Infammatory Post? Surely not!Follow

And on second thought..Maybe you are called Nobby b/c you are a ****.

So slob my knob for me.

Your "Arguement" [sic]?

When you propound an argument, I'll rebut it and wipe your nose in it.

Can I recommend learning to read, write, grasp the basic tenets of 20th Century strategic military history, and spend less time sucking your dad's knob?

Mais pourquoi?? Mais pourquoi??


Your homepage set to janes.com doesn't count.

I have nothing further to add except that my hemohrroids are a lot more inflammatory than this thread.

Edited, Oct 18th 2006 at 8:42pm PDT by Debalic

Yeah. But having said that, thank the Lord above that Kerry isn't in charge.

I have dibs on being the sole numptie of the board. ***** yourselves and get your own niche.

And by-the-by, Red, the Sovs and Chinese's record on n-bomb usage is actually far far poorer than ours-- particularly if you are of the belief that nuking Nihon was a pragmatic and logical choice. On the other hand, if you are one of those who insist Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unnecessary, there's no much to discuss, is there? After all, I can only have reasoned discourse (discourse, BT, discourse) with someone who hasn't completely swallowed the silly lefty argument against nukes hook, line, and sinker. I'll grant you that the Brits and Frenchies have done good too, but put an asterick next to their name since their stockpiles aren't really enough to wipe a hefty chunk of the earth's population from its face-- but certainly enough to wipe that smile from it.

Totem

Well the "Sovs", who are fastly becoming a fascist state, funnily enough, and the Chinese, who are becoming capitalists, haven't nuked anyone. So their record, is, well, pretty much neutral.

As for the two A-bombs... I certainly agree it was efficient. It got the job done. And quickly. Which, considering the context, was a good thing.

But I don't know man... Was there really a need to send two? And was there no other way to end the war? If there was absolutely no other option, then I guess it was ok, but I don't know. I wasn't alive back then. All I did was read what the winners wrote, and they all obvisouly say it was absolutely necessary. When you read Chomsky, he obviously doesn't say that.

So I'm neither for or agianst. If it really had to be done, if the alternative was another country from the original Axis of Evil getnig anuke and using it, then I guess it was ok. If not, if the alternative was a few more weeks of fighting, then it wasn't.

But as I said, all I know is what I read.

As for nukes in general, I'm not especially agsint them. But then again, I think if the all the countries that ahve a UN SC seat had 10 LR and 10 SR, it would be more than enough.

As a concept though, I think they suck ***. It's all fine and dandy when we've got them, but the day it falls into the hands of a suicidal fanatic, we won't be thinking they're so great after all. When you see what the a-bomb did to Hiroshima, you don't wanna think about what a n-bomb could do to London or NY.

Both the Sov and the Chinks nuked their own populations by default. The Russians did it when they used a nuke to change the course of a river and the Chinese (and North Koreans and Russkies for that matter) did it when they were learning the ropes of nuclear technology. All three have a horrible track record of public safety when it comes to radiation-- especially when compared to the United States. I won't even go into all the 55 gallon drums of radioative waste the Commies put into the world's oceans or the parcels of leaking rad material located all over Siberia.

Funny how authoritarian regimes don't seem to worry too much about their citizen's health. Now feel free to try and somehow make the US look worse, Red. I'm certain that if you try you can spin it somehow.

Totem

Yeah, and we dosed a bunch of black guys-- or was that syphillis? Anyhow, the Man is always stickin' it us.

Totem