Originally posted by flyUnitySomehow I seriously doubt that another country would make such an announcement. When the US was building thousands of nuclear weapons they didn't announce they were going to bomb Moscow with them and the Soviets didn't say they were going to bomb Washington, either. Where do you guys come up with such harebrained fantasies?
So what if you hear of a country that admits its building a nuclear bomb to nuke Newyork City, and you watch them build it. You think we should let it hit us before we take action?
1 edit
Originally posted by flyUnityNo. I don't assume any of that. I'm not trying to find fault with why we haven't caught him. What I'm wondering is *why isn't anyone asking why we haven't caught him.*
United States of America isnt God, even thought we went to the moon we cant do all things, Finding a guy in a vast area of mountians, in another country, Is allot harder then you think it is, besides all osama has to do is change his look, ...[text shortened]... he nuke button, and it will automacticly send a missle his way lol
I understand it isn't easy, but it's been 3 and a half years. We have a media that is in every nook and cranny of the private lives of celebrities, but they can't stop and ask "Hey, what happened to that Osama guy?" We have politicians that will debate a bill for months in regards to the ingredients on a package of M&M's, and yet... no questions about Osama.
See what I'm saying?
Originally posted by wibOsama's sooooooooooooo 2001; get over it. Next you'll be wanting a full investigation into the real identity of Jack the Ripper or an explanation of Judge Crater's disappearance or the reopening of the Sacco-Vanzetti case. Perhaps someone who's so tied to the past that he still plays the Caro-Kann might be interested in such minutiae, but Americans have more recent things to concern themselves with. There's a new Dukes of Hazzard movie coming out, for cripes sake!
So that's your answer? It's "too tough". We're the United States of America man. We put a guy on the moon 40 years ago and we can't find one guy hiding in some caves because it's "too tough".
And no one seems to care. Don't you want some answers from your representatives about the Osama question?
Originally posted by no1marauderI know they wouldnt announce that they was gonna nuke us, I was just asking Nyxie what should we do if we have all the evidence in the world that they was gonna destroy a city, would you do a pre emptive attack? or would you let them hit us first? Nyxie was saying that we should be attacked first before we attack them
Somehow I seriously doubt that another country would make such an announcement. When the US was building thousands of nuclear weapons they didn't announce they were going to bomb Moscow with them and the Soviets didn't say they were going to bomb Washington, either. Where do you guys come up with such harebrained fantasies?
Originally posted by wibahh I see your point,
No. I don't assume any of that. I'm not trying to find fault with why we haven't caught him. What I'm wondering is *why isn't anyone asking why we haven't caught him.*
I understand it isn't easy, but it's been 3 and a half years. We have a media that is in every nook and cranny of the private lives of celebrities, but they can't stop and ask "H ...[text shortened]... nts on a package of M&M's, and yet... no questions about Osama.
See what I'm saying?
Why dont the media and congress start asking question on why we havnt caught the guy who killed Kennedy?
Originally posted by flyUnityYou might wanna try reading your own posts:
I know they wouldnt announce that they was gonna nuke us, I was just asking Nyxie what should we do if we have all the evidence in the world that they was gonna destroy a city, would you do a pre emptive attack? or would you let them hit us first? Nyxie was saying that we should be attacked first before we attack them
FU: So what if you hear of a country that admits its building a nuclear bomb to nuke Newyork City
The international law on pre-emptive strikes have been in force for centuries: such an attack is only justified if the danger is overwhelming and immediate leaving no time for other measures. I am not aware of any such circumstance that has ever existed regarding the US; certainly none do now.
Originally posted by flyUnityWhat proof, if you want to make such a hairsplitting idea, I guess you better give me more details. Would this be like the proof that saddam had wmd's?
I know they wouldnt announce that they was gonna nuke us, I was just asking Nyxie what should we do if we have all the evidence in the world that they was gonna destroy a city, would you do a pre emptive attack? or would you let them hit us first? Nyxie was saying that we should be attacked first before we attack them
I said already i don't believe in invading another country. Is there another way you need me to spell it out for you? If we were nuked, this country would strike back in a way that would almost certainly destroy the way of life this planet has. There would'nt be many survivors. If you want to start that war, you'll be doing it without any of my blessing.
If you really want to stop extremists and be so gung ho I'll give you an answer. When a man suicide bombs we go to his village and we take out everyone related to him and everyone that lives near them, we completely and utterly annihilate them on a scale that borders on genocide. If you really want a safe world where only you rule, you have to 100% destroy all who oppose you. Are you ready to take that step because I am not.
Now tell me is that the answer you need? If you really want to have a safe world, the only way to do it is to wipe out all who don't think exactly like you.
Originally posted by no1marauderlook at the "What if" in my first post, What if they told us they was gonna nuke us, I did NOT say that a country would tell us that they was gonna nuke us, I said "What if"
You might wanna try reading your own posts:
FU: So what if you hear of a country that admits its building a nuclear bomb to nuke Newyork City
The international law on pre-emptive strikes have been in force for centuries: such an attack is only justified if the danger is overwhelming and immediate leaving no time for other mea ...[text shortened]... t aware of any such circumstance that has ever existed regarding the US; certainly none do now.
My point to Nyxie is that there is a certian point when there is a need for a pre emptive strike
Originally posted by flyUnityPlease find a dictionary and look up the word "admits" as you apparently don't know what it means.
look at the "What if" in my first post, What if they told us they was gonna nuke us, I did NOT say that a country would tell us that they was gonna nuke us, I said "What if"
My point to Nyxie is that there is a certian point when there is a need for a pre emptive strike
Originally posted by NyxieNo that is not the answer I was wanting, If you had 100% proof that in 3 days a nuke was going to hit us, would you attack them?
What proof, if you want to make such a hairsplitting idea, I guess you better give me more details. Would this be like the proof that saddam had wmd's?
I said already i don't believe in invading another country. Is there another way you need me to spell it out for you? If we were nuked, this country would strike back in a way that would almost certainly d ...[text shortened]... o have a safe world, the only way to do it is to wipe out all who don't think exactly like you.
give me a "yes or no" answer please
Originally posted by flyUnityFU: So what if you hear of a country that admits its building a nuclear bomb to nuke Newyork City
Sigh,
admits = To grant to be real, valid, or true; acknowledge
now that you know that, reread my post
Are you completely stupid? "A country that ADMITS its building a nuclear bomb to nuke New York City." "What If" presents a scenario; the scenario you presented had a country "admitting" it was going to nuclear bomb NYC. Now if that's not what you meant to say, correct it; but don't stubbornly insist you never said it!