| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dev
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jake_Kim
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 3:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Right-face and invade Pakistan instead.
Bin Laden got caught and killed in Pakistan, therefore Pakistani ISI must've been harboring Bin Laden so far.
Pakistan is a close military partner with the largest creditor to the United States, but hey, the Taliban got punished precisely because they had harbored known terrorists, not because they're radical fanatics who treat their countrymen like some piece of garbage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hondaicivic
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Daegu, South Korea
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jake_Kim wrote: |
Right-face and invade Pakistan instead.
Bin Laden got caught and killed in Pakistan, therefore Pakistani ISI must've been harboring Bin Laden so far.
Pakistan is a close military partner with the largest creditor to the United States, but hey, the Taliban got punished precisely because they had harbored known terrorists, not because they're radical fanatics who treat their countrymen like some piece of garbage. |
You do realize that Pakistan has nuclear warheads right?....About 80-100 to be exact. There's a reason why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, it's because they DIDN'T have nuclear warheads. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hondaicivic
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Daegu, South Korea
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 3:51 pm Post subject: Re: Bin Laden is Dead, so Bring The Troops Home from Afghani |
|
|
The petition should go to the Pentagon and the military industrial complex, not the white house. You have to get their permission first before you do anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| How long had Bin Laden and his family been living in that compound? Years? If so, somebody in the area must have suspected something long before now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ramen
Joined: 15 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hondaicivic wrote: |
| Jake_Kim wrote: |
Right-face and invade Pakistan instead.
Bin Laden got caught and killed in Pakistan, therefore Pakistani ISI must've been harboring Bin Laden so far.
Pakistan is a close military partner with the largest creditor to the United States, but hey, the Taliban got punished precisely because they had harbored known terrorists, not because they're radical fanatics who treat their countrymen like some piece of garbage. |
You do realize that Pakistan has nuclear warheads right?....About 80-100 to be exact. There's a reason why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, it's because they DIDN'T have nuclear warheads. |
that's even better. how many warheads have we got?
any country harboring a-q terrorist organization, especially the head, is our enemy and threat to our national and global security. we should make a fine exemple out of pakistant. we shouldn't waste our time and human resources and just drop them the big bombs.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hondaicivic
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Daegu, South Korea
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ramen wrote: |
| hondaicivic wrote: |
| Jake_Kim wrote: |
Right-face and invade Pakistan instead.
Bin Laden got caught and killed in Pakistan, therefore Pakistani ISI must've been harboring Bin Laden so far.
Pakistan is a close military partner with the largest creditor to the United States, but hey, the Taliban got punished precisely because they had harbored known terrorists, not because they're radical fanatics who treat their countrymen like some piece of garbage. |
You do realize that Pakistan has nuclear warheads right?....About 80-100 to be exact. There's a reason why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, it's because they DIDN'T have nuclear warheads. |
that's even better. how many warheads have we got?
any country harboring a-q terrorist organization, especially the head, is our enemy and threat to our national and global security. we should make a fine exemple out of pakistant. we shouldn't waste our time and human resources and just drop them the big bombs. |
Around 8000. The Russians got around 15,000. 100 is required to destroy the world 3 times over. So what's your point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darkjedidave
Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai/Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If you say 30 is enough to destroy the world, wouldnt that mean the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima destroyed 1/15th of the world? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hondaicivic
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Daegu, South Korea
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| darkjedidave wrote: |
| If you say 30 is enough to destroy the world, wouldnt that mean the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima destroyed 1/15th of the world? |
The A-bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty weak compared to modern nuclear warheads today. If you want to throw in Hydrogen bombs as well, then yes 30 is all you need to destroy the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crisdean
Joined: 04 Feb 2010
Location: Seoul Special City
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hondaicivic wrote: |
| darkjedidave wrote: |
| If you say 30 is enough to destroy the world, wouldnt that mean the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima destroyed 1/15th of the world? |
The A-bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty weak compared to modern nuclear warheads today. If you want to throw in Hydrogen bombs as well, then yes 30 is all you need to destroy the world. |
Dozens of multi-megaton Hydrogen bombs have been successfully tested by various countries through-out the world since the 1950's, and surprise-surprise the world is still here. I think you've watched a few too many hollywood nuclear scare-monger films. 30 nukes would not even be capable off rendering the world lifeless from radiation, let alone physically destroying it. Sure 30 stragically launched missiles could severely reduce the world population, but let's not exaggerate by throwing the word 'destroy' around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hondaicivic
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Daegu, South Korea
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crisdean wrote: |
| hondaicivic wrote: |
| darkjedidave wrote: |
| If you say 30 is enough to destroy the world, wouldnt that mean the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima destroyed 1/15th of the world? |
The A-bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty weak compared to modern nuclear warheads today. If you want to throw in Hydrogen bombs as well, then yes 30 is all you need to destroy the world. |
Dozens of multi-megaton Hydrogen bombs have been successfully tested by various countries through-out the world since the 1950's, and surprise-surprise the world is still here. I think you've watched a few too many hollywood nuclear scare-monger films. 30 nukes would not even be capable off rendering the world lifeless from radiation, let alone physically destroying it. Sure 30 stragically launched missiles could severely reduce the world population, but let's not exaggerate by throwing the word 'destroy' around. |
- The majority of those bombs were detonated underground. That's the reason why we're still here. Mind you, they were not all detonated at once. Think about that.
- 30 nukes going off all at once would reduce the world population by a chunk and the rest will die due to nuclear fallout, and cancer caused by radiation. You might want to look up Israel SAMSON option. I shudder to think if they ever used that option.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_option
The Gun and the Olive Branch" (2003) as saying "I consider it all hopeless at this point. ... We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under." He quoted General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
southernman
Joined: 15 Jan 2010
Location: On the mainland again
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eamo wrote: |
| How long had Bin Laden and his family been living in that compound? Years? If so, somebody in the area must have suspected something long before now. |
The Whitehouse said that he'd been living there for up 6 years. The neighbours used to gossip a bit, they thought the people living at the compound were either drug traffickers or into dealing in contraband.
Considering it's a so called safe location and has never undergone any terrorist attacks, there would seem to have to have been some form of collusion from someone high up in the Military/Police (or both) in the city.
If the reports are true, that the neighbours used to talk about the people in the compound and complain that how come the rich people living there never gave to charity or the poor. It seems amazing that the Military/Police in the city wouldn't have heard about these rumours and at least checked the place out.
Neighbours are saying that at the markets, meetings and informally people used to talk about the particular compound because no one was obviously working from there and the inhabitants (well the guards) were extremley rude and hostile when people approached them.
Being a imformer is almost a legitimate job in some countries. Some high up people in the city had to know he was there. There's no doubt about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smee
Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Location: Jeollanam-do
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 3:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
The US is far too enamored with the militarism in its society to bring its troops home.
The romanticism with which popular culture here treats the military is pretty disgusting, though the hero-worship of trained killers insures there will always be new recruits for whatever country they decide to invade next. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
machinoman
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jake_Kim wrote: |
Right-face and invade Pakistan instead.
Bin Laden got caught and killed in Pakistan, therefore Pakistani ISI must've been harboring Bin Laden so far.
Pakistan is a close military partner with the largest creditor to the United States, but hey, the Taliban got punished precisely because they had harbored known terrorists, not because they're radical fanatics who treat their countrymen like some piece of garbage. |
i agree that we should attack pakistan. we should also attack turkey and the ukraine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jake_Kim wrote: |
Right-face and invade Pakistan instead.
Bin Laden got caught and killed in Pakistan, therefore Pakistani ISI must've been harboring Bin Laden so far.
Pakistan is a close military partner with the largest creditor to the United States, but hey, the Taliban got punished precisely because they had harbored known terrorists, not because they're radical fanatics who treat their countrymen like some piece of garbage. |
Now that we have killed OBL, why exactly would we invade Pakistan? Invading a country with over 150 million people isn't exactly smart, plus as others have noted, thre is that whole nuke issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
