Those working on this mod do so in their own free time and for no pay.
Show your support for them by enabling ads on this site!

Author Topic: The nuclear bomb debate.  (Read 14432 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

March 20, 2008, 06:56:19 PMReply #40

Offline Scarecrow63

  • Former Mod Team Member
  • Moff
  • *
  • Posts: 1,891
  • Approval: +37/-30
  • In internet speak, vowels are the first casualty
    • View Profile
Re: The nuclear bomb debate.
« Reply #40 on: March 20, 2008, 06:56:19 PM »
that's the point. You can't just suppose that the enemy surrenders after you take out the regular army. didn't learn anything from the WWII? La Resistance? rings any bells? If you think that fighting ends when you have conquered the country you are even more stupid than I thought. Conventional war. bah! you sound like british about the boer wars. I don't remember who it was who said that it was unfair of the boers to do surprise attacks and then retreat. They should have just stand in line and wait the british to shoot. them. So face it. USA isn't so powerful after all. you can defend yourself well. but you can't bring order to areas you have conquered. maybe you just should nuke anyone you don't like.

No meyer, you're obviously more stupid than i thought, which almost seems impossible at this point.  Who cares about bringing order? Once the regular army is taken out, which is quite possible, its then just a policing operation.  Did I ever suggest in my post killing the army kills the fighting? No, I didn't.  You sir, need to stop blowing up and insulting people every fucking time someone says something you don't agree with.

Anywayz, off-topic and locked
Isn't in the bath, he prefers the shower

 

Those working on this mod do so in their own free time and for no pay.
Show your support for them by enabling ads on this site!