Originally posted by jsobecky
It still doesn't qualify as an "attack", does it?
Oh...excuse me, an intervention
, does that sound nicer? My point was the meddling in others politics
this I proved...
Not sure I understand this one. Are you saying that NK didn't launch missiles?
Oh, I can help you out on this one...If I stated exploding in mid-air
it might be kinda obvious they must
The fact that they exploded in mid-air is irrelevant. The intent is what matters.
Sure it matters...nevertheless you must not forget they don't work well
more so, they are not advanced by any
and could not be possibly compared to the threat Soviet ICBMS were. Again point proven, since Bush wants the world to think NK is a threat to
, as the Soviet ICBMS were
. NK is not a threat to everyone...sorry
Been discussed on ATS ad nauseum. And taking the word of an Iraqi FM? Riiiight!
Over Bush? If a dog could speak and give you his word, it would be more valid than Bush's. Fact is, if your own
you there were no
wmds...the UN told you there were no
wmds...then that makes lies
out of what Bush said...point
Recent is relative. And they did a lot of damage.
I did not say they didn't, yet "burned down" Paris is a bit too much.
Tougher than John "Put it to a global test" Kerry.
Well, I can't say I agree with Kerry on that or that it could have been done...yet I still think it would have been better for the US to
have elected him over BUsh. Point was...Bush tries to scare it's people at every chance he has, you said no, because US citizens are
"tough"...it's not about toughness, but how much fear the government tries to show them, to pressure them into supporting some whacky ideas Bush
Yep. If Israel was lying, they would have lied for a reason, like to restart full-scale hostilities. But they didn't.
could have just lied not to seem foolish, or untrustworthy. My point was, neither Israel or Hezbollah have real credibility. Israel says it killed 800
militia, while Hezbollah claims 100 and vice versa.
I know who he is. And suffice it to say, he would not have been so deeply concerned over Hezbollah's infractions.
Glad you know who he is, so you know as well he would not
make such a statement lightly.
Most tough decisions are black or white. Appeasement for all sides is sometimes the worst option.
The worst option? Would it be that bad for both sides to stop the deaths, and allow each other to prosper? Sorry, but I really differ on that
Mideast peace is not a stupid cause. I don't know what qualifies as a good cause to you, but I have an idea.
Lol...but see, Middle
East is not what would motivate US intervention. It would be Bush's agenda...that qualifies as incredibly stupid, and not worth the life of a single
man of your country. Hell, a single fly...
Keep trying to pin everything on the US and Israel. It's not working. And "arresting the "terrorists", or anyone for the case that might
oppose the US staying" is pure exaggeration, with no basis, and the mark of a person who is out of ammunition.
Mmm...trying to pin? No, you might try to see it whatever way you want, yet you said I would call it an agression, and I stated,
Originally posted by ME! I would have no reason to...unless of course that meant US decides to stick around as in Iraq, and "rebuild"
the country, and arresting the "terrorists", or anyone for the case that might oppose the US staying, and send them to Gto...instead of just
upholding the ceasefire...
That is, only IF the US decided to do such things. Exaggeration? Tell that to the people you hold without trial or
charges in Guantanamo
, as well as secret prisons in Eastern Europe and Middle Eastern US allies...ok?