West Coast Connection Forum

Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Kaidy on April 06, 2003, 11:36:24 AM

Title: Syria next?
Post by: Kaidy on April 06, 2003, 11:36:24 AM
Another relatively defenceless Middle Eastern country in Mr. George 'Yeehaaaaaw' Bush's sights. How many of you ignoramuses would support an invasion of Syria?

I'm wondering what feeble excuse they'll use next. Maybe Syria has uranium in its sand? Yea that'll convince 'em!
Title: Re:Syria next?
Post by: Damon X from ATL on April 06, 2003, 11:51:08 AM
Well you know Loc, Amerikkka will always attack smaller nations (in population and military might) then she. From Japan, Panama, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iran, and now Iraq. So Syria would be a logical choice, but Bush isn't that stupid to attack Russia, Korea, or others who can light up this country in seconds.


God Bless Amerikkka!!!
Title: Re:Syria next?
Post by: KING VerbalAssaulta on April 06, 2003, 11:52:11 AM
sure why not...considering how easily iraq is being disposed of...syria would be a breeze....though i really doubt we would waste our time with syria
Title: Re:Syria next?
Post by: Damon X from ATL on April 06, 2003, 11:57:09 AM
Quote
though i really doubt we would waste our time with syria

We? As if you had something to do with it, hahaha. Go join the military, son then you can be justified in using the "we."
Title: Re:Syria next?
Post by: mauzip on April 07, 2003, 06:03:51 PM
my guess is Iran
Title: Re:Syria next?
Post by: Woodrow on April 08, 2003, 01:28:16 AM
Quote
though i really doubt we would waste our time with syria

We? As if you had something to do with it, hahaha. Go join the military, son then you can be justified in using the "we."

By this logic, shouldn't somebody that's aginst the war go over to Iraq and volunteer to be a human shield?
Title: Re:Syria next?
Post by: Quakaveli on April 08, 2003, 01:33:47 AM
Haha I love when they call it ameriKKKa  ::)
Title: Re:Syria next?
Post by: Jay ay Beee on April 08, 2003, 01:37:12 AM
Quote
though i really doubt we would waste our time with syria

We? As if you had something to do with it, hahaha. Go join the military, son then you can be justified in using the "we."


By this logic, shouldn't somebody that's aginst the war go over to Iraq and volunteer to be a human shield?

Err....no Engel not quite!

You may notice the word "we" was used.

When people talk of their opposition to war, they don't talk of Iraq as being "we".

Nice try but no cigar son
Title: Re:Syria next?
Post by: Woodrow on April 08, 2003, 01:44:31 AM
Quote
though i really doubt we would waste our time with syria

We? As if you had something to do with it, hahaha. Go join the military, son then you can be justified in using the "we."


By this logic, shouldn't somebody that's aginst the war go over to Iraq and volunteer to be a human shield?

Err....no Engel not quite!

You may notice the word "we" was used.

When people talk of their opposition to war, they don't talk of Iraq as being "we".

Nice try but no cigar son

Thanks a bunch Damon X... Oh wait...

You didn't see the other post. Damon X Said this:

"1. Those talking/typing behind a computer screen, but yet has not enlisted in the military. You sure love using "we" alot as if you had something to do with it. That's disgusting."

Using this logic, you have to be enlisted in the military to support the War in Iraq.

If this is true, then what's the opposite extreme?

Should all people opposed to the war enlist in the human shield program?
Title: Re:Syria next?
Post by: Jay ay Beee on April 08, 2003, 01:46:07 AM
Being against the war doesn't mean you are for Iraq
Title: Re:Syria next?
Post by: Kaidy on April 08, 2003, 06:23:26 AM
Engel that logic doesn't work. Since anti-war people want peace, why would they take part in any violent action? Also there's no point in beng human shields because a) anti-war peeps aren't interested in protecting Saddam Hussein and his military and b)Iraq doesn't want or care about Western people standing around waiting to get bombed for their benefit. You can't even say they could be shields for the citizens, becuase the US never plans to hit them (so it says). They'd just kill the shield people and say "Woopsy, accidents happen. There will be an investigation" which there never would be.

The way to stop/prevent a war is through political means, not by standing in front of a gun or bomb waiting to get killed by someone who doesn't care about people who oppose him (that's Bush)
Title: Re:Syria next?
Post by: King Tech Quadafi on April 08, 2003, 10:29:37 AM
This correlation doesnt work Engle, like Kaidy mentioned.

Pro war peeps OPENLY call for the invasion of another country. Im talkin the C Walker types, not ya average American who honestly believes this war is just. If they want the destruction of a nation, they should take part in it.

No body is OPENLY calling for the invasion of America. Its like saying u support Al Qaeda, and their war against America, but you wont take part in a suicide mission.
Title: Re:Syria next?
Post by: DOC. da G.P.T...[METS][REX/MaB] on April 08, 2003, 11:38:48 AM
 I thought Iran 'll be next........can't wait though...as soon as that happens you'll see my picture in FBI's most wanted..... U.S can't fucked with Iran....
Title: Re:Syria next?
Post by: Suga Foot on April 08, 2003, 10:06:26 PM
I think they'll go after cuba next.
Title: Re:Syria next?
Post by: Doggystylin on April 08, 2003, 11:17:18 PM
I think they'll go after cuba next.

this guy knows somethin.