Yes and no

The US created most of those treaties therefore the US is excluded from many of the limitations set forth by them.

"Do as I say not as I do."

 

Yes it is the ONE thing I have concerns about.

 

In today's world, there has to be a nation with that ability to threat, but the responsability to not use untill used upon. Imagine if the US had no ability to use nukes. Actually quite scarry, isn't it?

 

In your mind, the "nation with the ability to threat" would be America, right? Why not the UN? Surely a whole community of minds and ideas would make a better body for world control that one nation and its agenda? And I thought previously the UN did have the role of unannounced global peacekeeper until America decided to conveniently sidestep global free speech and democracy in globally-affecting issues to promote "American justice" in the "collation of the willing?" So therefore, I guess we have no need of the UN in your idea of an American-led utopia? Finally, about "the responsability to not use untill used upon", wasn't that thrown out with the preemptive strike of Iraq?

 

They didn't use a nuke on us, I'm speaking strictly of using nukes. However, if they had used bio or chem warfare, that would have been a different story. Even during Desert Storm, Schwartzkopf told an Iraqi general something to the effect of don't even think about using any bio or chem. This time around, I read where there was a Russian who consulted with Saddam's generals and warned them very stongly not to use germs. He told them they would be innefective, as the US is prepared to deal with germ warfare, and they would use a nuke if you tried just once (why there was a Russian communicating with Saddam is a whole other topic).

 

How convienient.

 

Dude-
You're citing CNN, the Communist News Network, THE most Liberal biased news organization in the country, as absolute proof?? You voted for Clinton and Gore didn't you? Clinton, who back in 98-99 said Iraq was an iminent threat, that they had WMD's, and possibly nuclear capabilities. Hmm. It was ok then but not now? Hmmm. Double standards anyone? Wake up and smell what CNN is shoveling you. You really need to find more objective sources of information before you spout off.

 

ABC news is worse

 

I'm quoting CNN because it's something that Joe and Jane will watch sitting at home eating their TV dinners every night. If it's on CNN, even though it is "liberal biased", it's pretty big news because it's covered on an internationally syndicated news organization. I didn't vote for Clinton and Gore, but if I did, it'd be better than voting for this moron in charge. Hmmm... WMD's .... nuclear capabilities. Funny ... we havent found any?

I don't like them either.

 

another update:

===============================
THE DAILY MIS-LEAD
< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1750688&l=15412 >
===============================

BUSH CHANGES HIS WMD CLAIMS

Ignoring his previous definitive statements, President Bush this week sought
to change the justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Before the war, the president said there was "no doubt the Iraqi regime
continues to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised," while Vice
President Cheney said, "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has
weapons of mass destruction...to use against our friends, against our
allies, and against us."

This week, however, in the absence of any evidence of weapons of mass
destruction, Bush said the war was justified not because Iraq had WMD, but
because Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."
When asked last month about the shift from asserting Iraq "possessed" WMD,
to Iraq merely exploring "WMD-related-program-activities," Bush replied,
"What's the difference?"

Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney made their definitive pre-war
statements repeatedly, using specific language. On chemical weapons, Bush
said before the war, "the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical
agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas" - a claim
since debunked by Bush's own chief weapons inspector, David Kay, who said,
"Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons
program after 1991."

On biological weapons, Bush said before the war that "Iraq has at least
seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents - equipment
mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery." However, Mr. Kay reported,
"We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile
biological weapons production effort." The president also claimed that "Iraq
has a growing fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to
disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." But the
Washington Post later reported that the vehicles Bush cited "were never
meant to spread toxins" - a fact the U.S. Air Force intelligence service had
shared with the administration.

On nuclear weapons, Bush said before the war that "Iraq could have a nuclear
weapon in less than a year." More famously, in last year's State of the
Union, the president said Iraq "sought significant quantities of uranium
from Africa," and told Americans to fear "a mushroom cloud." Similarly, Vice
President Cheney said "Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
But Mr. Kay reported in August, "We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq
undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or
produce fissile material."

Read the Mis-Lead -->
< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1750688&l=15413 >