It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Command Declares Global Strike Capability

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Global Security Newswire
The U.S. Strategic Command announced yesterday it had achieved an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons, after last month testing its capacity for nuclear war against a fictional country believed to represent North Korea.

In a press release yesterday, STRATCOM said a new Joint Functional Component Command for Space and Global Strike on Nov. 18 “met requirements necessary to declare an initial operational capability.”



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

So, the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations has become Real and the Global Strike Capability of the US Strategic Nuclear Forces is ONLINE.

Who said the Cold Wars has Ended?

There are Thousnad Missiles still Aiming Each other and the World has to feel more "Secure" now? Do you feel SAFER now that, US has the Global Strike Capability to reach the Countries which are "SUPPOSED" to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction?

This plan was deisgned ESPECIALLY for North Korea and Iran, and I bet that trigger happy generals are just as eager to use them as are children with their little toys.

Everything if FICTIONAL, right?

Sure, Sure...

[edit on 12/14/05 by FredT]




posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Announcing a capability is not always the same as having the capability. In this case, the US announced having the ability to respond globally with either nuclear or conventional weapons. Were you really surprised by this announcement? I don't think so. This is a capability that we have attributed to the US long ago. I would think that most people, especially on this site, would have been aware that the US had a global response capability.

After a bit of contemplation, one can readily come to realize that this announcement was little more than a political ploy to "warn" countries (North Korea, for example) that any military move that might threaten the US or allied nations can be countered. Such an announcement does not necessarily mean that the US is eager to attack anyone! The US might be ready but certainly not eager.

As far as your statement that you thought the generals as "trigger happy as little children with their little toys", were you referring to Iranian generals and the Iranian announcement to destroy Israel? No, I'm not trying to be inflammatory. I'm just trying to express that there is a big difference between political proclamations and reality.

I



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Yes, I am happy. Yes, this makes me personally, and my nation safer and more secure.

No, this is nothing new - the US has had the ability to strike any point on earth in under an hour for decades now. ICBMs can reach any point on the globe in about 45 minutes from launch.

There are really on two big things that could have come from this...

1) A new secure system is in place from the time the "launch" is ordered by the president and the time it takes US forces to carry out that action. For nuclear weapons, this has never been an issue. However for conventional forces, traditionally on specialised forces have had such quick reaction periods, which brings me to my next point:

2) The thing that really jumped out at me was that conventional weapons are included in this. Rapid strike using conventional weapons in "North East" Asia... What would be the staging points that would allow such action, and what weapons systems would be used? Frankly, the traditional heavy bombers would not have the reaction time they are talking about, especially since most of them are based out of the continental US. That leaves strike aircraft, such as the F/A-18 hornet...But they don't have the range you would probably want, nor do they have the deep penatration survivability the US would want.

From a purely conspiratol view, could this mean something such as the Hypersoar/FALCON program has matured?

Oh and BTW Souljah, I just love the way you make Generals out to be trigger happy, as if they want war.


US generals do not want war, nor do they have any real say into wheather they go to war or not, they are simply trained to direct war when given the order.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   
As stated before, the US has had global strike capability for some time now, by a multitude of applications. Say the target is out of range of an ICBM (doubtful) but lets say it is, that is why over 75% of the US Nuclear arsonal is submarine launched ballistic missiles, and if that fails, we have the stealth bomber capable of dropping nukes, by any of the above stated methods, especially the subs, we have the globe covered, thats nothing new.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:08 AM
link   
ICBMs can reach any point on the globe in about 45 minutes from launch.-Quote from American Mad Man

Lets see if this 45 minute claim can actually happen!


[edit on 6-12-2005 by Bengals for the superbowl]



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bengals for the superbowl
ICBMs can reach any point on the globe in about 45 minutes from launch.-Quote from American Mad Man

Lets see if this 45 minute claim can actually happen!


Do you really doubt this?
I thought it was well known.

Any ways, the speed of the Minuteman III ICBM (the only ICBM currently in use by the US) has a speed of 15,000 miles an hour. When this is combined by traveling against the Earths rotation, it can easilly hit most places in the world in about 45 minutes.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   
It's not that I don't doubt it but we (British) were told that saddam had WMD's and could launch a strike on Britain within 45mins and of course it turned out he couldn't.

Now I take all "45 minute claims" with a pinch of salt



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Flash bulletin for you, pal; the Chinese military has trained as if we are the enemy for years; no fictional enemy for them.
The North Koreans have done the same thing.

Our enemies haven't even tried to hide their venom for us.

Why is it that you can't even try and be unbiased, but post extremely slanted crap as if we, the U.S., is the evil and dark monster of the world.

You know why the world isn't either under a brutal dictatorship or simply burned to a cinder? Because thelikes of North Korea do not have the strength to make a good show of it, that's why. We have the power and have had it for a long time, and have not done the evil things you suggest. As a matter of fact, we were stupid wnough to allow our forces to advance the Islamic cause in your neck of the woods, in case you have forgotten.
I never claimed we were smart, just that we aren't pure evil - like your buddies.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Flash bulletin for you, pal; the Chinese military has trained as if we are the enemy for years; no fictional enemy for them. The North Koreans have done the same thing.

Geee, I wonder Why.

Could it be the Fact that the US ICBM are targetted on the targets in North Korea and China?



Why is it that you can't even try and be unbiased, but post extremely slanted crap as if we, the U.S., is the evil and dark monster of the world.

Because I do not feel any SAFER with US troops marching around the Middle East.

Because I do not feel any SAFER knowing, that there IS a "Global Strike Doctrine", designed to wipe out the entire Human Civilization.

Because I do not feel any SAFER with current US Goverment Foreign Policies.

Because I do not feel any SAFER knowing that CIA is flying planes over my head right now, to their "Secret Detention Camps", where they conduct Torture.



You know why the world isn't either under a brutal dictatorship or simply burned to a cinder? Because thelikes of North Korea do not have the strength to make a good show of it, that's why. We have the power and have had it for a long time, and have not done the evil things you suggest.

Because of the US Foreign Policies since WWII, 8 Million People have died around the World. For what? So that "Democracy" is Protected? So that Evils of Communism do not Spread? So that Liberty and World Peace is preserved? Wars do not solve anything - some people EARN alot of money on them, and some people have to pay that Price.



As a matter of fact, we were stupid wnough to allow our forces to advance the Islamic cause in your neck of the woods, in case you have forgotten.

Sorry - you were What?

It is not that you only "allowed" them to "Advance" - you were supporting them! Like the the Liberation Army of Kosovo.



I never claimed we were smart, just that we aren't pure evil - like your buddies.

My Buddies?

Which are - Judge?




posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   
You do realize China has had nukes since 1964. And they have been our enemy for quite some time, its not a new thing. They have nukes pointed at us as well as we them, doesnt mean anyones gonna use em, no one did during the cold war.
cns.miis.edu...

Do you live in America Souljah? If you do I understand not feeling safer, with the foreign policy, but with global strike capapbility with conventional weps you should. If the US is so evil, then why havent we used this ability to conquer the world? Those 8 million people you count were also killing us during this time. So I dont see your logic here, they kept coming we kept killing, if we were so evil we would have ended it by taking drastic measures and using nukes if we wanted to, unleashing the whole kennel of the dogs of war.

And your wrong, wars do solve things, WW2 solved alot, the Korean war kept South Korea free, Vietnam wasnt wrong, but ended up serving no purpose at all. Gulfwar 1 kicked Sadaam out of Kuwait, Gulfwar 2 installed a democracy in Iraq that already has another election coming up in which even the Sunnis are participating. Diplomacy cant solve all situations, and it could not solve any of these as history showed. Diplomacy didnt stop Germany, North Korea and China, North Vietnam or Saddam Hussein twice. All I'm saying is that if you look at these situations and the diplomacy involved none of it accomplished anything but stalled the inevitable for a while.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
You do realize China has had nukes since 1964.

And why do they have them?

Why does EVERY nation in this World NEED Nukes in order to keep themselves Secure?

Who was the First to obtain and TEST nucler weapons?




Do you live in America Souljah?

No. I live in Europe. In Slovenia.



Those 8 million people you count were also killing us during this time. So I dont see your logic here, they kept coming we kept killing, if we were so evil we would have ended it by taking drastic measures and using nukes if we wanted to, unleashing the whole kennel of the dogs of war.

They kept coming we kept killing?

Wow, just wow.

You are telling that to the 4 Million Dead Civilans, killed in 'Nam?

Or the Tens of Thousands Killed in the Central American Campaigns?



And your wrong, wars do solve things, WW2 solved alot, the Korean war kept South Korea free, Vietnam wasnt wrong, but ended up serving no purpose at all.

Who started the WWII and Why?

WWII did NOT Save ALOT - it just Killed 50 Million People, Torn apart an Entire Continent, and Created several NEW problems - like the COLD WAR; which resulted in Further Wars in Korea and Vietnam ("good guys" vs "the commies"). Wars don't solve #!



Gulfwar 1 kicked Sadaam out of Kuwait, Gulfwar 2 installed a democracy in Iraq that already has another election coming up in which even the Sunnis are participating.

Saddam was already OUT of Kuwait - but still the USA kicked the crap out of the "Rest".

War in Iraq Today? Pure Busniess - nothing else.

If the USA wanna LIBERATE the Planet of the "Evil and Vile Dictators" I suggest they go to Central Africa, where there are several Civil Wars and GENOCIDES going on this very moment.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   

And why do they have them?

Why does EVERY nation in this World NEED Nukes in order to keep themselves Secure?

Who was the First to obtain and TEST nucler weapons?

They kept coming we kept killing?

Wow, just wow.
You are telling that to the 4 Million Dead Civilans, killed in 'Nam?
Or the Tens of Thousands Killed in the Central American Campaigns?

Who started the WWII and Why?

WWII did NOT Save ALOT - it just Killed 50 Million People, Torn apart an Entire Continent, and Created several NEW problems - like the COLD WAR; which resulted in Further Wars in Korea and Vietnam ("good guys" vs "the commies"). Wars don't solve #!

Saddam was already OUT of Kuwait - but still the USA kicked the crap out of the "Rest".

War in Iraq Today? Pure Busniess - nothing else.

If the USA wanna LIBERATE the Planet of the "Evil and Vile Dictators" I suggest they go to Central Africa, where there are several Civil Wars and GENOCIDES going on this very moment.

To start, yes the US was the first to test and use a nuke. But it stopped further casualties in the Pacific from occuring by invading the mainland of Japan. If that had happened more than the 200,000 who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have died. As for everyone needing nukes. Its like cyclical violence in the world of gangs, they kill one of yours, you kill one of theirs. If this country has nukes, we need nukes. It's more political than anything. Its like when Russia tested the first ICBM, we then devloped our own ICBM. Its a vicous cycle.

I mean if they keep coming and attacking you want us to say, alright guys thats enough, we dont want to kill anymore of you so you can just keep shooting and we wont shoot back. As for atrocities, I explained those, that was the result of individuals who couldnt handle the battle stress, as well as just some cold hearted people. War changes you, once youve killed once will the next time be harder or easier. I'm not justifying anything, nor did I deny it happened, but the decision to go was right. Vietnam wasnt an offensive war, we didnt invade the north, the north invaded the south. The objective was to hold the 17th parallel and keep the north out of the south.

The Germans and Japanese started WW2 because they wanted more land, dont try and pin that one on America. And which ones were guilty of genocide there? Hmmmmm, care to answer that one for me or are you gonna give the revisionist historians answer? We intervened there along with Britain and the Soviet Union, we werent going to get involved until Japan attacked us and Germany declared war, because of the old isolationist policies.

As for when Sadaam being out of Kuwait, the objective there was to not only get him out of Kuwait, but to destroy his army as well, which is exactly what was done. Going in and taking over Iraq was not the objective then. There is no basis for you claim that Iraq today is "pure business." The Iraqi people own their oil and the sales from that oil go to the people as a collective, that is how their system works now.

As for intervening in Genocides, I thought we should have gone to Rwanda to stop that one. But then if we did you would have just said we were sticking our nose where it doesnt belong. And what genocides in central America are going on right now? I havent heard about any, and I regularly visit the Red Cross and UN websites.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
And why do they have them?


Because Russia gave them to them.


Why does EVERY nation in this World NEED Nukes in order to keep themselves Secure?


They don't. There are 8 (US, Russia, China, India, North Korea, France, UK, and isreal) nations with them. Do you really believe that all of the other nations are not secure?


Who was the First to obtain and TEST nucler weapons?


The US was the first to obtain them. Germany was the first to begin the Weapons program. If you really want to blame someone, blame ol' Albert and Germany.




No. I live in Europe. In Slovenia.


No wonder you are so bitter.



They kept coming we kept killing?

Wow, just wow.

You are telling that to the 4 Million Dead Civilans, killed in 'Nam?

Or the Tens of Thousands Killed in the Central American Campaigns?


I know you refuse to live in reality, Souljah, but in the real world, people - and even civilians - die in war.

Again, if you want to blame someone for Vietnam, why don't you blame North Vietnam for invading the South in the first place, and also Russia and China for backing them?

In case you missed it, Vietnam was almost purely a defensive war for the US.



Who started the WWII and Why?


Germany and Japan.

Germany because they wanted to perpetuate a "pure" dominate race, and Japan for pure imperialism. These were to of the top 5 most wicked regimes in the history of man. Ask the Chinese about what the Japanese did. Ask the Russians, Gypsies, and Jews about what the Germans did.

Again, if you want to blame someone, blame them.


WWII did NOT Save ALOT - it just Killed 50 Million People, Torn apart an Entire Continent, and Created several NEW problems - like the COLD WAR; which resulted in Further Wars in Korea and Vietnam ("good guys" vs "the commies"). Wars don't solve #!


So, had we all laid down our arms and embraced Hitler the world would be better off, right?


You know, for someone who seems to hate Fascism and detention camps, you sure are confused about what WWII solved.



If the USA wanna LIBERATE the Planet of the "Evil and Vile Dictators" I suggest they go to Central Africa, where there are several Civil Wars and GENOCIDES going on this very moment.


But then we would just be enslaving the blacks instead of Browns Souljah.


Besides, the Kurds were being extirminated by Saddam - don't they deserve to be saved? Or do they not count?

[edit on 13-12-2005 by American Mad Man]



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Mad Man, less delicate than I would have put it, but correct no less. One of the main reasons I usually like your posts is because of the blunt and to the point answers, keep rockin.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   
All I can say is wow, I cannot fathom what makes people have so much hatred of the United States. Sure we have our problems-like every other nation-but you paint a picture of us being the cruelest and most evil of nations that ever existed. You have the ability to turn even liberal Americans, who disagree with Bush's actions, against you.

I guess there is an opposite to the insane right wingers.

- Attero



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 12:57 AM
link   
I would like to correct my previous post, as it seems I forgot that the Pakis have nukes as well.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Because Russia gave them to them.

And the facts that the British gave Isreal Nukes?



They don't. There are 8 (US, Russia, China, India, North Korea, France, UK, and isreal) nations with them. Do you really believe that all of the other nations are not secure?

I do not FEEL any more Securo knowing, that there are EIGHT Countries with Nuclear capability, prepared to Obliterate the Crap out of each other for some Petty Warlords! I would be SAFER if there were NO Nuclear Weapons AT ALL!




No. I live in Europe. In Slovenia.


No wonder you are so bitter.

You should come and see our Beautiful Country before speaking up.

It helps sometimes to actually know what you are talking about.



Again, if you want to blame someone for Vietnam, why don't you blame North Vietnam for invading the South in the first place, and also Russia and China for backing them?

And the FRENCH again, have Nothing to do with Indo-Chinese Wars?

'Nam was a Cold War Battlefield for the Worlds two Superpowers, and it was about Flexing Muscles.



In case you missed it, Vietnam was almost purely a defensive war for the US.

Yea, I must have Missed that!

Just like you are DEFENDING right now in the Middle East?



So, had we all laid down our arms and embraced Hitler the world would be better off, right?


Hitler would fall sooner or later.

I am taking about the AFTERMATH of WWII and the Cold War that separated this Planet.

But I bet its the Dirty Commies that are Responsible for that.



You know, for someone who seems to hate Fascism and detention camps, you sure are confused about what WWII solved.

My Gradfather Fought the Dirty Fascists Bastards and he give his LIFE for that Fight - so, yea I know a Little. You know how the Fascists would control our country? They would create a Conflict among their OWN Population: it was the BAD Filthy Communist Terrorists Partisans against the GOOD Catholic Fascist "Patriots" - and they were BOTH Brothers and Sons of a SLOVENIAN Mothers. And that is the oldest trick - to Divide and Rule.

Just like it is Happening Today in Iraq...



But then we would just be enslaving the blacks instead of Browns Souljah.


You just don't get it...

IF the United States WANT to conduct the World Police Role, they MUST be prepared to use the Same or Equal Force on ANYBODY that Breaks certain Rules that the US is supposed to Represent and Uphold. And Frankly, these RULES are being broken on Daily Basis for FIFTY Years in Africa - and all the West does is SELL them more small arms for them to kill each other!





Besides, the Kurds were being extirminated by Saddam - don't they deserve to be saved? Or do they not count?

The Kurds were Being EXTERMINATED by Saddam with Chemicals supplied by the US and the rest of the West - and even when he USED these chemical weapons, the US still sold him more!

[edit on 14/12/05 by Souljah]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
And the facts that the British gave Isreal Nukes?


What of it?



I do not FEEL any more Securo knowing, that there are EIGHT Countries with Nuclear capability, prepared to Obliterate the Crap out of each other for some Petty Warlords! I would be SAFER if there were NO Nuclear Weapons AT ALL!


Two things Souljah...

1) I know you don't understand it, but the world at large does not consider the feelings you may have when making decisions. Frankly, how you may feel is as relavent as how I may feel. In short, nations and the world can not consider every individuals personal feelings, and even if they could somehow get an accurate portrayal of every individuals feelings on every single topic, there is absolutely no way to satisfy every individuals personal feelings.

2) Despite how you may feel, history has proven thus far that nuclear weapons prevent wars, thus making the nations that possess them safer. Pre 1945, the "great powers" of the world went to war with frequence. Why? Because those in power (don't you generally dislike those elite dictators?) had nothing to fear personally. The king of England could order war on France, and millions could die...but in the end the two kings would have little to fear. Now, those elites know that not only will any power they have be taken away by nuclear weapons, but they personally and teir families stand a very good chance of getting vaporized with the rest of us.



You should come and see our Beautiful Country before speaking up.

It helps sometimes to actually know what you are talking about.


You should be sure that I haven't been there before assuming so.

I do know what I am talking about. I was there on business and on vocation.



And the FRENCH again, have Nothing to do with Indo-Chinese Wars?

'Nam was a Cold War Battlefield for the Worlds two Superpowers, and it was about Flexing Muscles.


No. It was about the North and it's communist government backed by the Soviets trying to invade the South, which was supported by the US



Yea, I must have Missed that!

Just like you are DEFENDING right now in the Middle East?


Why don't you compare the number of US foot soldiers that entered North Vietnam vs the number that entered Iraq. There is a bit of a difference.



Hitler would fall sooner or later.


So you are of the opinion that no one should have fought against him?

Hitler should have been allowed to take control of all of Europe and Africa, because he would fall "sooner or later"?????



I am taking about the AFTERMATH of WWII and the Cold War that separated this Planet.


No, we are dscussing what war has solved and can solve. You opined it solves nothing. It was pointed out that it solved the Nazi problem. Do you dissagree that it solved the problem(s) posed by Nazi Germany, one of the three greatest military powers in the history of man?


But I bet its the Dirty Commies that are Responsible for that.


Yeah, as a matter of fact it was mostly their fault. I didn't see western nations building giant walls through cities and inslaving millions of people in Siberia.



My Gradfather Fought the Dirty Fascists Bastards and he give his LIFE for that Fight - so, yea I know a Little.


What does your grand father have to do with what you personally know? You claim that war never solved anything... Well, CLEARLY, WWII solved the evil Nazi death camps didn't it. Or do you deny that their end in Nazi Germany and it's conquered land were brought about by Germanys defeat in WWII?


You know how the Fascists would control our country? They would create a Conflict among their OWN Population: it was the BAD Filthy Communist Terrorists Partisans against the GOOD Catholic Fascist "Patriots" - and they were BOTH Brothers and Sons of a SLOVENIAN Mothers. And that is the oldest trick - to Divide and Rule.

Just like it is Happening Today in Iraq...


And here we go on your anti-Iraqi war rant. Please stay on topic:

War never solved anything



You just don't get it...

IF the United States WANT to conduct the World Police Role, they MUST be prepared to use the Same or Equal Force on ANYBODY that Breaks certain Rules that the US is supposed to Represent and Uphold. And Frankly, these RULES are being broken on Daily Basis for FIFTY Years in Africa - and all the West does is SELL them more small arms for them to kill each other!


The US isn't the world police Souljah. We take action when we deem it should be taken. There is no "equality" in our actions. We act in our own best intrests first, and if we can help the world at large and it is realistic then - being the great nation we are - such action is taken.



The Kurds were Being EXTERMINATED by Saddam with Chemicals supplied by the US and the rest of the West - and even when he USED these chemical weapons, the US still sold him more!


Actualy, we halted our sales to him long ago Souljah.

Besides, is it wrong to try to fix our mistakes?

EDIT: fix quotes

[edit on 14-12-2005 by American Mad Man]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Because Russia gave them to them.

And the facts that the British gave Isreal Nukes?


They gave them heavy water
Don't be so general.




They don't. There are 8 (US, Russia, China, India, North Korea, France, UK, and isreal) nations with them. Do you really believe that all of the other nations are not secure?

I do not FEEL any more Securo knowing, that there are EIGHT Countries with Nuclear capability, prepared to Obliterate the Crap out of each other for some Petty Warlords! I would be SAFER if there were NO Nuclear Weapons AT ALL!


Then why do you always paint america as the nuclear bogeyman, there are plenty of other countries as can be seen that you can rant about.




No. I live in Europe. In Slovenia.


No wonder you are so bitter.

You should come and see our Beautiful Country before speaking up.

It helps sometimes to actually know what you are talking about.

It may be nice in some parts, but I wouldn't want to live there. Yes I've been there. It was good for a few pictures, not much more.




You know, for someone who seems to hate Fascism and detention camps, you sure are confused about what WWII solved.

My Gradfather Fought the Dirty Fascists Bastards and he give his LIFE for that Fight - so, yea I know a Little. You know how the Fascists would control our country? They would create a Conflict among their OWN Population: it was the BAD Filthy Communist Terrorists Partisans against the GOOD Catholic Fascist "Patriots" - and they were BOTH Brothers and Sons of a SLOVENIAN Mothers. And that is the oldest trick - to Divide and Rule.

Just like it is Happening Today in Iraq...


LMAO, the czech's were quite content with Nazi rule, hell they even liked Rheinhard Heydrich which is why the British had to assassinate him.




But then we would just be enslaving the blacks instead of Browns Souljah.


You just don't get it...

IF the United States WANT to conduct the World Police Role, they MUST be prepared to use the Same or Equal Force on ANYBODY that Breaks certain Rules that the US is supposed to Represent and Uphold. And Frankly, these RULES are being broken on Daily Basis for FIFTY Years in Africa - and all the West does is SELL them more small arms for them to kill each other!


LOL, if the Americans were in Africa you'd be compplaining about it just as vehemently. Don't lie and say you wouldn't.
As for selling weapons to China, what about Russia nad Asia they selll a mssive amount of weapons to Africa. But if course as ususal you completely leave out any facts, which will taint your rant. We all know this though lol.





Besides, the Kurds were being extirminated by Saddam - don't they deserve to be saved? Or do they not count?

The Kurds were Being EXTERMINATED by Saddam with Chemicals supplied by the US and the rest of the West - and even when he USED these chemical weapons, the US still sold him more!


Once again you're wrong, the US didn't suply any chemicals to Saddam CW program
It was mostly GErmany with French assistance. That's just a simple fact, no more, no less.
Feel free to try and contradict what I said, rhetoric doesn't count.

[edit on 14-12-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Sorry I don’t have anything to add that other members haven' talready said, so I will just post this and go. Oh yeah you can thank the man in my avatar for the US Global Strike Capability.


You have voted American Mad Man for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.



[edit on 14-12-2005 by WestPoint23]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join