Obama Plans to Take Off America's Pants

Just a reminder....

Going forward, Please focus further responses on the Actual topic of discussion and Not fellow member's character and/or person.

Thank You.

» US Political Madness » Obama Plans to Take Off America's Pants » Post Reply

reply to post by zenser


Let's try again...

What are your answers to my questions...

reply to post by zenser


It never fails to amaze me how some posters mistake ATS for some sort of anger management replacement. ( Anger Treatment Site)

Seems to me this move by Obama clearly falls in line with SORT.

SORT Treaty

Ducks for cover.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by zenser


You don't care to retype...and you don't care to take the time to read a response from the first page that completely goes against all that you have said.

Please, answer my questions, it will help me sleep better at night.

From a psychological perspective, I like to think of a nuke arsenal as comparing penis size to see who the bigger man is.

So, for instance, Little Kimmie from North Korea wakes up one day feeling oh so ronery. He decides maybe he can make new friends by nuking the USA. So he pulls down his jammies and finds his little midget, infantile, North Korean penis which is a handful of half-assed nukes.

Then Little Kimmie pulls out his collection of Playgirl magazines and looks up the issue with Uncle Sam, and he sees Uncle Sam's giant 8000 large super nuke penis. Then he gets depressed and pulls up his jammies and goes and hides under his covers and prays for God to better endow him.


[edit on 1-3-2010 by Mr Sunchine]

History is like any other cyclic process: until you change how you go about things, the result remains the same. If you step on a rake and the handle hits you in the face, you can't approach that same rake the next day and assume that if you step on it, the handle won't come swinging up again.

Bigger picture here. People like the idea of a saviour, and that is one reason for this criticism of one American policy (take what you can get: about half of what they do is sane, and the rest is nutty). What defines a saviour is that he comes bearing pleasant illusions, and requires no destabilization in our lives; the saviour is external, and doesn't require us to get emotionally, intellectually or physically involved in dismantling the mechanism of the problem (moving that rake into the storage shed). We press a button, or click a vote, and the Saviour arrives, and suddenly our problem goes away.

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine
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.

Yes, because luckily nobody goes to war now.

Nobody (civil nations) will be launching nukes...when we go to war, we use moab's, daisy cutters, etc...we can make really big holes without the radioactive side effect that will end up killing the earth just fine.

World War? we are already in a world war (they just forgot to announce it). World War 3 is not done by bombs, its done by transations. Violent war is outdated...the new hotness is making a country collapse economically.

How is this done? oh, thats simple...lure a country into a unending war, say...make them proclaim war on a military tactic verses a nation (we will fight the people of terror wherever they are)...spend infinate amounts of money on bombing ants from a anthill, and voila...
The war isn't the actual place being bombed, its the bank account funding the war.

America needs to wake up or simply flounder into unsolvable debt...once we go bankrupt, we lose the war...so sure, keep propping up military budgets, keep demanding more and more spent so we can kill all those whom practice terror...then we can declare war on prone position shooting...then perhaps frowns...what will help is if we make more nukes to collect dust also.

incidently, anyone know how to make a space ship caller? I think I want to get picked up now...the people at this party got too drunk and now are acting stupid.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Yes, because luckily nobody goes to war now.

Nobody (civil nations) will be launching nukes...when we go to war, we use moab's, daisy cutters, etc...we can make really big holes without the radioactive side effect that will end up killing the earth just fine.

World War? we are already in a world war (they just forgot to announce it). World War 3 is not done by bombs, its done by transations. Violent war is outdated...the new hotness is making a country collapse economically.

How is this done? oh, thats simple...lure a country into a unending war, say...make them proclaim war on a military tactic verses a nation (we will fight the people of terror wherever they are)...spend infinate amounts of money on bombing ants from a anthill, and voila...
The war isn't the actual place being bombed, its the bank account funding the war.

Once again you are unfortunately misguided. I said prevents another world war meaning a physical war. Also you are wrong about world wars being waged to bankrupt nations. Though I do agree countries to wage "war" financially that still doesn't mean violent war doesn't have a use.

For instance, what mght you do if you find your country bankrupt and unable to buy the resources it needs. You could wage war and take those resources from others.

Did you ever wonder why the USSR didn't do this when they found themselves in financial peril. Well could it be that they realised that they couldn't win that war?

Originally posted by zenser
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

You are to be continually applauded for your little-engine-that-could spirit. Your entire argument for having 2 subs was deconstructed so thoroughly that even you admitted you're wrong. But here you are, still chugging along. Go get 'em tiger!

What is your paranoia coming from? The weapons in question are questionable weapons that have outlived they're strategic usefulness.

The last I knew we had 18 Ohio class SSBN's ready to go.

Each one is the fourth most powerful nuclear punch of any country in the world. Once the go to sea no one can track them....not even us.

They dont need fire orders. Just a lack of the ELF signal sent out everyday is all they need. They are there so that if we are completely annihilated they payback the aggressor in kind.

*RUDE REMARK REMOVED*
[edit on 1-3-2010 by LoneGunMan]

[edit on Mon Mar 1 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Yes, because luckily nobody goes to war now.

Nobody (civil nations) will be launching nukes...when we go to war, we use moab's, daisy cutters, etc...we can make really big holes without the radioactive side effect that will end up killing the earth just fine.

World War? we are already in a world war (they just forgot to announce it). World War 3 is not done by bombs, its done by transations. Violent war is outdated...the new hotness is making a country collapse economically.

How is this done? oh, thats simple...lure a country into a unending war, say...make them proclaim war on a military tactic verses a nation (we will fight the people of terror wherever they are)...spend infinate amounts of money on bombing ants from a anthill, and voila...
The war isn't the actual place being bombed, its the bank account funding the war.

Once again you are unfortunately misguided. I said prevents another world war meaning a physical war. Also you are wrong about world wars being waged to bankrupt nations. Though I do agree countries to wage "war" financially that still doesn't mean violent war doesn't have a use.

For instance, what mght you do if you find your country bankrupt and unable to buy the resources it needs. You could wage war and take those resources from others.

Did you ever wonder why the USSR didn't do this when they found themselves in financial peril. Well could it be that they realised that they couldn't win that war?

You people are all out of your minds. Wars are simply countries expending all their industrial production building things that they will then destroy, and use to destroy others' industrial production. Destroying others laborers impacts production as well, which is the collateral to pay off the banksters loans. Why do you think they call it "collateral damage? It is all a scam run by the banksters to dominate the economies of the world. Wasting all one's energy to build explosives, then blowing them up, then "borrowing" lots of money to build more explosives, on and on, is completely idiotic. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain, ergo, not too many people can discern it.

Just the submarines we have are unstoppable and have enough firepower to eradicate all life on Earth hundreds of times over. All the land based missiles simply bump that up to thousands of times over. What would be the point of that? Even the banksters would lose, so that will NEVER happen. And the mere threat of the subs is enough to keep any crazies with nukes from thinking they will get anything but destruction in return for an attack. Building all these BIG explosives that will NEVER be blown up, just chaps the asses of the banksters, they are not getting the return out of them that they want, whereas conventional explosives can be blown up all the time, necessitating replacement. These parasites, indeed vampires, like that much better. It increases their bottom line far more.

Those of you who think foreigners would attack us immediately if we didn't have the biggest military by far, are similarly deluded. Would you sign up to invade China immediately if they announced that they are disbanding their army? If so, you are a complete and utter psychopath. Maybe you should run for office. No one would invade anyone else, when economic destruction can ruin any country far worse than any invasion could. This will not happen either because the banksters don't want to destroy their bottom lines. The biggest military in the world cannot even take over a rinky dink country the size of one state. Why not? The banksters don't want anyone to win, they just want perpetual war. How do you figure any other country could invade the US in any way, and take over in any realistic way?

Wait, I know, you can invade them through immigration, and slowly destroy them from the inside. Hmmm, but that's another whole subject.

Nukes kill EVERYONE indiscriminately. This is like grabbing someone and holding a grenade between you and thinking you are going to win somehow. The banksters don't want that, it would crush their bottom lines.

reply to post by CaptChaos


Thank you CaptChaos! It took 5 pages for someone with true intelligence to state what all the nuclear powers of the world have known for decades- any major exchange of nuclear weapons would end most, if not all, human life on Earth. To bicker endlessly about who has more is irrelevant.

Star for you, friend!

[edit on 1-3-2010 by Quantum Logic]

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
reply to post by zenser

 

>snip

Originally posted by zenser
reply to post by tigpoppa

 

Why do you hate human life?

After seeing the destruction and torturous aftermath of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs dropped by your very own US Government, you still disagree with lowering the amount of nukes held in your country?

I think the question actually becomes "Why do YOU hate human life?"

so...we NEED 10,000's of nukes ....for what?

It only takes 1....

It would be interesting to learn the origins of the general US mind-set

Here in Australia, we have a relatively miniscule population

We have a massive coastline and don't even bother trying to claim we can patrol it effectively

We have Indonesia and the Phillipines directly above our heads

Then add India and Pakistan

Not to mention China and Russia at the back of those

We've sent our people to war against nations who've never done a thing to harm us, simply in order we can be seen to be supporting the US (and in the past, we did the same anytime the UK got in an argument)

We have Papua New Guinea a stone's throw away and they're not too happy with us either, thanks to greedy, destructive multinational mining corporations. No one would want to mess with the Papua New Guineans and Solomon Islanders, by the way -- they settle disputes with axes and head-lopping still goes on quite casually in the Highlands

We have half a dozen cities, widely dispersed around this massive continent

We don't have much of a defence force

We have the US bases all over the place and typically, the US tells even our Prime Ministers, in effect, ' US bases are non of your business'

Yet you don't find Aussies insisting we have nukes. Aussies don't regard the entire world with suspicion and distrust. We could be invaded and taken over in literally half an hour or less, here in Oz. All it would require would be to seize control of water, electricity and communications

In Oz, we live with these realities on daily basis but we don't let them make us paranoid and we don't suffer that 'isolationist' mentality, even though we ARE isolated

So, would be interesting to learn why Americans seem to harbour an isolationist-paranoia which leads them to fear and distrust just about everyone

Originally posted by Dock9


Yet you don't find Aussies insisting we have nukes. Aussies don't regard the entire world with suspicion and distrust. We could be invaded and taken over in literally half an hour or less, here in Oz. All it would require would be to seize control of water, electricity and communications

In Oz, we live with these realities on daily basis but we don't let them make us paranoid and we don't suffer that 'isolationist' mentality, even though we ARE isolated

In fact many Aussies would probably hand out beers to an invading army - as long as they promised to get rid of our ridiculous Big Brother government and handed Mr Kevin - Decisive Action Man his marching orders....

So wait... Obama hates human life because he is destroying some of our old nukes?
Wow... i guess its a case of "damned if you do, damned if you dont". Most people actually think this is a good thing by the way.

And why would we be forced to change our protocol for launching nukes? Its not like we will only have 2 or 3 left... we will have THOUSANDS left.



[edit on 2-3-2010 by alien]

Originally posted by tigpoppa
reply to post by zenser

 

um this is just common sense fixed locations are idiotic and each missle costs a billion to maintain a year. Besides fixed locations are obsolete sicne we have nuclear attack subs. its about time we get rid of those relics.

THE BIG QUESTION is what are they going to do with the material? whatever happened to that mountain we were going to put it in? we should just dump it all in third world countries and tell them its gold or something rare and valuable. Then we get to eliminate an inferior culture and dump our waste.

its a WIN-WIN!

AHAHAAHH I REALLY LIKE WHAT YOU SAYING BUT WERE ALL ABOUT PEACE AND KEEPING PEOPLE WHO DONT HAVE A PENNY OR A POT TO PISS AND KEEP ON HAVING BABIES TO JUST TAKE UP SPACE THAT CAN BE TURNED INTO JOBS OR SOMETHING THIS WORLD IS MESSED UP THINGS NEED TO CHANGE SOMEHOW AND THIS DOESINT LOOK LIKE ITS GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION