Originally posted by Reaganwasourgreatest
Well I guarantee that they would not be pulling this stuff if Reagan was in office, but then again Bush is doing a fine job in the regard.

I believe that Reagan would have been less concerned with Political correctness.......

Welcome aboard ATS Reagan man, your name is to long so that is what I will call you.

You are right, Iraq would have happened much sooner and North Korea and Iran would be sweating bullets if Reagan was CiC.......

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Sounds like an idea of a bunch of meglamaniacal, hyopcratic fascists. Good thing they aren't in office.....oh wait..

So what would be better? Peace nick types like Carter? Even Clinton was smart enough to recognize the danger that Islamic fundamentalism is.

Strength, they understand that..........and the will to use it.........

something the French lack.........

Originally posted by edsinger
If you folks only knew how many times the CIA has done good things but they are never publicized, just the mistakes....

Oh the mistakes are unclassified? Thats news to me. Doing good things is never a requisite to excuse assassination, lies, and cover up. Maybe you should educate yourself before making bold statements.

Nuking would not be necessary. A simple fueled air explosive would shorten Heaven's supply of virgins. Question? How would that be heaven for 70 virgins having to share one man?

[edit on 12-2-2005 by Reaganwasourgreatest]

Originally posted by edsinger
So what would be better? Peace nick types like Carter?

That's your mechanical thinking again, everything in terms of Black & White. No, by negating one extreme we do not accept another extreme. If the Bush administration were to accept this their crusade of bringing Democracy would be shown for what it is, complete bull. We attack those who attack us plain and simple. We address the root of the problem and realize that we must give and take.

In addition, you obviously don't know crap about France and I didn't expect much more from you than a rushed, ignorant response.

If the US was to nuke Mecca in response to NBC attack on the US, How would we, the US function as a society knowing that our immensely intelligent European friends(..) are so upset with our methodology? I tell you, I would just lose sleep every night worrying about how a Frenchman feels. I am sorry if this would shorten France's supply of skilled quality labor. The French can find someone else to genuflect for besides Islamic terrorists. Nukes are really obsolete guys.

[edit on 12-2-2005 by Reaganwasourgreatest]

Originally posted by Jamuhn
In addition, you obviously don't know crap about France and I didn't expect much more from you than a rushed, ignorant response.

I know enough to know that their tank have more reverse gears than forward ones....

Look, when we asked for support, they stabbed us in the back as usual, you can not change my opinion of them, heck most of America feels that way.

Just go to your Robert Redford festival and hopefully you can catch a glimpse of Barbara Streisand.

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by edsinger
So what would be better? Peace nick types like Carter?

That's your mechanical thinking again, everything in terms of Black & White. No, by negating one extreme we do not accept another extreme. If the Bush administration were to accept this their crusade of bringing Democracy would be shown for what it is, complete bull. We attack those who attack us plain and simple. We address the root of the problem and realize that we must give and take.

In addition, you obviously don't knowabout France and I didn't expect much more from you than a rushed, ignorant response.

Curious? Have you ever been to France? Tell me what was it like? You will find that people from the Middle East are used as a servant class by Eurocrats. That's why we are hated by an anti-semitic Europe.

Am I to edit someone elses use of the word "cr..p"



[edit on 12-2-2005 by Reaganwasourgreatest]

[edit on 12-2-2005 by Reaganwasourgreatest]

[edit on 12-2-2005 by Reaganwasourgreatest]

My travels have never given me an affirmation of the assertions you are making. As well, there is a difference between the government and the people. I can understand negative views about a government, but I don't understand making generalizations about a people you don't know.

You got me there. I was mistaken to think that France was of government of the people...........

By the way, I have been there.

Hey, it happens all over the world. Sometimes I get the impression that federal governments are inherently corrupt, no matter what the style. One could say Bush is a government of the people, but only 52% voted for him. And when people base their assumptions of Americans on Bush's actions, I point out their faulty logic.

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by Reaganwasourgreatest
Well I guarantee that they would not be pulling this stuff if Reagan was in office, but then again Bush is doing a fine job in the regard.

I believe that Reagan would have been less concerned with Political correctness.......

Welcome aboard ATS Reagan man, your name is to long so that is what I will call you.

You are right, Iraq would have happened much sooner and North Korea and Iran would be sweating bullets if Reagan was CiC.......

You're kidding right? Most of the world would sleep much better at night with Reagan in charge of America, you know why? Because when Reagan was in charge we had Weinberger's tests for military action.
You either had a legitimate reason, sufficient forces, and a mandate of the people, or you didn't go to war- that simple. That's why we did so little actual fighting under Reagan. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that from Johnson forward, the only president to expend less ordinance than Reagan was Carter, and that was because Carter was a spineless peanuthead.

Originally posted by The VagabondYou're kidding right? Most of the world would sleep much better at night with Reagan in charge of America, you know why? Because when Reagan was in charge we had Weinberger's tests for military action.


and that was because Carter was a spineless peanuthead.

And you believe that? Thats is not why, it was a position of strength that SCARED the heck out of folks, they though Reagan was nuts. As for tyour theory, Grenada rules that out.....


As for Carter, I agree

Doing so will cause almost a 1/3 of the world population to declare war on the U.S.I don't think the U.S are prepared for that kind thing.Not just one front war but hundreds front war in the U.S' border.Not even the EU,UN or NATO would do anything to stop it because they're going to be a part of it.

All I can say is by doing so a REAL and AUTHENTIC jihad WILL be declare by every ulama(muslim scholars) in the world.

Could the patriot missiles stop a nuke like they do with missiles?

I'm sure area 51 and the DOD have some pretty good tricks up their sleaves...

But shhh, it must remain a secret, whatever they may be..

I say bring it on Bin HasBeen...

L-O-S-E-R! your going to die #er!

I've actually suggested the "threat" of nuking of Mecca before, as kind of a half joke....

My suggestion however, called for the announcing of the intention, the subsequent evacuation of those in the area, and THEN the strike. (i.e. rendering the Kabaa to dust, and the area contaminated for quite some time). In other words, simply as the destruction of a target, not the destruction of human life (except for any idiots who wished to stay).

Still, the tactic would not work in reality, for many of the reasons mentioned. It would certainly make attempted terror attacks an everyday occurrance for one....

My suggestion is actually this... Make it publicly known that bodies killed in the War on Terror will be unceremoniously buried face down, pointing away from Mecca, while sodomized by a severed pig phallus. (i.e. no trip to paradise for you my friend, and no 70 virgins... ) You'd be surprised how effective this would be, but of course, I doubt it would look good to the world. Still, Bush has pretty much smeared us into the mud, so not much face left to lose on it....

And you believe that? Thats is not why, it was a position of strength that SCARED the heck out of folks, they though Reagan was nuts. As for tyour theory, Grenada rules that out.....

I miss Reagan...yeah, he was nuts though, hehe.... Of course, Dubya isn't exactly sane either, but it doesn't seem to be having the same effect... Then again, Reagan was nuts, but also intelligent and well spoken....Dubya doesn't have either such asset....

[edit on 13-2-2005 by Gazrok]

Originally posted by edsinger
And you believe that? Thats is not why, it was a position of strength that SCARED the heck out of folks, they though Reagan was nuts. As for tyour theory, Grenada rules that out.....

Reagan's hardline was all about research and development and support for terrorists. Reagan wasn't a hawk, he was pressuring the Soviets for concessions and he believed in the power of deterrence.
Bill Clinton did FAR more fighting than Reagan in his first term alone.
When Reagan had dirty work done he let foreign terrorists do it for him, like when he supported the contras and the mujahadeen while opposing anti-apartheid guerillas.

I suppose your mighty warrior-chief did more fighting than Ford, but just barely. When you consider the fact that 2 companies of Marines did most of the work in Grenada while the Airborne just sat on its butt, you could argue that Grenada was only slightly bigger than Ford's attack on Koh Tang after the Mayaguez Incident.

Originally posted by cargo
I think if the US nuked Mecca, you would have every muslim in the world ready to jihad.

So exactly what would be different

Originally posted by cargo
I think if the US nuked Mecca, you would have every muslim in the world ready to jihad. So exactly what would be different

Very good point, the Muslims claim that all who fail to convert to Islam should be killed, the infidels all of them....

At least some Muslims in the world feel this way, so are we not in the Jihad already?

[edit on 13-2-2005 by edsinger]