Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
1. Good for them, we didn't because such treaties are stupid. I rather doubt that any extremist terrorists were thinking 'You know the United States isn't that bad...wait they used a firebomb instead of a bunker buster? Those bastards! We will suicide bomb them now!'
2. They will get over it.
3. If we used every dirty trick possible there would no longer be a problem. Our dirty tricks are measured in megatons.
This really a much to do about nothing issue brought up only to destabilize the US/UK alliance by those who would rather see us fail, regardless of the consequences to Iraq. I don't think anyone reading this really cares what weapons we used.
|
Well Ustwo every one in this country now knows that what goes around comes around. That dissaster of 9/11 and the current conflict in Iraq are direct results of our past policies. They may have been for the greater good at the time but we payed dearly for them in the present.
You are of course right that the treaty and the issue isn't all that important. Yet much ado about nothing can work both ways. I am pretty sure that the most advanced millitary in the world can find a way to achieve their objectives without the use of incendiary devices. Thus without actually sacrificing much we can gain a moral high ground.
So if napalm is used, I deduct marks from the millitary for using it.