rammunition wrote:
so you don't like facts???

rammunition wrote:
so you don't like facts???
Different time, different era, big friggin war. A few million more Japanese and Allied deaths and a few more years of fighting must be accpetable mustn't it?rammunition wrote:
its not the UK that wants to "annihilate" Iran.usmarine wrote:
UK said a nuke iran was unacceptable. and UK has been eveywhere the US has recently.rammunition wrote:
America/Israel you retard
so again......... UK retard?
and remind me what country if the only nation to use nukes????
There's got to be some record for how many times you've linked that page.rammunition wrote:
so you don't like facts???usmarine wrote:
lol...that has little to do with anything. good job reverting back to that same old line. Bwap! Bwap! Bwap! want a cracker?rammunition wrote:
and remind me what country if the only nation to use nukes????
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 8#p2032818
Japanese civilians were ready to fight to the last child. Invasion of Japan would fail don't ya know.Braddock wrote:
...or Hiroshima or Nagasaki... even when they're full of innocent civilians and the Japanese army are no longer a threat.Warhammer wrote:
Any nuke from a threatening nation is an issue. If you use one nuke right you can take out the US...
oops, did I say that out loud?
brad knows that. but it would kill his arguement so he has to fight the facts.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Japanese civilians were ready to fight to the last child. Invasion of Japan would fail don't ya know.Braddock wrote:
...or Hiroshima or Nagasaki... even when they're full of innocent civilians and the Japanese army are no longer a threat.Warhammer wrote:
Any nuke from a threatening nation is an issue. If you use one nuke right you can take out the US...
oops, did I say that out loud?
Last edited by usmarine (2008-11-14 08:51:59)
Dresden circa '45 was funny no?usmarine wrote:
brad knows that. but it would kill his arguement so he has to fight the facts.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Japanese civilians were ready to fight to the last child. Invasion of Japan would fail don't ya know.Braddock wrote:
...or Hiroshima or Nagasaki... even when they're full of innocent civilians and the Japanese army are no longer a threat.
oops, did I say that out loud?
lol.......i would need to gather numbers i guess. but i am willing to bet just as many innocent civilians died whent he brits were on that "bomb german cities" at night campaign during wwii. but, they were not nukes so........
lulz...was wondering how long that would take.
Yes. You just said something out loud that multiple analysts have repeatedly proven wrong. GG.Braddock wrote:
...or Hiroshima or Nagasaki... even when they're full of innocent civilians and the Japanese army are no longer a threat.
oops, did I say that out loud?
Pretty sure we are.Dilbert_X wrote:
Great, so leave them to it.FEOS wrote:
Perhaps you should look at what other countries in the ME think about Iran's activities. They're more worried than anyone else and are lobbying the EU and US hard to put a stop to what Iran's doing. That and working on their own arms to counter what Iran is doing.
Iranian domination of the PG region has a lot to do with multiple countries' national interests. Hence all those European players getting concerned over Iranian antics.Dilbert_X wrote:
Again, what does it have to do with the US?
I would be surprised if Braddock believed that horseshit. Bullshit statement, pure and simple.usmarine wrote:
brad knows that. but it would kill his arguement so he has to fight the facts.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Japanese civilians were ready to fight to the last child. Invasion of Japan would fail don't ya know.Braddock wrote:
...or Hiroshima or Nagasaki... even when they're full of innocent civilians and the Japanese army are no longer a threat.
oops, did I say that out loud?
What suck is if you fought back all you will be hitting is sand.CameronPoe wrote:
Oh noes. And all the west has is several thousand nuclear warheads. It's a pity we stopped developing weapons ourselves in order to set an example for Iran - they might kick our asses now.
Reckon they've got all the information already, doesn't really take long to transfer, there is email and FTP and stuff.Harmor wrote:
If Iran keeps getting information from Pakistan they maybe able to have a nuclear weapon with a range possible to his Israel within 2 years.
Very much doubt that, most of these things are on mobile launchers these days for that very reason.Supposedly when Israel attacked Syria last year at the "nuclear plant" it was actually a launch pad for a shorter range missile that could carry a nuclear payload into Israel.
Guess you mean instant.Additionally, anyone here not believe the instance Iran has a nuclear missile that is in range of Israel it won't fire it?
Very rarely do we agree, but Iran isn't going to do shit. They probably are developing nukes. Their president is butting heads with the Ayatollah so he wont be around much longer.Dilbert_X wrote:
Reckon they've got all the information already, doesn't really take long to transfer, there is email and FTP and stuff.Harmor wrote:
If Iran keeps getting information from Pakistan they maybe able to have a nuclear weapon with a range possible to his Israel within 2 years.Very much doubt that, most of these things are on mobile launchers these days for that very reason.Supposedly when Israel attacked Syria last year at the "nuclear plant" it was actually a launch pad for a shorter range missile that could carry a nuclear payload into Israel.
Iran already had a missile with plenty of range to hit Israel.Guess you mean instant.Additionally, anyone here not believe the instance Iran has a nuclear missile that is in range of Israel it won't fire it?
Me for one, the Iranians aren't suicidal or belligerent in the way the scaremongers would like you to believe.
Israel isn't a bother to Iran until they actually attack them, which is why they need a deterrent.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-01-11 21:33:19)
The Israelis have more, and are more easily provoked...FatherTed wrote:
Iranians have some new (probably real) toys.
yeah, they're suicidal. Iran with nukes is less of a concern to me than pakistan's nukes.Harmor wrote:
Additionally, anyone here not believe the instance Iran has a nuclear missile that is in range of Israel it won't fire it?
Why do I feel like deja vu with respect to WWI to WWII? Just because you don't believe they would doesn't necessarily mean they would not use a nuke once they get it. Remember it only takes a few to authorize a missile launch...who says Iran would be able to control their nukes if their government is so unstable (i.e. 'butting heads')?SgtHeihn wrote:
Very rarely do we agree, but Iran isn't going to do shit. They probably are developing nukes. Their president is butting heads with the Ayatollah so he wont be around much longer.
Think you're talking about the US actually.Konfusion wrote:
I hate Iran with a passion. Every evil in the middle east springs from there.
And the US funds Israel, big deal.All the terrorist groups originate from there (in some shape or form - either the guy who started it was Iranian, it's funded by Iran, or something like that)
You are talking about the USThey use countries like Palestine and Iraq for their own benefit, and screw over the countries in doing so (they enjoy the instability of the middle east - go figure)
With the worlds biggest porn industry, and Texas, I agree.They simply don't respect anyone's rights (let alone women's) and have an outdated justice system
Agreed, just glad I don't live there.There needs to be a major change in that country... I feel sorry for all the people who have to live there.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-01-15 00:26:58)
That's nice. Wishing the deaths of millions of people.rammunition wrote:
please Iran,. Nuke Jizzrael off the map!!!!