[quote]pushharder wrote:
Maybe this is the case if you’re excluding tactical nukes. Did you intend to?[/quote]
A low-yield tactical nuke is a lose-lose situation for us. We have high-yield conventional weapons in our arsenal that match our low-yield nukes and won’t cause the fallout (not meaning nuclear) that will come from using a warhead. If we get to that point where the only remaining option is nuclear deployment, we aren’t going to use a bomb 1/50th or 1/10th of the yield of Little Boy.
If I’m going to the Bunny Ranch, and know my wife is checking my credit card purchases, I’m going to go ahead and bang the hottest one there. I’m not going to deal with the shitstorm to get a handjob from the receptionist when i could easily just tug it conventionally.
[quote]
Too many nukes, possibly loose ones, in Russia, the Stans, and even possible left overs from South Africa for us to think we can succeed indefinitely at not getting nuked by terrorists. We are not omnipotent; it may very well happen.[/quote]
By terrorists. Who do we nuke if a terrorist detonates an old nuclear artillery shell on our soil? If they got a loose nuke from Russia, do we then nuke Russia? Or should we nuke suspected training grounds in the middle-east? Let’s say there are terrorists running for Kyrgyzstan, hoping to secure a loose nuke. If they get one and detonate it on our soil, do we launch at the Kyrgs and just hope Russia will sit tight with warheads screaming in their general direction? Would we sit tight if nuclear missiles were incoming, but we were pretty sure they were heading for Canada?
[quote]
Too simplistic for my tastes. They’re not called rogue nations because they don’t share the monkey bars on the playground.[/quote]
It may be simplistic, but you have to start somewhere.
…It may be simplistic, but you have to start somewhere.[/quote]
Precisely. And that somewhere is not the Land of Retreat and Hope.
[/quote]
Or, it could be deeper than that: If Obama does truly believe he is some kind of Savior of the world then this is his application of “turning the other cheek.” or Romans 12:20.
Or he is bluffing.
Doesn’t he have the tendencies for being a deceitful liar?
Worst of all; being guilty of self-deceit? Because if so he could really bring America down with his delusional ideals.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
On top of that, it also seems explainable as it fits in perfectly with Obama’s “Three A’s” of foreign policy:
Apologize for America
Alienate our allies
Appease those who oppose us.[/quote]
You and the rest of the old fart repubs here can keep watching fox news and continue to be lied to. Sean Hannity and Newt gingrich purposefully told you that obama said he will not not use nukes even in the case of a biological attack. They constantly tell non truthful information to you and you continuously run with it.
Watch this and please try to defend. You can rip me after you watch it because its jon stewart, but I’m dying to here an explaination. “Fox News no longer feels the need to accurately report on President Obama’s nuclear arms treaty with Russia”
Why on Earth would anyone criticize you for using a comedy show – which plainly states that it is not a news source – as your news source?
Let alone criticize you for assuming that a given person is a Republican, or assuming that they got their information from the sources you assume rather the source actually cited (which was the New York Times), etc.
In fact your post is a model of high-quality reasoning and standards of evidence. You have nothing to worry about by way of criticism for it.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Why on Earth would anyone criticize you for using a comedy show – which plainly states that it is not a news source – as your news source?
Let alone criticize you for assuming that a given person is a Republican, assuming that they got their information from the sources you state, etc.
In fact your post is a model of high-quality reasoning and standards of evidence. You have nothing to worry about by way of criticism for it.
[/quote]
Now Isreal thinks this new nuke summit is a teerorist supporting gang up on Isreal. Isreal will not sign the agreement. There are deeper issues to this and I think this will ultimately hurt the US/Isreal relationship.
This whole thing is bringing up all the countries that are armed, so there will be many bumps in this road.
Also, will the US Senate Ratify the treaty? They need 2/3rds to pass.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Why on Earth would anyone criticize you for using a comedy show – which plainly states that it is not a news source – as your news source?
Let alone criticize you for assuming that a given person is a Republican, or assuming that they got their information from the sources you assume rather the source actually cited (which was the New York Times), etc.
In fact your post is a model of high-quality reasoning and standards of evidence. You have nothing to worry about by way of criticism for it.
[/quote]
A few posts up this very page, we have people pushing Glenn Beck as a source of information and he is self-admittedly an entertainment show. What is the difference here?
A few posts up this very page, we have people pushing Glenn Beck as a source of information and he is self-admittedly an entertainment show. What is the difference here?[/quote]
In another thread you claimed to be a scientist so we can safely assume you’ve received a higher education, right? OK. Then why do you come along with a Pitbulll type post like this one? Why?
Is this evidence for the theory that there is no such thing as an intelligent liberal?[/quote]
Nothing Pitbull about it. I’m just saying what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If you guys want to use Glenn Beck as a source, then quit balking about Stewart. The only points that people cite from Stewart are the ones that contain evidence, for example, the Hannity snafu of presenting footage of an old rally as a rally in progress. Another example would be the Cramer head-to-head. That was a well cited and documented piece.
I don’t doubt that Glenn Beck has points of truth in his entertainment program, however he also has plenty of points that are thrown out casually, without cites, that he is under no obligation to prove as it is technically meant for entertainment. Those on the right absorb those points without further thought because they seem plausible, yet those on the left get bent out of shape about it because it isn’t 100% true. I think you guys just don’t like having Glenn Beck lumped in with Stewart. Love them or hate them, they are the same.
Here’s a tip. The nations that we do not want to have unconventional arsenals that want them, don’t want them for reasons having to do with anything anybody else does. It’s all about their own military potential. They would develop nuclear weapons if every other nation on Earth voluntarily relegated themselves to slingshots.
I doubt you know either of the above based on a safe assumption of mine that you don’t watch him.
[/quote]
Sorry to disappoint, but your assumption is wrong. I don’t watch all the time, but I do catch it at least once a week. More than the television show, I catch his radio show at least twice a week as my one-way commute to work is often 2+ hours, and music on the radio is for suckers. Where you guys all fail is that you’re blind to the fact that people can both be informed, and just plain disagree with you. There is nothing for a liberal to fear in Glenn Beck.
Glenn Beck is comedy. He knows it, and is having a fantastic laugh at how seriously both the left and right take him. Jon Stewart found out exactly how seriously people take him when he was flogged for soft-balling Kerry, and his game has changed since.
Here’s a tip. The nations that we do not want to have unconventional arsenals that want them, don’t want them for reasons having to do with anything anybody else does. It’s all about their own military potential. They would develop nuclear weapons if every other nation on Earth voluntarily relegated themselves to slingshots.[/quote]
Your aim is way off if you think I meant that we’re setting an example for the rogue states to follow. No nation, other than US or Russia, has the generations of scientific experience needed to create a nuke from scratch. Any country that is currently trying to develop a weapon MUST have international support. North Korea needed AQ Khan, Iran needed France, China, and Russia. Shit, even India needed the fucking Canadians. What we need to do is drive a wedge between those nations supporting the rogue developments.
It is naive, insane even, to think that we can continue on the same path and expect results. We’ve tried pre-conditions, we’ve tried the six-party talks, we’ve tried UN sanctions. Any increase in nuclear presence is only going to solidify the brinksmanship.
…and you know good and well that we’re not relegating ourselves to slingshots.
Glenn Beck is comedy. He knows it, and is having a fantastic laugh at how seriously both the left and right take him… [/quote]
This is how I know you’re lying when you say you watch and listen to him.
He’s funny…but not doing comedy. He’s dead serious. Be sophisticated enough to know the difference between being funny and doing comedy. Otherwise the Pittbull brand will be seared into your hide. I’m sorry if that offends but I would have no choice. I like you and want to be able to consider you a reasonable, somewhat intelligent liberal here but you’re backing me into a corner with my branding iron in my hands.[/quote]
You get so persnickety 'bout them words. I’m not calling him a comedian. Jon Stewart is a comedian, Glenn Beck is not a comedian (happy?) But, for every nugget of Jeffersonian earnest ideology he lets rip, he throws out another that he knows is incendiary lib-bait. That is what I find to be funny. I think this is how his “Obama hates white people” thing came out. I think he was in incendiary mode, and he let the rough draft slip out.
[quote]borrek wrote:
<<< …and you know good and well that we’re not relegating ourselves to slingshots.[/quote] WE’RE NOT?!?!?!? Whew!!! Wipes forehead