You're fu­cking retarded.

You cycling you responses again. Plus just how does a retarded person f*ck, and more importantly how do you know? Have you been peeking in the remedial center windows again, didn't the police tell you to stop that (or was that just your jerking off while you watched them go at it).

Oh, so [I]you're[/I] Camnator, huh? Can't believe I didn't figure that out sooner.

I think I might cry if it turns out this guy is a Cam alt.

[quote]Oh, so you're Camnator, huh? [/quote]Is he one of the little retarded kiddies you watched f*ck ... or is he the police officer that told you to stop jerking off?

[quote] Its like the whole nuclear debate, it complains about everyone else yet it is the only nation to use nuclear weapons against another state (twice in war, and multiple time since). It also continues to develop new nuclear weapons whilst calling for other nations to stop their research.[/quote]I have a problem with these sentences, for multiple reasons. First off, we haven't used nuclear weapons since World War Two. Secondly, I didn't know we continue to develop nuclear weapons, can I get a source? The last thing is...the whole "level the playing field" aspect of what you're trying to say about nuclear arms. How about no? Only because I study middle eastern politics, I'm only going to use Iran for my example (Don't even get me started on this: I know Iran is not in the Middle East. However, being that their government is Islamic and akin to Middle Eastern nations' politics, it is often lumped together.). Let's say we go your route and allow them to "level the playing field". What happens? I can tell you right now that it's not going to be all cordial and friendly and shit. One major fear about a nuclear Iran is that a potential nuclear arms race could happen within the Middle East, especially in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries (i.e Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and the UAE--Iran's geopolitical rivals). Seeing that Iran has nuclear weapons capabilities, the G.C.C countries might feel like they need that level of deterrent to keep their national interests level; this is especially true for Saudi Arabia. I think the last thing the world needs is a nuclear Middle East. Another large, [b]large[/b] concern with a nuclear Iran is: What if they give a nuke to one of the plethora of terrorist organizations they prop up? Being that the two major ones they do prop up--Hamas and Hezbollah--are their pawns in a proxy war with Israel, what's to stop them from giving one to them (you know, since they've said they want to obliterate Israel...). But it goes much, much further than that... Iran is also heavily involved in the Civil war in Syria, both directly and indirectly via Hezbollah. Iran is very dependent on the Assad regime being intact, as they use Bashar al-Assad's Syria as a middle man between Iran and Hezbollah. Iran is currently doing it's damnedest to keep Assad in power. Why? They need him to wage the aforementioned proxy war against Israel. If Assad wins, and Iran finally gets nuclear weapon capabilities, I'd wager their support for him would be more than ever. Which means the chances of Hezbollah obtaining an Iranian nuke would be significantly higher. If Assad falls, the major question then becomes: What of his massive stockpile of chemical weapons? Again, you can bet your ass not only he but his Iranian counter-parts are going to try their best to ship that off so they (Iran) do not lose a key edge in their fight with Israel. Where do you think they will go? Hezbollah. Having a "level playing field" is not a realistic goal when it comes to our foreign policy, and for good reason.

[quote]I didn't know we continue to develop nuclear weapons, can I get a source?[/quote]Google is your friend, simple search of "america nuclear weapon" will show plenty ... [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb]but since you asked nicely[/url]. A revised on of these was deployed in Pakistan, busting into underground and then exploding to distribute nuclear pellets throughout the strong hold ... long painful death lasting generations. [quote]The last thing is...the whole "level the playing field" aspect[/quote]Except if the playing field was allowed to be lowered. Other powers, including the UN, find it difficult to push for zero nuclear states when america refuses to play ball. How can you counter having one hostile state, the [b]ONLY[/b] state ever to have used nuclear weapons to murder people ... would america comply if the situation was reversed? It is a common american mindset ... no different to the whole gun debate, the whole "[i]give schools automatic guns so they can protect the children[/i]" - why not work towards removing the item of conflict and damage rather than promote bigger more bad-arsed tooling. Level playing field ... like kids in the playground ... is not about one side thinking they are better and deserve the advantage.

[quote]Google is your friend, simple search of "america nuclear weapon" will show plenty ... but since you asked nicely. A revised on of these was deployed in Pakistan, busting into underground and then exploding to distribute nuclear pellets throughout the strong hold ... long painful death lasting generations.[/quote]Thanks for the link, but from what I've read we've never used one of these. So, I don't really know what to say about the rest of this since, you know, it's not true. I also did some googling on our "continuation of developing new nuclear weapons"...yeah, also not true. [quote]Except if the playing field was allowed to be lowered. Other powers, including the UN, find it difficult to push for zero nuclear states when america refuses to play ball. How can you counter having one hostile state, the ONLY state ever to have used nuclear weapons to murder people ... would america comply if the situation was reversed? It is a common american mindset ... no different to the whole gun debate, the whole "give schools automatic guns so they can protect the children" - why not work towards removing the item of conflict and damage rather than promote bigger more bad-arsed tooling. Level playing field ... like kids in the playground ... is not about one side thinking they are better and deserve the advantage.[/quote]I fail to see what you're trying to say here, but I'll do my best to figure it out. [quote]Other powers, including the UN, find it difficult to push for zero nuclear states when america refuses to play ball.[/quote]As well as other rational, nuclear state actors. America is not the only one who refuses to give up nuclear weapons and then proceeds to tell other countries they can't have them. Speaking in geopolitical terms, America only tells countries this when the country is either, A: considered to be an irrational actor (i.e Iran), or B: is detrimental to either regional or the national security of the US. [quote]Level playing field ... like kids in the playground ... is not about one side thinking they are better and deserve the advantage.[/quote]It's not so much that we think we're better. Like my good friend MT said earlier, it's not about a level playing field; it's about being two steps ahead of your adversary. It's also about acting in accordance to promote local and regional security, regional interests, our own national interests (which is the core basis of international relations--state actors playing according to self-interest) and the greater good. Leveling the playing field would not only be very detrimental to us but also to the world.

[quote]I also did some googling on our "continuation of developing new nuclear weapons"...yeah, also not true[/quote]Obviously your skills need some improvement, [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/30/usa.georgebush]but let me help[/url]. Now key phrase is a single sentence, "[i]The [b]Bush administration[/b] is pushing ahead with the [b]development of a new generation of weapons[/b], dubbed 'mini-nukes', that [b]use nuclear warheads[/b] to penetrate underground bunkers[/i]". And to make it easier I have placed the key words in bold which should help make it even clearer. And then onto[quote]from what I've read we've never used one of these[/quote]Already quoted Pakistan (warning: [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/death-made-in-america-impacts-of-depleted-uranium-contamination-on-afghanistan-s-children/2412]graphic pictures of results[/url]), but here is another [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/depleted-uranium-radioactive-contamination-in-iraq-an-overview/3116]related to Iraq[/url], and also how america [url=http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/05/10/302772/was-syria-nuked/]supplies these to Israel[/url] to attack a common foe in Syria. [quote]I fail to see what you're trying to say here[/quote]I am saying that with america acting as a rogue state, going against NPT and the UN security council ... it makes it almost impossible for anyone to not have america's actions used as justification for others pursuing the same actions. [quote]It's not so much that we think we're better. Like my good friend MT said earlier, it's not about a level playing field; it's about being two steps ahead of your adversary[/quote]and so going back OT ... why shouldn't China also attempt to stay two steps ahead? Why shouldn't China invade america ... after all america has mass stocks of WMD? China - as a member of the security council, maybe it should overthrow the US government given it performs illegal acts (as stated by the leader of the UN, link above)? If you promote this "[i]one step ahead[/i]" policy remember not to should foul when it is brought into play against yourself.

[quote]Obviously your skills need some improvement, but let me help. Now key phrase is a single sentence, "The Bush administration is pushing ahead with the development of a new generation of weapons, dubbed 'mini-nukes', that use nuclear warheads to penetrate underground bunkers". And to make it easier I have placed the key words in bold which should help make it even clearer.[/quote]What I read is that we upgraded the B61's, which isn't really developing new weapons per se. But now I'm just playing semantics, so I'll shut up about this. [quote]Already quoted Pakistan (warning: graphic pictures of results), but here is another related to Iraq, and also how america supplies these to Israel to attack a common foe in Syria.[/quote]Depleted Uranium? Those rounds aren't classified as nuclear weapons. Devastating? Yes. Nuclear weapons? No. [quote]america acting as a rogue state[/quote]We're far from a rouge state, my friend. [quote]and so going back OT ... why shouldn't China also attempt to stay two steps ahead?[/quote]They have every right to; furthermore, they're trying to up their military capabilities (again, well within their right). But what I'm getting from what you're saying is that we should do nothing about this. This is both wrong and detrimental to not only our security but the security of our allies in the Pacific. What we're trying to do is counter their rising influence...again, well within our right. [quote]Why shouldn't China invade america ... after all america has mass stocks of WMD?[/quote]As of right now, they couldn't if they tried. They don't have the logistical capabilities to launch such an invasion and it would be counter-productive for their economy. [quote]China - as a member of the security council, maybe it should overthrow the US government given it performs illegal acts (as stated by the leader of the UN, link above)?[/quote]Okay. [quote]If you promote this "one step ahead" policy remember not to should foul when it is brought into play against yourself.[/quote]Cool.

[quote]What I read is that we upgraded the B61's, which isn't really developing new weapons per se. But now I'm just playing semantics[/quote]So they had these and other nuclear bunker busters back in WWII ... honestly "[i]semantics[/i]" - lol. [quote]Depleted Uranium? Those rounds aren't classified as nuclear weapons[/quote]Again by world standards, as expressed by the UN - Yes they are. And ironically the US also considers them so when claiming there use in weapons by other nations. Sorry dude, I know its the american way, but you can't have it both ways. Another classic example of america making statements that it itself does not follow. [quote]We're far from a rouge state[/quote]A state which conducts illegal acts, again as quoted by the UN, is rogue - going against world standards. How many other countries have used nuclear weapons, invaded foreign nations on the occupied them, and openly denied UN (aka world) agreed rulings? [quote]They have every right to; furthermore, they're trying to up their military capabilities (again, well within their right)[/quote]So why all the complaining?

[quote]So they had these and other nuclear bunker busters back in WWII ... honestly "semantics" - lol.[/quote]Why are you laughing at "semantics"? I was ending this part of the discussion. [quote]Again by world standards, as expressed by the UN - Yes they are. And ironically the US also considers them so when claiming there use in weapons by other nations. Sorry dude, I know its the american way, but you can't have it both ways. Another classic example of america making statements that it itself does not follow.[/quote][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons]Where do you see DU rounds in this list?[/url]. [quote]A state which conducts illegal acts, again as quoted by the UN, is rogue - going against world standards. How many other countries have used nuclear weapons, invaded foreign nations on the occupied them, and openly denied UN (aka world) agreed rulings?[/quote]We're the only nation to have used a nuclear weapon in combat, I'll give you that. But we're not the only country who invades other countries...and where are we denying these "world agreed" rulings? [quote]So why all the complaining?[/quote]I've explained this to you. But: [quote]But what I'm getting from what you're saying is that we should do nothing about this. This is both wrong and detrimental to not only our security but the security of our allies in the Pacific. What we're trying to do is counter their rising influence...again, well within our right.[/quote]

[quote]Where do you see DU rounds in this list?. [/quote] Lets compare the voice of wikipedia to that expressed by [url=http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/un-vote-backs-precautionary-approach]the United Nations[/url]. (even contains the surprise that america opposed the resolution). Only in america would a device be built to cause destruction and spread nuclear material not be called a weapon, are you being honest here? [quote][quote]So why all the complaining?[/quote]I've explained this to you[/quote]No, you tried to explain why you feel it is ok for america to adopt these tactics ... but not why you feel it is not equally right for China to do so?

[quote]Lets compare the voice of wikipedia to that expressed by the United Nations. (even contains the surprise that america opposed the resolution). Only in america would a device be built to cause destruction and spread nuclear material not be called a weapon, are you being honest here?[/quote]No where in your article did they call DU rounds to be nuclear weapons. I've already agreed with you that it's destructive, but it's not a nuclear weapon. And, actually, here is what the ICJ says about nuclear and poisonous weapons. [url=http://www.cornnet.nl/~akmalten/unan5a.html]Look for paragraph 55. "The terms have been understood, in the practice of States, in their ordinary sense as covering weapons whose prime, or even exclusive, effect is to poison or asphyxiate"[/url]. Since DU rounds are meant to destroy materiel and kill soldiers via kinetic energy...it doesn't really apply. [quote]No, you tried to explain why you feel it is ok for america to adopt these tactics ... but not why you feel it is not equally right for China to do so?[/quote]No, I really did explain it to you when I said: [quote]This is both wrong and detrimental to not only our security but the security of our allies in the Pacific.[/quote]China may have the legal right to do what they're doing, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make our Pacific allies nervous-because it does. We're not bitching, we're not crying foul...we're just trying to counter their rising influence in the Pacific.

[quote]Why not welcome a level playing field?[/quote] War, as well as deterrence, isn't about a level playing field, it's about being several rungs above your adversary as to bend them to your will. [quote]Honestly, look at the US - it complains and bitches all the time - its like the spoiled child that want all the sandpit toys to itself.[/quote] :'( My feelings are now hurt. [quote]Its like the whole nuclear debate, it complains about everyone else yet it is the only nation to use nuclear weapons against another state (twice in war)[/quote] Which was necessary to end the war with less casualties. [quote](and multiple time since)[/quote] ...I suggest you re-read world history. [quote]It also continues to develop new nuclear weapons whilst calling for other nations to stop their research.[/quote] First off, source? Secondly, we have a problem with irresponsible nations that research nuclear weapons. Take North Korea, for example. Or Iran. [quote]It is the same with their bases - they continue to occupy foreign territories ... even those that it blackmailed into releasing during WW2. Canada, the UK and others had to sign away rights to their national territories in exchange for weapons in order to defend themselves.[/quote] We don't occupy any foreign soil, we are there at the consent of the local governments. [quote]If the US doesn't like that field then withdraw from play itself, not like China (and many many others have not previously requested). What the US does not want to accept is that its day of control are numbered, and their reactions in these event will judge how they are treated in the future.[/quote] We don't like China having a large presence on this field because we fear their actions; this fear is shared by multiple nations: Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, India and even the Philippines.

[quote]Which was necessary to end the war with less casualties.[/quote]And if Germany had used the technology, what would be your opinion then? [quote]I suggest you re-read world history[/quote]lol ... yep, re-read it and it remains the same ... perhaps you should try reading some for the first time. Ever hear of EPW's, better known as bunker busters - if you had then you would also be aware of their use. Ironically the US caved to international pressure and curbed development of RNEP's ... but dont get confused, when they say "ceased development" they actually mean "re-name the program to comply". And yes, in the mean time do the old two-face attack on any nation who wishes to develop even a single bomb (yes, wouldn't it be nice to see all sides drop development). [quote]We don't occupy any foreign soil, we are there at the consent of the local governments[/quote]lol - consent. Yeah consent gained under duress of "[i]if you don't sign over the lease we wont give you weapons ... its either the US or Germany[/i]". And this was the [cough] allies. Now if you go across to the likes of Japan ... not signed by consent, just taken as the spoils of war. And now the people of both allied and enemy nations want them out ... go figure!?! (don't they teach this in your schools?) [quote]We don't like China having a large presence on this field because we fear their actions[/quote]Suspect the reverse is also true. Ironically he US called China an Allie during WW2, through Lend Lease funds they support China more that either the UK or Canada (and with less strings attached). And then there are the continued attempts to remove China from its seat on the UN security council. Also funny that you should mention Taiwan, you do (or should) know that America actually help create this situation by supporting China from as early as 1835, when it established the East Indies Squadron. But I guess that was when America also had colonial interests - funny how America follows the cash.

[quote]And if Germany had used the technology, what would be your opinion then?[/quote] Considering the Germans were committing mass genocide at the time, I'd be against it. Same with the Japanese and their genocide in China. You're forgetting the moral considerations involved with making a decision in war. I think we can both agree that the Allies were holding the moral high ground. [quote]lol ... yep, re-read it and it remains the same ... perhaps you should try reading some for the first time. Ever hear of EPW's, better known as bunker busters - if you had then you would also be aware of their use. Ironically the US caved to international pressure and curbed development of RNEP's ... but dont get confused, when they say "ceased development" they actually mean "re-name the program to comply".[/quote] Of course I've heard of EPWs, who hasn't? However, they've never been used in combat, and not all bunker busting bombs are nuclear. EPWs are a specific type, designed to take out critical Command and Control nodes buried underground during nuclear war. Moreover, [url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/rnep.htm]RNEP's[/url] were never built. It was dropped after the American national security apparatus decided, quite justly, that conventional methods of bunker busting were more pragmatic in the post-Cold Era war. [quote]And yes, in the mean time do the old two-face attack on any nation who wishes to develop even a single bomb (yes, wouldn't it be nice to see all sides drop development).[/quote] Of course, because some nations do not deserve to have such weapons. Nuclear force is a privilege, not a right, granted by the international community. When you have nations like North Korea, and to a lesser extent Iran, attempting to proliferate weapons not only for themselves, but for other nations as well, of course we're going to try and prevent them. It's the equivalent to allowing a criminal to have an M-16A3 on the basis that the police have them. It's not just the rationality clause, either. It's also the question of wether or not are capable of creating the failsafes necessary to prevent an accidental launch. [quote]lol - consent. Yeah consent gained under duress of "if you don't sign over the lease we wont give you weapons ... its either the US or Germany". And this was the [cough] allies.[/quote] So what, you're bitching that we didn't give the weapons over to Britain and other allies for free? I hate to break it to you, but the transactions between the U.S. and her allies were both fair and willing. Those weapons had to be paid for somehow, and it's not America's responsibility to unilaterally withstand the financial costs of her allies alone. [quote]Now if you go across to the likes of Japan ... not signed by consent, just taken as the spoils of war.[/quote] Of course, occupation. That was to rebuild Japan, Germany and other post-war nations. Certainly you understand why we did this, so we could rebuild the damage done and prevent another militarist state from rising in either country. [quote]And now the people of both allied and enemy nations want them out ... go figure!?![/quote] Are you daft, my son? The Japanese were given the chance to kick out U.S. forces once occupation ended, but instead signed the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_and_Security_between_the_United_States_and_Japan]Mutual Cooperation and Security Treaty[/url]. This treaty has been renewed every time since, and Shinzo Abe, current Prime Minister of Japan, will likely increase defense cooperation. I give you more examples, if you wish. But the U.S. has respected a state's rights to kick U.S. forces out. Take France's exit from NATO in 1959, where he asked all U.S. forces to leave his country. Guess what? We did. [quote]Suspect the reverse is also true.[/quote] Naturally, because our presence prevents them from ever taking their territorial claims and establishing a hegemony in the Pacific. [quote]Ironically he US called China an Allie during WW2,[/quote] Both the Nationalists and Communists were allies during the war, because we faced a common enemy at the time. In no way did the term ally represent the intention for a long term alliance following the end of the war. The United States recognized this, and gave a few extra tanks, soldiers and planes to the Nationalists. Of course, that didn't make up for poor leadership in the KMT. [quote]through Lend Lease funds they support China more that either the UK or Canada (and with less strings attached).[/quote] ...we only gave 1.6 billion dollars worth of aid to the Chinese through the Lend-Lease act, compared to the 31 billion dollars we gave to the British. [quote]And then there are the continued attempts to remove China from its seat on the UN security council.[/quote] We haven't done anything of the sort since the P.R.C. took the seat in 1971. [quote]Also funny that you should mention Taiwan, you do (or should) know that America actually help create this situation by supporting China from as early as 1835, when it established the East Indies Squadron. But I guess that was when America also had colonial interests - funny how America follows the cash.[/quote] American colonialism, as you call it, was a period from about 1890 to 1935. It started with the naval arms race, inspired by Mahan's [i]Influence of Sea Power Upon History[/i]. Our squadron in the East Indies patrolled the Yangtze River after the first Opium War, in order to protect our interests should conflict break out again. Then, of course, we were involved with hostilities during the second war.

Can see the results of years of american school books at play ... no hope of eyes being opened. The funny part is that you could have summed this up with "[i]we are america, we do what we want, but don't you dare try[/i]". As I pointed out before, the world has changes and america is already being judged. An example of this was your claim which goes again reality; [quote]Of course, because some nations do not deserve to have such weapons. Nuclear force is a privilege, not a right, granted by the international community[/quote]which goes against evidence presented to Congress by Bruce Blair (President of the World Security Institute, an american government funded institute), the quote being; "[i]The military is always pressuring to deploy the weapons, which requires an increase in readiness. In 2008 I was approached by the Pakistani military seeking advice on means to render their weapons more secure. Their aim was clearly to render their nuclear force “mature,” and “operational.” In the same way a few years ago an Indian military delegation turned up at the Russian Impulse Design Bureau in St. Petersburg, to ask for help on making their weapons safer to handle. They said they wanted to be able to assure their political leadership that their weapons were safe enough to be deployed. Pakistan’s drive to build more nukes is an inevitable by-product of the 2008 nuclear cooperation deal with India that overturned U.S. law and gave the Indians access to US nuclear technology, not to mention massive arms sales, despite their ongoing bomb program.[/i]" Maybe not a "[i]right granted by the international community[/i]" but by america in isolation for cash and/or political advantage. Bottom line ... everyone has the right to self determination, nations are entitled to independence. If america does like the actions entered into by other nations it could try leading by example for a change

[quote]an see the results of years of american school books at play ... [/quote] I like how after I completely contradicted the historical falsities you were presenting (i.e. we gave more to the Chinese through the Lend-Lease Act), this is your response. [quote]"Pakistan’s drive to build more nukes is an inevitable by-product of the 2008 nuclear cooperation deal with India that overturned U.S. law and gave the Indians access to US nuclear technology, not to mention massive arms sales, despite their ongoing bomb program."[/quote] Well, that's complete and utter bullshit. I'd suggest you actually read about the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–India_Civil_Nuclear_Agreement]U.S. India Civil Nuclear Agreement[/url]. Our agreement separated civil and military nuclear facilities, and placed its civil ones under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In exchange, the United States would works towards civil nuclear cooperation. Essentially, this [i]demilitarized[/i] India's nuclear program, because civilian sites could no longer be used for military purposes. Moreover, it's also important to know that the Indians are not allowed to have every single type of nuclear material available on the market. Instead, certain restrictions are loosened. The United States has routinely offered Pakistan security measures for their nuclear weapons, because insurgents strike their facilities quite frequently. However, this certainly does not make the Pakistani government more [url=http://dawn.com/2013/04/24/pakistans-corruption-conundrum/]"mature"[/url], [url=http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/escalating-from-terrorism-to-nuclear-war-on-the-asian-subcontinent]responsible[/url] or [url=http://tolonews.com/en/afghanistan/10397-afghan-senators-blame-pakistan-over-border-aggression]peaceful[/url]. According to the Congressional report [i][url=http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/169328.pdf]Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security[/url][/i]: [quote]Whether and to what extent Pakistan’s current expansion of its nuclear weapons-related facilities is a response to the 2008 U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement is unclear.[/quote] Fairly obvious that Congress hasn't found any evidence support Blair's claim. [quote]Maybe not a "right granted by the international community" but by america in isolation for cash and/or political advantage.[/quote] Considering that the IAEA, a U.N. mandated organization, is now working in India, the international community made no major strides to prevent the Indians from working this deal out with the United States. [quote]Everyone has the right to self determination, nations are entitled to independence[/quote] Self-determination has its limits, though. We don't allow nations to commit mass genocide under the guise of "self-determination." Nor do we allow them to unjustly invade another nation, break international law, house terrorists or endanger other nations. [quote]If america does like the actions entered into by other nations it could try leading by example for a change[/quote] We have.