Just so you know, I wasn't factoring in the UK or Canada. UK shouldn't even be considered western Europe, they're closer to Americans than Europeans. :POriginally Posted by Limited
, you have NO idea what your talking about, Europe doesnt boast about their nuclear missiles, unlike the US. However we have alot of firepower.
Scary fact, UK is closer to Iraq than America...
Last edited by Limited; April 25th, 2010 at 03:50 PM.
Closer as in more alike, more similar.
>_> You've clearly never been outside the States.
Ok warlord, let me make this crystal clear: the insurgency in Iraq was caused by our dissolving the Iraqi army, and by banning the Ba'ath party. Actually, I'm gonna lay all of that blame squarely on the shoulders of Rumsfeld. It was him that dumped that 30 year old shit head in charge at invasion + 3 (Bremer). If (retired) Lieutenant General Jay Garner had been left in charge, things might have been different. But instead Rumsfeld put up L Paul Bremer, who's first course of action, against the pleas of both Garner & the CIA liaison Charlie Duelfer, was to dissolve the Ba'ath party, and disband the Iraqi army. The Iraqi army, post invasion was literally sitting on their asses, ready to assist the coalition forces with establishing order, much like the Germans after WW2. So, now what happens? You have a bunch of highly trained ex-military with no job, a handful of resentment, and a bunch of political activists who've gone underground. If it had been handled differently, we would have been out of there in two years tops.
Just had to throw that out there...
You also can't understand some slight sarcasm or trying to be funny. Trying to differentiate yourself from the U.S. you don't see the humor.
Dwood, I'd just like to point this out for you while there's still hope: you are trying WAY too hard to be witty, and I've been noticing it since you showed up. Stop while you are ahead. Post less knee-jerk responses and read more. Thanks.
Anyhow, I firmly believe that you can't trust your treaty partners to actually follow through; a treaty is nothing but a piece of paper after all. Hell, even if they wanted to follow through, they might not even be in the economic position to do so (looking at you Russian Federation). Therefore, it follows that disarmament is a waste of money and man power. Building the nukes was largely a waste as well, but what's done is done. Why don't they put those nukes to a more productive use as the foundation for a space defence system against potential asteroid collisions?
Inability to recognize the combined military power of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany represents an American-centric worldview of infantile construction.
Nuclear weapons don't represent a deterrent against terrorist groups or rogue states precisely because they would be useless military tools in retaliation against those threats. And since these are the actual security threats to the United States, Russia, and China, a bloated nuclear arsenal (indeed anything more than a token force) is a simple liability.
Besides, military vengeance has clearly proven to be such an effective tool against terrorism in this last decade!
All we can do to fight Terrorism is send a bunch of Carl Sagans and teachers to teach them the Theory of Evolution as well as the wonder of outer space.
Let me throw this out there: Global defense.
What happens if an aggressive alien species were to be introduced to our global theater of stupidity and petty squabbling? Wouldn't you rather the US & Russian governments band together and rise to the challenge of defending the mighty human race!? Against all odds, staving off annihilation at the hands of a voracious hoard!? Good God sirs, I challenge you to plan ahead; plan for the inevitable!
No but seriously, I think it'd be good to keep a large supply of nuclear weapons on hand. You never know.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks