Hypocites!!!!!1!!1~

[Weekend_Climberz]

So I don't get it? We go around telling other countries that they should be making nuclear weapons and that "Nuclear Weapons are bad, mmkay!", but we're designing new ones? WTF?

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17420703/

 

Hey Dru, is there any room for some more disgruntled Americans up there??

[olyclimber]

OMG lets ask Alanis what she thinks!

 

[TrogdortheBurninator]

Its like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a spork

[kevbone]

O shit, not more alanis lyrics. We have already been through this. Is it not ironic.

Edited March 3, 2007 by kevbone

[murraysovereign]

"...military and Energy Department officials said the new U.S. warhead will not add to the nuclear arsenal, but replace existing warheads with ones that are safer and more reliable."

 

Well, I for one am all for making nuclear weapons safer, 'cause the old ones are really dangerous. I mean, if one of those things ever went off, someone could get killed, or at least badly hurt. So if they can make them safer, then maybe we won't have to worry so much about someone getting hurt if they go off, and, well, how can you oppose that? Would you rather we stay with the current dangerous ones?

[catbirdseat]

They are safer and more reliable than the ones they replace. In order for Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to work in practice, the other country must believe that your weapons would work when you launch them.

 

They are not going to test them, so no underground nuclear explosions.

[TREETOAD]

You mean all those fucking time bombs you have buried all over the place have been unsafe and unreliable for all these years!!! I think that they should have to label them all with big orange warning signs. No wonder everyone is so paranoid and touchy. You guys are living in a minefield. Never mind that..Do you think they will dig up that horse toothed, fat blonde broad everyone is kicking up such a fuss about? There, we all forgot about the bombs for a while. Carry on....

[mattp]

No doubt we're showing some real double standard here. After all, we've probably done more than any other nation and maybe the next five put together to violate international treaties and international law and to destabilize the Middle East in particular when it comes to weapons and war in recent years. Some of our right wing friends call it "hate america first," but the reality is we are regarded with fear and suspicion by much of the general public throughout the world, from New Zealand to Scandanavia - not just among the Islamic or middle east nations.

 

A quick google search yields the suggestion that we have violated or ignored the following (some were agreements we have not ratified, I think, so "violated" may not be the correct term):

 

(1) the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT),

(2) the Treaty Banning Antipersonnel Mines,

(3) the convention against torture

(4) the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC),

(5) a protocol to create a compliance regime for the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC),

(6) the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, and

(7) the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM).

 

Also, there is plenty of information suggesting the U.S. is also not complying with:

(8) the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and

(9) the Chemical Weapons Commission (CWC).

 

Our efforts to undermine and subvert the United Nations, too, are deplorable.

 

Some put forth a viable argument that we need a strong military presence around the world and are justified in using our superior weaponry to our advantage, and that may or not be so. Further, I'm sure there is room for argument over what our obligations have been with respect to some of the above-listed treaties, or whether we are in technical violation of some of them. However, the U.S. clearly does not stand for or stand by any sense of the rule of law, non proliferation, promoting world peace, or whatever else theese various treaties and agreements are intended to promote.

 

Any complaints from the Bush administration about some other nation's ignoring the rule of international law or violating their treaty obligations is clearly hypocritical.

[mattp]

Wow! I guess we really are in the doldrums. We've reached a new low around here if none of the Bush apologists who hate SUV driving latte sippers will bite on this!