Yes,, especially a certain Western European nation... its name slips my mind... that can't bash and sneer at the U.S. enough, yet somehow is quite happy (albeit temporarily) for our assistance when the spike-heads roll through every fifty years or so. What IS the name of that place?

Could you possibly mean the one I mentioned in a different thread just yesterday? You know, the one that has a habit of surrendering before the first shot is fired?

Yes, the one whose ambassador to London recently referred to a certain non-Islamic Middle Eastern state as a "sh-tty little country."

It's a good thing this nobel Western European nation only developed this great sense of hatred towards this sh*tty little country after they gave it The Bomb

Be careful or we are going to have a thread on anti-"Western European nation that is known for its pastries and wrought-iron erection" sentiments.

Is it fr-- ohhhhhh I get the game uh... yes... this country is very... surrenderful... garshdarn it I got nothing! Though they do have a nice little territory in Canada!

While Iraq is certianly a concern, I'd like to see Bush go after some other pressing issues such as: finding who is responsible for the anthrax letters, finding Osama Bin Laden, and North Korea (we're searching for a smoking gun in Iraq while N. Korea seems to be "loading a gun" in plain sight.

I'm just wondering what the criteria are for being allowed to have WMDs?

USA, France, UK, Russia (exUSSR), India, Pakistan, China, Korea.
I guess they must have proved they know how to use them responsibly.

cheers
Maynooth

Most of these countries have had these weapons for a while, and nothing can be done about it now. The point now is not to add to that list of countries.
That aside, let me add this: WMDs are less dangerous in the hands of democracies than they are in the hands of dictators (that is why Pakistan is such a problem, and also why the whole world should be thankful for the fact that India is a nuclear power).

If I remember correctly no dictatorship has detonated a nuclear device in anger.
A couple were detonated by the greatest democracy in the world.
It just depends if you consider chemical and biological weapons as WMD. I which case most university chem students have capabilities.

cheers
Maynooth

WWII was almost 60 years ago. In this day and age the chances of a nuclear weapon being set off by a dictator, who makes decisions on his own, are much greater than the chances of a nuclear weapon being set off by a democracy.

I will not go into the issue in any detail at the moment other than to say that Maynooth, you, for my part at least, have read my mind.

Pakistan - that's a riot (they just borrowed two missiles from China after the Pokhran tests were conducted by India)

Anyways back to the topic - the sign of irresponsibility with respect to Nuclear, Chemical or Biological weapons is when you don't agree to the No-first use.
If I am not wrong, U.S of A hasn't agreed on this count with respect to Nuclear weapons = meaning she will be more inclined to 'hurl' a nuke at a country to resolve disputes.
( Pakistan amongst the nuke-countries also hasn't agreed to a no-first use clause).

isn't that (having and more than willing to use it) more dangerous than merely having one?

Terry Jones (Python) observations that appeared in a newspaper. Someone emailed it to me - just a tad of irony... funny but sad - worth sharing.

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street.

Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.

As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.

Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!

And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us. That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.

Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq.

Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever
long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of
terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.

Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?

It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.

Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar
terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.

It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.

By Terry Jones

Has anyone changed their mind in this rolling poll?