After all, the US used WMDs when it could win a war conventionally.
Is the US more responsible than N.Korea, Iran, to name but two countries?
2006-10-05 03:30:24 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
could== should read, couldn't
2006-10-05 03:31:03 · update #1
The US should not be trusted with WMDs. Any country that spends as much money on war can't be trusted to do the right thing.
Especially can't trust Bush. He has already said he wanted to use nucleur bunker busters, is that stupid or what? Given the chance, and the congress seems to let him do whatever he wants, he would try to start WW3.
That is another reason why an evanjelical christian should never be in an office of power. He has even talked about starting ammagedon.
2006-10-05 03:35:54 · answer #1 · answered by Imaginer 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
First off, we have them -- have had them for decades. And no one is big enough any more to take them away from us. So we are now the biggest kid on the block with the most toys.
With that said, now we get to the real issue of trust. Forget about President Bush, he does NOT represent the American people. To us, the use of nuclear weapons or WMD is unthinkable. We would never think of starting WWIII and we are very unhappy about the current actions going on in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel and Palestine and North Korea and Iran and everywhere else.....
But we know that "Peace on Earth" will never come to pass. The Middle East has been murdering its people for centuries (not just decades) and has no intention of stopping.
So from my point of view, we should just keep our toys and stay home on our own turf. If y'all want to blow each other to kingdom come, so be it. Just leave us out of it.
2006-10-05 03:44:31 · answer #2 · answered by kja63 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If there is a country that should NOT be trusted with WMD's, then it is our country. After all, we already used them twice against an unprotected civilian population despite the fact that Japan wanted to surrender since six months.
FDR wanted to demonstrate to the Russians that we had the bomb and were not afraid to use it. We used nuclear weapons for a publicity stunt. The expiration of a few hundred thousand people didn't matter to us.
2006-10-05 03:40:10 · answer #3 · answered by The answer man 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The only time I can think of the U.S. using WMD would be at the end of WWII, and, according to Nisei friends of mine, Japan was, in their opinion, already a defeated enemy (they say this as a way of objecting to the attacks). Therefore, at least according to my sources, the U.S. has never used WMD to win a war, and the U.S. even refrained from doing so in Korea while enjoying a nuclear monopoly. Therefore, we just seem able to handle our WMD.
2006-10-05 03:37:55 · answer #4 · answered by The Armchair Explorer 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Me and my rifle are the only WMD they really found. But don't tell anyone. We want to lie some more to the public to save another election.
2006-10-05 04:20:53 · answer #5 · answered by Cheryl 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Conventionally? You mean taking in foot soldiers and having them risk their lives just to make the fight fair?
When you pick a fight with someone twice your size, you can't then cry that they should be handicapped because they're bigger and stronger than you are. You picked the fight. If you can't handle it, prepare for a butt-whuppin!
Why are the police trusted with guns, yet they don't hand them out in prison? Come on. Your question is just silly.
.
2006-10-05 03:32:55 · answer #6 · answered by FozzieBear 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
maybe someone should invade the US since they have WMDs.
2006-10-05 09:01:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
and in what war did we use WMDs ?
2006-10-05 04:11:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋