[Styxx]

Originally posted by CP5670
The B2 is more likely to get him though while taking less damage than the soldiers would.

Only if you do extensive bombing, what is obviously not being done. And he's probably very far away from there anyway - most certainly inside the US - it's not like any of us would be able to recognize him if he shaved his beard off anyway.

[CP5670]

I think I remember seeing some pictures of him without a beard somewhere, maybe on the Interpol website; he did look quite different.

Cp ,.. ummm WTC = World Trade Center would be my guess.

lol yes I know that; what I wasn't sure about is whether he was talking about the victims or the assailants.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by CP5670
I think I remember seeing some pictures of him without a beard somewhere, maybe on the Interpol website; he did look quite different.

Yeah, but would you recognize him in the streets if you passed by him? I know I wouldn't.

[Stunaep]

so the US goverment is working towards minimizing the risk of terrorism in general, but also the risk of terrorists/ hostile governments acquiring the bomb.

Meanwhile they themselves wish to enlarge the nuclear power, refrain from doing something about the global environmental problems (c'mon, they could have attended the Johannesburg conference), which, for the most part are their fault (the US uses roughly 70% of the worlds oil products and power). Bush cares for noone but his fellow americans. But for the only superpower in the world, as the US has been dubbed, that is just WRONG. It's the 'apres moi, la deluge' mentality that is destroying this world, and if anyone should care about it, then it should be the US. There are 5,7 million other people in the world as well.

[edit] BILLION, 5,7 Billion other people.

[Razor]

Originally posted by Pegasus V
Everyone I talk to thinks the President of the United States of America is an idiot.  

Bingo! I bet that even if HemaroidFrogButt (from the VBB) would give him an ultimatum, Bush would wet his pants and do whatever he was told to!

By the way, did you know taht his IQ is below average? No wounder since he grew up on a ranch in Texas.
Bush: Hey ma! Bring me that bucket to milk them cows!

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Razor


Bingo! I bet that even if HemaroidFrogButt (from the VBB) would give him an ultimatum, Bush would wet his pants and do whatever he was told to!

By the way, did you know taht his IQ is below average? No wounder since he grew up on a ranch in Texas.
Bush: Hey ma! Bring me that bucket to milk them cows!

So we've now devulged into slandering person based on which state they were born ? ?

And ppl wonder why the world's going to hell.

If you hate a man ... hate him for being HIM .... not his race, relgion, locality, or other such bull****.

[Razor]

What? Are you telling me that i should love a man who can practically decide when he will annihilate me? You silly fool! No one loves the person that is "all powerfull". And by the way, if Bush continues the way he started, he will bring America to hell! The only thing he is capable of is doing the most elmental things for a human being, not to lead a country of some 200 million people or so.

[Warlock]

Ummmm ok now let's try reading what I actually posted k ?

[aldo_14]

(hesitates to bring up topic)

Bush - I think he's just undereducated for the job.  I don't see him as a great statesman or diplomat, but merely a reactionary.  he also seems vastly self centred, caring little for world opinion over Iraq, and not giving a damn about the effects of US pollution (possibly due to his oil background)... I think he'd maybe be a decent governor, but I doubt he has the capacity to act sensibly or 'properly' within the whole world context.

I'd have to agree with Stunaeps feelings on this whole environmental issue, and I think Powell (SP?) got off lightly at the Earth Summit.

Blair - Bush's lapdog, to be honest.  He seems obsessed with public image, and has done little, to me, to actually improve the UK.  I don't see him as anything other than a shallow self publiciser.

[Zeronet]

You'd think that, but Blair was instrumental in getting the US to go the UN road of getting inspectors in.

[beatspete]

George Bush... from Texas... big export of Texas: oil... kyoto agreement wants to cut use of oil.... so bush doesnt sign up.  Simple.

I don't like bush at all.  It call him names for a bit here, but that wouldnt achive much.



And as for Tony Blair: he's ok as a PM, he just hangs about George Bush to much, and tries to be to goodie goodie with america instead of payying more attention to the views of the EU and the UN.  Margret Thatcher would have sorted out Iraq in the time i take to finish this sentence...

[Nico]

well, Tatcher did well in some cases, and bad in others. That pretty sums up most politicians.

[beatspete]

Originally posted by venom2506
well, Tatcher did well in some cases, and bad in others. That pretty sums up most politicians.

True...




thats all i have to say

[CODEDOG ND]

Originally posted by aldo_14
(hesitates to bring up topic)

caring little for world opinion over Iraq, and not giving a damn

In world you mean the UN's opinion?

UN has 16 international laws against Iraq none of them are enforced.  US wants to go in and enforce them.  The UN says no you can't because we don't approve.  Well the UN won't enforce the resolution that was signed in 1991 and by international law it does gives another country a right to go in and enforce the laws.
If the speed limit is 70 and nobody enforces it most people will being doing 100.  The whole basis of his speech to the UN was to do their ****ing job.  If not then the US will enforce the resolution alone period.  The UN is full of empty words and has no legitamit force to deal with.  Even in Korea, 1 out of 10 soldiers were not for the US, and you call that a UN coalition?

[Knight Templar]

so what the hell is up with that? if the UN doesn't enforce any oft their laws, then why do they have them?

[CODEDOG ND]

because they are a joke

[NegspectahDek]

Originally posted by venom2506


then send a few snipers, not the friggin army. And let them decide the next move, its their own country, not yours.

technically, specifically targeting leaders in war is against the geneva convention

[phreak]

Nobody follows that either.  Iraq is a perfect example: use of chemical weapons.

Under a US Executive Order enacted in the 70s by Gerald Ford (i think), we can't assassinate a foreign in leader in peacetime, but in wartime, all bets are off

oh and Codedog, 1 of every 50 soldiers in korea wasn't american.  it worked out that the "UN" force was ~98% american.


i'd love to see what reagan would have done in this situation.

[CP5670]

Remember, no sensible national leader will or should act in the interest of the entire world, but only the interests of the people of his particular nation.

And the UN laws, or any laws for that matter, really mean nothing unless they are enforceable.

[Knight Templar]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/805226.asp?pne=msn&cp1=1

so bush is basically gonna piss off the entire world (save his "faldero" Blair and israel) jus to remove Saddam. you've all heard this before... but if u shoot him, one of his lil buddies will take charge next, and so on. You'd need to get rid of the entire army.

i don't have a lot of time lately so i haven't been able to read EVERYTHING but am i correct in assuming that basically we want to kill him because he could have weapons hidning under his bed, but won't let us look?

I am by no means saying that Saddam is a good guy, but , i would probably do the same if i were a evil, tyrannical, pyschopathic leader, i would probably do the same. Generally, i think bush is lookin for some nuts to break since we haven't found Osama's corpse. Personally i am also pissed that he isn't dead/confirmed dead but w/e.

didn't the us end up creating the taliban last time they tried to topple a evil regime?

correct me if i am wrong, as always, most of this is before my time and i have a lot of reading to catch up on