watch out everyone! rimbaud and MadMax are members of al Dorko! Someone intercept those emails, before they launch Operation pegged leg look 2002!
i wanted to edit and say we'd be a year late on that operation...but the damn disabled edit function got in the way of good comedy!
lol, hair's where I pretent dat I tan't tipe so peopel won't know I always wite tha previous yahr on my chicks until mid mawch.
Glynch, what color is the sky in your world?!? If the UN told Russia to disarm, and for 12 years Russia thumbed there noses at the international community, hell I'd be all for bombing Moscow. But as you have so politely pointed out to one of my posts last week, you are comparing apples to oranges. Sadam Hussein is not a Rogue Iraqi, instead he is their leader. If you don't believe this, go to any major news source, or a 2-year old and they can verify this for you. The fact that you could even equate a Rogue Russian general and Sadam Hussien to each other only proves my point that you are obviously oblivious to real world. Go back to your soy-milk and let those of us who have the balls to run this world, go ahead and run it.
Why do I get the impression, from this BBS, that Madmax probably would have gotten to his email queue in a timely fashion anyway?
1) Once again we disagree on what is known versus what is not...The fact that you are apparently in possession of 'knowledge' that I , and most of the rest of the world are not privy to obviously won't dissuade you in your zealous assertion that it is factual. 2) Re: not waiting..I have dealt with this elsewhere, but will briefly do so again here. Pre-emptive action is NOY self defense...Who says so? The UN definition on self-defense, as writen largley by the US. Pre-emptive self-defense would be, if undertaken, a virtual carte-blanche for Nation A to invade any and every nation it percieved as a possible threat, and this gets evn more tenous when incorporating the possibility of sponsoring terrorist action without proof of same...Ask yourself this question, in all honesty...How many nations in the world couldn't you make a case could represent potential thrests to the United States now or in the future? I cna name another...what, 30 or 40 off the top pf my head that could easily be classified as potential threats, and that's without even trying. It would be endless... 3) WMD were not used with any significance in the Iran/Iraq conflict, nowhere near the degree of use as in, say, the Central Powers and The Allies during WWI...Over a million largely by Hussein's gas? What? And the point was that he hasn't exhibited the madneess that using nuclear arms would require...still haven't answered...why DIDN'T he use them during the Gulf War? Because he knew it would be suicide, right? Has he lost his sanity between then and now, to your knowledge? 4) Good God...have you heard of Manifest Destiny? Look out Canada! There is a slight distinction between what a leader would like or try to accomplish given reasonable means of doing so, and the assumption that they have lost all perspective on reality in the pursuit of same. Sure, I would bet that Saddam would like to take over the ME...just like I think it is pretty clear that the USSR wanted to take over Afghanistan..or wanted to gain control of the Balkans as far as Istanbul...did that mean they used nuclear arms to get there? By your reasong we should have started WWIII in the 50's based on the apparent threat of imminent nuclear aggression....Remember when the Ruskies were the evil empire insanely bent on world domination? Glad you or those who think like you weren't running the show back then...
