Thread: WMD Question

No, he had nothing to do with 9/11, which is the catalyst for the supposed war on terror. Perhaps if we had Bin Laden my opinion would change, I have always been of teh opinion that you finish what you start before starting something new. Besides, we knew North Korea was pursuing them and did nothing.

War is for immature grown-ups who still like to blow stuff up and play army. They all need to grow up and learn to live and love, so fuck them all.

Originally Posted by maniclion

War is for immature grown-ups who still like to blow stuff up and play army. They all need to grow up and learn to live and love, so fuck them all.

I used to blow up GI Joes when I was a kid, that was fun.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

No, he had nothing to do with 9/11, which is the catalyst for the supposed war on terror. Perhaps if we had Bin Laden my opinion would change, I have always been of teh opinion that you finish what you start before starting something new. Besides, we knew North Korea was pursuing them and did nothing.

Right, but with the similar situation now with Iran... are we not supposed to act if (when) the UN does nothing? How would Iraq have been any different? Iran has been more public about it's nuclear ambitions, but Iraq would have been just as dangerous with them.

My only probvlem with The Bush Adminestration is that they have not started enough wars.

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

My only probvlem with The Bush Adminestration is that they have not started enough wars.

My only problem with you is your spelling.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I used to blow up GI Joes when I was a kid, that was fun.

Now you just blow a guy named Joe.

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

My only probvlem with The Bush Adminestration is that they have not started enough wars.

True Story, I think we should attack every country which we consider a "threat." We should start with China and North Korea, and finish up with France and Canada.


I mean if a country like France doesn't agree with our policy, wouldn't you consider that a "threat?" We should nuke France.


Lets define our threat. We have three components of the risk posed by the "threat."

An event - France Disagrees with our geopolitical views
A probability of occurrence - 100,000,000%
An impact - Their opinion will not sway us from our resolve. Infact it will strengthen our resolve. The more that disagree, the stronger we get, until we are the only ones that agree. This is when we attack every country.

Originally Posted by BigDyl

True Story, I think we should attack every country which we consider a "threat." We should start with China and North Korea, and finish up with France and Canada.

Franch isn't a threat to anybody. Well, maybe to young boys, but that's about it. On a related note, little girls are 100% safe from France.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

Right, but with the similar situation now with Iran... are we not supposed to act if (when) the UN does nothing? How would Iraq have been any different? Iran has been more public about it's nuclear ambitions, but Iraq would have been just as dangerous with them.

Agree

Originally Posted by DOMS

Franch isn't a threat to anybody.

Is that a French/Ranch dressing hybrid? If so it sounds delicious.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Is that a French/Ranch dressing hybrid? If so it sounds delicious.

Typo Nazi has been exposed.

There you go riding someone else's dick. So Dale, how does it feel?

Like topolo, only much tighter.

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

My only probvlem with The Bush Adminestration is that they have not started enough wars.

Just wait, this thing with Iran is going to get nasty. Mark my word. We are about to impose sanctions if they do not stop their work on nukes. When we do, I'm sure they will withhold their millions of barells of crude exported per day. Gas prices have been going up in anticipation of this. When this puts a strain on us for supplies and prices skyrocket, we might just have a little piece of the USA in the middle east!

The grant of authority to disarm Iraq by force would expire upon the disarming of Iraq. The authority to use force would not extend to 'spread democracy' through the area turning the conflict into a protracted battle. That's another example of Bush using our government for whatever ends he sees fit--the legal purpose of disarmament morphs into "spreading democracy."

This Ir an situation is being started because there is not enough
activity in Iraq to merit US involvment...

Create a war to cover whats really going on

Originally Posted by The Monkey Man

This Ir an situation is being started because there is not enough
activity in Iraq to merit US involvment...

Create a war to cover whats really going on

Thanks AL.............Qaeda

Originally Posted by topolo

Thanks AL.............Qaeda

True Story, anyone who disagrees with US is a terrorist.

Originally Posted by BigDyl

True Story, anyone who disagrees with US is a terrorist.