Bush has been on a war path for more than few years now.
Not many countires can feel safe knowing the US has a torture camp in Cuba is conducting black operations and stealing people out of Europe and taking them out of the region (Swiss government release )
No one can feel altogether safe knowing the US has used 2,000 tons of depleted uranium (DU) on Iraq. While the UN classify's this weapon as an ilegal chemical agent the US insists it's safe. People are dieing from radiation poisoning from the DU covered bullets and birth defects that look very similar to the ones in Japan are increseing in the region at a staggering level.
Add to this that the soil will be poisoned for 4.5 billion years let alone the water!
Given all this isn't it obvious that smaller weaker nations want to get a hold of nuclear technology and weapons?
If you thought that was the only way to stop an invasion - chemical weapons and torture of your people was nukes would you be in a hurry to get one?
2006-10-08 23:25:18 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
So has Bush's invasion of Iraq and other actions led to the begining of a new Arms race ?
2006-10-08 23:26:00 · update #1
Clearly.
The Bush Simple-Simon approach resulted in a much more dangerous world.
The US has yet to pick on a country who could fight back!
Even Pakistan, which has nukes, did not yeild to an occupation by Bush forces. And they did not fulfill their promise to capture Osama BinLaden! Object lesson?
The new Bush doctrine of preemptive strike, as radically divisive as the Monroe doctrine was secure, signaled to the world the necessity to repluse a US invasion or accept occupation.
Even Japan is seriously considering military expenditures.
Bush has set in motion an arms race, of Nuclear and other WMD, that will play out in future generations.
Has he already forgotten the former USSR is 'former' due to its inability to match US spending in an arms race?
2006-10-08 23:39:01 · answer #1 · answered by ericasqeeze 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He isnt repsonsible for it. It has been going on for a long time and ignored by ALL. You cannot say that GW wasnt ignorning it and thats why he is attacking countries with no provication. In a sense he has sped the race up. The black market weapons industrie is booming right now, Even more of our spent uranium and plutonium from our nuclear plants has gone missing, and countries that normally are isolationists are building armies. They all see the major battles coming from WW3 which I will say Bush started.
2006-10-09 09:41:12 · answer #2 · answered by trl_666 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We need to keep nukes as a deterrent. I think North Korea's nuclear test over the weekend is evidence that if we get rid of our nukes, irrational dictators like Kim Jong Il will be more than happy to blow up the rest of the world. It's not the ideal situation to have so many nuclear weapons, but in this screwed-up world, it's the least-worst option. I'd rather have thousands of nukes as a deterrent to keep anyone else from doing anything stupid than to not have nukes and be blown up by a madman who does.
And by the way, I'm a Democrat. Pro-life, pro-defense and pro-gun, but still a Democrat.
2006-10-09 06:40:40 · answer #3 · answered by Pastor Chad from JesusFreak.com 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No once again Slick Willie made a mess and left it for President Bush to cleanup. This behavior seems to pave the way for Billary Clinton II in 2008!
2006-10-09 18:50:27 · answer #4 · answered by Bawney 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this mister president of urs is the soley responsible for all the **** hapenning out here he gets new weapons others too want more thats how it goes on why the hell is the expenditure on it not decreasing the us is putting more of its money on it and which in turn will be followed by other
end result- a screwed up world
2006-10-09 06:48:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nations don't solve conflicts by just talking to their friends.
The USA should have straight talks with North Korea. I'm not sure why Bush won't negotiate with them. Or Syria, Or Iran.
2006-10-09 06:43:44 · answer #6 · answered by Villain 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. This was going on before Bush was president. Clinton ignored the problems, tried to bribe countries into cooperating, and otherwise kicked the can down the road.
2006-10-09 06:27:45 · answer #7 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think you are right
I think a lot of other nations are
picturing a global domination and I hate to say it but
I think they fear this because of the US.
spreading democracy could be viewed that way
by other peoples who do not believe in democracy
2006-10-09 06:44:21 · answer #8 · answered by Enigma 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This "arms race" started with Clinton, while he was playing hide the stogy! Do you really think all this development started in less than six years? GET REAL...
2006-10-09 06:56:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
In a word, yes. His policy of bring them on had brought them on.
2006-10-09 07:03:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋