|
|
|
|
|
This image has expired.
Final Stats:
| Total Votes |
4 |
| Average Score |
3.25 |
| Verdict |
Good
|
|
Picture
Information
|
| URL:
http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=18114 |
|
| Comments: 65 (Read/Post) Favorites: 0 (View) |
Submitted
on: 01-29-2003
|
 View Stats |
Category:
Off-topic |
|
|
Description:
State of the Union summary |
Showing page: 2 of 4
[ 1 2 3 4 ]
 |
| #21 |
1-30-2003 @ 11:36:46 AM |
| Posted By : tobe82 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#6, I don't think it's cool to bash GWB, I think it's a tragedy that a country with such potential to help itself and others is in the hands of a wreckless fool. You are not the world's policeman. Policemen protect the rights of other people. America is only willing to act in its own interest.
#10, typical short-sighted American attitude, no different from the attitude that bred Saddam in the first place. Oust Saddam and replace him with who? Oh, right, some other dictator. Meanwhile, the country goes to shit, a certain religion steps in, and a new generation of west-hating suicide bombers is bred. Hey, good plan!
#11, just about any direct injection diesel engine can run on vegetable oil - particularly truck engines. Conversion costs between $200 and $1500 and fuel is around 70% cheaper.
#12, don't worry, there's no chance of an attack on NK. They don't have any oil, y'see.
|
|
| #22 |
1-30-2003 @ 11:42:38 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#21, I know that diesel engines will run on practically anything that can be made to burn. So what? A large number of cars on your side of the lake still run on petrol, and let's not forget that EVERYBODY uses a large amount of plastics, practically all of which are petroleum-based. There will be at least some economic impact upon Europe, at least in the short term.
I don't know about war on North Korea. I'm hoping we've at least got the foresight to do it, but I'm not so sure about that. Even if they don't have a nuclear delivery vehicle that is able to hit the US yet, they likely have the intent to develop or purchase one. Their human rights record is absurd, and their generally psychotic foreign policy is more or less actively hostile.
|
|
| #23 |
1-30-2003 @ 11:42:57 AM |
| Posted By : 427 Vette |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#21, but its like he wants a war not matter if theres weapons or not
|
|
| #24 |
1-30-2003 @ 11:43:32 AM |
| Posted By : mr_mcmunkee |
Reply | Edit | Del |
"You are not the world's policeman. Policemen protect the rights of other people."
WE ALWAYS HAVE BEEN
"America is only willing to act in its own interest."
WHO TOLD YOU THAT CRAP? WE WON NOTHING BY HELPING IN CENTRAL AMERICA, SOMOLIA, OR EVEN KUWAIT (their oil is not THAT valuable to us).
"Oust Saddam and replace him with who? Oh, right, some other dictator. Meanwhile, the country goes to shit, a certain religion steps in, and a new generation of west-hating suicide bombers is bred."
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO WE HAVE IN MIND TO REPLACE HIM...THE WORLD NEEDS SADDAM OUT. HE'S A THREAT TO EVERYONE INCLUDING HIS OWN PEOPLE. IRAQ IS ALREADY SHIT BECAUSE OF HIM. HE MURDERS HIS OWN FAMILY, CAPTURES AND TORTURES THE CHILDREN OF ANYONE WHO OPPOSES HIM, EVEN IN NEWSPAPERS.
|
|
| #25 |
1-30-2003 @ 11:45:53 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#24, Realistically, now, it doesn't matter if we are acting in our own interest. That's our prerogative.
However, I do think we need to address the issue of who will step into the vacuum created by Saddam if and when we oust him.
If we stop short of removing him, he'll probably just re-arm.
If we remove him, some other lunatic will probably take over.
And just flattening the place is not an option; it's contrary to policy for us.
|
|
| #26 |
1-30-2003 @ 11:49:25 AM |
| Posted By : mr_mcmunkee |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I'm sick of Europeans who are jealous because they aren't the world's superpower. I'm also sick of people basing their opinion on the war on what they hear on the news or know themselves. They fail to realize that the President has a LOT of knowledge that he hasn't or can't share with us, he can't trust that info with just anyone. He's making informed, intelligent decisions, rather than taking a poll on CNN to see who "thinks it's a good idea".
Trust your leader, ignorant people.
|
|
| #27 |
1-30-2003 @ 11:51:03 AM |
| Posted By : mr_mcmunkee |
Reply | Edit | Del |
He's as bad or WORSE than Hitler or Stalin when it comes to how he treats his own people and the potential for world destruction he can cause...yet no one remembers the past and wants to prevent it from happening again.
|
|
| #28 |
1-30-2003 @ 11:57:01 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I look at it this way--I don't care about our own news coverage. It doesn't have much connection to reality, and hasn't since at least the beginning of the 20th century. My concern is this: does Iraq present the likelihood of an N/B/C threat, even a localized one*, or the intent and means to disrupt the oil trade? If the answer is yes, then we should attack. Whether any other nations ally with us doesn't matter much; at the moment we still have the ability to wage war effectively on our own.
Even if it does seem a bit short-sighted, it's important to look out for #1. Somehow, I don't see where anyone else's opinion really factors in with this sort of thing.
*If the obvious threat is only a local one (i.e. they can only deliver payloads within the mid-east) we still must consider possible future means of delivery, such as development of a secret ICBM system (unlikely) or other means such as smuggling, sale to other hostile foreign powers, etc.
[Edited by Lemming on 1-30-2003 @ 11:59:26 AM]
|
|
| #29 |
1-30-2003 @ 11:59:46 AM |
| Posted By : tobe82 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#24, America bankrolled corrupt governments and drug dealers to prevent the rise of socialism in central America. Nobody gained in Somalia. Regarding Kuwait, Saddam thought he had America's blessing (well America did sell him the weapons after all), it was only when America realised he might go for some of the other countries in the area, which the US could not afford to lose control of, that action was taken.
Regarding Saddam, sure, he's a complete asshole. Something we can agree on - but bombing the country back to the stone age and replacing him with an asshole of equal size won't help anyone.
|
|
| #30 |
1-30-2003 @ 12:00:14 PM |
| Posted By : mr_mcmunkee |
Reply | Edit | Del |
And it won't. The President will act how HE sees fit no matter how many protesting whacko soccer moms are picketing outside of his office window.
|
|
| #31 |
1-30-2003 @ 12:02:58 PM |
| Posted By : mr_mcmunkee |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Why the hell do you think WE'LL "replace him with asn a-hole of equal size". After all of our war efforts, do you honestly think we'll let a son (we'll kill them too) or anyone else like him rise to power?
We're not that stupid.
|
|
| #32 |
1-30-2003 @ 12:04:06 PM |
| Posted By : mr_mcmunkee |
Reply | Edit | Del |
And have you forgotten YOU are on our side, you ignorant Brit? Your prime minister is working almost side-by-side with Bush on these efforts and are the first ones to supply their troops.
|
|
| #33 |
1-30-2003 @ 12:04:28 PM |
| Posted By : solid_snake |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#24, TYPING LIKE THIS IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO TRY AND MAKE AN INTELIGENT ARGUMENT :P
|
|
| #34 |
1-30-2003 @ 12:05:14 PM |
| Posted By : tobe82 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#27, Worse than Hitler or Stalin? Have you been brainwashed or something?
|
|
| #36 |
1-30-2003 @ 12:10:14 PM |
| Posted By : solid_snake |
Reply | Edit | Del |
if he can afford to buy a gun for every single iraqi he can afford to feed them
|
|
| #37 |
1-30-2003 @ 12:11:51 PM |
| Posted By : tobe82 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#32, I am not on your side, and that's why I'll be joining hundreds of thousands of other protesters on Feb 15th. I am not ignorant, I know exactly what lap dog Blair is doing, and no, I didn't vote for him.
#31, check America's track record on installed governments.
|
|
| #39 |
1-30-2003 @ 12:16:50 PM |
| Posted By : tobe82 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#35, Stalin and Hitler were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions. Saddam is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands. All three are horrific criminals but to claim Saddam was the worst is clearly ridiculous.
|
|
| #40 |
1-30-2003 @ 12:18:07 PM |
| Posted By : tobe82 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#38, If by 'kicking ass' you mean 'killing civilians' then yeah, it's a great record.
|
Showing page: 2 of 4
[ 1 2 3 4 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
