Red1966
Well-Known Member
You know nothing of history.
Why do people buy the idea that enemies can be bombed into submission?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Johnny Retro
Well-Known Member
Q: Why do people buy the idea that enemies can be bombed into submission?
A: Japan
Such thought was put into the making of this thread
A: Japan
Such thought was put into the making of this thread
Red1966
Well-Known Member
If you think NATO will defend us, you're a fool. Oh. yeah........They already have attacked us at home, idiot.
You are afraid an army of roughly 30K people will bring war to America's doorstep, America having the largest military force the world has ever seen, combined with the coalition forces of NATO
You are suggesting/supporting going to the enemies battleground, exactly what they want us to do, waging an indefinite war, exactly what they want us to do, losing more American soldiers lives, exactly what they want us to do, and financially bleeding our country dry, exactly what they want us to, when we could stay home, defend our country and remove ourselves from Middle Eastern affairs that have nothing to do with us, exactly what they don't want us to do because they know they can't attack us at home.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
I don't think Hilary will even run. Oh, she'll start a campaign, but too many skeletons will come out of the closet, and she'll withdraw.god damn right!!!
and you should be scared..women are currently more than 50% of the electorate..wonder how many pubster wives are going to secretly vote for hillary?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I agree
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You can't kill all of them. Being a terrorists relative doesn't make you a terrorist and definitely doesn't give any other nation the right to murder you because of that. That's how terrorists think, like AQ. Osama Bin Laden justified the 9/11 attacks by citing our taxation system that funds the military, essentially holding all Americans responsible for invading and occupying holy Muslim lands.
See, when you read a little bit of history, and decide to not just believe everything media tells you to believe based on a lifetime of skewed moral codes and political agendas, you come up with valid solutions to problems. The problem is, people like you don't do that.
"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO; /ˈneɪtoʊ/; French: Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique Nord (OTAN)), also called the [North] Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed on 4 April 1949. The organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party."
Does your shoe taste good?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
You most certainly can kill all of them. You don't understand what war is, apparently. Your "valid solution" amounts to surrender to a foe that beheads those that surrender. You saw what they did to the Iraqis? They lined them up and shot them in mass. The nations that joined NATO did so to enjoy the protection of the US because they are too weak to defend themselves. Thinking they will defend us when they can't defend themselves is just foolish.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Are you suggesting murdering civilians?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Is that your slant on it?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
The ideology of the dead passes away with them.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
You claimed they were "future terrorists". Now they're innocent civilians? You can't have it both ways.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Dude, what don't you get about the fact that these guys have families, they have sons and nephews, they have kids that you can't just drop bombs on indiscriminately and murder, along with all the women that make up the rest of the family?
You are proposing doing exactly what the most radical Muslims propose. KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE. What don't you understand about that? You are the identical representation of terrorist in the western world.
Disgraceful.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Until they become terrorists, you have no right to murder innocent civilians you sick fuck.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
God you fail..
"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary both to counter the military power of the USSR and to prevent the revival of nationalist militarism, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated in 1949 that the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." Popular support for the Treaty was not unanimous, and some Icelanders participated in a pro-neutrality, anti-membership riot in March 1949. The creation of NATO can be seen as the primary institutional consequence of a school of thought called Atlanticism which stressed the importance of trans-Atlantic cooperation.
The members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty does not require members to respond with military action against an aggressor. Although obliged to respond, they maintain the freedom to choose the method by which they do so. This differs from Article IV of the Treaty of Brussels, which clearly states that the response will be military in nature. It is nonetheless assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their "vessels, forces or aircraft" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France.
The creation of NATO brought about some standardization of allied military terminology, procedures, and technology, which in many cases meant European countries adopting U.S. practices. The roughly 1300 Standardization Agreements (STANAG) codified many of the common practices that NATO has achieved. Hence, the 7.62×51 NATO rifle cartridge was introduced in the 1950s as a standard firearm cartridge among many NATO countries. Fabrique Nationale de Herstal's FAL, which used 7.62 NATO cartridge, was adopted by 75 countries, including many outside of NATO. Also, aircraft marshalling signals were standardized, so that any NATO aircraft could land at any NATO base. Other standards such as the NATO phonetic alphabet have made their way beyond NATO into civilian use."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Yet you grant them the right to murder us. If they're Muslims, they aren't innocent.
Are you really so stupid to believe NATO members that rely on us to defend them can defend us? You post nonsense and pretend you are wise. We laugh at you in your naivety.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I grant people "the right to murder us" by not murdering innocent civilians? OK, if you say so I guess..
You're a racist. All Muslims are not terrorists in the same way all Christians are not terrorists, but every so often Osama Bin Laden's and KKK's pop up because of their religious fundamentalism.
Hey, when was the last time an atheist or agnostic psychopath murdered thousands of people indiscriminately?
I laugh at your ignorance. Ignorance normally isn't something to be laughed at, but you've occupied this rock nearly twice as long as me and haven't figured this shit out by now.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
NO
That is their slant on it. Read their own words and judge for yourself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Not a secret plan. They published it
As to Bush the first not going after Hussein
https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/169-history/36409.html
Red1966
Well-Known Member
No, you said so. Religion is not a race. So, screaming "Racist" is just idiotic and dishonest, but typical of you. All Muslims follow Mohammad. Mohammad preached terrorism. Christianity didn't spawn the KKK. Let's see, do Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin (all atheists) ring a bell? You know nothing of history, and then pretend your ignorance of it supports you.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I'm personally against wars, I'm appalled at the thought of "the bomb" like we dropped in Japan.
Try as I may though, I can't dispute this other than to say the war was most likely over anyway. Most likely does not dispute your strong point.
So admitting you are most likely right, I would say we either annihilate, or stay out of it. Our occupy for decades strategy sucks.