U.S. drops pledge on nukes

[ironforge]

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020222-77660232.htm

that is good to know

[Warthog]

Ha! That's really good.

[ironforge]

it's one of those things..

tis better to give than to recieve

[flea]

*sigh*

[vass0922]

ya know
IMO that is just childish

we dont want to fight you so we'll just get our big brother the nuke to fight you

its like bringing a gun to a knife fight wtf

yeah granted it may save lives on our side, but sometimes ya just gotta make a sacrifice and fight fair or TOO many lives are lost and lose any sort of respect the world has for us, which I think is pretty thin in general anyways...

[OuTpaTienT]

Originally posted by vass0922
...yeah granted it may save lives on our side, but...

...but WHAT? There's no "but" after a statement like that. ***edited and deleted*** That has got to be the ultimate moronic statement I've heard so far this year.

Talk about a skewed sense of priorities. Haven't you ever heard the saying "alls fair in love and war"?

Whatever saves the most of our young men & women is fine by me. If you want to start sacrificing anybody, I suggest you get to head of the line.



EDITED**I think we can disagree and rebut the statement with out insulting the person making it. That is more conducive to Intelligent and thought provoking conversation, And the Forum Rules.
Surreal

[SpookyEddy]

I think its kinda dissapointing

But thats just me, I would like to live in a world where we were all friends & pints of beer grew on trees

I can understand that the idea od "taking out" the "bad guys" with minimal loss of life is a very appealing concept.

However, my main concerns are....

How exactly do you hit just the "bad guys" when chucking weapons of mass destruction about? Although I do appreciate that its foolish to expect zero civilian casualties in a conflict, but I do find teh concept of anhialating whole cities a little worrying

My other major problem with the use of nukes is that you may be saving " lives on our side" which is great but possibly short sighted if you screw the whole planet for them & future generations to come. You just have to take a walk in the evening through the countryside of wales & watch the sheep glow to see what fallout can do

Anyhoo just my opinion, so please don't call me moronic Out

All the best

Regards

Eddy

[ironforge]

"If some nation were to attack the United States with chemical weapons, they have to fear the consequences of a response from any weapon in our inventory. ... We could have a devastating response without use of nuclear weapons, but we would not forswear that possibility."

[Warthog]

Fight FAIR??????????? Holy sh*t, who does that.....if we did that, we would have gone into Afgahnistan in outdated 1970s weaponry. Know what the US military aims to achieve? 10 to 1 ratio of our guys to theirs......know what that means? Zero or hardly any [b]American[/i] casualties.

*doesn't know what vass has been smoking*

Who gives a flying **** if the world thinks we fight fair, lol.

Ironforge's last post hits it right. Rethink that one vass.

[OuTpaTienT]

Since no one is getting back to me, I'm gonna set this straight myself. I don't want vass or anyone else thinking I'm simply a name calling, rule ignoring dip****.

There were no direct personal attacks edited out of my message. In fact I see messages since mine with much more direct personal attacks and for some reason those are ok.

There were only two sentences removed from my post. "What's wrong with you?" & "What are you on?". How exactly those are construed as personal attacks is beyond me. I've PM'ed the mod but am getting no reply, so I'm not sure what else to do. Seems kinda silly to me. IMO the editing of my message as is it were vulgar or direct personal attacks harms my character much more than those simple questions harms anyone elses character.

Anyone else think I'm completely off base here.