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.
Originally posted by CyberGhost
bush fights to free the world of nuclear weapons but i was just interested what does he say about their nukes?
i don't think it's fair, i mean bush is no less dangerous and crazy than saddam
Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Originally posted by CyberGhost
bush fights to free the world of nuclear weapons but i was just interested what does he say about their nukes?
i don't think it's fair, i mean bush is no less dangerous and crazy than saddam
Do you try and think before type or did you give up, finding the attempts too painful?
Saying Bush is as dangerous as Hussein is so stupid that responding to it would only sully the respondant.
Not understanding that the U.S. maintaining its nuclear inventory is beneficial to peace for the free world whereas unconventional weapons in the hands of unstable tyrants and dictators is very detrimental to world peace and should be avoided at all costs certainly indicates that the attempts were too painful and you indeed gave up.
Do you feel I'm being too harsh? Speaking unkindly? My response is short-tempered because I get tired of superficial-thinking people parroting stupid things they get from equally stupid people.
One thing is worse. Other similarly mental degenerates completely and totally agreeing with such a statement, then semi-contradicting their total agreement and in the process, almost making sense and then in the end, jumping right back into stupidity.
In case history is not your strong suit, let me help you. Were it not for the fact that we created nuclear weaponry, WWII in the Asian theater would have gone much further than it did, killing thousands upon thousands more on both sides. After WWII the world quickly fell into a "Cold War" (the bullets thrown my way during that time weren't so cold), and it was kept at a "Cold War" status because of nuclear weaponry. Were we still at the conventional-only level, the world would have most likely fallen into another blood bath, this time with the Commies of the Soviet Union. The threat of nuclear response made it way too costly, and thereby avoided.
Nukes saves lives, stupidity kills.
Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Bush isn't telling everyone to disarm.
Originally posted by Seekerof
Have a few more drinks Drunk.
regards
seekerof
Originally posted by mouko_ryuu
hehe, sounds weird, but is totally true:
Nukes save lives.
Originally posted by Seekerof
"Meaning?"
Meaning exactly what it implied.......
I just figured that between you, me, and the wall, a few more drinks might make you a bit more coherent and understandable?
regards
seekerof
Originally posted by specialasianX
Just because a country doesnt agree with the US's ideologies doesnt mean they have less right to soveriegnty than the USA does and with soveriegnty comes the right to arm themselves as they see fit. I agree nukes are a detterant to nukes... so what gives america the right to decide who does and doesnt get detterants... Bush is a mad-man and has is responsible (directly or indirectly) of countless civilian deaths... just because the deaths he's responsible for werent in his own country doesnt make him less sane than Saddam... Everyday what i see in the news about America and her actions my resentment for 'the land of the free' grows (and keep in mind the media here in Aus is pretty pro-american and likes to portray america as the honourable peace makers). The US defies the UN and supports other countries that do the same (Israel) but then has the nerve to ask the UN for help to fix a country that they # ed up to start with... america is the biggest hypocritical state in the world and i would love to see the day when their 'empire' crumbles!