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
imrippinit's Avatar
Computer Specs
Account Disabled with 3,348 posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Texas
Experience: Intermediate
03-Aug-2007, 07:05 PM #271
Quote:
Originally Posted by LANMaster
Right now his advisors are pooping themselves.

And Obama's breath smells of fast actin' Tinactin.
I would prefer that Obama wait until he is running with Hilary before he starts talking about his foreign policy. At this rate Hilary won't ask him to be on her ticket.
LANMaster's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 55,833 posts.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
03-Aug-2007, 07:09 PM #272
Excellent point. I'm with you all the way on that.

But Hillary is sharp. She knows better than to select Obama as her running mate.

I think she'll surprise everybody and chose Biden.
trekguy's Avatar
Senior Member with 1,943 posts.
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Minnesota
04-Aug-2007, 12:42 AM #273
Quote:
Originally Posted by LANMaster
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.
What does my age have to do with anything?? lol Let's just say I'm old enough to have a discussion without calling people "stupid", and "idiots".

Uh, no...communism collapsed because communism doesn't work... simple as that. We had the first nuclear weapons, that gave us an edge for only a short while. The former USSR wasn't afraid of our nukes... they eventually had more than we did... and they (Russia) still do to this day. So there goes your theory on that point.

OK, so not everybody has them... just the US, the UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea.... most likely Israel... and probably Iran, Saudi Arabia are close as well. That seems to represent most of the planet's area and population, wouldn't you say??

There are more than 40,000 nuclear weapons around the world... if a nuke is launched, there will be retaliation.... an exchange....the explosions, the radiation, the climate change... we may not all die right away, but the ones that do are probably the lucky ones. You had better check on that as well... you see, there are plenty of nuclear weapons around the world. It really wouldn't take too awful many nuclear explosions to mess up this earth.
__________________
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. ~Mohandas Gandhi
trekguy's Avatar
Senior Member with 1,943 posts.
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Minnesota
04-Aug-2007, 12:57 AM #274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littlefield
You can say you are as smart as Obama if you think our nukes are worthless
In a nuclear exchange, everybody loses. So, for all REAL purposes, they are worthless.

And, Obama's a pretty smart guy... if you think I'm as smart as he is.... well, thanks!
Littlefield's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 12,613 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
04-Aug-2007, 04:17 AM #275
If we did not have nuclear weapons we would be in danger and they are vital to our national security . What do you think would happen if Obama went further and said they are worthless . Lets just say he would be sliting his throat ,a move I do not foresee anytime soon

Last edited by Littlefield; 04-Aug-2007 at 05:57 AM..
Sarge's Avatar
Senior Member with 4,832 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: City of the Lost Towers
Experience: getting there
04-Aug-2007, 09:52 AM #276
Quote:
Originally Posted by trekguy
In a nuclear exchange, everybody loses. So, for all REAL purposes, they are worthless.

And, Obama's a pretty smart guy... if you think I'm as smart as he is.... well, thanks!
I agree with the above statement. I also agree that Obamas mouth smells like tough actin' tinactin (even though I beleive I understand why he said it). He knows when he was being totally honest with his first response that people would criticize and he started making a second response, well it was too late for all of that.
BUT do all of you nuclear supporters honestly believe that just because we have nuclear bombs that stops us from being attacked by islamist terrorist (IT)? I say IT because that was the question posed at Obama. What happens when Iran gets its nukes, what then? How will we deal with Syria lets say or even worse, with Iran? Middle East policy will change dramatically Im sure.

So if I may ask this one question..in what situation would any of you be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden?
__________________
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Ben Franklin
SlackAli's Avatar
Account Closed with 3,161 posts.
 
Join Date: May 2005
04-Aug-2007, 12:39 PM #277
Quote:
Originally Posted by LANMaster
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.
I agree that was a factor, even though it took 40 years for the US military industrial complex to grind down its Soviet equivalent. I assumed you were implying the USSR was intimidated by the US arsenal, which was certainly not the case. (although it might be the case now). You also skate over the real desire of Gorbachev and the the other reformers to implement democratic and economic change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LANMaster

Sure.
Ideologies are increasingly the empitus of Radical Islamic States. (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon .... and I could go on and on)

I've got no idea what that sentence means Apart from what 'empitus' means - which had me rushing without satisfaction to Chambers - the hegemonic ideology at present, even though it's fraying at the edges, is the Project for the New American Century. To call Saudi Arabia a 'radical Islamic State', when it is just a run-of-the-mill feudal oligarchy, is daft.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LANMaster
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.
Fine, but that's equating the ideology with the state. Rendering the sub-continent uninhabitable
for a few centuries will destroy the states but not the ideology.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LANMaster



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 was of course talking about the war on terror; if you really believe Iraq was attacked over an increasingly hostile government, full marks for sticking to the party line in the face of all evidence
imrippinit's Avatar
Computer Specs
Account Disabled with 3,348 posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Texas
Experience: Intermediate
04-Aug-2007, 12:43 PM #278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge
So if I may ask this one question..in what situation would any of you be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden?
Tactical destruction of deep caves or hardened bunkers.
Sarge's Avatar
Senior Member with 4,832 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: City of the Lost Towers
Experience: getting there
05-Aug-2007, 12:56 AM #279
Quote:
Originally Posted by imrippinit
Tactical destruction of deep caves or hardened bunkers.
With or without the permission of our allies?
imrippinit's Avatar
Computer Specs
Account Disabled with 3,348 posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Texas
Experience: Intermediate
05-Aug-2007, 09:02 AM #280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge
With or without the permission of our allies?
That question may depend on which "allies" to which you are referring?

Would that be Britain, Japan, Pakistan, or Russia, France, and China?
Sarge's Avatar
Senior Member with 4,832 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: City of the Lost Towers
Experience: getting there
05-Aug-2007, 11:13 AM #281
Quote:
Originally Posted by imrippinit
That question may depend on which "allies" to which you are referring?

Would that be Britain, Japan, Pakistan, or Russia, France, and China?
Maybe you did understand the original question. It is the same question asked to Mr. Obama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge
In what situation would any of you be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden?
The allies I am referring to is Afghanistan and Pakistan. What if they objected to the US using nukes within their borders, then what? Not only that but what about neighboring nations and nuclear fallout? Irans borders are shared with Afghanistan and Pakistan. On the other side India and China share borders with Pakistan. Let me remind you that India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear capabilities. Do you think they will allow or not object to the US using nukes right next door? So with that in mind...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge
In what situation would any of you be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden?
__________________
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Ben Franklin
imrippinit's Avatar
Computer Specs
Account Disabled with 3,348 posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Texas
Experience: Intermediate
05-Aug-2007, 12:38 PM #282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge
Maybe you did understand the original question. It is the same question asked to Mr. Obama.

The allies I am referring to is Afghanistan and Pakistan. What if they objected to the US using nukes within their borders, then what? Not only that but what about neighboring nations and nuclear fallout? Irans borders are shared with Afghanistan and Pakistan. On the other side India and China share borders with Pakistan. Let me remind you that India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear capabilities. Do you think they will allow or not object to the US using nukes right next door? So with that in mind...
I would say that it is very important that the allies of countries where bunker busters were to be used be on board, publicly or privately. Obviously it would be a political hot potato. Deliberations as well as execution would likely need to remain as quiet as possible.

Using bunker busters in countries with governments that aren't allies would be a different situation.
Sarge's Avatar
Senior Member with 4,832 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: City of the Lost Towers
Experience: getting there
05-Aug-2007, 12:58 PM #283
Quote:
Originally Posted by imrippinit
I would say that it is very important that the allies of countries where bunker busters were to be used be on board, publicly or privately. Obviously it would be a political hot potato. Deliberations as well as execution would likely need to remain as quiet as possible.

Using bunker busters in countries with governments that aren't allies would be a different situation.
imrippinit's Avatar
Computer Specs
Account Disabled with 3,348 posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Texas
Experience: Intermediate
05-Aug-2007, 01:08 PM #284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge
Bunker busters do not produce fallout or visible destruction. They are designed to break bunkers underground that would otherwise be impregnable.
Attached Thumbnails
Barack Obama-tsar.gif  
Sarge's Avatar
Senior Member with 4,832 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: City of the Lost Towers
Experience: getting there
05-Aug-2007, 01:22 PM #285
Quote:
Originally Posted by imrippinit
Bunker busters do not produce fallout or visible destruction. They are designed to break bunkers underground that would otherwise be impregnable.
Yes but the original question involved Nuclear weapons. Assuming conventional NW. Im simply posing the same question to TSG members as the one that was asked to Obama. Id like to read some of the responses. So far you are the only one who responded. Where are all of the members with all the "right" answers?
__________________
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Ben Franklin

Last edited by Sarge; 05-Aug-2007 at 02:29 PM..
 

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 09:53 PM.
Copyright © 1996 - 2011 TechGuy, Inc. All rights reserved.

Powered by Cermak Technologies, Inc.