Is this really fair?

[carrrnuttt]

BTW gramps, here's another quote: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...6&postcount=87

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

Libs?

Just because I'm not voting for the bumbling idiot that wasted mine and your money, I'm a lib?

I voted for him in the last election, and Dole before him, and Bush Sr. before that, so I can speak-up as much as I want.

Lib?

I have owned, and fired more weapons than your internet toughness can probably imagine.

I grew-up in a well-off, Republican home, and left it all (I have EARNED everything I have) to join the Air Force, what have YOU done lately?

[Andee_G]

so who exactly is it that is against bush but not anti-american

and if you believe that's possible what was anti-american about what taraniki or Tehviseeus were saying?


Bush is a great man, eh?
have you seen farenheit 9/11?
and don't tell me that Michael Moore is an evil anti-american lying liberal.

[thegladhatter]

Originally Posted by Andee_G

have you seen farenheit 9/11?
and don't tell me that Michael Moore is an evil anti-american lying liberal.

You are kidding aren't you?
Moore is a laugher! Nearly every claim in that assinine waste of theater time has been debunked!

..and yes, he sure IS!

[driftu]

Originally Posted by thegladhater

Bush is a great man

you mind telling us why you think this, or isn't not in your programming.

[Raz_Kaz]

hey thegladhatter, I still wanna hear your response to "DU is not a WMD" after seeing those pics of the innocent children who suffered from it.

[Tehvisseeus]

Weapons of mass destruction are weapons which were designed to indiscriminately kill large numbers of people. While DU shells can cause mutations when their residue is breathed, they were not designed to indiscriminately kill. They were designed to take out heavily armored vehicles and therefore do not full under the classification of a WMD.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by Tehvisseeus

They were designed to take out heavily armored vehicles and therefore do not full under the classification of a WMD.

I think the point a lot of people have been trying to make in here is this: regardless of classification, and/or design, it IS a WMD, or has caused damage as such.

[Tehvisseeus]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

I think the point a lot of people have been trying to make in here is this: regardless of classification, and/or design, it IS a WMD, or has caused damage as such.

Well considering that this started from Driftu saying that the US is more likely to use WMDs than other countries are and then using DU shells as an example of when we have, I think its pretty appropriate to argue to that point.

[driftu]

Originally Posted by Tehvisseeus

Well considering that this started from Driftu saying that the US is more likely to use WMDs than other countries are and then using DU shells as an example of when we have, I think its pretty appropriate to argue to that point.

then i will change that to chemical and radioactive weapons that causes serious damage to all people exposed for years to come.

is that better?

[thegladhatter]

Weapons of Mass Destruction are weapons that are designed for the destruction of LARGE numbers of people and property. DUs are NOT WMD they were as stated above for armor piercing. Agent orange wasn't even designed to use on people. It WASN'T used for anything other than the removal of foliage. It had terrible side effects that were NOT planned.

[Tehvisseeus]

Originally Posted by driftu

then i will change that to chemical and radioactive weapons that causes serious damage to all people exposed for years to come.

is that better?

Much better however you have to keep in mind that whatever happened to civilians because of these weapons was unintentional. Agent Orange has not been used since its side effects have become known, and as far as DU goes, while it has damaged many lives, it must be noted that it has saved many lives as well.

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by twospirits

Upon reading all these posts I am left to wonder that so many have mentioned in the past that the US should leave the UN and have the Un disbanded altogether. But wouldn't that be worse. Wouldn't we be risking the chance of one nation (be it China, Russia, or the US) becoming too big and arrogant and try to force themselves among other nations. Wouldn't that lead us closer to a world war? I don't know, but I do believe the UN does serve a purpose. But it shouldn't be situated in the US. It should be in a neutral country, not one with special interests.

TS out

The Undecided Nations cannot stop China, Russia or the US from "becoming too big." The UN could not stop Saddam from invading Kuwait and Iran, the killing of 800,000 Ruwandans, etc., etc., etc. A large part of the UN was bought out by Saddam and his comtemporaries -- Saddam's ouster meant no more US dollars in their pockets, hence the chicken-hearted efforts to help the Iraqi people, even if it meant siding with the US.

I say the US should leave the UN but not lift a finger to disband it -- just kick them out of NYFC. Have them provide John Kerry with year round visitor's passes to visit and make speeches about what he would do instead of what he said he would do. Set them up in the middle of the Atlantic F Ocean where a few hurricanes a season should help to regularly wash the trash out to sea.

Franko

[Tehvisseeus]

I think he has a point.