| Re: OT - This is where the US should get involved... |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: alt.tv.americanidol · Group Profile
Author: topcattopcat Date: May 9, 2008 09:01
"Just.some.guy" address.not.valid.com> wrote in message
news:lv_Uj.17$lQ1.0@trnddc02...>
> "topcat" aboy.com> wrote in message
> news:34adnWCpIf0U8rnVnZ2dnUVZ_tyknZ2d@comcast.com...>>
>> "Just.some.guy" address.not.valid.com> wrote in message
>> news:9a_Uj.16$lQ1.13@trnddc02...>>>
>>> "topcat" aboy.com> wrote in message
>>> news:xZ6dnUF0352x8bnVnZ2dnUVZ_rLinZ2d@comcast.com...>>>>
>>>> "Just.some.guy" address.not.valid.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:TKZUj.11$lQ1.8@trnddc02...>>>>>
>>>>> "topcat" aboy.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:A4adneXHn7PJxbnVnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@comcast.com...>>>>>> ...and *bomb* the shit out of Hezzbollah.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the US would get permission to do that from who...the UN?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Permission? lol.
>>>
>>> Yes...permission. What's so funny about that? Do you subscribe to the
>>> theory of 'might makes right'?
>>>
>>
>> I subscribe to the theory the US should do what's good for the long term
>> security of the US. Destroying Hezz. and Hamas would be *very* good for
>> the long term security of the US. And, byproducts would be more safety
>> for Israel and the greater middle east.
>>
>> Do you subscribe to the theory that terrorist groups should run
>> countries?
>>
>> TC
>
>
> And since the US does not exist on this planet by itself...you don't think
> it's advisable to get allies? The US should just do this *despite* what
> the other countries think? So there's no need for a UN is there? Ok..I get
> it now.
>
Yes, no need for the UN. It should be disbanded. It does nothing of
consequence anyway.
We don't need allies to bomb the shit out of Hezzbollah positions in
Lebanon. We could do what BJ Clinton did in Bosnia. Call it a "humanitarian
mission", then bomb the shit of of them.
TC
| 
