I have an honest question, why have i been alerted twice?

Question

Im saying that as long as we have WMD's that we should have no right to decide who else can develop weapons. Our military is willing to go to war in order to make sure other people have inferior militarys. Is this fair? Should some country invade us because we actually know for a fact that we have WMD's.

Answer 1

I agree with you. But you see, the whole thing about congress, president, whatever, it's all bogus. We also have the Pentagon (among others), and this is a very competitive organization. People in the Pentagon don't get elected, they learn to play the game through their whole life. They decide whom we'll attack and with what weapons. The elected officials don't spend enough time in office (their term expires after so many years) to learn the ropes of Pentagon. In a way, it's like we have a king and his royal court, and then the elected officials...who don't really get to do all that much. Besides, the whole "invaded because of WMD" story is bogus. The elected officials came up with the story people would be most likely to accept at a given time. WMD was a good story to come up with at the time, so that's what they said.

Answer 2

I'd rather that the US is the sole military superpower even if it carries on beating down any other country that challenges it's military supremacy.

The idea of crazy countries like North Korea or Zimbabwe dictating what is right and what isn't right is scary.

The UN as a world government seems rather keen on putting all the country's that have poor human rights records in charge of deciding what requires a peacekeeping mission and what doesn't. Darfur is happening because the arab league and the African Union are intervening in that genocide.

Fairness in politics is a fairy tale. This is the way the world is made - live with it. If it wasn't for the US military WMD in WWII you would be speaking German or Japanese.

Answer 3

That sounds reasonable at first. But it's not. WMD and specifically
nuclear weapons pose a threat to humanity. Proliferation is *not*
an option. Specifically with certain countries. While the U.S. are
in fact the only ones who ever used them they are still in relatively
safe hands as I doubt anyone would let the monkey close to one
of those nuclluuarwhatever things.

Nukes in the hands of regular armed forces in a stable country
are not that much of a problem. Nukes in the hands of terrorists
or in the hands of instable countries are a nightmare. Pakistan
and India leading that particular list. North Korea is a candidate
and Iran as well.

Nukes must under any circumstances be kept safe. Pakistan
cannot provide that. And I have serious doubts about India.

Answer 4

What do you mean by alerted twice? Are you in the military?
In response to you other question should we go to war to keep another country from having WMD's. Yes! And here is why. Let's look at Iraq...Iraq used chemical weapons on a group of people with no means to fight back. North Korea, sells chemical, biological weapons to other countries along with missile systems to deploy those weapons. And now they have nuclear weapons!
Iraq, supported terrorist groups. Lybia, supports terrorist groups. Iran, supports terrorist groups. Syria, supports terrorist groups. All of these countries I have named are third world countries that directly or indirectly support terrorism. Should these countries be allowed to have control of WMD's...No! If we (the superpower countries) allow those countries to posses WMD's we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Instead of terrorist flying planes into buildings they would be able to use a chemical/biological/nuclear device and wipe out a whole city. The Russian, Germans, and the US have used some type of WMD during a conflict. However, they all learned that the amount of life lost was not worth the use of those weapons again.
However, the current superpowers maintain control of these weapons to keep each other in balance. Throw in a few wild cards who have dreams of becoming a superpower by using WMD's and you now have WW III.

Answer 5

if Iran had nuclear capability like we have in all honesty what do you think they would do??? Be honest. and would you really want them to have this chance. The leader of Iran already thinks that he is the one to usher in WWIII, for the Mawdii(??) to come in. seriously get real. out of those two I think sadaam was the lesser of the 2 evils. some things you are just going to have to see for youself.

Answer 6

There are a couple of sleazy fascists on this board who pretend to be what they are not. Keep posting your questions and your points. Idiots misbehave but they need to hear from thinking, caring Americans.

Write your ideas to the new Congress. They're waiting!

Answer 7

you are completly right, hope all americans (including goverment and president) think the same.
Their opinion is that they are using it to defend the freedom in the globe, but of course this completly bullshit, they have some goals to acheive far far away from freedom and peace.

Answer 8

I agree and some countries will try to evade us any way . either by stupidity or thinking they have more power.

Answer 9

THAT IS NT AN HONEST QUESTION THAT IS THE BEST QUESTION IVE SEEN ALL DAY. BUY YOU DRINK .WE ARE THE SUPER POWER OF THE WORLD WHAT MAKES ME THINK IS ARE THEY PLANNING THIS?IF ANYONE DOESNT BELIEVE THIS WAKE UP WE ARE SO VULNERABLE W,T,C PEARL HARBOR. HOPE ME MY CHILD NEVER SE THIS OR ANYONE GREAT QUESTION

Answer 10

You have made a valid point. It totally makes sense.