http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/11/bush.weapons.security/index.html
Scary sh!t. He's talking nukes as a retaliation policy.
Scary sh!t. He's talking nukes as a retaliation policy.
Oh great, I think I'm going to move to Switzerland if Bush keeps this up.
- Thread starter Rip
- Start date
Yeah, that dude is messed up. How did he get to be president anyway? Oh yeah, he stole it.
Seriously, if he keeps this up, we are going to get our ass kicked. Maybe that's what we need right now.
Seriously, if he keeps this up, we are going to get our ass kicked. Maybe that's what we need right now.
It's not a new policy.
If someone uses Weapons of Mass Destruction against us, what would be the problem in using them back?
I certainly dont mind it. It beats sending in a few thousand Marines to die.
I certainly dont mind it. It beats sending in a few thousand Marines to die.
Yeah, read the article. The policy was created long before GWB was in the White House. He was just reminding other countries of it.
I see no problem with that threat. Ya don't F with the guys with the big bombs.
"He sends one of your guys to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue."
"He sends one of your guys to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue."
Nice ananolgy, but this is getting all ****ed up! Is he purposely stirring th **** up? Bush that is. Why the hell did they insist on censoring the UN invetigators findings? Was it to insight anger in the middleeast? Or to hide the fact that we already know, the fact that the US probably funded and financed most of what Saddam has?
I dont think that's new news, so its probably not the reason. I dont think they want to just give out info on how to make a nuclear bomb. Seems valid to me.
I was under the impression that the info was just on where the stuff is, but I suppose they would have found the weapons at various stages of manufacture. Stages that when documented could illustrate your point. However, I can't believe that the UN would overlook that point though, especially as this is an excercise to disarm? Could this be the US undermining the UN?
I agree.
Plus, we gotta do something with all those bombs we have. Got to move inventory.
We dont need the UN half as much as it needs us. We're constantly undermining, but that's not always such a bad thing.
I wonder why people always seem to think of the UN as the be all, end all correct answer to things.
While the US continues to prosper, the UN fails......who's got it right?
I dunno....growth doesnt always come from doing the right thing, but im not one to assume we're all bad. Nor am i to assume the UN is all good.
Speaking of undermining....... here's a quote from the article I posted in the "war is on its way" topic.
"
Off the record, furious UN diplomats tell a completely different story. They say that extreme American pressure was applied on Colombian ambassador Alfonso Valdivieso, who holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council during the month of December. US Secretary of State Colin Powell, not by accident, was in Colombia last week. Powell promised a lot of additional funds to the Colombian government to fight guerrillas. The funds, diplomats say, will be readily available in exchange for the speedy first look at the Iraqi declaration: the CIA has been examining it since Sunday night."
"
Off the record, furious UN diplomats tell a completely different story. They say that extreme American pressure was applied on Colombian ambassador Alfonso Valdivieso, who holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council during the month of December. US Secretary of State Colin Powell, not by accident, was in Colombia last week. Powell promised a lot of additional funds to the Colombian government to fight guerrillas. The funds, diplomats say, will be readily available in exchange for the speedy first look at the Iraqi declaration: the CIA has been examining it since Sunday night."