|
It's so...uplifting...
We have the snake handlers, venom drinkers, devil worshipers, women haters, sex haters, female genital mutilators, ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaida, Haredi, Unification Church, Scientology, Holy Underwear-wearers, Church of Euthanasia, People's Temple, Branch Davidians, Nation of Yahweh, rapture-ready, pope-is-antichrist and now Quannengshen. Religion is so uplifting. |
It's so...uplifting...
Why don't you take a look at yourself bet you'll discover darkness!
|
It's so...uplifting...
|
It's so...uplifting...
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:35:52 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:47:03 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:12:09 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:18:45 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: We have the snake handlers, venom drinkers, devil worshipers, women haters, sex haters, female genital mutilators, ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaida, Haredi, Unification Church, Scientology, Holy Underwear-wearers, Church of Euthanasia, People's Temple, Branch Davidians, Nation of Yahweh, rapture-ready, pope-is-antichrist and now Quannengshen. Religion is so uplifting. You left out Zionism. Strange, huh? You guys Muslims? Surprised he included Muslims. You Jehovahs Witness? === Probably a Holy Roiler. |
It's so...uplifting...
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:47:03 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:12:09 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:18:45 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: We have the snake handlers, venom drinkers, devil worshipers, women haters, sex haters, female genital mutilators, ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaida, Haredi, Unification Church, Scientology, Holy Underwear-wearers, Church of Euthanasia, People's Temple, Branch Davidians, Nation of Yahweh, rapture-ready, pope-is-antichrist and now Quannengshen. Religion is so uplifting. You left out Zionism. Strange, huh? You guys Muslims? Surprised he included Muslims. You Jehovahs Witness? |
It's so...uplifting...
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:17:42 -0400, wrote:
ISIS would just be another bunch of thugs if they didn't have M1 tanks. It is just a mater of time before they get air power. === Air power would make them an easy target - easy to locate and easy to hit. The US has better air combat and defensive capability than anyone else. |
It's so...uplifting...
Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:12:09 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:18:45 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: We have the snake handlers, venom drinkers, devil worshipers, women haters, sex haters, female genital mutilators, ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaida, Haredi, Unification Church, Scientology, Holy Underwear-wearers, Church of Euthanasia, People's Temple, Branch Davidians, Nation of Yahweh, rapture-ready, pope-is-antichrist and now Quannengshen. Religion is so uplifting. You left out Zionism. Strange, huh? Zionism isn't a religion. -- Posted from my iPhone |
It's so...uplifting...
On Thursday, August 21, 2014 2:54:50 PM UTC-4, F. O. A. D. wrote:
Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:12:09 -0400, wrote: You left out Zionism. Strange, huh? Zionism isn't a religion. Technically, it's not. It's "a colonialist or racist ideology that led to the denial of rights, dispossession and expulsion of the "indigenous population of Palestine". But for many it *is* a religion, just as Liberalism is a religion for some. That's certainly the god you pray to every day. |
It's so...uplifting...
On 8/21/14 4:03 PM, wrote:
On 21 Aug 2014 18:54:50 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:12:09 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:18:45 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: We have the snake handlers, venom drinkers, devil worshipers, women haters, sex haters, female genital mutilators, ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaida, Haredi, Unification Church, Scientology, Holy Underwear-wearers, Church of Euthanasia, People's Temple, Branch Davidians, Nation of Yahweh, rapture-ready, pope-is-antichrist and now Quannengshen. Religion is so uplifting. You left out Zionism. Strange, huh? Zionism isn't a religion. Neither is "ISIS, Taliban or Al-Qaida" Zionism has no requirements that its acolytes adhere to any form of Judaism. The three groups you mentioned are fundamentalist Muslim religious organizations, and all three engage in forced adherence to an interpretation of the Koran and all three pursue forced religious conversions. There are significant numbers of Jews in Israel and elsewhere who are revisionist Zionists and have no religious affilition, other than being born in a family in which the mother was Jewish. |
It's so...uplifting...
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:00:56 -0400, wrote:
A drone carrying a few pounds of Semtex is a poor man's cruise missile === The range of quadcopter type drones is very limited, and all we'd have to do is close their Amazon account. :-) In all seriousness, that kind of drone could be a deadly weapon for homegrown local terrorists however. |
It's so...uplifting...
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:28:19 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 8/21/14 4:03 PM, wrote: On 21 Aug 2014 18:54:50 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:12:09 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:18:45 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: We have the snake handlers, venom drinkers, devil worshipers, women haters, sex haters, female genital mutilators, ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaida, Haredi, Unification Church, Scientology, Holy Underwear-wearers, Church of Euthanasia, People's Temple, Branch Davidians, Nation of Yahweh, rapture-ready, pope-is-antichrist and now Quannengshen. Religion is so uplifting. You left out Zionism. Strange, huh? Zionism isn't a religion. Neither is "ISIS, Taliban or Al-Qaida" Zionism has no requirements that its acolytes adhere to any form of Judaism. The three groups you mentioned are fundamentalist Muslim religious organizations, and all three engage in forced adherence to an interpretation of the Koran and all three pursue forced religious conversions. There are significant numbers of Jews in Israel and elsewhere who are revisionist Zionists and have no religious affilition, other than being born in a family in which the mother was Jewish. A distinction without a difference Absurd. -- Posted from my iPhone |
It's so...uplifting...
In article ,
says... That's an undoubtedly bad reading of U.S. policy. How do you think that is wrong? It certainly is not oil. We would buy the oil from whomever controls the region. Really? Buy oil from ISIS? You're kidding. You only have to look at the other places with evil things going where we have no problem buying oil to see that. Oil companies and dictators get along just fine. Without the Israel problem, we would just pull out the military and let the big dog eat. How does that address Iran seeking nukes? This is a good enough policy statement. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2...ast_strategy_b ack_to_balancing "So what are U.S. interests in the Middle East? I'd say the United States has three strategic interests and two moral interests. The three strategic interests are 1) keeping oil and gas from the region flowing to world markets, to keep the global economy humming; 2) minimizing the danger of anti-American terrorism; and 3) inhibiting the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The two moral interests are 1) promotion of human rights and participatory government, and 2) helping ensure Israel's survival. " |
It's so...uplifting...
On Thursday, August 21, 2014 2:23:44 PM UTC-4, Wayne. B wrote:
Air power would make them an easy target - easy to locate and easy to hit. The US has better air combat and defensive capability than anyone else. Yes, but.....take out their Computers, and , or Satellite, and they're nothing. |
It's so...uplifting...
On 8/21/14 8:00 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:51:21 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:00:56 -0400, wrote: A drone carrying a few pounds of Semtex is a poor man's cruise missile === The range of quadcopter type drones is very limited, and all we'd have to do is close their Amazon account. :-) In all seriousness, that kind of drone could be a deadly weapon for homegrown local terrorists however. The tough thing with a drone is the control system, not the actual vehicle. They are very easy to scale up. Mythbusters has been using RC car controllers on full sized cars and trucks for years. I don't think it would be that hard to put a drone control system The scary thing about these new groups like ISIS is they are not just goat herders with automatic weapons. They are recruiting college educated westerners. Those virgins they are using as bait must be pretty old and wrinkled by now. |
It's so...uplifting...
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:11:08 -0400, wrote:
On 21 Aug 2014 21:07:14 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote: wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:28:19 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 8/21/14 4:03 PM, wrote: On 21 Aug 2014 18:54:50 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:12:09 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:18:45 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: We have the snake handlers, venom drinkers, devil worshipers, women haters, sex haters, female genital mutilators, ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaida, Haredi, Unification Church, Scientology, Holy Underwear-wearers, Church of Euthanasia, People's Temple, Branch Davidians, Nation of Yahweh, rapture-ready, pope-is-antichrist and now Quannengshen. Religion is so uplifting. You left out Zionism. Strange, huh? Zionism isn't a religion. Neither is "ISIS, Taliban or Al-Qaida" Zionism has no requirements that its acolytes adhere to any form of Judaism. The three groups you mentioned are fundamentalist Muslim religious organizations, and all three engage in forced adherence to an interpretation of the Koran and all three pursue forced religious conversions. There are significant numbers of Jews in Israel and elsewhere who are revisionist Zionists and have no religious affilition, other than being born in a family in which the mother was Jewish. A distinction without a difference Absurd. Are you going to say Israel is not a religious state? How many Muslims, or even Christians are in any actual position of authority? Most can't even vote. === Poor Harry, once again tangled up in his land of make believe. |
It's so...uplifting...
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:25:32 -0400, wrote:
If we had not given Israel nukes, they would not feel the need to have them. === Interesting assertion. Do you know that for a fact? |
It's so...uplifting...
On 8/21/14 8:11 PM, wrote:
On 21 Aug 2014 21:07:14 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote: wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:28:19 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 8/21/14 4:03 PM, wrote: On 21 Aug 2014 18:54:50 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:12:09 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:18:45 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: We have the snake handlers, venom drinkers, devil worshipers, women haters, sex haters, female genital mutilators, ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaida, Haredi, Unification Church, Scientology, Holy Underwear-wearers, Church of Euthanasia, People's Temple, Branch Davidians, Nation of Yahweh, rapture-ready, pope-is-antichrist and now Quannengshen. Religion is so uplifting. You left out Zionism. Strange, huh? Zionism isn't a religion. Neither is "ISIS, Taliban or Al-Qaida" Zionism has no requirements that its acolytes adhere to any form of Judaism. The three groups you mentioned are fundamentalist Muslim religious organizations, and all three engage in forced adherence to an interpretation of the Koran and all three pursue forced religious conversions. There are significant numbers of Jews in Israel and elsewhere who are revisionist Zionists and have no religious affilition, other than being born in a family in which the mother was Jewish. A distinction without a difference Absurd. Are you going to say Israel is not a religious state? How many Muslims, or even Christians are in any actual position of authority? Most can't even vote. The question was not whether Israel was a religious state. The question was whether Zionism was a religion. It is not. The distinction is significant. Perhaps if you had taken some liberal arts classes sometime in your life, you would have fewer problems with semantics and etymology. |
It's so...uplifting...
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:20:21 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 8/21/14 8:11 PM, wrote: On 21 Aug 2014 21:07:14 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote: wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:28:19 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 8/21/14 4:03 PM, wrote: On 21 Aug 2014 18:54:50 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:12:09 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:18:45 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: We have the snake handlers, venom drinkers, devil worshipers, women haters, sex haters, female genital mutilators, ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaida, Haredi, Unification Church, Scientology, Holy Underwear-wearers, Church of Euthanasia, People's Temple, Branch Davidians, Nation of Yahweh, rapture-ready, pope-is-antichrist and now Quannengshen. Religion is so uplifting. You left out Zionism. Strange, huh? Zionism isn't a religion. Neither is "ISIS, Taliban or Al-Qaida" Zionism has no requirements that its acolytes adhere to any form of Judaism. The three groups you mentioned are fundamentalist Muslim religious organizations, and all three engage in forced adherence to an interpretation of the Koran and all three pursue forced religious conversions. There are significant numbers of Jews in Israel and elsewhere who are revisionist Zionists and have no religious affilition, other than being born in a family in which the mother was Jewish. A distinction without a difference Absurd. Are you going to say Israel is not a religious state? How many Muslims, or even Christians are in any actual position of authority? Most can't even vote. The question was not whether Israel was a religious state. The question was whether Zionism was a religion. It is not. The distinction is significant. Perhaps if you had taken some liberal arts classes sometime in your life, you would have fewer problems with semantics and etymology. === Translation: Harry has lost the argument and he will now attempt to save face with liberal farts, semantics and etymology - as if he invented them. |
It's so...uplifting...
On 8/21/2014 7:20 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 8/21/14 8:11 PM, wrote: On 21 Aug 2014 21:07:14 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote: wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:28:19 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 8/21/14 4:03 PM, wrote: On 21 Aug 2014 18:54:50 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote: Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:12:09 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:18:45 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: We have the snake handlers, venom drinkers, devil worshipers, women haters, sex haters, female genital mutilators, ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaida, Haredi, Unification Church, Scientology, Holy Underwear-wearers, Church of Euthanasia, People's Temple, Branch Davidians, Nation of Yahweh, rapture-ready, pope-is-antichrist and now Quannengshen. Religion is so uplifting. You left out Zionism. Strange, huh? Zionism isn't a religion. Neither is "ISIS, Taliban or Al-Qaida" Zionism has no requirements that its acolytes adhere to any form of Judaism. The three groups you mentioned are fundamentalist Muslim religious organizations, and all three engage in forced adherence to an interpretation of the Koran and all three pursue forced religious conversions. There are significant numbers of Jews in Israel and elsewhere who are revisionist Zionists and have no religious affilition, other than being born in a family in which the mother was Jewish. A distinction without a difference Absurd. Are you going to say Israel is not a religious state? How many Muslims, or even Christians are in any actual position of authority? Most can't even vote. The question was not whether Israel was a religious state. The question was whether Zionism was a religion. It is not. The distinction is significant. Perhaps if you had taken some liberal arts classes sometime in your life, you would have fewer problems with semantics and etymology. So what use have you made of your masters degree in etymology. Obviously, it hasn't helped to pay your bills. -- "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them". Thomas Jefferson |
It's so...uplifting...
On 8/21/2014 8:25 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:15:04 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... That's an undoubtedly bad reading of U.S. policy. How do you think that is wrong? It certainly is not oil. We would buy the oil from whomever controls the region. Really? Buy oil from ISIS? You're kidding. We buy oil from Chavez and most of the western world was buying oil from Saddam in spite of our embargo. The shieks are pretty scummy guys and we don't seem to care what is happening in Nigeria. Why not? You only have to look at the other places with evil things going where we have no problem buying oil to see that. Oil companies and dictators get along just fine. Without the Israel problem, we would just pull out the military and let the big dog eat. How does that address Iran seeking nukes? If we had not given Israel nukes, they would not feel the need to have them. AYFKM? Their clearly stated motive is to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth"... They know damn well the west would never let Israel use them as a first strike force, you know it, Israel knows it, Iran knows it but it. Israel is not looking to "wipe" anyone off the face of the earth, that's why so much of their weaponry is defensive.... This is a good enough policy statement. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2...ast_strategy_b ack_to_balancing "So what are U.S. interests in the Middle East? I'd say the United States has three strategic interests and two moral interests. The three strategic interests are 1) keeping oil and gas from the region flowing to world markets, to keep the global economy humming; Oil always finds a way to market, even when we try to stop it. 2) minimizing the danger of anti-American terrorism If we were not there, they would not have much incentive to come here. The major beef from Bin Laden was US troops in Saudi Arabia. 3) inhibiting the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Since they mostly came from the west, that is not that much of an issue. The two moral interests are 1) promotion of human rights and participatory government, One "moral" interest and we obviously don't have that much moral objection in the rest of the world. Again, I simply have to point to Africa,. 2) helping ensure Israel's survival. That is purely a political interest, there is not much "moral" in that objective. |
It's so...uplifting...
On 8/21/2014 10:14 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:41:47 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:25:32 -0400, wrote: If we had not given Israel nukes, they would not feel the need to have them. === Interesting assertion. Do you know that for a fact? The Plutonium came from the US, it is fairly well documented. The science is not really that big a secret anymore. That is not the assertion he was talking about I think. It's you saying that Iran wouldn't be looking to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and wouldn't be looking for nukes to do it right, is just..... well, it's ludacris, As long as I remember here, Greg has taken the side against Zionists or any other religion.. .well except maybe Muslim... :) |
It's so...uplifting...
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:42:04 -0400, KC wrote:
If we had not given Israel nukes, they would not feel the need to have them. === Interesting assertion. Do you know that for a fact? The Plutonium came from the US, it is fairly well documented. The science is not really that big a secret anymore. That is not the assertion he was talking about I think. === Actually it was. According to a number of sources, the US did not give plutonium to Israel although we helped in other ways. Instead it was the French which helped Israel build the Dimona reactor back in the late 50s. That reactor is the source of Israel's plutonium. The reactor's heavy water which is essential, was supplied by Norway in 1959. In 1963, when the reactor started operation, the United States supplied more heavy water. http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/israel/nuke.html |
It's so...uplifting...
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:51:21 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:00:56 -0400, wrote: A drone carrying a few pounds of Semtex is a poor man's cruise missile === The range of quadcopter type drones is very limited, and all we'd have to do is close their Amazon account. :-) In all seriousness, that kind of drone could be a deadly weapon for homegrown local terrorists however. With no requirement to return, the range of the 2.4GHz transmitters is at least a couple miles. |
It's so...uplifting...
|
It's so...uplifting...
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 00:34:52 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:35:51 -0400, KC wrote: On 8/21/2014 8:25 PM, wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:15:04 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... That's an undoubtedly bad reading of U.S. policy. How do you think that is wrong? It certainly is not oil. We would buy the oil from whomever controls the region. Really? Buy oil from ISIS? You're kidding. We buy oil from Chavez and most of the western world was buying oil from Saddam in spite of our embargo. The shieks are pretty scummy guys and we don't seem to care what is happening in Nigeria. Why not? You only have to look at the other places with evil things going where we have no problem buying oil to see that. Oil companies and dictators get along just fine. Without the Israel problem, we would just pull out the military and let the big dog eat. How does that address Iran seeking nukes? If we had not given Israel nukes, they would not feel the need to have them. AYFKM? Their clearly stated motive is to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth"... They know damn well the west would never let Israel use them as a first strike force, you know it, Israel knows it, Iran knows it but it. Israel is not looking to "wipe" anyone off the face of the earth, that's why so much of their weaponry is defensive.... There is no such thing as a defensive nuke As a matter of fact, part of the planning to stop a Soviet Invasion of Europe through the Fulda Gap included the use of defensive nukes to form barriers. |
It's so...uplifting...
On 8/22/2014 12:34 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:35:51 -0400, KC wrote: On 8/21/2014 8:25 PM, wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:15:04 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... That's an undoubtedly bad reading of U.S. policy. How do you think that is wrong? It certainly is not oil. We would buy the oil from whomever controls the region. Really? Buy oil from ISIS? You're kidding. We buy oil from Chavez and most of the western world was buying oil from Saddam in spite of our embargo. The shieks are pretty scummy guys and we don't seem to care what is happening in Nigeria. Why not? You only have to look at the other places with evil things going where we have no problem buying oil to see that. Oil companies and dictators get along just fine. Without the Israel problem, we would just pull out the military and let the big dog eat. How does that address Iran seeking nukes? If we had not given Israel nukes, they would not feel the need to have them. AYFKM? Their clearly stated motive is to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth"... They know damn well the west would never let Israel use them as a first strike force, you know it, Israel knows it, Iran knows it but it. Israel is not looking to "wipe" anyone off the face of the earth, that's why so much of their weaponry is defensive.... There is no such thing as a defensive nuke Ok, deterrent nukes.. |
It's so...uplifting...
On 8/22/14 9:51 AM, KC wrote:
On 8/22/2014 12:34 AM, wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:35:51 -0400, KC wrote: On 8/21/2014 8:25 PM, wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:15:04 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... That's an undoubtedly bad reading of U.S. policy. How do you think that is wrong? It certainly is not oil. We would buy the oil from whomever controls the region. Really? Buy oil from ISIS? You're kidding. We buy oil from Chavez and most of the western world was buying oil from Saddam in spite of our embargo. The shieks are pretty scummy guys and we don't seem to care what is happening in Nigeria. Why not? You only have to look at the other places with evil things going where we have no problem buying oil to see that. Oil companies and dictators get along just fine. Without the Israel problem, we would just pull out the military and let the big dog eat. How does that address Iran seeking nukes? If we had not given Israel nukes, they would not feel the need to have them. AYFKM? Their clearly stated motive is to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth"... They know damn well the west would never let Israel use them as a first strike force, you know it, Israel knows it, Iran knows it but it. Israel is not looking to "wipe" anyone off the face of the earth, that's why so much of their weaponry is defensive.... There is no such thing as a defensive nuke Ok, deterrent nukes.. Is that like the "Q-Bomb" from the Mouse that Roared? |
It's so...uplifting...
|
It's so...uplifting...
On 8/22/2014 10:42 AM, KC wrote:
On 8/22/2014 10:08 AM, wrote: On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:51:39 -0400, KC wrote: There is no such thing as a defensive nuke Ok, deterrent nukes.. How has that been working out for them? Pretty good, I haven't seen any of the surrounding armies/nations try to take the land by military force, no invasion, so I say it's working perfectly. Oh, and not to mention... once Iran gets it's nukes and it will, those Israeli nukes will be the *only* thing slowing Iran down on using it on them.... period. How hard is it to figure out Israel wants to live, and has no aspirations on surrounding countries, Iran wants to take over the world and has no problem wiping out populations to clear the way.... |
It's so...uplifting...
On 8/22/2014 11:17 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:44:37 -0400, KC wrote: On 8/22/2014 10:42 AM, KC wrote: On 8/22/2014 10:08 AM, wrote: On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:51:39 -0400, KC wrote: There is no such thing as a defensive nuke Ok, deterrent nukes.. How has that been working out for them? Pretty good, I haven't seen any of the surrounding armies/nations try to take the land by military force, no invasion, so I say it's working perfectly. Oh, and not to mention... once Iran gets it's nukes and it will, those Israeli nukes will be the *only* thing slowing Iran down on using it on them.... period. Then why does Iran want a nuke? Oh brother.... |
It's so...uplifting...
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:17:41 -0400, wrote:
Oh, and not to mention... once Iran gets it's nukes and it will, those Israeli nukes will be the *only* thing slowing Iran down on using it on them.... period. Then why does Iran want a nuke? === Because it lessens the risk of a pre-emptive strike by a western power. |
It's so...uplifting...
On 8/22/2014 2:15 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:44:51 -0400, KC wrote: On 8/22/2014 11:17 AM, wrote: On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:44:37 -0400, KC wrote: Oh, and not to mention... once Iran gets it's nukes and it will, those Israeli nukes will be the *only* thing slowing Iran down on using it on them.... period. Then why does Iran want a nuke? Oh brother.... It is a valid question. If Israelis nukes are such a deferent, why would Iran want one ... unless it was seen as defensive for them. You seem to want this both ways. Why are you being so closed minded, black and white.. I never said the deterrent was the end all, just a deterrent... Might work, might give the rest of the world time to stop things, the only thing black and white here is Iran's clearly stated intent to "wipe Israel into the sea"... that is well documented, and they are working hard at that end every day... |
It's so...uplifting...
On 8/22/2014 2:16 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 13:43:37 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:17:41 -0400, wrote: Oh, and not to mention... once Iran gets it's nukes and it will, those Israeli nukes will be the *only* thing slowing Iran down on using it on them.... period. Then why does Iran want a nuke? === Because it lessens the risk of a pre-emptive strike by a western power. At last an honest answer although I really believe it is just a prestige thing. So you think my answer was "dishonest" because it wasn't your answer... oh brother... |
It's so...uplifting...
On 8/22/2014 2:38 PM, KC wrote:
On 8/22/2014 2:16 PM, wrote: On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 13:43:37 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:17:41 -0400, wrote: Oh, and not to mention... once Iran gets it's nukes and it will, those Israeli nukes will be the *only* thing slowing Iran down on using it on them.... period. Then why does Iran want a nuke? === Because it lessens the risk of a pre-emptive strike by a western power. At last an honest answer although I really believe it is just a prestige thing. So you think my answer was "dishonest" because it wasn't your answer... oh brother... Paranoia strikes again. |
It's so...uplifting...
|
It's so...uplifting...
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:08:13 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 08:15:57 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 00:34:52 -0400, wrote: There is no such thing as a defensive nuke As a matter of fact, part of the planning to stop a Soviet Invasion of Europe through the Fulda Gap included the use of defensive nukes to form barriers. That was insanity not strategy. It sounds like the same people who described Europe as a place where towns were 2 kilotons apart. These would have been between 10 tons and 1 kiloton. Itty bitty nukes. Here's some info on same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special...ition_Munition We actually had those down at the Engineer Battalion level. |
It's so...uplifting...
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:17:41 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:44:37 -0400, KC wrote: On 8/22/2014 10:42 AM, KC wrote: On 8/22/2014 10:08 AM, wrote: On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:51:39 -0400, KC wrote: There is no such thing as a defensive nuke Ok, deterrent nukes.. How has that been working out for them? Pretty good, I haven't seen any of the surrounding armies/nations try to take the land by military force, no invasion, so I say it's working perfectly. Oh, and not to mention... once Iran gets it's nukes and it will, those Israeli nukes will be the *only* thing slowing Iran down on using it on them.... period. Then why does Iran want a nuke? To make a fortune selling it to ISIS/ISIL. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com