"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
news

We *should* strive to increase tensions with Iran. They're a terrorist
state that is trying to develop a nuclear weapons program.

It's the way to peace.

No. But, it's the way to disarmament.

If you're a moron.

Not applicable.

Disarmament? Over the next 10 years, which country do you believe will add
the largest number of TOTALLY NEW types of nuclear weapons to its
collection, while still maintaining the old ones in an operational state?

Probably China. I know you were thinking that *we* will.

Nevertheless, it's a terrific deterrent. However, terrorist-sponsoring
states are not pursuing WMD's as "deterrents".





In other
words, he'd go back to the way things were before...when Libya was
developing WMD's, Saddam was developing missiles to strike Israel,
and
Iran
was very actively pursuing a nuclear program.

In other words? Actually, that's a conclusion only a moron could make.

The only reason bin Laden hasn't successfully usurped power in the
Middle
East is because of our presence over there. Kerry would remove the
cat...and once again, the mice would play.

Bin Laden, eh? I'm sure you've answered this question before, but try
again.
Definition of "news source": One whose stories on one topic last more than
2
minutes. With that in mind, which news sources do you listen to regularly?

*You* seem to do a good job at telling stories...and doing so for more than
2 minutes. Can I count you among my "regularly listened to news sources"?

NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
On the spectrum of angels, we're the
closest thing to the devil.

I think that about sums up your feelings for our country.




You can hardly blame him; since the appointment of Bush, our country has
been going to hell in a handbasket.

--
Show George W. Bush the Door...in 2004.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
On the spectrum of angels, we're the
closest thing to the devil.

I think that about sums up your feelings for our country.




You can hardly blame him; since the appointment of Bush, our country has
been going to hell in a handbasket.

I'd surmise that Doug has felt that way for a long, long time...well before
Bush.

In article . net,
says...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Bush has got to go, before we're blown off the face of the earth.

You guys said the same thing about Reagan's nuclear brinkmanship with the
Soviet Union. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

Well, if Dubya was thought to be smart enough to pull off a bluff like
Star Wars, maybe you'd have something.

Bush can't act, what makes you think he can convince the rest of the
world he's willing to spend any amount of money to be the military
powerhouse of the world?

....b'dum bum.

In article . net,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

The Iranians know that. Kerry's own email has stated his
administration would "strive to overcome tensions with others".

Very bad. We should always strive to INCREASE tensions with other
countries
using any means possible. It's the way to peace. If you're a moron.

It's a BushCo policy. "Winning Peace thru War"

You mean like the American Revolution? Or the Cival War? Or WWII? Or the
Spanish-American War? Or the War of 1812?

Our country has an history of winning peace through war.

Uh, other than the war we had with ourselves, please tell me in which of
those wars we were the instigator, aggressor?

If you fail to recognize the difference, please go sit in the corner and
think for as long as it takes until you do.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
On the spectrum of angels, we're the
closest thing to the devil.

I think that about sums up your feelings for our country.

Translation: You have no idea what our current nuclear program is about.
That sums up YOUR feelings about our country. One of the responsibilities of
a good citizen is to be informed. You are a traitor. Suitable only for
compost.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
news

We *should* strive to increase tensions with Iran. They're a
terrorist
state that is trying to develop a nuclear weapons program.

It's the way to peace.

No. But, it's the way to disarmament.

If you're a moron.

Not applicable.

Disarmament? Over the next 10 years, which country do you believe will
add
the largest number of TOTALLY NEW types of nuclear weapons to its
collection, while still maintaining the old ones in an operational
state?

Probably China. I know you were thinking that *we* will.

Sorry. It's us. This is according to Sam Nunn and a few other left-wing
whores who'd like to see us leave a better world for our kids.



Nevertheless, it's a terrific deterrent. However, terrorist-sponsoring
states are not pursuing WMD's as "deterrents".

Yeah. It's a great deterrent. It worked real well in terms of keeping the
NYC skyline unaltered, didn't it? It's also kept the Russians from attacking
us with their rusting sub fleet.


Bin Laden, eh? I'm sure you've answered this question before, but try
again.
Definition of "news source": One whose stories on one topic last more
than
2
minutes. With that in mind, which news sources do you listen to
regularly?

*You* seem to do a good job at telling stories...and doing so for more
than
2 minutes. Can I count you among my "regularly listened to news sources"?



In the past two weeks, I've heard analyses by people who know these things,
saying that Bin Laden is likely to be a non-issue at this point. However,
9/11 gave quite a bit of confidence to thugs who are in no way connected
with OBL. But, just to entertain idiots, let's assume this was false. Where
would YOU pursue OBL if you were the president, instead of the queen of
Boca?

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

The Iranians know that. Kerry's own email has stated his
administration would "strive to overcome tensions with others".

Very bad. We should always strive to INCREASE tensions with other
countries
using any means possible. It's the way to peace. If you're a moron.

It's a BushCo policy. "Winning Peace thru War"

You mean like the American Revolution? Or the Cival


Civil.

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

The Iranians know that. Kerry's own email has stated his
administration would "strive to overcome tensions with others".

Very bad. We should always strive to INCREASE tensions with other
countries
using any means possible. It's the way to peace. If you're a moron.

It's a BushCo policy. "Winning Peace thru War"

You mean like the American Revolution? Or the Cival War? Or WWII? Or
the
Spanish-American War? Or the War of 1812?

Our country has an history of winning peace through war.

Uh, other than the war we had with ourselves, please tell me in which of
those wars we were the instigator, aggressor?


That's irrelevant. As I said, we have a history of winning peace through
war.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
news
We *should* strive to increase tensions with Iran. They're a
terrorist
state that is trying to develop a nuclear weapons program.

It's the way to peace.

No. But, it's the way to disarmament.

If you're a moron.

Not applicable.

Disarmament? Over the next 10 years, which country do you believe will
add
the largest number of TOTALLY NEW types of nuclear weapons to its
collection, while still maintaining the old ones in an operational
state?

Probably China. I know you were thinking that *we* will.

Sorry. It's us. This is according to Sam Nunn and a few other left-wing
whores who'd like to see us leave a better world for our kids.



Nevertheless, it's a terrific deterrent. However, terrorist-sponsoring
states are not pursuing WMD's as "deterrents".

Yeah. It's a great deterrent. It worked real well in terms of keeping the
NYC skyline unaltered, didn't it? It's also kept the Russians from
attacking
us with their rusting sub fleet.


Bin Laden, eh? I'm sure you've answered this question before, but try
again.
Definition of "news source": One whose stories on one topic last more
than
2
minutes. With that in mind, which news sources do you listen to
regularly?

*You* seem to do a good job at telling stories...and doing so for more
than
2 minutes. Can I count you among my "regularly listened to news
sources"?



In the past two weeks, I've heard analyses by people who know these
things,
saying that Bin Laden is likely to be a non-issue at this point. However,
9/11 gave quite a bit of confidence to thugs who are in no way connected
with OBL. But, just to entertain idiots, let's assume this was false.
Where
would YOU pursue OBL

I'd remove Afghanistan as a training base for terrorists. I'd remove Saddam
as a financial supporter of terrorists. I'd then occupy Iraq for two
reasons: 1) to ensure a safe flow of oil should the House of Saud be overrun
by extremists, and 2) as a launching point into Syria and Iran.
I'd also occupy Afghanistan as a launching point into Iran and Pakistan.
I'd then march right into the hills in Northwestern Pakistan and grab OBL.