Search results for query: *

Because you just ignored my explanation and went in a circle. Nukes would be even more useful against caves, with less but otherwise similar political issues, yet they weren't used either. Just an example of what i called mixed opinions. Liked or not, it seems tolerated widely. When was the...

Google maps has the answer to that. Islam basically, and look how despite widespread practice of it there are mixed opinions on that one. Plenty of people killing each other in the world with all sorts of religion pairs and even inside same one, so i for one would not rely on some foreigner's...

For the same reason the Tora Bora cave complex didn't get smacked with a few nuclear bunker busters, even though those aren't banned and going deep underground are cleaner than usual nukes. International politics and optics. Yeah, some chemicals last less, but that is also reflected in their...

I think it's not even a matter of any particular ethnic group, it's part and parcel of multiculturalism. After all, there are also the "Jews of Asia" aka Chinese and "Jews of Africa" aka Igbo tribe. It's just a common sense conclusion that when you have a country with minorities, and the...

In some cases long term chemical contamination is worse. Wind blows the wrong way and suddenly you are the one attacked. Also your soldiers now taking the attacked territory have to watch their every fucking move and work in chem suits or they get slimed with nerve gas. The same problems can...

That's a misconception. Chemical weapons are generally agreed upon for bans because anything they do, nukes will generally do better, especially against a serious military, against which chemical weapons are more of an annoyance than superweapon. They are mostly good for war crimes against...

It's economic equivalent of banning crossbows, guns or cluster munitions, pick era appropriate military technology. It's idiotic to do it, and it's so idiotic that if we really hate someone and want to weaken them we should convince them to do it to themselves. Wrong or not, economically it's...

Yes, everyone who has a rule against usury and takes it seriously is inferior (economically to be specific) and all societies with just half decently run economies come to that conclusion. It was retarded of Christianity to have such a rule, and it was equally retarded of them to then grant Jews...

Absolutely. You could tie it to so called "anti-war movement" rather than libertarians, as that's where the characteristic talking points about forever wars and MIC fit most directly. Sure, there's some overlap between the two, but there's even more overlap between it and leftism, creating some...