babnik Posted September 7, 2003 Posted September 7, 2003 Almost 20 years ago, George P. Shultz, as Reagan's secretary of state, gave a speech warning that America would have to make pre-emptive intervention against terrorist threats on the basis of evidence that would be less than clear. prognosticator? uh yah Quote
babnik Posted September 7, 2003 Author Posted September 7, 2003 Hmm. my question right now is: what the war pre-emptive in nature or was it strictly to oust a problematic regime? I think this is as important as whether or not we were told the truth abotu WMD and it also can make the aforementioned quote irrelevant. Quote
babnik Posted September 7, 2003 Author Posted September 7, 2003 one other thing i thought to be interesting. why wont we touch north korea? because they have nukes. 'why' did we enter iraq? bause they 'had' them. interesting parallel. Quote
allthumbs Posted September 7, 2003 Posted September 7, 2003 My opinion is that N. Korea is too unpredictable to fuck with. Even though the homo that runs that country knows if he ever lobs a nuke at us, we'll turn his country into a glass parking lot, I think he's crazy enuf. to do it anyway. Truly a scary sumbitch. He definitely needs to be erased...where's Arnold when we need him? Quote
babnik Posted September 7, 2003 Author Posted September 7, 2003 i think the more likely threat would be to s. korea or japan or another such nation. but this is an argument against a pre-emptie strike yah? i doubt if we went after n korea hard and fast, they would still be capable of touching us, but some of their neighbors? that is much more likely. it is hard to argue though that n. korea needs some ahem "restructuring." if you wanna talk human rights violations, WMD and pollitical instability, there it is. what is the death toll in n. korea for hunger alone? 2-3 million? Quote
babnik Posted September 7, 2003 Author Posted September 7, 2003 what do you think the U.S.'s relationship is gonna be with other nations after this fiasco. i seriously doubt our asistance will be granted 'pro-bono' as we just got the serious cold shoulder. the watered down UN is being held together with papier machee and being hit with fire hoses. is restructuring possible? or are nations going to have to craete pacts, and treaties as they go so-to-speak? this a definite turning point in terms of international-cooperation. if terrorist hits france, will the U.S. step up? or will the U.S. go back to it's inter-war style international politics. i am very curious about this. perhaps, instead of curious, we should be scared. if the radical islamists sense the break-up of the unity, it will be blood in the water. faq. aint lookin too good for da future eh? Quote
allthumbs Posted September 7, 2003 Posted September 7, 2003 I think we need to clean up our mess in Iraq, first and foremost. While we're doing that, I think we should watch our p's and q's, and stay the fuck outta trouble. Just chill for a few years. Quote
babnik Posted September 7, 2003 Author Posted September 7, 2003 you know that ain't gonna happen tho'! its clear we are gonna keep goin'. it is times like these i am glad i have multiple passports. Quote
Ratboy Posted September 7, 2003 Posted September 7, 2003 trask said: I think we need to clean up our mess in Iraq, first and foremost. Agreed. I was against us going in there from the very beginning (we should have stayed focused on Afghanistan) but now that we're in this situation, we need to do it right. Get the infrastructure working, take care of the insurgents and get these people governing themselves. Even after the lousy way this has all been handled, we still have a change to foster some serious international and middle eastern good will if we can do this right. From recent observations, I'm not optimistic, though. And bring our men and women home! Quote
babnik Posted September 7, 2003 Author Posted September 7, 2003 middle eastern good will i think there is little of this for western culture. And bring our men and women home! after they finish their duty. whether or not they should have been there in the first place, shit has to be completely played out. we dont need another 1991. Quote
allthumbs Posted September 7, 2003 Posted September 7, 2003 I'm really distressed that the government wants to cut combat pay. Now that's just not right. Hell, they should double a combat soldier's pay in time of war. Another case of "What the hell are they thinking?" Quote
Ratboy Posted September 7, 2003 Posted September 7, 2003 trask said: I'm really distressed that the government wants to cut combat pay. Now that's just not right. Hell, they should double a combat soldier's pay in time of war. Another case of "What the hell are they thinking?" Add that to the cuts to the already miniscule veterans' benefits. The soldiers get the shaft in the field and again when they get home. Quote
babnik Posted September 7, 2003 Author Posted September 7, 2003 true dat after they get shot up for their country they come home and get bent over for one more fleecing. great! Quote
Dru Posted September 7, 2003 Posted September 7, 2003 if you hadn't invaded Iraq, Adamson would still be working for Microsoft. Quote
allthumbs Posted September 7, 2003 Posted September 7, 2003 Dru said: if you hadn't invaded Iraq, Adamson would still be working for Microsoft. Not necessarily true Dru. He probably would've been a cop by now. Quote
Dru Posted September 7, 2003 Posted September 7, 2003 or a national forest service parking pass ranger "mike the tool" Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.