If Bush nuked the rest of the world, could he claim "victory" in the war of terror?

Question

I mean, before the wind blew the radioactive cloud his way

Answer 1

I just thought you would enjoy reading this one again:
"Hey man, a radioactive cloud is a thing of the past. these new nukes are cleaned up in just a few months. Then we can go in and get all the oil we need. It's wuses like you who would cry."

One would hope that this is a false flag operation. Perhaps some dirty communist pretending to be an all American cowboy type, you know, in order to make the globe think that the country is populated by sociopathic amnesiacs with a burning desire to disintegrate a couple millions and poison probably ten times that. But the truth is, brother, that whenever the five minutes of hate are triggered in the mass of this conditioned population no other consideration may occupy the mind. Not even the instinct to self-preservation can persist against the salivating blood-lust so well instilled by years of intravenous propaganda. You know, the boobtube.


Well, I hope the leaders are not as incapable as they make out to be. I'd hate to die of radiation poisoning.

I don't suppose anyone who needs to have irony explained at this point, but the point is: No, there is no easy clean up, and there is massive carnage of civilians. Most importantly, radioactive material would be projected right towards god knows where thanks to the services of the wind and sea currents.
Hey, think about it, if the other country successfully retaliates we could have a whole two hemisphere's producing twice the amount of radioactively anointed superheroes to save us all.

Well, I guess now I'm overreaching.
Peace...

Answer 2

Hey man, a radioactive cloud is a thing of the past. these new nukes are cleaned up in just a few months. Then we can go in and get all the oil we need. It's wuses like you who would cry.

Answer 3

Not really, because Bush is the biggest terror to our country and to the world

Answer 4

That was good. He probably would do that.

Edit:
I don't understand why so many Americans want to nuke everybody in the Middle East. In my mind then they are terrorists in wanting to kill innocent people to get their point across.

Answer 5

Princess Psycho, You had me in hysterics. "letters of the alphabet". we could salary conflict on for the letters, h, a, r, b so as, or q, i, t, a,l. Or we could bypass after the arabic or chinese language letters, or Creek syllabics or historic hieroglyphs or black cats, ladders, unicorns and dragons. How approximately Pinocchio or human beings whose noses are too long. It jogs my memory of a pair of songs "God is Mad" Alberto y Los Trios Paranoias with lyrics like "loss of life will come at evening to those of you who placed on fake enamel", "God on our area" Bob Dylan. possibly God is a trinity of democracy, opposition and GDP according to capita. Or, on the different hand, we could merely bypass with "Salam", interior first and in all extreme dealings with others. could help provide all communities a sprint something to communicate approximately that they could agree is properly worth it, even whether this is no longer very aggressive and does not look in GDP and does not continuously get placed to the vote.

Answer 6

Yes.

Actually, you'd only have to nuke about 1/6th the world's population.

Answer 7

Don't give him any ideas!

I have wondered if he and his family have bought 100,000 acres of land in Paraguay to avoid radioactive fallout should it come to that!!

Answer 8

Yes.

The victor writes the history books.

Not pretty, but objective analysis arrives at no other conclusion.

Answer 9

No not really. Because all that would happen is the people who survived the initial explosion would become terrorists.

Answer 10

Lay off the weed.