Let's just solve this once and for all..
 

We'll get the tape measure and settle this matter now :glugglug

Wouldn't it be sweet if GDubya and Sa-damn just got in the ring and beat the shit out of each other?

you are usually so much smarter than this Ms titmowse. And the results we be winner takes over both countries?

What would be accomplished by Saddam kicking Bush's ass if a fist fight? That is the last think we need have happen.

remember that old UN commercial that got banned? the one that asked "what if the world's leaders fought the battles themselves instead of sending innocent soldiers off to fight their wars"?

i officially and personally think this whole fucking thing is a lot of dick waving at the expense of innocent lives.

now don't piss me off. i'm on my third glass of whine :glugglug

shit. nobody ever wants to fight with me when i'm in a fightin mood. :(

why is that?

If you show up here at the right time, there are three or four Rush Limbaugh followers that will tell you that you are a traitor and a commie for even suggesting that anything but a full scale world war is acceptable. You should also be jailed without trial for suggesting that Bush (the best president in U.S. history) would waste his time fighting with Saddam. Bush is much too busy saving the world. These guys also believe that we need to launch military attacks against North Korea, Iran, France, and "Liberals" to save the world from the ever present threat of communism. They're a funny bunch.

Check back every so often,you'll get your fight yet. :)

well, we'll see :)

I have been married twice. Arguing/fighting with women on their 2nd or more glass of wine has very little appeal to me.

and no, what UN commercial are you talking about? Remember, old for you and old for me may not exactly be the same.

However, that is a ridiculous suggestion make in that commercial. Imagine whose rule we would be under if someone picked a fight with Reagan. We would all be speaking Hebrew or some Arabic dialect I am sure. Hell they would be have fights all the time if all you had to do was kick the ass of the guy in charge.

That being said, why do you even mention the UN? They have the same power as the BBB.

You don't remember it? It came out in the early seventies. You're not that fucking much old than me no matter how much you like the old codger persona :) It came out about the same time as that enviormental ad with the American Indian dude with the tear in his eye.

Why is it ridiculous? Why do you assume control of the world would be the result of such an encounter? Why do you assume Bush or Reagan would get his pasty ass beat all up to hell? :winkwink:

I believe in the UN. I believe that the world is a big place with different concepts of government. I believe that democracy/capitalism is good but not the only solution. I believe that the world should get to vote on it's fate.

There would have been some great fights over the past few centuries though.


Winston Churchill vs Hitler --- billed as "Fatman vs The Little General"

FDR vs Emperor Hirohito --- Pretty sure N America would now be comprised of "United states of Kawasaki" and "North Sony-da"

Eisenhower was tough, probably could have held his own against all comers during his time.

John F Kennedy vs The Bearded Cuban --- tough call.


Of course, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura would have both served as president by now, and I'm thinking that Hillary would have fought all of Bill's battles for him (if he had any).

You men wish you had a woman who supported you like Hillary.

Bill Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar. He fought his own damn battles quite well.

I certainly wouldn't complain. Besides, I secretly think she's hot.


Uh, guess it's no longer a secret. Are rhodes scholars known for their prowess in the ring?

Don't know. I do know Mr Clinton is a big man and Mr Bush is also biggish.

I think if you factor in Laura VS Hillary, Hillary would wipe the floor with that "fake nice ex-librarian" any day of the week.

Big guys simply look more entertaining as they're heading for the floor though. Many leaders of "upstart nations" are well-trained in the military, many leaders in the far east are experts in one or more martial arts. If your idea would have been put into practice even 10 years ago, the States would have had to come up with something better than Bill or G Dubya.


Hadn't considered a Laura - Hillary confrontation. intriguing.... but why would they be at it? Wouldn't that be considered kind of a 'civil war' by your plan?

you're assuming i have a plan.

Im just saying that Hillary could beat that flat-assed-devolution propigator any day of the week.

I don't want civil war. But then again, wouldn't that be sweet? :321GFY

After Hillary is finished beating shit outta Laura, can I kick the crap outta Hillary?:thumbsup

Well, I was referring to your original post on this thread, the whole "leaders should fight each other" plan.

That plan.



Uh, what glass of whine you on now? 6? I have some catching up to do.

How cute. actually i stopped at my third glass.

The point being, leaders have waged war for centuries upon centuries and yet those leaders very rarely fight the actual battles.

I think it's about time all these "big boys" put up or shut up.

I wonder how Margaret Thatcher would have fared against the Argentine leader during the whole Falklands todo?

Margaret Thatcher was a man without a dick. Such bitterness makes for a substantial apponent.

JFDL

:1orglaugh

Why should countries that don't give their citizens the right to vote (or who only let them vote for one candidate), have a vote in world events?

Until recent history, most leaders were military leaders. This changed in the renaissance as changes in society and techological changes required a leader that was more than just a good warrior. These days putting a leader on a battle field would be foolish, wars are more about command and control and logistics than slugging it out in hand to hand combat in the trenches.