They've helped Saddam at every turn before. They've made it clear in the past that they don't have any problem with his regime. In fact, they've often been his biggest supporters. They've actually tried to help him became nuke-capable.

US?
No!
France.

Out of curiosity, with the French being one of the biggest suppliers of arms to Iraq throughout the 80s on top of the French twice trying to get a nuke reactor to Baghdad for Saddam - why do we have a million and one sciforums members screaming about the States being hypocrits for wanting Saddam to disarm but no one cries at the French?

some of us would like to see EVERY nuke power disarmed

Originally posted by Asguard
some of us would like to see EVERY nuke power disarmed

You live in fantasyland....

no actully i know it will never happen so i would rather see the reverse happen than what is happerning now

Originally posted by Asguard
no actully i know it will never happen so i would rather see the reverse happen than what is happerning now

So you want total destruction because a few nations have nukes? Because that will happen if many of these rogue nations get nukes, it's enevitable.

who determines who a "rouge state" is?

the US?

england?

hmm

why do we have a million and one sciforums members screaming about the States being hypocrits for wanting Saddam to disarm but no one cries at the French?

cos the french aint the ones threatening to nuke their ass? cos the french didnt dissapear 8000 pages of complicitous info? cos we members hope to score some french punani someday?

Originally posted by Asguard
who determines who a "rouge state" is?

the US?

england?
Common Sense.

The way the nation treats it's people, and it's history. There is a big difference between a nation like Australia and a nation like N. Korea. You can see the problems the World has with Pakistan and India having nukes, and I wouldn't even consider them rogue.

It wasn't long ago that the US and Russia almost ended things. What happens when smaller, and more erratic nations have nukes?

so that would be the US as the only contry to use Nukes, for invading any country that suited it, for displacing democrys with dictatorships when it suited them?

Originally posted by Asguard
so that would be the US as the only contry to use Nukes, for invading any country that suited it, for displacing democrys with dictatorships when it suited them?
If you feel the US is a bigger threat with nukes than N. Korea, China, and Middle East countries, then your not using common sense.

right sure

china is sitting there, not invading anyone, just minding its own business

the US invades afgainistan, ignores international laws that its doing the wrong thing, pulls out of international treatys, rejects the ICC designed to stop war crimes, is going to invade iraq in breach of international law

Originally posted by Asguard
right sure

china is sitting there, not invading anyone, just minding its own business

the US invades afgainistan, ignores international laws that its doing the wrong thing, pulls out of international treatys, rejects the ICC designed to stop war crimes, is going to invade iraq in breach of international law
Invades Afghanistan???? The US had UN support.

The ICC is not in the best interest for America, pulling out of treaties doesn't make the US the equal of N. Korea, or an Iraq.

Also, China is a sadistic country. The government surpresses its people like a dictatorship. They IMO are the biggest threat in the next 25 years.

I think that China will not be a threat - but a "replacement" of the capitaslist super power. They won't be a concern just as the US isn't a concern right now (as far as the use of nukes is concerned). That's because they have too much to lose. Nations like NK have (practically) nothing to lose - so since they're already putting the screws to their people why not off them AND the rest of the world when you don't get what you want.

I, too, agree that this is COMMON sense.

China is a sadistic country.

Yes, but also a pragmatic one: The leadership know they can never survive another Tienanmen or two. They also know that under the surface, 100 more Tienanmens are waiting.

Invades Afghanistan???? The US had UN support.

as if the UN can't be swayed into what the US wants... just cuz the UN is backin it doesnt prove jack...

Originally posted by static76
If you feel the US is a bigger threat with nukes than N. Korea, China, and Middle East countries, then your not using common sense.

Uhh... he just proved that the US is a bigger threat using the rules of common sense you outlined, and now you're telling him he's not using common sense? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by static76
Invades Afghanistan???? The US had UN support.

The ICC is not in the best interest for America, pulling out of treaties doesn't make the US the equal of N. Korea, or an Iraq.

Also, China is a sadistic country. The government surpresses its people like a dictatorship. They IMO are the biggest threat in the next 25 years.

Yes, the US did have UN support, but there were still quite a few things the US did wrong, like all the war crimes we committed by burying soldiers in mass graves, burning bodies, etc.

The ICC is in the best interest of America, unless of course we are going to commit loads of war crimes. Does that say anything to you now? And pulling out of treaties usually indicates that there is something on the horizon related to the treaties, usually something that would break them.

And there is nothing wrong with Iraq or North Korea.

since when did WAR become common sense?

You must be out of your mind,.....:bugeye:

Originally posted by GB-GIL Trans-global
Uhh... he just proved that the US is a bigger threat using the rules of common sense you outlined, and now you're telling him he's not using common sense? :rolleyes:

GB-GIL, what did he prove?
Yes, the US did have UN support, but there were still quite a few things the US did wrong, like all the war crimes we committed by burying soldiers in mass graves, burning bodies, etc.
Has the UN charged the US with any war crimes?
The ICC is in the best interest of America, unless of course we are going to commit loads of war crimes. Does that say anything to you now? And pulling out of treaties usually indicates that there is something on the horizon related to the treaties, usually something that would break them.
The US feels the ICC does not go far enough to avoid the risk of politically motivated prosecutions. It wants immunity for countries that are not party to the ICC but still contribute troops to U.N. peacekeeping operations.

The fear is that some countries may bring up cases for political reasons.

And there is nothing wrong with Iraq or North Korea.
:rolleyes:
If you believe this, then you are a fool. Even the biggest America bashers would agree that NK and Iraq have plenty wrong with the way their countries are run.

Originally posted by Fukushi
since when did WAR become common sense?

You must be out of your mind,.....:bugeye:
Who said war was common sense?????

BTW - I'm AGAINST a US war with Iraq. But it doesn't blind me to their evils.

Yes Iraq was France's #1 customer of arms up until the Gulf War. Goofy French. Hey, at least they never got the bomb that the French went to build them (thank God for the Israelis on that one).

Q: How many troops does it take to defend Paris?
A: No one knows, because it hasn't been tried in so long.

Q: How many gears does a French tank have?
A: 6 gears. Five in reverse and one forward--in case the get attacked from behnid.