RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer

RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (4/12/2010 1:52:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: countrychick So you mean to say that the terrorists who did the whole 9-11 thing were acting under the direct orders of the Afghan government? Not in their own self interests and hey lets poke the sleeping giant? The government of Afghanistan allowed the training and gave material support to an organization which had declared war on the US, and then proceeded to attack and murder American citizens in our homeland. We asked that the Afghan government turn over the people responsible and stop providing support. They refused. Morally, and legally, this made the government of Afghanistan complicit in the attacks, and guilty of waging war on the US. Firm By that logic, old boy, we'd have been justified in nuking Washington after one of the IRA Christmas bombings, wouldn't we? It's probably just as well that Trident wasn't a very independent deterrent after all, really. That's not the reality of international politics and relations, Moon. Firm

brainiacsub -> RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (4/12/2010 1:53:23 PM)
I believe Hitler was a great threat to the world - of which we are a part - and we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Whether or not you believe that any war is justified, it's hard to imagine that the world would be a better place today if WWII had not occurred.

Moonhead -> RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (4/12/2010 1:54:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx thompson said (basically) that no one has used this method. I gave him some examples for him to better understand my point, and the historical record And I pointed out that your examples were as full of shit as you are. Time to read some history, thompson. Met any Carthagians lately? Firm Carthaginians. One piece of crypto history has them as the original founders of the UK: I doubt that's very likely, but given how cute some Welsh girls can be, that might explain the whole Aeneas and Dido thing. (Another such story has Ireland being first settled by the Trojans the Romans weren't having, which would explain why the Irish hate us so much: nothing to do with Cromwell or the famine queen, it's a bronze age blood feud.)

FirmhandKY -> RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (4/12/2010 1:54:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Soooo...The point is that you, who constantly run off at the mouth about the rule of law, are here advocating the rule of the sword. As always your candor is appreciated. hmmm, well ... I'm not exactly sure that the comparison between international affairs and politics can be exactly and accurately compared to the internal laws of a nation. Whole different ball of wax, thompson. Firm Horseshit Then we are done, thompson. "There are none so blind that will not see" Plus, you continue to be snide, insulting and abrasive for no good reason. Firm

thompsonx -> RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (4/12/2010 1:56:09 PM)
That's not the reality of international politics and relations, Moon. Your reality of international politics is acting like a pussy when you have no cards and leading with the nukes when you do.

slvemike4u -> RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (4/12/2010 1:56:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Firm as far as your statement that "Any reduction in the US's deterrent power is destabilizing......." Do you really think that has occurred here? Given all of our other military advantages....given our huge stockpiles of these weapons...our submarine based weapon systems ,our strategic bomber forces...You see this as weakening us in some way? Mike, Depending on the actual terms of the US/Russian treaty, it could be destabilizing. I've not read the proposed treaty, so I can't yet be sure. I don't think that a reduction in the number of nukes is inherently destabilizing. I do think changing our policy of "non-first use" (not sure if that is on the table), and publicly saying that we won't use nukes in the case of a bio or chem attack (which is on the table) is destabilizing to our deterrence. Firm Firm, wasn't it non-first use against non-nuclear nations? That was my understanding....actually this seems to be a more subtle than a subsatnsive change...and as such I really do not see it as destabilizing to our position...either deterrence wise or strategically.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (4/12/2010 1:57:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Why is it that the men with the biggest dicks do most of their thinking with them? Being the biggest dick is not the same as having the bigest dick. Well, when it comes to comparing dicks, I'm hardly an expert. Maybe you could show me examples of each? Lots and lots of penises. Firm

slvemike4u -> RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (4/12/2010 1:59:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx No, I was speaking strictly on issues of self defense. I believe our government has a right and obligation to its citizens to protect us from threats. I just don't believe there has been a real threat since WWII. At the same time, I am not so blinded as to how the world works and understand that the definition of "threat" may be a moving target. Why do you think WWII was a real threat? In the name of all that is precious to you.....please Brainiac don't bite.I don't think I can take another regurgitation of his alternate WWII fantasy game.

brainiacsub -> RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (4/12/2010 2:01:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Why is it that the men with the biggest dicks do most of their thinking with them? Being the biggest dick is not the same as having the bigest dick. Well, when it comes to comparing dicks, I'm hardly an expert. Maybe you could show me examples of each? Lots and lots of penises. Firm ROFL...you are a sick, sick man...

brainiacsub -> RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (4/12/2010 2:03:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx No, I was speaking strictly on issues of self defense. I believe our government has a right and obligation to its citizens to protect us from threats. I just don't believe there has been a real threat since WWII. At the same time, I am not so blinded as to how the world works and understand that the definition of "threat" may be a moving target. Why do you think WWII was a real threat? In the name of all that is precious to you.....please Brainiac don't bite.I don't think I can take another regurgitation of his alternate WWII fantasy game. Damnit...I didn't know. Someone should have told me. Oh well, I have better things to do now. Penises await me on another site....

Moonhead -> RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (4/12/2010 2:03:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: countrychick So you mean to say that the terrorists who did the whole 9-11 thing were acting under the direct orders of the Afghan government? Not in their own self interests and hey lets poke the sleeping giant? The government of Afghanistan allowed the training and gave material support to an organization which had declared war on the US, and then proceeded to attack and murder American citizens in our homeland. We asked that the Afghan government turn over the people responsible and stop providing support. They refused. Morally, and legally, this made the government of Afghanistan complicit in the attacks, and guilty of waging war on the US. Firm By that logic, old boy, we'd have been justified in nuking Washington after one of the IRA Christmas bombings, wouldn't we? It's probably just as well that Trident wasn't a very independent deterrent after all, really. That's not the reality of international politics and relations, Moon. Firm You don't feel the comparison of NORAID and Al Queda holds any water, then? Neither has any affiliation to the Government of the country that they're based in (at least since Bush told Powell to stop attending NORAID fundraisers...)

slvemike4u -> RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (4/12/2010 2:03:31 PM)
On the one hand my post might have been too late....on the other you might not have been moved by my pleading....either way brainiac you have opened a veritable "pandora's box" and unleashed a plague upon the rest of us innocents....I hope you are happy with the result [:'(]

FirmhandKY -> RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (4/12/2010 2:04:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Firm, wasn't it non-first use against non-nuclear nations? vincent, I'm not sure which timeframe you are referrring to: prior to this change, or after this change? I could be wrong, but from memory, the US's historical position has always been that we reserve the right of the first use of nukes, and consider the use of chem and bio as equivalent to the use of nukes (WMDs), if we are considering a proportional response. Firm

slvemike4u -> RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (4/12/2010 2:05:03 PM)
And yet absolutly no reply to my perfectly legitimate offer of a "private" show.....tsk tsk.

thompsonx -> RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (4/12/2010 2:05:21 PM)
Plus, you continue to be snide, insulting and abrasive for no good reason. Your condescending attitude coupled with your fatuous platitudes is reason enough. You talk shit like you think you are talking to a bunch of sixth graders. If you read as much history as you claim you would know your position is nothing but rationalization for being a school yard bully. Now if you can't deal with a reality check then go back and color with the children. If you want to have a discussion with adults then act like one.

Moonhead -> RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (4/12/2010 2:06:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx No, I was speaking strictly on issues of self defense. I believe our government has a right and obligation to its citizens to protect us from threats. I just don't believe there has been a real threat since WWII. At the same time, I am not so blinded as to how the world works and understand that the definition of "threat" may be a moving target. Why do you think WWII was a real threat? In the name of all that is precious to you.....please Brainiac don't bite.I don't think I can take another regurgitation of his alternate WWII fantasy game. Maybe he just feels that Europe could have sorted its own mess out without you lot getting involved? Stalin had pretty much broken Germany's back by the time American troops arrived anywhere in Europe apart from Italy, after all.

slvemike4u -> RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (4/12/2010 2:07:22 PM)
Tommie you are kidding with that post aren't you? Do the words....pot...kettle...black...,hold any meaning for you?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (4/12/2010 2:08:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: countrychick So you mean to say that the terrorists who did the whole 9-11 thing were acting under the direct orders of the Afghan government? Not in their own self interests and hey lets poke the sleeping giant? The government of Afghanistan allowed the training and gave material support to an organization which had declared war on the US, and then proceeded to attack and murder American citizens in our homeland. We asked that the Afghan government turn over the people responsible and stop providing support. They refused. Morally, and legally, this made the government of Afghanistan complicit in the attacks, and guilty of waging war on the US. Firm By that logic, old boy, we'd have been justified in nuking Washington after one of the IRA Christmas bombings, wouldn't we? It's probably just as well that Trident wasn't a very independent deterrent after all, really. That's not the reality of international politics and relations, Moon. Firm You don't feel the comparison of NORAID and Al Queda holds any water, then? Neither has any affiliation to the Government of the country that they're based in (at least since Bush told Powell to stop attending NORAID fundraisers...) I'm sorry ... I don't remember any declaration from the UK that if the US didn't accede to it's demands in relation to the situation in Northern Ireland, that they would attack the US. Can you link me to that? Firm

mnottertail -> RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (4/12/2010 2:09:41 PM)
Apparently nobodies defense is weakened out here because of this cataclysmic sentence of Obamas, mike, firm, huntie, and several others still going at it..... Who's the first strike? Stay tuned!!!!!! Vlad Putin

slvemike4u -> RE: Obama Weakens American National Defense; Liberals Cheer (4/12/2010 2:10:02 PM)
Moon ,if you don't feel like saying thanks....no problem. Rewriting history....big problem. But in all seriousness I have taken a vow of silence on this subject....it went hand in hand with my vow to cease and desist from striking my head repeatedly against a brick wall. So have at it and enjoy...just count me out [:D]

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875