Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?


Neither did George Bush, fool. Roll Eyes


Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there. Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?


Neither did George Bush, fool. Roll Eyes


Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there. Roll Eyes


As the number of nuclear armed missiles fielded by the two main signers of the ABM treaty decreased, your argument does not hold.
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?


Neither did George Bush, fool. Roll Eyes


Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there. Roll Eyes


So you think the War On Terror was unnecessary even after the cold blooded killings of 3,000 Americans? Just what would be a proper cause for war, cadoofus? 20,000 dead? 50,000? Would your name happen to be neville chamberlain?
quote:
Originally posted by tcf531:
quote:
Originally posted by JOY4567:
The Chicks learned - the hard way - that "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean that there may not be a 'cost' for what you say.


5 grammys in 2007


From the same people who gave the 1978 Best New Artist award, not to Toto or the Cars but to a taste of honey. Your post proved nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?


Neither did George Bush, fool. Roll Eyes


Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there. Roll Eyes


So you think the War On Terror was unnecessary even after the cold blooded killings of 3,000 Americans? Just what would be a proper cause for war, cadoofus? 20,000 dead? 50,000? Would your name happen to be neville chamberlain?

I'm sure he was referring to the war in Iraq which had nothing to do with our problems with Al Qaeda. In fact, Saddam detested Al Qaeda and kept Iran in check. Invading Iraq did much damage to our country's security.
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?


Neither did George Bush, fool. Roll Eyes


Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there. Roll Eyes


So you think the War On Terror was unnecessary even after the cold blooded killings of 3,000 Americans? Just what would be a proper cause for war, cadoofus? 20,000 dead? 50,000? Would your name happen to be neville chamberlain?


What constitutes "winning" the war on terror? How do you win a war on an ideology? Because if you know please by all means tell me, because the way i see it a war where you make five new enemies for every single enemy killed is a losing war and I don't want to see Americans die like that. American interventionism in the middle east in the 80s is what got us in this mess to begin with. We should focus more on our domestic security instead of trying to police the world. And might I add that what Neville Chamberlain did was beneficial for Britain. First of all his popularity skyrocketed after avoiding war with Germany, the British people did not want war, second Britain was in no shape to fight a war, had they went to war at that time they would have lost, third chamberlain realized this weakness in the British military and knew that war would probably come soon, so he passed the factory act which built up the British military enough so that they stood a fighting chance against the Germans. So learn a little history why don't you.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?


Neither did George Bush, fool. Roll Eyes


Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there. Roll Eyes


As the number of nuclear armed missiles fielded by the two main signers of the ABM treaty decreased, your argument does not hold.


Why then was Bush pursuing repealing the ban on low yield "tactical" nuclear weapons along with funding the development of the RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator?) It sounds all together like he was pursuing nuclear proliferation. By the way the withdrawal from the ABM treaty killed the START III treaty.
"What constitutes "winning" the war on terror? How do you win a war on an ideology?"

We won the war against fascism, national socialism and Japanese imperialism, all ideologies, by destroying their societies and killing enough so they either weren't enough to bother with, or they changed their views.

We won the Cold War against communist ideology by driving them into the ground, thru economic and military means.
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?


Neither did George Bush, fool. Roll Eyes


Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there. Roll Eyes


As the number of nuclear armed missiles fielded by the two main signers of the ABM treaty decreased, your argument does not hold.


Why then was Bush pursuing repealing the ban on low yield "tactical" nuclear weapons along with funding the development of the RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator?) It sounds all together like he was pursuing nuclear proliferation. By the way the withdrawal from the ABM treaty killed the START III treaty.


REAP was a paper drill to determine if an existing iron bomb nuke already in the inventory was feasible as a penetrator,lasting from 2004 to 2005. No tests and no further work was done after 2005. Is that all you've got! As to START III, negotiations are ongoing.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
"What constitutes "winning" the war on terror? How do you win a war on an ideology?"

We won the war against fascism, national socialism and Japanese imperialism, all ideologies, by destroying their societies and killing enough so they either weren't enough to bother with, or they changed their views.

We won the Cold War against communist ideology by driving them into the ground, thru economic and military means.


What did national "socialism", and japanese imperialism have in common? They were new upstart flawed ideologies led by figurehead leaders. Much like a snake you cut the head off and it dies. The USSR had its flawed economic policies to thank for it's collapse, Reagan expedited it only by a few years for sure. So much like a big animal that doesnt know how to feed itself enough it starved. Terrorism, however, is much more like a hydra, for every head we cut off two more spring up, so how do you "beat" the terrorists?
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?


Neither did George Bush, fool. Roll Eyes


Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there. Roll Eyes


As the number of nuclear armed missiles fielded by the two main signers of the ABM treaty decreased, your argument does not hold.


Why then was Bush pursuing repealing the ban on low yield "tactical" nuclear weapons along with funding the development of the RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator?) It sounds all together like he was pursuing nuclear proliferation. By the way the withdrawal from the ABM treaty killed the START III treaty.


REAP was a paper drill to determine if an existing iron bomb nuke already in the inventory was feasible as a penetrator,lasting from 2004 to 2005. No tests and no further work was done after 2005. Is that all you've got! As to START III, negotiations are ongoing.


http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/start3

quote:
With the signing of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), it appears unlikely that a START III agreement will be negotiated. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed SORT on May 24, 2002. The treaty calls for each country to deploy no more than 1,700-2,200 strategic warheads, effectively matching the limit of 2,000-2,500 warheads proposed for START III.1 SORT does not, however, address strategic nuclear warhead destruction or tactical nuclear weapons limits, both ground-breaking arms control measures that were suggested for inclusion in START III.


Now while any form of nuclear arms reduction is good, it's odd that the SORT treaty didn't reduce any of the nuclear weapons that Bush wanted to pursue. The point is that while Bush isn't the president, it still stands that he pursued nuclear proliferation.
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?


Neither did George Bush, fool. Roll Eyes


Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there. Roll Eyes


So you think the War On Terror was unnecessary even after the cold blooded killings of 3,000 Americans? Just what would be a proper cause for war, cadoofus? 20,000 dead? 50,000? Would your name happen to be neville chamberlain?

I'm sure he was referring to the war in Iraq which had nothing to do with our problems with Al Qaeda. In fact, Saddam detested Al Qaeda and kept Iran in check. Invading Iraq did much damage to our country's security.


Are you accusing him of being as dense as you? I would be extremely upset if I were cadoofus.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
You stated wars against ideologies couldn't be won. Yet, state I noted that were destroyed were flawed ideologies and were defeated.

Do you consider the ideology of the jehadim to be a more perfect and correct ideology?


How long has the middle east been at war in some form or another? No I don't think that it's a good ideology, but they are certainly more ingrained than the ideologies of Nazi germany and imperial japan. Those people were fooled into thinking that their policies would bring prosperity to their people. And once they saw that the policies would not do that they rejected them. The ideologies of the terrorists are MUCH too ingrained to reeducate, they believe that they have the promise of 72 virgins upon their suicide (even though some translations say that it is actually several bushels of grapes, not virgins perhaps we should begin spreading that information across the middle east)
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?


Neither did George Bush, fool. Roll Eyes


Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there. Roll Eyes


As the number of nuclear armed missiles fielded by the two main signers of the ABM treaty decreased, your argument does not hold.


Why then was Bush pursuing repealing the ban on low yield "tactical" nuclear weapons along with funding the development of the RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator?) It sounds all together like he was pursuing nuclear proliferation. By the way the withdrawal from the ABM treaty killed the START III treaty.


REAP was a paper drill to determine if an existing iron bomb nuke already in the inventory was feasible as a penetrator,lasting from 2004 to 2005. No tests and no further work was done after 2005. Is that all you've got! As to START III, negotiations are ongoing.


http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/start3

quote:
With the signing of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), it appears unlikely that a START III agreement will be negotiated. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed SORT on May 24, 2002. The treaty calls for each country to deploy no more than 1,700-2,200 strategic warheads, effectively matching the limit of 2,000-2,500 warheads proposed for START III.1 SORT does not, however, address strategic nuclear warhead destruction or tactical nuclear weapons limits, both ground-breaking arms control measures that were suggested for inclusion in START III.


Now while any form of nuclear arms reduction is good, it's odd that the SORT treaty didn't reduce any of the nuclear weapons that Bush wanted to pursue. The point is that while Bush isn't the president, it still stands that he pursued nuclear proliferation.



How old are you, cadoofus?
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?


Neither did George Bush, fool. Roll Eyes


Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there. Roll Eyes


So you think the War On Terror was unnecessary even after the cold blooded killings of 3,000 Americans? Just what would be a proper cause for war, cadoofus? 20,000 dead? 50,000? Would your name happen to be neville chamberlain?

I'm sure he was referring to the war in Iraq which had nothing to do with our problems with Al Qaeda. In fact, Saddam detested Al Qaeda and kept Iran in check. Invading Iraq did much damage to our country's security.


Are you accusing him of being as dense as you? I would be extremely upset if I were cadoofus.


At least I can hold a civil and intelligent conversation without resorting to juvenile ad hominem attacks such as your own, and I notice that you didn't reply to my statements.
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?


Neither did George Bush, fool. Roll Eyes


Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there. Roll Eyes


As the number of nuclear armed missiles fielded by the two main signers of the ABM treaty decreased, your argument does not hold.


Why then was Bush pursuing repealing the ban on low yield "tactical" nuclear weapons along with funding the development of the RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator?) It sounds all together like he was pursuing nuclear proliferation. By the way the withdrawal from the ABM treaty killed the START III treaty.


REAP was a paper drill to determine if an existing iron bomb nuke already in the inventory was feasible as a penetrator,lasting from 2004 to 2005. No tests and no further work was done after 2005. Is that all you've got! As to START III, negotiations are ongoing.


http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/start3

quote:
With the signing of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), it appears unlikely that a START III agreement will be negotiated. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed SORT on May 24, 2002. The treaty calls for each country to deploy no more than 1,700-2,200 strategic warheads, effectively matching the limit of 2,000-2,500 warheads proposed for START III.1 SORT does not, however, address strategic nuclear warhead destruction or tactical nuclear weapons limits, both ground-breaking arms control measures that were suggested for inclusion in START III.


Now while any form of nuclear arms reduction is good, it's odd that the SORT treaty didn't reduce any of the nuclear weapons that Bush wanted to pursue. The point is that while Bush isn't the president, it still stands that he pursued nuclear proliferation.



How old are you, cadoofus?


Says the one that is name calling over the internet? Seriously if anything your age should be called into question
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?


Neither did George Bush, fool. Roll Eyes


Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there. Roll Eyes


As the number of nuclear armed missiles fielded by the two main signers of the ABM treaty decreased, your argument does not hold.


Why then was Bush pursuing repealing the ban on low yield "tactical" nuclear weapons along with funding the development of the RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator?) It sounds all together like he was pursuing nuclear proliferation. By the way the withdrawal from the ABM treaty killed the START III treaty.


REAP was a paper drill to determine if an existing iron bomb nuke already in the inventory was feasible as a penetrator,lasting from 2004 to 2005. No tests and no further work was done after 2005. Is that all you've got! As to START III, negotiations are ongoing.


http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/start3

quote:
With the signing of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), it appears unlikely that a START III agreement will be negotiated. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed SORT on May 24, 2002. The treaty calls for each country to deploy no more than 1,700-2,200 strategic warheads, effectively matching the limit of 2,000-2,500 warheads proposed for START III.1 SORT does not, however, address strategic nuclear warhead destruction or tactical nuclear weapons limits, both ground-breaking arms control measures that were suggested for inclusion in START III.


Now while any form of nuclear arms reduction is good, it's odd that the SORT treaty didn't reduce any of the nuclear weapons that Bush wanted to pursue. The point is that while Bush isn't the president, it still stands that he pursued nuclear proliferation.



How old are you, cadoofus?


Says the one that is name calling over the internet? Seriously if anything your age should be called into question


11? 12? No wait. My great nephew is that age and he's got more common sense than you. Of course you are a "party member" of chairman obama. Intelligence is the last thing required of a "party member."
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk014:
quote:
Originally posted by PKROUSE:
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK THAT? THE DIXIE CHICK'S DIDN'T RUN THIS COUNTRY IN THE GROUND NOW DID THEY?


Neither did George Bush, fool. Roll Eyes


Right because starting an unnecessary war, throwing our civil liberties to the dogs (but don't worry cause it only applies to bad guys right?), supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons (By withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty), passing a god awful stimulus package, and continuing the US policy of interventionism around the world. Yep certainly not running the country in the ground there. Roll Eyes


As the number of nuclear armed missiles fielded by the two main signers of the ABM treaty decreased, your argument does not hold.


Why then was Bush pursuing repealing the ban on low yield "tactical" nuclear weapons along with funding the development of the RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator?) It sounds all together like he was pursuing nuclear proliferation. By the way the withdrawal from the ABM treaty killed the START III treaty.


REAP was a paper drill to determine if an existing iron bomb nuke already in the inventory was feasible as a penetrator,lasting from 2004 to 2005. No tests and no further work was done after 2005. Is that all you've got! As to START III, negotiations are ongoing.


http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/start3

quote:
With the signing of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), it appears unlikely that a START III agreement will be negotiated. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed SORT on May 24, 2002. The treaty calls for each country to deploy no more than 1,700-2,200 strategic warheads, effectively matching the limit of 2,000-2,500 warheads proposed for START III.1 SORT does not, however, address strategic nuclear warhead destruction or tactical nuclear weapons limits, both ground-breaking arms control measures that were suggested for inclusion in START III.


Now while any form of nuclear arms reduction is good, it's odd that the SORT treaty didn't reduce any of the nuclear weapons that Bush wanted to pursue. The point is that while Bush isn't the president, it still stands that he pursued nuclear proliferation.



How old are you, cadoofus?


Says the one that is name calling over the internet? Seriously if anything your age should be called into question


11? 12? No wait. My great nephew is that age and he's got more common sense than you. Of course you are a "party member" of chairman obama. Intelligence is the last thing required of a "party member."


As a matter of fact I am not a "party member." I don't prescribe to any party but if I had to choose it would probably be the libertarian party. So please tell me where my common sense comes in to question at any point, or my age for that matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:

As a matter of fact I am not a "party member." I don't prescribe to any party but if I had to choose it would probably be the libertarian party. So please tell me where my common sense comes in to question at any point, or my age for that matter.


Are you capable of reading your own posts objectively?
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
There was no increase in nuclear weapons, period!


I did not say there was an increase in weapons, but why pursue unbanning something if you have no interest in possibly restarting production?


As the item, was already in the inventory, it would have required a simple modification -- allowed by the treaty.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
There was no increase in nuclear weapons, period!


I did not say there was an increase in weapons, but why pursue unbanning something if you have no interest in possibly restarting production?


As the item, was already in the inventory, it would have required a simple modification -- allowed by the treaty.


I just think that it is foolish to support a weapon that irradiates ground water. What are your views on nuclear weapons?
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
There was no increase in nuclear weapons, period!


I did not say there was an increase in weapons, but why pursue unbanning something if you have no interest in possibly restarting production?


As the item, was already in the inventory, it would have required a simple modification -- allowed by the treaty.


I just think that it is foolish to support a weapon that irradiates ground water. What are your views on nuclear weapons?


Necessary items. Most radiation is from fallout. Not too much in a penetrator. I've probably shipped tactical nukes near you.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×