Saddam captured, is bush happy?

[homenerd]

Pardon the news ticker look-alike, the big question is still, whats Bush next step in his war against all countries that bug him.

My best guess would be Korea, because they are supposed to have some sort of nuclear missile.
Bush: "This is a threat against the American people, will you help us"
World: "NO!!"
Bush: right... Let me just get my little notebook,
(*Writes a bit*)
Bush: Norway, France, Sudan, Iceland, Slovakia, ok, i'll go against you next.

Do you think this is Bush playing strategy games with the world? Lemme hear some debate, people!

[TheWakingDeath]

Korea? certaintly not, you silly boy! Korea won't try shit with China lumbering over them and as long as we continue to ignore Chinese human rights violations, and buy all their products, China will be our friend. besides if Korea really was a threat, bush would never dare take them on because they DO have the LRBM capabilities to attack the white house. i wouldn't expect george to be saying "bring it on !" to kim jong illin' and our soldiers would be hunkered down for a loooong ass war with a much better equipped army than iraq has. i think he'll go for some small middle eastern country again, he loves that big arab sandbox. there have been talks about invading syria.

[homenerd]

Yes, good thinking...
A big country like korea... of course Bush would be afraid...
Syria, eh? well, i guess that would be next.
"They just... ehm...uhm... MOVED, thats right, they MOVED the chemical warfare missiles to Syria"

And so it goes, until all the middle west is called United Western of America... Would someone get Mr. Bush a computer game or something?

[bumcheekcity]

At 12/15/03 03:38 PM, homenerd wrote: Would someone get Mr. Bush a computer game or something?

He's got one. it's called "Age of Empires" I think thats the problem.

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

bumcheekcity is so right. The level of debate in this place has really plumeted.

[Matty233]

He's got one. it's called "Age of Empires" I think thats the problem.

Yes, it's sad but true. Bush has turned the world into his own personal Risk board. It's terrorism, plain and simple. He's not getting rid of weapons of mass destruction at all, or he'd be going against China, who has more than two nuclear devices (eg. Iraq) so Bush picks off the weaker countries. And he gets the oil, too. Even if Americans have seen no profits, oil will come. Not to the Iraqi people as promised, but to the americans, who drive to work, one person to a car.

[D2Kvirus]

WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION???

Then again, I suppose he can pick and choose who he deems to be the best person for the job of leading Iraq to glory while simultaniously kow-towing US wants and desires.

Wait, wasn't that the problem with the last Iraqi President?

[TheWakingDeath]

oh, those weapons are buried somewhere in the desert where we shall never find them. but don't you worry your little head, the republicans will just say "just because we didn't find them doesn't mean they aren't there!" and everything will be right
his cabinet almost makes up for his stupidity. by saying there were weapons in iraq, somewhere, they essentially created a win/win situation for themselves. if they dont' find them, they can't be held accountable cuz iraq is so big and has so much sand to hide them under. and if they do find them, then bush get's reelected for making a lucky guess. woopie.

so that was the problem with the last president? so what? past instances can't POSSIBLY predict future ones. otherwise we;d just ignore them, and we could never ignore HISTORY, even if we DID fail it in college. i wonder who they WILL apoint? i'm pulling for Santorum, he will be able to convert those evil muslims into good christians, and he's just as tyranical as the last one

[D2Kvirus]

At 12/16/03 12:19 PM, Izuamoto wrote:
so that was the problem with the last president? so what? past instances can't POSSIBLY predict future ones. otherwise we;d just ignore them, and we could never ignore HISTORY, even if we DID fail it in college. i wonder who they WILL apoint? i'm pulling for Santorum, he will be able to convert those evil muslims into good christians, and he's just as tyranical as the last one

I probably mentioned this before (or was it elsewhere while banned for hurting Jimswhine's feelings?), that after WWI, the might of the British Empire decided to babysit Iraq to keep things simmering as opposed to boiling over, and guess what happened? Eventually, the consensus was that Iraq is too big to Govern, so instead a better idea was thought up: building Wembley Stadium to divert the attentions of the masses with the typical "bread and circuses" routine.

OK, I made that last part up slightly (just a coincidence), but Blair's doing it, and I haven't had a dig at him all bleedin' day. Mostly as he's been ominously quiet...

[NEMESiSZ]

Global security isn't a matter of one man's vendettas. Saddam was a threat to his neighbors, and to the United States, and you'd find very few willing to defend him. France, Germany, and Russia all extracted numerous trade concessions from Iraq, which is why they didn't support the war, as for the protestors...they're just angry we don't have an eloquent yet impotent liberal president like clinton - I didn't hear them complaining when Clinton unilaterally invaded the balkans...twice.

North Korea is a different kind of threat than Iraq was.

[D2Kvirus]

At 12/17/03 09:52 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Global security isn't a matter of one man's vendettas. Saddam was a threat to his neighbors, and to the United States, and you'd find very few willing to defend him. France, Germany, and Russia all extracted numerous trade concessions from Iraq, which is why they didn't support the war, as for the protestors...they're just angry we don't have an eloquent yet impotent liberal president like clinton - I didn't hear them complaining when Clinton unilaterally invaded the balkans...twice.

'Course not. That's never happened in history at any point between the Greeks and Romans to The Falklands War anywhere at all. Not once.

How was Iraq a threat to the United States? It's well out of the range of any missile launched from anywhere in Iraq, and it isn't like the army could just march into LA without being noticed and/or drowned in the Pacific. Heyt, ever think that people are defending the Iraqis, who never seemed to be considered at any point?

Take a potshot at the protesters, but forget they were protesting about Kosovo, and that maybe they aren't all a bunch of deluded Democrats that are still pissed that Gore didn't get in by polling higher than Bush.

There isn't a liberal agenda at work trying to undermine all of your hard work, Nemmy, it's just that you're too near sighted and blinkered to rationalise the variables.

Besides, we all know what wussies the French are, which is why they didn't bother turning up, and the Germans lose wars all the time...

North Korea is a different kind of threat than Iraq was.

Yes. They have Weapons of Mass Destruction (sold to them by Rumsfeld), and couldn't launch a missile into American airspace no matter how hard they tried. Oh, but the US never really funded Kim Jong-Il, since he's too Commie for them. Better arm andfund Israel instead, since nothing could go wrong there.

[NEMESiSZ]

I'm really amazed by your inability to make any sense, and in effect, invent your own facts.

Sorry history didn't work out for you, liberal, care to give english a shot instead?

[D2Kvirus]

At 12/17/03 10:07 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: I'm really amazed by your inability to make any sense, and in effect, invent your own facts.

Sorry history didn't work out for you, liberal, care to give english a shot instead?

So you ran out of material already? And please learn that the term "Liberal" isn't an insult - just like me calling you an ill-informed, polemicised jackass isn't an insult, it's a base fact.

Care to actually relate to what's posted, rather than attempting to shoot down what you can't accept of agree with? If not, why bother posting?

[NEMESiSZ]

I would, but you didn't really say anything, just that you disagreed with me, and for some reason, that makes me automatically incorrect.

Then you made some stuff up about Korea..

[D2Kvirus]

At 12/17/03 10:13 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote:
Then you made some stuff up about Korea..

You mean this? None of which is in any way related to this.

Yes, I made it up, and you have found me out. Curse you, Liberal agenda!!!

[NEMESiSZ]

..and that equates to Rumsfeld selling North Korea nuclear weaponry..how?

[NEMESiSZ]

At 12/17/03 11:25 AM, D2KVirus wrote: You mean this? None of which is in any way related to this.

What you've done would be similar to calling Clinton an international drug lord because he admitted to using marijuana.

..but hey, that's the liberal way - when you have nothing to go on, grasp for straws.

[D2Kvirus]

So at no point was Bush stating that, as North Korea had a nuclear power program, they were also comissioning "nuculer" weapons? Damn, when did you last watch the news or, better yet, take a few notes?

So, to wrap up what you missed due to blinker-related issues: North Korea did have a nuclear power program, which was started as Rumsfeld was involved in selling them the reactor. Hmm. I know this might not make any sense, and be grasping at so many straws, but for people that aren't subscribing to the "one mind, one opinion" ideal, I'd say I've made my point. That word again, "point."