qed (Dec 15 2010, 01:04 PM) said: > original post
Hey, Wim, since you are such a super hero, we will let you catch the nuclear bomb when it eventually comes.
bubbba (Dec 15 2010, 02:41 PM) said: > original post
What an odd thing to say. With fallout patterns and such, surely you realize that we all "catch the nuclear bomb" :blink:
And please: don't forget who promised to wipe entire countries from the map way back in 2005, even before they had an official 'nuclear program'.
mrfook (Dec 15 2010, 05:41 PM) said: > original post
Which countries in the world are the only ones to have actually used it?
bubbba (Dec 15 2010, 06:12 PM) said: > original post
fook sacrifices facts (again) to falsely accuse the US. It's generally recognized that those two bombs saved the lives of at least 11,000,000 servicemen (on both sides), and many million more civilians' lives.
You're welcome. :rolleyes:
bubbba (Dec 15 2010, 06:12 PM) said: > original post
fook sacrifices facts (again) to falsely accuse the US. It's generally recognized that those two bombs saved the lives of at least 11,000,000 servicemen (on both sides), and many million more civilians' lives.
pepec (Dec 15 2010, 06:35 PM) said: > original post
Tens of thousands of people evaporated in seconds. But for you it is a matter of mathematics.
pepec (Dec 15 2010, 06:35 PM) said: > original post
Tens of thousands of people evaporated in seconds. But for you it is a matter of mathematics.
bubbba (Dec 15 2010, 06:44 PM) said: > original post
Absolutely. If 100 times more people (the difference between WW2 a-bomb victims, and conservative estimates of deaths attributable to invasion) had to suffer as a result of an invasion, then the choice is obvious.
And how is death by "evaporation" worse than death by flamethrower, or Japanese medical experiments, or artillery?
So ... you'd prefer 11,000,000+ died? :blink:
bubbba (Dec 15 2010, 06:44 PM) said: > original post
So ... you'd prefer 11,000,000+ died? :blink:
mrfook (Dec 15 2010, 06:55 PM) said: > original post
You make it sound like we should be thankful for 'weapons of mass destruction'....
bubbba (Dec 15 2010, 06:58 PM) said: > original post
fook stoops to make a fool of himself again. So . . . you'd prefer the 11,000,000 plus then. :rolleyes:
mrfook (Dec 15 2010, 07:01 PM) said: > original post
I don't understand how you or anyone else can make such estimates.
bubbba (Dec 15 2010, 06:44 PM) said: > original post
Absolutely. If 100 times more people (the difference between WW2 a-bomb victims, and conservative estimates of deaths attributable to invasion) had to suffer as a result of an invasion, then the choice is obvious.
And how is death by "evaporation" worse than death by flamethrower, or Japanese medical experiments, or artillery?
So ... you'd prefer 11,000,000+ died?
cloggieking (Dec 15 2010, 07:25 PM) said: > original post
Why aren't the Iranians pursuing an hydrogen bomb instead?
Personally I don't have an issue with targeted strikes against Iran presuming there is a chance of success and the same is done to Pakistan.
gretasmom (Dec 15 2010, 08:20 PM) said: > original post
The Japanese attacked a Naval base, and about 2300 people (mostly militay personnel) were killed. The Americans, not only used nuclear weapons for the first time, they chose to bomb 2 cities, where innocent Japanese civilians (men, women and children) lived.
gretasmom (Dec 15 2010, 08:20 PM) said: > original post
Are you kidding me? Bubba, have you suffered from a brain injury? It's the only possible explanation for someone who lacks empathy like you do. Otherwise, you're a sociopath.
bubbba (Dec 15 2010, 01:41 PM) said: > original post
What an odd thing to say. With fallout patterns and such, surely you realize that we all "catch the nuclear bomb"
And please: don't forget who promised to wipe entire countries from the map way back in 2005, even before they had an official 'nuclear program'.
Absolutely. If 100 times more people (the difference between WW2 a-bomb victims, and conservative estimates of deaths attributable to invasion) had to suffer as a result of an invasion, then the choice is obvious.
qed (Dec 15 2010, 09:25 PM) said: > original post
ok, then the warmonger should open his mouth when the bomb falls and swallows it.
qed (Dec 15 2010, 09:25 PM) said: > original post
Glad you mentioned the fallout when it suits you.
cloggieking (Dec 15 2010, 08:32 PM) said: > original post
Well I for one am grateful that after the Japanese invasion and the abuse of Americans in the Pacific my grandfather didn't have to invade the two main isles by force.
qed (Dec 15 2010, 01:04 PM) said: > original post
PVV MP Wim Kortenoeven fears that if the west doesn't destroy Iran, Iran will eventually wage nuclear warfare against the west.
Hey, Wim, since you are such a super hero, we will let you catch the nuclear bomb when it eventually comes. Our soldiers are no match for you. Wim, I am sure you are a patriot and shall willingly die for your country.
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/8499094...r_oorlog__.html
- words to the heat of deeds, too cold breath gives -
singlemaltdutch (Dec 16 2010, 10:10 PM) said: > original post
I have read the article over and over again. I could not find the part where the PVV wants to destroy Iran. Is it conceivable that you have blown this article out of proportion by...let's say several megatons?
especially if the nuclear facilities are targeted... qed (Dec 17 2010, 01:58 PM) said: > original post
invading a country tends to destroy it, no?
"Verkeerd begrepen
Kortenoeven heeft zijn uitspraken woensdag in de Tweede Kamer afgezwakt. Hij zei dat hij verkeerd was begrepen. Hij zou niet hebben gepleit voor oorlog, maar zijn steun hebben uitgesproken voor 'preventieve acties die zijn gericht op nucleaire installaties'. 'Ik wil geen oorlogsstemming kweken.'"
Now he is saying "het was niet zo bedoeld, hoor." (that he was misunderstood).
