La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 There was a very good argument for the use of tactical low yield nuclear weapons against Argentinean forces and military resources. I could maybe see how it might be an effective way of getting rid of the Argentinian troops on the Island but the use of nuclear weapons would be grossly out of proportion to the needs of the conflict. For starters we would certainly have lost all support and Argentina would certainly have declared war. That would change everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 Next you refer to Ariel Sharon as if in some way condemning him and his government during his time in office. That clearly shows that you know very little about the man or his time in office or the great progress that he made for both Israeli citizens AND the so called palestinians. And evil murderous piece of human detritus. Even God does not want him - the bastard is still in a coma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Next you refer to Ariel Sharon as if in some way condemning him and his government during his time in office. That clearly shows that you know very little about the man or his time in office or the great progress that he made for both Israeli citizens AND the so called palestinians. And evil murderous piece of human detritus. Even God does not want him - the bastard is still in a coma. On what basis do you see Sharon as being, as you put it, "An evil murderous piece of human detritus" Present your case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 There was a very good argument for the use of tactical low yield nuclear weapons against Argentinean forces and military resources. I could maybe see how it might be an effective way of getting rid of the Argentinian troops on the Island but the use of nuclear weapons would be grossly out of proportion to the needs of the conflict. For starters we would certainly have lost all support and Argentina would certainly have declared war. That would change everything. Surely, even the use of a low yield weapon would have affected the Falklands so that they wouldn't be able to eat their sheep and penguins for years? Just look at how the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster affected agriculture on this island for years. Don't forget that; due to the elements; a lot of contamination would soon find its way into the water supply etc. The Falklands are very windy and wet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 Next you refer to Ariel Sharon as if in some way condemning him and his government during his time in office. That clearly shows that you know very little about the man or his time in office or the great progress that he made for both Israeli citizens AND the so called palestinians. And evil murderous piece of human detritus. Even God does not want him - the bastard is still in a coma. On what basis do you see Sharon as being, as you put it, "An evil murderous piece of human detritus" Present your case. Shall we start with his role in the Sabra and Shatilla massacre? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 And the radicalization of the Lebanese Shia due to oppressive policies in Southern Lebanon. Sharon caused Israel's supreme enemy to change from the secular, marxist, cold war declining PLO to the Shia, Radical, current enemy such as Hezbollah or Hamas. I know which I'd prefer. His policies in Lebanon directly influenced militant Islam's rise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 On what basis do you see Sharon as being, as you put it, "An evil murderous piece of human detritus" Present your case. Shall we start with his role in the Sabra and Shatilla massacre? Certainly. What is YOUR understanding of his role? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Shall we start with his role in the Sabra and Shatilla massacre? I thought those massacres were down to the Maronite Christians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 And the radicalization of the Lebanese Shia due to oppressive policies in Southern Lebanon. Sharon caused Israel's supreme enemy to change from the secular, marxist, cold war declining PLO to the Shia, Radical, current enemy such as Hezbollah or Hamas. I know which I'd prefer. His policies in Lebanon directly influenced militant Islam's rise. That is not so. To get a better picture look into the antics of arafat-the-pig, his relationship with the grand mufti of Egypt, and the Hizb Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimoon. keep an openmind, engage a bit of joined-up thinking, and a very different picture will emerge from the common misconception. Look also at why the palestinian state having been established by Britain (Trans Jordan, later Jordan) wouldn't take the so-called palestinians of today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.