Read This.. Peacelovers.. Question Yourself Once More... - Page 2

Lemonite · 11-22-2001, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pub crawler:
Not necessarily. I'm just thinking about the comments made by Congressman Steve Buyer of Indiana. He's the guy who supports the idea of possibly leveling a "tactical nuclear strike" against Afghanistan.

I also doubt that nuclear weapons will come into play.. they can take care of what they need to with the bombs and special ops.. Here's to knowing our special forces are as bad ass as they're touted...

U2Bama · 11-22-2001, 10:37 AM

Putting The Osama and his thugs in prison will only lead to them being used as ransom/bargaining chips in future hostage-based terrorist acts undertaken by their misguided followers.

~U2Alabama

[This message has been edited by U2Bama (edited 11-22-2001).]

A|catura · 11-22-2001, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by U2Bama:
Right, it's because of our presence in the Middle East. Kind of like how redneck racists in America don't like it when African-Americans move into their neighborhoods.

Celebrate Diversity.

~U2Alabama

Perfect! Couldn't have said it better myself!! It's funny that most people don't want to admit that the ENTIRE problem we are facing today is due to RACISM. Bin Laden, Al Queda and the Taliban are global BIGOTS!!!!

U2Bama, that's a perfect summary!!!

Celebrate Diversity. AMEN!!!

------------------
-------------------------------------------

"I have a brother, when I'm a brother in need. I spend my whole time running. He spends his running after me."

sv · 11-23-2001, 09:42 AM

Interesting how confident we are that the U.S. wouldn't use nukes first. In the face of very contradictory history.

Hmm - let's see. . . Who DID use nukes first? Gee it was the U.S. And not while the outcome of the 2nd world war was in doubt - this occurred well after we knew we had won, during the mopping-up phase.

Who used napalm extensively to not only kill about 3 million Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians, but to convert some of the most arable land in the world into a virtual desert, ruining any future hope of recovery in that region? Gee it was the U.S.

Who makes and stocks weaponized anthrax? Gee we now learn that the U.S. is one of these countries. Are we doing this to hit military targets or for "deterrance"? Unlikely. The only reason to possess weaponized anthrax is to offensively destroy a civilian population. What the hell business does anyone have with that stuff?????

So while our bombs are enough to destroy a stone-age civilization in Afghanistan, I wouldn't be so sure about the U.S. being unwilling to use nuclear weapons. And not just to defend us from attack. I wish I could be that confident in our govenment, but a look at history just doesn't support that assessment.

sv · 11-23-2001, 09:44 AM

oh yeah, and let's not forget Agent Orange.

11-22-2001, 10:37 AM	#22
U2Bama Rock n' Roll Doggie Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine Posts: 3,405 Local Time: 09:30 PM	Putting The Osama and his thugs in prison will only lead to them being used as ransom/bargaining chips in future hostage-based terrorist acts undertaken by their misguided followers. ~U2Alabama [This message has been edited by U2Bama (edited 11-22-2001).] __________________

11-23-2001, 09:44 AM	#25
sv The Fly Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 229 Local Time: 02:30 AM	oh yeah, and let's not forget Agent Orange. __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-23-2001, 09:42 AM	#24
sv The Fly Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 229 Local Time: 02:30 AM	Interesting how confident we are that the U.S. wouldn't use nukes first. In the face of very contradictory history. Hmm - let's see. . . Who DID use nukes first? Gee it was the U.S. And not while the outcome of the 2nd world war was in doubt - this occurred well after we knew we had won, during the mopping-up phase. Who used napalm extensively to not only kill about 3 million Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians, but to convert some of the most arable land in the world into a virtual desert, ruining any future hope of recovery in that region? Gee it was the U.S. Who makes and stocks weaponized anthrax? Gee we now learn that the U.S. is one of these countries. Are we doing this to hit military targets or for "deterrance"? Unlikely. The only reason to possess weaponized anthrax is to offensively destroy a civilian population. What the hell business does anyone have with that stuff????? So while our bombs are enough to destroy a stone-age civilization in Afghanistan, I wouldn't be so sure about the U.S. being unwilling to use nuclear weapons. And not just to defend us from attack. I wish I could be that confident in our govenment, but a look at history just doesn't support that assessment.