Congressman: 'Take out' holy sites If terrorists nuke U.S. - Page 4




 
--
 
August 1st, 2005  
Locke
 
 
you can dress up combat death in valour and heroics and sacrifice, but in the end, you are still dying alone on the battlefield slowly with a shot to the torso.

doesn't mean i wouldn't do it, im just not into dressing things up wrongly

not that i feel the need to justify myself, but i dont always see the darkside, its just on topics like this there isn't really a bright side
August 2nd, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileer
Only cowards count the enemy before the charge, it's much easier to count the bodies later. Victory belongs to the courageous.

Man you have a career in writing fillers for fortune cookies, I mean really how many cliches can you fit into a sentence?

This thread is kind of pointless given that any large scale launch from the US is more than likely going to be met by a retalitory launch from pretty much every nuclear capable nation in the affected area which will more than likely be India, Pakistan, China and Israel (obviously not all against the USA but I wouldnt like to be living in Israel when the middleastern radiation cloud comes sailing by nor would I want to be in the US when China gets its share of the radiation.

So really the choice comes down to whether the US considers the attack worth ending humanity.
August 2nd, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileer
Only cowards count the enemy before the charge, it's much easier to count the bodies later. Victory belongs to the courageous.

Man you have a career in writing fillers for fortune cookies, I mean really how many cliches can you fit into a sentence?

This thread is kind of pointless given that any large scale launch from the US is more than likely going to be met by a retalitory launch from pretty much every nuclear capable nation in the affected area which will more than likely be India, Pakistan, China and Israel (obviously not all against the USA but I wouldnt like to be living in Israel when the middleastern radiation cloud comes sailing by nor would I want to be in the US when China gets its share of the radiation.

So really the choice comes down to whether the US considers the attack worth ending humanity.
You say cliche', I say real world. Read a newspaper or watch the news. Do you actually believe that any country in the world would dare launch a nuclear attack against America? If so, which country or countries are you talking about and who exactly has the sophistocation to deliver weapons that far?
--
August 2nd, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
iraq.



wasn't that the reason the US invaded?
August 2nd, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
iraq.



wasn't that the reason the US invaded?
Just as I suspected, you can't read. Or just refuse to believe when you do. I think the list of broken UN resolutions has been posted enough times that if you don't understand world politics, you never will.
August 3rd, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
but you went in to find the WMD's, iraq had WMD's which is why they were breaking the resolution. right?


you use the UN resolutions to back up your case with one hand, yet condem the UN as being irrelevent with the other.


to the origional question, countries with the means to deliver nukes to the continental united states;

france
russia
china
UK

(i may be missing some)
August 3rd, 2005  
Rabs
 
 
Its true we went into Iraq on bad intelligence, but based on the intelligence we had, there was no other choice. If saddam used WMDs on Israel, nuclear retaliation would be almost guaranteed. If saddam gave a WMD weapon to a terriost group, which was then used on a major US city and the public found out we had "slam dunk" evidence he had/developing WMDs and we didn't do shit. The result would be Bush's head on a pike on the white house lawn.

but rabs but rabs, what about North Korea???!?!?!

North Korea wants nuke for itself, and would in all likelihood not give them to a terriost group. Also if they did use a nuke they realize retaliation would wipe them off the face of the earth. N.Korea also isnt really has crazy has everyone thinks, they aren't islamo-nazis and want to exterminate the jews, they want nukes for international respect and a bargaining chip. I'm not saying N.Korea should be allowed to have nukes, but we can trust them to not use them and time for negotiations is acceptable. However, if we get a firm fix on there nuke sites and we know almost certainly we can get all of em, blow em to f'in hell.
August 3rd, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabs
North korea has nothing we want.
August 3rd, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
so what you're saying is that you consider North korea to be less able to attack it's neibours than a country that had been bombed almost every other week for ten years.


sorry mate. i dont follow that.


if the US took a shot at "regieme change" in NK you would have to deal with china. thats why the US didn't and wont.


how about a brutal dictator who has been killing and exiling his own countrymen for the better part of 25 years? robert mugabe
August 3rd, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
but you went in to find the WMD's, iraq had WMD's which is why they were breaking the resolution. right?


you use the UN resolutions to back up your case with one hand, yet condem the UN as being irrelevent with the other.
Indeed this has been the more amusing aspect of this little spat I have even manages to smirk my way through posts blaming the UN for the poor intelligence that lead to the war, I personally have become a more ardent UN supporter than I used to solely because they have stuck to their guns over Iraq.