Live Chat & Podcast at 1:00PM Eastern on Sunday!
There's no such thing as a stupid question, but they're the easiest to answer.
JoinTour
Login
Search
Civilized Debate
Tag Cloud
access acer asus bios bsod computer crash desktop dns driver drivers error ethernet excel freeze gaming graphics hard drive hardware hdmi internet laptop malware memory monitor motherboard network printer problem ram registry repair router slow software sound trojan ubuntu 11.10 uninstall usb video virus vista wifi windows windows 7 windows 7 32 bit windows 7 64 bit windows xp wireless
Search
Search for:
Tech Support Guy Forums > Community > Controversial Topics > Civilized Debate >
Barack Obama

 
Thread Tools
Littlefield's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 12,613 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
02-Aug-2007, 10:29 PM #256
On this one I agree another example where he is naive and spouts off before thinking things through just to try and one up Hillary.
trekguy's Avatar
Senior Member with 1,943 posts.
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Minnesota
03-Aug-2007, 06:14 AM #257
Quote:
Originally Posted by LANMaster
In single sentence, Obama would flush trillions of dollars the US has spent on our nuke arsenal down the toilet.
In addition, he takes an important bargaining chip off the table, and therebyweakens the US negotiating hand worldwide.

Thank God he's not our President.


Idiot.





Obama: No Nukes, Ever
Obama says use of nuclear weapons to fight al-Qaida ‘not on the table’.




Oops.








Stupid Liberals.
Nuclear weapons have never been a "bargaining chip". When we had 'em, and nobody else did... we were the big power on the earth. No need to bargain, we had the power. Now, everybody has 'em, and everybody also realizes that if used, we all die anyway... so they have essentially become worthless. Wasted money... empty threats.

I believe that's Obama's point... everybody knows that realisticallly, we can't use them... so why keep up the fake posturing??

Obama '08
__________________
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. ~Mohandas Gandhi
Littlefield's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 12,613 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
03-Aug-2007, 07:39 AM #258
You can say you are as smart as Obama if you think our nukes are worthless

Last edited by Littlefield; 03-Aug-2007 at 07:47 AM..
LANMaster's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 55,833 posts.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
03-Aug-2007, 11:02 AM #259
Quote:
Originally Posted by trekguy
Nuclear weapons have never been a "bargaining chip". When we had 'em, and nobody else did... we were the big power on the earth. No need to bargain, we had the power. Now, everybody has 'em, and everybody also realizes that if used, we all die anyway... so they have essentially become worthless. Wasted money... empty threats.

I believe that's Obama's point... everybody knows that realisticallly, we can't use them... so why keep up the fake posturing??

Obama '08
You must be younger than I had earlier thought. Early 20's?

You're incorrect on just about every count in your post above.
Our nuclear arsenal has been an extremely effetive bargaining chip for decades. If the US had no nuclear arsenal, USSR would still be the evil empire exporting oppressive communism around the world.
And no, not everybody has them. In fact, very few countries have them in any abundance that might threaten any country's existence.
And no, if used, we all don't die anyway.
The money is only wasted if idiots like Obama take them out of usable inventory by telling potential enemies that they aren't in our arsenal of response anymore.
__________________
i'm a stranger here
LANMaster's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 55,833 posts.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
03-Aug-2007, 11:02 AM #260
LANMaster's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 55,833 posts.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
03-Aug-2007, 04:18 PM #261


Pakistan Criticizes Obama on Comments

Quote:
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.

Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

Another presidential hopeful, Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, also came under criticism Friday by a Pakistani official after saying that the best way to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina.

Tancredo spoke at a town hall meeting in Osceola, Iowa on Tuesday.

In Washington, the State Department disavowed Tancredo's remarks, which some diplomats fear could damage U.S. ties with the Muslim world and hurt efforts to counter Islamist extremism.
More

D'OH!
imrippinit's Avatar
Computer Specs
Account Disabled with 3,348 posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Texas
Experience: Intermediate
03-Aug-2007, 04:31 PM #262
Quote:
Originally Posted by LANMaster


Pakistan Criticizes Obama on Comments



More

D'OH!
Like a bull in a China shop .
Littlefield's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 12,613 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
03-Aug-2007, 05:21 PM #263
Yep when it happens we will do it like a thief in the night with special forces and it will not be announced.
LANMaster's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 55,833 posts.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
03-Aug-2007, 05:36 PM #264
Quote:
Originally Posted by imrippinit
Like a bull in a China shop .
Like a Democrat trying desparately to draw voters away from the Republican base .... and not only failing at that, but losing more of his own base in the process.

What I find interesting is how the reaction is reported in the media as an Obama story, rather than a hint to the intolerance of Lunatics in Pakistan.
Obama is not the president ..... and he never will be, if he keeps cramming both feet into his mouth.

Best thing for Hillary to do is avoid comment on Obama's statement instead of countering. If she counters it is a lose-lose for her.

Gee .... I sure hope she counters.
__________________
i'm a stranger here
SlackAli's Avatar
Account Closed with 3,161 posts.
 
Join Date: May 2005
03-Aug-2007, 05:45 PM #265
LAN, Littlefield: for otherwise reasonably sentient beings, your understanding of nuclear weapons is less than rudimentary.

I'll grant that against states, nuclear weapons are a pretty impressive bargaining tool - although whether it was the US nuclear arsenal that brought about the end of the USSR is another matter - but could you explain how they are any use against what is increasingly an ideology? The US has never understood that it's not so easy to fight war against an abstract noun as it is against a state: which is one of the reasons Iraq has turned from nightmare into catastrophe.
LANMaster's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 55,833 posts.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
03-Aug-2007, 06:18 PM #266
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackAli
LAN, Littlefield: for otherwise reasonably sentient beings, your understanding of nuclear weapons is less than rudimentary.

I'll grant that against states, nuclear weapons are a pretty impressive bargaining tool - although whether it was the US nuclear arsenal that brought about the end of the USSR is another matter
I can make that argument rather easily. The arms race cause the USSR to place a higher emphasis on nuclear arms than on it's Communist infrastructure, thereby ensuring it's collapse.

Quote:
- but could you explain how they are any use against what is increasingly an ideology?
Sure.
Ideologies are increasingly the empitus of Radical Islamic States. (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon .... and I could go on and on)
While Al Qaeda is an ideology, they were based in, and supported by the Taliban who were the leading governance in Afghanistan.
With such a scenario potential that radical Islamic groups operating in some country may attack the USA again, I see a nuclear response as all too potential due to the fact that invading Afghanistan and Iraq have not gone as well as we had hoped. Well, as many had hoped anyway.
If a country were to sponsor an attack on US soil, and it succeeded in killing 10's of thousands of citizens ... or more ... I'd be all in favor of attacking from the air with nukes as opposed to sending in boots on the ground. I wouldn't support nuking civilian areas, but government buildings and terrorist training facilities.
This is not to say that I would send massive nukes. Just enough to get the job done and awaken the world to know that an attack on the US will not go un punished.

Quote:
The US has never understood that it's not so easy to fight war against an abstract noun as it is against a state: which is one of the reasons Iraq has turned from nightmare into catastrophe.
What are you talking about? We didn't attack Iraq over an ideology? We attacked Iraq over an increasingly hostile government. The target was not the least bit ambiguous. We invaded and attacked an army.
__________________
i'm a stranger here
Littlefield's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 12,613 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
03-Aug-2007, 06:37 PM #267
If we had not have had nuclear bombs ,Kennedy would not have been able to do anything about Cuba . Even later Russia might have attacked us. They are a deterrent still and a vital piece of our national defense just as they are crucial to Britain's defense as well.
We have to have both nuclear bombs and a armed force able to mobilize quick too . One thing Rumy did right was to call for modernizing our forces.

Last edited by Littlefield; 03-Aug-2007 at 06:49 PM..
LANMaster's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 55,833 posts.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
03-Aug-2007, 06:49 PM #268
Our nuclear arsenal does not have to be used necessarily to be effective.
The best way to make them ineffective is to promise to take them off of the table.

Obama is an idiot for doing just that.

Please understand that I think it would be terrible if we ever had to resort to using our nuclear arsenal against any nation.

But I am not so naive as to think that they are of no use to have in our arsenal.
Nor am I so stupid that I would want my potential enemies to believe that I do not have the fuzzy orbs enough to use them if appropriate.
__________________
i'm a stranger here
Littlefield's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 12,613 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
03-Aug-2007, 06:55 PM #269
Yep it just shows again that Obama is not ready for Prime Time and IMO will never be the right man to lead the US.
LANMaster's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 55,833 posts.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
03-Aug-2007, 06:57 PM #270
Right now his advisors are pooping themselves.

And Obama's breath smells of fast actin' Tinactin.
 

THIS THREAD HAS EXPIRED.
Are you having the same problem? We have volunteers ready to answer your question, but first you'll have to join for free. Need help getting started? Check out our Welcome Guide.

Search Tech Support Guy

Find the solution to your
computer problem!




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
WELCOME TO TECH SUPPORT GUY! Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question -- for free! Our site is run completely by volunteers who want to help you solve your computer problems. See our Welcome Guide to get started.
Thread Tools



Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter TechGuy.tv TechGuy.tv Mobile TSG Mobile
You Are Using:
Server ID
Advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:47 PM.
Copyright © 1996 - 2011 TechGuy, Inc. All rights reserved.

Powered by Cermak Technologies, Inc.