The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
Quick question for non-Americans: by slayer 2002-12-27 05:59:39
Would you really be opposed to a few American cruise missiles hitting a facility in North Korea which has a stated purpose to build nuclear weapons (the building of which is in violation of 3 international agreements)?

If so, then why?
[ Reply ]
  Oh, not at all. by bugarup2002-12-27 06:04:17
    You can bomb any of our state owned weapons by slayer2002-12-27 06:11:47
  Well, I think... by boomerdragon2002-12-27 06:09:12
    They signed away that right. by slayer2002-12-27 06:14:26
      Free will? That's debatable. by bugarup2002-12-27 06:23:19
        What do you mean? Many nations haven't signed it. by slayer2002-12-27 06:27:53
          As in: "We have to watch those Commies ..." by bugarup2002-12-27 15:38:29
      true ... by yoyo2002-12-27 06:27:01
        No US nuclear power plant by slayer2002-12-27 06:32:58
          LOL by non-US2002-12-27 06:38:54
            That was not the non-proliferation treaty. by slayer2002-12-27 06:45:01
              Foreign Policy by yoyo2002-12-27 06:48:52
                When the NK will f*'g pay for the oil, instead of by sysangel2002-12-27 06:56:54
                  because I live in the US of A by yoyo2002-12-27 07:01:32
          Really ? by yoyo2002-12-27 06:41:07
            Are you really that ignorant of the situation? by slayer2002-12-27 06:49:37
              Fine .... by yoyo2006-11-19 12:55:59
                Why is it called the US decision? by sysangel2006-11-19 12:55:59
              Who's ignorant? by non-US2002-12-27 06:58:53
                Oh come now, by caffine-iv2002-12-27 14:02:49
            Legal? Bovine fecal matter! by sysangel2002-12-27 07:06:48
            It's actually true. by hazcat2002-12-27 08:09:11
              LOL! by Naruki2002-12-27 08:17:03
              Hmmm... by non-US2002-12-27 08:17:13
        The US can do by Pic2002-12-27 06:33:24
          you don't say ..... ;) (n/t) by yoyo2002-12-27 06:36:50
          Yep! by non-US2002-12-27 06:41:48
  america by ozanbaba2002-12-27 06:19:46
    we are not building nuclear weapons. by slayer2002-12-27 06:24:07
      hmmm by ozanbaba2002-12-27 06:44:21
        Why should we build more nukes? by sysangel2002-12-27 07:09:58
          Yeah... by rapido752002-12-27 08:34:18
            I don't trust ANYONE with nukes by sysangel2002-12-27 10:35:15
              I doubt you are telling the complete truth. by Naruki2002-12-27 13:41:28
                Truth: Trustworthiness is not the only criteria by sysangel2006-11-19 12:55:59
                  But your first point said nothing about capability by Naruki2002-12-27 14:03:16
                  Not quite true by ShadoCat2002-12-27 16:20:41
    not only that by mlopes2002-12-27 09:18:47
  Why would we? by yoyo2002-12-27 06:21:00
  Yes I would by Bellator2002-12-27 06:22:25
  Because North Korea is a sovereign state? (n/t) by NorthernCoder2002-12-27 06:26:11
    Who gave up the right to certain weapons by slayer2002-12-27 06:52:26
      giving right away? by ak762002-12-27 07:39:12
        Can you read? No? by Naruki2002-12-27 07:44:16
          I forget... by ak762002-12-27 09:34:30
            You don't forget, you're just stupid. by Naruki2002-12-27 09:43:07
              Grow up, Naruki. by caffine-iv2002-12-27 14:11:48
                You have grown a little, true. by Naruki2002-12-27 14:44:38
                  Actually you did not use similar tactics. by caffine-iv2002-12-27 14:51:58
                    Yes, I did. by Naruki2002-12-27 15:06:46
                      Ah, you're another one who can't grasp the concept by caffine-iv2002-12-27 15:13:07
                        You are retarded. by Naruki2002-12-27 15:19:13
                          Now read one up from that, where you by caffine-iv2002-12-27 15:22:35
                            Yes. It's a question. That's what you do by Naruki2002-12-27 15:26:34
                              Questions are good, yes. Presentation is also by caffine-iv2002-12-27 15:45:34
        Bombing them back to the stone age? by slayer2002-12-27 07:44:30
          And what then? by ak762002-12-27 09:27:23
            Like they are doing now? by Naruki2002-12-27 09:29:09
              I assume by ak762002-12-27 10:02:33
                Terrible human rights is an understatement. by Naruki2002-12-27 13:10:50
  Yikes! by non-US2002-12-27 06:29:05
    there would be no ecological harm at this time by slayer2002-12-27 06:40:38
      it also violates a country's sovereignty by yoyo2002-12-27 06:44:42
        Are you so sure about the PEOPLE by Naruki2002-12-27 06:49:07
        How much do you actually know... by SnArL2002-12-27 09:48:19
          80% of the time by migiizis2002-12-27 09:58:33
            They don't need a pointer anymore by SnArL2002-12-27 10:04:51
              I wasn't talking a ground unit pointer by migiizis2002-12-27 10:10:59
      it f*** up country's economics (n/t) by ozanbaba2002-12-27 06:46:25
        Do you know ANYTHING at all by Naruki2002-12-27 06:54:46
      Speaking of treaties by Pic2002-12-27 06:46:44
        That is what I was talking about. by slayer2002-12-27 06:55:00
      A joke right? by non-US2002-12-27 06:50:43
        Do you have any type of by slayer2002-12-27 06:57:00
          Yes I do actually by non-US2002-12-27 07:02:01
            So do I. by slayer2002-12-27 07:05:32
              well obviously by spacefiddle2002-12-27 07:46:49
    What's a "really American"? by Naruki2002-12-27 06:43:03
      Sheesh. Grow up. by caffine-iv2002-12-27 14:36:41
        *LARTs the impudent fool* by Naruki2002-12-27 14:56:25
          Nice to see you LARTing yourself. by caffine-iv2002-12-27 15:01:09
            I totally agree with you by rapido752002-12-27 19:33:38
  America violates it's treaties all the time by migiizis2002-12-27 06:40:24
    Anything from this century? (n/t) by slayer2002-12-27 06:58:09
      Yes... by non-US2002-12-27 07:03:44
        Hey, I'm the first to admit by slayer2002-12-27 07:08:42
          Good point... by rapido752002-12-27 19:26:57
      This century by Trollax2002-12-27 07:09:39
        Clarification by Trollax2002-12-27 07:11:17
        Only two of those were treaties. by slayer2002-12-27 07:14:44
          Missile Shield by shadoman242002-12-27 07:21:34
            ROFL by Trollax2002-12-27 07:26:12
            The artillary system had no use in modern war. by slayer2002-12-27 07:26:56
              you must be kidding by spacefiddle2002-12-27 07:44:51
                You just HAD to get Microsloth in there, dincha? by geminidomino22002-12-27 07:45:55
                  Thank the Gods... by rapido752002-12-27 08:17:01
                  it practically wrote itself! ;) n/t by spacefiddle2002-12-27 09:07:06
      Those all apply to this century as well by migiizis2002-12-27 07:15:51
      C'mon, slayer... The ABM treaty? Yeesh! by adiplomat2002-12-27 07:40:56
        Be fair, Dippy. by slayer2002-12-27 07:52:10
          I gave you several by migiizis2002-12-27 08:17:11
            My point by slayer2002-12-27 08:21:11
              So the Bush administration violating a treaty by migiizis2002-12-27 08:23:50
          Be fair, slayer! You specified "this century". by adiplomat2002-12-27 08:23:03
            I can't win :) (n/t) by slayer2002-12-27 08:23:55
  Who's the real badguy? by Trollax2002-12-27 06:49:29
    You don't speak English, either, right? by Naruki2002-12-27 07:06:06
      Violence... by Trollax2002-12-27 07:24:20
        Define violence before you pontificate on it. by Naruki2002-12-27 07:29:31
        No one could have stopped Germany without war. by slayer2002-12-27 07:30:54
          True! by non-US2002-12-27 07:43:15
            "I'm not suggesting, but what if?" by Naruki2002-12-27 07:45:06
              Oh come on by non-US2002-12-27 07:51:22
                No. If you refuse to communicate as clearly as by Naruki2002-12-27 07:59:37
                  Oh but I am better than you :-) by non-US2002-12-27 08:09:17
                    Nope, still a fallacy. "What if" makes it by adiplomat2002-12-27 08:17:45
                      Thanks by non-US2002-12-27 08:20:45
                        That's why I changed methods in my reply. by adiplomat2002-12-27 08:24:56
                          lol - ooookay... by spacefiddle2002-12-27 12:27:51
                            Apply some more mental effort, by flamebait2002-12-27 12:52:20
                      common English usage by spacefiddle2002-12-27 12:29:34
                        Ah, but that isn't what was said. by flamebait2002-12-27 12:41:09
                  Rabbits by non-US2002-12-27 08:09:53
                  rabid fanatic? by spacefiddle2002-12-27 09:05:23
                    Disguise? What disguise? by flamebait2002-12-27 09:19:08
                      s'funny by spacefiddle2002-12-27 10:15:24
                        Nope. by flamebait2006-11-19 12:55:59
                          well then by spacefiddle2002-12-27 12:22:41
                            Okay. Done. It means just what I thought it did. by flamebait2002-12-27 12:28:15
                              intentionally being obtuse won't help by spacefiddle2002-12-27 12:31:59
                                Put those two "examples" in context. by Naruki2002-12-27 12:53:59
                                You are the one who is missing the point here. by flamebait2002-12-27 13:11:04
                Lax language = a lax mind. by adiplomat2002-12-27 08:05:14
                  A period has gotten lost. If you see this by adiplomat2002-12-27 08:08:13
                    And flippin' AGAIN! This is embarrassing! (n/t) by adiplomat2002-12-27 08:08:59
                    It's over for tea with my auntie. by Naruki2002-12-27 08:11:14
                      Aunt Flo isn't visiting you this week? (n/t) by nin_man2002-12-27 08:32:22
                        The very same! by Naruki2002-12-27 08:34:59
                          I hope ONE of you isn't referring to by adiplomat2002-12-27 08:37:37
                            MY aunt? I thought she was YOUR aunt! by Naruki2002-12-27 08:42:10
                  Does this mean you don't like broccoli/cranberry by rottweiler2002-12-27 08:17:50
                    Ummm.... YEAH, it does! :+) by adiplomat2002-12-27 08:19:31
                  Sex laxar i en laxask by non-US2002-12-27 08:35:09
                    Among other things, "lax" means: by Naruki2002-12-27 08:41:12
                      Hmmm... by non-US2002-12-27 08:55:56
            you said by slayer2002-12-27 07:57:06
              Actually by non-US2002-12-27 08:03:04
                Sorry, neglected to check the name on the reply :) by slayer2002-12-27 08:10:07
                  No worries... by non-US2002-12-27 08:44:11
            Avoiding war by flamebait2002-12-27 09:09:32
          who says it isn't evil? by spacefiddle2002-12-27 09:01:48
            I do, for one. by Naruki2002-12-27 09:22:55
              if you don't believe in evil by spacefiddle2002-12-27 12:18:07
                Why would I substitute something? by Naruki2002-12-27 12:51:11
                  disingenuous by spacefiddle2002-12-27 13:10:48
                    Turn it around. by flamebait2002-12-27 13:18:22
                    BZZT! Wrongo. by Naruki2002-12-27 13:37:33
                What an assumption by Ston2002-12-27 14:25:41
                  <sotto_voce>Just a little to the left... by Naruki2002-12-27 14:41:27
                    Wow, that's a nice mug. by flamebait2002-12-27 15:02:13
            So Buddists don't eat? by migiizis2002-12-27 09:34:56
              LOL, i've often thought by spacefiddle2002-12-27 12:20:40
                A carrot has a more advanced nervous by migiizis2002-12-27 12:50:36
    Well put! (n/t) by non-US2002-12-27 07:10:13
  Liebensraum by non-US2002-12-27 07:17:24
    Does the word have a different meaning by slayer2002-12-27 07:23:43
      Nope! by non-US2002-12-27 07:26:18
        This thread is dead, and "non-US" loses the debate by Naruki2002-12-27 07:31:00
        some comments... by anymouse2002-12-27 07:35:59
          The US by Pic2002-12-27 07:39:23
            I'd make a sardonic comment on by Naruki2002-12-27 07:43:26
          What is this now? by slayer2002-12-27 07:40:11
          :-) by non-US2002-12-27 07:46:59
            Something involving your ma, or cigars... by sysangel2002-12-27 07:53:52
              todays quote by non-US2002-12-27 07:57:39
          Listen folks... by rapido752002-12-27 08:27:37
            Everything makes somebody money. by slayer2002-12-27 08:32:43
              No... by rapido752002-12-27 08:52:44
                Sad by non-US2002-12-27 08:57:22
        That would be "Lebensraum" by aix tom2002-12-27 08:09:46
      ROTFL! Check your sources, slayer by NorthernCoder2002-12-27 17:29:08
  From a Canadian by chatgris2002-12-27 07:45:53
    From sweden by non-US2002-12-27 07:54:48
      dues by evilsysadmin2002-12-27 08:30:44
        Nah, better yet, charge the U.N. rent by sysangel2002-12-27 10:01:46
  Well, that would be a direct act of war by Silvermoon822002-12-27 08:07:08
    Starve them or bomb them by migiizis2002-12-27 08:13:57
    what if no civilians died? by slayer2002-12-27 08:15:33
      Actually, considering the monster that by Naruki2002-12-27 08:19:49
        Didn't Saddam try that too? (n/t) by slayer2002-12-27 08:23:12
          I think he tried to claim it was not a by Naruki2002-12-27 08:33:48
  Does anyone have a clicky to that treaties ? by aix tom2002-12-27 08:30:19
  Well, this quickly became a flamefest... (n/t) by kelli2172002-12-27 09:05:06
  Signing off by non-US2002-12-27 09:11:09
    If by Pic2002-12-27 09:19:00
  I think you should be asking China that question. by kahuana2002-12-27 12:37:45
  Using explosives on plutonium targets ... by slamlander2002-12-27 22:13:19

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)