can somebody tell me why we aren't dropping the big ones over there in the persian gulf to shut these motherless bastard up? afghanistan too? either pull out or play to win...
2007-04-27 10:00:18 · 18 answers · asked by john 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
you wouldnt understand.........stay in school
2007-04-27 10:02:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Well, there's the possible prospect of international condemnation - or even retaliation - for breaking out a doomsday weapon that hasn't been used in half a century.
There's a paucity of worthwhile targets.
It's been too long since 9/11 for it to serve as an effective deterent against future attacks.
It'd destroy a lot of infrastructure, and result in fallout (literal, not metaphorical) that could reach west asia, maybe even the whole world.
And, it wouldn't serve the interest of either political party in the US. The Reps want a long, cheap, drawn-out war that unites the country vs a common enemy and serves as a pretext to project 'influence' (military might) into the middle east. The Democrats want a crushing defeat that will further humilate and dishartent the Reps, so they can sweep the next election (and, hopefully, many more to come). Niether wants to win, let alone break out the most dangerous weapons man has ever known to achieve that victory.
2007-04-27 10:13:37 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Asshole! No amount of your fake homeland security will stop multiple 9/11s. I challenge you to get near the persian gulf and what will befall you pimps will make 9/11 a child's play.
2007-04-27 10:25:04 · answer #3 · answered by peter y 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
read the vanity fair article (Jan. or Feb.) on our foreign policy of Persian gulf .it was devised by a think tank guy in Washington named pearl in 1997 . it is all to protect Israel and keep the oil (and profits ) flowing . 9-11 was the reichstag fire of our generation . it got Americans to hate a group of people and spread fear and mistrust of Muslims . guess who started that fire . democracy is best taught by example . we are not setting a good example .
2007-04-27 10:25:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The radiation would be harmful to the workers trying to pull the oil out of Iraq and the loss of the opium poppies in Afganistan would cause major supply and demand problems.
2007-04-27 10:06:34 · answer #5 · answered by tidww 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because if you do it becomes fair game for anyone to nuke us. It would be a disgusting way of solving a problem, and would create problems of its own. That type of hate-mongering and not caring for your fellow humans is not the type of opinion you want.
2007-04-27 10:12:37 · answer #6 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Nice one. Believe me you won't have to wait that long for nukes to start getting thrown around the world 5 years tops and you can kiss the world as you know it goodbye. World war three is a certainty. You people had better well start f*cking believing it.
2007-04-27 10:06:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
who will we nuke, the Iraqis, the Sunnies, the Shiites, the Curds, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, should we sacrifice Israel to nuke um all..
2007-04-27 10:10:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because killing millions of good, innocent people is an unspeakable sin.
2007-04-27 10:14:25 · answer #9 · answered by maguire1202 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think tactical nukes should be in play for certain places, other than that very heavy saturation of conventional and special bombs ,napalm etc should be deployed
2007-04-27 10:11:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because it would result in the deaths of millions of innocent people?
2007-04-27 10:03:10 · answer #11 · answered by Louis G 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋