Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    (hence the "snarky" comment that offended Hawkeye ... does anyone really think we really need to worry about Canada invading us?) --


    Offended? Hardly. But wasn't it you who was upset at my snarky comments in another post and said it was uncalled for? Do as I say not as I do I guess
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    We announced that we won't bomb Mosques...the terrorists now build their bombs, store their ammo and shoot at our guys from MOSQUES!!!!

    If you play poker but promise to never bluff.....is that smart??

    If Brady entered every game announcing in advance that he would NEVER throw a pass longer than 10 yards...how would THAT work out??

    If Duke last night announced that they would not shoot any three pointers last night....how would THAT have changed Butler's defense??

    As a Commander in Chief, Obama is derelict in his duties.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ItsATravesty. Show ItsATravesty's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    We announced that we won't bomb Mosques...the terrorists now build their bombs, store their ammo and shoot at our guys from MOSQUES!!!! If you play poker but promise to never bluff.....is that smart?? If Brady entered every game announcing in advance that he would NEVER throw a pass longer than 10 yards...how would THAT work out?? If Duke last night announced that they would not shoot any three pointers last night....how would THAT have changed Butler's defense?? As a Commander in Chief, Obama is derelict in his duties.
    Posted by macnh1


    You are too kind. Obama is a national disgrace working to destroy the American way of life. Maybe he's still campaigning for Global Tzar.
     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    If Duke last night announced that they would not shoot any three pointers last night....how would THAT have changed Butler's defense?? As a Commander in Chief, Obama is derelict in his duties.
    Posted by macnh1


    "If you play poker but promise to never bluff.....is that smart??"

    Really.  Because the other players would clearly believe your promise and thus fold whenever you bet.  What are you trying to talk about?

    " If Brady entered every game announcing in advance that he would NEVER throw a pass longer than 10 yards...how would THAT work out?? "

    Are you suggesting a ref. would kick him out of the game if the first pass was 50?


    "If Duke last night announced that they would not shoot any three pointers last night....how would THAT have changed Butler's defense??"

    Not at all, because the defense would still be based on what the coach and players watched from observing videos of the other team, etc.



    These analogies all prove the point:  You cannot point to one single non-nuclear country in complaince with the non-proliferation treaty that is now more likely to attack us.  This thread is ridiculous.



     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from easydoesit2. Show easydoesit2's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : Tanks !! OMG !! uhh Mexico didn't need any tanks when they invaded with an occupational army of 15+ MILLION.
    Posted by ItsATravesty


    What are you talking about? It can't be the Mexican War; that didn't quite work out for Mexico.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    Obama is the laughing stock of the world and so are we for our foolishness to elect someone on the basis of his skin color.
    Posted by Newtster


    I guess when you are a dimwit it is alot easier to flip out the race card than actually think of something that requires brain matte
    Posted by Newtster


    Newster did not play the race card.

    Also:



     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    Who said that the nukes were here just as a deterrent to nuclear attack?
    Posted by Newtster


    Mutually assured destruction.

    We had nukes to deter a nuclear attack. 

    We even engaged in conventional proxy wars specifically to avoid a conventional war with Russia, because we had the policy of mutually assured destruction - aka, the reason "the nukes were here."

    See?  The policy was not to nuke Russia if they invaded us.  It was to nuke Russia if Russia nuked us first.

     But we also further hedged by trying to avoid a direct conventional war with Russia, because someone might fire off a nuke, triggering our policy of mutually assured destruction.  

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : "If you play poker but promise to never bluff.....is that smart??" Really.  Because the other players would clearly believe your promise and thus fold whenever you bet.  What are you trying to talk about? " If Brady entered every game announcing in advance that he would NEVER throw a pass longer than 10 yards...how would THAT work out?? " Are you suggesting a ref. would kick him out of the game if the first pass was 50? "If Duke last night announced that they would not shoot any three pointers last night....how would THAT have changed Butler's defense??" Not at all, because the defense would still be based on what the coach and players watched from observing videos of the other team, etc. These analogies all prove the point:  You cannot point to one single non-nuclear country in complaince with the non-proliferation treaty that is now more likely to attack us.  This thread is ridiculous.
    Posted by WhatIsItNow


    Wow....talk about captain literal
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from easydoesit2. Show easydoesit2's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    I tried posting this before, but it got "lost" on its way thru BDC, but I'll try again.
    It's a bit off topic, but whatever happened to the "Neutron Bomb" of several years back?  It was a low yield nuclear device with limited blast effect but widespread ability to kill every living being by asphyxiation, e.g. only Boston's Beacon Hill would be destroyed, but you wouldn't find a living creature until you got to Worcester. We were developing it, but then announced we were abandoning it in the name of non-proliferation and avoidance of a new avenue in the Arms Race. It is probably merely a coincidence that our arsenal includes a conventional device that does the same thing on a far more limited scale and has been used in the middle east.  If you were in charge of another nation, would you believe we did what we said? I'm not opposed to it; I'm just askin'.
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ItsATravesty. Show ItsATravesty's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : What are you talking about? It can't be the Mexican War; that didn't quite work out for Mexico.
    Posted by easydoesit2


    Oops. TANKS alot !


     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonguy98765. Show bostonguy98765's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!


    The US military's budget is roughly 18 times the size of the most powerful non nuclear military (Germany). We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined.

    The US military is more than capable of defending itself without nukes.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    I tried posting this before, but it got "lost" on its way thru BDC, but I'll try again. It's a bit off topic, but whatever happened to the "Neutron Bomb" of several years back?  It was a low yield nuclear device with limited blast effect but widespread ability to kill every living being by asphyxiation, e.g. only Boston's Beacon Hill would be destroyed, but you wouldn't find a living creature until you got to Worcester. We were developing it, but then announced we were abandoning it in the name of non-proliferation and avoidance of a new avenue in the Arms Race. It is probably merely a coincidence that our arsenal includes a conventional device that does the same thing on a far more limited scale and has been used in the middle east.  If you were in charge of another nation, would you believe we did what we said? I'm not opposed to it; I'm just askin'.
    Posted by easydoesit2


    It dropped off the radar. 

    Basically, my understanding is that they just didn't work out the way they were supposed to - at least, the advantages didn't outweigh the disadvantages.

    There would still be significant blast and heat damage, so you couldn't drop one on a city and then march in to occupy the buildings.

    The idea was a burst of neutron radiation (apart from the normal radation) would penetrate armor and kill Russians in tanks that wouldn't be vaporized by an "ordinary" atomic blast (of course a thermonuclear blast would do the trick nicely) - idea being we can stop a Russian invasion of Western Europe without vaporizing Western Europe.

    But, it wouldn't just kill everyone right away.  A lot of the targets would live for hours to weeks.   And, they would know what happened - that they were going to die in hours to weeks.  Read: Insanely zealous fighting until they were shot dead.

    Also, the half-life of a necessary component (tritium) is short, requiring replacements every several years.


     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : Wow....talk about captain literal
    Posted by hawkeye01



    You're right - How dare I be "literal" when trying to discuss the question:

    Is or is not Obama's proclamation dangerous, for the supposed reason that a non-nuclear country not in compliance with the non-proliferation treaty, but not within the exception, will now attack America?








     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from easydoesit2. Show easydoesit2's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : You're right - How dare I be "literal" when trying to discuss the question: Is or is not Obama's proclamation dangerous, for the supposed reason that a non-nuclear country not in compliance with the non-proliferation treaty, but not within the exception, will now attack America?
    Posted by WhatIsItNow


    Whether dangerous or not, it just wasn't necessary! Talk about stirring the pot for no reason.  And thank you WIIN for the Neutron information.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : You're right - How dare I be "literal" when trying to discuss the question: Is or is not Obama's proclamation dangerous, for the supposed reason that a non-nuclear country not in compliance with the non-proliferation treaty, but not within the exception, will now attack America?
    Posted by WhatIsItNow


    You were arguing against analogies as if they were real. That's sad.

    Anywho....What was naive of Obama was to tip his hand militarily. Yes we get it...a country with no nukes is not going to attack us. Well, if I go by your logic and can use examples going way back in the past as being a legit argument I guess i could say Japan! But I won't do that because it's a ridiculous argument. Need to stay a little closer to present time.
    So yes, the likelihood of a country with no nukes attacking us is probably unlikely. So what. That is beside the point. It's about keeping your cards close to the vest. That last statement isn't meant to be taken literally. It's a just a saying.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ltown1. Show Ltown1's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    We knew along that Obama was weak and that he was going to be unable to fulfill his obligations as Commander in Chief.  Yesterday he said he would never use nuclear weapons against a nation that didn't have nuclear weapons. Barack....if a guy with a big knife broke into your house where your babies and wife were sleeping soundly and you had a shotgun, would you put it down and go find your Ginsu?? It's one thing to be unable to defend our country it's another thing to actually tell the entire world that you wouldn't do anything necessary to defend us. Just as I said many times, unqualified to the job and the weakest President ever. 
    Posted by macnh1


    If somebody invades our country, I hope he doesn't drop a nuke on them.  

    That would be stupid.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ItsATravesty. Show ItsATravesty's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : If somebody invades our country, I hope he doesn't drop a nuke on them.   That would be stupid.
    Posted by Ltown1


    You can sleep well at night knowing that he simply doesn't have the balls.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    What was naive of Obama was to tip his hand militarily.
    Posted by hawkeye01


    Why? 

    I get it, you repeated a saying about keeping your cards close to your vest. 

    Unfortunately, Mr. Metaphor, you haven't explained why that saying gets you anywhere in this debate.



    Bottom line is that there is no country on earth that will attack us, or is any degree more likely to attack us, because of his announcement.  Don't forget, he said: (1) country without nuclear weapons, (2) that we decide complies with the nonproliferation treaty, (3) attacks us, but (4) we might change our mind, and (5) the promise is completely irrelevant because it is not enforceable, and anyone planning on attacking us knows that.

    Remember the analogy about the biggest kid in the class?  He can promise not to break anyone's nose, but the little wimp still isn't going to touch him because the big kid might get mad and change his mind.

    Obama understood that. I understand that. You don't.  That's why you're the naive one.




    PS:  This one takes the cake: "You were arguing against analogies as if they were real. That's sad."

    In a debate, if person X uses an analogy to support his argument, then person Y can undermine the argument by showing why the analogy doesn't work.

    I'm sorry that escaped you.  I agree we need to fix American education, but that's for another thread.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : Why?  I get it, you repeated a saying about keeping your cards close to your vest.  Unfortunately, Mr. Metaphor, you haven't explained why that saying gets you anywhere in this debate. Bottom line is that there is no country on earth that will attack us, or is any degree more likely to attack us, because of his announcement.  Don't forget, he said: (1) country without nuclear weapons, (2) that we decide complies with the nonproliferation treaty, (3) attacks us, but (4) we might change our mind, and (5) the promise is completely irrelevant because it is not enforceable, and anyone planning on attacking us knows that. Remember the analogy about the biggest kid in the class?  He can promise not to break anyone's nose, but the little wimp still isn't going to touch him because the big kid might get mad and change his mind. Obama understood that. I understand that. You don't.  That's why you're the naive one. PS:  This one takes the cake: "You were arguing against analogies as if they were real. That's sad." In a debate, if person X uses an analogy to support his argument, then person Y can undermine the argument by showing why the analogy doesn't work. I'm sorry that escaped you.  I agree we need to fix American education, but that's for another thread.
    Posted by WhatIsItNow


    LOL...Except that you didn't undermine it. You gave silly arguments.

    Because anyone in the military will tell you that you NEVER tip your hand. Keep them guessing. THAT is the point. Sorry if that escapes you.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : If somebody invades our country, I hope he doesn't drop a nuke on them.   That would be stupid.
    Posted by Ltown1


    Exactly.  Humorous picture.  Some of the Obama haters might need the point played out for them, though, so correct me if I miss anything.

    We weren't going to blow ourselves up anyway, so what situation could we possibly be talking about, in which we will now find ourselves "bound" not to nuke something because of Obama's promise?  Let's think....

    1.  We obviously weren't going to nuke ourselves to kill invading troops.
    2.  We obviously weren't going to nuke our own bases overseas, to kill invading troops.
    3.  We obviously weren't going to nuke enemy ships attacking us to kill invading troops.
    4.  In fact, we obviously weren't going to nuke anything that our troops - or our allies troops - or our civilians/theirs - were close enough to to be endangered by the blast.


    So what exactly did Obama promise not to do?  Well the only other targets I can think of are :

    (1) terrorist hideouts in a country like Pakistan - except of course Pakistan is nuclear and thus exempt from the promise, or

    (2) Hiroshima: murder millions of enemy civilians in an instant to stop a war (our nukes are way more powerful.  And the thermonukes?  ...)

    Does anyone here seriously think that a new policy of nuking a foreign country whenever terrorists based in it attack us is beneficial to our interests? 

    Can anyone here put forth a serious argument that there is any cognizable chance that (2) will happen? 

    So, to anyone who still thinks this announcement endangers us:  What country has a big enough military (or the capability to produce one quickly) to threaten us, AND does not have nukes AND is not exempted from the promise. 

    I mean, without even asking "and has a reason to attack the US, incurring its allies' wrath"



     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : LOL...you were arguing about a ref giving a penalty as if the situation was real. I mean come on now. LOL Posted by hawkeye01


    There there.  You have to keep trying if you'll ever succeed.  Here, I'll give you a second change to read it:

    "PS:  This one takes the cake: "You were arguing against analogies as if they were real. That's sad."

    In a debate, if person X uses an analogy to support his argument, then person Y can undermine the argument by showing why the analogy doesn't work.

    I'm sorry that escaped you.  I agree we need to fix American education, but that's for another thread."




     
    Because anyone in the military will tell you that you NEVER tip your hand. Keep them guessing. THAT is the point. Sorry if that escapes you.
    Posted by hawkeye01


    Right.  But we didn't throw out our nukes.  They have just as much reason to guess now as they did before.  Of course, you don't have a single country to offer as a likely "they."
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : Whether dangerous or not, it just wasn't necessary! Talk about stirring the pot for no reason.  And thank you WIIN for the Neutron information.
    Posted by easydoesit2


    Oh of course it wasn't necessary.  I'll agree to that in a heartbeat.  Just some slightly miscalculated political showmanship.   

    I'm just going after anyone like macnh, who seems to think that Obama just endangered us by showing that he's a wuss.

    I say it was miscalculated because Obama just doesn't seem to grasp the capacity of Americans for breath-taking stupidity...aka...anyone who seriously thinks that this announcement somehow endangers America.
     

Share