• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Am I the only one who doesn't care if they ever find "WMD"?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
we cannot find Saddam, he is unaccounted for, therefore, he does not exist.....

No, you got it backwards. The fact that he is unaccounted for is proof of his existence.
 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
I thought I saw Hussein at Wal-Mart the other day. He was buying duct tape, plastic sheeting, some antacids, and a weapon of mass destruction. :p
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Alistar7
we cannot find Saddam, he is unaccounted for, therefore, he does not exist.....

No, you got it backwards. The fact that he is unaccounted for is proof of his existence.
i can buy that, especially when his existence was a known entity and there has been no proof otherwise, seems rather logical, yet when you aplly this to known WMD for some reason it no longer makes sense to some...
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
I thought I saw Hussein at Wal-Mart the other day. He was buying duct tape, plastic sheeting, some antacids, and a weapon of mass destruction. :p
The former head of South Africa's WMD programs said they fielded and intercepted worldwide orders for supplies and equipment to make WMD from Saddam throughout the sanctions period, funny they didn't speak up to the security council when it mattered, they claimed he was robbed by many criminals who preyed upon his desperation and rarely had much luck procuring new stuff, but at least he made the effort.....


But that's just the opinion of an "uninformed" american......
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Alistar7
we cannot find Saddam, he is unaccounted for, therefore, he does not exist.....

No, you got it backwards. The fact that he is unaccounted for is proof of his existence.
i can buy that, especially when his existence was a known entity and there has been no proof otherwise, seems rather logical, yet when you aplly this to known WMD for some reason it no longer makes sense to some...

Now do you see how flawed your logic is? In the past you've used the phrase 'KNOWN WMD' and argued that they are proven to exist because their is no proof to the contrary. Here, using SH, you apply the same fuzzy logic. Yet it's just as likely that the SOB is dead as it is that he's alive. You even use the phrase seems rather logical when it's not logical at all. At all.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
not at all, not at all, lol.

Would you agree Saddam existed? Would you agree he is unaccounted for? Would you state that this somehow creates the possibility he never existed?

So where are the tons of nerve agents of thousands of liters of anthrax still unaccounted for, the ones the UN kept sanctions in place because their existence was known, their destruction was never proven, and therefore, they logically felt there was a good chance they still existed. Or did they never exist? then why did Saddam admit to having them if he knew he would be required to prove they were in fact destroyed?

Why did he never meet his accepted burden of proof?

Why did he continue to develop WMD programs, systems, and elaborate hiding dual use facilities while actively attempting to circumvent sanctions to obtain WMD supplies and equipment worldwide?

How the fvck did the US know about mobile bio weapons labs when the UN did not? Such accurate detailed drawings, how bad was the intelligence anyway?

Why would not one security council member, including none of the 5 who actually saw the full 12,000 page report Saddam submitted, accept Blair's challenge to publicly state no WMD would be found in Iraq?

What was the UN doing there again? Think again of the goal of the inspections, WMD are not some phantom ghost Bush cooked up like the crack you must be smoking to think otherwise considering the overwhelming evidence.

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
no, i dont care anymore, would like to know what the hell happened to them, but I never had a big problem believing Saddam had them and have seen nothing to suggest he did not........

what happened to all the nasty bio samples like polio stolen from the health ministry, along with "unknown substances", did they perform bio weapons research there as the US claimed? what a joke, we even said they had these mobile bio labs and we gave them bogus cartoon drawings, that claim was just as absurd.

Seems to me the average Iraqi citizen who looted that should be dead or pretty sick by now, along with many more around him, why havent we heard about that? Someone has them who can properly handle, store, and transport them, same with any nuclear material "looted", nice thought.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,905
10
81
Originally posted by: Alistar7
no, i dont care anymore, would like to know what the hell happened to them, but I never had a big problem believing Saddam had them and have seen nothing to suggest he did not........
The fact that neither the UN weapons inspectors nor the US Military could find them suggests that they may have been destroyed well before the war.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Alistar7 - <<not at all, not at all, lol.

Would you agree Saddam existed? Would you agree he is unaccounted for? Would you state that this somehow creates the possibility he never existed? >>


You, my friend, need to study a little bit harder in English class. There's a very distinct difference between a possibility, a probability, and a certainty. You might also look into just what exactly constitues 'logic'.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
Originally posted by: Alistar7
no, i dont care anymore, would like to know what the hell happened to them, but I never had a big problem believing Saddam had them and have seen nothing to suggest he did not........
The fact that neither the UN weapons inspectors nor the US Military could find them suggests that they may have been destroyed well before the war.

Well... ain't found them yet! If they had them and they were not destroyed and are not in Iraq the logical conclusion would be that they are somewhere else.... that somewhere else means to me somewhere that Saddam felt could or would further his ideology or philosophy. Perhaps even a bribe to secure his safety.. the WMD, however, must be accounted for factually. Otherwise they scare me. Why we cut back on the search is a puzzle to me. Maybe we know where they are and are planning our next invasion?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
Originally posted by: Alistar7
no, i dont care anymore, would like to know what the hell happened to them, but I never had a big problem believing Saddam had them and have seen nothing to suggest he did not........
The fact that neither the UN weapons inspectors nor the US Military could find them suggests that they may have been destroyed well before the war.

Well... ain't found them yet! If they had them and they were not destroyed and are not in Iraq the logical conclusion would be that they are somewhere else.... that somewhere else means to me somewhere that Saddam felt could or would further his ideology or philosophy. Perhaps even a bribe to secure his safety.. the WMD, however, must be accounted for factually. Otherwise they scare me. Why we cut back on the search is a puzzle to me. Maybe we know where they are and are planning our next invasion?

Last time i heard one group was being redeployed and another was being sent in. This did not sound like a slowdown in the search. Yes i would prefer to know where the weapons went or at least what happened to them. THen I would like to know why our intel has been so bad over the years(not just this admin)
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
Originally posted by: Alistar7
no, i dont care anymore, would like to know what the hell happened to them, but I never had a big problem believing Saddam had them and have seen nothing to suggest he did not........
The fact that neither the UN weapons inspectors nor the US Military could find them suggests that they may have been destroyed well before the war.

Well... ain't found them yet! If they had them and they were not destroyed and are not in Iraq the logical conclusion would be that they are somewhere else.... that somewhere else means to me somewhere that Saddam felt could or would further his ideology or philosophy. Perhaps even a bribe to secure his safety.. the WMD, however, must be accounted for factually. Otherwise they scare me. Why we cut back on the search is a puzzle to me. Maybe we know where they are and are planning our next invasion?

Last time i heard one group was being redeployed and another was being sent in. This did not sound like a slowdown in the search. Yes i would prefer to know where the weapons went or at least what happened to them. THen I would like to know why our intel has been so bad over the years(not just this admin)
If you know the intel has been bad for years and I surmise that as well... why does the administration rely on it to effect foreign policy actions. It would be imprudent, I think, to take action based on intel that was known to be unreliable. Unless the agenda did not need to rely on intel that was reliable any move was a move to far.

 

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Saddam supported terrorist suicide bombers in Israel. Paid millions to their families. This is not even a contested issue. I don't care what reason they used to sell you on taking that guy out.

Besides, when they do find these "WMD", all you Saddam lovers/Bush haters will say it was planted so there can be no real answer to satisfy you people anyway. Tell me I'm wrong.
Fine - You are wrong. Now try to keep up here: first off you must consider the issue of legitimacy was the war legitimate if the reasons cited for millitary war were a false pretext fabricated on baseless information by the administration? No it is not a legitimate war. You still with me, because here comes justification: The United States is a democracy meaning our leaders are accountable to who? Thats right, the american people, by using false information to justify the use of millitary force to the american people, the administration has subverted the trust and the flow of power in a democracy, thus they have undermined the democracy itself. If I haven't lost you yet, I will move on to your final "contention" (I use the term loosely as it seems to me to be a victim of a hasty generalization fallacy, as well as the straw man fallacy, but I cannot let it stand) The administration has gone on record as saying that they may never find WMD's and that their word should be enough for the people of the United States, does this sound like a democracy to you? They are supposed to be the representatives of the people, yet we are not to question their motives? I could go on and on, the bottom line is yes, saddam did pay for suicide bombers, a deplorable act to be sure, (although the official figures were 25thousand per family, not millions) however, if this act was enough to justify millitary force on prima facie why was it not used as a justifying criterion? Because it was not strong enough to stand on its own, which is why the administration pushed the "link" to WMD so hard. I hope I didn't lose you, I know most of that will probably wash right over you, but I believe that the majority of the members here will understand what I am saying.
 

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
Originally posted by: Nitemare
I posted a thread like this similar a month or so ago. I don't care if they have it as well. I think having a liberated Iraq free of Saddam's tyrannical rule is reason enough....but then again I give a sh!t about innocent Iraqi's who used to get slaughtered daily...

After my last post I really don't feel like going into an exorbitant ammount of detail on yours, however, I will make a few casual points. First, since when is America supposed to decide which forms of government are legitimate and which need to be dissolved to "liberate" their people? I don't think you are familiar with the min/max theorem, but basicallly what it says is that if you use one extreme to justify an action, you must use the other extreme to justify it's antithesis, so here goes: What if say North Korea decided to "liberate" America from the oppression of democracy in favor of a more "liberal" dictatorship in which people don't have to worry about making tough decisions as the government does it for them? Sounds great, we were justified in forcing our views on others, just as the North Koreans will be justified in a similar aggression. There, that was fairly straightforward, I certainly don't think you should have any trouble grasping that.
 

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
Originally posted by: DZip
Crazyfool:

It looks like once again a question is answered by short sighted, narrow-minded people that don't like what America stands for. The only thing that will make them happy is to discredit President Bush and have America look bad. This president has made most Americans feel good about taking out a threat to free loving people around the world. If 100 Iraqi's are glad about U.S. intervention to destroy Saddam and 1 terrorist Muslim rebel hates America for giving Iraqis freedom to choose their destiny, the news reports cover the 1. These rebels that are attacking American soldiers are hoping they can muster support for America to withdraw and turn the power over to these militant Muslim groups. A new government should be tolerant of all religious groups; these religious groups do not show tolerance to other religious groups. They kill innocent people and claim it?s God's will. My God loves everyone, their God does not.
I won't dignify your contentions with a response, come back with clear and concise arguments that do not suffer from the common fallacies (yours is obviously straw man) and we will deal.
 

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: DZip
Crazyfool:

It looks like once again a question is answered by short sighted, narrow-minded people that don't like what America stands for. The only thing that will make them happy is to discredit President Bush and have America look bad. This president has made most Americans feel good about taking out a threat to free loving people around the world. If 100 Iraqi's are glad about U.S. intervention to destroy Saddam and 1 terrorist Muslim rebel hates America for giving Iraqis freedom to choose their destiny, the news reports cover the 1. These rebels that are attacking American soldiers are hoping they can muster support for America to withdraw and turn the power over to these militant Muslim groups. A new government should be tolerant of all religious groups; these religious groups do not show tolerance to other religious groups. They kill innocent people and claim it?s God's will. My God loves everyone, their God does not.
What do you propose? Another "crusade" since only your God is worthwhile?

You people will have the entire planet looking like Israel and Palestine before you're through. Religious zealots - every one with God on their side. I wonder what God thinks of all of this?

The religious right is the most dangerous idea ever used to justify millitary action. To disagree with the ordained is to disagree with God himself, in so doing you are damning yourself, those that belive their leaders or their country are so ordained have no choice but to follow blindly to their deaths the objectives of their leaders. Sun tzu said it in the art of war that the general who convinces his soldiers that they have the right of God on their side will be a victorious general.
 

Syringer

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
19,333
2
71
Originally posted by: DaiShan
Originally posted by: Nitemare
I posted a thread like this similar a month or so ago. I don't care if they have it as well. I think having a liberated Iraq free of Saddam's tyrannical rule is reason enough....but then again I give a sh!t about innocent Iraqi's who used to get slaughtered daily...

After my last post I really don't feel like going into an exorbitant ammount of detail on yours, however, I will make a few casual points. First, since when is America supposed to decide which forms of government are legitimate and which need to be dissolved to "liberate" their people? I don't think you are familiar with the min/max theorem, but basicallly what it says is that if you use one extreme to justify an action, you must use the other extreme to justify it's antithesis, so here goes: What if say North Korea decided to "liberate" America from the oppression of democracy in favor of a more "liberal" dictatorship in which people don't have to worry about making tough decisions as the government does it for them? Sounds great, we were justified in forcing our views on others, just as the North Koreans will be justified in a similar aggression. There, that was fairly straightforward, I certainly don't think you should have any trouble grasping that.
Wow, of all the bad analogies I've encountered in my life, this certainly is up there.

a) If you are trying to argue that Iraqis were somehow enjoying being under a dictatorship, or at the very worst did not want to be free of the tyrant that is Saddam, then I suggest you actually go live in such conditions and just come back and tell me that you don't wish for someone to change things.

b) America currently is the arguably the most prosperous and successful country to ever grace this earth. You'd think we'd be doing something right.

c) In Iraq on the other hand, people starve on a regular basis, a very small amount of children, and an even lower amount of women have any sort of hope at a life that even Americans would consider poverty. It is a given that pretty much any sort of change to this situation would be considered an improvement. It'd be like having to wait for a hostage or kidnapped child to cry for help before trying to free them..
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,905
10
81
Originally posted by: Syringer
Originally posted by: DaiShan

After my last post I really don't feel like going into an exorbitant ammount of detail on yours, however, I will make a few casual points. First, since when is America supposed to decide which forms of government are legitimate and which need to be dissolved to "liberate" their people? I don't think you are familiar with the min/max theorem, but basicallly what it says is that if you use one extreme to justify an action, you must use the other extreme to justify it's antithesis, so here goes: What if say North Korea decided to "liberate" America from the oppression of democracy in favor of a more "liberal" dictatorship in which people don't have to worry about making tough decisions as the government does it for them? Sounds great, we were justified in forcing our views on others, just as the North Koreans will be justified in a similar aggression. There, that was fairly straightforward, I certainly don't think you should have any trouble grasping that.
Wow, of all the bad analogies I've encountered in my life, this certainly is up there.

a) If you are trying to argue that Iraqis were somehow enjoying being under a dictatorship, or at the very worst did not want to be free of the tyrant that is Saddam, then I suggest you actually go live in such conditions and just come back and tell me that you don't wish for someone to change things.
How is that relevant? The point is that it is not the Unitest States' place to decide which governments ought to be overthrown and which governments should not. While we're at it, why not overthrow all of the other countries we don't like? Castro better watch out. But this war was NOT about freeing the Iraqis from an oppressive dictator; if it was, we'd be moving on to the next country ruled by an oppressive dictator by now.

b) America currently is the arguably the most prosperous and successful country to ever grace this earth. You'd think we'd be doing something right.
You left out most hated country as well. Maybe we're going something wrong?

c) In Iraq on the other hand, people starve on a regular basis, a very small amount of children, and an even lower amount of women have any sort of hope at a life that even Americans would consider poverty. It is a given that pretty much any sort of change to this situation would be considered an improvement. It'd be like having to wait for a hostage or kidnapped child to cry for help before trying to free them..
Women had much more freedom in Iraq than in other Muslim countries, like Afghanistan. Should we trample on their religious beliefs while we're invading their country?

If Iraqis started a rebellion and attempted to overthrow Saddam and free themselves, I think we may have been justified in aiding them. But we went in uninvited and overthrew their government.

I noticed that you started your post by saying that DaiShan's analogy to North Korea was one of the worst you've ever seen. As far as I can see, the only possible flaw in his logic that you pointed out was that Iraq deserved to be invaded because its government was bad, but the United States does not deserve to be invaded because our government is good. That's entirely subjective and depends on your perspective. From North Korea's perspective, it could easily be argued that the United States has an evil and oppressive government, because we go around the world imposing our will on everyone.
 

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
Originally posted by: Syringer
Originally posted by: DaiShan
Originally posted by: Nitemare
I posted a thread like this similar a month or so ago. I don't care if they have it as well. I think having a liberated Iraq free of Saddam's tyrannical rule is reason enough....but then again I give a sh!t about innocent Iraqi's who used to get slaughtered daily...

After my last post I really don't feel like going into an exorbitant ammount of detail on yours, however, I will make a few casual points. First, since when is America supposed to decide which forms of government are legitimate and which need to be dissolved to "liberate" their people? I don't think you are familiar with the min/max theorem, but basicallly what it says is that if you use one extreme to justify an action, you must use the other extreme to justify it's antithesis, so here goes: What if say North Korea decided to "liberate" America from the oppression of democracy in favor of a more "liberal" dictatorship in which people don't have to worry about making tough decisions as the government does it for them? Sounds great, we were justified in forcing our views on others, just as the North Koreans will be justified in a similar aggression. There, that was fairly straightforward, I certainly don't think you should have any trouble grasping that.
Wow, of all the bad analogies I've encountered in my life, this certainly is up there.

a) If you are trying to argue that Iraqis were somehow enjoying being under a dictatorship, or at the very worst did not want to be free of the tyrant that is Saddam, then I suggest you actually go live in such conditions and just come back and tell me that you don't wish for someone to change things.

b) America currently is the arguably the most prosperous and successful country to ever grace this earth. You'd think we'd be doing something right.

c) In Iraq on the other hand, people starve on a regular basis, a very small amount of children, and an even lower amount of women have any sort of hope at a life that even Americans would consider poverty. It is a given that pretty much any sort of change to this situation would be considered an improvement. It'd be like having to wait for a hostage or kidnapped child to cry for help before trying to free them..
You completely miss the point. You are not even on mark with any of your assumptions. First off, I made no such argument about the iraqi people, I simply stated it is not America's place to decide what type of government another people should have. Period. If you cannot understand this, I point you to my justifying example of North Korea, it is a very simple concept. Secondly, what may work for one nation may not work for another, a nation is contingent completely upon the circumstances surrounding it, would it make sense for America to try to market goods for which it does not at least have a comparitive advantage? No. Period. I won't even delve into the issue of prosperity (given that we are a relatively new nation, read up on ibn kaldouns theory of the cyclical nature of empires) Again your third point just re-iterates your first, so cross apply my argument to this one. In summation basically what I am saying (in oversimplified terms ) is that America nor any other country has the right to enforce what it views as the best form of government upon another people, this is a far more dangerous form of tyranny. In the now deposed dictatorship, the Iraqis were opressed by one of their own, while I would not want to live in such conditions I would certainly prefer home rule to millitary rule by an invading army. These concepts are not difficult.
 

Syringer

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
19,333
2
71
Originally posted by: DaiShan
In the now deposed dictatorship, the Iraqis were opressed by one of their own, while I would not want to live in such conditions I would certainly prefer home rule to millitary rule by an invading army. These concepts are not difficult.
You'd rather be ruled over by Saddam than to enjoy freedom? Yeah, tell that to the Iraqis
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Syringer
Originally posted by: DaiShan
In the now deposed dictatorship, the Iraqis were opressed by one of their own, while I would not want to live in such conditions I would certainly prefer home rule to millitary rule by an invading army. These concepts are not difficult.
You'd rather be ruled over by Saddam than to enjoy freedom? Yeah, tell that to the Iraqis
how many forget about 1/3 of Iraq has been free for 12 years, and still is, along with Mosul (elected mayor and city council) and other key cities in Iraq.

Oh BTW way I found the WMD, forget to mention it at the time, was just cleaning up around the house, went to vacuum under the couch cushions, and BAM, there they were. I set them off to the side and can't find them now though, sorry.....
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Alistar7
we cannot find Saddam, he is unaccounted for, therefore, he does not exist.....

No, you got it backwards. The fact that he is unaccounted for is proof of his existence.
no, that was sarcasm, apply your logic to the unaccounted for WMD

the fact that they are unaccounted for is proof of their existence.....


wow, and all along you have swearing up and down their existence was not possible.....
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,469
1
76
Originally posted by: DaiShan
Originally posted by: Syringer
Originally posted by: DaiShan
Originally posted by: Nitemare
I posted a thread like this similar a month or so ago. I don't care if they have it as well. I think having a liberated Iraq free of Saddam's tyrannical rule is reason enough....but then again I give a sh!t about innocent Iraqi's who used to get slaughtered daily...

After my last post I really don't feel like going into an exorbitant ammount of detail on yours, however, I will make a few casual points. First, since when is America supposed to decide which forms of government are legitimate and which need to be dissolved to "liberate" their people? I don't think you are familiar with the min/max theorem, but basicallly what it says is that if you use one extreme to justify an action, you must use the other extreme to justify it's antithesis, so here goes: What if say North Korea decided to "liberate" America from the oppression of democracy in favor of a more "liberal" dictatorship in which people don't have to worry about making tough decisions as the government does it for them? Sounds great, we were justified in forcing our views on others, just as the North Koreans will be justified in a similar aggression. There, that was fairly straightforward, I certainly don't think you should have any trouble grasping that.
Wow, of all the bad analogies I've encountered in my life, this certainly is up there.

a) If you are trying to argue that Iraqis were somehow enjoying being under a dictatorship, or at the very worst did not want to be free of the tyrant that is Saddam, then I suggest you actually go live in such conditions and just come back and tell me that you don't wish for someone to change things.

b) America currently is the arguably the most prosperous and successful country to ever grace this earth. You'd think we'd be doing something right.

c) In Iraq on the other hand, people starve on a regular basis, a very small amount of children, and an even lower amount of women have any sort of hope at a life that even Americans would consider poverty. It is a given that pretty much any sort of change to this situation would be considered an improvement. It'd be like having to wait for a hostage or kidnapped child to cry for help before trying to free them..
You completely miss the point. You are not even on mark with any of your assumptions. First off, I made no such argument about the iraqi people, I simply stated it is not America's place to decide what type of government another people should have. Period. If you cannot understand this, I point you to my justifying example of North Korea, it is a very simple concept. Secondly, what may work for one nation may not work for another, a nation is contingent completely upon the circumstances surrounding it, would it make sense for America to try to market goods for which it does not at least have a comparitive advantage? No. Period. I won't even delve into the issue of prosperity (given that we are a relatively new nation, read up on ibn kaldouns theory of the cyclical nature of empires) Again your third point just re-iterates your first, so cross apply my argument to this one. In summation basically what I am saying (in oversimplified terms ) is that America nor any other country has the right to enforce what it views as the best form of government upon another people, this is a far more dangerous form of tyranny. In the now deposed dictatorship, the Iraqis were opressed by one of their own, while I would not want to live in such conditions I would certainly prefer home rule to millitary rule by an invading army. These concepts are not difficult.
So if you knew a kid on your block whose parents beat him(black eyes, broken arms gaping wounds) and threatened him you would not intervene because that would not be your place? You would not call the police or CPS?
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,979
1
0
So if you knew a kid on your block whose parents beat him(black eyes, broken arms gaping wounds) and threatened him you would not intervene because that would not be your place? You would not call the police or CPS?
So you believe that the role of the U.S. in the new world order is to be the policeman? Have you made up your list of sovereign governments and checked it twice? Do you know who's been naughty and nice?
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
The new american empire marches on. No one country can stop this machine. You are either behind us, or under our boots.

Heh.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY