quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 Yes, thats because he was democraticly elected. unlike your dictator

sad, but true.

___________________

[ Romans Chapter 1, Verse 6: And you are included among those Gentiles who have been called to belong to Jesus Christ. ]

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 You have a unelected leader, or one that fiddled the election in his favour (just like saddam) you have weapons of mass destruction (unlike saddam) you allowed terrorist funds to be legally collected until very recently. (like countries you have put sanctions on etc) shall the rest of the world invade USA to liberate the population?

1.Bush was elected through the ELECTORAL COLLEGE DING DING DING!! just because a candidate gets majority votes from the citizens doesn't necessarily mean he'll become the president...it only affects what the voters in the electoral college think...and im sure bush did not threaten the lives of these electoral college voters if they don't vote for him so there is something called the electoral college but tehre's no use in explaining that to you since you won't understand obviously

2.Yes we have WMD, along with india, russia, china, france, great britain, pakistan, israel while Iraq doesnt so your question should be should all these countries be liberated of their population

3.unless if the government was to tap every phone line in the united states, invade the entire population's privacy, monitor everyone's whereabouts and movements these sorts of things happen and there was nothing that could've been done prior to 9/11

thank you come again

___________________
*** Sig edited -> image exceeds 50k byte size restriction
http://wsm.ezsitedesigner.com/share/scrapbook/19/196003/gayslater.gif

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 But we know for a fact america has them + a leader who may have fiddled the election to get in (which was one of the main reasons for invading iraqi) + has funded terrorist groups (which was another thing saddam was accused of) by the standards america has set for invading other countries, then america should be invaded and the government overthrown several times over.

How is Bush getting elected one of the main reasons fro invading IRaq? And what terrorist groups has the US funded OUTSIDE of the cold war?

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The whole point of the nuclear non-proliferation act is not to eliminate nuclear aresenals from coutntry's that possess them. The point is to prevent NEW countries from attaining them especially if these country's have a greater propensity to use such weapons. The nuclear weapons and chemical weapons stocks of the MAJORITY of western nations (including Britain) and Russia are for defensive purposes such as MAD.

so basically the point of it is to insure that america (and other western nations) - are vastly superior to their enemies - and that their enemies will have no recourse for fear for being nuked??????

___________________
.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider How is Bush getting elected one of the main reasons fro invading IRaq? And what terrorist groups has the US funded OUTSIDE of the cold war?

No, one of the main reasons for invading iraq was saddams obvious fixing of the 'elections'

many people have said, even in this thread, that they believe that bush may have fixed the election.


So would another country now be justified to launch an invasion on america?

___________________
.

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 But we know for a fact america has them + a leader who may have fiddled the election to get in (which was one of the main reasons for invading iraqi) + has funded terrorist groups (which was another thing saddam was accused of) by the standards america has set for invading other countries, then america should be invaded and the government overthrown several times over.

what does funding terrorist groups have to do with america having nuclear weapons? (what was your orignal point of view)

___________________

Beware of killer hamsters and the random running dogs.

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 so basically the point of it is to insure that america (and other western nations) - are vastly superior to their enemies - and that their enemies will have no recourse for fear for being nuked??????

No the point of the act is to CONTAIN the development of nuclear weapons. No western nation is actually going to use nuclear weapons against another country. Would N. Korea use nuclear weapons??? Maybe yes.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by jonsimmonds what does funding terrorist groups have to do with america having nuclear weapons? (what was your orignal point of view)

My entire point if full.


Reasons for attacking iraq:

Saddam fixed 'elections'
.....many say bush fixed the election

Saddam may have WMD
.....American certainly has them

Saddam may have funded Terrorist groups
.....But we know america has in the past

So for the same reasons that america and the UK invaded Iraq, another country would now be justified in invading America??????

of course not... but then again i dont think iraq should have been invaded.....

___________________
.

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 No, one of the main reasons for invading iraq was saddams obvious fixing of the 'elections'

it wasnt the fixing of the elections it was the way the people of iraq where treated, the hospitals would not get the supply of medical drugs they needed, the school text books where all about saddam being so great and their idea of a supper computer was a 8088 pc

___________________

Beware of killer hamsters and the random running dogs.

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 many people have said, even in this thread, that they believe that bush may have fixed the election.

Believing that he fixed the elections and the they were fixed are 2 completely different fucking things. until i see some proof that they were fixed, they weren't.

___________________
"Your Watching MTV. The cool, Brainwashing, 12 year old and younger station that hides behind a slick image. We're so cool that we decide what is cool, and now MTV News, the news that single-handedly is dumbing down our country. Which is Cool."

--Adam Freeland - Big Wednesday

quote:

Originally posted by joeh152 No, one of the main reasons for invading iraq was saddams obvious fixing of the 'elections' many people have said, even in this thread, that they believe that bush may have fixed the election. So would another country now be justified to launch an invasion on america?

A) Bush won the elections based upon the nation's VOTING method. The voting system doesn't work along the same lines of a popular vote election. Our government is a federalist system and therefore our president is elected by whoever wins the most states.

B) The recent vote in Iraq had no bearing on the invasion. The issue revolved around WMDs and Saddam's lack of cooperation with the UN over the past 13 years.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider No the point of the act is to CONTAIN the development of nuclear weapons. No western nation is actually going to use nuclear weapons against another country. Would N. Korea use nuclear weapons??? Maybe yes.

My point in that being that no other country would ever be able to have recourse over america because america has nukes and they are not allowed them....

That said i dont want north korea having nukes just to balence it out either

___________________
.