I believe we should be in Iraq but we have to come to some kind of mediation between libs and reps. I will only vote to withdraw if we can immmediately nuke the UN.
Can I get a show of hands. Yay or Nay.
2007-03-16 11:17:17 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
@ cp_scipi…
Yes, per popular vote the libs will be invited to the UN prior to the nuclear holocaust.
2007-03-16 11:27:16 · update #1
In response to the minor detail that the UN headquarters is in NYC, I once again elaborate that all residents will be evacuated and the liberals will be shipped in via railroad, very similar to trains filled with jews approaching auschwitz. I am willing to get a little fallout cancer to eliminate 2 of the world alrgest problems all at once.
2007-03-16 11:30:10 · update #2
You can't see me, but I just lifted my Bud-Light you!!!! CHEERS.
2007-03-16 11:22:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Nuke the UN.... well, it is very creative. However, do to the fact that nuking the UN would mean nuking New York, there is one dilemma. Also the fact that the entire world would then want us dead, and the chance that we could potentially cause a nuclear war also makes the idea less valid. The two (pulling out of Iraq and Nuking the UN) just do not level out.
2007-03-16 11:26:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Demolish the UN building in NY perhaps, but don't use nukes . . . too messy. Once we take our ball and bat and go home, I don't give a flying flip what the UN does. They're just a money pit anyway.
I'm one of those that thinks that going into Iraq was a mistake, but our credibility is at stake, so we must stay to win.
After 9/11 when 19 muslims, 15 of whom were Saudi Arabians destroyed what they thought was the center of what they considered to be the center of the corrupt world of finance, our response should have been to carpet bomb Mecca.
War over, we win.
But noooooooooooooo, we have to pick a fight that we can't win for generations, possibly never.
Who profits from that?
The Banksters.
.
2007-03-16 11:24:21 · answer #3 · answered by s2scrm 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Given that the United Nations is headquartered in New York city, I think a lot of people are going to have a problem with that.
Now, if you want to pull out of the UN, evict them from the country, and declare that the US is refusing to work cooperatively with any other country except on our own terms -- that would probably be just as destuctive to the UN as nuking it.
Then again, you may not care if NY gets nuked. Bill O'Reilly seems to think that it's perfectly reasonably for women and children to die in flames, if it cuts down on the number of illegal immigrants in the country....
2007-03-16 11:25:39 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, as far as conservative foreign policy goes, that's almost sensible. It's not really *more* stupid than invading Iraq and planning to invade Iran. Why don't youy conservatives just get together and draw me a crayon picture of "the UN" on fire, while us grown ups try to sort out the mess you've all made.
2007-03-16 13:14:49 · answer #5 · answered by surroundedbyimbeciles 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
nicely said! Clinton and Obama are gullible sufficient to imagine that when a pollster asks, "do you want our troops living house", and the overpowering answer is certain, it means pull the troops out in defeat. i believe the yank everybody is sensible sufficient to appreciate the consequences of withdrawing and if requested the direct question, "do you want our protection rigidity to retreat from Iraq", the reaction should be fairly different. everybody needs our troops living house and all of us favor the killing to end, no longer in person-friendly words in Iraq yet everywhere, yet withdrawing from the enemy isn't something actual individuals ought to evaluate. for sure, McCain is the in person-friendly words candidate with the right approach for fulfillment in Iraq and in the conflict on terrorism.
2016-11-26 00:36:48 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nay, the radioactive fallout would wipe out half of NYC.
How about this instead? We take a hundred Iraqi insurgents, and drop them off in the UN offices of Russia, Germany, and France, three countries who were getting bribed by Saddam Hussein (via the Oil For Food Scandal) to keep voting "no" on miliary intervention, thereby forcing us to take nearly unilateral action.
That seems fair, doesn't it?
2007-03-16 11:23:29 · answer #7 · answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
How about this as another option:
Withdraw our membership from the UN.
Move the UN to Iraq.
Withdraw our troops from Iraq.
Nuke Iraq.
2007-03-16 16:02:25 · answer #8 · answered by clwkcmo 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Welllllllllllllll I do like the nuking of the UN part.
ROFLMAO
2007-03-16 14:45:29 · answer #9 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
can we get the libs to visit the UN?
2007-03-16 11:22:59 · answer #10 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
YN. Seeing as the UN is mostly funded by US dollars, do you think that is really a good idea?
2007-03-16 11:23:40 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋