The American mass exodus, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203 I recommend all americans to leave USA before 2006. Even if U move to suburbs and villages, the value of your money will be peanuts after 2006. Just Dont Panic even though this not a drill.
So if it's written somewhere on the INternet, it's the truth? How do YOU distinguish between truth and lies? Baron Max
I'd rather earn peanuts then leave to a country from some article online. but thanks a lot for trying to persuade everyone to leave, i really do congratulate the effort. but lets actually count the people that leave due to this post. dont worry, i'll count for you. with my fingers. doubt ill need them.
I call bullshit on this. Are there any other sources, or any reliable ones on this? Or is it just the one, unreliable source there?
Unbelievable ! Why dont you try the google news or yahoo news or other news search engines. This is a Headline news in my country, How come western world is still unware of this news of the century ?
ok dropout, pack your bags. and move to canada, their army will protect you!! i promise! HURRY!! RUN RUN RUN! dont drive, they might have bombs in your car, dont use an airplane, they might be hi-jacked. Dont take the subway/trains/buses... well as you can see from london. so u must RUN hurry, the paranoid freak's adventure begins!
For the first time in history, I agree with Baron and Mr. Jack. Even if they did smuggle them over, which in all likelihood they didnt, Im not going anywhere! What kind of person would I be to just abandon my country??? I'll stay here till hell freezes over before I leave.
But I cant run, I am in a country captured by americans and one of the americans choped off my leg because he thought I was a sucide bomber.
the fallout from 40 nuclear explosions will reach you even if your not in america. I think we will end up in nuclear winter if that article is'nt bullshit. <- which it is.
o well in that case, that sucks for you. good luck crossing the border by 2006 in a wheel chair Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Actually: Unless the yield is significant, fall out does not become a major problem. We have non-nuclear bombs that produce a larger explosion than a two kiloton warhead (the MOAB is a 35,000 pound bomb, hence, has roughly a 35 kiloton yield, if not more considering the explosives used). However, living in New York City, any attack on a major US city disturbs me. I'd not want to be a nuclear explosion no matter how small. But yes...this article sounds suspicious. Al'Qaeda and MS-13? I'd have to see more proof than that. Ontop of that, why the HELL would the Bush Administration release information on George Tenet telling President Bush about a nuclear weapon all ready in the US? Yeah. That definitely sounds bullshitty.
Jonah Farah lives and profits on paranoid fantasies with the rest of his neocon buddies. If he scares us into doing what he wants, he wins.
Only 1 bomb is enough to empty america of its millionares. I think AQ should give an open ground demo first, but Osamaś goal is to kill millions , too bad for USA.
If some foreign power actually does detonate a nuke on american soil, I pity the rest of the world far more than my countrymen. I suspect we will make salted earth an intimate part of our stratagy, being willing to strike anywhere our enemy has put down roots... no matter whose soil happens to be their home. There will be no rules to restrict us on that day.
You grossly underestimate the number of millionaires in the U.S. At last count there were over 210,000 and they are scattered all across the country. You also SEVERLY underestimate their personal determination. Hint: they did not become rich by becoming easily scared.
I agree. One of the major chains on America right now is the unwillingness of its citizens to engage in all out war. Other than the events of Sept 11, 2001, The US has no recent experience of total war. The American public currently has the luxury of being in a position where debate regarding "the enemy" remains on the level of the philosophical. Sept 11 has often been touted as a "wake up call", but I don't believe it had the effect the media has taken pains to emphasize. To most Americans, in my opinion, the attack on the World Trade Centre was little more than a bee sting. It hurt, more than anything else, The pride of the USA rather than causing much in the way of real damage. A nuclear attack, on the other hand, would be a far more serious affair, and the ultimate effect would be to force Americans to put aside philosophical differences in order to facillitate survival. The lasting damage from such an attack would incite a furious anger, even amongst those who currently urge caution and restraint. An enemy of the USA making such an attack would face, not a divided population debating the philosophical morals of retaliation, but a serious, united, knee jerk reaction. Pure rage. As Clockwood said - I would pity the rest of the world on that day. Now let's take a look at the rest of the world. How would, for the sake of example, China, North Korea, and Europe stand if such were to occur? This is where things become interesting. Does anyone know, for example, the depth remaining in the American arsenal? We do know that their land forces are nowhere near the level in either numbers or readiness as they had in the '80s. What they might have in the way of strategic and tactical weapons, however, remains somewhat clouded. Sure, they cut back. But considering in the '80s they had enough to destroy the world several times over, what remains could be enough to do it just once. We don't know. I suspect they have enough to do whatever is required. I'm quite certain they have enough to deal with the Middle East - after all, it would take very little to accomplish that. The only unknown is whether or not they have stocks enough to maintain a deterrant as well in the face of the support for terrorists from other nations, and perhaps more importantly, how those other nations react to potential nuclear attacks. One thing they would certainly consider is that if the Middle East were insane enough to begin a nuclear confrontation with the USA, then they would have no compunction against taking it to any other nation they desire - and while the likes of China and North Korea might regard the US as being an enemy, they are certainly aware that that enemy is not insane, and that that enemy at least follows some tacit code of conduct. For the industrialised world, confrontation tends to be economic and differences resolved by less dramatic means - all are aware of the effects on themselves of all out war as well as on their enemies. For the third world, however, religious fervour has a tendency to override economic sense. China and the USA have far more in common with each other than either has with the Middle East, even while they are currently philosophical and economic adversaries. I think it quite possible that a terrorist attack on the US of this nature might see tentative alliances formed between former enemies, if only temporary. Even a position of neutrality on the part of other nations would work in the US's favour, at least in the short term. The above point is, however, one of those "unknowns" which is open to debate. While a friendship with a savage half trained dog might be useful in the short term against a potential intruder, that same dog would be put down in an instant if it showed any possibility that it might turn on those who feed it. And China, as an example, is far from being a stupid nation. They will remain friends with that dog only as long as it is useful and shows no threat to them in itself. Let me sum up by saying this: If any terrorist organisation were to attack the USA with nukes (or WMD's of any type), then they had better ensure they totally cripple them. You don't walk up to a half awake lion and cuff him on the side of the head. You put him down, permanently. If not, prepare to be very, very badly hurt.
