We should do to them what they did to us. Destroy their buildings. Fight fire with fire.
Heck it worked in WW2 when we ended the war in Japan by dropping the atomic bombs. Sure it killed civilllians and its sad that they died, but that's war. People die.
We gotta get rid of all of our nukes in storage anyways, so why not use 'em on Iran, Iraq, China, and North Korea? They all hate us anyways.
If they're not with us, they're against us. Allowing their people to live in such restrictions is appaling. They have no reason to exist because they don't let their people have freedom like we do.
That's my opinion.
29 comments
Huh, so we shall free them by turning their country into glass...
*I have come to free you from your complicated lives!*
Ever heard the term Mutually Assured Destruction? That's nuclear war for ya. And some of those countries you mentioned have allies who probably have *not* dismantled all of their nukes, if you get my drift.
Also, why did you not mention Afghanistan? Are you in league with Bin Laden?
"We gotta get rid of all of our nukes in storage anyways, so why not use 'em on Iran, Iraq, China, and North Korea?"
...and Saudi Arabia.
Oh wait, they're your allies, aren't they.
"If they're not with us, they're against us. ... They have no reason to exist because they don't let their people have freedom like we do."
The liberty of a nation's citizens, or lack thereof, has absolutely no correlation with the nation's relations with the United States. As demonstrated above.
Hm. He sounds like my father.
These people frighten me because they're all blood-thirsty, inhumane louts.
Do these people even realize how horrifying modern nuclear weapons are? You can't just hit your enemy. You create a huge radioactive cloud that could float over your allies or over you. Nuking Iraq for instance would almost certainly destroy Israel and Saudi Arabia. Nuking China would almost certainly destroy ~us~, as they would shoot back you moron.
Wow - even our President's wildly adventurous warmongering pales in comparison to the suggestion of first strike with nuclear weapons against a number of states. If the lives of oppressed people are worthless, why bother to do anything to them at all - surely nuking them is merely a waste of good weaponized uranium.
Not to mention that "They all hate us" is untrue. Usually there's some sort of ambivalence, or some people who like the US, others who regard its influence as malevolent. Hell, Burma has the most oppressive, anti-US (if being against US policies is sufficient to undermine a regime's legitimacy), and yet I highly doubt that incinerating its population in nuclear fire is likely to improve anyone's lot - least of all the Burmese.
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!
Oh, yeah, and RADIATION SICKNESS FOR THE SICKNESS GOD! FALLOUT FOR THE FALLOUT THRONE! Go team Nurgle!
YOU didn't end WW2 - the Russians did.
As for America, not a single building damaged.
You don't know war but you bloody well know how to start one and kill 1400 civilians for every "enemy".
If there is one thing that the USA is expert at, it is in making sworn enemies out of best friends.
The World can get along very nicely with 4.6% of it's most greedy population out of existance, and folks like you top of the hit list.
actualy warren, there was a small forrest fire, and a few remote alaskan islands that were landed on, but that was hardly anything at all though.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.