PDA

View Full Version : ok, why not?



JDogger
04-06-2010, 10:18 PM
I'm surprised that there has been no broach of the subject of Obama's new nuclear policy.
I'm very suprised that it has not led to a new series of attack posts.
Are you guys just sleepin' , or trainin' and testin'?
Or, are you just gettin' bored with PP? I know I am.
I mean... we're startin' to talk sports here...
There are plenty of sports forums out there...pls... keep on subject...If I want to hear about golf, TW, etc. ...I know where to go...Ya know.

I think O's new policy is inspired, but ya don't wanna hear that...

JD

Eric Johnson
04-06-2010, 11:05 PM
Well I have two points.....

1. Mutually Assured Destruction has worked to keep everyone safe from nuclear harm for almost 50 years. There were some uncomfortable moments but with the nuclear cloud hanging over all equally, we were kept safe.

2. If Nation X commits a chemical or biological attack on the US that kills a million folks, what would the Obama administration do? The success of MAD was that the result of this behavior was known in advance.

I was in the Air Force and served a few years in the Strategic Air Command. I've attended Air Command and Staff College and the Air War College. I am comfortable with MAD and I am very uncomfortable with anything less.

Eric

huntinman
04-06-2010, 11:15 PM
I'm surprised that there has been no broach of the subject of Obama's new nuclear policy.
I'm very suprised that it has not led to a new series of attack posts.
Are you guys just sleepin' , or trainin' and testin'?
Or, are you just gettin' bored with PP? I know I am.
I mean... we're startin' to talk sports here...
There are plenty of sports forums out there...pls... keep on subject...If I want to hear about golf, TW, etc. ...I know where to go...Ya know.

I think O's new policy is inspired, but ya don't wanna hear that...

JD

I think we have come to expect him to do something asinine every day. This fits the bill so no real surprise. Wonder what's in store for tomoorow? Give Alaska back to the Russians?

BonMallari
04-06-2010, 11:29 PM
I think the ramifications have yet to be heard but I think it sent a clear message to Netanyahu and the Israelis that they wont get the game stopper back up that has always been in their disposal

M&K's Retrievers
04-06-2010, 11:34 PM
I
I think O's new policy is inspired, but ya don't wanna hear that...

JD

OK, JD, I'll bite. Why is this inspired thinking?
I figure he did this prior to his suck up trip to Russia so he can look like the great pacificier. Also, what's to keep him from saying "I was just bullsh*ting when I said that" and then fire a missile? Oh, I forgot. Obama is a straight shooter. He would never go back on his word.:rolleyes:

JDogger
04-07-2010, 12:06 AM
OK, JD, I'll bite. Why is this inspired thinking?
I figure he did this prior to his suck up trip to Russia so he can look like the great pacificier. Also, what's to keep him from saying "I was just bullsh*ting when I said that" and then fire a missile? Oh, I forgot. Obama is a straight shooter. He would never go back on his word.:rolleyes:


Never said that m&k . It's politics ya know, say one thing, do another. I never claimed BO was my 'messiah' . You did. I expect he will lie. It's part of the job ya know...how much turnip are ya?

God.... get over it...JD

They all lie, they all spin... buy whatever line suits you. Maybe you'll get 'it' , maybe you won't. Makes little difference... Ya know?

JD

What makes a difference here, is your dog in the ribbons?

M&K's Retrievers
04-07-2010, 12:52 AM
Never said that m&k You said "...O's new policy is inspired" . It's politics ya know, say one thing, do another. I never claimed BO was my 'messiah' . You did I did?. I expect he will lie. It's part of the job ya know...how much turnip are ya?

God.... get over it...JD get over what?

They all lie, they all spin... buy whatever line suits you. Maybe you'll get 'it' , maybe you won't. Makes little difference... Ya know?

JD

What makes a difference here, is your dog in the ribbons?

Jeeze, JD, you started this thread. I just opined.

Matt McKenzie
04-07-2010, 02:04 AM
I'm surprised that there has been no broach of the subject of Obama's new nuclear policy.
I'm very suprised that it has not led to a new series of attack posts.
Are you guys just sleepin' , or trainin' and testin'?
Or, are you just gettin' bored with PP? I know I am.
I mean... we're startin' to talk sports here...
There are plenty of sports forums out there...pls... keep on subject...If I want to hear about golf, TW, etc. ...I know where to go...Ya know.

I think O's new policy is inspired, but ya don't wanna hear that...

JD

I DO want to hear why it is inspired. Not so that I can tear down your opinion, but to try to understand it and possibly see a different perspective. Why do you think his new policy is 'inspired'?

dnf777
04-07-2010, 05:53 AM
Well I have two points.....



2. If Nation X commits a chemical or biological attack on the US that kills a million folks, what would the Obama administration do? The success of MAD was that the result of this behavior was known in advance.

Eric

The USSR was a rational nation who didn't want to die. Our current enemies are already blowing themselves up and flying planes into buildings. I'm not quite as comfortable that MAD will protect us from these religious fanatics.

Besides, how many 40-megaton hydrogen bombs does it take to threated destruction with? I think the aim of this treaty is to prevent countless thousands of warheads from floating around the terrorist black market like shoulder launched stinger missiles or wedding bands at a pawn shop.

zeus3925
04-07-2010, 06:37 AM
I think the ramifications have yet to be heard but I think it sent a clear message to Netanyahu and the Israelis that they wont get the game stopper back up that has always been in their disposal

Why backstop Netanyahu?

paul young
04-07-2010, 06:40 AM
we now have the conventional weaponry and delivery systems to respond to chemical and biological attacks w/o the use of nukes. believe me when i say we could reduce Iran or N. Korea to a scrap yard with conventional weapons and never risk an american life in the process if we needed to.

his idea is to only use nukes as a pre-emptive or retaliatory solution to a nuclear attack.

i don't believe this is necessarily inspired thinking, but it makes sense to use non-nukes if they will do the job.

once the Genies out of the bottle, you can't put him back....-Paul

Hew
04-07-2010, 07:01 AM
Besides, how many 40-megaton hydrogen bombs does it take to threated destruction with? I think the aim of this treaty is to prevent countless thousands of warheads from floating around the terrorist black market like shoulder launched stinger missiles or wedding bands at a pawn shop.
This isn't a treaty agreed upon by multiple nations. This is Obama unilaterally spelling out the terms/conditions of our nuke use (which is not unique among presidents). The aim of Obama's position is to remove an incentive for other nations to try and get nukes. If we pledge to never use ours against them then why should they ever try to get them in the first place? is the logic (albeit softheaded and naive). The problems with Obama's announcement include:

- Our nuke use policy was always previously intentionally ambiguous...both to keep other nation's guessing (thus increasing their deterrence value) and not box ourselves into a corner or limit our response capability.
- It tells other nations that they could attack us with bio, chemical or cyberwarfare without the fear of getting a nuke in their ear in return.
- Most importantly (or the worst ramification) is that it establishes that Obama is a tit-for-tat kind of President. It makes him look soft. It makes North Korea think that if they invade the South that maybe Obama won't use nukes afterall. It makes Iran think that maybe if they send only one nuke into Israel that maybe they'll only get one in return (if any). In other words, his/our policy is DESTABILIZING.

Hew
04-07-2010, 07:08 AM
we now have the conventional weaponry and delivery systems to respond to chemical and biological attacks w/o the use of nukes. believe me when i say we could reduce Iran or N. Korea to a scrap yard with conventional weapons and never risk an american life in the process if we needed to.
With respect to North Korea, what you wrote above is crazy talk. Unless of course you're presuming that North Korea won't defend itself, won't attack South Korea and won't lob nukes wherever it can. And if that's the case, then using your logic we could also reduce China and Russia to scrap yards without risking an American life.

paul young
04-07-2010, 07:28 AM
With respect to North Korea, what you wrote above is crazy talk. Unless of course you're presuming that North Korea won't defend itself, won't attack South Korea and won't lob nukes wherever it can. And if that's the case, then using your logic we could also reduce China and Russia to scrap yards without risking an American life.

either you didn't read my entire post, or you chose to only quote part of it.....

China and Russia are too large to do what i said with the weapons i'm referring to. Iran and N. Korea are not. it's not logic, it's reality.-Paul

pat addis
04-07-2010, 07:46 AM
I'm surprised that there has been no broach of the subject of Obama's new nuclear policy.
I'm very suprised that it has not led to a new series of attack posts.
Are you guys just sleepin' , or trainin' and testin'?
Or, are you just gettin' bored with PP? I know I am.
I mean... we're startin' to talk sports here...
There are plenty of sports forums out there...pls... keep on subject...If I want to hear about golf, TW, etc. ...I know where to go...Ya know.

I think O's new policy is inspired, but ya don't wanna hear that...

JD

the only thing that would suprise me is if obama did any thing that was in the countrys best intrest. he is worse than jimmy carter

Hew
04-07-2010, 08:02 AM
it's not logic, it's reality.-Paul
LOL. Your logic and your reality; not most peoples' I assure you.

JDogger
04-07-2010, 08:57 AM
I DO want to hear why it is inspired. Not so that I can tear down your opinion, but to try to understand it and possibly see a different perspective. Why do you think his new policy is 'inspired'?

Leadership by example, instead of threats and alienation that have not worked in the past.

Buzz
04-07-2010, 09:13 AM
LOL. Your logic and your reality; not most peoples' I assure you.

You mean most partisan hacks looking for any reason to start a controversy.

paul young
04-07-2010, 09:55 AM
Hew,

you either have an extremely low opinion of our military capabilities or you just enjoy being a sh!t stirrer. my opinion of our military is that we have the best materiel and the best personnel in the world.

i suggest you go have another sandwich.-Paul

Eric Johnson
04-07-2010, 12:26 PM
The USSR was a rational nation who didn't want to die. Our current enemies are already blowing themselves up and flying planes into buildings. I'm not quite as comfortable that MAD will protect us from these religious fanatics.

Besides, how many 40-megaton hydrogen bombs does it take to threated destruction with? I think the aim of this treaty is to prevent countless thousands of warheads from floating around the terrorist black market like shoulder launched stinger missiles or wedding bands at a pawn shop.

I really don't have a problem with reducing the number of weapons. Nor do I have a problem with seeking ways of dealing with the airplanes into buildings fanatics. I do have a problem with removing MAD from our toolbelts in that it keeps a level playing field among nuclear powers.

We've already slimmed down appreciably. I was at Whiteman AFB. We had a totally unique system for dealing with the launch of the Minuteman forces. I won't say what it was or how it was used but....it's been retired. That was a huge step in reducing the nuclear force. Baby steps since then but steps nonetheless. However, I fail to see how a President just a year in office with no other experience in strategic thinking can just abandon a strategy that has worked for so long. If MAD is left in place, he can get on with dealing
with the fanatics.

Eric

Matt McKenzie
04-07-2010, 12:37 PM
we now have the conventional weaponry and delivery systems to respond to chemical and biological attacks w/o the use of nukes. believe me when i say we could reduce Iran or N. Korea to a scrap yard with conventional weapons and never risk an american life in the process if we needed to.

his idea is to only use nukes as a pre-emptive or retaliatory solution to a nuclear attack.

i don't believe this is necessarily inspired thinking, but it makes sense to use non-nukes if they will do the job.

once the Genies out of the bottle, you can't put him back....-Paul

Two points. I disagree with your assessment of our capabilites, or at least our inventories, and I have some level of experience on the subject.

Second. The genie has been out of the bottle for 65 years now.

I'm not advocating the use of nuclear weapons. I'm just stating that reducing a country to a 'scrap heap' without risking a life is easier said than done and would never be an option either way.

Matt McKenzie
04-07-2010, 12:49 PM
Leadership by example, instead of threats and alienation that have not worked in the past.

I'm trying to think of an example of a situation where one of our enemies weakened themselves based on our leadership by example and can't come up with one.

I can think of plenty of examples where our interests were served very well by threats, either implicit or explicit.

Diplomacy is always more effective from a position of strength. Always. To believe otherwise is naive and foolhardy. We would all like to believe that all disagreements can be resolved peacefully and amicably. We should also strive to resolve disagreements in just that way. The same basic rules apply to disputes between nations and disputes between individuals.
But the truth is that sometimes the correct response is violence. There are natural laws that no amount of civilization or enlightenment can erase. Any individual or group that isn't willing to commit overwhelming violence to ensure its own survival is doomed. Regardless of what might be politically expedient at the moment, anything that weakens our position in relationship to our enemies or potential enemies is a bad decision. One man's opinion.

Franco
04-07-2010, 01:05 PM
I'm trying to think of an example of a situation where one of our enemies weakened themselves based on our leadership by example and can't come up with one.

I can think of plenty of examples where our interests were served very well by threats, either implicit or explicit.

Diplomacy is always more effective from a position of strength. Always. To believe otherwise is naive and foolhardy. We would all like to believe that all disagreements can be resolved peacefully and amicably. We should also strive to resolve disagreements in just that way. The same basic rules apply to disputes between nations and disputes between individuals.
But the truth is that sometimes the correct response is violence. There are natural laws that no amount of civilization or enlightenment can erase. Any individual or group that isn't willing to commit overwhelming violence to ensure its own survival is doomed. Regardless of what might be politically expedient at the moment, anything that weakens our position in relationship to our enemies or potential enemies is a bad decision. One man's opinion.

Excellent post. Peace through Strength, it is the only real security. Talk softly and carry a big stick is the only thing people with ill-intentions understand. Obama's dumpimg on our policy that has served us for years will be viewed as our weakness.

Bayou Magic
04-07-2010, 01:12 PM
...

If MAD is left in place, he can get on with dealing
with the fanatics.

Eric

Please don't use such harsh terminology; you might offend those trying to kill us.

Regards,
B.O.

dnf777
04-07-2010, 03:49 PM
I really don't have a problem with reducing the number of weapons. Nor do I have a problem with seeking ways of dealing with the airplanes into buildings fanatics. I do have a problem with removing MAD from our toolbelts in that it keeps a level playing field among nuclear powers.

We've already slimmed down appreciably. I was at Whiteman AFB. We had a totally unique system for dealing with the launch of the Minuteman forces. I won't say what it was or how it was used but....it's been retired. That was a huge step in reducing the nuclear force. Baby steps since then but steps nonetheless. However, I fail to see how a President just a year in office with no other experience in strategic thinking can just abandon a strategy that has worked for so long. If MAD is left in place, he can get on with dealing
with the fanatics.

Eric

I don't think this will remove the MAD threat at all. If someone is pointing a Glock at my head, I don't care if it has three rounds or a full 15! We still have enough nukes to make the entire globe one big chicken fry!

Hew: After our unilaterally claimed pre-emptive "bush doctrine" of recent years, I doubt anything we say or put on paper will do anything BUT keep our enemies guessing! Maybe Bush's "loose canon" policy was brilliant, and Bush was a genius after all.:rolleyes:

Hew
04-07-2010, 05:44 PM
You mean most partisan hacks looking for any reason to start a controversy.
Oh, good. Buzz weighs in with his always-so-cogent thoughts. Let's hear it, Tiger...take up the mantle for Paul and explain to us all how we manage to conventionally turn North Korea to rubble conventionally without harm to one American serviceman. I've given Paul a couple of opportunities to explain it, but have just gotten a bunch of jibberjabber.

YardleyLabs
04-07-2010, 06:17 PM
The policy statement adopted does not eliminate MAD doctrines; it modifies their scope. Under the revised Nuclear Policy Review document, all nuclear powers (e.g. Russia, China), all non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (e.g. North Korea, Pakistan and India), and all nations in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (e.g. Iran), would still be subject to nuclear attack in a confrontation with the United States. In response to Eric's question concerning a biological attack on the US resulting in a million deaths, the policy statement says "Given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of bio-technology development, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and US capacities to counter that threat."

By stating that the US will not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear nation, but will respond (in devastating fashion) with conventional weapons instead, the US reduces incentives for countries to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty and develop their own nuclear weapons. Those nations have already committed to total nuclear disarmament unilaterally. What further concession would you demand for assurance that they will not be attacked with nuclear weapons by the US? Without such an assurance from the nuclear nations, I can't see why any nation would deliberately forgo developing its own nuclear arsenal so that it, too, can assure the destruction of a nuclear attacker.

Eric Johnson
04-07-2010, 08:58 PM
... the policy statement says "Given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of bio-technology development, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and US capacities to counter that threat."


The threat of MAD was that it was unequivocal. If you use any weapon of mass destruction on us, we will retaliate with a massive nuclear response. That's just plain not the same as "...the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment...."

Whereas MAD is uneqivocal, this statement equivicates.

Like I said, absent any background in strategic thinking, he should have left well enough alone. What was it the Iranian president said....""Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics). Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience." I hate to say it but he's got the right idea.

Eric

paul young
04-07-2010, 09:27 PM
Hew, look up how many cruise missiles we have and their range . (janes book of fighting ships)

pay particular attention to how many use subs for a platform.

then check N. Korea or Iran's ability to wage anti-submarine warfare.

once their airfields, missile sites and naval bases are destroyed the surface ships and airforce finish the job.

don't bother to put boots on the ground. their ability to wage war outside of their border will be nullified.-Paul

YardleyLabs
04-07-2010, 09:34 PM
..

Whereas MAD is uneqivocal, this statement equivicates.

...
Historically, MAD only addressed issues related to nuclear strikes, not other military actions. There are some pretty good reasons why no one has used an atomic weapon in 65 years. The effects last longer than anyone wants to contemplate and almost all of the victims are civilians -- men, women and children who had nothing to do with the decisions that resulted in war. My father worked hard to help build our first nuclear weapons. He never had any regret about the decision to drop on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but was very happy that no similar decision was made again. I believe that we should not use out nuclear weapons unless we and/or our closest allies are faced with an existential threat for which there is no other effective response. There is nothing limited, tactical, or measured about a nuclear response and there are no good guys left standing after it is done. Anyone launching a nuclear attack should expect and be rewarded with a comparably nihilistic response.

Matt McKenzie
04-08-2010, 12:55 AM
Hew, look up how many cruise missiles we have and their range . (janes book of fighting ships)

pay particular attention to how many use subs for a platform.

then check N. Korea or Iran's ability to wage anti-submarine warfare.

once their airfields, missile sites and naval bases are destroyed the surface ships and airforce finish the job.

don't bother to put boots on the ground. their ability to wage war outside of their border will be nullified.-Paul

Too bad it isn't that easy. If it were, that's what they would be teaching at the war colleges. And that's what we would have done at some point in our history. But those who actually fight wars understand that it doesn't work that way. I understand that you are involved in some way in the Boomer Navy in Groton and have some insight into the issue, but you and I will just have to disagree on this one. We can agree that we have the capability to take out much of either country's military infrastructure remotely. Beyond that is where we must part ways. And keep in mind that while your subs and surface ships are sending cruise missiles into Iran, lots of American Sailors are in immediate danger in the Persian Gulf. In close quarters, a Boghammer is a distinct threat to a much larger and more capable warship.

JDogger
04-08-2010, 01:00 AM
I'm trying to think of an example of a situation where one of our enemies weakened themselves based on our leadership by example and can't come up with one. There are a lot of people who are not our enemies who still look to us for leadership.

I can think of plenty of examples where our interests were served very well by threats, either implicit or explicit.
Would that not then be the rationale used by Iran or NK? Once tagged as the axis of evil by the 800 lb gorilla in the the room, would you not consider your 'interests' first?

Diplomacy is always more effective from a position of strength. Always. To believe otherwise is naive and foolhardy. We would all like to believe that all disagreements can be resolved peacefully and amicably. We should also strive to resolve disagreements in just that way. The same basic rules apply to disputes between nations and disputes between individuals.
But the truth is that sometimes the correct response is violence. So yeah, I should just cap the guy in the Ford Focus when he cuts off my Hummer in traffic...right.
There are natural laws that no amount of civilization or enlightenment can erase. Any individual or group that isn't willing to commit overwhelming violence to ensure its own survival is doomed. Regardless of what might be politically expedient at the moment, anything that weakens our position in relationship to our enemies or potential enemies is a bad decision. One man's opinion. To be sure.


Please see my response in the above text, JD

Hew
04-08-2010, 06:45 AM
Hew, look up how many cruise missiles we have and their range . (janes book of fighting ships)

pay particular attention to how many use subs for a platform.

then check N. Korea or Iran's ability to wage anti-submarine warfare.

once their airfields, missile sites and naval bases are destroyed the surface ships and airforce finish the job.

don't bother to put boots on the ground. their ability to wage war outside of their border will be nullified.-Paul
LMAO. Easy-peasy lemon squeezy, eh?

For starters, we could launch every cruise missle we own at one time and not make much of a dent in North Korea's capacity to respond (ummm, that's why have nukes in the first place). Moreover, simple physics and prior use (against Iraq) indicate that a cruise missle isn't a good choice for attacking hard targets (which North Korea has 1,000x more than we have cruise missles...they've got 10 thousand artillery pieces within range of Seoul). Cruise missles alone are not an option because: a) they can't do the same things a bomb dropped from a plane can do, b) once the enemy expects them they can be shotdown (we stopped using them in Desert Storm after the 3rd or 4th day because some/many were being shot down and planes w/ bombs were having to follow them up to complete the job anyway), c) they're crazy-expensive and we don't have an endless supply of them (and certainly not nearly a fraction of those needed to put a meaningful dent in North Korea). Cruise missles are great weapons for specific targets/situations. Attacking North Korea by themselves ain't it.

PS...do you suppose North Korea will sit around and wait for the inevitable as we amass our forces around their country for a cruise missle attack (or attack of any kind) or do you think they might invade South Korea (where we have 30k personnel on the ground)? And supposing we manage a Desert Storm-like mustering of our forces in the area under the nose of N. Korea without them noticing and we're able to launch our cruise missles, do you think N. Korea will not immediately attack with everything they own while the missles are in-flight? And when our cruise missles manage to only knock out a few airfields and anti-aircraft sites and none of their nuke missle silos or command and control that are tunneled 100s of feet under the ground, do you think N. Korea will not respond with the remaining 95% of their military?

paul young
04-08-2010, 07:57 AM
Hew, if only you gave the same credit to our military that you give N. Korea.

how long do you suppose those artillery pieces are operational w/o air support to defend them?

i don't believe N. Korea is going to do anything anyway. if they were, they would have done it before now.

our most immediate threat comes from small groups of fanatics. nuclear weapons aren't a good choice there.-Paul

paul young
04-08-2010, 08:02 AM
Too bad it isn't that easy. If it were, that's what they would be teaching at the war colleges. And that's what we would have done at some point in our history. But those who actually fight wars understand that it doesn't work that way. I understand that you are involved in some way in the Boomer Navy in Groton and have some insight into the issue, but you and I will just have to disagree on this one. We can agree that we have the capability to take out much of either country's military infrastructure remotely. Beyond that is where we must part ways. And keep in mind that while your subs and surface ships are sending cruise missiles into Iran, lots of American Sailors are in immediate danger in the Persian Gulf. In close quarters, a Boghammer is a distinct threat to a much larger and more capable warship.

i guess my point is that once their military infrastructure is degraded, there's no point in bringing ground troops in. don't help them re-build or try to bring democracy to them as a way of life. they don't understand it or want it.

i wish we had handled Iraq that way. a lot of our men died that didn't need to.....-Paul

Hew
04-08-2010, 08:08 AM
Hew, if only you gave the same credit to our military that you give N. Korea. LOL. Yeah, that's it. Because I don't think we can reduce N. Korea to scrap without risking any American personnel that must mean that I think N. Korea has a better military.

how long do you suppose those artillery pieces are operational w/o air support to defend them? Defend them from what? Cruise missles? There's 10,000 of them. We don't have nearly that many cruise missles. Besides, many/most are dug into mountains where a cruise missle wouldn't damage them anyway.
This is a stupid argument. Dude, you and a tribe of Khalahari Bushmen might be the only 26 people on the face of the earth who think we could reduce N. Korea to rubble with conventional weaponry while at the same time not losing/risk losing MANY American lives. Argue with yourself.

Matt McKenzie
04-08-2010, 08:16 AM
JD,
1. Those that look to us for leadership also tend to look at us for protection. But those aren't the nations we are talking about.

2. I don't think I understand your point. Do you think the governments of NK or Iran are motivated by something other than self-interest? Do you think any nation is not motivated by self-interest? How could any nation survive that didn't put its self-interest first? And the "tagged as the Axis of Evil by the 800 pound gorilla" comment means what? We caused them to pursue their current foreign policy positions because we called them an ugly name? Seriously?

3. Nobody on this board (including you) believes that by my statement I was insinuating that your example makes any sense at all. That fact that SOMETIMES the right answer is violence does not equate to you killing someone in a fit of road rage. But if that's what you think I meant, I'm sorry that you suffer from such poor reading comprehension skills. If it isn't what you think I meant, then you chose to turn this conversation into a thoughtless argument. The chance of civil discourse over our differing opinions ended when you resorted to that childish tactic. I understand that your position is untenable, but at least have the courage to look at it objectively without making ridiculous comments in an effort to divert attention.

4. Yes, to be sure. Once again, when you have no reasonable argument, you make an underhanded attack. I assume you mean that I am the only one of this opinion or possibly one of few. Or maybe you simply disagree with it. Either way, I formed my opinion after a lifetime of observation and experience as an instrument of foreign policy and am willing to do my best to explain it to anyone who is interested and am willing to hear others explain a different perspective that might help me form a better understanding of the issue.
I will not, however, wrestle a pig. I don't enjoy getting muddy. Continue with your belief that the President's position is "enlightened". Maybe you actually have a basis for that opinion but just don't know how to verbalize it. Maybe you are simply repeating someone else's opinion and haven't bothered to do the heavy lifting required to form your own. You wouldn't be the first and certainly won't be the last. Either way, it's safe to say that nothing is to be gained by further discourse between us. I'll stick with the thinking liberals.

paul young
04-08-2010, 08:19 AM
you're right, it is stupid.

but try to follow me. the cruise missiles are used to destroy airfields, naval bases, ground to air missiles and communications. THEN the planes come in and take out the artillery and armor.

minimal exposure.

like we did in the 2 Iraq wars. except don't try to OCCUPY their miserable hovel of a starved country or change their way of thinking. that's where our boys suffered most of their casualties.-Paul

Hew
04-08-2010, 08:20 AM
JD,
1. Those that look to us for leadership also tend to look at us for protection. But those aren't the nations we are talking about.

2. I don't think I understand your point. Do you think the governments of NK or Iran are motivated by something other than self-interest? Do you think any nation is not motivated by self-interest? How could any nation survive that didn't put its self-interest first? And the "tagged as the Axis of Evil by the 800 pound gorilla" comment means what? We caused them to pursue their current foreign policy positions because we called them an ugly name? Seriously?

3. Nobody on this board (including you) believes that by my statement I was insinuating that your example makes any sense at all. That fact that SOMETIMES the right answer is violence does not equate to you killing someone in a fit of road rage. But if that's what you think I meant, I'm sorry that you suffer from such poor reading comprehension skills. If it isn't what you think I meant, then you chose to turn this conversation into a thoughtless argument. The chance of civil discourse over our differing opinions ended when you resorted to that childish tactic. I understand that your position is untenable, but at least have the courage to look at it objectively without making ridiculous comments in an effort to divert attention.

4. Yes, to be sure. Once again, when you have no reasonable argument, you make an underhanded attack. I assume you mean that I am the only one of this opinion or possibly one of few. Or maybe you simply disagree with it. Either way, I formed my opinion after a lifetime of observation and experience as an instrument of foreign policy and am willing to do my best to explain it to anyone who is interested and am willing to hear others explain a different perspective that might help me form a better understanding of the issue.
I will not, however, wrestle a pig. I don't enjoy getting muddy. Continue with your belief that the President's position is "enlightened". Maybe you actually have a basis for that opinion but just don't know how to verbalize it. Maybe you are simply repeating someone else's opinion and haven't bothered to do the heavy lifting required to form your own. You wouldn't be the first and certainly won't be the last. Either way, it's safe to say that nothing is to be gained by further discourse between us. I'll stick with the thinking liberals.
Ouch. A velvet sledgehammer. :)

dnf777
04-08-2010, 08:34 AM
This is a stupid argument. Dude, you and a tribe of Khalahari Bushmen might be the only 26 people on the face of the earth who think we could reduce N. Korea to rubble with conventional weaponry while at the same time not losing/risk losing MANY American lives. Argue with yourself.

Ever hear of the fire-bombing of Tokyo prior to the dropping of the A-bombs?

Pete
04-08-2010, 09:22 AM
No one challenges the strength of the lion until he becomes weakened.
Confucius say

when the lion see's his pride is in danger ,,,he does not retreat

Pete

JDogger
04-08-2010, 01:30 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/opinion/07wed1.html

Another man's opinion. I'm sure there are others.

Julie R.
04-08-2010, 02:02 PM
Leadership by example, instead of threats and alienation that have not worked in the past.

I said it before months ago when he promised: "We'll get rid of ours if you get rid of yours and look! We'll go first!" So now he's formalized this into policy, let's all dance for joy
http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/LIARkin/odancy.gif

Other leaders, most notably militant Islamics and Kim Jong-Il, have been globe-trotting on their nuke acquisition mission for decades. Any U.S. president, but particularly a spineless one that wants everyone to like him, is a laughing stock when he offers the promise of getting rid of U.S. nukes as an incentive for them to cease their accumulations.

YardleyLabs
04-08-2010, 02:30 PM
I said it before months ago when he promised: "We'll get rid of ours if you get rid of yours and look! We'll go first!" So now he's formalized this into policy, let's all dance for joy
http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/LIARkin/odancy.gif

Other leaders, most notably militant Islamics and Kim Jong-Il, have been globe-trotting on their nuke acquisition mission for decades. Any U.S. president, but particularly a spineless one that wants everyone to like him, is a laughing stock when he offers the promise of getting rid of U.S. nukes as an incentive for them to cease their accumulations.
The only problem with your argument Julie is that he never said what you are implying. Nuclear weapons will still be used against any nation possessing nuclear weapons, any nations failing to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and any nations in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He only gave up the nuclear option with respect to countries that have also given up the nuclear option. Attack the man for what he did, not for lies and misrepresentations that have nothing to do with what he did.

JDogger
04-08-2010, 08:48 PM
Ouch. A velvet sledgehammer. :)

Nay... more a rubber mallet. If your friend Matt believes he was attacked, he needs to grow a thicker skin, and maybe a sense of humor. Left and right disagree here on PP. Self-righteous indignation will only carry you so far. I made a statement, he questioned it, I gave an answer, he wanted further explanation, I declined and questioned his assertions. He went in to a snit. Good enough...end of discussion. JD

Buzz
04-09-2010, 12:23 AM
Obama's response to Palin's criticism.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/exclusive-president-obama-slaps-sarah-palin-expert-nukes/story?id=10321775

freefall319
04-09-2010, 12:40 AM
the only thing that would suprise me is if obama did any thing that was in the countrys best intrest.

Best quote ever.:cool:

M&K's Retrievers
04-09-2010, 12:40 AM
Obama's response to Palin's criticism.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/exclusive-president-obama-slaps-sarah-palin-expert-nukes/story?id=10321775

You know, I don't really care to hear what eithor one of these non-qualified blowhards has to say about anything. They both are in over their heads and are being controlled by their handlers.

Hew
04-09-2010, 03:01 AM
Ever hear of the fire-bombing of Tokyo prior to the dropping of the A-bombs?
Excellent point! We'll have North Korea climb into Doc Brown's Delorean Time Machine and send them back to 1944 and then we'll show 'em a thing or two about firebombin', by cracky. And then for good measure, we send them back to the 14th century so we can catapult disease-ridden animal carcasses across the DMZ and into their castles!

Buzz
04-09-2010, 08:46 AM
You know, I don't really care to hear what eithor one of these non-qualified blowhards has to say about anything. They both are in over their heads and are being controlled by their handlers.

As opposed to the blowhards around here?

I kinda like to see Palin and Bachman running around together.

It seems like Obama is in good company...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/0326/Nuclear-weapons-free-world-a-vision-of-Kennedy-Reagan-Obama



First Kennedy, then Reagan, now Obama

It was before the United Nations, in the depths of the cold war, that Kennedy ventured to envision a world free of the nuclear threat. Then, Ronald Reagan –the same president who had been vilified by nuclear-freeze advocates because of his arms buildup – stunned the world by coming close to an accord with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev to destroy all nuclear weapons within 10 years.

The two leaders came within a word of reaching a no-nukes accord – that word being “laboratory,” Mr. Cirincione says. He says Mr. Gorbachev insisted that Reagan’s “star wars” missile defense project be limited to laboratory research, but Reagan said no and a deal fell through.

Nuclear weapons reduction: US, Russia close to announcing deal
US Russia nuclear deal worries some in Moscow
Nuclear weapons worries: Is threat of Iran sanctions making Tehran testy with Europe?
But the vision stuck with Reagan’s secretary of State, George Shultz. It was he who emboldened a little-known Democratic senator from Illinois named Barack Obama, when Mr. Schulz joined another Republican diplomatic icon and two prominent Democrats in 2007 to promote the idea of a nuclear-weapons-free world.

“It was really the Jan. 7, 2007, Wall Street Journal op-ed by Schulz, Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, and William Perry that put the idea of eliminating nuclear weapons back on the map,” Cirincione says. “You can trace the push in this direction from Obama as a political leader from there,” he adds. “And it’s the impeccably bipartisan and centrist nature of the position they laid out that has allowed it to prosper.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/0326/Nuclear-weapons-free-world-a-vision-of-Kennedy-Reagan-Obama

Buzz
04-09-2010, 12:08 PM
Seems like our most accurate news comes from a comedy channel.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-8-2010/the-big-bang-treaty