U.S. may allow nuke strikes over WMD

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: MCWAR

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: MCWAR
Hooray! We have balls.

Amazing. With men like you on our side, it'll be no surprise to me when I wake up dead one day.

You can wake up dead?
With guys like you on our side I am suprised we already havn't.
Woops, I forgot, your not on our side.

Figure of speech. :roll:

So you'd like to live in a permanent state of nuclear war? Again, amazing.

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: MCWAR
You guys are so smart! I just cant figure out why your not running the world by now and not waisting twentyfour hours a day on a political forum.

Because my daddy wasn't rich and full of connections.
I wasn't born with a gold spoon in my mouth.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: MCWAR
You guys are so smart! I just cant figure out why your not running the world by now and not waisting twentyfour hours a day on a political forum.

:thumbsup:

I'd rather trust the President and his top advisors for the direction of our country, than arm-chair politicians on a computer forum. :laugh:

Did you place this much trust in Clinton?

 

[poopaskoopa]

Anything to defend us from:

1) WMD
2) Terrorists that brought us 9/11

And even if we're wrong, we'll just free the oppressed locals and foster democracy there so it'll all work out in the end.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Skoorb

The U.S. military is considering allowing regional combatant commanders to request presidential approval for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction on the United States or its allies, according to a draft nuclear operations paper.

So what? This is common sense.

huh?? I don't know what's worse...the possibility that you might be trolling, or the possibility that you actually believe what you just said.

I have no problem with it.

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: poopaskoopa
Anything to defend us from:

1) WMD
2) Terrorists that brought us 9/11

And even if we're wrong, we'll just foster free the oppressed locals and foster democracy there so it'll all work out in the end.

But of course, because the "others" are not people at all. So we can slaugther them with nukes without any remorse.
And of course our "way and democracy" are the only right ways.
... everything will work out in the end. just keep following, like good retarded sheep.


Thank you for that insightfull post poopaskoopa. I'm sure you thought long and hard, especially about the bolded statement.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

The US has had ground penetrating nuclear weapons for at least 9 years.

 

[MCWAR]

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: MCWAR
You guys are so smart! I just cant figure out why your not running the world by now and not waisting twentyfour hours a day on a political forum.

Because my daddy wasn't rich and full of connections.
I wasn't born with a gold spoon in my mouth.

Democracy is a wonderful thing. No matter who you are you still have to convince the non- born with a gold spoon in my mouth to vote for you.
Carey is rich as hell. Didn't help him much did it?

 

[yllus]

The U.S. military is considering allowing regional combatant commanders to request presidential approval for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction on the United States or its allies, according to a draft nuclear operations paper.

What's the big deal again? More specifically, what is actually changing? Can someone actually answer this, or are the bunch of you "omg Hitler has arisen" people still too busy wringing your hands to type out an explanation?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: yllus

The U.S. military is considering allowing regional combatant commanders to request presidential approval for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction on the United States or its allies, according to a draft nuclear operations paper.

What's the big deal again? More specifically, what is actually changing? Can someone actually answer this, or are the bunch of you "omg Hitler has arisen" people still too busy wringing your hands to type out an explanation?

I think the key word that may be bothering people is pre-emptive.

 

[Gaard]

...and possible.

"Hey, you know what? Cananda might possibly launch an attack on us. Let's fry 'em."

 

[arsbanned]

OK, let's not get into a tizzy over this yet. IF the U.S. knows that it is going to be attacked (yeah, I know, we've KNOWN that before and been WRONG) then I would imagine that tactical nukes are on the table. This is probably just SOP.
Either that, or I'm getting inured to the constant flow of outrages coming out of the Whitehouse?

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: conjur
The same president that got us into a mess in Iraq that's cost almost 1600 US soldiers their lives and over $160 billion of deficit spending? The same president that pissed away a chance to secure Social Security forever and turned it into an ill-advised tax cut? The same president that's gutted the Roadless Rule, Clean Water, and Clear Skies acts? The same president whose administration has paid its own pundits to act as actual news outlets to spread its propaganda?

dont' fret, when he's laid off and has no unexployment benefits, and a china-man has his job, he'll be screaming "Bush Bush wears my money!" and next time vote Dem.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: yllus

The U.S. military is considering allowing regional combatant commanders to request presidential approval for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction on the United States or its allies, according to a draft nuclear operations paper.

What's the big deal again? More specifically, what is actually changing? Can someone actually answer this, or are the bunch of you "omg Hitler has arisen" people still too busy wringing your hands to type out an explanation?

I think the key word that may be bothering people is pre-emptive.

I don't believe (but I could be wrong) that the U.S. ever agreed to a no-first-strike agreement with the U.S.S.R. during the bad old days. This sounds like a continuation of that policy updated to reflect the 'new' world threats. In the worst-case scenario, we seem to have moved from MAD (ouch) to tactical nuclear strikes (slightly smaller ouch).

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: MCWAR

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: MCWAR
You guys are so smart! I just cant figure out why your not running the world by now and not waisting twentyfour hours a day on a political forum.

Because my daddy wasn't rich and full of connections.
I wasn't born with a gold spoon in my mouth.

Democracy is a wonderful thing. No matter who you are you still have to convince the non- born with a gold spoon in my mouth to vote for you.
Carey is rich as hell. Didn't help him much did it?

Mariah Carey is a he?

 

[dmcowen674]

About Fvcking time. :thumbsup:

All the Nuklear power we have and instead losing Soldiers to Guerilla Warfare.

I've said all along we should be turning these Regions into Glass, problem solved.

 

[Infohawk]

I'd actually support something like this in limited situations. The problem is, the US has lost ALL credibility with regards to WMD proliferation. Thanks chimp and chimp fans.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: MCWAR
You guys are so smart! I just cant figure out why your not running the world by now and not waisting twentyfour hours a day on a political forum.

:thumbsup:

I'd rather trust the President and his top advisors for the direction of our country, than arm-chair politicians on a computer forum. :laugh:

I never said I could do a better job, I'm not sure anyone said that. But I question the trust I should place in a group of people who were totally, 100%, without a doubt sure that Iraq had WMDs. Except, as it turned out, not really.

Like I said, it's not that I'm against the concept in general, I just don't want that power in the hands of a group of people who can't seem to figure out who has what and what they are doing with it. Your blind trust aside, the point is that you CAN'T trust what they say, because they were wrong. Giving them more power to act on their faulty decisions makes no sense.

Or maybe I'm missing the logic about upping the stakes in pre-emptive strikes when our last pre-emptive action turned out to be wrong. Maybe we're freeing the Iraqis now, but nuking people has a lot more finality to it. Can you imagine what would happen if we were wrong?

 

[Genx87]

U.S. may allow nuke strikes over WMD

Gee what a surprise.

 

[rickn]

sounds like part of our ballistic missle reduction agreement we have with russians. Money better spent flattening your unseen enemies

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Makes sense to me. IF you blow up WMD with nukes then you don't have to spend all your time looking for proof of the WMD after you attack because there would be nothing left.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
About Fvcking time. :thumbsup:

All the Nuklear power we have and instead losing Soldiers to Guerilla Warfare.

I've said all along we should be turning these Regions into Glass, problem solved.

Yeah, then Bush can steal their oil, and give it all to Halliburton..

Yawn..

 

[Promethply]

The present administration better quit smokin crack before they start another world-wide killing fest caused by drug induced paranoia

 

[impeachbush]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
About Fvcking time. :thumbsup:

All the Nuklear power we have and instead losing Soldiers to Guerilla Warfare.

I've said all along we should be turning these Regions into Glass, problem solved.

Yeah, then Bush can steal their oil, and give it all to Halliburton..

Yawn..

Hope they have a few neutron bombs figured out, otherwise stealing the oil is going to be messy for a while.

 

[surreal1221]

The US will be saved, by the US. I have faith in our constitution. . . some day neocon's will not be in office. Until that day, I cry everytime I wake up. I'm such a pansy.