Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're suggesting we hold the holiest sites in Islam hostage in the hopes that a billion people, worldwide, will comply with our ultimatums, and that that WOULDN'T be a colossal disaster that would take a fringe violent hatred and essentially mainstream it?
I'll be honest. I think you either have no understanding of the importance of the Hijaz to Muslims or you haven't thought this through.
This is exactly the sort of talk that sounds great when talking tough around the poker table, but would make for catastrophic foreign policy. Catastrophic.
No. I wouldn't expect you to do it. I would do it. I don't play poker. I would expect you to turn him in if you knew where he was. As far as the Muslim world goes, I have no respect for their barbaric world. However, they are justified in condemning this generation. I have more respect for them than I do for you.
Your boy Bush Jr did. Maybe you don't recall when they met and Dubya claimed he looked Putin in the eye and "saw into this soul"?
I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.
Now that doesn't make any sense! Are we suppose to drop all our weapons
and let the enemy's get stronger and ultimately destroy our country.
Many countries would love to see the Unites States sink!
yes, this is what liberals and Obama want, peace on earth(never gonna happen), we'll be peaceful, while yall get armed up.
I guess its time to face the truth and realize we now live in a cowardly nation.
Obama was like that pop star, the media made him out to be this smooth guy that everyone loved, even the celebs were all over him(dont know why), people were fainting and they thought Obama was going to pay their mortgage and buy em a new car, surprise!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I honestly cant believe some people advocate using nukes to kill millions of innocent people. Just think of how many people who had zero say in the matter would lose their lives over some politically motivated disagreements two governments had.
Is it really worth killing people just to prove a political point. I really doubt nukes will ever be used anyway, you have to be a sick individual to set one off or advocate the use.
It's a shame that we as people think violence is going to solve our problems.
I honestly cant believe some people advocate using nukes to kill millions of innocent people. Just think of how many people who had zero say in the matter would lose their lives over some politically motivated disagreements two governments had.
Is it really worth killing people just to prove a political point. I really doubt nukes will ever be used anyway, you have to be a sick individual to set one off or advocate the use.
It's a shame that we as people think violence is going to solve our problems.
I guess when you live on the other side of the planet it is easy and maybe intended to forget that every person around the world is as unique and precious as every American or European. Every Chinese, Iranian, North Korean etc. has their own personal history, has parents and friends and a girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse and maybe even children, likes this or that music, has plans to be happy and achieve this or that, has invested years and years in studies and work, etc. Killing any person is a very severe thing to do and I can hardly think of any justification.
I'm not saying that there isn't a viable defense for why we used atomic weapons. Twice. I'm, again, just saying that since we ARE the only nation-state to have ever used the weapons, I don't think the FIRST thing we should be doing is getting all puffed up about our restraint.
since we have had nuclear weapons the longest of any country in the world and have restrained from using them the longest of any country in the world, i think that is something to be "puffed up" about.
again, the ONLY time we used nuclear weapons was to end a world war.
do you dispute that our mere possession of nuclear weaponry has allowed a level of world peace that had not existed before? i think most people think that nuclear weapons act as a very good deterrent to future aggression.
Let me get this straight -- Ronald Reagan is on video saying that all nukes should be "banished" from the face of the earth and also on another video saying we should reduce our arsenal by "at least 1/3rd" and now Obama does it and it's bad.
I think even your Saint Ronald would be ashamed of you.
Liars. Fakes. Phonies. You hate the president. You don't care what he does, you are going to oppose it. You fool no one. We see right through you.
Keep clinging to November. I don't blame you - at this point all you have is 10,000 dollar pictures with Bachmann/Palin while Bachmann's opponent gives them away for free. Money obsessed fascists.
since we have had nuclear weapons the longest of any country in the world and have restrained from using them the longest of any country in the world, i think that is something to be "puffed up" about.
again, the ONLY time we used nuclear weapons was to end a world war.
do you dispute that our mere possession of nuclear weaponry has allowed a level of world peace that had not existed before? i think most people think that nuclear weapons act as a very good deterrent to future aggression.
I'll drop the point about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's a non-starter. I still think that to say we've been "very good stewards" of our nuclear arsenal isn't a WRONG point to make. It's just that if we've been good by only using them twice, it could be argued that literally EVERY OTHER nuclear power has been better by never using them at all. It just poses some logical problems. But again. It's not worth going round and round over.
As for nuke possession leading to peace: The problem is that this is the motivator for every state that currently wants nukes to get nukes. Because of the negotiating power that this deterrent gives them.
I think the intent of this whole move is to try to disincentivize the quest for nuclear weapons by suggesting that they aren't necessary to prevent a nuclear attack.
Nuclear weapons are a great deterrent in dyadic, "enduring rivals" situations, in which two countries have a sense of mutually assured destruction. You can take us out, but it will mean the end of you. And we can take YOU out, but it will mean the end of us. Therefore, we both seek other means of negotiation.
(However, there are still massive problems in such a situation, like proxy wars, competition in respective spheres of influence, and, as the Cuban Missile Crisis showed, the threat that the weapons may actually get USED.)
The problem is, we don't live in that world anymore. There's some deterrent power in nukes, but they're unwieldy for the type of wars we're fighting. We need a scalpel. Nuclear weapons are a wrecking ball. Different tools, altogether.
If we can reduce stockpiles and SECURE NUCLEAR MATERIAL so that some third party doesn't grab it and nuke St Louis or Liverpool or Tel Aviv, we should most definitely do it.
No. I wouldn't expect you to do it. I would do it. I don't play poker. I would expect you to turn him in if you knew where he was. As far as the Muslim world goes, I have no respect for their barbaric world. However, they are justified in condemning this generation. I have more respect for them than I do for you.
I'm not even 100% sure what this post means, and I'm not sure why you're personally attacking me.
I don't want to keep going around and around on this, but I think that it needs to be said if only to underscore exactly why the "simple solutions" offered by armchair generals are without merit.
There are a billion Muslims on the planet. There's not a monolithic "them". If you ransom the holy land, and the most extremist, backwards Muslims on the planet are the only ones who could actually tell you exactly where Bin Ladin is, and they don't budge because they don't think you'll do it (which is very likely), you've gained nothing. If you DO follow through, then we'd see a degree of retaliation the likes of which have never been seen. Furthermore, our allies (like the UK, whose police work has been invaluable thusfar) would probably have a hard time continuing to support our policies. It would be absolute chaos.
The BEST CASE SCENARIO would be that someone handed Bin Ladin over, but we'd STILL manage to **** off so many formerly peaceful Muslims that we'd have a new Bin Ladin pop up overnight.
What would Catholics do if someone ransomed the Vatican? And that's not even a "holy place", biblically. If, say, China or India blew up the Vatican, or even threatened to, how quickly would Catholics mobilize?
So, once again, it's fine for tough-talk, but it's a lose-lose.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
