Israel

[Kraken]

well! i was talking about hezbollah there nukey! lets not forget the suicide bombers viva Hamas that has been rolling thorugh Israel whilst they stood by and waited!
any case, hezbollah kidnapped 2 soldiers...or was it 3, anyway, now lebanon is under attack as well!
go Israel!

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/25/D8J37I5O1.html read this big guy.

[Gen. Volkov]

Or if you're referring to terrorists attacking the US here's what I propose: Let's say a terrorist attack killed 3k people, and 75% of the terrorists involved are Saudi Arabians then I think we should give Saudi Arabia a bunch of money so we can use their land to mount an offensive against a completely unrelated country. That'll show the world we mean business

We didn't use Saudi Arabia in Iraqi Freedom, the assault came from Kuwait. We tried to get Saudi Arabia to let us use their land to launch the attack on Iraq, but they wouldn't let us. I think they were pissed at us for blowing Afghanistan to hell and gone. The only reason we are nice to them is because they have the largest oil reserves on the planet. But you knew that last bit, didn't you?

If the terrorist organization that masterminded it was based in oh say Afghanistan then I think we should give that government a bunch of money, then eradicate Afghanistan, set up a new government and promptly forget about it. Make sure he unemployment rate is at least 40% to help ensure that it won't become a breeding ground for terrorists. After all, if almost half of the country doesn't have to work what could an organzation like the Taliban say negatively about the west?

We gave them a bunch of money after we helped the freedom fighters overthrow the oppressive Taliban regime. And yes, I know the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is small, but it's there. And I wouldn't exactly say we have forgotten about them, we still have troops stationed there after all. And I'm fairly certain that the unemployment rate is falling there. Now are you quite finished nuke? I know you don't like Kraken alot, but still.

By the way, I don't think we have a bomb, other than the MOAB, that is capable of eradicating a city block. I think history has yet to make it's decision on Iraq.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Volkov: We did use Saudi Arabia in the war. True we did not launch aircraft from there, but that's where we directed all air strikes from. Ctrl F Combined Forces Air Command for a source

Not only did we give money to the Taliban, we were their biggest donor. 90% of all money given to the Taliban was by the US. Here's a biting piece about giving money to the Taliban. It was done in response to Bush's latest donation to the Taliban, and harshly criticized Bush for aiding the government that harbored Bin Laden saying it would end up hurting us. After 9/11 this piece became a frequent topic of internet debates.

Well let's see, we give Iraq 80 bil to rebuild and Afghanistan 1.62 bil, we disbanded the task force that was assigned to find Bin Laden, we have consistently scaled down the troops in Afghanistan despite the fact that virtually all analysts say that security needs to improve in Afghanistan before investors can feel comfortable enough to start investing there. I'd say it's a safe assumption to say it's not foremost in our minds.

While there is no unemployment data available from before to say whether it has risen, fallen, or remained neutral, we do know that the opium trade is now the largest it's ever been and currently employs 1 out of every 11 Afghani's so it is quite conceivable that unemployment has gone down if only because of the increase in opium farms.

The majority of the post was directed at Freen's post, and while me and Kraken have slightly different political views I still consider him to be a friend. A weird, delusional, right wing extremist groupie, psychotic, partisan puppet, out of touch, misguided friend, but a friend nevertheless

We have many that will. It may not have a crater the size of the city block but it will still destroy the buildings. The forementioned MOAB will probably leave a crater larger than a city block but since I haven't seen any evidence of that I'll leave that one open for debate.

Kraken: I missed that part, in any case there's no point since Israel has repeatedly refused cease-fire talks.

[Kraken]

wrong again! in the past, they have always desired peace talks, hell! they gave HAmaS the freaking GAza strip you moron! anycase, i wouldnt listen to them now either, its time to smash or be smashed!

See the tomato, isnt it sad? poor tomato. he cant even whistle!

[Gen. Volkov]

Ok, we did use Saudi Arabia, but not to the extent that you implied, all of the land forces came out of Kuwait. And most of the Air Force sorties as well.

If you are refering to the Soviet war in Afghanistan, it is true that most of the funding for the guerillas defending against the Soviets came from the US, but the Taliban did not exist at that time. Other than that, I don't believe any significant funding has gone to the Taliban. Except the one 43 mil donation that is.

Well let's see, we give Iraq 80 bil to rebuild and Afghanistan 1.62 bil, we disbanded the task force that was assigned to find Bin Laden, we have consistently scaled down the troops in Afghanistan despite the fact that virtually all analysts say that security needs to improve in Afghanistan before investors can feel comfortable enough to start investing there. I'd say it's a safe assumption to say it's not foremost in our minds.

While there is no unemployment data available from before to say whether it has risen, fallen, or remained neutral, we do know that the opium trade is now the largest it's ever been and currently employs 1 out of every 11 Afghani's so it is quite conceivable that unemployment has gone down if only because of the increase in opium farms.

We did disband a task force that's looking for Bin Laden but you know as well as I do that the US would not and does not have just one Task Force on the job. As to troop draw downs, the number of US troops has decreased, but they are being replaced with NATO and UN forces. Or at least they should be. But yes, it doesn't seem as big an issue as it once was, but if the press was halfway competent, they'd still be asking questions.

*Nod* The problem is, Aghanistan is sadly lacking in any natural resources whatsoever, one of the many reasons the British were never that eager to control it. It has very little arable land, basically it's sand and rock, sand and rock, and oh look, more sand and rock. I suspect the Taliban had the same problems we are experiencing, they just hid it better.

About the bombs... a city block is rather large. Maybe half a city block, but not a whole city block. And I am of course talking convential bombs here. For example, the blast radius on a 2000 pound bomb is only about 110 feet or so. The MOAB has a blast radius of nearly 800 yards... so it would take out a city block and more. *laughs*. Not sure of the crater.

Kraken, a friend? Alright then, certainly an odd friendship. *laughs*. As long as there is no malicious intent.


And Kraken, he's right on this one. Isreal has refused to cease-fire talks since they started their incursion into(or if you prefer: war with) Lebanon.

[Kraken]

duh duh duh! i wouldnt want peace talks with these psychos either!
kill em all!
i meant, dear popov, B E F O R E

[The Beatles]

Israel has refused cease-fire talks, but anyone would, let's face it. If you have started invading a country and want to show your strength, why in the world would you accept a ceasefire 2 days afterwards? That just sends the message "we'll let you get away with a slap on the wrist" (from their perspective), which is perfectly illogical when you've already taken out your birchwood cane. That was never a realistic offer, but merely a PR move by Hezbollah.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Israel has refused cease-fire talks, but anyone would, let's face it. If you have started invading a country and want to show your strength, why in the world would you accept a ceasefire 2 days afterwards? That just sends the message "we'll let you get away with a slap on the wrist" (from their perspective), which is perfectly illogical when you've already taken out your birchwood cane. That was never a realistic offer, but merely a PR move by Hezbollah.

Excellent point.

[Kraken]

W O W ! ! ! nuke will agree with you Mr. Beatles, but not with me!? even when i say the same thing in not so many words!?

geah!!!!!!!!!

[Freenhult]

Nuke...I don't get your post to mine. Not one bit. Sorry...

[Nuclear Raunch]

Kraken: "That was never a realistic offer, but merely a PR move by Hezbollah" is the point Beatles brought up that you never mentioned.

Freen: It was sarcasm directed at your first comment, "Then what should we do to countries that harbor terror?"

[Freenhult]

Heh...If I had the answer I'd be in charge now right? Obviously, something. Whether is sanctions, or it is some sort of offensive that is based on solely reducing/destroying the terrorists. Whatever has been the most effective. What would you suggest then Nuke?

[The Beatles]

Not engendering the terror in the first place?

[Freenhult]

Too bad people can't be grown-up enough not to argue over such stupid things.

[Devari]

But attacking civilians doesn't really weaken Hezbollah - instead, it creates more potential terrorists and suicide bombers. I mean, if the IDF killed members of your family, would you be a big fan of Israel? Most people would want revenge, and in their rage would likely make no distinction between soldiers, politicians, and innocent civilians.