Page 2 of 3
Posted: Tue 26 Aug, 2003 5:25 am
by mikkel
well nuclear weapons have done more good than bad and the closest thing to WWIII is some terrorist or a rouge nation getting a bomb and blowing up a major US, Isralie, or western city in which case the victim obliterates the agressor
Posted: Tue 26 Aug, 2003 10:02 pm
by Sisyphus
mikkel wrote: the closest thing to WWIII is some terrorist or a rouge nation getting a bomb and blowing up a major city in which case the victim obliterates the agressor
I tend to agree with you about the deterrence effect of nukes, Mikkel. But on the other issue, the victim would first have to I.D. the aggressor. Say, for example, Bin Laden nuked L.A. with a suitcase bomb: how would he be found, who would be obliterated, and how? And in the case of a terrorist or rogue state, how could this escalate into a WW?
Posted: Wed 27 Aug, 2003 12:02 am
by mikkel
well this is my fault for not being specific enough if Bin laden nuked well any place in the US we would find out what country he was in and tell them to hand him over and if they refused it would be the same as Afganistan except not nuclear but this is only my opinion and it would probably not be WWIII but the most likely situation and the closest thing to WWIII at this time but this agin is just what I think would happen.
Posted: Wed 27 Aug, 2003 4:37 pm
by Sisyphus
mikkel wrote:if Bin laden nuked well any place in the US we would find out what country he was in and tell them to hand him over
How??? If the US had the capability of finding him why haven't they done it since the war in Afghanistan?

Posted: Wed 27 Aug, 2003 5:14 pm
by mikkel
well he is just hard to find but he will eventually be found or killed the US has very very good inteligence things like echelon but we cant expect it to be easy it will just take time.
Posted: Wed 27 Aug, 2003 5:23 pm
by Tom Dickson
America Has no real intelligence assets in the middle east if they did they would have known about 9/11 and the rest that has happened since.
Posted: Wed 27 Aug, 2003 5:47 pm
by lew
I’m sorry but that man is a liability and needs to be assonated!!! This may sound a little harsh but a man that stupid in charge of a country that powerful and rich is a bigger threat than the worlds terrorists put together..
lew
Posted: Wed 27 Aug, 2003 6:17 pm
by Wholley
Lew,
assonated?Sounds painful
Wholley.
Posted: Wed 27 Aug, 2003 7:43 pm
by lew
Bloody spell check,

sorry all meant Assassinated mind you if you locked him up he may well be assonated
lew
Posted: Wed 27 Aug, 2003 8:23 pm
by Wholley
HI lew,
The only recent President who should be locked up is Clinton.
He failed to get OBL when he had the chance and was complicit in the under funding of our Military and Intelligence services which left us open to the 9/11 attacks.
You might try not trusting the BBC's input regarding what goes on in this country,they hate Bush and Blair and have an incredibly left wing agenda.
Ok,Frank S and Whitey Iv'e opened the can,
carry on.
Wholley.
I wonder what the affect of Assonation has on a person?

Posted: Wed 27 Aug, 2003 8:28 pm
by lew
Bush hasn’t been in to long, plus he should of been locked up when he put a hex on reducing pollution a few years ago in Japan... he’s a massive liability...
lew
Posted: Wed 27 Aug, 2003 8:43 pm
by Wholley
Lew,
I don't think the UK signed on to Kyoto either.
Wholley.
Posted: Wed 27 Aug, 2003 8:43 pm
by Sisyphus
wholley wrote:
The only recent President who should be locked up is Clinton.
He failed to get OBL

But over here we thought getting "Oralled By Lewinski" was one of his great achievements. Especially as it meant he hadn't "had sexual relationships with
that woman"!!
Posted: Wed 27 Aug, 2003 9:13 pm
by lew
We did sign the Kyoto agreement, and even if we hadn’t we are not producing 75% of the worlds green house gases...
Who is not signing the Agreement?
A. So far the countries that are not signing are the USA, Australia and Japan. The USA is responsible for over 75% of greenhouse gases. The Bush Administration pledged during their campaign that they would address the problems of greenhouse gases but as usual it is all talk and he is opposing the agreement, stating in a letter that it would damage the US economy. For information on the letter please visit WWF International. Japan on the other hand want the protocol changed so that industrialised countries only make extremely marginal reductions in their emissions this being as late as 2008-2012, info from WWF International Australia was accused of trying to sabotage the agreement by arguing over the wording of the agreement, trying to remove rules and penalties.
Info source: Australian Broadcasting Corporation News
The website I got my info from...
http://www.saveourearth.co.uk/soe_treaties.htm
But let us not argue about this on this thread, as I’m sure neither if us want to be accused of hijacking it...
lew
Posted: Wed 27 Aug, 2003 9:31 pm
by Wholley
Sisyphus,
"Oralled By Lewinski"
Love it,still Laughing,wait till her indoors see's this post.
Thank you, best grin I've had in a while.
Wholley. :usa
Lew What's the World Wrestling Foundation got to do with this?
I'm Orff,
Chin Chin.