Originally Posted by kwygon
-blah-
1. Contradictory to a previous post that said Obama would totally disarm
2.Wouldnt it be better to do something that worked?
3.You obviously know nothing about the war. The bombs are strategically placed to destroy military targets and minimalise civilian casualties.
4.You truly think that’s guerrilla warfare? Oh please. They are fighting in cities. Not the jungle for fuck sake.
I assure you, I have done my research.
-crap-
1. You can't totally disarm in one treaty, someone will get too pissed. Obama wanting to reduce the warheads down to 1k each was considered 'radical', anything less would be considered 'pointless.'
2. An attempt at doing something to work IS STILL DOING SOMETHING.
3. MINIMALIZE=/=ERADICATE. You'd be pissed if I said I tried to MINIMALIZE the death of your family rather than ERADICATE it completely by bombing a house with insurgents. 1 death of a civilian can lead to numerous 'employments' by the taliban, by stressing that the U.S. doesn't give a fuck.
4. Right. In cities. Only to blow the fuck out of themselves. You really think I meant a jungle? Yeah right, mountains and random bushes=/=jungle. To even suggest that as an insult proves your argument is downright idiotic. It is guerrilla warfare. Given that the word 'guerrilla' is in almost ever paragraph of the wiki. Yeah OK anyone can edit it. It's guerrilla warfare.
Btw, you're not being controversial. You just don't have the right information and you are assuming things, mostly radically republican things.
Mr. Troll.
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»