2006-09-11 20:07:06 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
cantcu - I'm not talking about landmines. I'm talking about mass bombings like we did against Germany towards the end of WWII, just going in and levelling the place.
2006-09-11 20:13:57 · update #1
WHO THE F*CK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?
2006-09-11 20:15:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Nah, ever taken an international family members direction? The expert tale is often forever a lie. merely look on the historical past persons excuses to attack unfavorable international locations. Nicaragua became a danger, as became Granada and the DR and Haiti. Mexico became a danger formerly the excellent conflict. Iraq became a danger, two times! Viet Nam became a danger. i understand maximum human beings nevertheless have faith the propaganda, however the KGB papers tutor that there became not at all a Soviet danger. Stalin might have plenty favourite to be left on my own and Khrushchev might have cherished not something greater advantageous than battling the palms race and bobbing up a customer economic equipment. China became meant to be a danger even nevertheless they have been to busy cleansing themselves off from eu lifestyle. Indonesian communists have been as quickly as a danger. nicely, you recognize, none of those memories stay to tell the story minimum inspection. each and every time the U. S. is calling for to amplify its impact it calls its aim a danger. that's the previous game of thief!. once you get caught stealing element and yell "thief thief!" and get despite you pick. Iran became stated as a danger even nevertheless they pick not something greater advantageous than to be left on my own to lick their wounds. this finished ingredient approximately terrorism, it does not stand the examine. The Bush administration has contributed to terrorist agencies by ability of offering a reason celebre interior the Iraq profession. there have been no significant efforts to cut back the priority danger, all of which stems from the U. S. training of Jihadists and the destruction of the secular circulate via fact of its (maximum organic) alliance to the Soviet Union. Dude, human beings nevertheless have faith the eastern have been a danger to the U. S. for (savagely) attempting to amplify their sphere of impact. I recommend, they have been a danger to many international locations, merely not the U. S.. I for one don't have faith liars. If Bush informed me my homestead became burning, i might watch for a 2d opinion.
2016-10-14 22:06:44 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Conventional bombing is not the answer. We have seen it in Lebanon. The superior might of Israel was not able to dent the guerrilla tactics of Hezbollah. I am sure US scientists must be working on more effective weapons to neutralize the terrorists. One thing more fighting terrorists is not fighting normal battles. They have no ideology and no scruples and do not respect human rights. We need amend the Geneva convention which is strictly not applicable when dealing with terrorists. The future response will be to strike with superior technology and terrorists hiding in foxholes will have no chance to survive. What if they are hiding in civilian areas? This needs to be tackled too.
2006-09-11 20:20:28 · answer #3 · answered by openpsychy 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
as far as Afghanistan, I have some thoughts. Don't wanna kill all the innocent hardworking opium growers, so we go in and hack off all the men's arms! Tell them were just trying to bring them DEMOCRACY! Then they can convene an armless senate and have an armless president with armless bodyguards ( highly trained in Savate!). And we can bring all the arms to New York and use them to build a World Trade Center Monument!
2006-09-11 20:20:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Who's dropping Blankets on Iraw Afganistan and Somolia??
2006-09-11 20:12:53 · answer #5 · answered by W0LF 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It would kill a lot of innocent people. Something that could more easily be accomplished by dropping nukes instead of conventional bombs. What do you think the reaction would be if we nuked those countries?
2006-09-11 20:13:36 · answer #6 · answered by Kainoa 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's up to the world, but there isn't much they are going to do about it except remove them before someone gets taken out! That was one of Princess Di's causes!
2006-09-11 20:11:09 · answer #7 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
More 9/11s. More Madrid train bombings. More London Transport bombs.More martyrs willing to die for their sick prophet & their sick religion!
2006-09-11 20:30:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bomb them first and then wait for World opinion.
2006-09-12 07:37:13 · answer #9 · answered by wisechineseguy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Remember Gen. Schwartzkopf's quote on terriorists:
Asked should we forgive them?
His answer:
"I believe that forgiving them is God's job.
Our job is to ARRANGE THE MEETING!
2006-09-11 20:11:00 · answer #10 · answered by love_2b_curious 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This will answer your suggestion
http://www.endofworld.net/
2006-09-12 02:23:09 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋