:
|
There's a difference between harboring a random criminal and harboring a terrorist who's wanted worldwide, had a 25 million dollar bounty on his head and was supposedly responsible for the deaths of 3000 people.
|
First of all, I believe that the criminal I'm talking about was a real criminal, not just some "random" criminal.
Second of all, Pakistan never even had the option to deny America access him anyway, and I'm willing to be that it would make no difference to the Americans if they did.
:
|
It makes them sound defensively aggressive, which is the way the US has defended itself since the first nuke on Hiroshima. That's why there's still a sub floating around that has 24 nukes on board. It sucks that such a strategy is needed but it's pretty damn effective.
|
I believe that the Japanese surrended just before Hiroshima was bombed. America just turned a deaf ear. That whole incident was a barbaric weapons test.
And the method is not effective, because if something goes wrong or the opposing country retaliate the same way, everybody's fucked. Mutuallly assured destruction is exactly what its acronym says it is.