Hey Americans!

[ZEGH8578]

To me, hurting people isn't the bottom line. Freedom is. Live free or die. I would hope that no one would be hurt, but there are worse things than death.

Debatable, sure, but propaganda-images aside, would you really be DEAD rather than living in Russia? Or Cambodia? Or Brazil?
Come on...

[Parts]

To me, hurting people isn't the bottom line. Freedom is. Live free or die. I would hope that no one would be hurt, but there are worse things than death.

Debatable, sure, but propaganda-images aside, would you really be DEAD rather than living in Russia? Or Cambodia? Or Brazil?
Come on...

I think that would depend on your wealth and class

[Semicolon]

To me, hurting people isn't the bottom line. Freedom is. Live free or die. I would hope that no one would be hurt, but there are worse things than death.

Debatable, sure, but propaganda-images aside, would you really be DEAD rather than living in Russia? Or Cambodia? Or Brazil?
Come on...

Would I rather be dead than live in chains? Yes. It's not (just) propaganda; it's the basis of American freedom.

[ZEGH8578]

Russia has a population of 120 million. 99,9999999% of them do not have physical shackles of them.

Simply being a citizen of not-usa is not reason to commit suicide

I'm not saying it's all dandy, but people DO live there, and survive, and exist. Every country was once another, got conquered, and people still live in it.

[Semicolon]

Russia has a population of 120 million. 99,9999999% of them do not have physical shackles of them.

Simply being a citizen of not-usa is not reason to commit suicide

I'm not saying it's all dandy, but people DO live there, and survive, and exist. Every country was once another, got conquered, and people still live in it.

You have a point, although I suspect it would ring hollow to Russian gays and dissidents. Have you ever read Catch-22?

At the same time, recognize that it's not a matter of committing suicide, but of risking your life by opposing oppressors. If you used China for that argument, would you still think it's better to value your life over your freedom? If it was Taliban-run Afghanistan? Poland under Hitler? Is there a point when you would pick up a gun and fight whoever is oppressing you? Existing is not enough.

[odeon]

That is kind of scary.

I think the USA should keep their noses out of it. It is not their business.

But if I were in Finland I would be wanting to join the EU.

Finland did join the EU, almost 20 years ago now.

I do think Finland should join NATO, too. Its proximity to Russia makes it a target, and while I don't share Zegh's views of the Finnish boys of today, the nation is just too small.

Also, I think that both Sweden and Finland should possess nuclear weapons. They should make it clear to anyone even thinking about invading that yes, the respective armies probably won't be able to put up a fight for long, but the invader should be prepared to lose its capital at the first sign of attack.

Well a bit surprised hearing you say that,  what is the feelings of your fellow countrymen on that point?  Sweden could have easily had nukes if they hadn't shut their weapons program down in 72.

Most are dead against the idea in both countries. I don't particularly fancy the idea either, but pragmatically speaking, it's the only deterrent I can think of, beyond joining NATO.

[Jack]

Only the superpowers are allowed nuclear arms, and only when everyone joins NATO and openly accounts for their uranium will the security council be able to lay down nuclear arms. Probably won't happen, but still a nice objective.

[odeon]

I don't see why it's nice, tbh.

[Jack]

A world without nuclear arms doesn't seem nice?

[odeon]

Everyone joining NATO doesn't seem all that nice. Or that only superpowers are allowed nukes.

[Jack]

The security council is what it is, and until the loose cannons out there get with the program then it will always be what it is. What's not nice about everyone joining NATO?

[odeon]

The security council is wholly without teeth, a charade of sorts. Getting with the program is basically getting with what the US wants, or Russia, or China.

NATO is not without teeth, but until literally *everyone* joins it, it's not something I'd label as "nice". It's a military alliance, FFS.

[Jack]

Was feeling like you and I had already had this discussion. Turns out it was with Sir Les.

Why are weapons of mass destruction ok with Amercian but not other countries? This one has me beat?

It's directly related to position within the United Nation's Security Council.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is a treaty to limit the spread (proliferation) of nuclear weapons. The treaty came into force on 5 March 1970, and currently there are 189 states party to the treaty, five of which are recognized as nuclear weapon states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China (also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council).

Saddam Hussein vs George Bush? Hard choice. What would Saddam Hussein do with advanced weapons of mass destruction? What is Kim Jung Soon (sp?) doing?  Would they have done the same? Was Hussein as bad as Kim or was Bush as bad as either? We won't find out naturally what will happen. I do fear those 5000 nukes more though.

The countries of the Security Council have made agreement to refrain from the use of nuclear warfare except in the event of retaliation of nuclear attack. These countries aren't very likely to breach this agreement and lose world trust. Uranium enrichment programs kept secret from the UN break treaty agreements and don't suggest pure intentions.

Don't think this particular subject is able to be related in the same way. This is a world treaty; as long as there remains the threat of countries who refuse to comply, the super powers will never be expected to dismantle. The five nuclear states are at this point, basically entrusted to protect the countries who comply to the treaty from the ones who don't. The true purpose of the treaty is supposed to be to eliminate them completely. This may likely never happen.

There's some fabulous conspiracy theories out there concerning the existence of the UN, but it's purpose and ultimate goal is supposed to be world peace. It's a very interesting and detailed article, Sir, which touches on the logic of the questions you ask. I don't really claim to know what's fair or okay about nuclear warfare.

Would have to say my viewpoint hasn't changed about the importance of being evil. There's nothing fair or okay about nuclear warfare.

[odeon]

I'm not for nukes. I'm for deterrents. If traffic lights on red near the borders are enough to stop the Russians, I'm happy to go with that instead.

[Jack]

it's not something I'd label as "nice". It's a military alliance, FFS.

Said the objective is nice. The objective of the UN and NATO is supposed to be world nuclear disarmament, world peace, nice dreamy stuff like that. What constitutes an outside attack if everyone is aligned? Though as said before, nice, but probably wont ever happen, unless there's a true world government some day.