No link between Iraq and Al Quaeda? Oops?

[iamWolverine]

I'm surprised no one has suggested just nuking the rest of the world, or, since that may cause a bit too much radiation, just using our great stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction to leave no one but us great Americans . . . imagine then, no more worries about over population and no strain on natural resources . . . we can all own SUVs!!! [/VERY SARCASTIC]

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Ladies and gentleman this is an exemplary model of someone with their head so far up their ass they can't see daylight.

Threats can come from anywhere, anytime. Why wait until something is just off our shores to react?

tell me, whats your list of countries that should be attacked because sometime in the future they might be a threat to the US?

Iraq
Iran
North Korea
Sudan
Syria
Parts of Pakistan
Parts of Indonesia
Anyone that harbors terrorists or actively supports terrorism
and just for kicks....Iceland

where would it end?

When all the rogue states that support terrorists are gone. Sure there will always be terrorists but we can make it damn hard for them to find a place to live and train. Taking out the states that support them is the way to do it. Countries will then think twice before they let that kind of crap take place within their borders.

would that only include countries that support al qaeda or also those that support other terrorist groups?

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Ok...let's wait to take out Saddam then....I'm sure he won't be able to kill more than a few thousand people before everyone gets all bent out of shape and then starts screaming "Why didn't the United States do anything to stop him?"

I gotta go for now......I have a meeting with Neville Chamberlin. I need some elbow room and there's a piece of Austria I've had my eye on that I'm sure he will let me have for a bargain.....

Ladies and gentlement, this is an exemplary model for debate. Rather than using concrete evidence or logic, use "what ifs?".

When saddam somehow sneaks nukes into Cuba past our satellites, radar and spies, give me a ring. [/sarcasm]

Ladies and gentleman this is an exemplary model of someone with their head so far up their ass they can't see daylight.

Threats can come from anywhere, anytime. Why wait until something is just off our shores to react?

And this, folks, is why people like shinerburke shouldn't enter debates without knowing what the hell they're talking about. Lets see, North Korea has put bush in a bind. Do you propose we nuke them as well? Oh damn, i'm sure a few other countries have nukes as well, where's the litmus test for finding out if they're threats with those nukes? Oh wait, they ALL could potentially attack us! I'm sure this has been debated over and over again, but Saddam, despite what the media trying to convince you that saddam is the next hitler (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29357 for more information), is not a religious fanatic who is willing to give up his life at any cost. What is he going to do, attack israel killing a few hundred or thousand and risk turning Iraq into a country of dust from a country of rubble?

I don't' know what the hell I'm talking about? Ok...if you say so. Funny how anyone that disagrees with you is obviously a fool. Forgive me oh great and wise one. I should have known better than to argue with someone from Massachusetts who has probably voted for that drunken bloated waste of flesh Ted Kennedy every chance he gets. Of course I shouldn't bring that up here. That's a whole different debate and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Is North Korea a threat? Ummm...yeah. You see there was this little thing called the Korean War where the North invaded the South. I'm sure you'll find some references to it in a history book. The North is still a threat and is controlled by wackos that would rather let their people starve than admit their form of government is flawed and give it up. They are very dangerous people and should be dealt with as such. Hopefully it won't take another Korean War to oust them but it needs to be done.

As for Saddam not being dangerous? Are you blind, deaf, stupid, or just clueless? Among other things Saddam has said he will attack Israel if the U.S. attacks him. He did it in the past you know. Remember all the Scuds falling from the skies over Israel?

Saddam said he will attack Israel IF the US attacks him. The IF is the problem here. Saddam has nothing at all to gain by attacking Israel or the United States directly with WMD or giving WMD to terrorists to attack us with. I have never seen any evidence that Saddam does things just for the hell of it, all his actions are designed for some advantage not suicide.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

How old are you Moonie? Do you remember having to practice ducking and covering in school in case of a nuclear attack? I did so I'm used to the threat of imminent attack. You can call me a coward if you want but I'll take that accusation about as serious as I do a Carrot Top movie.

We'll take you about as seriously as well.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: iamWolverine
I'm surprised no one has suggested just nuking the rest of the world, or, since that may cause a bit too much radiation, just using our great stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction to leave no one but us great Americans . . . imagine then, no more worries about over population and no strain on natural resources . . . we can all own SUVs!!! [/VERY SARCASTIC]

And we don't even have to worry about that big, mean Saddam and his friends charging us for gas! Screw conservationism, if there's no one else, we can go for years without worrying about oil and other fuel sources. Woo-hoo!

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Ladies and gentleman this is an exemplary model of someone with their head so far up their ass they can't see daylight.

Threats can come from anywhere, anytime. Why wait until something is just off our shores to react?

tell me, whats your list of countries that should be attacked because sometime in the future they might be a threat to the US?

Iraq
Iran
North Korea
Sudan
Syria
Parts of Pakistan
Parts of Indonesia
Anyone that harbors terrorists or actively supports terrorism
and just for kicks....Iceland

where would it end?

When all the rogue states that support terrorists are gone. Sure there will always be terrorists but we can make it damn hard for them to find a place to live and train. Taking out the states that support them is the way to do it. Countries will then think twice before they let that kind of crap take place within their borders.

would that only include countries that support al qaeda or also those that support other terrorist groups?

Any terrorist group. You have to be careful though how you define terrorists. Too loose of an interpretation and you can include damn near anything in that group. For example if you took it too far the American Revolution could be considered a act of terrorism since it's purpose was to replace the government. I don't think you will find anyone that would agree with that though. However the IRA which has the same goal is going about it all wrong and does in fact promote terrorism.

 

[Corn]

as is what this anonymous "high-level" official is saying.

Huge difference Lucky: This "high-level" official's word is gospel because he's saying what Phokus wants to hear, that's all that matters to him.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Yep, in the '50s and 60's duck and cover training was a weekly exercise at school due to the very real threat of imminent nuclear attack.

You know, it's funny, the only nation that's ever used nuclear weapons in a theater of war is the US. Strange how we're the only nation that's used nuclear weapons on a civilian population; thrice, if you include the tests that were conducted on our own citizens.

 

[Zipp]

Hey here's an idea that should make the liberals happy. Bush should make a deal with Saddam stating that in exchange for him destroying his weapons and stopping all his current programs,we'll give him money and food and we won't even enforce inspections on him. We should always believe everything that dictators say,they never lie.

It worked great with North Korea,right?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Any terrorist group. You have to be careful though how you define terrorists. Too loose of an interpretation and you can include damn near anything in that group. For example if you took it too far the American Revolution could be considered a act of terrorism since it's purpose was to replace the government. I don't think you will find anyone that would agree with that though. However the IRA which has the same goal is going about it all wrong and does in fact promote terrorism.

So is terrorism defined as any actions against the US?

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Yep, in the '50s and 60's duck and cover training was a weekly exercise at school due to the very real threat of imminent nuclear attack.

You know, it's funny, the only nation that's ever used nuclear weapons in a theater of war is the US.

Because we had to. Or did you get some ultra liberal skewed teaching of WWII? Yep...it sure would have been better to invade the Japanese home islands and suffer an estimated 1 million in U.S. casualties and double than for the Japanese. Boy...that would have been so much better of a solution.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Because we had to. Or did you get some ultra liberal skewed teaching of WWII? Yep...it sure would have been better to invade the Japanese home islands and suffer an estimated 1 million in U.S. casualties and double than for the Japanese. Boy...that would have been so much better of a solution.

How bout you do a little bit of research rather than believe the tripe Truman spewed out after it was all over. The estimates by Truman's advisers for US combat losses during an invasion were between 20,000 and 63,000.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Ladies and gentleman this is an exemplary model of someone with their head so far up their ass they can't see daylight.

Threats can come from anywhere, anytime. Why wait until something is just off our shores to react?

tell me, whats your list of countries that should be attacked because sometime in the future they might be a threat to the US?

Iraq
Iran
North Korea
Sudan
Syria
Parts of Pakistan
Parts of Indonesia
Anyone that harbors terrorists or actively supports terrorism
and just for kicks....Iceland

where would it end?

When all the rogue states that support terrorists are gone. Sure there will always be terrorists but we can make it damn hard for them to find a place to live and train. Taking out the states that support them is the way to do it. Countries will then think twice before they let that kind of crap take place within their borders.

would that only include countries that support al qaeda or also those that support other terrorist groups?

Any terrorist group. You have to be careful though how you define terrorists. Too loose of an interpretation and you can include damn near anything in that group. For example if you took it too far the American Revolution could be considered a act of terrorism since it's purpose was to replace the government. I don't think you will find anyone that would agree with that though. However the IRA which has the same goal is going about it all wrong and does in fact promote terrorism.

then what would be your exact definition of a terrorist group and what would be the definition of the so called "freedom fighters"

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Any terrorist group. You have to be careful though how you define terrorists. Too loose of an interpretation and you can include damn near anything in that group. For example if you took it too far the American Revolution could be considered a act of terrorism since it's purpose was to replace the government. I don't think you will find anyone that would agree with that though. However the IRA which has the same goal is going about it all wrong and does in fact promote terrorism.

So is terrorism defined as any actions against the US?

No, it's an act of violence against civilian targets or military targets not engaged in a militray conflict.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: iamWolverine
I'm surprised no one has suggested just nuking the rest of the world, or, since that may cause a bit too much radiation, just using our great stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction to leave no one but us great Americans . . . imagine then, no more worries about over population and no strain on natural resources . . . we can all own SUVs!!! [/VERY SARCASTIC]

I kinda like this guys thinking. But I'd probably just nuke all arab countries. That's where most of the wackos are.

Shinerburke, It's no use arguing with these folks, they're dead set in their way, as are you. Nothing is going to change. They wouldn't mind seeing another 9-11 type event, where as you would. Maybe the next one will affect them alittle more.


KK

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Because we had to. Or did you get some ultra liberal skewed teaching of WWII? Yep...it sure would have been better to invade the Japanese home islands and suffer an estimated 1 million in U.S. casualties and double than for the Japanese. Boy...that would have been so much better of a solution.

How bout you do a little bit of research rather than believe the tripe Truman spewed out after it was all over. The estimates by Truman's advisers for US combat losses during an invasion were between 20,000 and 63,000.

I recomend that you do a little research. The number that is generally agreed upon is about 10 times what you have posted.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

I recomend that you do a little research. The number that is generally agreed upon is about 10 times what you have posted.

*sigh* The number that is "generally agreed upon" is one that was pushed for and espoused by Truman and his administration afterwards to justify the worst atrocity ever committed on a civilian populace.

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh you poor, poor dear little hippie children. You must have been so traumatized hiding under your desks. Did you get a sandwich dirty in a five minute famine. I bet the polio epidemic put the terror of WMDs in your soul too. Life must have been soooo stressful for the poor miserable American people of those days. I bet the nuclear tests turned you all into little glowing Japanese children. You have suffered so much. Everybody should die so you can rest. Americans are supposed to bring anxiety to the rest of the world, not have to suffer it. I for one simply will not tolerate it. Everyone must die because I don't see any reason why I should have to grow up. There is no problem that can't be solved by some good old fashioned American violence. I learned that much watching a lifetime of TV. Don't try to tell me otherwise. I'm the toughest blowhard coward you'll ever see.

 

[morkinva]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Oh you poor, poor dear little hippie children. You must have been so traumatized hiding under your desks. Did you get a sandwich dirty in a five minute famine. I bet the polio epidemic put the terror of WMDs in your soul too. Life must have been soooo stressful for the poor miserable American people of those days. I bet the nuclear tests turned you all into little glowing Japanese children. You have suffered so much. Everybody should die so you can rest. Americans are supposed to bring anxiety to the rest of the world, not have to suffer it. I for one simply will not tolerate it. Everyone must die because I don't see any reason why I should have to grow up. There is no problem that can't be solved by some good old fashioned American violence. I learned that much watching a lifetime of TV. Don't try to tell me otherwise. I'm the toughest blowhard coward you'll ever see.

Well said, dude.

 

[isasir]

Can't we all just get along?

 

[ScottyB]

I don't see why all the other countries shouldn't "preemptively" strike us. I mean we have "weapons of mass destruction"(God I hate that phrase) and we are not willing to give them up. We have even used them in the past top slaughter citizens nearly 10 times more than were killed on September, 11 (not including the figures of all the citizens that some of our other citizens killed). I don't see what the problem is.

 

[ScottyB]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
I don't see why all the other countries shouldn't "preemptively" strike us. I mean we have "weapons of mass destruction"(God I hate that phrase) and we are not willing to give them up. We have even used them in the past top slaughter citizens nearly 10 times more than were killed on September, 11 (not including the figures of all the citizens that some of our other citizens killed). I don't see what the problem is.

Well Scott, you have to remeber the facts. If another contry preemptively" strike us, they are evil bloodthirsty terroists, but when we do it, it is just self defence.

 

[Cfour]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

I recomend that you do a little research. The number that is generally agreed upon is about 10 times what you have posted.

*sigh* The number that is "generally agreed upon" is one that was pushed for and espoused by Truman and his administration afterwards to justify the worst atrocity ever committed on a civilian populace.

Do you have any idea how many lives those bombs probably saved in the end? I can guarantee more than the lives they took, or are you too blind to see that too? I'm in no was saying it wasn't a horrible act, but no more horrible than any other loss of life... are you saying you would have rather seen 100,000 more people dead by not dropping the bombs? I sure hope not.... it was the right thing to do at the time.

Tony

 

[DorkBoy]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Iraq
Iran
North Korea
Sudan
Syria
Parts of Pakistan
Parts of Indonesia
Anyone that harbors terrorists or actively supports terrorism
and just for kicks....Iceland

You know, you're almost as fanatical as those muslims that you hate. Bleh, i'm out to lunch, BBL.

Its people who are "out to lunch" that let things like 9/11 happen.

We are doomed if we just sit and wait like you would like us to do.
You would probably "pay off" the MD/VA Sniper so he would quit.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: ScottyB

Originally posted by: ScottyB
I don't see why all the other countries shouldn't "preemptively" strike us. I mean we have "weapons of mass destruction"(God I hate that phrase) and we are not willing to give them up. We have even used them in the past top slaughter citizens nearly 10 times more than were killed on September, 11 (not including the figures of all the citizens that some of our other citizens killed). I don't see what the problem is.

Well Scott, you have to remeber the facts. If another contry preemptively" strike us, they are evil bloodthirsty terroists, but when we do it, it is just self defence.

ScottB, are you going schizo on us or did you just forget to change screen names when you replied to your self?