Ahhh Luko again defending the honor or the handicapped and the minimum wage earners. I didnt say anything about the cops in Cambrige, I was referred to L.E. officers in general. And as far as nukes go...you are the same people who feel Iraq had W.M.D.'s, so while you may not like my opinion lets make clear that Iran or N. Korea is not effecting US on a daily basis-----but $hitty, cowboy, small d!ck compensating cops are roaming the streets in everyones hometown.
Also, I could call you ignorant and use CAPS TO stress my points as well. But I dont see the need to attack in that way or question your view on the world. Even though if Iran didnt have any oil or had more oil than any other country, OPEC would decide, not Iran exactly. And yes, aquiring nuclear technology/waepons is dangerous for these countries (despite the fact they are bankrupt $hit holes decades behind in missle technology & with citizens always ready to revolt)----but certainly not for us or other countries because we can be trusted and are both morally and mentally superior right?? Not saying there are not real issues in these places....but the war mongering by some in the country makes me ill.
On another note, just because I view N. Korea and Iran as a threat, doesn't mean I am a warmonger and the name calling is very juvenile. It doesn't serve any purpose to put an extremist name on someone just because you disagree with them. If any of us had said: "We need to nuke Iran and N. Korea off the planet." then yea, I could see your attack being valid.
On another note, just because I view N. Korea and Iran as a threat, doesn't mean I am a warmonger and the name calling is very juvenile. It doesn't serve any purpose to put an extremist name on someone just because you disagree with them. If any of us had said: "We need to nuke Iran and N. Korea off the planet." then yea, I could see your attack being valid.
they ae a threat but at the same time they arent. if iran started nuking the US im sure at some point we would just wipe them off the map. sooner or later people will see how nuts they are. Mutual Assured Destruction still has a roll. maybe not as big as it did with Russia, but it still has a roll.
On another note, just because I view N. Korea and Iran as a threat, doesn't mean I am a warmonger and the name calling is very juvenile. It doesn't serve any purpose to put an extremist name on someone just because you disagree with them. If any of us had said: "We need to nuke Iran and N. Korea off the planet." then yea, I could see your attack being valid.
they ae a threat but at the same time they arent. if iran started nuking the US im sure at some point we would just wipe them off the map. sooner or later people will see how nuts they are. Mutual Assured Destruction still has a roll. maybe not as big as it did with Russia, but it still has a roll.
Well then NUKE THEM OFF THE PLANET! Oh wait! lol Thats not what I meant. What I really meant was that Iran is a threat in more ways than just a direct hit on our soil. I honestly don't think they have, or even could have, the technology to strike at the U.S. in the distant future. They could have the ability to strike many of our allies and economic ties over seas which would have a ripple effect through our country. They also would have no problem selling nuclear material and possibly weapons to terrist organizations that could do massive amounts of damage both inside our country, and abroad.
Im glad it was decided that we're beyond the police officer thing. Because I could say I work with great cops everyday (which I do for my job in fact), but that point will be missed. It is just a shame that we cannot have a debate or an argument over something without ones personal bias getting in the way of the conversation or taking a broad statement involvoing a few loose cannons to heart as one directed at a single individual or an entire group.
Comments