Pentagon Successfully Tests Hypersonic Bomb

Wino said:
I agree, but someone is definitely going to be pushing the boundries when it comes to weaponry, and I would prefer that it comes from a nation that allows freedom of speech, freedom of religion and has some respect for human kind.
Click to expand...

Pity America is falling away from all of the above at a hypersonic speed.
 
You read the news lately?

The only thing Americans care about is themselves and the gilded prison they have built around themselves to keep everyone else out.

Freedom of speech, for Americans (as long as they say the right things).
Freedom of religion, as above
Respect for American kind...
 
What a load of BS

AstroTurf said:
You read the news lately?

The only thing Americans care about is themselves and the gilded prison they have built around themselves to keep everyone else out.

Freedom of speech, for Americans (as long as they say the right things).
Freedom of religion, as above
Respect for American kind...
Click to expand...
You got any links to support the above BS ?

You'll fit right in with the jihadist troll team here.
 
agentrfr said:
Funny how America trolls the middle east for threating to kill eachother, but then build instant-affect global weapons...:whistle:
Click to expand...

Was thinking along the same lines.
So who is there to Police the "World's Police"?

No noises made, but if any other country (that the West doesn't like) tests even just a LRBM then condemnation is the order of the day.

The one thing I take away from being on the tip of this continent is; that I don't forsee any threat to us directly from any missle attacks. Even though we've got Eurojets and submarines and shyte to "protect" us.
 
Shake&Bake said:
Was thinking along the same lines.
So who is there to Police the "World's Police"?
Click to expand...

So who'd you prefer China?

The one thing I take away from being on the tip of this continent is; that I don't forsee any threat to us directly from any missle attacks. Even though we've got Eurojets and submarines and shyte to "protect" us.
Click to expand...

Do you oppose anybody trying to 'police' Mugabe?
 
Alan said:
So who'd you prefer China?
Click to expand...

I don't trust any of them.
But the UN should at least make some noise.
The USA has been dismantling nuclear bombs for a few decades, but its not like they haven't got replacements for them.
I understand that the world sees all the good in the USA, but the Gulf War, the WMD's in Iraq :rolleyes:, dumping Bin Laden's body in the ocean and Libya are clear examples of that they're just not in it "for the people".

Alan said:
Do you oppose anybody trying to 'police' Mugabe?
Click to expand...

No one is and no one will. Zim has no natural resources that the Senate and Capitol Hill are interested in.
And SADC are useless and don't care, cos they are just as corrupt as him (Mugabe).
So everyone is just waiting on Bob to die. And then the "African Renaissance" can continue.
 
Shake&Bake said:
I don't trust any of them.
Click to expand...

you gotta chose one. There is no "none" option.

No one is and no one will. Zim has no natural resources that the Senate and Capitol Hill are interested in.
And SADC are useless and don't care, cos they are just as corrupt as him (Mugabe).
So everyone is just waiting on Bob to die. And then the "African Renaissance" can continue.
Click to expand...

The question was what do you think. If the U.S can't "police" sovereign nations then nobody can "police" Zimbabwe either.

griffinbradley said:
The UN is suppose to be the police but we all know that is not in some peoples interests - Just ask the Russel Commision
Click to expand...

lol the U.N a basket case where backward third world dictatorships hold sway :erm:
 
Alan said:
you gotta chose one. There is no "none" option.
Click to expand...

I choose the UN then.

Alan said:
The question was what do you think. If the U.S can't "police" sovereign nations then nobody can "police" Zimbabwe either.

lol the U.N a basket case where backward third world dictatorships hold sway :erm:
Click to expand...

Bob is pure and unwavering in his madness.
He should be put to sleep.
The only reason why the US hasn't made a move is cos of the lack of beneficial natural resources.

The US and some its allies have made moves on some sovereign states with no real regard for the populous of those countries.
The new government for Libya has its hands in the pockets of the French for loans, oil, etc.

Dick Cheney and G.W Bush senior are a tough act to folllow admittedly.
But the Pentagon and the hill march on, where it suits them.
 
Shake&Bake said:
I choose the UN then.

Bob is pure and unwavering in his madness.
He should be put to sleep.
The only reason why the US hasn't made a move is cos of the lack of beneficial natural resources.

The US and some its allies have made moves on some sovereign states with no real regard for the populous of those countries.
The new government for Libya has its hands in the pockets of the French for loans, oil, etc.

Dick Cheney and G.W Bush senior are a tough act to folllow admittedly.
But the Pentagon and the hill march on, where it suits them.
Click to expand...

Then why havn't the US invaded other oil rich countries like Venezuela {number 1 oil rich country in the world}, or Saudi Arabia {Number 2}, or Canada {number 3}, or Iran {number 4}, or Kumwait {Number 6}, or Brazil {Number 7} exct.

While I don't agree with all the US's choices it's pretty absurd to think that they have invaded other countries for their natural resources, as is often pointed out the US has enough military might to take on all the countries mentioned above at the same time if they truly wanted to enslave the world's population and sap up all the world's natural resources it wouldn't even be that hard for them. Just because they invaded ONE oil rich country doesn't mean they are after the world's oil supply.

The Libya story wasn't the US's choice it was voted on by all 15 members of the security council with zero with only a few counties choosing to abstain and nono of the security council members vetoing the resolution.
 
MattyW said:
Then why havn't the US invaded other oil rich countries like Venezuela {number 1 oil rich country in the world}, or Saudi Arabia {Number 2}, or Canada {number 3}, or Iran {number 4}, or Kumwait {Number 6}, or Brazil {Number 7} exct.

While I don't agree with all the US's choices it's pretty absurd to think that they have invaded other countries for their natural resources, as is often pointed out the US has enough military might to take on all the countries mentioned above at the same time if they truly wanted to enslave the world's population and sap up all the world's natural resources it wouldn't even be that hard for them. Just because they invaded ONE oil rich country doesn't mean they are after the world's oil supply.

The Libya story wasn't the US's choice it was voted on by all 15 members of the security council with zero with only a few counties choosing to abstain and nono of the security council members vetoing the resolution.
Click to expand...

Only moving in on what they can manage in the press.
Also they need all the drug money from southern American countries to keep their economy going.

Saudi's, Canadians, Brazil and Kuwait are "allies" in the meantime.
If not for the oil, then for all of the contracts that go into rebuilding a country.
Haliburton and co. want their piece and so they'll bring "peace" where they can manage it.
 
Shake&Bake said:
Only moving in on what they can manage in the press.
Also they need all the drug money from southern American countries to keep their economy going.

Saudi's, Canadians, Brazil and Kuwait are "allies" in the meantime.
If not for the oil, then for all of the contracts that go into rebuilding a country.
Haliburton and co. want their piece and so they'll bring "peace" where they can manage it.
Click to expand...

But if they are truly as ruthless as certain people make them out to be then why even care about the press, clealry you are informed of their intentions {I assume a non-american living on the other side of the world} so I can't think the press can really do that much damage, most Americans have access to the internet they could just as easily as you, have gotten the information on their intent as you did. Also why care about allies Canada has a rather insignificant military why not invade them for their oil, they are right next door anyway.
 
MattyW said:
But if they are truly as ruthless as certain people make them out to be then why even care about the press, clealry you are informed of their intentions {I assume a non-american living on the other side of the world} so I can't think the press can really do that much damage, most Americans have access to the internet they could just as easily as you, have gotten the information on their intent as you did. Also why care about allies Canada has a rather insignificant military why not invade them for their oil, they are right next door anyway.
Click to expand...

They're never going to be that unscrupulous about it.
They've still got to be seen as "the good guys", "Team America , World Police"
Anyway, that's my take on it :)

Have a good evening :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X