy. We set firestorms on civilian targets 100s of times, for the sole reason of demoralization. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targets of demoralization, to break the will of the civilian population to fight.

We don't do that anymore and Gods help us if we ever have a WW3... we'll lose because we have no stomach for war anymore. You accidentally drop a drone bomb on the wrong house and the internet reports it before the dust settles. Perhaps that'll keep us out of wars in the future. Imagine today having to choose the option to vaporize a city to break an enemies will to fight.

Wars are not fought the right way anymore.

If you are going to be bothered with going to war you should kill everything that moves. I mean every man, woman, and child. Then take all their shit after they are all dead.

1. It pays for the war.

2. It leaves no enemies behind.

 

[Mirra]

Wars are not fought the right way anymore.

If you are going to be bothered with going to war you should kill everything that moves. I mean every man, woman, and child. Then take all their shit after they are all dead.

1. It pays for the war.

2. It leaves no enemies behind.

Damn those Geneva and Hague Conventions and their meddlesome treaties! :roll:

 

[Red7227]

***BTW, if you were a person of note and this was published in the media, you'd most likely be rooming with Salman Rushdie. Bin Laden's followers would take a dim view of your comparison of him to an infidel such as Dr. King

End of thread hijack...

Really? just goes to show how ignorant you are of anything to do with Bin Laden. If the US had heeded his message and gotten out of Saudi Arabia in particular and the middle east in general back in the 1990s, the US would be a lot richer and a lot of people wouldn't be dead.