Other - Politics & Government - October 2006

Why do developed countries feel that they are the only nations with the right to nuclear weapons?
The U.S and Russia have approximately 20,000 nuclear warheads each!!! They are armed to the teeth with intercontinental ballistic missiles that can deliver nuclear weapons anywhere in the world within minutes.. yet they go slap sanctions against other countries that are trying to develop them as well.
Why does the US government provide India and Isreal with nuclear technology, yet sanction North Korea and Iran for allegedly (in Iran's case) "developing" nuclear weapons.
It is as if the Super-powers in this world think that developing countries do not understand the concept of deterrance. North Korea is aware that the US, Russia and China can nuke it off the face of the Earth at any moment, it desires Nuclear weapons because of that. DEFENSE! Not OFFENSE.
We all seem to be forgetting that the ONLY country ever to use a nuclear fissile weapon on another country is the UNITED STATES!

2006-10-08 18:00:38 · 11 answers · asked by tallest4eva 3

what were you doing?...how did u feel when you realized what was happening?

2006-10-08 17:42:50 · 21 answers · asked by B* 6

Or bash it's freaking head in for biting you ?? Shouldn't we also do the same to the terrorist's ??

2006-10-08 17:34:06 · 10 answers · asked by genny_gump 3

That the country that invaded them isn't part of our national interest, and as long as they don't bother us, we won't bother them ??

2006-10-08 17:30:55 · 8 answers · asked by genny_gump 3

Why do they want to split? Besides them speaking French, but that doesn't really matter.

2006-10-08 17:27:52 · 9 answers · asked by alex e 3

Are democrats weak on defence?

Do you believe this? And Why?

2006-10-08 17:22:25 · 6 answers · asked by roostershine 4

2006-10-08 17:22:10 · 6 answers · asked by genny_gump 3

K Annon is a useless limp d**k. He's not going to do a damn thing except demand that N Korea not do it again. When will people understand that the UN is completely USELESS?

2006-10-08 17:19:21 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-08 17:05:14 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-08 16:54:32 · 6 answers · asked by Pseudo Obscure 6

2006-10-08 16:49:18 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

Rep. Jim Kolbe (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., confronted then-Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record) about his Internet communications with teenagers as early as 2000, according to a newspaper report.

This kid was what 14 or 1

The Washington Post reported Sunday night that a former page showed Kolbe some Internet messages from Foley that had made the page uncomfortable. Kolbe's press secretary, Korenna Cline, told the Post that a Kolbe staff member advised the page last week to discuss the matter with the clerk of the House.

Cline denied the messages were sexually explicit, telling the Post only that they had made the former page uncomfortable. She said "corrective action" was taken, although she did not know whether that went beyond Kolbe's confrontation with Foley.

Rank-and-file Republicans, meanwhile, sought to mount a public defense of Speaker Dennis Hastert over the scandal, which is threatening their congressional control one month before the elections.

2006-10-08 16:41:34 · 6 answers · asked by cantcu 7

2006-10-08 16:33:13 · 14 answers · asked by gary a 2

read the news here ppl. it looks like terrorist are knocking at our door and trying to kill our ppl. what do you think?

2006-10-08 16:16:44 · 5 answers · asked by brenda d 2

North Korea has set off a nuke. What will the global response be?
What should the US, China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea do?

2006-10-08 16:10:49 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

I hardly think so. I think I am a bit more logical. Sure, I love my country, but more importantly, I want the soldiers who I pay [with my taxes] to succeed in the quest to kill people who have sworn to kill people like me where they find me. It's called 'Jihad' To me, the word patriot means so much more. In my opinion, true 'Patriots' joined the military after 9-11 to go and do this difficult task. I am simply a human, or an economist. If the government is not willing to protect me, I want my money back.

2006-10-08 16:10:24 · 7 answers · asked by Raalnan5 2

2006-10-08 15:54:06 · 6 answers · asked by 411sponge 2

I am told time and time again that we are no 'safer' than we were on 9-11. If Bill Klinton can ask for a definition of the word 'is', I would like a definition of the word 'safer'. 18 months ago, the capture/kill cound of Al-Oaeda was 3000. I don't know what it is now. For my simple mind, more dead enemies + fewer homeland attacks = safer. What about you? What is your definition? If your definition is 'Bush in prision, etc' you should just go back to sleep. This is a simple question, and you are not smart enough to answer it. Go to the 'entertainment' section to find questions in your purview.

2006-10-08 15:38:58 · 7 answers · asked by Raalnan5 2

2006-10-08 15:31:42 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

about 2 years ago a black reporter went to a high school and was interviewing senior students, his questions were who was 1 Gen
McArthur, 2 who was Gen, Patton, 3 who was kit carson 4 who was davy crockett 5 who was Daniel Boone,only 2 or 3 students gussed the correct answer, to 2 of these questions Then the reporter asked 1 who was pol pot. 2 who was ida amin, 3 who was hitler 4 who was stallin, 5 who was genghis kahn the only one the students knew of was Hitler, then the reporter asked 1 who was nelson mandella, 2 who was george washington carver, 3 who was robert McGavey,3 who was martin l. King. 4 who was joseph lowery 5who was tutu, every student knew the answers
most of these kids were white,?????

2006-10-08 15:26:54 · 20 answers · asked by jim ex marine offi, 3

does politicization of war in Iraq by the commander in chief, make Americans safer?

2006-10-08 15:18:34 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-08 15:06:40 · 5 answers · asked by James N 2

What I mean is why kill and fight over something we could share or trade for? What ever happened to freedom of trade? Why have war when instead we could build the American dream we all came to America for? I thought the dream was about "Freedom" for all countries. No wars, freedom to rome the World and to make it a better place to live in. No fears of just being a slave of a number. Freedom to share, freedom to live are dreams. But everything takes money. Its not like we are happy when we could work the same job and someone gets paid more than us and they just started? Is that fair? What would we be living like if there was no such thing as money? We would be trading or working together in oder to survive. That is if we acted civilized.

2006-10-08 14:58:45 · 10 answers · asked by tazer 1

I have not heard this term until the Mr. Foley scandal. I am getting a little older and don't know the terms of the electronic world we live in. For me to totally understand what the scandal is all about I really should know what a "page" is.
Thanks

2006-10-08 14:41:46 · 6 answers · asked by lawstuenslionheads 1

Have folks noticed that this 'delay' and closed-mouthedness is getting worse lately? We get a little notice on say a Sunday that 5 marines died today, a couple yesterday, and a couple on Friday...we don't hear from what or where precisely?
This excerpt from the W.Post, for example :
"Attacks against the coalition have definitely increased as . . . the enemy is trying to come in and reestablish themselves" in a dozen religiously divided districts in east and west Baghdad, said Lt. Col. Jonathan Withington, a spokesman for the U.S. military command in the city. "There's a lot of weapons in Baghdad," contributing to an increase in enemy attacks using small arms, he said.

Withington said he was not authorized to release the number of U.S. military personnel wounded in Baghdad or the number of attacks in the city, although the military has released such data in the past. "
The newsfolks have to go to independent analyst groups trying to track the casualties and situations?
WHY?

2006-10-08 14:40:43 · 10 answers · asked by Michelle H 2

As an American, I feel that it is our duty to stop the genocide that is plagueing Darfur. However, I don't think we will be able to go in there and stop it because the entire world is mad at us for being at war already. (IM PRO WAR IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN)This means that we will do nothing and let hundreds of thousands be killed by fanatical muslims(surprise suprise) because the world doesnt want the US military to flex its muscles. This means that a European nation must step in and take care of the job but which one? Is there a European nation or a coalition of European nations that has the military might to stop the genocide. I really dont think so.

2006-10-08 14:33:36 · 16 answers · asked by quarterback 2

2006-10-08 14:23:29 · 4 answers · asked by cocobrown93 1

2006-10-08 14:11:57 · 8 answers · asked by livinhapi 6

What country or countries should have the reponsibility to do something?

What exactly should be done?

2006-10-08 14:04:05 · 11 answers · asked by quarterback 2

It seem's that in todays world of politic's that you can't tell them by their actions anyways. Let them stand on their own, and hold them accountable to their decisions. They should vote what the people who elected them want, not what they want. Or who ever gives them money wants.

2006-10-08 13:58:41 · 8 answers · asked by Common Sense 5