Erm...SoC./Omega wrote:
Guys, seriously, if Bush was that stupid and that bad of a president why did we re-elect him? Eh?
Bollox...SoC./Omega wrote:
And if anyone says that its because Americans are stupid, go to school some more.
You're just bitter because we kicked your ass in the Revolutionary War.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Erm...SoC./Omega wrote:
Guys, seriously, if Bush was that stupid and that bad of a president why did we re-elect him? Eh?Bollox...SoC./Omega wrote:
And if anyone says that its because Americans are stupid, go to school some more.
No doubt, but that's a lot easier said than done. We've barely accomplished that here, and some people want to reverse it...cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
What islamic nations have to do is seperate church from state.Turquoise wrote:
In your opinion. However, there remains the question: knowing that nation-building is a very expensive process, do you really think America should be burdened with rebuilding Iraq for decades to come? The evolution you speak of takes decades of cultural change, and trillions of dollars.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
The Middle East has been and will ALWAYS be a hotbed of terror with or without US involvement in the region. The only end of this would be through military intervention or their evolution into a civilized society. I already outlined this earlier in the thread.
Actually, it's all about the tea - you know all that tea that got dumped in Boston - HOW DARE YOU! All that lovely TEA!!!!Fancy_Pollux wrote:
You're just bitter because we kicked your ass in the Revolutionary War.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Erm...SoC./Omega wrote:
Guys, seriously, if Bush was that stupid and that bad of a president why did we re-elect him? Eh?Bollox...SoC./Omega wrote:
And if anyone says that its because Americans are stupid, go to school some more.
(damn, we're not meant to tell them that's what it's all about, are we?)
No. People outside the US don't fear that (not me anyway). I can't say I worry about North Korea dropping nukes on me either. Nevertheless I do believe Bush is certainly a greater threat to world peace than Kim Jong Il. Remember we are talking about world peace here, not threat of being attacked personally.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Anyone who thinks Bush is more of a threat to world peace than Kim Jong-il is out of touch with reality. For those of you who don't live in the US, do you honestly fear a US attack more than a North Korean one? Do you wake up in cold sweat every night because you think the US is about to drop a nuke on your country...or sell a nuke to terrorists who would not hesitate to?
Lets look at the two leaders track records over recent years, lets say 5 years.
Bush : War in Afghanistan, war in Iraq. Both wars were highly destablising to the region. Personally I think one was justified and the other not - but that is irrelevant in this context.
Kim Jong Il : No wars. Unless you count the ongoing war with the US, which has been in a state of permanent ceasefire.
Which of those leaders is doing more to prevent there being world peace? Bush, obviously. He has started two wars, which have gone on for many years. If it were not for Bush there would have been fewer wars during his time in office, no such claims can be made against Kim Jong Il, who has not been at war with anyone.
i apologise i zoned on that last bit because i was in a rush getting ready to see borat, which rocked, but yes i fail...Fancy_Pollux wrote:
sfarrar33 wrote:
Fancy_Pollux easy to make nuke!?!?! are you sane!??!?!
please go look it up on wikipedia, then once you have think about the logistics of aquiring the materials and assembling them and then delievering this nuke to where it needs to be.Having the instructions to build a nuke != having the means to do so. I already explained that. You should brush up on your reading comprehension:Fancy_Pollux wrote:
If you knew anything about this would realize that building a nuke is fairly simple and common knowledge to most nations. What is not simple is obtaining and producing the materials required to do so.
www.hookedonphonics.com