dmarc117 Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 I have tried to leave you crackpots alone. You guys are straight up batmanure crazy.FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! "Please listen to us, everybody is out to get you! The gubment they are coming for you to put the chip in your head. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!" How can such intelligent people sound so damn stupid with such regularity? werent you told this every hurricane season? look what happened....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 The US has plenty on its plate at the moment. Gonna be plenty more conflicts down the road boys, just pray your sons and grandsons don't get sucked in to em. in the future, these wars will be fought by robots, drones, and remote control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbimm Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 werent you told this every hurricane season? look what happened....... You aren't one of the informed like perch. You are one of the ones without a thought of your own which annoy me. Back to your hole please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 in the future, these wars will be fought by robots, drones, and remote control. So you think the republicans will fight these future wars themselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 You aren't one of the informed like perch. You are one of the ones without a thought of your own which annoy me. Back to your hole please. hole? dont you live below sea level? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbimm Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 hole? dont you live below sea level? No. Actually I don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 So you are telling me that you never saw this coming? Iraq was sold to you, me, and everyone else based on bullmanure. I am not going to dig for it right now but I do remember info a while back that eluded to Bush and his cronies ignoring intel that told us there were not WMD in Iraq. At least that there was a hugh ? about the existence. This is old crap as you said and not worth arguing at this point. My thing is that I am tired of people like my boss and some here spewing all the fear manure in hopes of showing us that we should have voted for another guy who would have been more inclined to spend billions abroad fixing our screw ups than spending that money here making all of our lives more livable. Perch you are far more informed than my boss will ever be. That said.... the constant sniffing of Obamas underwear to see if he farted has made many dumb ass righties with no thoughts of their own almost intolerable! So Obama doesn't spew fear about the economy i order to increase his fascist hold on the country. I'm glad I understand now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 and I hope we never want to or "have" to use our nukes... The problem with having a deterrent is that it ceases to become a deterrent if you refuse to use it. No one is worried anymore. Eventually you must use it or there is no reason to have it to begin with. There is absolutely no reason for the amount of casualties we have taken in Afghanistan or Iraq. After the initial encounter and it becomes apparent that it is going to long and drawn out.... pull everyone out and away and just use your nuclear arsenal. Now everyone knows you will use it and everyone will be very sincere in making sure their leaders don't force us to use it again. That's a deterrent. Nobody cares if you can't use the area for the next 10-20 thousand years. I sure don't. Be nice to have a break from Mid East BS for awhile. Nuke 'em 'til they glow and let God sort them out. A darn good policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 The problem with having a deterrent is that it ceases to become a deterrent if you refuse to use it. No one is worried anymore. Eventually you must use it or there is no reason to have it to begin with. There is absolutely no reason for the amount of casualties we have taken in Afghanistan or Iraq. After the initial encounter and it becomes apparent that it is going to long and drawn out.... pull everyone out and away and just use your nuclear arsenal. Now everyone knows you will use it and everyone will be very sincere in making sure their leaders don't force us to use it again. That's a deterrent. Nobody cares if you can't use the area for the next 10-20 thousand years. I sure don't. Be nice to have a break from Mid East BS for awhile. Nuke 'em 'til they glow and let God sort them out. A darn good policy. You might be the smartest man i've never actually met. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 If you look at enlistment numbers as we were going into Iraq they were historically high. It wasn't until the left started demonizing the war that enlistment started falling, and falling fairly dramatically. F'n drivel. Enlistment started falling because soldiers were dying in droves. Bingo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 in the future, these wars will be fought by robots, drones, and remote control. They already are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 You might be the smartest man i've never actually met. Plus he has the stones to say what many of us think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Plus he has the stones to say what many of us think. I have no problem with Sky and I agree with what he typed. I do think though, that it's easy to sit and type that we should just start flattening countries and killing a ton of people. It'd be alot harder to actually have to give the go ahead to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 So you think the republicans will fight these future wars themselves? Classic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 I have no problem with Sky and I agree with what he typed. I do think though, that it's easy to sit and type that we should just start flattening countries and killing a ton of people. It'd be alot harder to actually have to give the go ahead to do it. Absolutely agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 My thing is that I am tired of people like my boss and some here spewing all the fear manure in hopes of showing us that we should have voted for another guy who would have been more inclined to spend billions abroad fixing our screw ups than spending that money here making all of our lives more livable. How dare you suggest the government help people instead of sending them off to die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 The problem with having a deterrent is that it ceases to become a deterrent if you refuse to use it. No one is worried anymore. Eventually you must use it or there is no reason to have it to begin with. There is absolutely no reason for the amount of casualties we have taken in Afghanistan or Iraq. After the initial encounter and it becomes apparent that it is going to long and drawn out.... pull everyone out and away and just use your nuclear arsenal. Now everyone knows you will use it and everyone will be very sincere in making sure their leaders don't force us to use it again. That's a deterrent. Nobody cares if you can't use the area for the next 10-20 thousand years. I sure don't. Be nice to have a break from Mid East BS for awhile. Nuke 'em 'til they glow and let God sort them out. A darn good policy. that is not our choice to make...you're talking about pretty much wiping a nation of people off the face of the planet... playing god is not the answer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 playing god is not the answer... How do you know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 I guess I'll always have a problem with killing thousands upon thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women, and children. I don't need God's help to sort this out--that is just wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 that is not our choice to make...you're talking about pretty much wiping a nation of people off the face of the planet... Isn't that their plan for us? In fact, isn't that their plan for pretty much everyone but them on the planet? I guess I'll always have a problem with killing thousands upon thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women, and children. Would rather it be thousands upon thousands upon thousands of them than us. The whole point is that if one has a deterrent that will pretty much end things why have it if you are never going to use it? Especially when it will save thousands and thousands of American lives? A threat is only good if the threatend know you will follow through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 What is obama gonna do if nk bombes seoul? What is obama gonna do if iran attacks isreal? Nothing. Whatcha gonna do if Obamamania runs wild on you ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Would rather it be thousands upon thousands upon thousands of them than us. The whole point is that if one has a deterrent that will pretty much end things why have it if you are never going to use it? Especially when it will save thousands and thousands of American lives? A threat is only good if the threatend know you will follow through. I'd rather it was neither. And this may not be a popular answer but I don't think that innocent American men, women or children deserve to live (or die for that matter) any more than innocent men, women or children in the middle east. For me, mass genocide of innnocents is mass genocide of innocents. There are quite a few countries with nuclear weapons. How about if they all take up your attitude and decide that these gosh darn nukes are doing any good just sitting here, we got to use them to show everyone we don't play? Or is it your plan that once China nukes Taiwan, we then nuke China--except I believe that China also has the capacity to nuke us--damn, this is getting complicated. And once India/Pakistan sees that it's okay to nuke these less than human pieces of dung, it's party time over there. After all, I'm guessing if I'm Indian, I'd rather have to deal with a whole bunch of dead Pakistanis rather than a whole bunch of dead Indians. I think you assume that the entire world will idly sit by and watch us nuke a sovereign country in the middle east--which also would serve to destroy our way of life because of that oil that we will no longer be able to get at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 A threat is only good if the threatend know you will follow through. In addition, I believe that the "threat" of nuclear arms is that if you nuke me, you are assuring yourself of destruction because I will take you down with me. Not--your country is pissing me off and since you don't have nukes, I shall destroy it utterly and completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbimm Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 I'd rather it was neither. And this may not be a popular answer but I don't think that innocent American men, women or children deserve to live (or die for that matter) any more than innocent men, women or children in the middle east. For me, mass genocide of innnocents is mass genocide of innocents. There are quite a few countries with nuclear weapons. How about if they all take up your attitude and decide that these gosh darn nukes are doing any good just sitting here, we got to use them to show everyone we don't play? Or is it your plan that once China nukes Taiwan, we then nuke China--except I believe that China also has the capacity to nuke us--damn, this is getting complicated. And once India/Pakistan sees that it's okay to nuke these less than human pieces of dung, it's party time over there. After all, I'm guessing if I'm Indian, I'd rather have to deal with a whole bunch of dead Pakistanis rather than a whole bunch of dead Indians. I think you assume that the entire world will idly sit by and watch us nuke a sovereign country in the middle east--which also would serve to destroy our way of life because of that oil that we will no longer be able to get at. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbimm Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 In addition, I believe that the "threat" of nuclear arms is that if you nuke me, you are assuring yourself of destruction because I will take you down with me. Not--your country is pissing me off and since you don't have nukes, I shall destroy it utterly and completely. +1a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.