BF2S Forums A breif, and by no means complete, history of American WMD's

RicardoBlanco wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

We can do that already, don't be jealous.

Seriously though, in order to be efficient they are designed to be purely defensive, and the original intention was to just cover the north western quadrisphere (is that the correct term? never had to use it before), you're welcome Canada and Mexico.

Hey I've got a cheaper version, don't piss off so many countries!

Hey most countries are just fucking juealous of our lifestyle b/c they are in poverty or in civil war or are being oppresed. Just b/c we have something good and ur jealous dosent mean u should attack us why dont u spend ur time making ur shithole better

arite what regiems do we support? saddam? its a better fucking choice than iran. imagine if we had supported iran instead of iraq or if we never helped either side and iran overan iraq. tell me what regiems do we support? and we support democratic goverments not some fucking dictatorsips or communist regiems. as for our military bases we are there b/c we have the countries promission not cause we forced ourselves there.

Lib-Sl@yer wrote:

arite what regiems do we support? saddam? its a better fucking choice than iran. imagine if we had supported iran instead of iraq or if we never helped either side and iran overan iraq. tell me what regiems do we support? and we support democratic goverments not some fucking dictatorsips or communist regiems. as for our military bases we are there b/c we have the countries promission not cause we forced ourselves there.

damn straight.

u cant just barge in and say were gonna build a base here lol. the country gives the permission...

Yes a lot of countries are jealous of the US for its life style, tell me which country that hates the US doesnt like american way of life.

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Lib-Sl@yer wrote:

arite what regiems do we support? saddam? its a better fucking choice than iran. imagine if we had supported iran instead of iraq or if we never helped either side and iran overan iraq. tell me what regiems do we support? and we support democratic goverments not some fucking dictatorsips or communist regiems. as for our military bases we are there b/c we have the countries promission not cause we forced ourselves there.

damn straight.

u cant just barge in and say were gonna build a base here lol. the country gives the permission...

Yes a lot of countries are jealous of the US for its life style, tell me which country that hates the US doesnt like american way of life.

You really think so ? My friend you must of never been overseas

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

a. nukes are mostly left from the cold war
b. not maintaining your own arsenal subjects you to theirs

this is common sense tho so youre either

a.just being argumenative
b.retarded

There is no argument and you obviously dont understand the definition of the word retarded. You are contradicting yourself. Yes, the US would be subject to enemy nukes, hence they would NOT be able to defeat any country with simply conventional weapons. They would not be able to stand up against the enemy that could destroy every city.

Lib-Sl@yer wrote:

arite what regiems do we support? saddam? its a better fucking choice than iran. imagine if we had supported iran instead of iraq or if we never helped either side and iran overan iraq. tell me what regiems do we support? and we support democratic goverments not some fucking dictatorsips or communist regiems. as for our military bases we are there b/c we have the countries promission not cause we forced ourselves there.

Israel, Vietnam, South Korea, Chile, Lebanon, Thailand, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Cambodia, El Salvador, Nicuragua to name some.

Regardless of what TYPE of government the US aided, its obviously going to piss off someone opposing that government. They have the right to expel foreign invaders. Just about to the same degree that allows you to shoot a trespasser on your property.

Now the bases I refer to are seen as forward agression across the globe. If you have military installations in countries across the world, well, thats just one step closer to world domination I suppose.

alpinestar wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Yes a lot of countries are jealous of the US for its life style, tell me which country that hates the US doesnt like american way of life.

You really think so ? My friend you must of never been overseas

I've lived overseas a couple of times and can tell you that they obsess (maybe too strong a word) over American products and lifestyle.  They like our music, movies, and levi jeans.

Edit:  You can make good money selling levi jeans.

Last edited by TheEqualizer (2006-07-11 21:33:07)

Havazn wrote:

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

a. nukes are mostly left from the cold war
b. not maintaining your own arsenal subjects you to theirs

this is common sense tho so youre either

a.just being argumenative
b.retarded

There is no argument and you obviously dont understand the definition of the word retarded. You are contradicting yourself. Yes, the US would be subject to enemy nukes, hence they would NOT be able to defeat any country with simply conventional weapons. They would not be able to stand up against the enemy that could destroy every city.

Lib-Sl@yer wrote:

arite what regiems do we support? saddam? its a better fucking choice than iran. imagine if we had supported iran instead of iraq or if we never helped either side and iran overan iraq. tell me what regiems do we support? and we support democratic goverments not some fucking dictatorsips or communist regiems. as for our military bases we are there b/c we have the countries promission not cause we forced ourselves there.

Israel, Vietnam, South Korea, Chile, Lebanon, Thailand, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Cambodia, El Salvador, Nicuragua to name some.

Regardless of what TYPE of government the US aided, its obviously going to piss off someone opposing that government. They have the right to expel foreign invaders. Just about to the same degree that allows you to shoot a trespasser on your property.

Now the bases I refer to are seen as forward agression across the globe. If you have military installations in countries across the world, well, thats just one step closer to world domination I suppose.

We dont support the goverments of cuba china b/c they are communist if i remember correctly cuban goods are ILLEGAL in the US. so there goes ur bullshit. Next time u have something to say just keep it to urself.

Lib-Sl@yer wrote:

We dont support the goverments of cuba china b/c they are communist if i remember correctly cuban goods are ILLEGAL in the US. so there goes ur bullshit. Next time u have something to say just keep it to urself.

OH, I am SO sorry, it appears you misinterpreted what I said by thinking I meant only right now. I failed to actually educate in your own history. Well, I'm not one for bedtime stories, so I'll let you read it yourself.

Bay of Pigs

I listed Cuba as en example of US intervention into the political outcoming of a nation, which to the point, may piss off enough people (ie, Castro) to try and obtain nukes (cuban missle crisis) to prevent you from attempting another coup. So, now you think you found one mistake and all of a sudden everything you say is right? I think you are in the wrong forum my friend.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

The US stance, however, would be that they can be trusted.  Not that I agree, but...........

Lol, true, although being the only ones to use nuclear and chemical warfare on any kind of scale goes a long way to showing they can't be trusted.

not true, the British used mustard gas during the first World War as did the Germans(against French and Canadians so who cares... jk)

Havazn wrote:

TheEqualizer wrote:

Havazn wrote:

Yes, the US would be subject to enemy nukes, hence they would NOT be able to defeat any country with simply conventional weapons. They would not be able to stand up against the enemy that could destroy every city.

I don't understand your point.  You expect us disarm our nukes while the enemy will always find ways to get their hands on some?  The US does not take a knife to a gunfight.

Well it was in response to the other guy's comment that the US would be able to defeat any country with just conventional weapons. My point wasn't to say the US should disarm the nukes, its to say they can't for that exact reason you state.

pick and choose what you want out of context to throw some futile attpempt at making some irrelevant point. its called common sense .. something youre lacking.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

true wmd's are tools of countries that cant succeed in conventional warfare i.e. not the united states

see there i said "they" cant succeed in conventional warfare ex: iran n.kora syria etc. you twist words b/c you have no valid arguement or even a point..

Havazn wrote:

Yes, the US would be subject to enemy nukes, hence they would NOT be able to defeat any country with simply conventional weapons.

*see Iraq, Yugoslavia, Germany, Korea etc..
were not able to defeat countries using conventional weapons ? remove your head from your ass

Colfax wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Colfax wrote:

Lets say theoretically the U.S. could remain self sustained for 100 years+  and we pulled all military to defense on our land and water borders and stepped back from the world community.  Economies would fall,  countries would be destroyed, and we would just smile and say see.  You don't want us involved and look what happens.

Europeans would be speaking german if it was't for the United States (period)  Like you had a handle on that (haha). 

With out the U.S. the world as we know it would cease to exist.  We are rich money hungry and supply half the economies in the world with their income by giving them our income.  If we fall you fall and everyone falls.

Oh God thats funny...spoken like a true nine year old! lmao..

I laugh at you with pity...  We should have stayed out of WWII and left germany to finish you off. 

Ask any educated economist and they will tell you if the United States fails economically it will be the end of life as we know it.

Call me whatever you want.  I don't care.   The U.S.  has saved so many countries its not even funny.  Especially you cheeky fellows over there in the UK.

not to mention your favorite game(BF2) and your favorite website would fall with the US.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Havazn wrote:

TheEqualizer wrote:

I don't understand your point.  You expect us disarm our nukes while the enemy will always find ways to get their hands on some?  The US does not take a knife to a gunfight.

Well it was in response to the other guy's comment that the US would be able to defeat any country with just conventional weapons. My point wasn't to say the US should disarm the nukes, its to say they can't for that exact reason you state.

pick and choose what you want out of context to throw some futile attpempt at making some irrelevant point. its called common sense .. something youre lacking.

Exactly what did I 'pick and choose' from?

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

true wmd's are tools of countries that cant succeed in conventional warfare i.e. not the united states

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

see there i said "they" cant succeed in conventional warfare ex: iran n.kora syria etc. you twist words b/c you have no valid arguement or even a point..

You cant quote something in your quote that you didn't actually say. You said "countries cant succeed" not "they can't succeed". Besides, I knew what you meant, but the fact is that without your nukes, you wouldn't be able to waltz into China and take it over, because they would nuke you first.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Havazn wrote:

Yes, the US would be subject to enemy nukes, hence they would NOT be able to defeat any country with simply conventional weapons.

*see Iraq, Yugoslavia, Germany, Korea etc..
were not able to defeat countries using conventional weapons ? remove your head from your ass

Apologies, bad wording. I submit a properly re-worded statement "Yes, the US would be subject to enemy nukes, hence they would NOT be able to defeat some countries, like China, without nukes.

Last edited by Havazn (2006-07-11 22:30:07)

Ok anyone with a brain knows that you have to fight nukes with *gasp* more nukes. M.A.D. still prevents the use of nukes even today.

What people here need to learn is how to phrase a a sentence correctly, which is a very important skill to have went using a written language.

AS for the regimes supported by the US: Yes the US has a bad record with trying to shape the world to work in our benefit, and many times this has blow up in our faces (Iran). Also the US had a policy of containment during the Cold War which meant stopping communists from taking power (South Korea, Vietnam, etc.).

The forward bases around the world are namely relics of the Cold War, which now serve as fast reaction jump point for the US as it now takes into it's hands the idea it must police the world (if that is good or bad, it's up to you).

There that summarizes all the retarded babble on page 7 so far