1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Who agrees using nukes on the middle east?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Steveox, May 24, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    What a solution. "I want to believe the prophet was right, so if he's wrong, it was meant that way, so I can just change the prophecy around to fit the facts." Cuts way down on the error rate. :D
     
  2. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Well Steve, it could be argued that whom France has done the most "good" for is the good ol' USA. We literally wouldn't exist as a country at all had they not come to our aid in the Revolutionary War. Unlike most of the other colonial powers(Britain, Spain, Italy), we have NEVER been at war with France. They are our oldest ally, virtually "since day one". AND, for our hundredth birthday, they GAVE us the Statue of Liberty!

    And now, to listen to the current administration and lots of the posters on this board, we've turned on them.

    At the present time, the US is the only force with enough power to create the catastrophes and cataclysms Nostradamus so ambiguously "prophecies". And by your own example, at least some of "US" have the will and intent to carry them out. So before you get all carried away with "histers" and "Saddams" and "Shiites", perhaps you should take a good, long, hard look in the mirror to see who exactly is wearing the white hats and who is wearing the blue/black hat.
     
  3. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    So, it's kinda just like Biblical prophecy then?;)

    Sorry Bogy, you know I can't resist a straight line.:D
     
  4. kwajr

    kwajr Icon

    742
    0
    Apr 7, 2004
    this need to be closed some people are closed minded so its pointless
     
  5. Jack White

    Jack White Icon

    611
    0
    Sep 17, 2002
    France Built nuclear reactors in Israel in the 1960s, France transfered the technology for Israel to build Jericho-1 and Jericho-2 ballistic missiles as well as the Shavit Satellite Launch Vehicle, and the IAF was made largely of French Aircraft between 1948 and 1967.
    France also did give Israel a lot of economic aid between 1948 and 1967.
    France sells Pakistan Submarines, Aircraft, Exocet Cruise Missiles, etc.
    France also sells India Subs and Aircraft.
    So you can make a case for France being good to Pakistan, India, and Israel.
    I don't think the French have been good to the Iranians per say, but the Russians have been very good to the Iranians.
    France did support the Iraqis a lot, but Iraq does NOT have and will NOT have nuclear weapons in the future, so there's no way that the prophecy can be about an Iraqi.
    I doubt that the prophecy about the Bluehead can be about Russia, China, North Korea, France, or the UK, as I've never seen the leaders of those countries wear either a yarmelke or a turban.
     
  6. Steveox

    Steveox Banned User

    2,106
    0
    Apr 21, 2004
    You mean to say the white hats and the black hats relate to our old west days?Well we are not the outlaws or the bad guys.We were attacked by arabs on 9-11.Its like the indians terrorised a town and the army was called the fight the indians.So now were are fightning the arabs and the shiites of the middle east. Now as far jonstad said this """At the present time, the US is the only force with enough power to create the catastrophes and cataclysms Nostradamus so ambiguously "prophecies". And by your own example, at least some of "US" have the will and intent to carry them out.'''' I only hope youre right.Cause the only nation has the right to defend itself with nuclear weapons should be us!Some guy in yahoo chat predicted if theres another terror attack like 9-11 or worse again bush will launch nukes somewhere on the moddle east.And when you hear another terror attack on the news.If you live somewhere in kansas watch for rockets take off in the sky.
     
  7. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    If you are at all right you have given the best reason yet for voting anyone but Bush into office.
     
  8. Steveox

    Steveox Banned User

    2,106
    0
    Apr 21, 2004
    If you vote for kerry when theres an attack.Kerry would just turn the other cheek.And Bin Laden get what he wants.He want us to do nothing and let the arabs to attack us.
     
  9. kwajr

    kwajr Icon

    742
    0
    Apr 7, 2004
    this coming from a guy who will not eeven tell us what city he lives in
     
  10. Steveox

    Steveox Banned User

    2,106
    0
    Apr 21, 2004
    30 miles from vero beach fla!
     
  11. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    That's WAY too close for comfort. :barf:
     
  12. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Just what kind of good evidence do you have that Kerry would not respond to an attack by Bin Laden? He might actually deal with Bin Laden instead of starting wars to settle old grudges. That might be a good change.
     
  13. Steveox

    Steveox Banned User

    2,106
    0
    Apr 21, 2004
    Richard,Why cant we be good neighbors?
    I treated you to a beer.
     
  14. JM Anthony

    JM Anthony Child of the 60's DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,127
    1
    Nov 16, 2003
    Gotta believe it wasn't Billy Beer!
     
  15. Jun 1, 2004 #135 of 144
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Nothing but whackos down there! !Devil_lol
     
  16. Jun 1, 2004 #136 of 144
    Steveox

    Steveox Banned User

    2,106
    0
    Apr 21, 2004
    And nothing but rednecks and hillbillies in georgia.
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG][​IMG]
     
  17. Jun 1, 2004 #137 of 144
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    And what makes you think Bush hasn't given bin Laden exactly what he wants already?

    We're bogged down in not one, but TWO Moslem countries which may well likely end up as "Islamic Republics", ala Iran. Afganistan has already drafted a constitution guaranteeing as much. And on the ground in Iraq, who seems to be wielding the greatest influence among the population? The ayatollahs and mullahs, that's who!!! And if there was one person on Earth who wanted to get rid of Saddam more then Bush, it was Osama. Much of the Arab/Islamic world distrusts if not hates US and the rest of the world ain't far behind at least in the distrust catagory. He has managed to splinter US from some of our oldest, staunchest allies. We don't seem even close to putting a lid on terrorist activity. Al Qaeda and their associates appear to be stronger and bolder then ever. Bin Laden has become a folk hero to many who wear t-shirts emblazoned with his visage and name their male children after him because he's thumbing his nose at US, "the Great Satan/Bully", and getting away with it.

    And what did it cost him? A few dozen lunatics bribed by imaginary virgins in an imaginary afterlife, the bill for some flying lessons and roughing it in a cave for a few years. Which BTW, has been his usual residence for the past decade or so anyway. He's used to it!

    Could you kindly tell me what else bin Laden could possibly want that hasn't already been handed to him on a silver platter by our illustrious leader, Herr Bush?

    I hate to break it to ya Stevo. "Bush's plan" is going precisely according to "bin Laden's plan".
     
  18. Jun 1, 2004 #138 of 144
    SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    Lets, simply for the sake of argument, assume that all "Arabs" (it's amazing that a group as diverse as Arabs could be all clumped together, but I digress) can understand is pure force. So we "Nuke" them. ("Nuke" being another completely far to vague term that ignores the different types of nuclear weapons, their uses and effects)

    Here's a few of the many problems with that.

    First, you'd be making the problem worse. If there were a form of genocide (which is what are you proposing) that could be carried out instantly, many different groups would have used it. A large scale nuclear attack would destroy much of the world's most valuable land. Oil prices would probably triple in price, people in the region who felt they had very little to lose, and everything to gain by dying for what they believed to be their sacred land, would REALLY have nothing to lose and feel far more like they are being treated unfairly. If your plan includes Pakistan and Iran (Most Pakistanis and Iranians are not Arab) then you would of course be affecting other countries such as China, Russia, African countries, Turkey, Greece, and many others. (not to mention Israel)

    You would kill, or rather, be asking young men to willingly kill, millions upon millions of innocent men, women, children, infants and animals. You would destroy the economy of some of the wealthiest nations on earth, If you included Saudi Arabia (which has Trillions of dollars in US banks, and they decided to take all of their money out of the US it would create a huge disruption in the US economy which would already be feeling the effects of the global recession this plan would cause.

    These are just A FEW of the problems this meaningless slaughter would pose.
     
  19. Jun 1, 2004 #139 of 144
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    An image of a beer posted to a forum doesn't quite make it.
     
  20. Jun 1, 2004 #140 of 144
    Steveox

    Steveox Banned User

    2,106
    0
    Apr 21, 2004
    Then I offer you peace!
    [​IMG]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page