Author Topic: Who's next? (Read 422 times)

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #15 on:** November 13, 2005, 11:50:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gh0stFT
i doubt we need a 3rd or 4th nuclear destroyed city, 2 are more then enough, dont you think?

I would agree. but that wasnt the reason or meaning of my post.

Well..Maybe Paris;)

J_A_B · « **Reply #16 on:** November 13, 2005, 02:56:44 PM »

Solution to the War on Terror?

Figure out a way to bring Curtis LeMay back to life, then give him full reign to do whatever he feels necessary.

J_A_B

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #17 on:** November 13, 2005, 03:14:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gh0stFT
i doubt we need a 3rd or 4th nuclear destroyed city, 2 are more then enough, dont you think?

Yes Nuking cities is so much worse and painful for all involved than firebobing by hundreds and thousands of conventian bombers repeatedly over severaldays. Nukes are so unique and awful!!!

So yes, I'm for getting back into the firebombing cities business! Roast the mother frakkers, I say. Roast em good like the RAF bomber command did in WW2!

NUKE · « **Reply #18 on:** November 13, 2005, 03:18:50 PM »

Lol Grun, aint that the truth.

The US firebombed and destroyed every major city in Japan except Hiroshima, Nagasaki and one more that I forget the name of.

Those three cities were declared off limits......I think so that when we nuked them, we could assess the damage accurately.

Killing is killing, war is hell.