Does it even matter.....WMDs? Agree or Disagree?

Question

why would it matter that other had weapons of mass destrution, or anything else for that matter. Since we have more WMDS, and other weapons then anyone else, is it because we are being bullies, isnt the stand off just adding fuel to the fire. We know we have power as America, but I feel by blocking others to this power of our position, we are creating that hatred that makes other countries want to have these weapons. I also feel that if we want this stand off to end ok, we would need to set an example, by extending that oliver leaf, and saying do what you want, were going to throw our weapons out.

if none of this makes any since dont answer the question, and if you cant add any reasonable comments, dont answer. please

Washington made a statement that i feel has corrupted our diplomatic statis in this world, and i will quote " The best way to prevent war, is to be ready for it", I feel that statment says it all yeah we will disarm you, but we want ever allow ourselves to be weak, and who would, I think we need to allow them to feel they have a victory. Theres some old saying theres more then one way to skin a cat, and you catch more flies with sugar then with salt, and throughout our history we have not been living up to those sayings

yeah we can attack those countries, but then there would be probelms at home so to speak, and in other ally countries. I dont neccesarily want us to weaken ouselves, but by holding this crown above the heads of our enemies, we are feeding them with the desire to want to harm us, we are all humans, and we all can overcome obsticles, and we are creating obsticles for our enemies to overcome. So instead of us surrendering, we can simple allow them a simbolic victory, and then help stear them to a better way of doing thing. Yeah we can attack them, but we are in the long run harming ourselves, but there is all way a better way of doing thing, and we just need to surcome to our pride

im sorry, I didnt know we didnt do anything to Japan. I mean going over to there country and telling them to open there ports or else wasnt nothing then, ok, they didnt have a reason. Further more i dont even understand the word Liberial, Ive read the defintion and had it explained to me, but I hate labels antway so no im not a Liberial, Im me, and this is how i vew the subject of WMDs, let O'Reily call himself whatever he wants, and everone else who use these definitions, but we on the other hand isnt under the publics eye, so we are intitled to certain veiw on different things, so all that right and left crap needs to stop, its really just a load of bull

Answer 1

I tend to agree that the U.S. seems to like to push policies on others, either by force, coercion, or through sanctions, that we, the U.S., have absolutely no intention on ever enacting in our own country. This seems particularly true in the case of WMD. I also agree that this type of action doesn't help us to make any friends, and it makes our enemies hate us even more.

Answer 2

No it DIDN'T matter because the Bush Administration was bent on attacking Iraq no matter what, they just needed an excuse.

The inner core had been planning this for a long time. Read RISE OF THE VULCANS, or go to this link:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm

If you look at many of the statements they made ... Paul Wolfowitz, for example, the Deputy Defence Minister, said publicly in an interview, "Well the rationale for invading Iraq, based on weapons of mass destruction, was one that we could all agree to, that would have the broadest appeal around the world."

Long before they even came into office people like Paul Wolfowitz were talking about the need for invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

It was an agenda item that was a light motif throughout the spring of 2001.

In other words, they looked at various rationales to select from and came up with WMD as the one that they all thought was best.

Not because there was a WMD threat.

Saddam Hussein, after all, had had chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, for two decades, had never used them against the United States and there was no information that he was about to use them against the United States.

In fact, the CIA Director George Tenet asked publicly in a Congressional hearing, "Under what circumstances does CIA think Saddam will use weapons of mass destruction?"

George Tenet replied, "We think the most likely case is if the United States invades Iraq.

Answer 3

I appreciate your sentiment and desire for a more peaceful world. But intentionally weakening ourselves when there are political and religious movements in the world that our hell-bent on our destruction, along with the destruction of the entire "West", is equivalent to surrender and inviting great death and destruction on our own shores. The difference between the US having WMDs and the Iranians or North Koreans having WMDs is that we won't sell them to terrorists and we don't threaten peaceful countries with them. That is a HUGE difference. We could nuke Iran and N. Korea whenever we wanted to, but we DON'T because we are a good and peace-loving nation. We are NOT bullies.

Look at all of history and try to find a world super-power that has not tried to conquer and oppress the world with its power and you'll find few if any besides the USA. Trying to promote self-rule through promoting democracy around the world is not the moral equivalent to "Imperialism" like guilt-ridden liberals in the U.S. like to espouse for the single reason of trying to wrest power back from Republicans. It's actually ridiculous that such a thing even needs to be said. The USA has performed more benevolent acts around the globe in its short history than any nation in the history of the world. Of course, we have not been perfect in the projection of our power, but at least we try to do the right thing for the benefit of ourselves and the rest of the world.

Answer 4

You don't care if Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons? You obviously don't live in Japan or Israel. We cannot allow insane people to have the ability to kill millions of people.

Your philosophy is the same one that failed to keep Hitler in check in the late 1930s. England and France tried to appease Hitler and he walked all over them, getting bolder and bolder. Crazy dictators must be met with stern action.

The U.S. has never used a WMD in an act of aggression, and never will (if you're yelling about Japan right now, remember that Japan attacked the U.S.) Other countries are not so nice. There are people who would like to take over the world, or at least part of it.

If the U.S. got rid of the weapons we use a deterrent to others, the rest of the world would fall into war. It would emboden every single crazy dictator in the world to do whatever they want. The hatred of America is illogical. We have protected - not to mention feed - most of world for many decades now.

Answer 5

OUR NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ:
Helping the Iraqi People Defeat the Terrorists and Build an Inclusive Democratic State

Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
Victory in Iraq is a Vital U.S. Interest
Iraq is the central front in the global war on terror. Failure in Iraq will embolden terrorists and expand their reach; success in Iraq will deal them a decisive and crippling blow.
The fate of the greater Middle East -- which will have a profound and lasting impact on American security -- hangs in the balance.
Failure is Not an Option
Iraq would become a safe haven from which terrorists could plan attacks against America, American interests abroad, and our allies.
Middle East reformers would never again fully trust American assurances of support for democracy and human rights in the region -- a historic opportunity lost.
The resultant tribal and sectarian chaos would have major consequences for American security and interests in the region.
The Enemy Is Diffuse and Sophisticated
The enemy is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists, and terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaida. Distinct but integrated strategies are required to defeat each element.
Each element shares a common short-term objective -- to intimidate, terrorize, and tear down -- but has separate and incompatible long-term goals.
Exploiting these differences within the enemy is a key element of our strategy.
Our Strategy for Victory is Clear
We will help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq with a constitutional, representative government that respects civil rights and has security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. To achieve this end, we are pursuing an integrated strategy along three broad tracks, which together incorporate the efforts of the Iraqi government, the Coalition, cooperative countries in the region, the international community, and the United Nations.

Answer 6

God you must be a liberal, we weren't doing any thing when Japan attacked us, do you really think that if we put down our weapons, the Soviet Union, North Korea, and that lunatic leader in Iran would just leave us alone, if they had nukes, and they will never stop trying to get them, Iran wants them so they can wipe Israel of the face of the earth, and then we would be next, And the leader of Iran has said that publicly. That's why leaders like him do not need WMD's. And North Korea is just as nuts, they would attack South in a heart beat.

Answer 7

in the end... does it matter... no...

but they need some reason... a rationalization to go into Iraq... so they used that... now that we're in there... it's too late to pull out, so it doesn't matter what they did or didn't have...

they could've said they were going in there to find dildos and if they talked about it enough, the public would have thought it was a threat... get the fear going and just ride it like a wave... you can do anything you want when people are afraid...

ascarta2: they still haven't found the weapons Bush said they had... where are those? Oh that's right they "moved them"... that's a convenient excuse... where is your evidence... oh one Iraqi general under Saddam... well, he has to be telling the truth... Saddam's generals were known for their honesty... hahaha

Answer 8

Agreed! The American Government has to be in control of the whole world or so they think...If they kept their noses out of other people's **** and focused on the problems in the states maybe Americans wouldn't hate their Government so much. Why does The American Government feel the need to ruin other people's lives just so they can be the most powerful country in the world?

Answer 9

Very well said, couldnt have said it better my self...I always wondered, why control everyone else that has WMDs and no one ever control America for having 4 times more than everyone else? Who can guarantee that they will not try anything stupid in the future like Hitler did? I mean, people voted for Bush...twice...it was the same back in 1936...People voted for Hitler...and America is a nation with blind nationalists as a majority...I hope for the best mate...what can I say...

Answer 10

Well actually there is one thing you are missing. We did (if you believe it) extend an olive leaf when the fall of the Soviet Union occurred. We and them both were supposed to destroy all long range nuclear weapons. We even signed a treaty about. Can't recall the name of it atm.

I even recall some of the controversy when they were being destroyed. Certain cities were fussing..."not in my backyard."

Anyways, it just all depends on if you actually believe we completely destroyed our long range ones. I personally highly doubt it.