- Post
- #73100
- Topic
- My Generation Rocks!!
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/73100/action/topic#73100
- Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
What a load of blankity blank blank. [...] But you should stick with your oversimplified, over generalized thought process. You should start making race based remarks next, cause they are as equally founded as your remarks above...
My dear junior forum member, I will forgive you this unfair comment towards me (which I find greatly disturbing), because you don't know how can I feel after writing many eloquent posts in Bush Jr/9-11/Iraq related threads... Most of replies made by Bush supporters could be shortly summed up as "You're plain wrong, Dubya is the best, he has great strategery". That's it, no detailed descriptions and analysis of current gov. policies, no extrapolations on what may happen in the future given that US will follow the present way.... just plain old stubbornness and blind faith in The Leader. (although I admit the main culprit was jimbo and not Darth Chaltab)
I - on the other hand - can sometimes understand Republicans & Bush supporters and even agree with them "from a certain point of view" on particular issues. What I observed, is that they are less likely do a similar thing: to think for a moment, what would it be to be in Democrats' shoes.
This is why I wrote this exaggerated post, because I was too tired to pick up the glove and start yet another, pointless debate - pointless, because the other side won't change its mind. Period. After all, this is what we call them conservatives, right?
Well, as it was already said in this thread, building an anti-nuke shield (which used to bear a cool name of "Star Wars program") is an option. This will undoubtedly give them an edge over their enemies ("we can hit you, you can't hit us - suckers!"). This can be also considered as a "pacifist's way of arms race" as other countries would pursue the same thing (as penetrating enemy territory would be tricky, mass sabotage is even less likely, virus has limited means to reach Army computers etc.). Also, a more conventional approach to arms race would be more preferable, especially now, when the enemy cannot be so easily found (and we can't use area-effect weapons like nukes). So this means better, stealthier planes/AA missiles; tiny, unmanned aircraft capable of doing recon, but also delivering weapons on the heads of unsuspecting enemy, etc. - yer usual wonder-weapon toys. Also, as armies become more and more reliant on electronics, new ways of crippling their comms (like offing a comsat from the orbit) and jamming the black boxes would be more readily available to tech-savvy US, rather than to China or even Russia (given the amount of rubels they now spend on military research - space junk like Burans can be bought for scrap price and this was once a heavily guarded secret).
) into Saddie's nuke reactor. Some time later Uncle Sam, who formerly was selling weapons to naughty Iraqis (including chemical/biological ones), made a successful counterattack, arm in arm with the Coalition forces, against Iraqi forces which invaded Kuwait. So after 1991 Iraq was licking its wounds after loosing most of its potential. The 2003 Iraq was far less dangerous to its neighbours than was III Reich in 1939 to the states bordering with it. The Weapons of Mass Destruction (gosh, I just love the way Americans forge new three-letter acronyms: WMD, MAD, DVD, HBO, WTF? 