weapons of mass destruction

First of all I want to say my last blog was just something I did cause I love my Country, and no our education system is just fine, I'm what you would call "retarded" in some senses, but realisticly, I couldn't pass a grade7 english class :D

anyways I have been wondering about this whole Iran and North Korea issue about weapons of mass destruction.  I don't see how the U.S.A. can go around to developing nations and say no, you may not have these weapons yet you have over 200 yourself.

for what I follow with American presidential Candidates, Barack Obama wants to sit down and actually talk and get them to stop building them. I am all for this because I believe no one should have any Nuclear weapons. I would like to know why this would be soooooooo bad. I mean talking never hurt right, and also if you talk and it don't work, THEN you can blast there asses with your army, or am I wrong again.  Rember too, last time America went to war because of them, it turns out the nuclear weapon program was cancelled sometime in the mid 90's.

from what I can Tell with John McCain is all he will do is Tell them to get rid of them instead to talking and if they are slow to do so he will just go and attack them.  rember I'm not against this idea that we should fight them, I'm just for the idea we try to talk first, find a way to end it without a single death.

anyways I just want to know why it is some people like McCain's Idea of just attack then talking, compared to Obama's plan of Talking then Attacking

Uploaded 06/27/2008
  • 0 Favorites
  • Flag
  • Stumble
  • Pin It