On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:05:27 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:54:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


Also, if the leader of said country invades another country for the
sole purpose of taking it over and subjugating the population for his
own benefit, then that also qualifies.

Hey...we did this recently.

When?

That place in the desert....you know....Iraq?


Where did we invade Iraq for the purpose of subjugating the people for
our benefit?
We invaded Iraq to LIBERATE the people. I know you libs have a hard
time with the truth and would rather believe a bunch of spin and
(Unsubstantiated) propaganda which says otherwise, solely to whet your
own political thirst for blood. But until there is some solid proof to
the contrary, I will continue to support what I feel was a just cause.




If the country also takes an
aggressive policy of amassing a large arsenal of weapons with the
intent to use them (domestically or otherwise), then I'd say that
qualifies as well.

We've been doing this since 1946. We supposedly stopped creating chem/bio
weapons, but the nuclear arsenal continues to grow.

Really? Where did you hear that we are still building nukes? According
to the various START and SALT treaties, we should v'e been reducing
that stockpile.

Dave, this is disturbing. You continue to lie to me. You say you get your
information from a variety of news sources, but you are ignorant of so much
going on around you.


So it's your assertion that all those nookular arms reduction talks
were nothing more than smoke and mirrors, and that we're actually
covertly preparing for armageddon?

Maybe the sky really IS falling in your world.......



Dave