Semper Fi

There are still Native Americans, snipe.

Anon

Quite true, though a dirty bomb could easily be large suitcase sized.

Yeah, about 27 of them....

My point was- and i'm sure you'll agree- that the near total destruction of their race made the few remaining N.American indians much easier to deal with.

Semper Fi

Well 28 of them...I am of Native America ancestry and whitey couldn't keep this nigga down!

TopHatter

For starters:
Instituting some real security in this country for a change.

Which will not happen, because Americans won't tolerate the kind of security that would be really effective.

How long after 9/11 did people start complaining about the long lines at the airport?

It was almost as if those towers had never fallen...

The methods that you advocate to defend this country are psychotic, plain and simple.


Excellent idea. If, that is, you are willing to throw the Bill of Rights into a paper shredder.

urmomma158

nigga is not censored??? Well actually it's not an offensive word to begin with. It means ignorant and I know an old librarian that says it.

__________________

spittle8

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.

Anon

You go brutha!

I am a HUGE fan of the Native Americans warrior ethos.

It's a shame you had to fight us to the last man though....we could really use a couple Indian nations in the fight right about now....

Native Americans are proud sonzabiitches, and THAT'S what i'm talkin' about. As you can see, you're my kinda people...

Some pix of my love nest. :)

LOL.

Anon

No more psychotic than advocating a police state cuz.

I'd rather go down fighting muzlims on my own front lawn than go down a defanged biitch in my own homeland, slave to an oppressive police state.

A LOT of people feel that way. I'd rather die first...plain and simple.

Enslaved is enslaved. I'd fight ANYONE that tried to enslave me equally hard. Be that you, some pol, or the stinkin' taliban.

And what the kid proposes is no more than we did in WWII...which most would say is probably THE SINGLE MOST EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF WAR IN THE HISTORY OF MAN.

Of course firebombing cities is psychotic. Don't mean it's not effective. As the kid says, take a look at the Dresden or Tokyo attacks sometime.

Tell me that wasn't psychotic. WWII was as OBSCENE as it was EFFECTIVE.

spittle8

Thanks^ I'm not denying it turns stomachs to consider attacking city, but, look at it this way. We killed some 300,000 people, all things (cancer) considered, in the nuke attacks on Japan. Imagine if Operation Downfall had commenced... it wouldn't have made those nuclear attacks seem so horrible. A really horrible, disturbing action, can have the political, and societal effect of scaring the crap out of your enemy, and disarming them through fear. Or, you could just get into a slow, grinding war of attrition, and lose more people in the long run, but be more desensitized to it.

urmomma158

yes and im sure the terorists will not want payback. Lol nuke suitcase bombs do exist and if used are going to be a reliable retaliation for terorists.

Anon

Worrying about them wanting payback is the same as being afriad to punch the bully that torments you everyday after school in the mouth.

"He who doesn't fear death dies only once."
~ Giovanni Falcone

Running scared is no way to conduct a war. It's half-asssed measures that create all the problems to begin with.

"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over."
~WT Sherman

urmomma158

^^^Even at the expense of nuclear war?

kams

M21Snipe,
I can understand your feelings towards a police state. But failure to secure the Mexican Border is another extreme. After all this, they are still debating in Washington how to go about securing the border and now they are prosecuting two border guards who shot a mexican drug smuggler cpl of years back. I hear that guards may get 20 yrs prison term while the drug smugler walks free This is insane.

spittle8

Alot of things exist. Keep in mind that the terrorists we face are incompetent and retarded. I could make a long list of weapons they could easily procure that could DESTROY our economy. Instead of destroying a chemical shipment going through a major city, they knock down two buildings? These people are horribly misguided, and I am not even talking of their ideology.

"Worrying about them wanting payback is the same as being afriad to punch the bully that torments you everyday after school in the mouth."

EXACTLY! Also, consider that we could hit them according to escalation dominance, and hit them so hard they wouldn't dare hit back.

""He who doesn't fear death dies only once."
~ Giovanni Falcone

Running scared is no way to conduct a war. It's half-asssed measures that create all the problems to begin with.

"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over."
~WT Sherman"

DAMN STRAIGHT!!!

"^^^Even at the expense of nuclear war? "

"Nuclear" is a word. What does it mean? A nuclear weapon can be anywhere from 1 kiloton yield to 50 megatons. What if we hadn't used the nuclear option in Japan? What if we had gone through with Operation Downfall? Nuclear weapons SAVED LIVES on both sides. People are afraid of nuclear weapons, because they think that in a war, two countries will be TOTALLY annihilated. That just isn't so. Just because McNamara came up with M.A.D. doesn't mean that Nixon didn't phase out that doctrine. M.A.D. "only" called for 30% of the enemies civilian populus to be destroyed, anyways. We're not talking about billions of deaths...

Anon

It's unwise to enter into wars unless you really mean it.

So yes, even nuclear wars. If you're prepared to shoot at all you should be prepared to shoot everything.

"The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility."
~ John A. Fisher