quote:

Did you take the time to read the article ? Or did you just read the headline?

quote:

 The USA is a nuclear power. You may resent this but its a fact. 

quote:

 Its always good to try and make a safer weapon. All mechanical systems fail in time. Its only prudent to replace older systems with newer ones.  

quote:

 We will, according to the article be able to reduce the number of weapons with the newer model.  So it will reduce the stockpile. 

quote:

 Preventing nuclear proliferation is not just an american policy its an international policy ( BTW  N Korea signed and broke this treaty )  

quote:

 Iran's pursuit of this technology is scary as to their primary religious fervor for strapping bombs to themselves. If they have no qualms using conventional explosives to attack civilians while blowing themselves up, what makes you think they'd resist using nukes? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

Let's see...

Clinton - one semen stained dress.

Bush - thousands of blood stained uniforms and tens of thousands of blood stained articles of civillian clothing.

Nope. I can't tell the difference.

Z.

Try Bosnia and Somalia.. Both places servicemen died. I didnt like Clinton policy's. But as CIC would you hold the blood of the military losses as his? I wouldn't He made a decision to put men in harms way. Thats the job of the military to execute those orders. We know that there will be risks.

As for Clintons pusuit of head from younger women, I have no problem with that. Its an issue for him and his wife. I didn't like that he fished off the company pier. Its always bad form to hit on interns.

I have never understood how liberal women could be so supportive of this man. His conduct is the antithesis of what they publicly stand for.

He was impeached for perjury, not the blowjob.
It was interesting that the deposition was for a sexual harassment lawsuit ( a womens issue ) which he fought all the way to the supreme court not to take.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HydroMaster
I think most of the fear about other countries having them is that they might actually use them in war. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

Let's see...

Clinton - one semen stained dress.

Bush - thousands of blood stained uniforms and tens of thousands of blood stained articles of civillian clothing.

Nope. I can't tell the difference.

Z.

Try Bosnia and Somalia.. Both places servicemen died. I didnt like Clinton policy's. But as CIC would you hold the blood of the military losses as his? I wouldn't He made a decision to put men in harms way. Thats the job of the military to execute those orders. We know that there will be risks.

As for Clintons pusuit of head from younger women, I have no problem with that. Its an issue for him and his wife. I didn't like that he fished off the company pier. Its always bad form to hit on interns.

I have never understood how liberal women could be so supportive of this man. His conduct is the antithesis of what they publicly stand for.

He was impeached for perjury, not the blowjob.
It was interesting that the deposition was for a sexual harassment lawsuit ( a womens issue ) which he fought all the way to the supreme court not to take.

First of all, the underlying lawsuit was frivolously brought in the first place.
Frivolous to who? Was it politically motivated, sure it was. But it doesnt change the facts. He lied under oath in 1 deposition  ( Paula Jones ) about sexual harassment, about another liason with an intern ( Monica ). All relevant areas for discovery. Maybe you just don't support a womans right to sue.

Second, it was a *private* matter that should never have been the basis of impeachment in the first place.
Lying under oath is still a crime here...
Even if it was perjury (which it wasn't).
It clearly was as he was disbarred for it.
Bush has lied about matters of state.
Its called policy all politicians do this
Bush has spied on us Americans without a warrant, imprisons at random without trial,
Its called the homeland security act /
wages wars against innocent countries
Innocent? really are you that naive?
 
while failing to protect American cities such as New Orleans.
I forgot that they issued a cape when elected POTUS. Many agency's failed in the hurrican's wake. But the biggest fault lays with the govenors office in LA not in washington.
Signing statements.
?
Guantanamo. Failure to register prisoners of war.

Lets notify the Al Queda people that we have captured them, how do you propose to do this, as they are not a nation. Its a new version of war which needs to be fought by new standards.
I do not mean that we should sink to the level of terrorists, but there needs to be new rules for this type of war.

If we manage to kick our do-nothing Congress in the butt, we'd easily end up with dozens and dozens of true high crimes and misdemeanors, enough for impeachment.

Too bad the Dems have backed away from this, I was looking forward to it. Its a long stretch from rhetoric to reality.
As you say: now can you see the difference?

Yes I see that no matter which side is in power mistakes are made.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

Just in case anyone missed the headline: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070302/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/new_warheads

We don't want North Korea to have nukes and we are on the brink of expanding our war into Iran but the good old USA once again shows how inept it's leadership is and decide that now is a good time to replace our nuclear warheads. Pray tell where is this money to replace them coming from? What kind of message does this send around the world? Obviously the USA is not interested in dismantling it's arsenal. I am terribly confused by all of this. I think that it is hypocritical to say one thing and do another but this isn't really a shock coming from George W and his cronies.

Bush may well go down in history as the worst president that this country has ever had. I am not really into politics but this headline disturbed me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

Let's see...

Clinton - one semen stained dress.

Bush - thousands of blood stained uniforms and tens of thousands of blood stained articles of civillian clothing.

Nope. I can't tell the difference.

Z.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

Did you take the time to read the article ? Or did you just read the headline?
The USA is a nuclear power. You may resent this but its a fact.
Its always good to try and make a safer weapon. All mechanical systems fail in time. Its only prudent to replace older systems with newer ones.
We will, according to the article be able to reduce the number of weapons with the newer model.  So it will reduce the stockpile.

Preventing nuclear proliferation is not just an american policy its an international policy ( BTW  N Korea signed and broke this treaty )

Iran's pursuit of this technology is scary as to their primary religious fervor for strapping bombs to themselves. If they have no qualms using conventional explosives to attack civilians while blowing themselves up, what makes you think they'd resist using nukes?

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

Did you take the time to read the article ? Or did you just read the headline?
The USA is a nuclear power. You may resent this but its a fact.
Its always good to try and make a safer weapon. All mechanical systems fail in time. Its only prudent to replace older systems with newer ones.
We will, according to the article be able to reduce the number of weapons with the newer model.  So it will reduce the stockpile.

Preventing nuclear proliferation is not just an american policy its an international policy ( BTW  N Korea signed and broke this treaty )

Iran's pursuit of this technology is scary as to their primary religious fervor for strapping bombs to themselves. If they have no qualms using conventional explosives to attack civilians while blowing themselves up, what makes you think they'd resist using nukes?

There is nothing wrong with the USA being a nuclear power, I don't think the OP was about that, it was about the gross hypocrisy involved in demanding that other countries don't have them.

Iran having nuclear weapons is no more scary than the USA or anyone else having them. President Chirac said Iran having a bomb or two wouldn't be a problem until he thought he'd better get back in line. The USA being the only country that has used nukes and then unnecessarily, it has some gall to accuse other countries of being dangerous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

Let's see...

Clinton - one semen stained dress.

Bush - thousands of blood stained uniforms and tens of thousands of blood stained articles of civillian clothing.

Nope. I can't tell the difference.

Z.

Try Bosnia and Somalia.. Both places servicemen died. I didnt like Clinton policy's. But as CIC would you hold the blood of the military losses as his? I wouldn't He made a decision to put men in harms way. Thats the job of the military to execute those orders. We know that there will be risks.

As for Clintons pusuit of head from younger women, I have no problem with that. Its an issue for him and his wife. I didn't like that he fished off the company pier. Its always bad form to hit on interns.

I have never understood how liberal women could be so supportive of this man. His conduct is the antithesis of what they publicly stand for.

He was impeached for perjury, not the blowjob.
It was interesting that the deposition was for a sexual harassment lawsuit ( a womens issue ) which he fought all the way to the supreme court not to take.

First of all, the underlying lawsuit was frivolously brought in the first place. Second, it was a *private* matter that should never have been the basis of impeachment in the first place. Even if it was perjury (which it wasn't).

Bush has lied about matters of state. Bush has spied on us Americans without a warrant, imprisons at random without trial, wages wars against innocent countries while failing to protect American cities such as New Orleans. Signing statements. Guantanamo. Failure to register prisoners of war.

If we manage to kick our do-nothing Congress in the butt, we'd easily end up with dozens and dozens of true high crimes and misdemeanors, enough for impeachment.

As you say: now can you see the difference?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver


How do you find that it was unnecessary? We had to drop 2 just to make them understand that the war was over.

There was alot of debate internally as to wether we should demonstrate the weapon before using it. But the fact ( 20/20 hindsight) that they didnt surrender right off the bat after hiroshima makes it less likely that the Japanese would have given up after a demo.
As for the need, ask anyone from that generation if it was justified, or needed. I asked my grandfather. He served in the far east, and would have been part of the invasion. After Iwo those guys dreaded going into the mainland. He said it was a godsend and saved lives.

Actually it is well recorded that Japan wanted to surrender. Nuking Japan was more to demonstrate the bomb to the USSR, killing some 200,000 people in the process. I think someone pointed out on one of the threads that the US lost 50,000 troops in the Pacific war, less than they lost in the European arena so the idea that Japan was proving a worse enemy than the Germans doesn't stand up.

The US aren't the only ones guilty of war crimes in WWII, Britain did its share of killing civilians in the bombings of Hamburg and Dresden but lets not pretend the wests crimes aren't crimes when they patently are.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Sternhand4)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver


How do you find that it was unnecessary? We had to drop 2 just to make them understand that the war was over.

There was alot of debate internally as to wether we should demonstrate the weapon before using it. But the fact ( 20/20 hindsight) that they didnt surrender right off the bat after hiroshima makes it less likely that the Japanese would have given up after a demo.
As for the need, ask anyone from that generation if it was justified, or needed. I asked my grandfather. He served in the far east, and would have been part of the invasion. After Iwo those guys dreaded going into the mainland. He said it was a godsend and saved lives.

Actually it is well recorded that Japan wanted to surrender. Nuking Japan was more to demonstrate the bomb to the USSR, killing some 200,000 people in the process. I think someone pointed out on one of the threads that the US lost 50,000 troops in the Pacific war, less than they lost in the European arena so the idea that Japan was proving a worse enemy than the Germans doesn't stand up.

The US aren't the only ones guilty of war crimes in WWII, Britain did its share of killing civilians in the bombings of Hamburg and Dresden but lets not pretend the wests crimes aren't crimes when they patently are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

Fast Reply:

Just to re-focus, my issue is with how we justify telling others what to do when we do not do the same thing.

I have a basic problem with a double standard that we hold others accountable while we basically go unchecked. Who watches the watchers?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge
As a bumper sticker I saw said:

When Clinton lied no one died.

quote:

I love my country.

quote:

 We are not hypocriticle because we have means to protect  ourselves from the rest of the world.
How stupid anyone is to compare our policy to any muslim country's policy
Do you think Iran or N Korea is anywhere near fair as  us?
Did we make Japan Christian?
Are we even attempting to make Iraq Christian?
When have we ever started a friggen war?  

quote:

 You think you can understand the rest of the world?

quote:

 If you have not been  raised to hate the US for being strong then
how can you know where they are coming from?  

quote:

 Most of the rest of the world wants us dead simply because we dont bow down to their God.
Do you understand that?