June 22nd, 2004, 12:34 PM
Halting Nuclear Proliferation
A quote from John Kerry on how to control nuclear proliferation.
I just don't get these guys. Democrats now want to seize all of the Nuclear weapons to prevent terrorists from getting hold of them. How do the Democrats expect to get to the Nuclear weapons and/or materials that are stored and hidden in countries that harbour terrorists? These weapons are protected by extemists and terrorists who will have to be killed in order to confiscate the so called Nuclear weapons.
The Democratic senator has lambasted the White House, saying its efforts to control nuclear proliferation have slowed since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Kerry charges that the president has been "fixated" on Iraq while ignoring other threats.
"Part of the approach of the administration is they don’t view [securing nuclear weapons] as the very high priority. Important, but not a priority," Wolfstahl said. On the other hand, "Kerry is surrounded by people who think this is the nation's highest priority."
I guess the Liberals are going to dress up like a girl scouts and sell Thin Mints or Somoas, while batting their eyes innocently at the terrorists, in exchange for their Nukes and Nuclear construction products.
The mentally handicaped are persecuted in this great country, and I say rightfully so! These people are NUTS!!!!
June 22nd, 2004, 01:09 PM
There's two approaches to this, and I don't really see anything wrong with either one like you do, OverdueSpy
To make sure nobody ever uses a nuclear weapon against you, you can do two things: you either get rid of all nuclear weapons and make sure nobody ever makes one again, or you get rid of all people who could ever use one against you. Are you sure the first one is more "illogical"? They're equally utopian to me.
The first step should be the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the homeland, anyways... those weapons probably pose more dangers than the ones abroad (which is exactly Kerry's point).
June 22nd, 2004, 04:18 PM
This could be a loooong debate. I'll state my position using an analogy. In every country I have ever been that had strict gun control laws. The thugs in the street and even the farmer living way out in the country. Still carried, and used them. I know you can argue statistics and violent crime etc. And in some cases voilent crime is way down. But all it takes is one or two to break the system, and in this case that one is a big deal. BOOM. I can't imagine after witnessing human history, one would think that just because one group gives up an evil, that all groups will give up that evil. In doing so one gives another the oportunity for Nuclear Jihad. A real fire to rain upon the souless west. Of course I am of an opinion, that without controls in place to counter tyranny, as it rises every few years, the Earth is destined for slavery of a few masters. It's in our DNA and a rightful arguments against creationism. Uh oh did I bring that up again?
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.
June 25th, 2004, 11:00 PM
actually i think the present administration's approach encompasses both methods: get rid of the nukes and we aint kidding. lybia listened to reason once they weighed the merits of not. korea will give them up but they want to get as much as they can for doing so. i think its funny. they threaten to test one if they dont get their way. thats a real threat. who's it going to hurt? only them. they'll destroy half their nukes and really piss off the whole world against them. iran will not bend to the UN if the US isn't looming over them. its another good guy bad guy situation only this time they know were really willing to be the bad guy. put kerry in and these guy just might re-think their stand.
Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”