It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Plans to Take Off America's Pants

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1


because your whining about



you're


Originally posted by mnemeth1

I simply


I'm


Originally posted by mnemeth1
pointing out Obama could eliminate


that Obama could


Originally posted by mnemeth1
practically all of our stockpile except for a handful of subs


Most amusingly, however, your definition of what constitutes a "handful" is changing more often than Mitch Obama changes her panties.

(Edited by me to remove an impolite thing I said.)

[edit on 1-3-2010 by zenser]



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
flipping out over nuclear stockpiles going away is simply stupid. Thank god we are getting rid of these disasters in a can. aim for the sun and launch em all I say...right across the world (sun had it coming).

The scary bit....genetic viruses that can do about a millionfold more damage than any nuke can do, and can be contained in a can of spinach.

Dont worry warhawks, there are plenty of ways we can still make ourselves extinct...nukes are outdated and old...get with the program.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by zenser
 


It looks like you have a large amount of experience trolling.

You should spend more time evaluating your arguments instead of flying off the handle over meaningless political topics that ultimately have no impact on American security.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by zenser
 


It looks like you have a large amount of experience trolling.

You should spend more time evaluating your arguments instead of flying off the handle over meaningless political topics that ultimately have no impact on American security.



I'm sorry you feel persons holding opinions other than your own should not be allowed to express themselves. I celebrate the wonderful diversity of this marketplace of ideas. I regret you don't.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by zenser

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by zenser
 


It looks like you have a large amount of experience trolling.

You should spend more time evaluating your arguments instead of flying off the handle over meaningless political topics that ultimately have no impact on American security.



I'm sorry you feel persons holding opinions other than your own should not be allowed to express themselves. I celebrate the wonderful diversity of this marketplace of ideas. I regret you don't.



See, the problem is your opinions directly effect my pocketbook.

The more nukes we have, the more government spending required, the more my pocketbook is looted for pointless causes.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


See you are missing the psychological component. A lot of things related to war are psychological deterents. You are right from the logical standpoint of if we are all dead what does it matter. However, you are wrong in not understanding the psychological deterrent to your enemies if they know even after most of your country is vaporized you are willing to return the favor.


Dude...the cold war is over. the people most likely to launch a nuke now would be those whom *want* the end times....the theocracys that would pray for the full anniliation of the sin of mankind. The few nutcases in power of said places whom believe that their god would protect them from the firey hell and kill their enemys only. We could have the power to blow them up a billion times over, and they would dance in joy the moment one of their nukes went up.

The deterrent would be for everyone to disarm, and those whom dont have the entire world at their door telling them to take it down (and a few percision strikes against their facility)



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
zenser, what the heck are you talking about? Don't pretend you know the protocol of such a situation.

There will be plenty of nukes left to retaliate in the event of a nuclear war. Obama has the right idea, instead of just telling everyone not to have them he is taking steps to decreasing our own.

You and Fox News can rest easy.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


The "Cold War' is most definitely NOT over! Just because the Soviet Union is no longer does not mean Russia or China or the Arab states have given up trying to undermine the US. For what ever reason, the game is still on. For the US to sit back and relax is folly!

Zindo



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProUSA
zenser, what the heck are you talking about? Don't pretend you know the protocol of such a situation.

There will be plenty of nukes left to retaliate in the event of a nuclear war. Obama has the right idea, instead of just telling everyone not to have them he is taking steps to decreasing our own.

You and Fox News can rest easy.


I wouldn't go that far.

Obama is a terrorist menace to the US and is actively undermining US security by engaging in 2 illegal wars and pushing for a third.

He's a criminal, along with the US congress that is actively aiding and abetting his treasonous actions.

I also highly doubt he will cut anything as it pertains to the US nuclear weapons stockpile.

He hasn't cut any spending yet, I doubt he will start doing so now.

We shall see.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


See, the problem is your opinions directly effect my pocketbook.

Yes, then naturally if mnemeth1 feels put-out by the possibility, the discussion should be disallowed. Sorry for my transgressions, oh Lord. Verily you are a beacon of brilliance that lights and ennobles our mere, servile and sycophantic, mortal existence. Woe unto those who disagree with you. They are the worm eaters and dirt grovelers. Let they who would be so bold be crushed under the righteous indignation of the iron heel of mnemeth1! All hail our Lord, mnemeth1!

[edit on 1-3-2010 by zenser]



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 




The deterrent would be for everyone to disarm, and those whom dont have the entire world at their door telling them to take it down (and a few percision strikes against their facility)


This is totally misguided. The greatest deterrent to another world war is large, powerful nations with the ability to nuke the planet back to the stoneage. I guarantee if every country in the world got rid of their nukes that within a few years there would be all out world war. It is kind of ironic, but it is true.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by zenser
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Yes, then naturally if mnemeth1 feels put-out by the possibility, the discussion should be disallowed. Sorry for my transgressions, oh Lord. Verily you are a beacon of brilliance that lights and ennobles our mere, servile and sycophantic, mortal existence. Woe unto those who disagree with you. They are the worm eaters and dirt grovelers. Let they who would be so bold be crushed under the righteous indignation of the iron heel of mnemeth1! All hail our Lord, mnemeth1!


I'm not the one in here demanding money at gun point.

You are.

You think I should pay for excessive nuclear deterrence at the point of a gun.

I feel this is morally wrong and unjustified.

The level of deterrence is what is in question. I think its entirely rational to think a handful of subs could accomplish the US deterrent needs without billions squandered on over-kill.

This reduces the amount of violence enacted against the American people by cutting down the level of taxation forcibly confiscated from them at gun point.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProUSA
zenser, what the heck are you talking about? Don't pretend you know the protocol of such a situation.

There will be plenty of nukes left to retaliate in the event of a nuclear war.


Since you do know the "protocol" [sic], why don't you explain it to us? Why don't you explain the principles of nuclear warfighting to us? We're waiting on pins and needles for this - probably illuminating - monologue. Please generalissimo, do tell us.

ProUSA: "Me ProUSA. Me see movie. Me know about nuke bombs. Figurin' out duh nuclear dawktrin thingy is be easy. We jus need 20 bombs 'n we set. Iz not like its nuclear science or sumthin ... er, oh wait ..."

[edit on 1-3-2010 by zenser]



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by zenser
 


I'm not the one trying to tell everyone what protocols and procedures the highest-ranked government officials of the United States will do in the event of a nuclear threat. Eat your words.

I simply made an observation. You would be a grossly dense person if you did not believe the US would keep enough nukes to obliterate the planet, need be.

EDIT: And now you've completely discredited yourself by attacking my character. Bravo
And, by the way, you don't know who I am or what I know; I could make the same comments about you because I would have the same justification you have for making them about me.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by ProUSA]



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
 




 



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
 




 



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
If you're the USA, you have to face the fact that almost every other nation on earth wants you to fail. You're the big guy. In a tribe of monkeys, everyone tries to beat on the alpha male. It keeps the alpha male strong, and replaces him when necessary. In the meantime, he has to respond with prison ethics: do something to me, and somebody -- it may not even matter -- is gonna pay.

This is what Iraq was about. Instability in the middle east may have facilitated a terrorist attack on us? We're going to go kick some ass, install favorable governments in the region, destabilize the progress of said region toward fundamentalism, and maybe that'll take care of the problem -- if not, it'll make any government think twice about what would happen if we did have solid information about who helped al-Qaeda.

It's why we rely so much on institutions, governments, corporations, charities and God; it's why we scan the shelves for the Next Big Thing in theory, hoping there's an easy answer that can be applied without us having to wake up, engage with reality, and cooperate with each other to fix our problems -- knowing that problems NEVER succumb to pleasant illusions, but require often complex, difficult, involved solutions. That might muss my hair, prevent my next promotion, interrupt my car payments, rock the boat, etc. and so we're against it. Change destabilizes the individual and in democracies, the fears of the individual outweigh the wisdom of the culture as a whole.

While many criticize the Pax Americana, and indeed this member is skeptical of it and any imperial peace, the fact remains that having one big guy on top is more stable than having several people gunning for being the big guy. It may be that we need world government, and not of the moral nature of the UN, but some giant Roman-style empire that is smart enough to leave self-government to its vassal states in exchange for nuclear non-proliferation and yearly tariff. Power, after all, may not be the enemy, but the contest for power might be our doom.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
 




 



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by zenser
 


This post says "If you disagree with me you are wrong"

That is weak debating...would you care to answer the question put forth by me earlier?



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join