Guns and WMD - Always read the first post pleas

[Princess Ivy]

Here is another of those threads, please note, i'm writing a book, and looking for peoples opinions, if you post here, i might use yours, although not your specific words.

We removed Sadam, because we believed that he had WMD, and that was a bad thing, but in the west, we still have them ourselves, our reaserchers are still experimenting with biological agents. And lets not forget the guns that we hold in our own homes and hands.

I don't think that the weapons, personal knives and hand guns, or wmd, i think its in the minds of the people who wield them, and i do not think that people should ever have that sort of responsibility.

[I, Brian]

WMD = Words of Mass Deceit.

And our governments were the ones who used them.

Nuff said on that.

But you're quite right - it's the intention. Pretty much any object can be used as a weapon in someway.

[mac1]

Although I agree in part, that it is not the weapon, but the one wielding the weapon who is at fault, there are many deeper issues at play. Firstly, there is the issue of who sells weapons to places like Iraq. You can answer that one yourself no doubt. Dubya probably still has his daddys reciept I would imagine! Like Brian says, it is America who have used Nukes! NO OTHER COUNTRY in the history of the world, ever, has used a nuclear weapon on another country, it is in fact the US who are the "axis of evil". Even during the cold war, it was America who had its grubby fingers on that red button, America who fed out tons of Anti-Communist propaganda, they invaded Cambodia because though they had been liberated, it had been by a communist Nation, those who are the critiques of WMD's are secretly their biggest fans. It is no coincidence that the countries with nuclear arsenals are the same ones who always go to war. While it may not be the weapon, but the weapon wielder who causes wars, the fact that a country does wield weapons is often the cause of wars. With the exception of perhaps Vietnam (which offically isnt even a war as it was never declared) how many countrys get involved in aggressive international disputes, but have no armys, none, of course. Without the armed forces, there would be no war. Bullsh*t about MAD is now nonsense, you need only look at the former Soviet Union, it decomissioned all its nukes, and the chances of it now being involved in a large international war are next to none. I think the very existance of WMD's in a country is seen as an agressive act, by having them, other countries fear you, and fear can lead people, or nations, to hit first, and ask questions later.

I'm so sick of arming the world and then sending troops over to destroy the f*cking arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries then we go and blow the **** out of 'em. We're like the bullies of the world, you know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane...Throwing the pistol at the sheep herder's feet: "Pick it up." "I don't wanna pick it up mister, you'll shoot me." "Pick up the gun". "Mister, I don't want no trouble huh. I just came down town here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about 10 rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble mister." "Pick up the gun." Boom, boom. "You all saw him. He had a gun."

Bill Hicks: Revelations

[SDNess]

We removed Sadam, because we believed that he had WMD, and that was a bad thing, but in the west, we still have them ourselves, our reaserchers are still experimenting with biological agents. And lets not forget the guns that we hold in our own homes and hands.

Yeah, it's okay if we have them. But it's not okay when paranoid psychopaths have them and are potentially willing to use them against us.

I initially supported the war and unfortuatenly have gripes now, but I'll not flip-flop and say I still support the war. Even if 'Words of Mass Deceit' really were used. There's no looking back now.

There's nothing wrong with experimenting with biological agents as long as we're not using them on our own people and other people.

Weapons are weapons. They are a creation of humankind and serve a basic concept of humanity - safety. Therefore, there's no reason one should be scolded for possessing a weapon. It's how they use it that's important.

i do not think that people should ever have that sort of responsibility.

Well who's to choose who get's responsibility and who doesn't? Again, you can't restrict somone from an implied right.

We can have restrictions, but they can only work to a certain extent. If we ever are able to completely understand the human psyche, then maybe we will be able to finally solve the problem with weapons.

[littlemissattitude]

Hmmm. The problem with weapons is that if people have them, they will use them. Sometime. One way or another. The US proved that in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My personal opinion is that it is only sheer luck that the world didn't get destroyed during the Cold War. I'm old enough to remember, if only dimly, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and what I remember is that people were scared spitless that it was The End of the World. I remember seeing huge screaming newspaper headlines to that effect.

It really bothers me that I live in a country that wants everyone else to give up their WMDs, but isn't willing to completely give them up themselves, and in fact is continuing to develop ever better and more economical ways of killing more and more people with less and less effort. Call me a bleeding heart liberal if you want to, but this double standard makes me really uncomfortable. Because I can guarantee you that if the wrong people get into office, we are going to have Armageddon, simply because there are folks who think God needs a little help getting it going. Or if not because of that, simply because there are folks who think that the US has the God-given right to rule the world. Some of those latter category of folks are actually in positions of great power right now, and are doing all they can to carry out their wishes.

Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle, and I don't know of any way to get it back in. All the governments of the world could make a great show of destroying all existing WMDs, and they would keep some back "just in case". And that doesn't even take account of the missing ingredients for a number of different kinds of WMDs. Some fool managed to grow and send out those anthrax letters, after all. As you can see, I'm very pessimistic about the whole deal. I'll feel a little safer if Kerry wins the election on Tuesday, but not a whole lot.

I hope that helps, Ivy.

[Foxbat]

The Non-Proliferation Treaty was meant to control the production of Nuclear Weapons but failed miserably. I agree with Littlemiss - however we feel about it, the genie is out of the bottle and we must live in a world which either finds a way of effectively dealing with this problem or ends up destroying itself.

My biggest fear is not the weapon itself but the fundamentalist mind behind it which thinks that there is a future after death. these are the people most likely to 'press the button'.

In saying all that, the biggest threat is probably biological. There have been treaties in place for many years but a terrorist organisation is unlikely to care about that. If these weapons technologies fall beyond the reaches of organised governments, we will have a real problem.

Finally, I don't for one minute believe that we removed Saddam because of WMD. We did it because it suited the purposes of certain individuals and not for any Humanitarian reason. Still, the world is better without him despite the lies encompassing the reason for his demise.

[I, Brian]

I've moved this thread to the World Affairs forum, as it can be much more visible here - and hence, in my opinion, allow for much more feedback than as a thread on the Writer Workshop post.

Hope no one minds too much.

[mac1]

I'll feel a little safer if Kerry wins the election on Tuesday, but not a whole lot.

He scares me every bit as much as his Skull and Bones buddy Dubya.

[littlemissattitude]

Originally Posted by Bigmacscanlan

He scares me every bit as much as his Skull and Bones buddy Dubya.

I base my feelings about this on the fact that if Dubya goes, so does Ashcroft and Rumsfeld and Rove and the rest of the crew who seem to think that they've been anointed by God to rule the world. For the sort of people the Bush campaign hires, here's a link you might find interesting. I won't say more here, as we don't usually discuss religion here. But these folks worry me way more than Skull and Bones does.

[mac1]

"In July 1987, God impressed me to do two things. First, I was to search the library and find the date that prayer had been prohibited in public schools. Second, I was to obtain a record of national SAT scores (the academic test given to prospective college-bound high school students) spanning several decades. I didn't know why, but I somehow knew that these two pieces of information would be very important."

Good grief, now as you know I am usually quite open with regards religion, but its this fundamentalist "God talks to me" stuff that scares the cr*p outta me!

As for Donald, yeah the sooner he's gone, the better.