The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I'd like your opinion to say if America should take millitary action or not.
Personally i'm against it because if they strike bin saledem they could strike back and after a while britain would get involved and then shorthly afterwards other countrys will get involved and if that happens it could start world war three and then if that happens were all as good as dead.
Please let me know your vote.
Personally i'm against it because if they strike bin saledem they could strike back and after a while britain would get involved and then shorthly afterwards other countrys will get involved and if that happens it could start world war three and then if that happens were all as good as dead.
Please let me know your vote.
Page:
Darkness_2K wrote:
> You are getting the word war wrong.
Yes, it will be a war, yet
> not like a World War. You here scientists say 'the war against foot
> and mouth will continue'. It's that kind of war that qwill happen.
>
No going into countries, bombing them, sending troops in and
> getting the country to surrender!
It is a war against terrorism.
> That means, and international effort will be put forth.
The first
> stage of this is a covert war of intelligence gathering. NATO need
> to find out where terrorist cells are, get inside them.
Then,
> cover operations teams like SEALs or the SAS will become involved,
> strategically taking out these cells.
In some occasions
> (underground bunkers etc.), air strikes may become neccessary, but
> surgical ones, nobody can afford to kill civillians.
If
> terrorists rise together (ie. the IRA and the Arab terrorists and
> them all) come together, more obvious means may be neccessary, like
> ground troops and Navies. But if these terrorists continue hiding
> and dont fight in the open in direct conflict, under cover and
> surgical operation are the only pheasible plan of action.
So yes,
> I believe America should retalliate, but not go after whole
> countries. If Afghanistan won't hand over Osama Bin Laden, yes,
> troops may have to overpower those protecting him. But as for
> attacking any Afghani military bases or god forbid, civillians, that
> is certain suicide. The middle East have Nuclear, biological and
> chemical warfare capabilities, and, for want of a better word, are
> dodgy and ready to use them.
Serious investigation will have to
> happen, as mistakes cannot be made. These terrorists must be taken
> out.
As for any 'civilised' or Western countries using weapons of
> mass destruction? fat chance! America want vengence for what has
> happened. As soon as a WOMD is used, another one is returned, and
> nuclear war enfolds, wiping out the human race. Nobody sane would
> risk, (no, its not a 'risk' is a certainty) that.
So yes there
> will be a war against terorrism, and yes, it will be predominantly
> American, and yes, I back it all the way.
thats it in a nut shell.
over the years war has changed its meaning, from "my armys bigger than yours" to pushing a small red button.
> You are getting the word war wrong.
Yes, it will be a war, yet
> not like a World War. You here scientists say 'the war against foot
> and mouth will continue'. It's that kind of war that qwill happen.
>
No going into countries, bombing them, sending troops in and
> getting the country to surrender!
It is a war against terrorism.
> That means, and international effort will be put forth.
The first
> stage of this is a covert war of intelligence gathering. NATO need
> to find out where terrorist cells are, get inside them.
Then,
> cover operations teams like SEALs or the SAS will become involved,
> strategically taking out these cells.
In some occasions
> (underground bunkers etc.), air strikes may become neccessary, but
> surgical ones, nobody can afford to kill civillians.
If
> terrorists rise together (ie. the IRA and the Arab terrorists and
> them all) come together, more obvious means may be neccessary, like
> ground troops and Navies. But if these terrorists continue hiding
> and dont fight in the open in direct conflict, under cover and
> surgical operation are the only pheasible plan of action.
So yes,
> I believe America should retalliate, but not go after whole
> countries. If Afghanistan won't hand over Osama Bin Laden, yes,
> troops may have to overpower those protecting him. But as for
> attacking any Afghani military bases or god forbid, civillians, that
> is certain suicide. The middle East have Nuclear, biological and
> chemical warfare capabilities, and, for want of a better word, are
> dodgy and ready to use them.
Serious investigation will have to
> happen, as mistakes cannot be made. These terrorists must be taken
> out.
As for any 'civilised' or Western countries using weapons of
> mass destruction? fat chance! America want vengence for what has
> happened. As soon as a WOMD is used, another one is returned, and
> nuclear war enfolds, wiping out the human race. Nobody sane would
> risk, (no, its not a 'risk' is a certainty) that.
So yes there
> will be a war against terorrism, and yes, it will be predominantly
> American, and yes, I back it all the way.
thats it in a nut shell.
over the years war has changed its meaning, from "my armys bigger than yours" to pushing a small red button.
You are getting the word war wrong.
Yes, it will be a war, yet not like a World War. You here scientists say 'the war against foot and mouth will continue'. It's that kind of war that qwill happen.
No going into countries, bombing them, sending troops in and getting the country to surrender!
It is a war against terrorism. That means, and international effort will be put forth.
The first stage of this is a covert war of intelligence gathering. NATO need to find out where terrorist cells are, get inside them.
Then, cover operations teams like SEALs or the SAS will become involved, strategically taking out these cells.
In some occasions (underground bunkers etc.), air strikes may become neccessary, but surgical ones, nobody can afford to kill civillians.
If terrorists rise together (ie. the IRA and the Arab terrorists and them all) come together, more obvious means may be neccessary, like ground troops and Navies. But if these terrorists continue hiding and dont fight in the open in direct conflict, under cover and surgical operation are the only pheasible plan of action.
So yes, I believe America should retalliate, but not go after whole countries. If Afghanistan won't hand over Osama Bin Laden, yes, troops may have to overpower those protecting him. But as for attacking any Afghani military bases or god forbid, civillians, that is certain suicide. The middle East have Nuclear, biological and chemical warfare capabilities, and, for want of a better word, are dodgy and ready to use them.
Serious investigation will have to happen, as mistakes cannot be made. These terrorists must be taken out.
As for any 'civilised' or Western countries using weapons of mass destruction? fat chance! America want vengence for what has happened. As soon as a WOMD is used, another one is returned, and nuclear war enfolds, wiping out the human race. Nobody sane would risk, (no, its not a 'risk' is a certainty) that.
So yes there will be a war against terorrism, and yes, it will be predominantly American, and yes, I back it all the way.
Yes, it will be a war, yet not like a World War. You here scientists say 'the war against foot and mouth will continue'. It's that kind of war that qwill happen.
No going into countries, bombing them, sending troops in and getting the country to surrender!
It is a war against terrorism. That means, and international effort will be put forth.
The first stage of this is a covert war of intelligence gathering. NATO need to find out where terrorist cells are, get inside them.
Then, cover operations teams like SEALs or the SAS will become involved, strategically taking out these cells.
In some occasions (underground bunkers etc.), air strikes may become neccessary, but surgical ones, nobody can afford to kill civillians.
If terrorists rise together (ie. the IRA and the Arab terrorists and them all) come together, more obvious means may be neccessary, like ground troops and Navies. But if these terrorists continue hiding and dont fight in the open in direct conflict, under cover and surgical operation are the only pheasible plan of action.
So yes, I believe America should retalliate, but not go after whole countries. If Afghanistan won't hand over Osama Bin Laden, yes, troops may have to overpower those protecting him. But as for attacking any Afghani military bases or god forbid, civillians, that is certain suicide. The middle East have Nuclear, biological and chemical warfare capabilities, and, for want of a better word, are dodgy and ready to use them.
Serious investigation will have to happen, as mistakes cannot be made. These terrorists must be taken out.
As for any 'civilised' or Western countries using weapons of mass destruction? fat chance! America want vengence for what has happened. As soon as a WOMD is used, another one is returned, and nuclear war enfolds, wiping out the human race. Nobody sane would risk, (no, its not a 'risk' is a certainty) that.
So yes there will be a war against terorrism, and yes, it will be predominantly American, and yes, I back it all the way.
---lets look at it this way---
u.s.a
britian (plus probaly british empire, e.g canada, aus and so on.)
russia
china
pakistan
europe
-- Vrs. --
terrorists
u.s.a
britian (plus probaly british empire, e.g canada, aus and so on.)
russia
china
pakistan
europe
-- Vrs. --
terrorists
In some form and time America will retaliate when they have got over the pain having their country and civilians attacked at. If America attacked know, I'm sure there will be lots of confusion resulting in innocent people getting killed.
They should not attack.
Thats what they want.
As we can see they don't mind dieing for their cause.
They want to die and take as much people as they can with them.
What we should do is send in a hit squad and take out that binlarden bloke.
With him gone they will have no funding so they will just crumble and fall.
Thats what they want.
As we can see they don't mind dieing for their cause.
They want to die and take as much people as they can with them.
What we should do is send in a hit squad and take out that binlarden bloke.
With him gone they will have no funding so they will just crumble and fall.
its not a question of should its when will america retalliate
How can war be declared on them when no one has actually owned up to the bombing yet?
And who do they bomb? A load more innocent people?
And who do they bomb? A load more innocent people?
they can't really not retalliate
coz wars been declared on them, they gotta do summin'
coz wars been declared on them, they gotta do summin'
Personally I cannot see them NOT retaliating.They are too peed off with everything now
Page: