Quote:
Originally Posted by Oystein
Sure it is - but at what cost?
"Steve Goose, director of the arms division at Human Rights Watch, said: "It is regrettable that the U.S. and a handful of other states continue to insist on their need to use a weapon that the rest of world is banning because it causes unacceptable harm to civilians."
Come to think of it - why not use NAPALM still too? That is pretty effective!
|
why are you such a fucking moron?
"at what cost" ???
really?
how about "at the cost of giving a potential enemy a tactical military advantage"
seriously man.... what world do you live in when you can't understand something so painfully simple? no one is saying its right.. but any fucking moron with an IQ over 10 can understand the logic and reasoning.