This is powerful, brings back some feelings.
- Thread starter MRWSM
- Start date
You're a fucking redneck.
Quote from FasterPussycat:
oh BULLSHIT!
your as harmless as a toothless heel hound..
your scared of your own shadow for christ sakes.. lol
There is no problem in life that cannot be solved by the suitable application of high explosives.
51% sweetheart, 49% bitch.....don't push me!
Ask Bob, when I am pissed, even he is scared of me.
I never thought I was not capable of revenge.
Surprised you think I am PussyCat. Works to my advantage.
(maniacal laughter)
So I take you're suggesting hummer-loving philanderer in office again?
What amazes me most about bungrider and those who think like him is that the USA has been attacked roughly a dozen times in the last twenty years by Islamic militants and when we finally respond we're called "arrogant" and "wreckless." We're accused of "pre-emptive" strikes, which is the biggest lie of them all. What's pre-emptive about attacking an enemy that has declared you a target? And now they say that we have to wait until North Korea strikes (and they will), only this time instead of losing the WTC, we'll lose Seoul or Tokyo or maybe L.A. Where's the sense in this? Do you guys keep your doors unlocked and invite the criminals in for tea and cookies, hoping that if you're nice enough and open a "dialogue" that they won't rob you? Because that's what we're dealing with, criminals. If you, for a second, seriously compare Bush, or any US president, with any of these tyrants in thought, deed, or morals, you are, to quote Hitchens, a moral idiot as well an intellectual idiot. That's not to say there is no room for criticism of the administration or US in general but the blind and hate-filled rhetoric that you and others espouse is simply abhorrent and does nothing to further the dialogue. Okay, if you think pre-emptive strikes against North Korea won't work, what will? We tried negotiations and bribes. They didn't work. MORE negotiations and bribes? Keep them happy for a decade or two and make it the next generation's problem? The problem with sweeping your troubles under the carpet is that you eventually have a pretty lumpy carpet. Personally I'd love to live in a world with no war and no conflict but we don't. There are rogues and criminals and dictators and we have to deal with them. The US is in no way the source of the problem. Let me repeat that -- the US of A is in NO way the source of the current problem. We've been chosen to deal with terrorism and we had better resolve ourselves to deal with it completely.
No one's going to mistake this thread for a Johns Hopkins School of International Affairs seminar, that's for sure. The issue of should we or shouldn't we take out the North Korean threat just won't go away however, as fervently as everyone involved wishes it will.
Experience tells us that KymarFye is correct when he says there is no way we'll launch a preemptive nuclear strike. Can you even imagine the reaction of the UN, France, Germany et al if we did?
The other consideration is, what other options do we have? The South Koreans will never approve a ground attack. Much of their population has lost the will to resist after decades of freeloading behind the US security shield, much as europe had by the '80's. Any kind of ground attack would also expose our troops to tremendous losses from North Korean artillery, missiles and possibly nuclear weapons. A non-nuclear air or missile attack on the North would be unlikely to destroy hardened facilities or prevent an extremely destructive counterstrike at the South.
As politicians dither however, the North continues its nuclear program. What will we do when they start threatening Japan , South Korea and our west coast with dozens of nuclear-tipped missiles, and market such weapons to all comers? The Israeli's faced such a choice when they decided to take out Saddam's nuclear capabilities in the early '80's. They weathered tremendous criticism at the time, but we were awfully grateful a few years later.
Experience tells us that KymarFye is correct when he says there is no way we'll launch a preemptive nuclear strike. Can you even imagine the reaction of the UN, France, Germany et al if we did?
The other consideration is, what other options do we have? The South Koreans will never approve a ground attack. Much of their population has lost the will to resist after decades of freeloading behind the US security shield, much as europe had by the '80's. Any kind of ground attack would also expose our troops to tremendous losses from North Korean artillery, missiles and possibly nuclear weapons. A non-nuclear air or missile attack on the North would be unlikely to destroy hardened facilities or prevent an extremely destructive counterstrike at the South.
As politicians dither however, the North continues its nuclear program. What will we do when they start threatening Japan , South Korea and our west coast with dozens of nuclear-tipped missiles, and market such weapons to all comers? The Israeli's faced such a choice when they decided to take out Saddam's nuclear capabilities in the early '80's. They weathered tremendous criticism at the time, but we were awfully grateful a few years later.
Great points, but I think you may be confusing my point of view with others.
Fact is, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, but what I don't support is the "bomb 'em and leave 'em" attitude of W. The problem is that Afghanistan is in a state of chaos right now and is being controlled by warlords and lacks a democratic, stable government that would prevent another 9/11 in the future. W seems to have all the answers when it comes to fighting, simply because he has the world's best military and the best military advisors, but now we've got the same situation in Afghanistan that produced the Taliban's bloodthirst as we did 20 years ago.
The war with Iraq was unnecessary, at least at this point in time. Everyone got mad about clinton lying about a blowjob, but aren't you mad about W lying about the WMD's being there and ready to go? That was a lie, too. And alot of people died because of that lie. What happened with clinton's lie? Republicans took it as an opportunity to spend $70million of the taxpayer's money in a big publicity stunt. Now which party is on your side fiscally? Certainly not the republicans.
Regardless of who lied about what, the economy could not support the war with Iraq, and now we are paying the price for it. What it could support was a continued policy of containment and selective extermination of al-queda and other terrorists crossing the Iraqi border. In the meantime, Afghanistan should have been the main focus. But now afghanistan and iraq are both in total states of chaos.
It seems that W is really good at the easy part, which is kicking the shit out of armies that really can't hope to fight us, and that's fine, but without any idea of the long term implications of such a policy, all he's doing is wasting money and driving us further into recession. He's plugging the little holes in the dam, but over time there will be more unless he can focus his attention long enough to rebuild those dams. He doesn't care about the long term. All he cares about is the oil companies and his own popularity, and face it, Americans LOVE war. And that is SICK. All you fuckos who love war have obviously never been in one.
As for North Korea, it's pretty widely accepted that KSI's bullshit with the nuclear program is a ploy to get attention and increased aid from the US. And frankly, just like I said about Iraq, I don't give a shit about what he does to his people. It's not my problem that they do not live free, nor should I be forced to pay for their freedom. There are at least 50 countries that endure similar governments as north korea, and until I see any consistency in the Bush policy towards those other countries, I simply will not buy the argument "we need to bomb that country, because such-and-such is a bad guy who tortures his own people." In the long run, I firmly believe that such policies only produce more terror and require more spending to deal with them.
The first priority should be the economy and any immediate threats to security. Let the UN and the rest of the world decide what to do about north korea. If the UN tells them no more nuclear program and they still continue, then let's kick the shit out of them. But no more of this made-up evidence.
Fact is, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, but what I don't support is the "bomb 'em and leave 'em" attitude of W. The problem is that Afghanistan is in a state of chaos right now and is being controlled by warlords and lacks a democratic, stable government that would prevent another 9/11 in the future. W seems to have all the answers when it comes to fighting, simply because he has the world's best military and the best military advisors, but now we've got the same situation in Afghanistan that produced the Taliban's bloodthirst as we did 20 years ago.
The war with Iraq was unnecessary, at least at this point in time. Everyone got mad about clinton lying about a blowjob, but aren't you mad about W lying about the WMD's being there and ready to go? That was a lie, too. And alot of people died because of that lie. What happened with clinton's lie? Republicans took it as an opportunity to spend $70million of the taxpayer's money in a big publicity stunt. Now which party is on your side fiscally? Certainly not the republicans.
Regardless of who lied about what, the economy could not support the war with Iraq, and now we are paying the price for it. What it could support was a continued policy of containment and selective extermination of al-queda and other terrorists crossing the Iraqi border. In the meantime, Afghanistan should have been the main focus. But now afghanistan and iraq are both in total states of chaos.
It seems that W is really good at the easy part, which is kicking the shit out of armies that really can't hope to fight us, and that's fine, but without any idea of the long term implications of such a policy, all he's doing is wasting money and driving us further into recession. He's plugging the little holes in the dam, but over time there will be more unless he can focus his attention long enough to rebuild those dams. He doesn't care about the long term. All he cares about is the oil companies and his own popularity, and face it, Americans LOVE war. And that is SICK. All you fuckos who love war have obviously never been in one.
As for North Korea, it's pretty widely accepted that KSI's bullshit with the nuclear program is a ploy to get attention and increased aid from the US. And frankly, just like I said about Iraq, I don't give a shit about what he does to his people. It's not my problem that they do not live free, nor should I be forced to pay for their freedom. There are at least 50 countries that endure similar governments as north korea, and until I see any consistency in the Bush policy towards those other countries, I simply will not buy the argument "we need to bomb that country, because such-and-such is a bad guy who tortures his own people." In the long run, I firmly believe that such policies only produce more terror and require more spending to deal with them.
The first priority should be the economy and any immediate threats to security. Let the UN and the rest of the world decide what to do about north korea. If the UN tells them no more nuclear program and they still continue, then let's kick the shit out of them. But no more of this made-up evidence.
You donât honor the dead by entertaining such emotional gobbledygook â you honor them by right livelihood.
More than just a bit extreme wouldn't [even] you say!
Of course, it is a fairly straightforward job to argue -- especially for non-Americans -- that (by far) the biggest 'rogue nation' in the world today is the US, so obviously AAA in -- {yawn} -- yet another case of American double-standardism doesn't intend for the standard of 'threat' warranting 'pre-emption' to apply to the US.
I don't know about you guys, but think it mighty strange for someone who claims to have been an adult during the 70s' oil embargo to still be espousing such extremist views as AAA does -- you know, you figure they'd have developed the ability to at least pretend to understand opposing points of view by now.
We can only hope AAA's influence on the beltway is limited to parking meter legislation.