Doom the movie. Has anyone noticed....

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:18:54 +0000, EvilBill wrote:

>> And you hate Tony Blair and George Jr. So, I stand corrected, British
>> Left Wing wacko then.

> So I'm a whacko to believe that launching unprovoked invasions, while
> simultaneously taking away civil liberties (you probably don't know about

Unprovoked? I guess you don't know about Iraq's not complying with UN
sanctions for what, 12 years? That's OK? The near genocide-category
killings carried out by the Iraqi government? The belief *at the time*
that he had WMD and was about to use them? That all adds up to
"unprovoked". I don't think so.

> the new powers granted to the police over here, which allowed them to, among
> other things, shoot an innocent man in the head, and detain an 11-year-old
> girl for attending an anti-war demonstration) is the mark of two governments
> that have nobody's interests at heart but their own greed?

It's easy to find isolated (and fairly meaningless, therefore) incidents
of police misconduct in any society. Your examples, while regrettable,
don't really mean much.

>> Care to explain Saddam's super cannon aimed at Israel and *NERVE*
>> gassing the Kurds then?
>> Wait, Saddam didn't have any weapons, did he?

> If he had them, he'd have used them on our forces during the invasion.
> Simple as that.

Maybe. Or maybe we disabled his ability to use them with the swiftness of
the strike. Again, you must remember that *at the time* it was believed
he had them, based on faulty intelligence from multiple nations.

> The gassing of the Kurds was a very long time ago, and so was

I almost don't believe you said this one. How long ago was it? 10 years?
15 years? Whichever, not so long ago. Besides, would that make it OK???
Is what the Nazis did "OK" because it was a long time ago? Sheesh.

> the whole 'supergun' thing. (I might note, the supergun was never
> actually completed anyway...)

It shows intent, whether it was ever used or not. It indicates a
willingness to attack and kill. That's enough.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

"EvilBill" <quake2lives.DeleteThis@gmail.com> writes:

> As for Bin Laden (and Saddam, for that matter), IMO a surgical strike by
> special forces would have achieved the objectives of getting rid of al'Qaida
> and the Saddam administration far more quickly with a minimum of civilian
> casualties. Full-scale invasions and wars were not necessary.

You seem to be saying that our intelligence agencies are worthless and
have no credibility, yet we know bin Laden's exact location and could
take him out any time we like.

But I like your stategy. One lone marine goes in and takes out the
Cyberdemon, er bin Laden. It sounds like a great game! Or even
better, one marine vs. Cyber bin Laden! Someone should tell Carmack
to get to work on it.

/me thinks about it...

No, Cyber bin Laden should be the sequel. The first one should be
regular bin Laden.