the US only 'moderately" damages other countries!!

[niyad]

on another board I visit, this question was posed:

"
Should North Korea attack the U.S. in a pre-emptive strike with its nuclear misiles in order to prevent ANOTHER attack by the U.S. on its territory and that of its neighbour (China) as the U.S. did in the early 50s with biological weapons perfected on allied POWs and obtained from Japanese war criminals at the end of WWII ?

The U.S. has a proven stock of weapons of mass destruction which we know can reach most of the world, it has already proved its willingness to use them OR provide them to other madmen (like Saddam Hussein) in order to protect and advance its own interests anywhere.

As we know the U.S. is run by a despotic madman who cares nothing about democracy or human rights (many of its own citizens live in squalor in the streets and have no proper access to education or health) and he has already shown that not even the U.N. can do anything about it when he's on attack mode.

Does North Korea have the moral right to do anything within its power to put a stop to this madness and if not who does?"

and THIS was one of the answers:


No.

1) It is not right to counter one wrong by another. Insinuating that route would perhaps mean that one is of a particular ilk.

2) There are many and vast differences between NKorea and the USA, Iraq and the USA, and the USA and most other states they recently conflicted with in war.



First, the US is not run by a madman. Even if Bush were a madman - which he demonstrably isn't - the USA is not run by the president alone. In truth his power is in most cases very limited.

Second, the US has never threatened and is no threat to proliferate weapons of mass destruction. The one case where the US has used WMD in Japan was to the benefit of humanity - this argument can of course be discussed but I am confident that you will loose the case if you try it in spite of the terrible losses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Anyhow, this was not a case of proliferation unless you count 'bombing' as proliferation.

Third, Bush is not despotic. He is tied down in many effective ways and depends more on his lobbyists than they depend on him. In fact, he only is where he is because of them.

Fourth, unlike all rogue states, the US has never threatened nor carried out the destruction of entire countries as an act of aggression. Its use of WMD can only be called 'moderate' and only appropriate if no other way remains.



Be all that as it may, under no circumstances can there be a moral right to use WMD and that was your question. There can be reasons to use WMD but no rights and no morals.

I have to say it is proof in itself that America has no interest in proliferating WMD; it would have to be counter-productive to the intent to rule the world ;p"

so, my dear DU'ers--have as much fun with this as you wish. I, on the other hand, am going to pour myself a stiff one--I have had about as much of this stupidity as I can handle today (after dealing with another idiot who is still whining that ken lay should never have had to face jail time for his crimes. . . grrrrrr)

[whistle]

1. Jesus, what board is this?

[niyad]

5. it's a board over at delphi, which has some trolls who give the

freeps a run for their money.

[Redstone]

2. You'd actually have a CONVERSATION with some who's so fucking deranged

that they would actually say "as the U.S. did in the early 50s with biological weapons perfected on allied POWs and obtained from Japanese war criminals at the end of WWII"

Anyone who said something as fucking nuts as that statement is, I'd not even consider talking to. They're WAY too far gone.

Redstone

[niyad]

6. I normally don't respond to this person, but his remarks were just so

blatantly stupid that I had to say something. so now he is whining about how I am blinded by my prejudices, and being mean to him. wahhhhhhhhhh.

on a disgusting note, I seem to recall that he lives in the same town I do--home of dobson and haggard and swarms and hordes of their ilk.

[Redstone]

7. You don't mean Merle, do you?

He's come around to the side of the Righteous on his latest CD.

Redstone

[niyad]

8. no, just some twit who thinks he is an expert on wmd's.

[MadMaddie]

3. Wha...Hunh....?

Every point this writer attempts to make can be easily refuted with film footage, audio and other historical records.....:wtf:

it's unreal that people like this refuse to see that this * administration is culpable in many of the attrocities that have happened around the world....and will be pointed to when Iraqi children grow up to be OBL.....

[0007]

4. Argh!

[WePurrsevere]

9. Even though it's obvious to most of us, this is the type of RW BS we must>

fight with FACTS and links to those facts if we can. Although we probably won't get through a kool-aid haze as thick as this person is obviously wrapped in, there are others (perhaps lurkers) that can still be reached.

There are many here that are excellent fact finders and there's an area on DU for Debunking Propaganda, etc as well.
( http://tinyurl.com/faogo )