Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
You could always firebomb all of them.
We've done it before you know. Many, many times.
|
That's what we did in 1944-1945, against Germany and Japan. We're in, arguably, a conflict that is every bit as serious a threat to our existence. This time, we're facing an enemy that wants to destroy our economy (and, thus, destroy EVERYONE'S economy) through terrorist attacks. I don't consider Curtis LeMay pyschotic, I rather admire his balls...
"You're insane. That would cause more terrorist attacks to happen and let me remind you Russian nukes are far from secure including Nuclear suitcase bombs."
No it wouldn't. "The only thing the Arab understands is the heavy hand" - Air Marshall Harris. I tend to strongly agree with this statement. The insurgents in Iraq respect strength. No one would be pyschotic enough to warrant an American retaliatory strike if it was one of destroying a city. Considering the tens of thousands of dead Muslims, in Afghanistan and Iraq, we could have perhaps killed less, and achieved VASTLY more, with my route.
"For starters:
Instituting some real security in this country for a change."
Of course. That has yet to happen. Our legislative system denies the possibility of that happening.
"The methods that you advocate to defend this country are psychotic, plain and simple."
I disagree. I'm not timid. I understand, however, that many people are. So, not everyone will agree with me.