Iraq or N. Korea? Or neither?

Who should America strike first, Iraq, N. Korea, or niether?

  • Iraq

    Votes: 16 32.0%
  • North Korea

    Votes: 7 14.0%
  • Neither

    Votes: 12 24.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 6.0%
  • Who cares? They'll just end up bombing Canadians again anyway.

    Votes: 12 24.0%

  • Total voters
    50
Originally posted by Aries
i never said all they did was collect intelligence. all i said was that the CIA was never reduced to being an intelligence agency, because they had always been an intelligence agency, despite the fact that they did stuff other than collect intelligence

can we say, contradiction?

here is the mission statement of the CIA:

Our Mission

We support the President, the National Security Council, and all who make and execute US national security policy by:


Providing accurate, evidence-based, comprehensive, and timely foreign intelligence related to national security; and


Conducting counterintelligence activities, special activities, and other functions related to foreign intelligence and national security as directed by the President.


i draw ur attention to the phrase, "...special activities, and other functions related to foreign intelligence and national security as directed by the President. "

i really don't think i need to say any more, other than here is the link to the CIA web site...

http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/mission.html
 
again, i never said all they did collect intel. they do other stuff too, but that doesn't change the fact that they always have been and always will be (without a drastic change in the gov) an intelligence agency
 
Yeah. Militent groups and such. But regardless of what America does, there's a shit storm coming. And I think we'd much rather try and survive it without Saddam and Binladen butt fucking each other and trying to do the same to the rest of the world. I mean, after September 11 there was a spate of terrorist incidents such as that boy flying that plane into a building for the Jihad and the Anthrax scare. America begin stomping a mudhole into Afghanistan, they all stop. After Bali, there was a rush of terrorism, suh as the Moscow theatre (not related to Al Qaeda, but I'm counting it), the attempted London subway bombing and various attempted hijackings. Now that war on Iraq looks almost inevitable, terrorists seem to be scared to act. Hmmmmm...
 
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Now that war on Iraq looks almost inevitable, terrorists seem to be scared to act. Hmmmmm...
Eh? Iraq has nothing to do with it. The "war against terrorism" has never stopped, and it includes a hell of a lot more than just high-profile strikes against Afghanistan. Obviously there's no way to back this statement up with any proof, but I suspect that 95% of this war (for lack of a better term - it's not really a war, but I guess it's hardly a police action either) happens without us even hearing about it. In fact, most of it probably has nothing to do with the US - it's just that countries around the world saw what happened to the Taliban, who were pretty much the only government (except the US and the USSR) that openly supported terrorism. The last thing any government needs is some terrorist group to strike against the US and then proclaim that the government in question didn't do anything to stop them.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
The last thing any government needs is some terrorist group to strike against the US and then proclaim that the government in question didn't do anything to stop them.

Exactly. And that, I believe, is the same premise that America is using for Iraq. Saddam has, today, said that he would not comply with the UN and destroy those 180 mile missiles that were found. And, as you are no doubt aware, the UN may give their support to disarming Saddam with force with their new resolution.
 
Re: In response to: Iraq or North Korea?

Originally posted by Mystery muppet
America should "cut out its own cancer" first...


It wouldn't be nice to get rid of the Democrats. Besides, my mom is one.:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top