Why are we waffling on this? Is it that hard to say no nukes should be deployed in a region, especially if the countries involved want it that way?
Under the treaty signed Friday, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan committed themselves not to produce, buy, or allow the deployment of nuclear weapons on their soil.
But the United States, along with Britain and France, refused to attend the signing ceremony in the Kazakh capital, Almaty, citing a 1992 treaty that Russia signed with four of the five nations that Moscow claims could allow missiles to be deployed in the region.
“The reason that many of us suspect the U.S. is opposed to this is more fundamental,” the independent Arms Control Association’s Daryl G. Kimball told OneWorld. “This is a very strategic region. The U.S. is reticent to give up the option of deploying nuclear weapons in this region in the future.”
Wouldn’t it be better to just monitor the area to ensure that the treaty is kept?
Again… Why are people in other countries getting angry at the U.S.?
And btw… Astana has been the capital of Kazakhstan since 1997…
Why do we have to even be there, if it’s has any real meaning it will have real meaning with or without us. Do they want money for such a treaty.
Is any of these countries capable of deploying such missles? Is any of these countries really capable of with standing an assualt from New Islamic Global Jihad, most have movements currently ongoing?
Or is this meant to appease China?
I often wonder how much anger towards the US is real and how much is simple a reflection of the reporters own world view. I really wouldn’t blame them for disliking the US, our businessmen swarm into these areas and start to push our culture onto them and then start importing their trash into this country as immigrants. The result is that hey or us are at peace.
The only individuals this type of cultural blending makes happy are the white Lord Jim types that mistakenly think they are little Gods granting civilization to the savages. Why can’t we leave them alone, they have their own elites that can improve their lives if they want to, as this treaty seemingly would prove?
Hmm, Russia has a 1992 treaty that allows it to deploy nuclear weapons in their countries, but now they sign a treaty amongst themselves that says they won’t allow it?
I can understand why the U.S., Britain, and France don’t want to get involved in undermining Russia’s treaties.
You idiots don’t get it do you? They’re angry at the US because on the one hand you’re strongly opposed to them developing their own nukes to defend themselves, but on the other hand if they pass laws to ban all nukes in their countries (including US nukes) then they can’t be your friends. The US can have its’ cake and eat it and the rest of us can go to hell.
The US can have it’s cake and eat it, too, and the rest of the world can go to hell.
Yep. You got it.
#4 & 5, thanks for clearing that up. Boy was I confused.
I am confused Mr. Hill. I have read many of your posts in this forum. There are so many times that you make excellent posts and yet so many times that you make posts like #5. Post #4 by Blues was contentious, but your response added nothing. Perhaps consider it a request from me to see you post more of the high quality comments you can create and less of the lower quality comments. I feel you are among the many of the more intelligent posters here. I gain from the opinions of many on this board including yourself. Just stick to the high ground and you will be fine.
John
The high ground gets boring after a while.
John, I agree that my post added nothing: I see no reason to discuss anything with the “I Hate America” crowd. They are to be mocked and devalued at every turn. I know that sounds very right-wing radio of me, but I challenge anyone to give me a reason as to why I should take a different viewpoint on the subject.
At this point in history, I strongly believe there is nothing to be gained from learning why people hate America… and Blues post puts him in that category… unless we can learn how to destory those who hate America… like Blues.
To me, this all circles back to the question of “Is America the next Rome?” To me the answer is it could be, but only if it doesn’t learn how to eliminate those who would destroy it.
Your problem, James, is you can’t tell the difference between criticism and hatred.
The post starts out “You idiots don’t get it do you?”, then goes on to qualify the United States as “you” and the submitter as “us”.
If you can’t see that as hatred them I’m interested to know what you’d consider hatred in a post?
No, I don’t see that comment as hatred. If that were the case, “It’s the economy, stupid” is hate speech as well.
There’s a broad difference between that comment, which was delivered with wit, and a comment that is delivered with spite. There’s nothing funny or comical about the way his post was written.
Not funny, but spite is not neccessarily hate.
In context, he is chiding in a boorish manner. If you feel someone is wrong, you do not have to hate them.