House Dem: Obama Could Cause ‘Devastating Nuclear War’ With Russia

[putzpotus]

Iz Putz Potus gonna give back the No Bell Putz Prize he got

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

He'll surrender long before launch.



He'll give them hell!

He'll return Alaska and Sarah Palin...

 

[magicalmoments]

Seems to me that every President since Truman could have started a nuclear war with Russia, the current encumbent is no better or worse than all the rest of those war-mongers.

Let's not forget that only the United States of America has used nuclear weapons in anger, and that on a civilian population.

 

[Tydriel]

Seems to me that every President since Truman could have started a nuclear war with Russia, the current encumbent is no better or worse than all the rest of those war-mongers.

This.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I have to disagree.

With the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, the perception was that every American President was strong enough to employ the option in a worse case scenario and even Jimmy benefitted from the residual aura of American resolve.

President Obama, his ideology and his Intellectual mentors are the antithesis of that legacy. They want to disarm, and if given their way, would destroy all of our capability in order to cause the Russians to feel secure thus eliminating any threat to our nation.



Like the growing body of militant Islamic Caliphacy, the two antagonists see the weakness and timidity which the Academic Left sees as rational strength and are eagerly jumping into the vacuum to supply power and order, just not an order based upon our values present. They purport to use our values of the past, Greek Orthodox Christianity and Shia and Sunni Islam, defense of allies and firm resolve and strength unflinching in the face of ruthless intimidation and threat, both implied and overt.

 

[miles]

He'll surrender long before launch.



He'll give them hell!

He'll go on national TV with these inspiring words:

"Me fellow Americans: put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye."

 

[miles]

Seems to me that every President since Truman could have started a nuclear war with Russia, the current encumbent is no better or worse than all the rest of those war-mongers.

Let's not forget that only the United States of America has used nuclear weapons in anger, and that on a civilian population.

First paragraph: he's so much worse as to not even be in the same category as those "war mongers."

Second paragraph: pure stupidity. How many civilian and allied troops would have died if we had to invade Japan?

Fucking uninformed/uneducated moron.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Don't ask what you can do for your country, let me tell you what your country SHOULD do for you!

 

[miles]

Seems to me that every President since Truman could have started a nuclear war with Russia, the current encumbent is no better or worse than all the rest of those war-mongers.

Let's not forget that only the United States of America has used nuclear weapons in anger, and that on a civilian population.

PS:

Fuck off and die.

 

[miles]

This.

Three posts in 2.5 years. I'm surprised you remember your alt's name.

 

[magicalmoments]

First paragraph: he's so much worse as to not even be in the same category as those "war mongers."

Second paragraph: pure stupidity. How many civilian and allied troops would have died if we had to invade Japan?

Fucking uninformed/uneducated moron.

Only stupidity because you dropped it.

If the Japs had the technoolgy and had dropped nukes first on, say L.A. and San Fransisco you'd be singing a different song, trailor trash, hypocrite.

 

[magicalmoments]

PS:

Fuck off and die.

Just the response I'd expect from the defender of liberty and freedom. Not. Hypocrite.

 

[Doom_Guy]

And all of this bullshit because of oil interests/energy geopolitics?

If this is what the world has come to, maybe there should be a nuclear war and the world does deserve to be destroyed.

 

[phrodeau]

First paragraph: he's so much worse as to not even be in the same category as those "war mongers."

Second paragraph: pure stupidity. How many civilian and allied troops would have died if we had to invade Japan?

Fucking uninformed/uneducated moron.

Why would we have had to invade Japan? Were the Soviets too drunk or something?

 

[Doom_Guy]

Much like how America armed the Mujahideen/Taliban in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded during the 80's, the United States is arming/colluding with ISIS to fight a proxy war against Russia in Syria because of competing oil interests in that region.

 

[renard_ruse]

Russia could launch a devastating nuclear attack on the US in response.

They have already developed missiles that can circumvent any missile defense shield. They change direction randomly in flight and their trajectories cannot be predicted.

Russia would be utterly destroyed, but the US would lose MANY of its major cities as well in an all out nuclear war and millions would be killed.

 

[phrodeau]

Russia could launch a devastating nuclear attack on the US in response.

They have already developed missiles that can circumvent any missile defense shield. They change direction randomly in flight and their trajectories cannot be predicted.

Russia would be utterly destroyed, but the US would lose MANY of its major cities as well in an all out nuclear war and millions would be killed.

But we've got Wing Attack Plan R.

http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/b/be/DrS030.jpg/600px-DrS030.jpg

 

[miles]

Only stupidity because you dropped it.

If the Japs had the technoolgy and had dropped nukes first on, say L.A. and San Fransisco you'd be singing a different song, trailor trash, hypocrite.

So tell me how many people died in the two atomic bombings and compare that with the number of allies and Japanese civilians who would have died if Japan had been invaded.

Just answer the question without deflecting, attacking me, or making a straw man argument.

I'll wait.

 

[phrodeau]

Here's a history lesson for miles:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

 

[tisvickie]

Seems to me that every President since Truman could have started a nuclear war with Russia, the current encumbent is no better or worse than all the rest of those war-mongers.

Let's not forget that only the United States of America has used nuclear weapons in anger, and that on a civilian population.

I'm surprised that obama hasn't used this line yet in one of he weekly bash-America speeches.

 

[Doom_Guy]

Somebody somewhere is getting stupid rich off of this proxy war in Syria.

The money they make will be spent 500,000 square foot mansions, fleets of private jets, yacths that are larger than aircraft carriers, thousands of luxury vehicles, vacations homes, and on hookers and cocaine.

The world will be in tatters, but some inside investor is going to be getting his dick sucked by a professional escort service onboard his $5,000,000,000 yacht.

 

[snugglestruggle]

Somebody somewhere is getting stupid rich off of this proxy war in Syria.

The money they make will be spent 500,000 square foot mansions, fleets of private jets, yacths that are larger than aircraft carriers, thousands of luxury vehicles, vacations homes, and on hookers and cocaine.

The world will be in tatters, but some inside investor is going to be getting his dick sucked by a professional escort service onboard his $5,000,000,000 yacht.

Pretty much. I blame the bankers.

 

[magicalmoments]

So tell me how many people died in the two atomic bombings and compare that with the number of allies and Japanese civilians who would have died if Japan had been invaded.

Just answer the question without deflecting, attacking me, or making a straw man argument.

I'll wait.

Firstly, go fuck yourself, you're are not going to set down conditions for me to follow when answering your questions. Especially when you don't give the same courtesy to others for simply expressing an opinion different to your own.

Secondly. Your question is a straw man, at best irrelevant and at worst loaded in your favour, phrased along the lines of "have you stopped beating your wife yet". It is not worthy of an answer.

Thirdly, The USA government had a choice of a number of options. It could have dropped the bombs 20 miles offshore Tokyo, having invited the Japs to observe it. It could have chosen any number of primary military targets. But no, it ignored the advice of the makers of the bomb and chose to drop it on a civilian population. As I say, the only country in the world to have done so, and on present form the most likely to do so again.

 

[Tydriel]

The USA government had a choice of a number of options. It could have dropped the bombs 20 miles offshore Tokyo, having invited the Japs to observe it. It could have chosen any number of primary military targets. But no, it ignored the advice of the makers of the bomb and chose to drop it on a civilian population. As I say, the only country in the world to have done so, and on present form the most likely to do so again.

I never really thought about the option for dropping the atom bomb off the coast to demonstrate the destructive capabilities of it. The way I always thought on it was this;

Choice one. Invade Japan and see the same loses that America had seen on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. From both Japanese and American military service men. Also the civilian losses inflicted on the local residence from fear generated by the Japanese war propaganda machine that essentially said that the Americans were going to torture and rape them.

Choice two. Use a new weapon that had never been used in combat and could potentially end the war with a single trigger pull. At the time the US government created a special panel for the sole purpose of choosing military target for the atom bomb. They originally choose Kokura, the site of one of Japans largest munitions factories, Hiroshima, an embarkation port, industrial center, and home to a major military HQ, Yokohama, a manufacturing center for aircraft, machine tools, docks, electrical equipment, and oil refineries, Niigata, a port with industrial factories ranging from steel and aluminum to oil refineries, and Kyoto, another industrial center.

Notice that Nagasaki is not on that list. Nagasaki wasn't originally considered because of the intense bombing already focused on it do to being a major ship building city and large military port. It wasn't considered until after Kyoto was removed for being to important of a cultural, religious an historical significance. After the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima the next target was to be Kokura but do to weather conditions that target was changed to Nagasaki. For those two reasons Nagasaki ended up being the second target.

I agree that dropping an atom bomb off the coast COULD have ended the war without the loss of life but find this to be very unlikely. Imperial Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb. While yes, this was partly do to the fact that they found unconditional surrender to be unacceptably terms. It also show the psychological mind set of the Japanese leadership and their willingness to allow themselves to be completely destroyed in order for them to keep their "honor." Japanese society at this time was still a warrior society and considered surrendering to be the ultimate dishonor one could commit.

At the end of the day American was left with terrible options that would result in the loss of life. It is my opinion that at the end of the day the Truman administration choose the lesser of two EVILs in order to end an all ready bloody conflict that had spanned more than five years and took the lives of millions.

To the user 4est_4est_Gump I agree that the liberal agenda through out the cold war was one of appeasement and disarmament. I disagree however that President Obama would go so far as to eliminate our capabilities in the face of a world that has increasing nuclear capabilities itself and one that over the last decade has seen an increase in the amount of war and strife affect the world at large. I would also disagree that the self proclaimed Islamic Caliphate is founded on traditions of "Shia and Sunni Islam" but rather on a perversion of Islam. One that gives no one other than men deemed "worthy" basic human rights.

To the user phrodeau, while yes the Japanese were also facing a war on two fronts similar to that of the Nazis before them it would be naive to say that anything other than the COMBINED might of the Allies defeated the Imperial Japanese with the dropping of the atom bombs.

To the user Doom_Guy, the fact is the USA is doing anything but colluding with ISIS and to suggest other wise is at most hate mongering and at least uniformed and irrational. Secondly while I also believe the world has gone become a worse off place in recent years, suggesting that it should out right be destroyed is ludicrous. Over coming adversity in the face of terrible odds is part of the human experience. It is impossible for the 1% to hold power for any length of true time do to the simple fact that 99%ers out number them at a ratio several million to one. The only thing that keeps them in power is either the exploitation of hate and greed or being able to let go of their egos and do what right by the 99% not what is right just for them.

To the user miles if your not going to add to a discussion in a calm, RATIONAL manner you do not belong in the thread.

To other user that have commented, yes banks are partly to blame, as is the gun industry and humanity in general. Greed, avarice, hate, and anger are very powerful motivators and there are a lot of people who make billions upon long drawn out conflicts. Should the world end up using nuclear weapons again we would, as a species no longer exist and those who profit from war are smart enough to see that if that ever came to be they would lose everything that they had gained if the world were to use the nuclear option.

Almost everyone who is alive today agrees that using nuclear weapons would be a terrible and horrible thing. Which is why, when politicians start to use rhetoric and threats of nuclear bombs it should be viewed simply as posturing and a temper tantrum to get attention. Saying that it also should be noted that while that is going on, people shouldn't be dumb enough just to assume that the person making the threats isn't stupid enough to actually carry them out and should take all precautions and necessary steps to protect and avoid such an outcome.

 

[miles]

Firstly, go fuck yourself, you're are not going to set down conditions for me to follow when answering your questions. Especially when you don't give the same courtesy to others for simply expressing an opinion different to your own.

Secondly. Your question is a straw man, at best irrelevant and at worst loaded in your favour, phrased along the lines of "have you stopped beating your wife yet". It is not worthy of an answer.

Thirdly, The USA government had a choice of a number of options. It could have dropped the bombs 20 miles offshore Tokyo, having invited the Japs to observe it. It could have chosen any number of primary military targets. But no, it ignored the advice of the makers of the bomb and chose to drop it on a civilian population. As I say, the only country in the world to have done so, and on present form the most likely to do so again.

Just as I predicted.

You attacked me, deflected, and made a straw man argument yourself (you're obviously ignorant to the definition). Worst of all you never even came close to answering the question.

Another Obama lover. No doubt.

You're a mindless idiot. Go back to the Playground.