Fortunately you do not represent the heart of America
The hell I dont. Try reading some polls. The average american doesnt want to end up becoming an Islamic french fry because we didnt stop third world crazies from developing nukes. BTW - are you even american>?
To clarify, when I refer to the "heart of America", I refer the the grand vision America was founded on--the same vision I'm assuming Americans far and wide have planted in their breast: The seed of a better way. This heart of America is not about conceding intellectual, emotional and spiritual defeat in the face of a challenge, and relying on brawn and brute force, in their place. This heart of America does not give in to lower brain functions such as fear, allowing them to make the tough decisions based on control and imbalance. Rather those who are attuned to what I see as the heart of America follow their ideals. Those attuned to this heart of America in my mind, are loathe to utter the words "Bombs a fucking way", or to to take and rely on problem-solving short-cuts such as this when it comes to decision making: "Iran already has medium range guided missiles, a crazy fuck leader, and the desire for nukes". The heart of America is about going a step FURTHER, in defining the fine lines of appropriate behaviour, not cutting them back or out. Acting on fear, lack of reasoning, lack of ideals, lack of problem-solving and decision making etc, is about lack. This lack is about distorting the heart of America. Despite such distortion, and the fact that people align with such distortion all the time, the heart of America, independent of the ugliness remains, beating strongly in each minute. The people choose between their ideals and wisdom, and between distortion and lack all the time. Hopefully, they choose on the side of wisdom and idealism on the tough issues.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Read before speaking. You obviously havent read the treaty. read it and come on back
i have, and it is very possible they violated article I, and Article II states:
Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.
and we have begun building new nukes, which violates this article. also, helping india obtain such material violates this article, as well
Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
this administration has said they don't want the IAEA anywhere near our nukes and that we would sign a new treaty only if there were NO inspections of our stockpiles
Article VI. The states undertake to negotiate toward general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
hate to break it to ya but building NEW nukes is the opposite of disarmament and not allowing ANY inspections is far from 'strict' international control.
have you read it?? not the first time you've seemed to have a comprehension problem...
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i have, and it is very possible they violated article I, and Article II states:
Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.
and we have begun building new nukes, which violates this article. also, helping india obtain such material violates this article, as well
Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
this administration has said they don't want the IAEA anywhere near our nukes and that we would sign a new treaty only if there were NO inspections of our stockpiles
Article VI. The states undertake to negotiate toward general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
hate to break it to ya but building NEW nukes is the opposite of disarmament and not allowing ANY inspections is far from 'strict' international control.
have you read it?? not the first time you've seemed to have a comprehension problem...
Nice try. So now that you have read it, you do understand the non-proliferation treaty allowed the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain to retain their stocks right? That's because none of them was about to give them up. And still wont. The US has drastically cut its arsenal since the 1970's. Are you denying that too? As for new weapons, I know Bush wants to develop a new kind of lower yield weapon. Does it violate? I dont know. Has it happened yet. Not to my knowledge. Should it happen? That depends. If the world community cant stop the North Koreas and Irans of this world from acquiring their own weapons, which is specifically th goal of the treaty, then what's the point of the treaty? It's not even worth the papers it's written on it their is no will to act. The UN finally got the message and is rightly sanctioning Iran. I really hope it works. I dont want to see more casualites anymore than the next guy. But if the UN fails...again.....who will stop this? Unless of course youd like ot see the Islamic bomb....
Nice try. So now that you have read it, you do understand the non-proliferation treaty allowed the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain to retain their stocks right? That's because none of them was about to give them up. And still wont. The US has drastically cut its arsenal since the 1970's. Are you denying that too? As for new weapons, I know Bush wants to develop a new kind of lower yield weapon. Does it violate? I dont know. Has it happened yet. Not to my knowledge. Should it happen? That depends. If the world community cant stop the North Koreas and Irans of this world from acquiring their own weapons, which is specifically th goal of the treaty, then what's the point of the treaty? It's not even worth the papers it's written on it their is no will to act. The UN finally got the message and is rightly sanctioning Iran. I really hope it works. I dont want to see more casualites anymore than the next guy. But if the UN fails...again.....who will stop this? Unless of course youd like ot see the Islamic bomb....
yes but
-we were allowed to keep existing stockpiles, not make new ones
-we were still supposed to be reducing our stockpile, not keeping what we have and building new ones.
they are all set to test their new nuke, how can they test something if they don't have it?? to test it means they have one to test, meaning they built one, meaning they violated the npt.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Nice try. So now that you have read it, you do understand the non-proliferation treaty allowed the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain to retain their stocks right? That's because none of them was about to give them up. And still wont. The US has drastically cut its arsenal since the 1970's. Are you denying that too? As for new weapons, I know Bush wants to develop a new kind of lower yield weapon. Does it violate? I dont know. Has it happened yet. Not to my knowledge. Should it happen? That depends. If the world community cant stop the North Koreas and Irans of this world from acquiring their own weapons, which is specifically th goal of the treaty, then what's the point of the treaty? It's not even worth the papers it's written on it their is no will to act. The UN finally got the message and is rightly sanctioning Iran. I really hope it works. I dont want to see more casualites anymore than the next guy. But if the UN fails...again.....who will stop this? Unless of course youd like ot see the Islamic bomb....
Lol..the islamic bomb? Is that like a wmd or something?
-we were allowed to keep existing stockpiles, not make new ones
-we were still supposed to be reducing our stockpile, not keeping what we have and building new ones.
they are all set to test their new nuke, how can they test something if they don't have it?? to test it means they have one to test, meaning they built one, meaning they violated the npt.
which parts? if i do are you gonna actually reply or are you gonna take the cheap way out like in that plaestinian state thread?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
once again, the difference being we will target MILITARY targets, and Iran will target..............well, you know.
But we're the same, arent we?
did ya know that at least 3 of the first 4 bombs dropped on iraq <which were supposed smart bombs> missed their targets entirely and hit civillian houses?
there's a great part in the doc 'why we fight' about smart weapons and a lady high up in one of hte company that makes them states she's never seen the numbers herself but she trusts that they are reliable!
i'd like to see some numbers as 75-100% miss rate on the opening attack doesn't seem too 'smart' to me!
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Comments
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i have, and it is very possible they violated article I, and Article II states:
Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.
and we have begun building new nukes, which violates this article. also, helping india obtain such material violates this article, as well
Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
this administration has said they don't want the IAEA anywhere near our nukes and that we would sign a new treaty only if there were NO inspections of our stockpiles
Article VI. The states undertake to negotiate toward general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
hate to break it to ya but building NEW nukes is the opposite of disarmament and not allowing ANY inspections is far from 'strict' international control.
have you read it?? not the first time you've seemed to have a comprehension problem...
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Nice try. So now that you have read it, you do understand the non-proliferation treaty allowed the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain to retain their stocks right? That's because none of them was about to give them up. And still wont. The US has drastically cut its arsenal since the 1970's. Are you denying that too? As for new weapons, I know Bush wants to develop a new kind of lower yield weapon. Does it violate? I dont know. Has it happened yet. Not to my knowledge. Should it happen? That depends. If the world community cant stop the North Koreas and Irans of this world from acquiring their own weapons, which is specifically th goal of the treaty, then what's the point of the treaty? It's not even worth the papers it's written on it their is no will to act. The UN finally got the message and is rightly sanctioning Iran. I really hope it works. I dont want to see more casualites anymore than the next guy. But if the UN fails...again.....who will stop this? Unless of course youd like ot see the Islamic bomb....
yes but
-we were allowed to keep existing stockpiles, not make new ones
-we were still supposed to be reducing our stockpile, not keeping what we have and building new ones.
they are all set to test their new nuke, how can they test something if they don't have it?? to test it means they have one to test, meaning they built one, meaning they violated the npt.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Lol..the islamic bomb? Is that like a wmd or something?
Yeah, just like israel didnt target any civilians in lebanon?
which parts? if i do are you gonna actually reply or are you gonna take the cheap way out like in that plaestinian state thread?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
did ya know that at least 3 of the first 4 bombs dropped on iraq <which were supposed smart bombs> missed their targets entirely and hit civillian houses?
there's a great part in the doc 'why we fight' about smart weapons and a lady high up in one of hte company that makes them states she's never seen the numbers herself but she trusts that they are reliable!
i'd like to see some numbers as 75-100% miss rate on the opening attack doesn't seem too 'smart' to me!
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way