WisconsinBillzFan Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/07...ense-officials/
Alaska Darin Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Terribly stupid article, quoting terribly stupid people.
3rdnlng Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Terribly stupid article, quoting terribly stupid people. I presume you mean Ban Ki Moon and Ahmadinejad?
IDBillzFan Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Terribly stupid article, quoting terribly stupid people. I kinda like Tucker Carlson, and have been following his new website, The Daily Caller, each day. It's kind of like the anti-Huffington Post in that it tilts towards conservatives, but with the occasional 86-pt headline. Anyway, I digress. The funniest part of the website is an email I get from them every morning giving an overview of the latest stories they're covering. When I read the story recap that came in yesterday about this decision by Obama to take nukes off the table, I thought you had written it. Here's what it said: 1.) Obama 'narrows' circumstances under which he would risk extinguishing all life on earth -- "For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack," the New York Times reports. "White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike." The decision has stoked as much anger on the right, where conservatives reserve the privilege to nuke their own mothers, as on the left, where silver-spoon dweebniks continue to insist that they'd rather speak Russian, Chavezeze, or Mandarin than so much as keep a single nuclear weapon on American soil. Incidentally, the discomfort of the outliers puts those of us who don't dream in eschatology somewhat at ease.
Alaska Darin Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 I presume you mean Ban Ki Moon and Ahmadinejad? Personally I think pretty much everyone quoted in it is stupid.
ieatcrayonz Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 Personally I think pretty much everyone quoted in it is stupid. I didn't click. I am curious why they only talked to Canadians though.
PastaJoe Posted April 7, 2010 Posted April 7, 2010 “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth.” - Ronald Reagan, 1984, in China. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...ays-gop-ii.html
John Adams Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 Terribly stupid article, quoting terribly stupid people. By a terribly stupid poster. Trifecta!
DC Tom Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 Terribly stupid article, quoting terribly stupid people. Good !@#$ing Lord...I haven't seen an article that shallow and useless since the last one I read on Fox.
3rdnlng Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth.” - Ronald Reagan, 1984, in China. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...ays-gop-ii.html I don't think you will get much of an argument from anyone on that statement. The devil is in the detail as it pertains to how to accomplish that. He also said, "trust, but verify". Obama's MO seems to include bending over for the international community and requesting that they use k-y.
WisconsinBillzFan Posted April 8, 2010 Author Posted April 8, 2010 I don't think you will get much of an argument from anyone on that statement. The devil is in the detail as it pertains to how to accomplish that. He also said, "trust, but verify". Obama's MO seems to include bending over for the international community and requesting that they use k-y. Obama is allergic to sovereignty.
ieatcrayonz Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 I don't think you will get much of an argument from anyone on that statement. The devil is in the detail as it pertains to how to accomplish that. He also said, "trust, but verify". Obama's MO seems to include bending over for the international community and requesting that they use k-y. This is known as the Los Gatos foreign policy.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 How can anyone believe it makes us weaker? Iran thinks Obama's plan is bad, Palin thinks his plan is bad... (it will invite the bullies to pick on us) hmmmmm Seriously, the US still has the largest (working) arsenal. Do you think we will ever use one? If we never use them.... think about it.
3rdnlng Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 How can anyone believe it makes us weaker? Iran thinks Obama's plan is bad, Palin thinks his plan is bad... (it will invite the bullies to pick on us) hmmmmm Seriously, the US still has the largest (working) arsenal. Do you think we will ever use one? If we never use them.... think about it. If you were the President and this country that you were sworn to protect was attacked by 50 airliners flying into all of our biggest buildings by Iceland, who has no nukes, what would you do? BTW, Iceland threatens to continue to do it, knowing that Obama has pledged not to use nukes on them.
LeviF Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 If you were the President and this country that you were sworn to protect was attacked by 50 airliners flying into all of our biggest buildings by Iceland, who has no nukes, what would you do? BTW, Iceland threatens to continue to do it, knowing that Obama has pledged not to use nukes on them. Some conventional weapons can do serious property damage
3rdnlng Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 Some conventional weapons can do serious property damage Yes, but I want them to stop right now. I guess we could drop all of our "clunkers" on one side of the island and tip them over though.
yall Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 If you were the President and this country that you were sworn to protect was attacked by 50 airliners flying into all of our biggest buildings by Iceland, who has no nukes, what would you do? BTW, Iceland threatens to continue to do it, knowing that Obama has pledged not to use nukes on them. You know he could change his mind right? Or we could bomb the holy hell out of them using conventional weapons without irradiating everyone in Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Would that make you happy? This is about as silly as when we "pointed" our nukes away from Russia, as if there wasn't someone poised to load in the coordinates at a moments notice. We can change our posture at any time. But even with such a meaningless gesture, I can't believe people are so up in arms about it. It's like we turned into a bunch of surrender monkeys with only a few thousand nuclear weapons that we will try our hardest not to use. USA = p*ssies!
LeviF Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 Yes, but I want them to stop right now. I guess we could drop all of our "clunkers" on one side of the island and tip them over though. Meh. Throw a few Russian FOAB's at a city and they'll shut up. Alternatively, high-altitude carpet bombing can do serious damage as well.
Thirdborn Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 If you were the President and this country that you were sworn to protect was attacked by 50 airliners flying into all of our biggest buildings by Iceland, who has no nukes, what would you do? BTW, Iceland threatens to continue to do it, knowing that Obama has pledged not to use nukes on them. I would ... invade Iraq?
DC Tom Posted April 8, 2010 Posted April 8, 2010 If you were the President and this country that you were sworn to protect was attacked by 50 airliners flying into all of our biggest buildings by Iceland, who has no nukes, what would you do? BTW, Iceland threatens to continue to do it, knowing that Obama has pledged not to use nukes on them. It depends. Is it the Icelandic black community's fault?
Recommended Posts