Build, or threaten to build, nuclear weapons. This will surely get you on the first page of every paper.

Need some publicity for your restaurant? Run an add saying you're currently developping atom bombs, oh and by the way, that you also happen to sell steaks. For extra publicity, claim to be linked to Al-Quida. That's another way to boost your popularity.

Works like charm. Guaranteed.

Want to be the object of intense hatred among the ignorant, disallusioned, disenfranchid and brainwashed? Be America.

North Korea's Taepodong Missile doesn't even compare to:

The LGM-118A Peacemaker, the world's most advanced and deadly weapon in the history of mankind. Costing 70 million JUST FOR THE MISSILE, its 10 stealth multiple independantly targeted re-entry vehicles that come crashing down at 24,000 kp/h each have the capability to turn a small country into a firery, nuclear hell. With a range of 10,000 kilometers, it has the capability to hit nearly anywhere in the world. It has the ability to launch from its silo the 'cold way' using gas pressure to avoid detection from enemy sattelites until it comes crashing down.

In preparation for a doomsday scenario, the airforce has the launchers on rail carrs. 1 of them has the launcher, another the targeting crap, and 2 security cars. In the event of a nuclear attack, they would be put on the nation railsystem and could fire from the rails.
America the beautiful.

"All publicity is good publicity"

Having nuclear weapons or links to the worlds most famous (but not the best) terrorist organisation will give you the power of fear. And with that you can get away with anything.

I could go around wearing a huge hat and then go up to everyone wearing a hat and insult them for having a hat on (it's the first analogy that cam in to my head). But if I had the evoked a large enough sense of fear I would get away with it.

Everyone around would start "hat hating" and begin vigilante campaign against hats... led by me with my massive top hat. Then someone else would arrive and I think he might own a large hat (not as big as mine but big enough to get him noticed) and suddenly I feel threatened... He does not wear the hat and there is no real evidence that he has a hat, but he seems the sort who might have a hat. Next thing you know I have to beat up the accused man in order to remove his hat, and thus remove the threat. He refuses to tell me where his hat is, so I have to beat him up and take his hat by force (wherever he is hiding it).

Then all of a sudden another little dude with an obsession with movies claims to be making a new hat. Oh what do I do?...

Unfortunately in this reality (as opposed to my odd hat-fixated reality) hats are considered unimportant - so we have nuclear weapons instead.

You see where I am going with this is that America hates Saddam's potential hat. But has it's very own collection of extremely potent hats.

USA just wants nobody to have what it's got. As it stands America is free to bully the world without fear of reprisal. Because everyone is shit scared of it's nukes. Americans feel safe with nukes - they feel too safe. The safety leads to arrogance, and arrogance leads to hatred (by others towards America)... hatred leads to the dark side (terrorism).

If the Soviet Union still stood today. With it's incredible arsenal, USA would be reluctant to be such a bully all the time - for fear of a potential reprisal. The USSR kept USA in check, and vice-versa, with one gone... USA has a free reign.

Bush sees himself as President of the World, and Saddam is simply a rebel leader. That is why he labels enemy states as "rogue states" and accuses him of being a terrorist. And that is a big problem.

quote:

---

You see where I am going with this is that America hates Saddam's potential hat. But has it's very own collection of extremely potent hats.
USA just wants nobody to have what it's got. As it stands America is free to bully the world without fear of reprisal. Because everyone is shit scared of it's nukes. Americans feel safe with nukes - they feel too safe. The safety leads to arrogance, and arrogance leads to hatred (by others towards America)... hatred leads to the dark side (terrorism).

If the Soviet Union still stood today. With it's incredible arsenal, USA would be reluctant to be such a bully all the time - for fear of a potential reprisal. The USSR kept USA in check, and vice-versa, with one gone... USA has a free reign.

Bush sees himself as President of the World, and Saddam is simply a rebel leader. That is why he labels enemy states as "rogue states" and accuses him of being a terrorist. And that is a big problem.

---

Cock-boy, stupid ignorant dumb fucking cock-boy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
Cock-boy, stupid ignorant dumb fucking cock-boy.

---

NukeChild from thread = Weapons of Mass Destruction "Guys, i am disapointed in you. You have to do more than insult the writer, you have to attack the tenents of his beliefs so that those who read yet don't respond can see it proven to them that we are right."

I just don't know who the good guys are anymore! Who to believe? Who to let think for me?

*chuckle*

thats not popular. thats attention, bad attention while we're at it

Agreed. However, there is a point ...

Nox

quote:

---

I just don't know who the good guys are anymore! Who to believe? Who to let think for me?

---

Me! Me! Me!

Actually, I think ChuckStone's analogy was pretty accurate. The powerful nations always take measures that other aspriting-military-powers never become too powerfull.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
You see where I am going with this is that America hates Saddam's potential hat. But has it's very own collection of extremely potent hats.

USA just wants nobody to have what it's got.

---

Not true. The U.S. is responsible with it's nuclear weapons. (You're probably thinking 'bullshit' right now). The fact of the matter is, Americans do not use nuclear weapons to blackmail nations into submission, and we would never sell the technology to terrorists.

We also let nations gain nuclear capabilities. Look at India and Pakistan. We let them have nukes.

[This message has been edited by LowLife (edited 01-14-2003).]

quote:

---

NukeChild from thread = Weapons of Mass Destruction "Guys, i am disapointed in you. You have to do more than insult the writer, you have to attack the tenents of his beliefs so that those who read yet don't respond can see it proven to them that we are right."

I just don't know who the good guys are anymore! Who to believe? Who to let think for me?

*chuckle*

---

If you look at the time indexes of the posts, you see that I was disappointed in the first and after answering a lot of crap in other posts my patience finnaly broke and the urge to mentally purge myself was fullfilled by defecating on Chuckstone's name.

The hat analogy was stupid and although he implicitly admits that it is bad, he fails to understand why America is nervous that countries like Iraq or North Korea have nukes. He also fails to realize why England and the rest of Europe should also be frightened by this prospect. It is not a simple matter of hat envy, it is a matter of not wanting to see dangerous enemies armed with the most destructive weapons on Earth. North Korea just proved that they are willing to use their nukes as a barganing chip to obtain favorable economic conditions. When was the last time France got pissed and demanded that the US or other nations give them favorable trade policies? It should be obvious that no one cares if Canada, Japan, or Luxumberg have nukes, why, because they are stable democracies and are not a threat.

He then goes on to argue that the world would be a better place if all the terrorist, US hating thugs of the world were armed with H-Bombs, because then that would stop American advances. This completely ignores the nature of our enemies. North Korea has shown no qualms about selling missiles or technology, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this can lead to some very bad scenarios.

He also tries to gently label Saddam and others and rebels against a corrupt opppresive regime where the juxstaposition alone is ludicrous. The valient rebels fighting the US are themselves commiting worse attrocities than what they accuse us of. His entire post was fantastically ignorant and disattached from reality. I feel dirty just dignifying it with a response as he reviles the US for it's "international abuses" and 'blatant quest for power" while continually ignoring the same abuses of the groups, nations, and peoples that he chooses to champion against the "Imperialist pigs."

As Nox would say, my gag/puke reaction manifiested itself into my keyboard.

Nukechild, don't worry about it. Life is a learning curve for you AND me. I guess the best we can hope for is that our curve is as sharp as possible, right?

As for my opinion in regards to this thread, (and it seems Chuckstone's opinions are heavily scrutinized) I believe shouting about the moral indignity of a country having nukes and them trying to stop other countries from developing such weapons is a bit like standing on a hill and cursing the wind for blowing. That's the way our world works. Now what are you going to do about it?

Chuckstone, I once asked you to stop talking about Che Guevera and start telling me about yourself. What are you going to do about the problems you identify? I ask because my opinion is that once you become involved with practical solutions you may become more fulfilled and feel more accomplished.

I understand Chuckstone's frustration. It is a frustration with mainstream media and information sources - that many people don't realise that media have an agenda they wish to pander to before they wish to communicate "facts". I, however, believe that he has yet to understand that EVERY source of information is biased in a similar fashion. Chuckstone is by no means a stupid person, and I know many of you don't want to agree with that but sooner or later he will begin to understand political and social information and it's biased nature.

The first thing we all need to look at is whether WE understand this. Then we can look at allowing other people to understand this too.

A question: what is the best way to teach someone? Because I've been watching you all slander, take the piss, prove wrong, and insult Chuckstone for quite some time without causing so much as an iota of change in his value system.

Are you debating in the most successful fashion you can?

Allow yourselves the dignity of honest self appraisal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
It should be obvious that no one cares if Canada, Japan, or Luxumberg have nukes, why, because they are stable democracies and are not a threat.

---

Luxumberg has nukes? I didn't know that.

LowLife

It doesn't, neither does Japan. The point, however, is that no one cares if they do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
[QUOTE] He also fails to realize why England and the rest of Europe should also be frightened by this prospect. .

---

If I may venture an opinion, the majority of adults with brains in the UK, Europe and for that matter most of the world view the unbridled spread of WMD to countries like Iraq and DPRK with extreme concern.

Chucky, on the other hand, being the font of all wisdom and only source of the truth according to Carl Marx, speaking from his huge experience of the world gained over many years (Did someone say 16 years)and bolstered by his extensive travels (Brighton for a DW with his dog?) sees no threat .....

Irrespective of my immediate preceding post, I have to agree with 123 that Chucky is clearly not stupid. The comment about his, Chucky's, frustration with the media and the world is also most probably valid.

None the less, whilst hearing the point that perhaps those who flame him are not choosing the best route to deal with him, I can only ask : What other route is there. Any sensible reasoned counter to his posts is cursed, people are called names, nothing changes. So people just take the piss out of him.

The (possible) tragedy of all of this is that he will probably never develop the potential that clearly exists, because this medium is so fast it leaves no time for contemplation, study and growth in understanding. It would be nice if Chucky would meet the flamers half way and enter into a more reasoned and less dogmatic debate.

The chances for that, based on past performance? Slim ...

M

quote:

---

It should be obvious that no one cares if Canada, Japan, or Luxumberg have nukes, why, because they are stable democracies and are not a threat.

---

Not so much 'stable democracies' as they are allies.

India and Pakistan, for example - who also posses nuclear weapons - aren't anymore of a 'stable demoracy' than North Korea; however, because of their fairly decent relationship with the West, they aren't taken as such a threat.

How can you equate India and North Korea? India has ellections and a government that actually means something.

I don't equate them. I'm just explaining you that relationship between countries comes before their human rights record.

India and Pakistan are more likely to use nuclear weapons than North Korea, though they don't appear to have any intention of selling them to terrorists.

I wouldn't be very suprised if Pakistan became more islamic. It may be an Iraq. I.e. no longer friendly to the US but with WMD that the US didn't mind it getting.

in 1975 the soviet union tested the biggest nuclear weapon in history 280 million megatons. This at a time when the US and USSR had an treaty not to test Nuclear weapons. about 75% of the worlds countries said "what the fuck was that?" the other 25% where to poor to see it but heard about it. now thats a way to be popular