- Joined
- Dec 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,588
- Reaction score
- 468
- Location
- Western Europe
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Are you arguing that Britain did more to win WWII then America?
Or are you arguing that because you were born in the UK, the British did more to defend the country then the Americans?
5. The Soviet contribution is the greatest. Had Soviet fallen and not ruined the German forces like they did, the NAZIs would have won the rest. Eurasia would have been United in a German, Japanese alliance. America would then have had absoulutely no chance.
Then how come they've already done it before, with Iraq?
Operation Opera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Iraq =/= Iran.:doh
Iranian facilities are underground deeper than conventional bunker busters can penetrate. Though the US is devising ways. They can hit some targets, but they cannot satisfactorily 'end' Irans nuclear capabilities in the same way.
Iraq =/= Iran.:doh
Iranian facilities are underground deeper than conventional bunker busters can penetrate. Though the US is devising ways. They can hit some targets, but they cannot satisfactorily 'end' Irans nuclear capabilities in the same way.
I don't know a lot about bombs, but in theory, couldn't the entrance to a bunker be found, and then hit with a thermobaric bomb? My understanding is that those are essentially tunnel killers. Would that work if we could get one down the entrance of a bunker?
1. I wasnt born in the UK.
2. British contribution in WW2 was far more valuable than US contribution
3. If the UK had fallen in NAZI hands, the rest of the world would probably also
4. The Brits defended themself for a long time without US help
5. The Soviet contribution is the greatest. Had Soviet fallen and not ruined the German forces like they did, the NAZIs would have won the rest. Eurasia would have been United in a German, Japanese alliance. America would then have had absoulutely no chance.
2) Kosovo? More madness in Europe that continued to be ignored, which may have pulled American forces into a bloodier and messier conflict later.
I agree with everything else you said, but this was an action taken by war criminal Bill Clinton. We had no business being there and what Clinton and NATO did to the Serbians was unjustified and nothing more than a terrorist operation. Most people think the sex scandal was the evil thing Clinton did while he was in office. I say they should have forgot about the sex scandal and impeached his ass for this illegal war against the Serbians.
What war? We bombed their ass into submission. I personally believe that in the 21st century our foriegn policies towards backwards tribal instigated nations should be to either behave or suffer the consequences. In an age of "globalization" we can't afford to allow the dictators of nations to celebrate their tyranny. As the most powerful nation in history, a policy that encourages us to define slaughter and genocode as a "right of soveriegnty" is cowardly and ultimately foolish. Such sentiments encourage the Hitlers of history as long as they slaughter, torture, and massacre within their own borders.
But at the same time, we can't exactly go and invade, and reform any government we want. We should be the first to bring it up in the UN, and if applicable, demand NATO action. If the atrocities continue, and we have no outside support, I think we should go in and force reform down the dictator's throat.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?