Start with the big groups of known locations. Once the middle east is a parking lot, we nuke britain for being so cruel to the beloved scottish in the 1400's, jk. Look, I don't like the idea of using a nuke, but, the only thing that gets through to the terrorists is terror of their own kind.Bubbalo wrote:
Straight back where? That's the whole point: terrorists have no centralised command structure that can be targetted. To take them out, conclusively, you would have to nuke the whole planet.Miller wrote:
by god we better throw 20 straight back.
Poll
What would you say is the most hated country in the world?
| United States | 50% | 50% - 118 | ||||
| Israel | 20% | 20% - 47 | ||||
| Iran | 4% | 4% - 11 | ||||
| North Korea | 17% | 17% - 41 | ||||
| Other (Please state | 6% | 6% - 15 | ||||
| Total: 232 | ||||||
yeah................to combat the soviet union which had enough nukes to destroy the planet and the closest the world has ever been to nuclear destruction. Lesser of two evils.Bubbalo wrote:
You've also supported dictators, tyrants, and despots.
Oh, right. Perhaps you could tell that to the people who were killed under these regimes? You know, I'm sure they'll understand that they had to live under tyranny to protect them from tyranny. Destroying the village to save it stuff, right?
Yes, because responding to terrorism with collective punishment has worked so well for Israel.............Miller wrote:
Start with the big groups of known locations. Once the middle east is a parking lot, we nuke britain for being so cruel to the beloved scottish in the 1400's, jk. Look, I don't like the idea of using a nuke, but, the only thing that gets through to the terrorists is terror of their own kind.
Regardless, I'm done going in this direction.
Yea I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Unless they use a nuke on us or one of our allies.Miller wrote:
It's called nuke. Unfortuanately for us, people are spineless and don't believe in nukes as a plausible weapon of war. If the terrorists use them, by god we better throw 20 straight back.arabeater wrote:
How exactly do you plan on killing them all since they're not a country or race thats easily distinguishable?Miller wrote:
But we should be the last by killing them all.
"If the terrorists use them"arabeater wrote:
Yea I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Unless they use a nuke on us or one of our allies.Miller wrote:
It's called nuke. Unfortuanately for us, people are spineless and don't believe in nukes as a plausible weapon of war. If the terrorists use them, by god we better throw 20 straight back.arabeater wrote:
How exactly do you plan on killing them all since they're not a country or race thats easily distinguishable?
Isreal hasn't done anything to end it, they just fight until they have been defended enough to have peace for a day, then another bombing. Isreal is tough already, but they should completely take over the region and show what they really are like and stop the propaganda showing them as evil and inhuman etc.Bubbalo wrote:
Yes, because responding to terrorism with collective punishment has worked so well for Israel.............Miller wrote:
Start with the big groups of known locations. Once the middle east is a parking lot, we nuke britain for being so cruel to the beloved scottish in the 1400's, jk. Look, I don't like the idea of using a nuke, but, the only thing that gets through to the terrorists is terror of their own kind.
Regardless, I'm done going in this direction.
Ok answer me this, can you really justify nuking the entire Middle East just because a group of terrorists that happen to be from that part of the world use one?Miller wrote:
"If the terrorists use them"arabeater wrote:
Yea I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Unless they use a nuke on us or one of our allies.Miller wrote:
It's called nuke. Unfortuanately for us, people are spineless and don't believe in nukes as a plausible weapon of war. If the terrorists use them, by god we better throw 20 straight back.
What did we do in WWII? We nuked Japan. Why? Because they said they would fight until the last Man, Woman, and Child. Once two nukes fell, they got smart and surrendered. The same thing applies to the Middle East. Though, the middle east is a greater threat, than japan was in WWII, right now. Killing innocents to save many more is, by my reasoning, worth it.arabeater wrote:
Ok answer me this, can you really justify nuking the entire Middle East just because a group of terrorists that happen to be from that part of the world use one?Miller wrote:
"If the terrorists use them"arabeater wrote:
Yea I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Unless they use a nuke on us or one of our allies.
Wow, yet ANOTHER US bashing thread....I am totally amazed.......What I love about it is, all of you talking shit belong to countries that probably receive a shit load of aid money from the US. THAT, is the real tragedy.
Well, another day, another shit slinging contest.lowing wrote:
Wow, yet ANOTHER US bashing thread....I am totally amazed.......What I love about it is, all of you talking shit belong to countries that probably receive a shit load of aid money from the US. THAT, is the real tragedy.
Ok I usually agree with you on most things but here I completely disagree. You cant just go around nuking people just because you feel threatened by them dude. Yes it worked in WW2 because we had to choose between 1,000,000 dead troops or just drop 2 bombs and finish them off. Not the case here. I see your logic albeit a crazy one. We're not at war with the whole Middle East just a group that resides there.Miller wrote:
What did we do in WWII? We nuked Japan. Why? Because they said they would fight until the last Man, Woman, and Child. Once two nukes fell, they got smart and surrendered. The same thing applies to the Middle East. Though, the middle east is a greater threat, than japan was in WWII, right now. Killing innocents to save many more is, by my reasoning, worth it.arabeater wrote:
Ok answer me this, can you really justify nuking the entire Middle East just because a group of terrorists that happen to be from that part of the world use one?Miller wrote:
"If the terrorists use them"
We weren't at war with all Japan either. It may be crazy, but it may the only thing left eventually. Until it is our last option, we shouldn't use it.arabeater wrote:
Ok I usually agree with you on most things but here I completely disagree. You cant just go around nuking people just because you feel threatened by them dude. Yes it worked in WW2 because we had to choose between 1,000,000 dead troops or just drop 2 bombs and finish them off. Not the case here. I see your logic albeit a crazy one. We're not at war with the whole Middle East just a group that resides there.Miller wrote:
What did we do in WWII? We nuked Japan. Why? Because they said they would fight until the last Man, Woman, and Child. Once two nukes fell, they got smart and surrendered. The same thing applies to the Middle East. Though, the middle east is a greater threat, than japan was in WWII, right now. Killing innocents to save many more is, by my reasoning, worth it.arabeater wrote:
Ok answer me this, can you really justify nuking the entire Middle East just because a group of terrorists that happen to be from that part of the world use one?
EDIT: Even I know it is insane, and a long shot at working. But, once they use a nuke, we will have no other options, as they will not hesitate to use it on anyone in the world. They would use it on their people to enstill fear also, just like Saddam used WMD's. I'm not saying use it right away, I'm not saying it must be used. I'm saying it is an option, our last option when the time comes, if it comes.
Last edited by Miller (2006-11-12 20:44:16)
Actually, the US was at war with all Japan - that's what declaring war means.
The middle east today is a totally different situation. Some extremist groups are attempting to attack the US (and other western countries), but, unlike WW2, those extremist groups are not countries that war can be declared upon, and there isn't a definite target to nuke.
The middle east today is a totally different situation. Some extremist groups are attempting to attack the US (and other western countries), but, unlike WW2, those extremist groups are not countries that war can be declared upon, and there isn't a definite target to nuke.
So, they declare war with us, yet we can't say we're at war? I'm not following.FrenziedAU wrote:
Actually, the US was at war with all Japan - that's what declaring war means.
The middle east today is a totally different situation. Some extremist groups are attempting to attack the US (and other western countries), but, unlike WW2, those extremist groups are not countries that war can be declared upon, and there isn't a definite target to nuke.
Who is this they your speaking of? Al Qaeda?Miller wrote:
So, they declare war with us, yet we can't say we're at war? I'm not following.FrenziedAU wrote:
Actually, the US was at war with all Japan - that's what declaring war means.
The middle east today is a totally different situation. Some extremist groups are attempting to attack the US (and other western countries), but, unlike WW2, those extremist groups are not countries that war can be declared upon, and there isn't a definite target to nuke.
All Radical Islamic groups. They represent a huge chunk of the population there. They have basically brain washed the people there as the people of Japan were. We can't declare war on any specifc country. We declare war on the entire region, it has too many radicals to speak of. WWIII is now, even for those who don't realize it. Oh, we kind of derailed this thread. Make your point then lets get back on topic.arabeater wrote:
Who is this they your speaking of? Al Qaeda?Miller wrote:
So, they declare war with us, yet we can't say we're at war? I'm not following.FrenziedAU wrote:
Actually, the US was at war with all Japan - that's what declaring war means.
The middle east today is a totally different situation. Some extremist groups are attempting to attack the US (and other western countries), but, unlike WW2, those extremist groups are not countries that war can be declared upon, and there isn't a definite target to nuke.
You didn't understand the sarcasm? That's OK, nobody does. My post was kind of like calling Marmaduke the world's smallest cartoon animal, but that's alright. I don't blame you.the_outsider38 wrote:
You think Canada is the most hated country in the world?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Canada.
And by that I mean if the global population were to vote, Canada would be the popular choice?
I think Isreal/North Korea/USA
Still, of all the posts I've ever considered using a [sarcasm] tag or an emoticon for, this was the one I felt needed either the least.
Alright, Miller. I'll bite. Exactly how much square footage of the planet do you estimate would be covered in radioactive dust before all terrorists are vaporized if they nuke us? I know Bush has a little list, but would that be enough?Miller wrote:
"If the terrorists use them"arabeater wrote:
Yea I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Unless they use a nuke on us or one of our allies.Miller wrote:
It's called nuke. Unfortuanately for us, people are spineless and don't believe in nukes as a plausible weapon of war. If the terrorists use them, by god we better throw 20 straight back.
Exactly. What would we do? Nuke every mosque and suspicious cave in the world?arabeater wrote:
My point is that there is no country called Radical Islamica. So you cant declare war on the entire region. Have you even been to the Middle East? I have been deployed 4 times to Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi. I have talked to the locals and they for the most part have no problem with the US or the West for that matter. Radical Islam as you call it is a minority in the region, but the ones that they do have sit in high places either in a government seat (Iran and Syria) or are religious clerics. Basically what i'm saying is that you cant blame an entire region of the world for a a fews mistakes.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-12 21:20:13)
My point is that there is no country called Radical Islamica. So you cant declare war on the entire region. Have you even been to the Middle East? I have been deployed 4 times to Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi. I have talked to the locals and they for the most part have no problem with the US or the West for that matter. Radical Islam as you call it is a minority in the region, but the ones that they do have sit in high places either in a government seat (Iran and Syria) or are religious clerics. Basically what i'm saying is that you cant blame an entire region of the world for a a fews mistakes.Miller wrote:
All Radical Islamic groups. They represent a huge chunk of the population there. They have basically brain washed the people there as the people of Japan were. We can't declare war on any specifc country. We declare war on the entire region, it has too many radicals to speak of. WWIII is now, even for those who don't realize it. Oh, we kind of derailed this thread. Make your point then lets get back on topic.arabeater wrote:
Who is this they your speaking of? Al Qaeda?Miller wrote:
So, they declare war with us, yet we can't say we're at war? I'm not following.
deeznutz1245 wrote:
Where the fuck is France on the poll? I vote France.
Good point. You win. Pleasure to look at a new point of view with you.arabeater wrote:
My point is that there is no country called Radical Islamica. So you cant declare war on the entire region. Have you even been to the Middle East? I have been deployed 4 times to Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi. I have talked to the locals and they for the most part have no problem with the US or the West for that matter. Radical Islam as you call it is a minority in the region, but the ones that they do have sit in high places either in a government seat (Iran and Syria) or are religious clerics. Basically what i'm saying is that you cant blame an entire region of the world for a a fews mistakes.Miller wrote:
All Radical Islamic groups. They represent a huge chunk of the population there. They have basically brain washed the people there as the people of Japan were. We can't declare war on any specifc country. We declare war on the entire region, it has too many radicals to speak of. WWIII is now, even for those who don't realize it. Oh, we kind of derailed this thread. Make your point then lets get back on topic.arabeater wrote:
Who is this they your speaking of? Al Qaeda?
Hey man I have no problem with killing guilty ass terrorists or insurgents that do harm to me or my comrades. Pleasure is all mine dude!Miller wrote:
Good point. You win. Pleasure to look at a new point of view with you.arabeater wrote:
My point is that there is no country called Radical Islamica. So you cant declare war on the entire region. Have you even been to the Middle East? I have been deployed 4 times to Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi. I have talked to the locals and they for the most part have no problem with the US or the West for that matter. Radical Islam as you call it is a minority in the region, but the ones that they do have sit in high places either in a government seat (Iran and Syria) or are religious clerics. Basically what i'm saying is that you cant blame an entire region of the world for a a fews mistakes.Miller wrote:
All Radical Islamic groups. They represent a huge chunk of the population there. They have basically brain washed the people there as the people of Japan were. We can't declare war on any specifc country. We declare war on the entire region, it has too many radicals to speak of. WWIII is now, even for those who don't realize it. Oh, we kind of derailed this thread. Make your point then lets get back on topic.
Actually, no. The US won't even sign a FTA with us unless it cuts out the areas in which we'd do well.lowing wrote:
Wow, yet ANOTHER US bashing thread....I am totally amazed.......What I love about it is, all of you talking shit belong to countries that probably receive a shit load of aid money from the US. THAT, is the real tragedy.
Most hated country...yeah, gotta be the North Koreans right now. They've shot themselves in the ass with their nuclear tests and now everyone's going 'zomigod banzor thoze haxx0rs!' They've painted themselves into a corner by refusing to cooperate, still refuse to cooperate despite the fact that the general population is in poverty, and even the Chinese, their closest non-enemy, hates them now. And let's face it, Kim Jong-Il is one crazy mother****er ('nuff said, fill in the blank) who is doing this just to piss the rest of the world off, not to defend itself against the US. The only reason they aren't being bombed back to the stone age is because A) China would swoop in for the kill and claim everything, and B) odds are good those nukes would be sold to terrorists and who knows what kinds of damage THEY would cause. also C) they're already AT the stone age level; I half-expect them to throw rocks at the South Koreans. Shoulda finished them off in the Korean War. Hell, shoulda stopped them when they let slip 'oh yeah, we're starting up our nuclear program again.'
*Edit* Damn typos at blinding words per minute.
*Edit* Damn typos at blinding words per minute.
Last edited by Magius5.0 (2006-11-12 21:47:06)
GOOD!Bubbalo wrote:
Actually, no. The US won't even sign a FTA with us unless it cuts out the areas in which we'd do well.lowing wrote:
Wow, yet ANOTHER US bashing thread....I am totally amazed.......What I love about it is, all of you talking shit belong to countries that probably receive a shit load of aid money from the US. THAT, is the real tragedy.