• Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version.

America threatened to Bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age!

GoldenAgeHero said:
if it is true, then everyone has the right to be pissed at america.
America has the right over the atomic bomb,they develop it
And they have the right to decide who should own it

All other country that posses nuclear bomb has somehow cheated into obtaining it!
But I also believe that the Americans never went to the moon period
 
Diamondhead said:
America has the right over the atomic bomb,they develop it
And they have the right to decide who should own it

All other country that posses nuclear bomb has somehow cheated into obtaining it!
But I also believe that the Americans never went to the moon period


thanks for that wonderful logic.
 
Well, supposedly Armitage is the one who made the "stone age" remark to the Pakistani's. Considering his role in the Valerie Plame controversy, I'm inclined to think this guy likes to shoot his mouth off without the Administration's full knowledge or consent and I wouldn't be surprised if he did say such at thing.

Also
From The Article said:
Even so, Mr Ahmadinejad could not resist the chance once more to pour scorn on countries, which, he said, "believe they have more right to rule world affairs than anyone else".

Though I'm certainly no fan of his, Ahmadinejad is not without a point, actually. The U.S. has long viewed itself as the world's police; something I do not always agree with given the problems we have within our own borders that need addressing. Our foreign relations are an absolute mess, and the recent events at the U.N. highlight that to a very small degree.

jag
 
GoldenAgeHero said:
thanks for that wonderful logic.

I beleive that the US has the right to influence countries in developing nuclear waepons... we know first hand how bad they are.. and what they can do....

kind of like parents... your parents have plenty of experiences in life.. and they try to help there kids in not making the same mistakes
 
GoldenAgeHero said:
if it is true, then everyone has the right to be pissed at america.

Uh, how about we place the blame not on America but on the ones responsible for such decisions, like say our corrupt government lead by George W. Bush?
 
Diamondhead said:
America has the right over the atomic bomb,they develop it
And they have the right to decide who should own it
I hope you're not serious.

Diamondhead said:
All other country that posses nuclear bomb has somehow cheated into obtaining it!
Do you honestly think that a scientist in some other country couldn't figure out how to do it? Science is science.....what works in one place works in another....the only difference is having the resources to actually build it, which just slows the production, not make it impossible.

Diamondhead said:
But I also believe that the Americans never went to the moon period
Oh well....should have put that first....then we could have just moved on left you alone.
 
Godzilla2000 said:
Uh, how about we place the blame not on America but on the ones responsible for such decisions, like say our corrupt government lead by George W. Bush?

thats what i meant.:o
 
JokerNick said:
I beleive that the US has the right to influence countries in developing nuclear waepons... we know first hand how bad they are.. and what they can do....

kind of like parents... your parents have plenty of experiences in life.. and they try to help there kids in not making the same mistakes

good example, you know how your parents tell you stuff and you all like ....listen to them.
but if a complete stranger tries to discipline you, you'd be all like "**** off moron!!!!"


yeah, that's kind of it.
 
celldog said:
Why wait 5 years?

saddam gassed his people in the 80's

why wait 20 years to remove him from power if that was sooooo bad?:meow:
 
Holly Goodhead said:
Let's all believe the media. It's what they want us to do. :up:

You mean the media might not be telling us the truth Holly? :eek:

- Whirly
 
jaguarr said:
Well, supposedly Armitage is the one who made the "stone age" remark to the Pakistani's. Considering his role in the Valerie Plame controversy, I'm inclined to think this guy likes to shoot his mouth off without the Administration's full knowledge or consent and I wouldn't be surprised if he did say such at thing.

jag

I agree... partially. When I saw that the remark was supposedly made by Armitage, that threw up some red flags immediately.

Although I don't know that Armitage would make such remarks. He's not a hawk... he's much more moderate and was with Powell in being concerned over the administration's foreign policy direction. It just doesn't sound like something Armitage would say.

What Armitage is known as is a huge gossip, as opposed to a blow-hard. To me it seems more likely that with recent news events, his seemed like a good name to put in (as he seemingly leaked info to discredit Bush's critics), but that Musharraf just didn't know the details enough to realize Armitage isn't part of the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld cabal... and is a very unlikely 'hitman' for the administration.
 
celldog said:
Why wait 5 years?

Five years ago, the U.S. wasn't deep in a deficit hole and stretched far too thin from trying to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously. Therefore there was more of a chance that military attention COULD be given to such detractors than there is today. But now, the U.S. lacks the financial backing as well as the troops to engage a new enemy unless it were an absolute and dire emergency. And, the U.S.'s standing in the international community has been severely damaged; we don't command the level of respect from other countries we once did thanks to our leaders. Therefore, leaders like Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Musharraf feel more emboldened to speak their mind because the chance of repercussions are much less.

jag
 
jaguarr said:
Five years ago, the U.S. wasn't deep in a deficit hole and stretched far too thin from trying to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously. Therefore there was more of a chance that military attention COULD be given to such detractors than there is today. But now, the U.S. lacks the financial backing as well as the troops to engage a new enemy unless it were an absolute and dire emergency. And, the U.S.'s standing in the international community has been severely damaged; we don't command the level of respect from other countries we once did thanks to our leaders. Therefore, leaders like Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Musharraf feel more emboldened to speak their mind because the chance of repercussions are much less.

jag

Well, that and 5 years ago we had just been attacked on our on soil and there was still a huge cloud of dust and debris hanging over Manhattan and a huge hole in the wall of the Pentagon.

At that point, any world leader who opposd the US (who wasn't totally bat-**** crazy) would have realized that they would not have received applause for remarks like Chavez's at the UN this week.
 
JokerNick said:
I beleive that the US has the right to influence countries in developing nuclear waepons... we know first hand how bad they are.. and what they can do....

kind of like parents... your parents have plenty of experiences in life.. and they try to help there kids in not making the same mistakes

And that is what you would like to believe. You are however a bit naive.

The fact really is, in this day and age whoever owns nukes has actually something to say. The more you got, the more powerfull your voice will be as a country, period. Do you really think the US would be as dominant as it is today if every country had as many nukes as the US does? Think logically!

jaguarr said:
Five years ago, the U.S. wasn't deep in a deficit hole and stretched far too thin from trying to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously. Therefore there was more of a chance that military attention COULD be given to such detractors than there is today. But now, the U.S. lacks the financial backing as well as the troops to engage a new enemy unless it were an absolute and dire emergency. And, the U.S.'s standing in the international community has been severely damaged; we don't command the level of respect from other countries we once did thanks to our leaders. Therefore, leaders like Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Musharraf feel more emboldened to speak their mind because the chance of repercussions are much less.

jag

Exactly! 5 years ago the US would have just made something up and invaded Pakistan as well. And the US wouldn't have to go to many lengths anyways since pakistan and the taliban were sorts of allies. Pakistan had no choice but to help or be bombed. lol. Yes it's kinda funny in a dark twisted way. I know. :hyper:
 
Daisy said:
Well, that and 5 years ago we had just been attacked on our on soil and there was still a huge cloud of dust and debris hanging over Manhattan and a huge hole in the wall of the Pentagon.

At that point, any world leader who opposd the US (who wasn't totally bat-**** crazy) would have realized that they would not have received applause for remarks like Chavez's at the UN this week.

Another very good point, as always, Daisy.

jag
 
Bombing Pakistan back to the stone age? That would only set them back like, five years though. ;)
 
Cyclops said:
Bombing Pakistan back to the stone age? That would only set them back like, five years though. ;)

no it would set them forward about 5 years
 
You guys are trying to apply logic to a Fred Fury statement. It doesn't work that way. Sorry.

jag
 
jaguarr said:
Five years ago, the U.S. wasn't deep in a deficit hole and stretched far too thin from trying to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously. Therefore there was more of a chance that military attention COULD be given to such detractors than there is today. But now, the U.S. lacks the financial backing as well as the troops to engage a new enemy unless it were an absolute and dire emergency. And, the U.S.'s standing in the international community has been severely damaged; we don't command the level of respect from other countries we once did thanks to our leaders. Therefore, leaders like Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Musharraf feel more emboldened to speak their mind because the chance of repercussions are much less.

jag


we are not stretched thin as some people make it out to be(militarily)
 
roach said:
we are not stretched thin as some people make it out to be(militarily)

We're stretched enough that we have to be more selective about what conflicts we get engaged in. Low retention rates and heavy recruiting problems exacerbate the problem. The larger issue is the availability of dollars to use in any new campaign, though. We're strapped.

jag
 
jaguarr said:
We're stretched enough that we have to be more selective about what conflicts we get engaged in. Low retention rates and heavy recruiting problems exacerbate the problem. The larger issue is the availability of dollars to use in any new campaign, though. We're strapped.

jag

Army recruited more people this year than they have since 1997
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"