It's All Our Fault

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vern humphrey:
Why would we go to all the expense of making them if we never intended to use them?
Click to expand...
Strategy was based on the threat of using them and the knowledge that there was no way the enemy could disable all of the missles in our arsenal because of the triad of sources. ie. bombers, silos, and subs.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
No, we’ve been makeing only cleaner ones for decades, and we’ve either dismantled or destroyed older ones. They cost more but there is no point in making the area and surrounding areas un-usable for decades. It is mostly because of the close proximity of countries in Europe and the realization that certain elements will just become polluters.
Click to expand...
Oh lovely …a “nicer and cleaner” way to kill mass amounts of people.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
Strategy was based on the threat of using them and the knowledge that there was no way the enemy could disable all of the missles in our arsenal because of the triad of sources. ie. bombers, silos, and subs.
Click to expand...
True.

But as I have said before, the nuclear paradox is that you prevent the use of nuclear weapons by being prepared to use them. These are the ones we are prepared to use.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
Strategy was based on the threat of using them and the knowledge that there was no way the enemy could disable all of the missles in our arsenal because of the triad of sources. ie. bombers, silos, and subs.
Click to expand...
Ah, the “threat” of using them…so there is nothing or anybody saying that we would use these “cleaner” nukes … is just a “threat”?
 
40.png
Karin:
Ah, the “threat” of using them…so there is nothing or anybody saying that we would use these “cleaner” nukes … is just a “threat”?
Click to expand...
Ah, it’s a little more involved than that. For example, I can be trained to kill a potential stalker. But unless I am prepared to kill a potential stalker, I will continue to be vulnerable to stalking. It’s just one of those things. Knowing ones capabilities gives one restraint to the extent of not even showing up for challenge.
 
40.png
Karin:
Ah, the “threat” of using them…so there is nothing or anybody saying that we would use these “cleaner” nukes … is just a “threat”?
Click to expand...
We don’t have the older, cheaper types. We haven’t had them in a long time.
 
vern humphrey:
Not really – I was once the victim of an attempted mugging when I had less than $12 in my wallet.

And many a woman has been raped while wearing very modest clothing.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that doesn’t happen. I did say that if you had been waving around several hundred dollars in your hand in public, and if a woman was wearing extremely provocative clothing, it would be more likely that you and she’d be victims and would have contributed to their victimization.
 
40.png
CatholicNewby:
The victims, as you have described them, did not provoke anything. Provocation would require a much more active role by the victim.
Click to expand...
A man waving a roll of money in public in a dangerous part of a town and a woman wearing extremely immodest and provocative clothing didn’t provoke anything? Utter nonsense!
 
40.png
thestickman:
Why would we vaporize the cities of our ally, Israel?
Click to expand...
Why not?

If Wolseley, supposedly a Catholic, considered it no problem to promote the use any number of nuclear weapons to kill terrorists and the millions of innocent people in those cities, why not use the bombs any place there might be terrorists, never mind the toll in innocent human lives?
 
40.png
Richardols:
Why not?

If Wolseley, supposedly a Catholic, considered it no problem to promote the use any number of nuclear weapons to kill terrorists and the millions of innocent people in those cities, why not use the bombs any place there might be terrorists, never mind the toll in innocent human lives?
Click to expand...
Oh, I wasn’t advocating the use of nuclear weapons to kill terrorists and millions of innocent people.

I was advocating the use of nuclear weapons to bait the liberals and display the fallacy of their inclusivist/diversity/multiculturalist/tolerance/“respect for everyone’s viewpoint” balderdash. 😉
 
So I guess the answer is to give in to the terrorists and eleminate our form of government and put the mulahs in charge and burn the constitution.

And while we are at it we can start putting the crime victims in jail because if it wasn’t for them there would be no crime.
 
40.png
Wolseley:
Oh, I wasn’t advocating the use of nuclear weapons to kill terrorists and millions of innocent people.

I was advocating the use of nuclear weapons to bait the liberals and display the fallacy of their inclusivist/diversity/multiculturalist/tolerance/“respect for everyone’s viewpoint” balderdash.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. It’s balderdash for a liberal like myself to take offense at the notion of incinerating millions of innocents in pursuit of a few thousand terrorists.

I didn’t realize that conservatives have no respect for the viewpoints of others.

No, I take that back. I already know that you folks don’t respect cultural diversity, tolerance and respect for others. I do, however, appreciate that you personally are honest enough to admit it.
 
40.png
Richardols:
No, I take that back. I already know that you folks don’t respect cultural diversity, tolerance and respect for others. I do, however, appreciate that you personally are honest enough to admit it.
Click to expand...
http://home.houston.rr.com/mchance3/rolleyes.gif

That’s funny. You’re berating others for a lack of honesty? You, who have repeatedly denied the fact that the Democratic Party supports abortion-on-demand and experimentation of embyronic humans.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mlchance:
You, who have repeatedly denied the fact that the Democratic Party supports abortion-on-demand and experimentation of embyronic humans.
Click to expand...
Find where I have repeatedly denied that.

As to “lack of honesty,” be careful when you point a finger. There are three fingers pointing back at you.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Find where I have repeatedly denied that.
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=815579&postcount=51
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=815630&postcount=53
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=793919&postcount=3
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=793955&postcount=5

I could probably dig up more given time, but four in a row certainly fits the definition of “repeatedly.” Of course, given your tendency to argue that abortion isn’t the same thing as killing children in utero and that the Democratic Party platform doesn’t support abortion-on-demand despite very clear statements to contrary, I imagine you’ll disagree.
40.png
Richardols:
As to “lack of honesty,” be careful when you point a finger. There are three fingers pointing back at you.
Click to expand...
http://home.houston.rr.com/mchance3/rolleyes.gif

– Mark L. Chance.
 
mlchance said:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=815579&postcount=51
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=815630&postcount=53
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=793919&postcount=3
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=793955&postcount=5

I could probably dig up more given time, but four in a row certainly fits the definition of “repeatedly.” Of course, given your tendency to argue that abortion isn’t the same thing as killing children in utero and that the Democratic Party platform doesn’t support abortion-on-demand despite very clear statements to contrary, I imagine you’ll disagree.

http://home.houston.rr.com/mchance3/rolleyes.gif

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...

😃
Yep yep and yep again!
 
40.png
mlchance:
Of course, given your tendency to argue that abortion isn’t the same thing as killing children in utero
Click to expand...
No, I said that the Democratic Party doesn’t support “killing children in utero.” As an attorney, I try to be precise about what I say, and nowhere does the Party support “killing children in utero.”
the Democratic Party platform doesn’t support abortion-on-demand despite very clear statements to contrary
Click to expand...
Oh, but the Party platform does support abortion-on-demand. Find a post of mine where I ever denied that.

And not all Democrats support that, to be sure. I belong to Democrats for Life and there are more than a few of us and more than a few Democratic politicians who are also anti-abortion.

I can’t help it if you conservatives are so sloppy and emotional in your use of the English language.
 
During an abortion a baby is killed in utero. The Democrat Party supports a women’s right to chose to do this. Hence the Democrat Party does support the killing of a baby in utero.

Looks like a correct use of English to me:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top