"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?



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?

"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 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?

"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.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

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.

Oh boy. You are truly delusional.

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

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.

Oh boy. You are truly delusional.

Hehehehe. The best part is that everything I've said has happened, is
happening, or *will* happen in the not too distant future.

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


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.

Oh boy. You are truly delusional.

Hehehehe. The best part is that everything I've said has happened, is
happening, or *will* happen in the not too distant future.

Perhaps, but the problem is that you take such pleasure in the prospect of
war. You need to get some help. Real soldiers don't view war that way.

I'd like to see you dare march into Pakistan. Don't forget they have nukes
also and are used to facing a bigger foe in India.

NOYB wrote in message
ink.net...


Hehehehe. The best part is that everything I've said has happened, is
happening, or *will* happen in the not too distant future.

NOYB wrote:
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

Hehehehe. The best part is that everything I've said has happened, is
happening, or *will* happen in the not too distant future.

In other words, more unprovoked wars of aggression... I assume that
you're a stockholder in a few of the defense contracting corporate
conglomerates? So that you can participate in the profits?

What if your kids got drafted? Would you still be in favor of this program?

NOBBY, you can't *really* be this screwed up. You better back off just a
little or the others will realize that you're a far left-wing agitator
posing as a Bush worshipper...

DSK