Okay, I wanted bush to win first and second term but what hes doing is just unbelievable. So we threaten to go to war with other country's who try to develop nuclear weapons. Then he goes ahead and tries asking the house if we starting making new atomic war heads? Hes a hypocrite I live in the U.S. and I'm sure hes one of the worst presidents we've had in the U.S Our Country is failing more and more. I'm moving to some other country before we become part of a war. A war inside the U.S. Thank god the house rejected him. We have thousands of nukes under Arizona and we still have nuclear silos here. One which is in the state next to me.

Don't get me started on whether absolutely anybody should have nukes or not.

And Why doesn't the UN stop the U.S?

well because we ownz??

and now to the nukes, i agree whole heartedly..those previous nukes we had were complete failures!!! i mean we never got to use them post 45, and they could only destroy a city completely at most..i mean come on that's crap...give me more powerful nukes to destroy the whole planet with!!!!!!!!!


sarcasm aside, they are just updating the nukes that are moving out of the stockpile because they are too old with a better delivery system and better computer navigation systems. the warheads will be more powerful but not a huge jump so. the development is more in the delivery system and computer systems to make it a more accurate missle, because god knows a 20 mile wide city is a hard target to miss.

Nah you just need total annihilation of every particle within the enemys borders!

The current US government has caused more instability in the world than any nation belonging to the axis of evil in the past 5 years, I wouldn't give him nukes either.

We want to stop others (Iran, North Korea etc.) from making N-bombs yet we have more nuclear bombs than any other country in the world besides Russia. We fear other might use it against us, yet we are the only country who have actually used it (against Japan). And we wonder why people don't like America. hmmmmm.

I am actually scared of the U.S. I'm in Canada, and when George Bush starts another war, it will spread to the U.S., and we'll be in an all-out world war. And I don't think I'd be fighting with the U.S. if I were going to, I'd be against them, because they're ****ing the world up too much.

I like America, I don't like your nukes though.

Your going to move before another war starts? Where have you been? Are you one of those 'Global war on terrorism is a bumper sticker crowd'?

There is a war going on right now in the United States. You don't know about it but it's there. Every terror plot thwarted in the USA is a battle won in the war on terror. Terrorist attacks against American interests have gone on for at least 2 decades with thousands of innocent American lives lost. Since we finally started fighting back, how many innocent Americans have died to terrorist attacks? We've lost good men on the battlefield to protect us and they (and President Bush's policies) have done exactly what needs to be done. Where would the terrorist be today if we replied to 9/11 by bombing another empty aspirin factory? The terrorists have suffered greatly and put on notice America will not stand idly by while they slaughter innocent people.

I know foreigners won't agree with my opinion but they don't live here. This is America protecting American's interest. I KNOW if their country suffered as ours has, they would have a different perspective. People of Spain and Britain who suffered at the hands of terrorist would understand my feelings.

On to the nukes.... You want Iran to have nukes? They sponsor terrorism across the Middle East, vowed to destroy Israel, support the overthrow of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia and the destruction of personal freedom in a global effort. All this done with bloodshed as their main tool. And now you want them to have nukes?

Contrary to anti-nuke protesters and European beliefs, America does not have a nuclear arsenal just waiting for the chance to use them. It's called deterrent. Look it up. No country in their right mind would attack another country possessing nuclear warheads. Do you seriously believe the Soviet Union would have been kept in check by America without nukes?

But think about my statement.... No country in their right mind would attack another country possessing nuclear warheads. That gives the attacked nation the 'right' to use their nukes even if they are attacked with conventional forces. Where do you think Iran would launch nuclear missiles if they were attacked? They can't reach America but they could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey.... The list goes on. Iran would blackmail the world (and get away with it) if anyone defies them.

This concept is NOT called deterrent. Think about it.....

Everyone should have nukes.

Proof that The US is less stable than Iran



Everyone here acts like we live in a free equal world...we dont and never will


The US holds the power, they get to decide, there the bully on the playground

That's actually a refreshingly honest response Netrack.

This country is the hole in the ground the other countries will be occupying come another idiotic incursion by our beloved government.

I kinda have to agree....
America FTW! (well....its always better than Iran FTW! )

A lot, actually. Maybe none or few on home soil, but still many.


They're still where they were, because no one's come to get them. They never were in Iraq, and that's the only place you guys seem to care about.


American interests involve things at home. Don't like other countries? Stop going there. To start a war overseas is just beyond ludicrous.


Sorry, doesn't sound much different than the US motives at this point.

Or their track record. Overthrew Iran, and Iraq, tried to overthrow Cuba... Bloodshed, chemical weapons and the like.

I would think that many more American lives have actually been lost since the war on terror began, and that war will not be won, what is going on now is fueling a new generation of terrorists with even more hatred for the US of A.

I don't believe what is happening in Iraq is for the benefit or protection of the US, American lives are being lost and I don't believe their homeland is any safer for it. The terrorists may have suffered some but I believe the Americans have suffered a lot more since this started.

I agree with you on the Nuclear weapons though.

Are you talking about that same proposal from a long time ago which results in a net loss of warheads?

And for the rest, I'm against ANYONE getting more nukes. Some countries already have nukes, and that's already bad enough. The last thing we need to do is willingly allow more people to gain the power to annihilate the world. That "since you have them, then you can't say anything about anyone else getting them." Yeah right, since when? Believe it or not, just because you don't like the messenger doesn't mean his/her idea is wrong. I forget the guy who said it, but he essentially made the argument that if one needs to be perfect in order to criticize evil, evil would no doubt consume all. If there were some way of assuring everybody else would do the same, I'd be perfectly fine with substantially reducing or entirely eliminating our nuclear stockpile.

Too many Americans don't understand much about foreign countries, which I hear all the time and is rather unfortunate. It also is unfortunate that so many on this board outside of the US don't understand us at all. I find it even more disheartening now that it appears that the Canadians posting in this thread understand America and Americans so fundamentally wrong. As usual, the world is again so busy polarizing and blaming others for their own misfortunes that sometimes, I don't see how we're ever going to see a time of global prosperity.

The US pays for the UN.



Impossible, matter can be neither created nor destroyed.



Iran has caused more instability in the Middle East than any nation in the past 5 years, I would give them about 30-40 strategically placed nukes right now, signed, sealed, and delivered.



Using nukes the way we did in Japan actually ended up saving many lives. Regardless, I'm not sure what you're arguing here, you want everyone to have an equal stockpile of nuclear weapons, even those irrational Fred Phelps impersonators running Iran?



George Bush won't start another war. The next war will be started by Iran. The target will be Israel. To be fair, George Bush may still be in office at that time, so you'll be able to blame him if you feel like it.



What is going on that is *actually* fueling a new generation of suicide bombers is the indoctrination camps in the Middle East. US actions in Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent in Iraq (you can't train as many new martyrs if your current supply is martyring themselves) have slowed this.

What's happening in Iraq is a necessary military maneuver for the coming conflict with Iran. Whether or not you feel any safer now isn't the point. When Iran starts slinging missiles around and the US is actually in a position to stop them, you will feel safer. But you will forget about this feeling of safety after about a week of media reporting on the matter brainwashes you into believing George Bush started the conflict for the oil fields in Iran.

Whether or not the terrorists have suffered isn't the point. We've disrupted their training operations, and freed a large number of their potential victims. If we can establish firm democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan then we may have already done enough to end the threat of terrorism in this world for a long time to come.

Naturally, I would agree with you about Iran's increasingly belligerent policies, but this statement is a bit ridiculous compared to the effects of the American-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, and let's murder innocent Iranians right now!


Disputed.


As many analysts, politicians, and soldiers have said, the efforts of the US in the Middle East have only fueled the terrorist cause.

Most Muslims have little purpose to strike at the US, far away, if they are doing little to one's homeland. But, if they are actively invading your nation, then there is greater incentive to perform violent acts against American soldiers. Even worse, their aims become less immoral as they shift from a nature of religious extremism to a nationalist and guerrilla nature. Many of those dedicated to fighting Westerners in Iraq and Afghanistan are not terrorists, but those wishing to liberate their homeland.

more than US? Did you already forget the mess that is yet to be cleared?

I just read a news article about this from here. Maybe I misunderstood but they vetoed it not because it's absolutely insane but because the USA can't afford it? So would we have gone through with developing them had we had the "extra" $1.1 billion?

thank you

Its true though, there are certain obligations that the US must ential being the most influential country but it all comes down to the US having the power. Who ever holds the power makes the rules, its very apperant in our history and it will be that way for all of time. So until the US and NATO for that matter are knocked off the top tree branch the US will continue to decide the fate of other countries, its not polotics, its simply who has the biggest guns...

Off the top of my head:

*large breath inhale*

There's the funding and supplying of Hizbollah's activities around Israel in Lebanon, the funding and supplying of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the funding of Syrian forces across the water, the proxy government (set up through Syria) that controls Lebanon, the funding and arming of the Iraqi Insurgency, undoubtedly funding of the Taliban in Afghanistan, funding of other various extremist groups, abducting innocent British soldiers and holding them hostage, pursuing nuclear weapons despite the rest of the world saying "no," declaring the Holocaust a fiction and threatening to push Israel into the Mediterranean Sea, and funding and supplying North Korean nuclear weapons research.

vs America:

Invading a brutal totalitarian regime in Afghanistan and attempting to set up a democratically, self-determined government, Invading a brutal totalitarian regime in Iraq and attempting to set up a democratically, self-determined government, and getting involved in a scandal involving the college-prank-like "torture" of a few Iraqi POWs.

Not really, just by idiot revisionists and whackjobs with a vendetta against the US who want to load their flames.

The middle east was already in a mess before all this took place. Iran didn't create that mess. There was no Hizbolla before Lebanese invasion. There was no Hamas before the Intifada started.



Blame it on Syria. Syrian forces have been there in Lebanon since Lebanese Invasion.



Keep that in mind that they are all unproven accusations. I will believe it when I see it from a non-US source. We all remember the Colin Powell presentation and how fake it was.



I don't think its remotely related to creating any mess bigger than Iraq.



It is still need to be proven that Iran has any nuclear weapons. And even if it does, it can't be blamed. Saddam didn't have and Iraq got invaded whle NK has and they don't get invaded. Nuclear weapons have become a powerful detterent and they become even more important when Iran is now surrounded by its most feared Nation (US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan).

Some reports talk of "lost in translation". Even so, I don't see any mess. They are just words from an attention-whore.



and where is the mess?



I will give this to you. I was never a fan of Taleban, even though they did bring stability and security after years of ravage.



On false pretext, fake evidence, dossiers and against the will of the Iraqi people. Thinking of Chalabi and his thugs were the real Iraqis and taking their word.



which needed American endorsement for Iraqi constitution. Which has no say on deciding if American bases should remain in Iraq. Whose police and militiary personnell have been convicted of murdering hundreds of sunni men in revenge.



College prank? Tying up ones testicles and passing electricity, creating a blob of naked men is hardly college prank. May be you have gone though this in your college life, but in the muslim world its a worser thing than shame.

The man who opposed Nuclear bombing and was bitter when Truman ordered that bombs be dropped, went on to become the president of USA. If I ignore the fact that, recently, whackjobs have be making it to the office, Eisenhower was one the most brilliant and admired American presidents.

Just because he opposed it does not imply that what Saith said about it wasn't true.

Thats the whole point. What xsaithx said is "disputed" and not necessarily true. And Eisenhover was probably the most informed man during WW2, after all he was incharge of the whole battle plan.

No, it is not disputed. Not by any serious historian. They may question the decision to use it for other reasons, but not like that. The fact that Eisenhower may not have wanted to use it does not imply anything about why he did not want to use it.

Not true. A number of historians have questioned the actual intentions of the use of atom bomb and there was a neowin thread about this. Search will lead you to it. I will leave this issue with following quote from Henry L. Stimson, secretary of war/state during WW2 and some links including an excellent interview with Eugene Jarecki, maker of "Why we fight".



More info: http://www.ncesa.org/html/hiroshima5.html



Full interview