| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77
Comments:
<0> by 2010
<1> So what don' forget we have so many nukes the soviet union agreed to scale back with us.
<2> "It's not a real country anyway!"
<0> however they do it
<3> Now there's a cause Americans can rally around...
<4> Where is this "We will not nuke Iran" peice at?
<5> sintient1, i'm not mad. we want other countries to fear us
<4> cause I'd like to see it
<6> sandB, who said that?
<3> The problem is 90% of Canada's population is within a couple hundred miles of the US border, so we'll get some of the radiation blowing this way.
<2> DiscoTaco: And killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians isn't nasty business?
<2> DiscoTaco: Just to clear things up, that's exactly what's happening in Iraq.
<4> TheTaiIor, `426-Hemi and Publius
<7> Canada's new president Stephen Harper has demanded that the USA not violate its territorial waters in the North eastern arctic
<2> `426-Hemi: ******inate him!
<3> Armon: it's a bit less messy than nuking, don't you think? Or are you truly that incapable of understanding distinctions, scale and proportion?
<0> its all a broadway musical
<0> they will fight..then resolve
<2> DiscoTaco: Well, yeah.
<6> sandB, I don't think anything is off the table, but we can takd Iraq out without nukes.
<2> DiscoTaco: Fair enough.
<7> sandB, I just HEARD it on Rush Limbaugh, ON the radio
<6> sandB, easily.
<8> If America had not been around the past 100 years, we'd be all living in third world countries right now, burying loads of dead bodies
<2> DiscoTaco: It's a catastrophy either way and requires better justification than anything the Bush administration has laid out.
<7> because i can not provide you with the INTERNET NEWS article doesn't mean it doesn't exist
<4> TheTaiIor, I guess Bush was on Rush saying so
<9> I think we should nuke Andorra....pesky little bastards might be up to something
<5> TheTaiIor, but it will be expensive
<1> Didn't nuke vietnam...
<0> um..the bush admin dosent need justification
<5> bombs cost a lot of miney
<0> they are above the law
<2> Red_Barch: First of all, you don't know. Second, you're American so you're the last one able to judge that. Third, you're not the only free and democratic nation on Earth.
<5> money
<2> Red_Barch: Fourth, Europe isn't Nazi Germany.
<7> sandB, it was a press conference that was held over the weekend apparently
<3> Armon: the fact is it no longer matters what justification the administration lays out. The opposition is committed to opposing him no matter what -- but only after they first concurred with the justifications.
<6> panini, the money goes back into the economy
<5> no
<5> that's a fallacy
<6> panini, and so what, it's only money
<4> `426-Hemi, I heard Bush say the attack on Iran was "wild speculation"
<2> DiscoTaco: Maybe you come across people that just hate Bush because they like to hate people. I hate him because of his behaviour in the international scene.
<4> thats about it
<10> how does it go back into the economy? :P
<5> yeah, but it's MY money
<7> http://story.news.ask.com//article/20060410/D8GT8GJO1.html <--- here you go sandB
<4> `426-Hemi, werd
<2> DiscoTaco: There's just a limit to how much killing I can justify before someone becomes the bad guy.
<6> panini, it's not a fallacy, the bombs are made here and it's not only your money.
<0> On Friday evening in Olympia, former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter appeared with journalist Dahr Jamail. -- Ritter made two shocking claims: George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and the U.S. manipulated the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq....
<0> url anyone
<7> sandB they won't actually quote what i heard
<0> ?
<11> Again, I see only folly in hating him.
<2> Tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Imagine 9/11. Multiply that by 10. What justifies that?
<11> What does hating Bush do for you ?
<11> I never hated clinton
<11> I disliked him
<2> You'd have to stop 10 9/11s to justify the war in Iraq.
<11> I never hated him.
<10> we spend 100 million building something, and then blow it up, how does that go back into the economy?
<11> How is hate rational or productive ?
<3> Armon: Then I'm sure you've spent plenty of energy directing your dispisal toward the people who are doing most of the actual killing, namely the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq.
<7> he specifically came out and said "Nuking Iran is out of the question, and is what was printed this weekend was wild speculation. Its a common problem in Washington"
<2> Freed0m: Fair enough, despise his presidency.
<12> I thought Scott Ritter was arrested for meeting a 14 year old girl in NY for ***
<10> i doubt they paid the employees that built it the same amount as it cost to manufacture
<13> Armon who's gonna stand up to spreading islamofascism
<0> i think that new zealand had something to do with 9-11...they harbor wmds..and terrorists..ATTACK
<2> DiscoTaco: As was expected would happen before the invasion, but ignored on the grounds that you were fighting the War on Terror, a war that seems to justify everything America wants to do internationally.
<7> hahahaha vapor
<10> its a net loss
<6> bud`, Iceland is!
<7> freakin sheep boofers!
<2> bud`: I don't know, but sure as **** not America.
<6> Armon, you are quite the dreamer
<13> Armon oh... wow. I coulda swore just a few years ago Afghanistan protected terrorists and imprisoned women.
<7> vapor, in New Zealand they play catch the sheep instead of baseball, thats why kids run around with autographed velcro gloves
<0> lol
<7> not only that but it cuts down on *********ion
<11> Ahh just looked at the news and polls, So bush dropped one more percent, big deal, within the margin of error that may not be a drop at all.
<4> `426-Hemi, ppppffftt ahahahahaha. This means nothing. The only way I will believe Bush does not have plans to drop bunker buster nukes ok Iran is if he says "We are not going to drop nukes on Iran" and after his leak is not a leak scandal I don't think Bush has any credibility.
<0> do they have rodeos too?
<0> GNOYMS!
<6> sandB, well sure, but you live in a dream.
<7> "Velcro gloves" The Cure for Penile Snake Burns"
<6> bunker buster nukes :-)
<7> i bet i could make millions on that
<4> TheTaiIor, I say the same about the Bush loyalist in here
<11> sandB, The Seymour Hersch story is eqivalent to a story in the National Enquirer, Aliens seen at McDonalds ordering big macs!
<7> WOAH I GOT IT!
<3> Armon: yes, I get it. ****ty evil people are blowing up other people who are trying to form a consentual government. And it's America's fault, not the actuall killers' fault.
<7> I could buy stock in Viagra
<11> He is occ***ionally right, but not reliable.
<6> sandB, nobody is talking about bunker buster nukes but you.
<7> and then invent the velcro *********ion preventer
<10> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/27/immigration.glance.ap/
<3> Just as the post-WWII insurgencies in Germany and Japan were America's fault.
<10> whats wrong with frists proposal
<0> Seymour Hersh: Israeli Agents Operating in Iraq, Iran and Syria
<7> have you taken viagra and are having an erection for longer than 4 hours? Try this new prevention tool....
<11> Also Bush has denied it vehemently in the near future. But yes he is right, The Pentagon for 30 years has been drawing plans and updating them based on a war in Iran, thats what the Pentagon does.. It does what if scenarios and plans to respond to the what ifs.
<7> for 29.95$
<12> There were Nazi Insurgannats in Germany blowing stuff up years after WW2
<5> a pic of hillary clinton?
<13> Seymour Hersh: American Troops Sodomize young Iraqi children... followed by correction, well I didnt mean to say that!
<4> Freed0m, This a bush tactic to discredit Seymour Hersch who originally reported that broke the story on Abu Ghraib
<7> oh man i meant $29.95
<7> sorry Tailor=(
<13> sandB you're honestly defending that piece of ****? he's notorious for having to correct his bull****
<11> I am sure the Pentagon has 10 plans on dealing with Iran, Maybe even 1 with tactical nukes which arent dangerous over a large area and they would be used in non populous areas, but frankly I dont think BUsh or any president would want to open up another Pandoras box by using a nuke, no matter how limited the nuke is.
<3> Freed0m: The Pentagon get flak for forming contingency plans, at the same time they are also getting flak for NOT having a plan in Iraq. What's a bureaucrat to do?
<7> Tailor, I am trying, i went to smoke a cigarette outside and ran back in to correct myself
<10> the pro-immigrant people want to p*** amnesty without addressing border security
<7> +) hhaha
<14> Their is little chance they will use nukes....that is the exact reason there is so much work going on bunker busters
<11> DiscoTaco, Its insane. People dont seem to understand the Pentagons job.. There job is to play war games. and plan future wars. We all hope these wars dont happen but we have to be prepared.
<7> FT, well, the speculation is , using low grade nuclear tipped bunker busters
<11> And we did use a Pentagon Plan for Iraq, People disagreed with the various plans is all.
<15> My name is Michael.
<7> which we already employ
<11> They didnt like the plan we picked, or Bush picked.
<12> Nukes are safe, over 2000 above ground nuke tests upwind from America...and look no cancer!!
<7> but thats just 1 and i stress 1111111 plan
<11> Hersch is way ahead of the facts or reality.
<12> Only cigarettes cause cancer, Nukes are safe
<7> Hersch broke the Abu Ghraib story
<16> kinder, gentlier, nuclear arms
<7> so everyone believes he is right
<7> ohh Hersch is credible!
<3> Actually, the U.S. Army broke the Abu Ghraib story.
<4> `426-Hemi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh
<7> he broke the Koran toilet flushing in Abu Ghraib
<11> Although to be honest I think it helps a little bit if Iran is unsure what we will do and nutballs like Hersh spreading rumors might possibly even have some positive effects, I dont know.
<3> The media didn't become interested until pictures came out.
<7> which never happened, and I am going on what people have said in here
<16> that was newsweak and korans, tiolets, and Gitmo
<7> I don't give a **** about seymour hersh myself, the name itself is stupid
<17> I knew that one was false right away
<7> SEE more Hearse
<7> give me a brak
<17> books don't flush too well
<7> the guys a whack
<18> http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/white-house-security-scare/2006/04/10/1144521237138.html
<5> seymour hersh caused the death of many muslims
<13> sandB the fact he cannot ever seem to name one source should be enough to make you ponder for a minute.
<3> Hersch's articles on Abu Ghraib first ran in May. The Army publicly disclosed the investigation in March. So it's kind of fatuous to claim Hersch broke the story.
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#dreamweaver
#linuxhelp
#delphi
#beginner
hellboundhacker answers
Bruteforcing Photobucket
#computers
what does plesk mean?
subtract and jump if negative
#windows
|
|