ISIS Takes Control of Mosul

#1,903
#1,903
SergeantVol said:
Never said we never do wrong. However, your post history indicates that we always do wrong and always mess up everything we touch. I am not an apologist like you nor do I put other countries up on a pedastool. When you post nothing but questionable articles from organizations that are borderline propaganda outlets that promote conspiracy theories, you will get labeled as a conspiracy theorist. Hence the tinfoil hat. I call it like I see it.
Click to expand...

That's fair! I call it like I see it too. If you wanna call people out for posting alternative news that's your prerogative, just don't get upset when you're labelled a Richard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,905
#1,905
Pacer92 said:
That's fair! I call it like I see it too. If you wanna call people out for posting alternative news that's your prerogative, just don't get upset when you're labelled a Richard.
Click to expand...

You went beyond dick and straight to *******.

And for the record, you continued to try to point out the lunacy of your claims in the first post by continuing to point to the same articles instead of just saying "yeah, I got my ass kicked by people who know more than I do."

As I said before, if Infowars gives it a wide berth, you know it's really out there on the fringe.
 
#1,908
#1,908
Grand Vol said:
You went beyond dick and straight to *******.

And for the record, you continued to try to point out the lunacy of your claims in the first post by continuing to point to the same articles instead of just saying "yeah, I got my ass kicked by people who know more than I do."

As I said before, if Infowars gives it a wide berth, you know it's really out there on the fringe.
Click to expand...

Speaking of Richards...

I posted two links that proposed the possibility they were nuclear and I got attacked. Never claimed to be an expert on it. Think I even asked for opinions...
 
#1,909
#1,909
Pacer92 said:
I got attacked.
Click to expand...

tumblr_lqvr4cREUS1qhwxm8.gif


Nobody attacked you. You really brought it on yourself by continually trying to justify your original position by posting a ridiculous link instead of letting the matter drop.

And both SV and York tried to help you by giving you good information from their time in the military. You tossed it in their face and went straight to dick mode with SV. So if you're feeling "attacked" perhaps you should have left well enough alone to begin with.
 
#1,910
#1,910
Pacer92 said:
Speaking of Richards...

I posted two links that proposed the possibility they were nuclear and I got attacked. Never claimed to be an expert on it. Think I even asked for opinions...
Click to expand...

In my opinion these are a couple of things we should consider:
1. In the age of Wikileaks and Ed Snowden wouldn't something like an actual nuclear weapon being used be extremely difficult to keep secret?
2. Look at the 5 official Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) under the NPT (US, Russia, UK, France and China) as well as the 4 not part of the NPT who have tested or are suspected to have nuclear weapons (India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel). Which of these nations would allow the use of even a small yield weapon in a regional conflict without severe consequences? Sure, the US might turn a blind eye if Israel used one (but probably not under the current administration), but Russia and France wouldn't, nor would Pakistan. If we used one, everyone on the list would be screaming. Remember each one of these nations has space and earth-based sensors specifically focused on detecting any sort of nuclear event, so we would know in short order and be prepared to respond in kind.
3. What about the International Atomic Energy Agency in the UN? I know the comments in some of the articles claim the IAEA didn't do anything, but believe me, they would be all over something like this.
4. History. There have only been two uses of atomic weapons against people in history. There have been several (perhaps dozens) of uses of chemical weapons in recent history, but nothing beyond that. This would be a very big development in the history of mankind. Would someone really use it in a small capacity as what was shown in those videos? This would be an historic game changing event that a State would only use in the most dire circumstances. Anyone using such a weapon would immediately risk annihilation from any or all of the treaty members. Israel using one would immediately confirm their most closely guarded State secret; no one outside of Israel and top level US officials knows for sure if they even have a nuclear arsenal as they've never done any testing and never disclosed the existence of any weapons. Would they give up this secret to damage a hill in Yemen? And risk their very existence as a result?
5. Finally, if there were nuclear materials involved, and none of the reactionary stuff above occurred, that would mean it would have had to have been done by someone outside of the known or suspected group, i.e. a new nuclear power or a nuclear armed terrorist group. Now, in 2003 we invaded Iraq on the suspicion they were rebuilding their nuclear research program and were close to having a weapon. This would be a confirmation of someone actually having one and it would be very hard for us not to be doing a wholesale invasion of Yemen right now. Even if the POTUS didn't want to go, every Congressman with an R behind his or her name would be screaming at him to invade.

My nickle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,911
#1,911
YorkVol said:
4. History. There have only been two uses of atomic weapons against people in history.
Click to expand...

Apparently you haven't seen the moonbats complaining about the DU used in Desert Storm and OIF/OEF.

"The US is using nuclear weapons!"
 
#1,912
#1,912
YorkVol said:
In my opinion these are a couple of things we should consider:
1. In the age of Wikileaks and Ed Snowden wouldn't something like an actual nuclear weapon being used be extremely difficult to keep secret?
2. Look at the 5 official Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) under the NPT (US, Russia, UK, France and China) as well as the 4 not part of the NPT who have tested or are suspected to have nuclear weapons (India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel). Which of these nations would allow the use of even a small yield weapon in a regional conflict without severe consequences? Sure, the US might turn a blind eye if Israel used one (but probably not under the current administration), but Russia and France wouldn't, nor would Pakistan. If we used one, everyone on the list would be screaming. Remember each one of these nations has space and earth-based sensors specifically focused on detecting any sort of nuclear event, so we would know in short order and be prepared to respond in kind.
3. What about the International Atomic Energy Agency in the UN? I know the comments in some of the articles claim the IAEA didn't do anything, but believe me, they would be all over something like this.
4. History. There have only been two uses of atomic weapons against people in history. There have been several (perhaps dozens) of uses of chemical weapons in recent history, but nothing beyond that. This would be a very big development in the history of mankind. Would someone really use it in a small capacity as what was shown in those videos? This would be an historic game changing event that a State would only use in the most dire circumstances. Anyone using such a weapon would immediately risk annihilation from any or all of the treaty members. Israel using one would immediately confirm their most closely guarded State secret; no one outside of Israel and top level US officials knows for sure if they even have a nuclear arsenal as they've never done any testing and never disclosed the existence of any weapons. Would they give up this secret to damage a hill in Yemen? And risk their very existence as a result?
5. Finally, if there were nuclear materials involved, and none of the reactionary stuff above occurred, that would mean it would have had to have been done by someone outside of the known or suspected group, i.e. a new nuclear power or a nuclear armed terrorist group. Now, in 2003 we invaded Iraq on the suspicion they were rebuilding their nuclear research program and were close to having a weapon. This would be a confirmation of someone actually having one and it would be very hard for us not to be doing a wholesale invasion of Yemen right now. Even if the POTUS didn't want to go, every Congressman with an R behind his or her name would be screaming at him to invade.

My nickle.
Click to expand...

Solid. I didn't know that Israel had never publicly tested a nuclear weapon.

By the way my pappaw. Was stationed in the Phillipines during the Korean War and was a master sergeant in charge of loading munitions on planes including nuclear weapons. He was exposed to radiation and hospitalized twice due to others breaking protocol in the care of those weapons. On 2 different occasions our pilots left the Phillipines loaded with nuclear weapons bound for China and were called back mid flight. This was not a training exercize. Those were frequent and involved the pilots being called up quickly...planes loaded and a high speed pass down the runway as if they were going to take off...then a quick turn around and back to the hangar.
These 2 instances were different. Our fighter bomber and bomber left the airfield and were en route to strike mainland China before being called off mid flight. We were inches from ww3.
 
#1,913
#1,913
YorkVol said:
In my opinion these are a couple of things we should consider:
1. In the age of Wikileaks and Ed Snowden wouldn't something like an actual nuclear weapon being used be extremely difficult to keep secret?
2. Look at the 5 official Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) under the NPT (US, Russia, UK, France and China) as well as the 4 not part of the NPT who have tested or are suspected to have nuclear weapons (India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel). Which of these nations would allow the use of even a small yield weapon in a regional conflict without severe consequences? Sure, the US might turn a blind eye if Israel used one (but probably not under the current administration), but Russia and France wouldn't, nor would Pakistan. If we used one, everyone on the list would be screaming. Remember each one of these nations has space and earth-based sensors specifically focused on detecting any sort of nuclear event, so we would know in short order and be prepared to respond in kind.
3. What about the International Atomic Energy Agency in the UN? I know the comments in some of the articles claim the IAEA didn't do anything, but believe me, they would be all over something like this.
4. History. There have only been two uses of atomic weapons against people in history. There have been several (perhaps dozens) of uses of chemical weapons in recent history, but nothing beyond that. This would be a very big development in the history of mankind. Would someone really use it in a small capacity as what was shown in those videos? This would be an historic game changing event that a State would only use in the most dire circumstances. Anyone using such a weapon would immediately risk annihilation from any or all of the treaty members. Israel using one would immediately confirm their most closely guarded State secret; no one outside of Israel and top level US officials knows for sure if they even have a nuclear arsenal as they've never done any testing and never disclosed the existence of any weapons. Would they give up this secret to damage a hill in Yemen? And risk their very existence as a result?
5. Finally, if there were nuclear materials involved, and none of the reactionary stuff above occurred, that would mean it would have had to have been done by someone outside of the known or suspected group, i.e. a new nuclear power or a nuclear armed terrorist group. Now, in 2003 we invaded Iraq on the suspicion they were rebuilding their nuclear research program and were close to having a weapon. This would be a confirmation of someone actually having one and it would be very hard for us not to be doing a wholesale invasion of Yemen right now. Even if the POTUS didn't want to go, every Congressman with an R behind his or her name would be screaming at him to invade.

My nickle.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input. :hi:
 
#1,918
#1,918
right so us pretty much refusing to work with the iraqi government (and vise versa) drove those tribes who also hate the iraqi government into ISIS's hands? and never said ISIS is alone; i had tried explaining the world wide support for these crazies but you won't listen.
 
#1,920
#1,920
orangeluvr said:
You and most Americans miss the point, the invasion destabilized the ME . Talk about unintended consequences…..whew! :idea: But of course BO is to blame for everything in the red states. :jpshakehead::jpshakehead:
Click to expand...

The middle east was unstable long before Bush came along...
 

Attachments

  • dick-bite-o.gif
    dick-bite-o.gif
    2.7 MB · Views: 82
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,921
#1,921
orangeluvr said:
You and most Americans miss the point, the invasion destabilized the ME . Talk about unintended consequences…..whew! :idea: But of course BO is to blame for everything in the red states. :jpshakehead::jpshakehead:
Click to expand...

And what has your favorite Nobel Peace Prize Laureate done to make the situation in the ME better? Unrestricted drone warfare? Gun running through Libya? The rise of IS?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,922
#1,922
FLVOL69 said:
The middle east was unstable long before Bush came along...
Click to expand...

The repubs have never been or never will be for the MC. The income threshold to be considered MC is $100k which most likely eliminates most of us who post in this forum.
Guess that makes us a part of mitt's 47%, unless you have an elevator in your garage. :question:
 
#1,923
#1,923
orangeluvr said:
The repubs have never been or never will be for the MC. The income threshold to be considered MC is $100k which most likely eliminates most of us who post in this forum.
Guess that makes us a part of mitt's 47%, unless you have an elevator in your garage. :question:
Click to expand...

where? There are many places in the US where 35-60K/year will give a solid middle class lifestyle. All it takes is financial discipline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top