"you fucking idiot" ... Ooops, I think I pushed the right buttons. :P

Yes, I know how much offense Muslims take at people displaying images of their prophet. Muslims don't have to look at websites displaying such images, thats called the freedom of choice, and every human being has it. I'm not going to restrict my right, as a US citizen, to free speech and expression simply because someone else's beliefs say I should STFU. If you want to close your mouth because I disagree with everything you say, feel free, but I don't see that happening. Its the same deal.

How can you possibly say you can research things "properly"? As in, better than I can? All you've done here is spout your -opinions- and, as support, you post the opinions of radical leaning journalists.

"i just dont see the reasoning why any country with nukes can tell another country that they can not have them."

That much is obvious. I've given you repeated reasons from different angles, and none of it makes it through your tinted lenses.

Yes, the "option" to use nuclear weapons is there. I'm sure it was discussed. Its still not a threat. No matter how you say it or skew it, nobody in the US is intending to use nuclear weapons as anything other than retaliation for a nuclear strike.

Maybe you missed, Denzel, the last sentence of the list of things bin Hidin' is wanted for.

"IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD."

And the very last sentence on the poster:

"Poster Revised November 2001" ... Hmmm... shortly after 9/11/2001... It wasn't until 2004 that bin Hidin' admitted to directing the hijackers. Personally, I don't think bin Hidin' was the 'mastermind' behind 9/11. According to my research, Ayman al-Zawahiri was the brains behind the 9/11 attacks. He just happens to be bin Hidin's lieutenant, so the leader of the organization can feel free to take credit for his organization's actions if he wants to.

Whats funny, Dexter, is that the US was in the wrong for the Cuban Missile Crisis. Russia was placing the medium range missiles in Cuba in response to the US placing medium range missiles in Turkey. We did it, and so Russia thought it would be keeping the balance if they did it. And then our country freaked out at having hostile weapons so close to home, even though there were plenty of missiles in the USSR that could reach far enough :P

Yes, I'm amazed at how up-to-date FBI is :)

you have not givern me proper, researched reason why countriesd can tell other countries that they can not have nukes. Whats also funny is my information is from radical leaning journalists (the bbc) and yours is obivoulsy from well rounded centred journalism. Your stupidity pushes my buttons!

Were you expecting the FBI to make everything they know public?

Marchosias,
re: Cuba missile crisis
Yes - the U.S. was wrong. Frankly I'm startled (and pleased) to hear you say that. At least you're not someone who blindly thinks that everything America does is right by definition.

I must dispute you regarding the U.S. policy regarding first-strike...
Stephen Hadley, National Security Adviser, 2006:
"The president's strategy affirms that the doctrine of preemption remains sound and must remain an integral part of our national security strategy. If necessary, the strategy states, under longstanding principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack."

In the 2002 "National Security Strategy" report, Bush first outlined his administration's adoption of a pre-emptive policy, marking the end of a deterrent military strategy that dominated the Cold War.

link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/16/politics/main1409079.shtml

It is a historical curiosity that Bush Sr. promoted first strike capability in his first run for president in 1980. ...like father, like son?

I've given you a proper, logical, well-reasoned argument why some countries should not have nuclear weapons. You still haven't responded to the point I've made, other than to say, "You know what, Marchosias? I think you're wrong!"

There isn't any real "research" to be done on that particular question, because any argument over "should" or "shouldn't" is a matter of opinion. Stop getting our issues confused. Terrorism is bad, and that can be proven. I think you've given up on that one because you've stopped saying things like "There is nothing wrong with a Jihad".

Yes, your "information" has come from radical leaning journalists. I never said everyone at the BBC is radical, despite your effort to imply that I did. My information comes from all over the internet, which includes many, many non-American news sources.

Cheers on the additional personal attack. :P

You see, Dexter? No brainwashing here.

You missed the point on the first strike issue. I never said America won't attack first. I said we won't use nuclear weapons first.

And damn right that we will attack first. The best way to ensure that your enemy cannot hurt you is to destroy his ability to attack. That entails a preemptive strike, and thats what they're talking about. Nowhere in there does it say a nuclear first strike.

i have constantly responded to every point you have made, which i might add you havn't. I know terrorism is bad i never said it wasn't (sorry to have to say this again) and if you knew anything about islam you would know and understand that there is nothing wrong with jihad. These terrorists who say they are on a jihad aren't, pure and simple.

your logical reasoning is america wont attack anyone but iran will!

Bush Sr. specifically promoted first use capability of nuclear weapons. Bush Jr., maybe not directly... but bunker busting bombs and other "tactical" nukes were designed and planned with first strike and "limited" nuclear war in mind. Promotion of those weapons IS promotion of first strike capability to my mind. ...and there was an awful lot of saber rattling about the possible use of these in regards to Iran. At the very least they (U.S. spokespeople) made a lot of people believe that the U.S. was planning to use nukes on Iran in a first-strike capacity... and that itself is destabilizing and poor for international relations.

and a threat

Now you're just saying "nuh uh!", Trim.

You're right. America won't attack anyone with nuclear weapons. Iran funds, trains, and equips terrorists. When they get nuclear weapons, you think they won't hand those off to terrorists as well? There's something to hope and pray for, but I won't spend much effort there because its not very likely they'd hold nuclear weapons back once they have them. Its a well-established and provable fact that US protocols for the use of nuclear weapons is as a counterattack. Thats why we call it a "nuclear response".

Try and find me any such proof that ALL nations, since you want to arm the entire world with nuclear weapons, will exercise such restraint. You won't find it, but I'll enjoy the quiet while you go off and try.

If I knew anything about Islam, indeed. While the terrorists might not be on a jihad the way it was originally intended, this new jihad is the way the world perceives it. For better or worse, this is the definition of jihad that we're stuck with.

I'd appreciate a specific quote from Bush Sr. about first striking with nuclear weapons, Dexter.

Of course its poor for international relations. The US has had continuously bad relations with the nations in that area since our first encounter, when they attacked US ships and enslaved US soldiers starting in 1784. We'd only been a nation for 8 years at the time we were first attacked by Muslims. Then, as now, we tried diplomatic solutions, and they didn't succeed in keeping US citizens safe. The only means that has succeeded is violence and the threat of it.

but its not jihad you cant change the definition of a religous law (for want of a better word). Im not conviced the Uk and America would show that sort of restraint anyway. Ok then take away every ones nukes which is also what i have been saying, either one i would be happy with. But im giving up on this as your obvioulsy not reading/understanding what i keep saying, so bollocks to it.

"jihad" is analogous to "crusade"... multiple meanings - both include, but are not limited to, religious war definitions... And Bush infamously used the word "crusade" to characterize his "war on terror" played out in the middle east... a politically charged word to use, to say the least. So - either it's OK for someone to talk about our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan as a crusade AND it's OK for someone else to refer to a jihad (in the non-terrorist sense) or it's not OK for either. I favor a broader view.

Per Wikipedia:
According to scholar John Esposito, Jihad requires Muslims to "struggle in the way of God" or "to struggle to improve one's self and/or society." Jihad is directed against Satan's inducements, aspects of one's own self, or against a visible enemy. The four major categories of jihad that are recognized are Jihad against one's self (Jihad al-Nafs), Jihad of the tongue (Jihad al-lisan), Jihad of the hand (Jihad al-yad), and Jihad of the sword (which can involve combat against non-Muslims)(Jihad as-sayf).

"Iran funds, trains, and equips terrorists" i hate to say this but isn't one mans terriorist another mans freedom fighter, and didnt america fund,train and equip the IRA/mujahadeen etc in another word terriorists

Why would America train the IRA? what would the US gain from Britain fighting a war in Ireland?

its the whole catholic thing, ok they may have not trained but they diffinetly equipped and funded.

and nice side sweep on the mujahadeen

Catholic thing? America's majority Protestant and the people in government are even more heavily so. Perhaps the Irish diaspora raised money, but that's a very different matter from the US government giving arms to the IRA.

Do you have any proof?

the mujahaeed beat the Soviets. I'd say it's worth it.

i meant to say irish catholic thing sorry

i never said anything about it being worth it, i just said they did it, which means using mach.. logic its just as bad as iran

sorry for the triple post i just hate all this, do as we say not as we do that comes from the western world

But proof! If you're going to accuse the American government of actively supporting a terrorist group in its closest ally you really ought to provide some proof.

Trim... its jihad. They're calling it jihad, thats what it is. Its a jihad to them, its a jihad to us, its a jihad to everyone but people like you who argue over the history of it.

I'd be totally fine with everyone disarming, with nobody having nuclear weapons. But I'm a realist. Its not going to happen, so I won't bother discussing it.

Yeah, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Apparently Iran's terrorists are your freedom fighters, eh Trim? Because they certainly are terrorists to me, no question about it.

Yes, America did support insurgencies in multiple countries. No, America did not support the IRA. Individuals and groups of Americans supported the IRA financially, but the government didn't. While we're on it, the majority of the IRA's weapons came from Libya, that basion of Democracy. /sarcasm

But in general, yes America has supported insurgencies. That doesn't make it right, and it was done without the knowledge of the American people. It was done through the CIA and other secret governmental agencies in the purposes of "national security", in their misguided attempt to create US friendly governments around the world. It was, in my mind, the last gasp of the Cold War, as we attempted to halt the "insidious spread of communism" that haunted people during that era.

Again, doesn't make it right, but at least I can admit that my country has done things I do not support. Unlike you defending every target of my words.

Marchosias,
Regarding the Bush Sr. quote... can't find it - when searching I am swimming in a sea of unrelated articles about Bush Jr. and nuclear policy in general. I remember it from the 1980 primary itself, by the way - not from something I read years later. If I find a reference I will post it. No doubt this thread isn't going away.

basion = bastion.

Marchosias,
Here's a partial hit... wherein H.W. promotes a weapon (long-range cruise missile neutron bomb) best suited for a first-use surprise attack (and invasion, since it leaves buildings/infrastructure intact)... This from his "Take Charge America" campaign brochure:

"DEFENSE: The massive build-up of Soviet arms, along with the sadly deteriorating state of American Defense Forces, threaten us with grave consequences in the 1980's. Only with new leadership and a new commitment to U.S. military strength will we send a strong signal to the world. I am firmly committed to a long-term program of rebuilding our defenses, including a new manned bomber, a long-range cruise-missile neutron bomb and a three-ocean Navy."

link: http://www.4president.org/brochures/georgebush1980brochure.htm