Whats wrong with testing nuclear bombs?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They have every right to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think the US would beg to differ. ANd quite frankly, I'm not going to sleep as soundly if North Korea develops a Nuclear arsenal. NO DEMOCRATIC NATION HAS EVER WAGED WAR ON ANOTHER DEMOCRATIC NATION. So untill Korea is a democracy, they can stay the h*** away from nucular technologie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think the U.S. is a far bigger threat to world peace and should be disarmed before they have any right to tell another country it cannot arm its self in a similar fashion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Completely agreed. While US still has loads of nukes, they have no right to tell anyone else not to have nukes.

 

 

 

And they're the biggest threat to world peace anyways.

Completely agreed. While US still has loads of nukes, they have no right to tell anyone else not to have nukes.

 

 

 

And they're the biggest threat to world peace anyways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So no one ever has the right to tell anyone what they can and can't have? A police officer is allowed to tell a convicted felon he is not allowed to have a gun, even though the police officer has a gun himself - is that fair?

True, but the USA isn't the world police now is it :uhh:

True, but the USA isn't the world police now is it :uhh:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. But hasn't the UN repeatedly told NK and other countries to not develop WMD's?

 

True, but the USA isn't the world police now is it :uhh:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. But hasn't the UN repeatedly told NK and other countries to not develop WMD's?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. That means it's the UN that has the right to invade NK, not the US.

 

 

True, but the USA isn't the world police now is it :uhh:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. But hasn't the UN repeatedly told NK and other countries to not develop WMD's?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. That means it's the UN that has the right to invade NK, not the US.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) If you read the entirity of my conversation I was not talking about invading.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) The US is part of the UN. A police officer is part of the police force. A police officer can tell a felon that on behalf of the police force, the felon is not allowed to own a gun and will be arrested, physicall if necessary, as punishment for onwning a gun. The police is just following the necessary steps to ensure that the rules of the police force are being followed. The UN has repeatedly told countries like NK to quit trying to make WMDs, therefore, the countries in the UN should take necessary actions to ensure the rules are followed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And one thing you might remember about policemen: they never use force until absolutely necessary. The same should hold true with the way the rules of the UN are followed.

And one thing you might remember about policemen: they never use force until absolutely necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, that's why the US aren't the world police.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A police officer is part of the police force.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ever seen a police officer disrespecting his superiors' orders and getting away with it?

 

And one thing you might remember about policemen: they never use force until absolutely necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, that's why the US aren't the world police.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A police officer is part of the police force.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ever seen a police officer disrespecting his superiors' orders and getting away with it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About as often as I see the superiors not following their own rules.

 

 

And one thing you might remember about policemen: they never use force until absolutely necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, that's why the US aren't the world police.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A police officer is part of the police force.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ever seen a police officer disrespecting his superiors' orders and getting away with it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About as often as I see the superiors not following their own rules.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then you agree with the US disrespecting the will of the international community and acting solo?

Then you agree with the US disrespecting the will of the international community and acting solo?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you agree that the international community is corrupt, does not follow it's own orders, and cannot be trusted to act as a responsible governing force.

 

Then you agree with the US disrespecting the will of the international community and acting solo?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you agree that the international community is corrupt, does not follow it's own orders, and cannot be trusted to act as a responsible governing force.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some countries indeed are, but the majority of them has a worthy opinion. Thus, I disagree with the US acting on their own.

 

 

 

Besides, the US aren't perfect and therefore it isn't their role to judge if the international community is good enough.

 

 

Then you agree with the US disrespecting the will of the international community and acting solo?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you agree that the international community is corrupt, does not follow it's own orders, and cannot be trusted to act as a responsible governing force.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some countries indeed are, but the majority of them has a worthy opinion. Thus, I disagree with the US acting on their own.

 

 

 

Besides, the US aren't perfect and therefore it isn't their role to judge if the international community is good enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm talking specifically about the superiors the US is suppose to answer to. The UN.

 

Some countries indeed are, but the majority of them has a worthy opinion. Thus, I disagree with the US acting on their own.

 

 

 

Besides, the US aren't perfect and therefore it isn't their role to judge if the international community is good enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm talking specifically about the superiors the US is suppose to answer to. The UN.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The UN is composed by all the countries. I'm talking abuot the UN on the above post.

 

 

Some countries indeed are, but the majority of them has a worthy opinion. Thus, I disagree with the US acting on their own.

 

 

 

Besides, the US aren't perfect and therefore it isn't their role to judge if the international community is good enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm talking specifically about the superiors the US is suppose to answer to. The UN.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The UN is composed by all the countries. I'm talking abuot the UN on the above post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay that's fair. I was confused - I thought you meant individual countries as being corrupt, I mean the entire organization is broken and corrupt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now that we're on the same page - I'll answer with my point of view to this statement:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ever seen a police officer disrespecting his superiors' orders and getting away with it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the police force itself is corrupt and will not take appropriate measures to make sure felons don't have guns, I would fully support a lone police officer taking the initiative and apprehending any felon he sees with a gun.

If the police force itself is corrupt and will not take appropriate measures to make sure felons don't have guns, I would fully support a lone police officer taking the initiative and apprehending any felon he sees with a gun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, I don't think the UN is a currupt organization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Some countries indeed are [corrupt], but the majority of them has a worthy opinion. "

 

If the police force itself is corrupt and will not take appropriate measures to make sure felons don't have guns, I would fully support a lone police officer taking the initiative and apprehending any felon he sees with a gun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, I don't think the UN is a currupt organization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Some countries indeed are [corrupt], but the majority of them has a worthy opinion. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think the countries themselves have worthy opinions - but th UN as a whole is corrupt (oil for food) and does not do what it should do. Therefore, I believe, just like a police officer who acts on what it believes is the right things based on the established laws, does not need the support from a group of superiors who are not actively pursuing people breaking the law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We just differ on our opinions about the UN I guess.