- This topic has 45 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 4 months ago by
patb.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 3, 2008 at 7:55 PM #129039January 3, 2008 at 8:20 PM #128791
VoZangre
ParticipantNuke-ity Nuke Nuke Nuke…
if its good for the goose…
US policy on Nukes is hypocritical, transparent, ad absurdum….
couple K of overjuiced mercenaries would go up like a wisp of smoke never to be seen heard from or buried….
January 3, 2008 at 8:20 PM #128959ParticipantNuke-ity Nuke Nuke Nuke…
if its good for the goose…
US policy on Nukes is hypocritical, transparent, ad absurdum….
couple K of overjuiced mercenaries would go up like a wisp of smoke never to be seen heard from or buried….
January 3, 2008 at 8:20 PM #128966ParticipantNuke-ity Nuke Nuke Nuke…
if its good for the goose…
US policy on Nukes is hypocritical, transparent, ad absurdum….
couple K of overjuiced mercenaries would go up like a wisp of smoke never to be seen heard from or buried….
January 3, 2008 at 8:20 PM #129035ParticipantNuke-ity Nuke Nuke Nuke…
if its good for the goose…
US policy on Nukes is hypocritical, transparent, ad absurdum….
couple K of overjuiced mercenaries would go up like a wisp of smoke never to be seen heard from or buried….
January 3, 2008 at 8:20 PM #129064ParticipantNuke-ity Nuke Nuke Nuke…
if its good for the goose…
US policy on Nukes is hypocritical, transparent, ad absurdum….
couple K of overjuiced mercenaries would go up like a wisp of smoke never to be seen heard from or buried….
January 3, 2008 at 8:53 PM #128808NotCranky
ParticipantWe only invade weak practically defenseless countries.
These practically defenseless countries are at particular risk if they have oil and/or are close to our allies’ nuclear and conventionally armed enemies. These invasions and occupations are in large part about protecting them and pretection of trade and transport for the western collective imperial team of which the U.S is captain.
The U.S. could probably shoot down a Nuke aimed at this country,especially since they were removed from Cuba but Israel, Spain and England etc. are at greater risk. Enemy nuclear countries know that nukes don’t make the balance of power equal if in the end they can be nuked into oblivion. If western allies let Pakistan know that they will be nuked from some comination of Israel, India, Western Europe, Afghanistan, Iraq, the gulf of Oman and the air above, I don’t think they will think too long on the nuclear option.
On the other hand the threat of a hand carried nuclear devices being employed in important places in western civilization or other “terrorist acts” may start to level the playing field. Let’s hope all these warmongers don’t level the earth.It is amazing that we hear so much more about global warming than this.
January 3, 2008 at 8:53 PM #128974ParticipantWe only invade weak practically defenseless countries.
These practically defenseless countries are at particular risk if they have oil and/or are close to our allies’ nuclear and conventionally armed enemies. These invasions and occupations are in large part about protecting them and pretection of trade and transport for the western collective imperial team of which the U.S is captain.
The U.S. could probably shoot down a Nuke aimed at this country,especially since they were removed from Cuba but Israel, Spain and England etc. are at greater risk. Enemy nuclear countries know that nukes don’t make the balance of power equal if in the end they can be nuked into oblivion. If western allies let Pakistan know that they will be nuked from some comination of Israel, India, Western Europe, Afghanistan, Iraq, the gulf of Oman and the air above, I don’t think they will think too long on the nuclear option.
On the other hand the threat of a hand carried nuclear devices being employed in important places in western civilization or other “terrorist acts” may start to level the playing field. Let’s hope all these warmongers don’t level the earth.It is amazing that we hear so much more about global warming than this.
January 3, 2008 at 8:53 PM #128982ParticipantWe only invade weak practically defenseless countries.
These practically defenseless countries are at particular risk if they have oil and/or are close to our allies’ nuclear and conventionally armed enemies. These invasions and occupations are in large part about protecting them and pretection of trade and transport for the western collective imperial team of which the U.S is captain.
The U.S. could probably shoot down a Nuke aimed at this country,especially since they were removed from Cuba but Israel, Spain and England etc. are at greater risk. Enemy nuclear countries know that nukes don’t make the balance of power equal if in the end they can be nuked into oblivion. If western allies let Pakistan know that they will be nuked from some comination of Israel, India, Western Europe, Afghanistan, Iraq, the gulf of Oman and the air above, I don’t think they will think too long on the nuclear option.
On the other hand the threat of a hand carried nuclear devices being employed in important places in western civilization or other “terrorist acts” may start to level the playing field. Let’s hope all these warmongers don’t level the earth.It is amazing that we hear so much more about global warming than this.
January 3, 2008 at 8:53 PM #129050ParticipantWe only invade weak practically defenseless countries.
These practically defenseless countries are at particular risk if they have oil and/or are close to our allies’ nuclear and conventionally armed enemies. These invasions and occupations are in large part about protecting them and pretection of trade and transport for the western collective imperial team of which the U.S is captain.
The U.S. could probably shoot down a Nuke aimed at this country,especially since they were removed from Cuba but Israel, Spain and England etc. are at greater risk. Enemy nuclear countries know that nukes don’t make the balance of power equal if in the end they can be nuked into oblivion. If western allies let Pakistan know that they will be nuked from some comination of Israel, India, Western Europe, Afghanistan, Iraq, the gulf of Oman and the air above, I don’t think they will think too long on the nuclear option.
On the other hand the threat of a hand carried nuclear devices being employed in important places in western civilization or other “terrorist acts” may start to level the playing field. Let’s hope all these warmongers don’t level the earth.It is amazing that we hear so much more about global warming than this.
January 3, 2008 at 8:53 PM #129079ParticipantWe only invade weak practically defenseless countries.
These practically defenseless countries are at particular risk if they have oil and/or are close to our allies’ nuclear and conventionally armed enemies. These invasions and occupations are in large part about protecting them and pretection of trade and transport for the western collective imperial team of which the U.S is captain.
The U.S. could probably shoot down a Nuke aimed at this country,especially since they were removed from Cuba but Israel, Spain and England etc. are at greater risk. Enemy nuclear countries know that nukes don’t make the balance of power equal if in the end they can be nuked into oblivion. If western allies let Pakistan know that they will be nuked from some comination of Israel, India, Western Europe, Afghanistan, Iraq, the gulf of Oman and the air above, I don’t think they will think too long on the nuclear option.
On the other hand the threat of a hand carried nuclear devices being employed in important places in western civilization or other “terrorist acts” may start to level the playing field. Let’s hope all these warmongers don’t level the earth.It is amazing that we hear so much more about global warming than this.
January 3, 2008 at 8:53 PM #128812patb
ParticipantWe don’t like invading countries without oil
besides to occupy a country with troops will require 4.5 million men
iraq is 18 M people and we’ve needed 250,000 men to keep a lid on
January 3, 2008 at 8:53 PM #128979ParticipantWe don’t like invading countries without oil
besides to occupy a country with troops will require 4.5 million men
iraq is 18 M people and we’ve needed 250,000 men to keep a lid on
January 3, 2008 at 8:53 PM #128987ParticipantWe don’t like invading countries without oil
besides to occupy a country with troops will require 4.5 million men
iraq is 18 M people and we’ve needed 250,000 men to keep a lid on
January 3, 2008 at 8:53 PM #129055ParticipantWe don’t like invading countries without oil
besides to occupy a country with troops will require 4.5 million men
iraq is 18 M people and we’ve needed 250,000 men to keep a lid on
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.