You're absolutely wrong; we've set off many nukes before in the deserts of America and the south pacific, not to mention Japan. The projection of strength is all these coach roaches understand.
Holy War plain and simple
- Thread starter drchef61
- Start date
You're absolutely wrong; we've set off many nukes before in the deserts of America and the south pacific, not to mention Japan. The projection of strength is all these coach roaches understand.
Testing a bomb and igniting one in Iraq as a military warning are completely different.
This I'm sure of, if any Senator or Congressman advocated what you guys are, They'd never be taken seriously again. I'm being the adult here.
I don't advocate nuclear weapons at all. It is vitally important that the civilized world put its people on the ground, shed blood, and if need be, sacrifice for the cause. This allows us to understand the depths to which this truly is a battle for the future of civilized man.
I see your point, but I don't want a ground war where we lose thousands more soldiers unless it's absolutely necessary. In fact if we never had to fight another war it'd be a huge leap forward.
There is no honor in going to war. There is honor in doing your duty if war becomes necessary, it's a fine distinction, but an important one IMO.
So, anyone who defends themselves and their society are Nazis? I've heard it all now. Unless you're Jewish and actually lost someone to those bastards you have NO right to talk. Those MFers would throw infants in the air and catch them on their bayonets. They would line people up in single file and shoot the one in front to see how far the bullet would travel (e,g., how many people would die).
You libs are out of control. You have no focking clue what you're talking about. As usual. The people who most closely resemble the Nazis are the focking Mooslims.
I see your point, but I don't want a ground war where we lose thousands more soldiers unless it's absolutely necessary. In fact if we never had to fight another war it'd be a huge leap forward.
There is no honor in going to war. There is honor in doing your duty if war becomes necessary, it's a fine distinction, but an important one IMO.
Learn to read and know what you're reading DA. Have you even gone through the thread for context ?
If so, your comprehension is very low.
I don't believe you did read back, I think you're a lazy, ignorant liar, I really mean that.
Last edited:
I have no problem with eradicating the problem. It is exactly what they wish upon us. Given half a chance, they'd blow us off the face of the earth; and you know it.
Tensions are high. The rhetoric is harsh but innocent. No one is going to drop a bomb.
I can't believe you see things as that simple. I know for sure nobody in a position of responsibility sees it like that, not even Putin would open that Pandora's Box.
What the hell are you referring to ? The conversation was about using nukes on Muslims, how did you plan on ''eradicating the problem'', that you say is Muslims
What the hell are you referring to ? are you drunk ?
It was a quick shot; I was busy. Popped off.
No problem, we can always rub out the Mid-East tomorrow.
Very different. The Jews didn't attack Hitler. The Muslims (in the Middle East) have attacked the West numerous times. Take an approach to what Sherman did to the south if the nuke option offends you. Total war. You make their people and families and farms , etc. hurt beyond their imagination, they'll stop this BS. If they don't hit em again.
Some of you guys must have slept through the past 14 years.
It's like you have no concept of the reality we've lived through or the type of conflict We're dealing with. I wonder if some of you get your thinking from video games.
Last edited:
Insurgents want you to use nuclear weapons, put boots on the ground, conduct bombing raids. If you attack, they accomplish their objectives.
Insurgents use low-tech means to antagonize you into spending money and manpower to counter them. They choose the time and place to act, forcing you into constantly being in a state of military readiness, which is expensive and wearying for governments.
The United States military has faced insurgents for over fifty years and still won't practice the principles of counterinsurgency.
I think what We've done the past 6 or 7 years with targeted strikes and shadow special ops makes far more sense than running convoys of trucks for IEDs to target and open platoons on foot to be targeted by snipers, IEDs and other explosives. If We'd left a large force in Iraq we'd probably have lost thousands more soldiers than we have.
I get the urge to ''do something'' but many of the suggestions today remind me of when we played ''army man'' when I was a kid.
Much better than being the bitch of isis. No quarter for these coward camel shagging cult followers. If they do not die on the battlefield cover them in pigs blood. It is time to go medieval on these bearded cowards.
Some of those making suggestions apparently watched too many Irwin Allen TV shows like Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, where a nuclear missile or ultrasonic weapons solved every crisis.
An adult admits you have to take a gun to a knife fight to assure victory, anything less is a disgrace to the rest of the world. Bomb these POS cowards back to the stone age.
He must be before my time, but I like where you are leading with it.
Sounds like a guy that takes no shit.
They weren't gunning down hundreds of innocents in the West or beheading journalists when our hero volunteers were doing that, but to your point, I would gladly accept special ops. All we are doing now is bombing and training four or five foreign fighters. Obama is running out the clock with just enough to say he's doing something, knowing all the while that the shit sandwich is getting bigger and bigger for his successor.
Yep, he's mostly a good egg, but I wonder if he even knows above ground nuclear test have been banned since 1963, and even underground test have far too many restrictions to just set one off in the Iraqi desert like some have suggested. That is even without the obviously insane provocation and isolating effect it would have on Us. We'd be the outcast and nobody would trust Us.
We also can't raze the Mid-East like later day WT Shermans and expect positive results.
We need to target actual functioning terrorist, hopefully We're about to get more help in that quest.
Go to YouTube and search for "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea The Deadliest Game" You sound like General Hobson.
If the US detonated a nuclear weapon in the Middle East, we would reap the freaking whirlwind. Not even the monkeys would be left to start over.
Of course you do because it's the plan of your guy. Yet, what has it done? Under the Obama/Clinton foreign policy regime the world is more dangerous today than 7 years ago. Our relations around the world is worse today than it was when Obama took office. There is no way he/Hillary cannot shoulder the blame.
That idiot said ISIS was contained literally the day before the Paris attack. He keeps making stupid, inaccurate statements. His redline statement was just the beginning.
I think the targeted drone attacks are a mistake. They don't accomplish anything, and invariably there will be a mistake where civilians are killed. They should be used in concert with concentrated military action to flush out and expose the enemy to GIs in theatre. Make no mistake air power won't win this thing. It's going to take boots on the ground. But, neither Obama nor Hillary can assemble a coalition. They are not respected, and it'll upset their biggest cheerleader - the NY Times.
My point is it took Hiroshima to get Japan to say 'Give'. My
grandad landed on an assault craft on the last island on the way there and he said everyone he landed with were killed. He was the one survivor on his.
He said they were NOT gonna surrender and if it took a bomb to stop the whole
country from dying it was worth it.
His legs were ruined for life from the machine gun bullets he took, but at least he made it home. I'd hate for war to come to our country because we were too weak
to do what we should to protect our own.
grandad landed on an assault craft on the last island on the way there and he said everyone he landed with were killed. He was the one survivor on his.
He said they were NOT gonna surrender and if it took a bomb to stop the whole
country from dying it was worth it.
His legs were ruined for life from the machine gun bullets he took, but at least he made it home. I'd hate for war to come to our country because we were too weak
to do what we should to protect our own.
Next time a lib tells you that Islam is a religion of peace, just respond by reminding them there are over a billion muslims in the world, but they doing nothing to stop these people from perverting their religion. It is clear they have no intention of trying to help solve the problem.
Are you ready to offer up your children to be placed on the front lines of that war? I didn't think so. It's easy to send other people's children to die in a war.
We either send soldiers to fight now or suffer death and destruction in the near future. Your choice is not an option.
And it may be time for you to start a hunger strike. That ought to bring the world together.
I somewhat agree because we didn't handle them correctly. Afghanistan is a problem because that country is still in the 13th century. Probably the best plan for Afghanistan is to install a strongman leader who hates the Islamists.
Iraq was a different issue, but ironically the ISIS and Syria situations present an opportunity to fix multiple issues at once. But, it will take a multi-national effort and it will require other countries to provide the bulk of the troops. The question s whether Obama has the ability to put it together. I seriously doubt it, which is a shame because this actually could be a pivotal point in history.
It's interesting he will insult and goad the Israelis, but he won't do half as much to Muslim countries to rise up against the Islamists. If he doesn't see this opportunity, then he's a lot dumber than the wunderkind all you libs think he is.
What did regional forces do to combat radicals during The Jr years ?
It's a problem, but the truth is We've tried to keep these things from turning into Shia vs Sunni going back well before Obama took office.
Things have changed though, this might be the moment to bring in Saudis, Syrians and others in the region, not to mention Russia, France and G.B.
I definitely agree it has to be an international coalition with other countries shouldering the bulk of ground troops. Having the US seen as an invading force won't work.
But, you think we could bring Russia into this? They back Assad and Iran and desperately want to become relevant in the region. They'll undercut us at every turn. That's like saying Obama would create an atmosphere of cooperation between Dems and Pubs. I see the EU, Turks and Kurds and maybe some Eastern European and Asian countries who have had a Muslim problem. But, not Russia or China unless Obama can do something he hasn't done for 7 years - lead.
But, you think we could bring Russia into this? They back Assad and Iran and desperately want to become relevant in the region. They'll undercut us at every turn. That's like saying Obama would create an atmosphere of cooperation between Dems and Pubs. I see the EU, Turks and Kurds and maybe some Eastern European and Asian countries who have had a Muslim problem. But, not Russia or China unless Obama can do something he hasn't done for 7 years - lead.
