|
Americans the Biggest Freaks Out there (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| joeh152 |
| quote: | Originally posted by TuanAnh213
last time i checked tony blair is a moron, and i don't see him getting overthrown or unseated |
Yes, thats because he was democraticly elected.
unlike your dictator :stongue: |
|
|
| jonsimmonds |
| quote: | Originally posted by TuanAnh213
last time i checked tony blair is a moron, and i don't see him getting overthrown or unseated |
why???
under his party's goverment the UK has experienced a significant amounr of extra fundng in healthcare, education, transport...
why is he a moron? do you have any vefified facts to prove he is? |
|
|
| TuanAnh213 |
| quote: | Originally posted by joeh152
Yes, thats because he was democraticly elected.
unlike your dictator :stongue: |
yes, therefore since he's the all evil dictator there is nothing we can possibly do to stop his evil rule over the world...therefore we aren't "letting" him rule, we have no choice but to let him rule since he's the almighty dictator...
AZ you're wrong
:happy2: |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by joeh152
Yes, thats because he was democraticly elected.
unlike your dictator :stongue: |
Bush was democratically elected according to the ELECTORAL system. It's not like he changed the voting method that our country has used over the past 250 years. If you want to debate the electoral system bring it over to the polit forum ... this is not the place for that. |
|
|
| joeh152 |
| quote: | Originally posted by TuanAnh213
yes, therefore since he's the all evil dictator there is nothing we can possibly do to stop his evil rule over the world...therefore we aren't "letting" him rule, we have no choice but to let him rule since he's the almighty dictator...
AZ you're wrong
:happy2: |
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? |
|
|
| jonsimmonds |
| quote: | Originally posted by joeh152
you have weapons of mass destruction (unlike saddam)
|
Saddam had them, he used them against the Kurds population of iraq... |
|
|
| joeh152 |
| quote: | Originally posted by jonsimmonds
Saddam had them, he used them against the Kurds population of iraq... |
yes but iraqi poision gas 15 years ago doesnt = vast american nuclear arsenal today |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Not to be rude but all the lazy ones of our coutries and the people we didn't want here emigrated to america..... |
LOL like the jews in the 40's? We got einstein, teller, oppenheimer, etc. By all means yes send us more people you don't want. And the fact that we have so many lazy immigrants that nobody wanted sorta explains why we have a trillion dollar economy and a GDP that's virtually double any other economy. |
|
|
| jonsimmonds |
| quote: | Originally posted by joeh152
yes but iraqi poision gas 15 years ago doesnt = vast american nuclear arsenal today |
you cant really use the nuclear arsenal argument, seein as the UK navy has 16 odd submarines capable of launching nuclear warheads within 10 min's (and there are probabley at least 1 sub with live warheads onboard just incase)
and iraq is a big place and although there is no proof that iraq's weapons of mass distruction are there, theres no proofthey got distroyed |
|
|
| joeh152 |
| quote: | Originally posted by jonsimmonds
you cant really use the nuclear arsenal argument, seein as the UK navy has 16 odd submarines capable of launching nuclear warheads within 10 min's (and there are probabley at least 1 sub with live warheads onboard just incase)
and iraq is a big place and although there is no proof that iraq's weapons of mass distruction are there, theres no proofthey got distroyed |
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. |
|
|
| joeh152 |
| quote: | Originally posted by joeh
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. |
...... of course that will never happen. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by joeh152
yes but iraqi poision gas 15 years ago doesnt = vast american nuclear arsenal today |
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. |
|
|
|
|
