[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]borrek wrote:
<<< …and you know good and well that we’re not relegating ourselves to slingshots.[/quote]
WE’RE NOT!!! Whew!!! Wipes forehead[/quote]
And here I was hoping you’d actually choose to suggest what we actually should be doing. Guess I was being naive.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
I dunno, I guess we could threaten Iran and South Korea with nukes, thatll make the world love us again!![/quote]
You are operating under two delusions: The first, that anyone on this thread suggesting threatening another country with nuclear weapons. The second, that it’s important for the world to love us. Here’s a clue, there is a difference between love and a healthy respect.[/quote]
good point, but theres different ways in which to get respect. You’re operating under the assumption that power is the only way to get it from other nations, which is untrue.
Waving our nukes around and threatening nations that we are going to use them if they attack us may be a clear deterrent, its also the perfect reason to get them.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
Waving our nukes around and threatening nations that we are going to use them if they attack us may be a clear deterrent…[/quote]
Clear unmitigated stupidity. The US may do a lot of things but waving nukes and threatening to use them against other nations aint one them.
(Where do you live? Venezuela? You been watching the Caracas @ 11 News?)
[/quote]
exactly. so why I am hearing that this step Obama took is a bad idea?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
Waving our nukes around and threatening nations that we are going to use them if they attack us may be a clear deterrent…[/quote]
Clear unmitigated stupidity. The US may do a lot of things but waving nukes and threatening to use them against other nations aint one them.
(Where do you live? Venezuela? You been watching the Caracas @ 11 News?)
[/quote]
exactly. so why I am hearing that this step Obama took is a bad idea?
[/quote]
You really need more explanation, huh? You tokin’ tonight?[/quote]
you’re losing it push…
… “The US may do alot of things but nuke waving isn’t one of them” O.K, that implies that you think this treaty IS a step in the right direction.
now with this post, you imply that it ISN’T a good idea?!?! give me SOMETHING!! Where do you think Obama is going with this?
What do you think America should do if they get nuked by a sovereign state??
LOL.
Am I comparing Cop#2 to the US push?? am I? are you sure?
LOL.
Am I comparing Cop#2 to the US push?? am I? are you sure?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
LOL.
Am I comparing Cop#2 to the US push?? am I? are you sure?[/quote]
Direct spyoptic quote:
you’re joking… theres more before that, and also a comma so thats not the DIRECT quote. You know you have to read more than just whatever suits your biased version of the truth right?
Have you even read anything I’ve posted before that?
DIRECT QUOTE from political scientists Richard Mansbach:
“…When the Cold War ended, American officials did not immediately abandon nuclear deterrence, and it remains a central element of US security policy.”
so suck on that.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
LOL.
Am I comparing Cop#2 to the US push?? am I? are you sure?[/quote]
Direct spyoptic quote:
you’re joking… theres more before that, and also a comma so thats not the DIRECT quote. You know you have to read more than just whatever suits your biased version of the truth right?
Have you even read anything I’ve posted before that?
DIRECT QUOTE from political scientists Richard Mansbach:
“…When the Cold War ended, American officials did not immediately abandon nuclear deterrence, and it remains a central element of US security policy.”
so suck on that.[/quote]
But you didn’t say something like, “American officials did not immediately abandon nuclear deterrence, and it remains a central element of US security policy.”
Instead you said, “Waving our nukes around and threatening nations.”
We don’t literally, of course, wave our nukes around and threaten nations nor do we do it metaphorically. Instead we implicitly and explicitly let it be known that the US reserves the right to defend itself in certain cases through any means necessary.
Now an example of someone who DOES “wave” and “threaten” is our dear Persian good fellow, the beloved and I’m sure often unjustly maligned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Savvy, doooooood?[/quote]
You’re hopeless. Not only did you not get my quote right for the second time, you also seem to completely turn around and agree with said quote because it’s worded differently. haha.
thx for throwing that Iran statement in there, I’m trembling at your knowledge. Can you elaborate a little please or was that supposed to leave me speechless??
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
LOL.
Am I comparing Cop#2 to the US push?? am I? are you sure?[/quote]
Direct spyoptic quote:
How DiLorenzoan of you Push
[quote]borrek wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]borrek wrote:
<<< …and you know good and well that we’re not relegating ourselves to slingshots.[/quote]
WE’RE NOT!!! Whew!!! Wipes forehead[/quote]
And here I was hoping you’d actually choose to suggest what we actually should be doing. Guess I was being naive.[/quote]
Now don’t go bein like that.
In some cases I’m not sure what we should do. There’s plenty I don’t know. I am however sure that fielding even the appearance of weakness is never what we SHOULD do. We will be the only ones who meaningfully honor these idiotic treaties.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
LOL.
Am I comparing Cop#2 to the US push?? am I? are you sure?[/quote]
Direct spyoptic quote:
you’re joking… theres more before that, and also a comma so thats not the DIRECT quote. You know you have to read more than just whatever suits your biased version of the truth right?
Have you even read anything I’ve posted before that?
DIRECT QUOTE from political scientists Richard Mansbach:
“…When the Cold War ended, American officials did not immediately abandon nuclear deterrence, and it remains a central element of US security policy.”
so suck on that.[/quote]
But you didn’t say something like, “American officials did not immediately abandon nuclear deterrence, and it remains a central element of US security policy.”
Instead you said, “Waving our nukes around and threatening nations.”
We don’t literally, of course, wave our nukes around and threaten nations nor do we do it metaphorically. Instead we implicitly and explicitly let it be known that the US reserves the right to defend itself in certain cases through any means necessary.
Now an example of someone who DOES “wave” and “threaten” is our dear Persian good fellow, the beloved and I’m sure often unjustly maligned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Savvy, doooooood?[/quote]
You’re hopeless. Not only did you not get my quote right for the second time, you also seem to completely turn around and agree with said quote because it’s worded differently. haha.
thx for throwing that Iran statement in there, I’m trembling at your knowledge. Can you elaborate a little please or was that supposed to leave me speechless??[/quote]
I copied and pasted your quote.
You claimed the US waves and threatens. It doesn’t.[/quote]
No I didn’t, how credible would that even be??
look at my posts of pg 2, why would I advocate diplomacy and other military technologies and then say some ol’ bullshit like “threaten them with nukes”.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Now don’t go bein like that.
[/quote]
Sometimes I just can’t help myself 