petertdavis
|
posted on September 21, 2001 08:12:43 AM
Consider what he said last night...
"and every necessary weapon of war"
What else could he have meant?
Bush likes his nooo-que-leeeer bombs.
And he has such a funny way of saying it too!
I hereby retract my statement in another thread where I said that he did not say anything new in that speech last night.
|
godzillatemple
|
posted on September 21, 2001 08:18:37 AM
Don't be ridiculous! What good is all that oil if it's too radioactive to use?
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
|
petertdavis
|
posted on September 21, 2001 08:31:02 AM
And how would you interpret that statement,
"and every necessary weapon of war"
And, BTW, there's not a whole lot of anything in Afganastan, not even oil. It's thousands of miles away from the Muslim nations that sell us oil.
|
godzillatemple
|
posted on September 21, 2001 08:37:28 AM
"and every necessary weapon of war"
Who's to say that nuclear weapons are "necessary? I don't think they're necessary. Do you?
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
|
uaru
|
posted on September 21, 2001 08:38:51 AM
I'd check on patent infringement issues in regards to your post's title.
|
gaffan
|
posted on September 21, 2001 08:52:11 AM
I'm sure part of the strategic sabre rattling here at the front end of the war is to make everyone think nukes of all flavors are on the table whether they actually are or not. Short of being physically present at a NSC meeting, there's really no way to tell.
(Patent? Nah. And you can't copyright titles.)
-gaffan-
[email protected]
|
gravid
|
posted on September 21, 2001 08:53:21 AM
He certainally has kept that option open.
I would expect if they have an non-civilian objective that they want to take and the military says It will cost a couple thousand casualties to take that but we can drop a 5 kiloton mininuke right down their chimney and walk away clean then they might say it is neccesary.
|
DoctorBeetle
|
posted on September 21, 2001 08:53:44 AM
Well, gee, that isn't how I read it at all. I thought he was referring to sending the RT URL to the terrorists. That would scare the snot out of them.
Dr. Beetle
|
zilvy
|
posted on September 21, 2001 09:02:55 AM
Now Dr.Beetle how are we to handle this, you have just given away THE Secret Weapon! The damage you have caused could be considered treason. Loose fingers et al.!
|
petertdavis
|
posted on September 21, 2001 09:05:05 AM
I was thinking more along the lines of "tactical nuclear weapons", the kind that are even less powerful than the ones we used on Japan. If you can't blow up a band of terrorists with a Tomahawk because they're deep in a cave, maybe a small nuke will "smoke them out of their holes".
But, then again, Bush may be thinking along the lines of multi kiloton mass-destruction nukes.
|
CoolTom-07
|
posted on September 21, 2001 09:48:39 PM
My belief is that we should use every UNnecessary weapon of war too. Up to and including the "whatever you do -- my gawd --don't ever touch that butto.... OH NO!!!" weapon...
|
sasoony
|
posted on September 21, 2001 11:25:27 PM
Nukes will not be necessary. With the aid of U.S. airstrikes, Afghanistan's Northern Alliance will take the Taliban out.
|
