NationStates Jolt Archive


George W. Bush or Pretzel

31-03-2003, 01:41
I vote for the Pretzel :twisted:
31-03-2003, 01:45
Go pretzel!
31-03-2003, 01:49
pretzel for pres!
31-03-2003, 01:50
Amazing how a pretzel could have saved hundreds of lives. :shock:

That's the really weird thought for the day... :)
31-03-2003, 02:05
D00d.... That's a wierd thought.......
31-03-2003, 02:14
there should be a day in rememberance for the pretzel...it tried...to bad it failed it's importiant mission of peace in the world and the lives of hundreds of lives...so please a moement of silence for the brave, but unsusessful pretzel...
31-03-2003, 02:15
Strange it might be, but the world would be a better place if that preztel had been a bit more persistent.

George Bush is a terrorist, a fool and a threat to the world the likes of which we have not seen in years.

"Wolfowitz Doctrine" = A whole lot of trouble for the rest of us. Even W's dad knew better than to open that pandora's box.
31-03-2003, 02:21
Who the heck is Pretzel :?:
31-03-2003, 02:22
I don't mean to offend any posters on this thread, but you all are idiots, for two reasons.

1.) The Bush Administration has had an anti-Iraq position since about day one. Even if Bush were somehow not the president, I doubt that the United States would have a different attitude.

2.) Even if for whatever reason the United States had not attacked Iraq, hundreds of people would have died from Saddam's weaponry. I especially hope that there's a bid dump of nerve gas near your house, bantz.
31-03-2003, 02:25
You have not offened me, actually you put it in a very good wya but I still have my oppinons...and in a way I don't care what the americans do...even though I do feel sorry for the pretzel

oh and Cue Cappa its a little treat that is in a cross over shape. Normally eatten but in some cases choked on.
31-03-2003, 02:42
I don't mean to offend any posters on this thread, but you all are idiots, for two reasons.

1.) The Bush Administration has had an anti-Iraq position since about day one. Even if Bush were somehow not the president, I doubt that the United States would have a different attitude.

)

That's why there was the Dick Cheney option :D .

But seriously, while you are correct that a hawkish group (Wolfowitz et al.) within the US administration have had an anti-Iraq stance, neo-conservative presidents have been smart enough to think through the potential consequences of the absurd foreign policy they have been trying to push without luck (until Dubya) for 15 years. Even Dubya's father was smart enough to reject it as policy.

So would they have a different attitude? Perhaps not. But at least they would not have a total patsy mouthpiece.




Even if for whatever reason the United States had not attacked Iraq, hundreds of people would have died from Saddam's weaponry. I especially hope that there's a bid dump of nerve gas near your house, bantz.

Obviously you have some network of mind reading/future seeing secret agents working in Iraq the rest of us don't. Or have you bought the completely baseless "Iraq was going to kill us all" line. The absolute paranoia that the administration has managed to breed into most Americans makes me realize how things like the rise of Nazism (no I am not drawing a DIRECT comparision) happen.

The claim that Iraq was planning to attack the US is, at absolute best, wildly speculative hysteria, and is hardly the justification for unilateral action that will kill thousands and might destabalize a nation, breed more terrorism, and is in blantant disregard for established international norms.

So when the damn nuke goes off in LA or NY killing lots and lots of innocent people, you will know who to blame

And rather than wishing the nuke on you, I wish for peace for ALL OF US, which Dubya's insane course of action, that only speaks of a far more sinister shift in American policy, will not bring.
31-03-2003, 03:34
Pretzel my ass. Laura decked him for being drunk.
Carpage
31-03-2003, 03:40
So when the damn nuke goes off in LA or NY killing lots and lots of innocent people, you will know who to blame

You think we're agressive now?

By the way, that's a shitty thing to write.
31-03-2003, 03:40
Pretzel my ass. Laura decked him for being drunk.

LMAO!
31-03-2003, 03:45
Pretzel my ass. Laura decked him for being drunk.

LMAO!

The sad thing is, I'm not kidding. I seriously think that's what happened. I mean, Christ, that was a bruise from a punch if I've ever seen one. And it sure explains the fact that he can't string together a single coherent phrase without practicing it for 4 hours.
31-03-2003, 03:47
Or here's another theory

http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/choking.shtml
31-03-2003, 21:59
So when the damn nuke goes off in LA or NY killing lots and lots of innocent people, you will know who to blame

You think we're agressive now?

By the way, that's a shitty thing to write.

I am unclear who you mean by "we" so I can't comment on this.

As for it being a shitty thing to write, I agree. It is a horrible thing to think that the reckless actions of a US administration who vastly underestimate the anger their actions will unleash in other parts of the world creates the possibility that something like that will happen. I hope it doesn't.

But if the Bush Administration was looking for a way to encourage radical elements around the world to rally for the destruction of the US as an imperialist state, they found the perfect way to do. The course of foreign policy currently being adopted under the Wolfowitz doctrine banner is precisely the sort of ideology that terrorist groups (and many others, by the way) have accused the US of. So the solution of the Administration to the criticism that the US is an international bully is to adopt an open policy of pre-emptive military force with the aim of spreading American principles around the globe? Even if you ignore the wider moral questions, does this seem like a strategically wise response to you?

So again, I hope nothing does happen. But to be blunt, I would not bet on it. Force alone will not stop the radicals and there is really no way to stop them from getting access to the US and potent weapons. Consider the war on drugs. For all the time, money, technology and firepower dedicated to the task, even the most generous estimates are that the DEA only stops 10% of all drugs smuggled into the country. So you won't stop the weapons either.

If you don't like it, then vote for someone in the next election who is willing to at least try to reach out to the world with an open hand and not a fist. People that are hit, tend to hit back.
Ring of Isengard
21-08-2009, 09:00
Most epic gravedig ever? Perhaps.