Is a preemptive strike to destroy a nation's nuclear weapons capability ever justifie

[Goobieman]

Re: Is a preemptive strike to destroy a nation's nuclear weapons capability ever just

I know your post was for Caine but I feel obligated to point out that most of the time the partisan bickering starts when a conservative doesn't have anything substancial to counter a factual point brought into the debate.

Thanks for your own contributuon to the partisan bickering file.

I'll make sure Caine sees this so he can show us how much he hates bickering, regardless from what side it comes.

(Yeah, I'm not holding my breath either)

 

[Saboteur]

Re: Is a preemptive strike to destroy a nation's nuclear weapons capability ever just

I see your attempts at getting banned have failed. :roll:

Run the play until you get it right.

Well it'd be a boon for Navy Pride and PSDTKID to see a lib get banned. I don think it's happend for awhile and they get admonished every other week.

It's a lot of work though, 30 days to get 20 points and I only live here while I slack off at work.

 

[Saboteur]

Re: Is a preemptive strike to destroy a nation's nuclear weapons capability ever just

Thanks for your own contributuon to the partisan bickering file.

I'll make sure Caine sees this so he can show us how much he hates bickering, regardless from what side it comes.

(Yeah, I'm not holding my breath either)

Hey, whatever Caine wants to say about what I said is fine. I appreciate his contribution here most of the time but if he doesn't like mine it's his perogative.

I was going to try not to get as hot under the collar as I have been lately but it seems like whenever I try to stay on the rational track it's seen as weakness by some folks here and my head gets stepped on. It's total school yard bully tactis around here.

So when in Rome...

 

[Caine]

Re: Is a preemptive strike to destroy a nation's nuclear weapons capability ever just

I only posted that becuse Caine has gone out of his way to do the exact same thing to me -- calling me out for "partisan bickering" and "divisiveness".

I'm just illustrating his hypocricy. Don't take it too hard. :mrgreen:

And, you would have been correct in saying I ruined a perfectly good thread.
If not for post #2. It was ruined from the start.

So your attempt at looking cool and acting like me didn't work.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: Is a preemptive strike to destroy a nation's nuclear weapons capability ever just

And, you would have been correct in saying I ruined a perfectly good thread.
If not for post #2. It was ruined from the start.

So your attempt at looking cool and acting like me didn't work.

Admit it -- if not to me then to yourself -- you really dont give a flying fig about partisan bickjering, you just like to whine and complain and cry like a schoolgirl when conservatives/Republicans do it.

Get off your high horse.

 

[Caine]

Re: Is a preemptive strike to destroy a nation's nuclear weapons capability ever just

Admit it -- if not to me then to yourself -- you really dont give a flying fig about partisan bickjering, you just like to whine and complain and cry like a schoolgirl when conservatives/Republicans do it.

Get off your high horse.

Haha... Read highlighted portion above.

This is why I will remain on my "high horse".
Im only taking the "high-ground".

 

[ProudAmerican]

Why do you, Navy, Aqua, Calm2Chaos, JamesRage and ProudAm feel the need to attack liberals?

huge difference in attacking "liberals" as a whole rather than singling out one person.

when I say "liberals suck" thats just a general statement about a group of people you may or may not be associated with.

if I say "sabotuer sucks" that would seem to me to be a clear violation of the rules.

 

[Saboteur]

huge difference in attacking "liberals" as a whole rather than singling out one person.

when I say "liberals suck" thats just a general statement about a group of people you may or may not be associated with.

if I say "sabotuer sucks" that would seem to me to be a clear violation of the rules.

I'm talking about a group of people too I just happen to know their screen names.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I'm talking about a group of people too I just happen to know their screen names.

like I dont know the screen names of the liberals here?

your comparison is ludicrous.

stop attacking INDIVIDUALS here.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Is a preemptive strike to destroy a nation's nuclear weapons capability ever just

Although I have been tempted to put people like CA and 26 Champs on ignore because all they do is insult and call names I have resisted the urge

Or is it that you are tired of being regularly proven to be a spreader of untruths, misinformation and made up $hit? Do you have any idea how often I've proven you wrong?

I'm DEAD set against a pre-emptive nuclear strike because once that door is opened everyone will come bursting through it.

Why do you think that during the cold war not one nuke was used? Because had even one been set off none of you would be reading this and I would not be writing it...and I guess the war in Iraq, 9-11 and George Bush would never have happened either.

How naive is it to think if we strike first we won't get hit back?

 

[Caine]

Re: Is a preemptive strike to destroy a nation's nuclear weapons capability ever just

Or is it that you are tired of being regularly proven to be a spreader of untruths, misinformation and made up $hit? Do you have any idea how often I've proven you wrong?

I'm DEAD set against a pre-emptive nuclear strike because once that door is opened everyone will come bursting through it.

Why do you think that during the cold war not one nuke was used? Because had even one been set off none of you would be reading this and I would not be writing it...and I guess the war in Iraq, 9-11 and George Bush would never have happened either.

How naive is it to think if we strike first we won't get hit back?

Umm... not to burst your bubble, but the question is about a preemptive strike to destroy a nation's nuclear capability.
I think you have the question confused with a preemptive nuclear strike against another country.

The question talks about "a stikre" you are talking about a "nuclear strike".
"A Strike" doesn't necessarily mean that you are using nukes.

 

[Captain America]

huge difference in attacking "liberals" as a whole rather than singling out one person.

when I say "liberals suck" thats just a general statement about a group of people you may or may not be associated with.

if I say "sabotuer sucks" that would seem to me to be a clear violation of the rules.

Consider this PA. Whereas I do see what you are saying, and technically, I see where you are coming from. But that's all to often loophole tactic used by internet trolls from forum to forum.

For example. I address John Doe as "you liberal" or "you rightwinger" in post #444.

Then, in post mumber 555, I declare that liberals/conservatives <pick one> are baby raping, scum sucking, leeches.

Now, I didn't call John Doe, per se, a scumsucking so and so. But I called him a liberal/conservative <pick one> which is the same as calling him a baby raping scum sucking, yada yada yada..... by my own words.

That run-around technique only works for some people. Most people catch on to their intent to offend and then the thread is toast for any further advancement of thought. This begat that and before you know it turns into the same tired old bullshit and nobody has anything worth sayin'.

Comprende amigo?

 

[Goobieman]

Re: Is a preemptive strike to destroy a nation's nuclear weapons capability ever just

Haha... Read highlighted portion above.

This is why I will remain on my "high horse".
Im only taking the "high-ground".

You know, I see all kinds of partisan bickering from liberals on this board -- why arent you complaining about them? I keep telling them you'll be visiting their post soon, but you never show up.

Why is that?

 

[Saboteur]

like I dont know the screen names of the liberals here?

your comparison is ludicrous.

stop attacking INDIVIDUALS here.

Okay, I will, I promise. I apologize to you ProudAmerican and everyone at DP for my rediculous immaturity. My insults were uncalled for and when I see something I don't like I'll just ignore it. I am truely sorry.

And I voted yes it is justifiable to preemptively strike a nation to destroy it's nuclear capability. Nuclear weapons are an abomination to the world and humanity IMO.

I just wonder how the U.S. would strike N. Korea with most of our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. And N. Korea has the 5th largest army in the world.

Peace?

 

[ProudAmerican]

Consider this PA. Whereas I do see what you are saying, and technically, I see where you are coming from. But that's all to often loophole tactic used by internet trolls from forum to forum.

For example. I address John Doe as "you liberal" or "you rightwinger" in post #444.

Then, in post mumber 555, I declare that liberals/conservatives <pick one> are baby raping, scum sucking, leeches.

Now, I didn't call John Doe, per se, a scumsucking so and so. But I called him a liberal/conservative <pick one> which is the same as calling him a baby raping scum sucking, yada yada yada..... by my own words.

That run-around technique only works for some people. Most people catch on to their intent to offend and then the thread is toast for any further advancement of thought. This begat that and before you know it turns into the same tired old bullshit and nobody has anything worth sayin'.

Comprende amigo?

I see your point.

I can only tell everyone that when I say "liberals" I mean it as a general term and dont mean any one certain person.

Okay, I will, I promise. I apologize to you ProudAmerican and everyone at DP for my rediculous immaturity. My insults were uncalled for and when I see something I don't like I'll just ignore it. I am truely sorry.

I dont know if you are being sarcastic or not.....all I can say is I dont expect you to ignore anything. just respond to it intelligently without baiting, flaming, or name calling.

I am guilty of the same at times myself for sure. And I dont mind having it pointed out to me when it happens.

:smile:

 

[ProudAmerican]

I just wonder how the U.S. would strike N. Korea with most of our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. And N. Korea has the 5th largest army in the world.

I bet if you look up the numbers of forces deployed in afghanistan, and Iraq, and then look up the number of total forces we have, you will find you are wrong.

all I have heard from the left (not you....just a general term) about this war is that we didnt use enough forces to do the job.

which is it? are our forces depleted? or did we not use enough to do the job?

 

[Goobieman]

I just wonder how the U.S. would strike N. Korea with most of our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. And N. Korea has the 5th largest army in the world.

Airpower. Cruise missiles.
If necessary, tactical nuclear weapons.

We need not set foot on NK soil - but if we need to, we have 37000 tropps there, right now.

 

[Saboteur]

I bet if you look up the numbers of forces deployed in afghanistan, and Iraq, and then look up the number of total forces we have, you will find you are wrong.

all I have heard from the left (not you....just a general term) about this war is that we didnt use enough forces to do the job.

which is it? are our forces depleted? or did we not use enough to do the job?

Well I used to know that we had around 200,000 or so based around China. But I don't know if they've been reduced in lieu of Iraq.

I heard that the force in S. Korea was reduced to 28,000 which is still substancial IMO, I have no doubt that 1 of our soldiers is better than 3 of theirs. I'm just concerned that since N. Korea has a more conventional army that it would be a much harder mission than Iraq. Plus Do you think China would back N. Korea again or stay out of it? I think they'd feel threatend.

 

[Saboteur]

Airpower. Cruise missiles.
If necessary, tactical nuclear weapons.

We need not set foot on NK soil - but if we need to, we have 37000 tropps there, right now.

Well then let's squeeze 'em.

 

[Saboteur]

I dont know if you are being sarcastic or not.....all I can say is I dont expect you to ignore anything. just respond to it intelligently without baiting, flaming, or name calling.

I am guilty of the same at times myself for sure. And I dont mind having it pointed out to me when it happens.

:smile:

No, no sarcasm I am sorry.

 

[Navy Pride]

I see your point.

I can only tell everyone that when I say "liberals" I mean it as a general term and dont mean any one certain person.



I dont know if you are being sarcastic or not.....all I can say is I dont expect you to ignore anything. just respond to it intelligently without baiting, flaming, or name calling.

I am guilty of the same at times myself for sure. And I dont mind having it pointed out to me when it happens.

:smile:

I personally think there are 2 degrees of Liberals.......The just plain Liberals like Mixed Media, Aps, Moderate Democrat and even my buddy hips whom you can disagree with but you can debate civil manner, and then there are the Radical Liberals that will do anything to regain power even if it means destroying this country down......They are the Bush haters.....The ones in that category in this forum are in a state of denial...........We know who they are though PA.......Their posts betray them.......

 

[Saboteur]

I personally think there are 2 degrees of Liberals.......The just plain Liberals like Mixed Media, Aps, Moderate Democrat and even my buddy hips whom you can disagree with but you can debate civil manner, and then there are the Radical Liberals that will do anything to regain power even if it means destroying this country down......They are the Bush haters.....The ones in that category in this forum are in a state of denial...........We know who they are though PA.......Their posts betray them.......

I apologize to you too Navy. I am so, so sorry for what I said to you.

 

[Justagurl]

The real worry for us is the Chinese with over a billion man Army. And while we are better trained, equipped, and have superior equipment, VietNam and the first Korean conflict show that the Asian armies are very creative, resilient, and can take a long term war with high casualties. The only war we've ever won outright in Asia, we used a couple of atomic bombs under the pretense that we saved millions of American lives.

And our problems don't stop there, transporting reinforcements, equipment, and food across the Pacific gives the Koreans/Chinese another advantage. Do not underestimate the tactical problems we would encounter fighting the Chinese on their home court. I have no doubt that we can defend our country against a homeland invasion by anything they throw at us but unfortunately, it would be nearly impossible for us to beat the Chinese in Asia.

And don't make the mistake of believing our forces can control things like they did in Afghanistan or Iraq. Iraq was already beaten, remember? The entire world destroyed their military in the first Gulf War and it was in no way rebuilt. And come'on, Afghanistan? Not close to North Korea or China.

War is an ugly business and every war we've fought in Asia has been difficult. Bush cannot use force unless he has the blessings of the Chinese. There is a reason Bush has been huddled with the Chinese.

And what's with everybody trying to play the party card in nearly every debate? That's one of the biggest things wrong with our political system. Most people are very uninformed about candidates and tend to vote a straight party ticket. The ebb and flow is constantly changing and it's a no win situation and complaining about the liberals or the conservatives isn't a valid argument.

 

[Navy Pride]

The real worry for us is the Chinese with over a billion man Army. And while we are better trained, equipped, and have superior equipment, VietNam and the first Korean conflict show that the Asian armies are very creative, resilient, and can take a long term war with high casualties. The only war we've ever won outright in Asia, we used a couple of atomic bombs under the pretense that we saved millions of American lives.

And our problems don't stop there, transporting reinforcements, equipment, and food across the Pacific gives the Koreans/Chinese another advantage. Do not underestimate the tactical problems we would encounter fighting the Chinese on their home court. I have no doubt that we can defend our country against a homeland invasion by anything they throw at us but unfortunately, it would be nearly impossible for us to beat the Chinese in Asia.

And don't make the mistake of believing our forces can control things like they did in Afghanistan or Iraq. Iraq was already beaten, remember? The entire world destroyed their military in the first Gulf War and it was in no way rebuilt. And come'on, Afghanistan? Not close to North Korea or China.

War is an ugly business and every war we've fought in Asia has been difficult. Bush cannot use force unless he has the blessings of the Chinese. There is a reason Bush has been huddled with the Chinese.

And what's with everybody trying to play the party card in nearly every debate? That's one of the biggest things wrong with our political system. Most people are very uninformed about candidates and tend to vote a straight party ticket. The ebb and flow is constantly changing and it's a no win situation and complaining about the liberals or the conservatives isn't a valid argument.

God forbid if we ever have a war with China the armies won't matter......It will just be them lobbing nukes at us and us lobbing nukes at them.....That is why we will never have a war with them........It would mean the end of the world..........

 

[Duke]

I personally think there are 2 degrees of Liberals.......The just plain Liberals like Mixed Media, Aps, Moderate Democrat and even my buddy hips whom you can disagree with but you can debate civil manner, and then there are the Radical Liberals that will do anything to regain power even if it means destroying this country down......They are the Bush haters.....The ones in that category in this forum are in a state of denial...........We know who they are though PA.......Their posts betray them.......

Which category do I fall under, I can't help but wonder...:2razz:


Duke