And that wouldn't result in nuclear winter? Russia had a plan to build a huge ship with the hull designed as a huge hydrogen bomb. The water that would evaporate during the explosion would form a radiation cloud that would eventually kill all living things throughtout the world. The design was planned during the cold war to prevent any nation from invading them. Russia fell in econmic ruin before it was built. My point is that nations of power will fight to their dying breath, even if that means destroying the world.
I can see people dying in the news from a unknowned cause, more people die. It grows rapidly. A new virus is found, its like AIDS but airborn. It takes 7 years to show syptoms. They find that 4 out of 10 people have it. They estimate that the number will grow to 10 out of 10 in short time. They cant find a cure. I can see this happening before the United States falls. I can see aliens destroying the world before the USA falls. I can see a big space rock destroying the world before it happens.

You completely missed my point. My point is that a patriot is not someone who blindly follows his leaders. It is our right, responsibility and duty to question an action if it is immoral. In WWII, Germans probably believed they were patriotic, blindly following Hitler, just following orders. Nope, they weren't patriotic. They were blindly nationalistic.

Quote:

You also said: You are seriously one ignorant piece of shit. You can't even have reasonable discussion. THAT is how you engage someone with your opinion that you want respected?

No, I don't. I was having a normal discussion until you stated:

Quote:

Hypothetically, that is a stupid fucking question asked by a one Hypothetically stupid Mother Fucker. Hypothetically. :321GFY dumb ass

How do you expect me to react?????

Quote:

You said: If we were engaged in what you define as War time, I doubt all conservatives would rally behind Clinton. when I said I would, under certain conditions... YOU respected my opinion by saying: I'm sure you would. The "I'm just following orders" and "I will blindly follow my leaders" attitude of some people is frightening. So if I would have no, because I don't like Clinton, you would have said... what?

First of all, you did not say "under certain conditions". Do I have to remind you what you said?

"But - If we had been at war - my definition of war - I would have supported the "President" - as the Commander and Chief of the military. You are damned right I would - and I think at THAT time, party politics needs thrown out the window"

If you said "no" then you would have just confirmed your abject hypocrisy and I would have pointed it out, that you'll support the president if he's a republican but if he's a democrat, well then all bets are off.

Quote:

What I'm saying is - you have no room at all to say anything to anyone about their lack of tolerance if their opinion doesn't agree with yours - of even if it does, you would rather slander and insult someone.

No, that would be you.

Quote:

And as I also said.... I'm done playing your silly game. OK? :1orglaugh

That's quite alright. The game is over, and guess what: YOU LOST!

:1orglaugh :moon :1orglaugh

:eek7

It should be less than 10 years before China's GDP is the equivalent of the United States, and remember only a small proportion of China has economic zones. With that kind of economic clout China can only become a bigger player on the world stage.

China can become equal or stronger then the USA. That still wouldnt result in the fall of the USA.

Sorry I didn't respond to:

if a president rounded up all the Jews, mentally retarded, gypsies, political dissidents, etc. and sent them all to concentration camps to meet their deaths would you support him?

the way you would have liked -
you obviously underestimated how I was going to react.

As far as "winning" .... - if it makes you happy then it's ok.


no one "wins". you didn't change my mind or sway me in anyway, I didn't change your mind or sway you. If you are taking about who insulted who the most - if that makes you feel like a winner - that's ok too.


:thumbsup

bush is soooo going down..

....in history as the dude that did not take any shit from that arabian camelcocksucker saddam hussein.
:1orglaugh

Ask Kiro what he thinks about the CIA taking down their blackhawk helicopters to pick up the NLA when they were cornered in Archinevo back a year ago.

drudgereport.com...top story...looks like we are close

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I have a very specific answer to why people protest around the world. America's foreign policy and aid to Israel are the two direct reasons why people dislike America.

You are wrong about Saddam. Saddam isn't exactly as bad as you may think. Never the less, I wouldn't want to be ruled by him either. But you might hear Bush tell you that he has slaughtered his "son." You must understand the fact that he never killed his son, he killed his son-in-law which has no blood relation to him. You might also want to seek out why he killed him, I'm sure you'd be surprised. You can't continuously be misled by the media like CNN. You have to read both sides of the story. Always read stuff from more then 2 different sources & sides, then formulate your opinion.

You also probably believe the Government when they tell you that Saddam has gassed his own people. First off, he never gassed his own people. It was the Kurds that were gassed (who oppose him) and it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds. Draw your own conclusions from that. No evidence exists that it was Saddam's regime who performed the horrific act, but Bush will draw certain conclusions in order to sway public opinion as he see's fit. Why do you think every piece of evidence that Bush supposedly presents, the Russians, Chinese, French, and German's don't take it seriously? Here's an article from the New York times if you don't trust my word about the gassing...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/op...b6c3c76ea6ffe5

Back to the Russian's, German's, Chinese, and French. You want to know why they don't take one word seriously? It's simple. The Government of the USA and Britain manipulate intelligence information. Fortunately, some people in the intelligence agency are actually human and have decided to speak out against their own Governments manipulation of intelligence in order to justify war in Iraq.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=376732

ISN"T AS BAD AS "I" THINK ?

those two statements right there lost you all serious creditability you might have ever had with any reasonable thinking human.

like "who" is gassed is the difference between it being right or wrong?

I can only assume you have no idea the murders, torture and horrors that man has caused.... and that's seriously sad.

You obviously didn't read my post. lol

of course I did - that's where those two quotes came from :1orglaugh

I wonder what Canada will do... What do you all think?

Canada had a great idea for the UN. It was more precise for requirements and deadlines for Iraq to meet. I don't know what became of it.

There is no need for this thread.

By the time he's done with his term, the mere fact he's George Bush will be humiliation enough to last a lifetime.

If you're alive in 40 years and still have your sight, do me a favor: Pick up a modern history book, turn to the section on George W. Bush, and repeat to yourself "Gutterboy told me so"

:thumbsup

I guess it's safe to assume you think the US will go to war and things will turn out for the worse - which would make Bush look the way you suggest - in fact, you come across as though you would delight in it. - I'm not sure if that's sick or just sad.

I for one, do not believe that will be the case - but like you did say, ONLY history will tell....

:winkwink:

Bush will look the way I suggest in the eyes of history whichever way this little conflagration goes. We're obviously not going to lose to the Republican Guard.

Just thinking long term :)

Oh, and... 300 :ak47:

Detecting sarcasm isn't your strong point, is it?

Are you idiots still at it? Hell's Christ........ fuck having a war in Iraq, the war is right here.



All the board-bitching in the world isn't going to affect what Bush does, it ain't gonna affect what Saddam Insane does, it ain't gonna affect NOTHING.


Okay, continue the piss.

Daveplays is a good little German, 1930's style

USA UBER ALLES!!!!! :BangBang:

And you are a silly little twit who wouldn't know DavePlays if he was kicking your ass up and down the street.


I don't know who you are and could not possible care less - but keep your stupid hatred and nazi remarks to your fucking self little man.


:321GFY


Some people's children.....

Well you obviously did not fully read my post. You are picking out specific phrases without including the rest of the sentence. lol. You're doing just as the USA does; manipulating intelligence information to try and justify their points. I suggest you go re-read what I wrote.

I simply stated that the Kurds oppose Saddam's regime, I don't see anything in their that says it was okay to gas them. lol. My main point was that no proof exists that Saddam did not gas them. I hope that clarifies things for you since you seem illiterate for that split second.

You're definitely right. But sometimes it's nice to knock some sense into people.

there are quite a few idots here

Someone actually said CNN was a valid news source

hahahah i'm cracking out , an american who says to someone "Stop meddling in the affairs of other countries you arrogant son of a bitch!!!"

the world is upside down hahaha

this was the most stupid phrase someone could ever say
:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Bush does not want to be the first Neville Chamberlain of the 21st Century.

Even the French UN ambassador seems to think the US and UK troops on the border are the only reason Iraq is starting to cooperate. Therefore I guess Bush is doing something right?


Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin: Iraq, according to the very terms used by the inspectors, represents less of a danger to the world than it did in 1991. We can achieve our objective of effectively disarming that country. Let us keep the pressure on Baghdad. The adoption of Resolution 1441, the assumption of converging positions by the vast majority of the world's nations, diplomatic actions by the Organization of African Unity , the League of Arab States, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement -- all of these common efforts are bearing fruit.

The American and British military presence in the region lends support to our collective resolve. We all recognize the effectiveness of this pressure on the part of the international community, and we must use it.

Pressure is key. War is not.

Once again you silly fucker you have no idea what you are talking about or who you are taking about.

I haven't heard anything Limbaugh has had to say in about a year - but it is funny how much he must scares you liberals.


Try again - but TRY to get at least ONE fact right next time?

You just keep making a bigger ass of yourself everytime you include me in one of your posts.....

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

A decade of "pressure" did nothing to resolve the situation, in fact it made things worse as the people of Iraq suffered under sanctions. The ONLY reason the inspectors are back in Iraq, is because the US has said enough is enough. The real threat of war is the only kind of pressure that seems to work.

Crocodile Bin Laden's ex-wife is an American. Therapists call it "projection."

He would say: "under my plan, all terrorists should be put in a lock box."

:winkwink:

The real threat of war does seem to help, but you have to really sit back and think if Iraq is a threat to America or not. As the CIA & Mi6 have said, Iraq is not a threat, or even anything remotely close. They are barely a threat to Israel as well.