U.S. Ready for Pre-Emptive Strikes in Terror War

[uh Clem]

If we have to break a lot of China in the process...

China or china?

[DanS]

China's been keeping its head low recently. So I guess I meant china.

[Lonestar]

WFHermans , you honestly have no idea what the hell you're talking about, do you?

Right down to the first post in this thread. "America is the only country to use weapons of Mass destruction."

You know, except for Germany. And France. Iraq. Britain. The Aum Shrynko.

But that's okay, because it's all a Zionist conspiracy dating back to pre-WW1.

Go peddle your Tinfoil hat sites elsewhere.

[KrazyHorse]

Who else thinks we should rename him "WTF?Hermans"?

He's fairly amusing, though I doubt he has as much staying power as Giannie or even Wiggy.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Lonestar


You know, except for Germany. And France. Iraq. Britain. The Aum Shrynko.

What do you mean ? This countre had used mass-destruction weapons on civilians ?

[Khan Singh]

I think he must be referring to poison gas, which was used, of course, by the major combatants in WW1. Only Germany deserves the blame for WW1 gas attacks though. You can't blame people for retaliating in kind (up to a certain point).

Germany and Britain both attacked each other's cities by air in WW1, though again Germany bears almost all the blame, as well as the blame for attacking French, Belgian and Russian cities.

In WW2, Japan, Germany, Britain and the US could legitimately be said to have used weapons of mass destruction. The Axis powers did use them first, but Britain and the US can not be considered blame free.

So saying the US is the only country to use weapons of mass destruction is completely unfair. Other nations certainly tried to destroy massive amounts of enemy civilians. They just were not very good at it. But they certainly have as much or more guilt than the US. In the case of the Germans a whole lot more.

[WFHermans]

"Yes your Honor, I killed that child, but it was self defence because I am sure it was planning to kill me."

Japan and especially Hiroshima's 100,000 women and children were planning to use weapons of mass destruction against the USA, so the USA had to defend itself with a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Ok, you convinced us.

But .... isn't Bin Laden allowed to argue that those evil pencil pushers in the WTC were planning to attack him first? After all as Dubya showed a pretzel can be used as a lethal weapon. So a bagel must count as a weapon of mass destruction.

You clearly are suffering from an overdose of Hystery Channel watching,

[lightblue]

Originally posted by WFHermans
You clearly are suffering from an overdose of Hystery Channel watching,

And you have been taking too much acid, so we're all screwed. Good trolling though, it has slightly more substance than Wiggy, is not as irrational as Giancarlo and is not as screwed up as EvC's.

[Djugashvili]

Maybe instead of bombing these poor middle-eastern countries with hardly anything to lose but human life, we should resort to fundamentally changing our foreign policy for the better, and eliminate the reasons behind their hostility towards us in the first place. Just a thought.

[WFHermans]

Don't you realise how much money those poor defense contractors will lose? And how exactly do you think Bush will ever get re-elected without some nice war going on???

Are you a COMMUNIST ???????

[Khan Singh]

But .... isn't Bin Laden allowed to argue that those evil pencil pushers in the WTC were planning to attack him first?

Okay, I accept your argument. Bin Laden does get to kill people in the World Trade Center.

But now I just throw it right back at you again. Since bin Laden gets to kill whomever he wants to, it is only fair that we also get to kill whomever we want to. Since Arab terrorists have actually attacked the US, we can kill any Arabs we want to with whatever weapons we want. We can now attack Arab cities with nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons. Right?

But we haven't attacked Arabs with nuclear weapons, have we? No. If we are such moral monsters, then what is restraining us from actually using our incredible superiority to take over the entire Middle East and turning it into decadent slavish colonies? Nothing, it would seem. And yet we have not.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by Djugashvili
Maybe instead of bombing these poor middle-eastern countries with hardly anything to lose but human life, we should resort to fundamentally changing our foreign policy for the better, and eliminate the reasons behind their hostility towards us in the first place. Just a thought.

Being nice will not make already pissed-off people friendly. We need to show them that terrorism is useless to achieve respect and prosperity and that they would be much more successful if they play by our rules.

Actually, some intellectuals in the Islamic movements are already thinking of alternatives to terrorism. A former cell mate of El Zawahiri(2nd in command of Al-Qaeda) has published book and categorically rejected the method of terrorism.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by DanS
How can you allow Iran, who is all chummy with al Qaeda, pursue these weapons?

There you go again! Where do you get this stuff? Iran has been supporting the Northern Alliance against the Taliban for a lot longer than the US has....

[WFHermans]

Thx for pointing out the difference between Iran and Qaida. The Qaida network (actually a loose group of mostly volunteers is actually chummy with Pakistan, a terrorist nations that is armed with nuclear weapons. But it's also a US ally.

FACT: As even CNN admitted, Bush has stopped an inquiry into 911.
FACT: The highjackers were paid by Pakistan.
FACT: Pakistan is a US ally.

THEREFORE.....

Close your eyes to these facts, mr Singh and the ret of the yahoos, go back to your ballgames and your TV set.
And wait for the next strike against innocent Americans.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
There you go again! Where do you get this stuff? Iran has been supporting the Northern Alliance against the Taliban for a lot longer than the US has....

Sorry. What he meant to say was, "How can you allow Iran, who is all chummy with Hizbollah, the Islamic Jihad, the warlords trying to overthrow the current Afghan government, etc., pursue these weapons?