Viewing Thread:
"Why don't we attack the world?"

For having nuclear arms?

Oh I forgot... we're the good guys right?

Sadam and Bin Laden are a lot smarter than Bush and Blair

Hypocrites

Ah, but there's very definite rules about who's allowed nuclear weapons.

1. You can't be in constant breach of UN sanctions. Unless you're Ariel Sharon.

2. You can't be a military dictator whose name is not General Musharraf, because killing millions of people is unacceptable unless you have a vote on it first. (Unless, again, your name is General Musharraf: in which case you don't need to vote but you are ONLY allowed to kill Indians).

3. You can't have a consistently terrible record on human rights. Unless you're Xiang Zemin. Or Ariel Sharon.

4. You can't stop UN weapons inspectors from looking around your biological and chemical research facilities. Unless you're George Bush.

5. You can't fund and support terrorism. Unless you are whichever American president is currently sending arms to and inciting coups in Latin America. Or the Middle East. Also, if you are Saddam Hussein, then you cannot be accused of supporting terrorists, even if this is one of the few crimes of which you are innocent.

6. You can have oil, or you can have nuclear weapons. Not both. Unless you're George Bush. Or Tony Blair. Or Vladimir Putin.

7. Your name must not be Saddam Hussein.

That is all.

They're not that stupid unless they set out to destroy the world because that's what will happen.

We're just as bad as them in many areas if not worse

Yes, but we (supposedly) wouldn't use them as tools of terrorism. And I doubt we'd ever actually use nukes on Iraq or anything, the consequences are too high. Saddam and Osama don't have those consequences, so they CAN launch nukes

For having nuclear arms?

Oh I forgot... we're the good guys right?

Sadam and Bin Laden are a lot smarter than Bush and Blair

Hypocrites