kmcguffee 0 #51 May 31, 2002 From CNN:QuotePakistan has decided to redeploy troops from its Afghan border to its border with nuclear rival India, a spokesman for President Pervez Musharraf told CNN FridayDo you think this might be helping Al Quaeda."Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #52 May 31, 2002 QuoteDo you think this might be helping Al Quaeda.Ahhhh....finally someone is thinking on this thread. It's never what is happening that is so important. The more important part is why!!!"Here I come to save the BOOBIES!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #53 May 31, 2002 >From the stuff that I get to see the newest nuclear warheads available are only a> couple of years old. BUT they aren't classed as "ready for use"[1] yet. What, their nuclear weapons are like wine? They have to age them?>As for GWB, I think that most Aussies, me included, reckon that GWB is >OK-ish, farm and steel policies aside. (These REALLY F*****G HURT). SO >far he's demonstrated that he's far from stupid and that he's a bit of a >ditherer who couldn't fly off the handle before some advisor gets to him >and stops it. I have mixed feelings about him. On the plus side, he has chosen his cabinet well, and that's one of the most important things a president can do. On the minus side, he doesn't let them do the talking for him often enough, and often backs himself into verbal corners (i.e. US response to terrorism is justified, Israeli response is not.) Last week he asked the president of Brazil "So do you have blacks, too?" - a gaff that could have been avoided if he'd just let Condoleeza Rice, who had been sitting right next to him, do the talking (very smart woman, there.)-bill von Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #54 May 31, 2002 >What will your response be if the US with British concurrence (which >implies Canadian and Australian agreement. Did I miss anyone?), without overt> provocation, sends a non-nuclear cruise missile into IRAQ and hits what they> swear is a nuclear weapon construction/storage site? We will all support it, of course. Anything the US does to respond to terrorism is good; anything another mainly white country does to respond to terrorism is sorta OK but is an overreaction, and results in a scolding. Anything an Arab country does in response to terrorism is, of course, just more terrorism.See how easy that is?-bill von Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #55 May 31, 2002 Maybe if they nuke each other they will take out some bad guys..Those countries need to grow the fuck up.. Blue Skies ..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sebazz1 2 #56 May 31, 2002 QuoteMaybe if they nuke each other they will take out some bad guys..You know it is funny (not in a haha way) that you mentioned that. I met a man who's father was a judge in that part of the world. If a crime like a murder or rape occured in an area the local officials would round up twenty random people. They would torture all twenty. Then they would send ten of them to jail and kill the other ten. It detered peopel from comiting crimes but you gotta wonder if just once they got someone guilty of the actual crime.KAAABOOOOOOM!!Sebazz........ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #57 May 31, 2002 QuoteIt detered peopel from comiting crimes but you gotta wonder if just once they got someone guilty of the actual crime.If you think like some of the prosecutors in this country ..."Everyone is guilty of something." So, of course they did....."Here I come to save the BOOBIES!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #58 May 31, 2002 All those damned people need to calm the hell down.. Can't we all get along??We should sign a doctrine with those two countries. One more nuke goes off. even a test and they get turned into a glass parking lot.. I'm tired of hearing about these bickering assholes.. I don't even watch the news anymore because it's all crap.crap crap crap...Rhino Blue Skies ..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #59 May 31, 2002 Rhino --What's with all the fruit salad?quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #60 May 31, 2002 fruit salad?? lolI don't know if I want to know what that meant.. lol Blue Skies ..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #61 May 31, 2002 >We should sign a doctrine with those two countries. One more nuke goes >off. even a test and they get turned into a glass parking lot.We should be careful saying such things, as there may come a day when _they_ have the power to turn NYC into a glass parking lot. It's getting to be a different world.-bill von Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chickenhawk420 0 #62 May 31, 2002 Anyone who thinks its alright and its gonna end soon, think again.I personally think we've only just seen the beginning of much shit to come. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kopelen 0 #63 May 31, 2002 I personally don't think we have the combat power to reign in another two countries such as the current situation is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #64 May 31, 2002 Quotethere may come a day when _they_ have the power to turn NYC into a glass parking lot.Yeah....That George Bush is crazy wanting a National Missle Defense...."Here I come to save the BOOBIES!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #65 May 31, 2002 QuoteI personally don't think we have the combat power to reign in another two countries such as the current situation is.I wonder who's fault that is? I'll give you a clue, he got blow jobs from a fat whore...AerialsSo up highWhen you free your lives (the) eternal prize Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #66 May 31, 2002 >Yeah....That George Bush is crazy wanting a National Missle Defense....If a terrorist country wants to vaporize NYC, a National Missile Defense will help about as much as the Army helped stop 9/11. The warhead will not arrive in a missile, and it will not be accompanied by a helpful declaration of war. The very first letter ever written about nuclear weapons, from Einstein to Roosevelt back in the 30's, contains something rather chilling:"A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory."I fear terrorists may think along the same lines.-bill von Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #67 May 31, 2002 QuoteYeah....That George Bush is crazy wanting a National Missle Defense....Considering that a nuke attack from a terrorist is not very likely to be delivered by ICBM, I'd say yes.A terrorist nuke would be much easier and likely to be delivered in a volkswagon beetle.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #68 May 31, 2002 QuoteI personally don't think we have the combat power to reign in another two countries such as the current situation is.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I wonder who's fault that is? I'll give you a clue, he got blow jobs from a fat whore...I'm certainly not defending his actions, but the gradual detioration of our military power started long before he even got elected.Justin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #69 May 31, 2002 QuoteA terrorist nuke would be much easier and likely to be delivered in a volkswagon beetle.Uuuhhh....I thought we were talking about countries. Yes....backpack nukes are old technology. I seem to remember something about "The Fulda(sp?) Gap" in Germany....and passes in Switzerland being targets of SF guys with little 24Lb suprises for the invading Russian hordes. Of course there has been lots of talk about a "Dirty" conventional truck bomb. In the long run just as devastating and any idiot can build that. "Here I come to save the BOOBIES!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #70 May 31, 2002 In the same respect, Bill, some countries who aren't exactly friends with the US, just uneasy partners (read: China) have been working very hard on their ICBM programs. This is case in point that there is not a single solution to our problems, since there really isn't a single problem and a single answer will only satisfy a small portion of our problems. Yes we have a pandora's box on our hands, however, just about every generation in American history has faced an advisory so great and so evil that a victory seemed far from obtainable; moreover, those generations have faced that challenge head on and come out on top. I have faith in America to pull through.AerialsSo up highWhen you free your lives (the) eternal prize Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #71 May 31, 2002 QuoteI'm certainly not defending his actions, but the gradual detioration of our military power started long before he even got elected. Absolutely not. The downsizing of our military started with Bush Sr. The deterioration started with Clinton."Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #72 May 31, 2002 Quoteread: ChinaTry North Korea...... Those are scary folks...especially when you are looking through the fence at them..."Here I come to save the BOOBIES!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #73 May 31, 2002 Quote Considering that a nuke attack from a terrorist is not very likely to be delivered by ICBM, I'd say yes. The missile defense system is more for defense against rogue nations ala North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. With the former Soviet Union losing control of a small portion of its warheads and China and North Korea selling missile technology it is perfectly feasible that a terrorist group could use an ICBM. A year ago everyone would have said that it wasn't feasible for terrorists to fly three commercial jets into large American buildings.If it never happens people will say he wasted money. If he doesn't do it and it happens everyone will want his head on a platter for not doing anything about it. "Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #74 May 31, 2002 Detioration and downsizing are definately two different things here, Bush Sr. saw the global threat changing and the need to refocus on social economic issues at home since the ever so menacing bear had fallen. Clinton let what we had lay to waste, his administration turning its back on our men and women who had dedicated their lives to our well being and safety. Remember, it was Clinton who pulled the funds back so tightly that organizations tasked with protecting the US had their hands tied. Those organizations lacked the funds to back and support HUMINT, which could have and would have helped sort out the details before 9/11. All Clinton saw were dollar signs coming from questionable persons (once again, read: China).Next the argument will be that Clinton had allowed America to achieve economic prosperity, if you believe that, then I have a hard time believing that you understand the American economy. Beyond that, someone will probably mention the "peace" that Clinton made possible in the Middle East. That worked well, didn't it, sort of like a band-aid to cover a severed arm.AerialsSo up highWhen you free your lives (the) eternal prize Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #75 May 31, 2002 QuoteI'm certainly not defending his actions, but the gradual detioration of our military power started long before he even got elected.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Absolutely not. The downsizing of our military started with Bush Sr. The deterioration started with Clinton.That is a semantic quibble. So you are inferring that the downsizing did not cause any detioration of our military power? If so, I disagree.If you are talking about detioration of the character or ethics of our military, then I'd agree that it started later.Justin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)