Quote:
Originally posted by Pornwolf
You know what Equinox, I would normally agree with you. Not on the attitude argument though. All through history the success of countries has been determined by who is stronger. Nothing is different today. If Russia didn't have a history of having nukes(strength) they would matter to us as much as Greenland does. A nations status is still determined by strength. We are strongest. Sometimes we have to bark at the other dogs to remind them and keep them scared. So be it.
I think the way this 'terrorism' issue is being handled is very Cowboy like. But it is being handled by a Cowboy so that explains it. I'm sure if we were actually fighting terrorists we would have killed them, their babies, and erased their history from their local library for future generations. Maybe I'm a little too confident in our military but that's what I believe. I'm sure Pathfinder could tell me if I'm off base. I don't think we are hunting terrorists at all.
|
Ya know, measuring a state's power by the amount of nukes he's got in his bunker, that's a joke. Just imagine a conflict where India would nuke Pakistan, and vice versa, Saddam would send out chemical weapons and nukes, and the US would nuke them all ... uhm yeah right. Ain't gonna happen. Why not ? Cuz our beloved Mother Earth would not be anything more or less than a radiating piece of junk. That's what everybody's scared of. An escalating conflict. That's why hopefully there's gonna be a worldwide treaty on destroying those nukes, because they're simply useless.
Nowadays, I would measure the strength of a state on the economy. But who am I to judge that
Killing terrorists ... hmm. Basically a good idea, but what I think is that once you wipe out one of the leading assholes, another one will emerge that will find blind sheep to follow him. Just like there's always Neo-Nazi movements emerging in Germany, whose history is nothing less than a DARK RED chapter that nobody really wants to be reminded of.