Re: Should we invade


"Lesley Robertson" <l.a.robertson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6ac07$44461f19$82a1f636$1896@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"George" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%uo1g.690948$084.168682@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"Lesley Robertson" <l.a.robertson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:121ed$4445f399$82a1f636$18418@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"George" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ORd1g.106583$oL.43093@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"R.Peffers." <peffers50@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xMadnVGkPdZtxNjZRVnyig@xxxxxxxxx

Well put it this way - The USA is at present being led by
fundamentalist Christian nutters.
The USA is to date the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons
of mass destruction upon a sovereign state.
We already know we cannot trust them with weapons that pollute and
kill the World, Agent Orange is still killing babies and land mines
are still blowing little children's limbs off.
The USA invades and bombs other countries anytime it fancies.
The USA does not recognise the International courts or stick to the
terms of the Geneva Convention.
The USA has already gone against the UN and illegally invaded other
countries.
Why should we be any less frightened of another country getting
nuclear arms when the USA is sitting on the biggest arsenal of
nuclear weapons in the World?
Perhaps we should all get together and hit the USA pre-emptively
before she has a chance to do any more harm and destabilise yet
another country.


I suppose you believe that if you repeat these lies enough times it
will become true.

Just out of interest, which one is a lie?
Lesley Robertson


Which one's do you think is not a lie?

Sigh..... Can't be bothered to dig too far, there's probably many more
refs:
Are you going to claim that the USA did not drop atomic WMD on Japan?
That the USA is not the only country to ever use nuclear weapons?

Obviously, we did. And obviously it DID save hundreds of thousands, if not
millions of lives.

See here http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/nuclear_01.shtml
That they did not drop Agent Orange and other chemical weapons such as
napalm on Vietnam?

Umm, agent orange was not a chemical weapon. There was no treaty banning
its use at the time. It was a defoliant used to prevent Vietkong snipers
from hiding in the trees and ambushing our soldiers. And if you recall,
many of our soldiers were just as devastated by its effects as were the
Vietnames who were exposed to it. 20/20 hindsight is a bitch, ain't it?
Napalm was also not a banned weapon at the time, nor was it considered to
be a chemical weapon at the time. It was an incendiary device, as you well
know. Before you whine about the American use of napalm during the Vietnam
war, examine your own country's history, particularly the firebombing of
Dresdon. How many civilians did your country murder there?

http://www1.va.gov/agentorange/
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Napalm-Recycled.htm
That the USA has not invaded and bombed other sovereign nations?
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Invasion%20of%20Greneda
Then there's Panama, Cambodia, Haiti, Guatemala, Cuba (failed)
That they observe all the requirements of the Geneva Convention? The USA
has signed it.

The fact remains that Britain has invaded more countries than any other
nation on the planet(including Scotland). Remember that before you put on
your halo. At least our intentions have never been colonization and
devastation of the local population, unlike yours.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/coldwar/korea_usa_01.shtml
That the USA does not have the biggest collection of WMD in the world?

Not for long. As you may recall, we are required by treaty to reduce the
number of Nukes in our aresnal (which we are doing) and eliminate our
chemical and biological weapons (which we are aslo doing). We are in
substantial compliance with both treaties. But don't let the facts get in
the way of your unfounded arguments.

This is a list from http://www.armageddononline.org/nuke.php

Gee, armageddononline. Wow, what an unbiased source.

The following is a list of nations that have admitted the possession of
nuclear weapons, and the approximate number of warheads under their
control. This list is informally known in global politics as the "Nuclear
Club".

United States - 10,640; Russia - 8,600; People's Republic of China - 400;
France - 350; United Kingdom - 200; India - 60-90; Pakistan - 24-48
Every point is true.

As someone else here already stated, who are you going to trust? A country
that has the largest nuclear force on the planet and hasn't used them in
anger in over 60 years - a stable democracy and ally of Britain? Or a
country with a keen hatred for the west, an avowed enemy of Western nations
and democratic values, a regime whose soul purpose is the conversion of the
world to their particular religious cult, a regime that hid its nuclear
program for over 20 years, and only admitted to its existence when they
were caught red handed, a country that claims to have peaceful aims with
their nuclear program all the while designing and constructing
nuclear-capable ballistic missiles?, a country that will likely build nukes
and then use them for Nuclear blackmail against the west, including your
country?

George


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Confront Chinas Support for Irans Nuclear Weapons.
    ... One cannot fight half a nuclear war and it is obvious no ... can afford a defensive one of just one to three weapons. ... reasons to take over his oil and destroy his country. ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • Re: Confront Chinas Support for Irans Nuclear Weapons.
    ... One cannot fight half a nuclear war and it is obvious no ... can afford a defensive one of just one to three weapons. ... reasons to take over his oil and destroy his country. ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • N. Korea Reports 1st Nuclear Arms Test
    ... WASHINGTON, Monday, Oct. 9 - North Korea said Sunday night that it ... that it has joined the club of nuclear weapons states. ... The test came just two days after the country was warned by the United ... sent an emergency alert to Washington through the United ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • Re: One serious question for you Bush haters
    ... no country would ever remotely consider using first strike ... If you fear a nuclear attack of the size they "might" be able to deliver ... eagerly awaits the American decision coming up this November, ... vowed to destroy us and the fact that our borders leak like a sieve. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: One serious question for you Bush haters
    ... Even if they were bonkers enough, they'd need some sort of delivery system, and I seriously doubt any country could assemble an ample delivery system that could inflict serious damage to the US. ... Even so, assuming they were nuts enough to pull the trigger, they'd maybe wipe out one or possibly two American cities before we, with the rest of the world cheering us on, destroyed their fucking asses completely. ... If you fear a nuclear attack of the size they "might" be able to deliver one day, in your lifetime or many years hence, you should probably just cash out right now and spare yourself the worry. ... Wise people, like me, saw the bullshit in the Bush adminstration from the get go. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
Loading