So you're against all peace treaties?
yes that is obviously what i meant. fuck peace.
So you're against all peace treaties?
But they don't. They know you won't. I'm not talking about threats in a relatively similar weight class to the US (major nuclear nations like China and Russia) because that's where the deterrent actually does work. I'm talking about people like Iran, North Korea, or stateless organisations. They know the US will not - ever* - launch a nuclear attack unless it's part of a nuclear nukefest nukeoff with a major nukenemy.
Think it through. If it's via one of those lesser idiot states or a terrorist organisation, I can't even see the US responding in kind if a whole city and a couple of million people are lost. Not responding in kind wins not just every humanitarian argument, but every strategic argument too. Fox News and the raving mad end of the right wing would detest anything but a response in kind, but after the initial understandable fury and bloodthirst, the majority of the US would come around to seeing that too. There's just no way it would happen*. (Whispering) And other people know this too.
The deterrent doesn't exist in strategy because it doesn't actually exist in reality, so it's an easy win to just delete a paragraph or two.
* Palin Pending
it's not a mistake to practice it... it's a mistake to say it.
the idea that we could use them is the best deterant we have going for us. even clinton agreed with that one.
i don't think we should actually go around nuking people... i just want our enemies to think that we might.
save your "fox news" rhetoric for someone else. the last thing i am is a right wing hawkish "bloodthirsty" republican.
what, as if russia and china aren't potential future enemies of the united states? you honestly couldn't see a scenario in which one (or both) of these two nations came into conflict with the united states? especially in this time of dwindling resources?
Well, the United States did not believe nation building would be worth it in Afgahnistan ...
While the Karzai government is far from perfect, its not clear that a better alternative(Afghan leader or political group) has emerged. Leaving Afghanistan because the US and NATO has an imperfect partner certainly will not solve the problems or the threat that is posed by a chaotic and unstable Afghanistan. Those problems would only get worse.
While the Karzai government is far from perfect, its not clear that a better alternative(Afghan leader or political group) has emerged. Leaving Afghanistan because the US and NATO has an imperfect partner certainly will not solve the problems or the threat that is posed by a chaotic and unstable Afghanistan. Those problems would only get worse.
yes that is obviously what i meant. fuck peace.
But they don't. They know you won't. I'm not talking about threats in a relatively similar weight class to the US (major nuclear nations like China and Russia) because that's where the deterrent actually does work. I'm talking about people like Iran, North Korea, or stateless organisations. They know the US will not - ever* - launch a nuclear attack unless it's part of a nuclear nukefest nukeoff with a major nukenemy.
Think it through. If it's via one of those lesser idiot states or a terrorist organisation, I can't even see the US responding in kind if a whole city and a couple of million people are lost. Not responding in kind wins not just every humanitarian argument, but every strategic argument too. Fox News and the raving mad end of the right wing would detest anything but a response in kind, but after the initial understandable fury and bloodthirst, the majority of the US would come around to seeing that too. There's just no way it would happen*. (Whispering) And other people know this too.
The deterrent doesn't exist in strategy because it doesn't actually exist in reality, so it's an easy win to just delete a paragraph or two.
Afghanistan??
How will the ramp up of troops go with these developements??
Around the Web: Kyrgyzstan and the U.S. effort in Afghanistan – Afghanistan Crossroads - CNN.com Blogs
Protests topple Kyrgyzstan's president, opposition claims - CNN.com
I would hardly call that a clash.
taking into account that the room was filled with people that paid a pretty penny to be inside, so they were all supposed supporters
this did get a lot of air play on local L A stations here.
I am trying to understand where he lost control of this. I think it was during the campaign, did he say he would end it in his first year?
Like Guantanamo?
the question is, how large is this group of 'true believers'?
yes we had a slew of the ANSWER protesters outside the event going on about that and the Iraq War,
bringing up campaign promises verses his actions while in office, some of these lefties may not show up at the polls again, the question is, how large is this group of 'true believers'?
What I mean are all the more liberal supporters that are disappointed that Obama has not moved fast enough on closing GITMO, getting out of Iraq, truely reforming health care, ending DTDA, etc.
They say the 'true believers' (conservatives) caused Bush 1 to lose in 92 because they did not come out to the polls.
They believed he had not stayed true to threir core conservative values.
Speaking of the DADT heckling, Greg Gutfeld from Fox News had a funny piece on that today:
The Daily Gut
"I just wonder...couldn't this heckling be a precursor to violent extremism? And could this agitation toward our President, believed to be based on policy - actually be thinly veiled racism? I mean, the President actually said he agreed with this gay group. And yet they still heckled. Perhaps the members of Get Equal should look in the mirror, and ask themselves why they're so uncomfortable with a black man in the Oval Office."
Do you ever get the feeling that leaders of both sides often meet in some back room to smoke cigars, drink old scotch, and laugh at how easy we are to distract?
Rep. Judy Burges, a Republican from Skull Valley
Seriously? It must be the heat..
‘Birther’ bill heads to Senate after House approval
By Jim Small azcapitoltimes.com
Published: April 21, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Arizona would require presidential hopefuls to prove their citizenship to the state’s highest elections official if they hope to appear on ballots in the Grand Canyon State under a bill approved April 21 by the House of Representatives.
The bill, S1024, narrowly passed 31-29, receiving the minimum number of votes required for approval. It was amended to include the so-called “birther” language on April 19.