Why Bother Having A National Military If You Won't Use Them ?

[protectionist]

You never heard of Mutual Deterrent ? It's been around for 60 years.

It's called "Mutually Assured Destruction".

Some may call it that. Over the decades, its been deterrent, not destruction.

 

[protectionist]

I thought ''protectionists'' were the citizens that didn't believe in the Bush Doctrine- preemptive war? And didn't believe that the usa should be the world police, and didn't believe in sending troops all over the world?

so, what is a ''protectionist'' since I was obviously wrong?

One who PROTECTS.

protects what? World Peace? Protects who? Are you a New World Order kind of guy? A one World order where the USA is the head of all other nations?

I thought ''protectionists'' were the citizens that didn't believe in the Bush Doctrine- preemptive war? And didn't believe that the usa should be the world police, and didn't believe in sending troops all over the world?

so, what is a ''protectionist'' since I was obviously wrong?

One who PROTECTS.

protects what? World Peace? Protects who? Are you a New World Order kind of guy? A one World order where the USA is the head of all other nations?

Protects the American people. I don't care if the US is the head of all nations or not. I only care that the American people are protected from serious harm. Anything else, Ms. Question Mark ?

 

[protectionist]

Why bother having nuclear weapons if we don't use them.

You never heard of Mutual Deterrent ? It's been around for 60 years.

When talking Islamic terrorism, what part of " mutual deterrence" applies?

What do you mean by "what part" ? Since when does mutual deterrence have "parts" ?

 

[deltex1]

Why bother having nuclear weapons if we don't use them.

You never heard of Mutual Deterrent ? It's been around for 60 years.

When talking Islamic terrorism, what part of " mutual deterrence" applies?

What do you mean by "what part" ? Since when does mutual deterrence have "parts" ?

In order for it to be a mutual deterrent both parties have to have the weapons. The Islamos don't...at least not yet. So mutual deterrence does not apply in this context.

 

[protectionist]

Why bother having nuclear weapons if we don't use them.

You never heard of Mutual Deterrent ? It's been around for 60 years.

When talking Islamic terrorism, what part of " mutual deterrence" applies?

What do you mean by "what part" ? Since when does mutual deterrence have "parts" ?

In order for it to be a mutual deterrent both parties have to have the weapons. The Islamos don't...at least not yet. So mutual deterrence does not apply in this context.

FALSE! Pakistan, an overwhelmingly Muslim country has over 100 nuclear warheads, and is still the #1 threat to America, even worse than ISIS. But Pakistan is deterred by mutual deterrence, despite some people's belief that mutual deterrence doesn't apply to Muslims. When Iran gets their nukes, I suspect the situation will be similar..

 

[deltex1]

Why bother having nuclear weapons if we don't use them.

You never heard of Mutual Deterrent ? It's been around for 60 years.

When talking Islamic terrorism, what part of " mutual deterrence" applies?

What do you mean by "what part" ? Since when does mutual deterrence have "parts" ?

In order for it to be a mutual deterrent both parties have to have the weapons. The Islamos don't...at least not yet. So mutual deterrence does not apply in this context.

FALSE! Pakistan, an overwhelmingly Muslim country has over 100 nuclear warheads, and is still the #1 threat to America, even worse than ISIS. But Pakistan is deterred by mutual deterrence, despite some people's belief that mutual deterrence doesn't apply to Muslims. When Iran gets their nukes, I suspect the situation will be similar..

Ooo yeah...I "forgot" about our number one enemy...how many years now have we been fighting Pakistan?

 

[protectionist]

Why bother having nuclear weapons if we don't use them.

You never heard of Mutual Deterrent ? It's been around for 60 years.

When talking Islamic terrorism, what part of " mutual deterrence" applies?

What do you mean by "what part" ? Since when does mutual deterrence have "parts" ?

In order for it to be a mutual deterrent both parties have to have the weapons. The Islamos don't...at least not yet. So mutual deterrence does not apply in this context.

FALSE! Pakistan, an overwhelmingly Muslim country has over 100 nuclear warheads, and is still the #1 threat to America, even worse than ISIS. But Pakistan is deterred by mutual deterrence, despite some people's belief that mutual deterrence doesn't apply to Muslims. When Iran gets their nukes, I suspect the situation will be similar..

Ooo yeah...I "forgot" about our number one enemy...how many years now have we been fighting Pakistan?

13. Ever since we put troops in Afghanistan. And it's the Pakistan nukes which is one of the reasons why those troops have been there. You didn't know ?

 

[deltex1]

Why bother having nuclear weapons if we don't use them.

You never heard of Mutual Deterrent ? It's been around for 60 years.

When talking Islamic terrorism, what part of " mutual deterrence" applies?

What do you mean by "what part" ? Since when does mutual deterrence have "parts" ?

In order for it to be a mutual deterrent both parties have to have the weapons. The Islamos don't...at least not yet. So mutual deterrence does not apply in this context.

FALSE! Pakistan, an overwhelmingly Muslim country has over 100 nuclear warheads, and is still the #1 threat to America, even worse than ISIS. But Pakistan is deterred by mutual deterrence, despite some people's belief that mutual deterrence doesn't apply to Muslims. When Iran gets their nukes, I suspect the situation will be similar..

Ooo yeah...I "forgot" about our number one enemy...how many years now have we been fighting Pakistan?

13. Ever since we put troops in Afghanistan. And it's the Pakistan nukes which is one of the reasons why those troops have been there. You didn't know ?

What would Pakistan do if we nuke Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia...are they going to commit suicide over that? China or Russia...you might have a point...Pakistan has all it can handle from India.

 

[bodecea]

Why bother having nuclear weapons if we don't use them.

>>>>>>>>>>
never thought i would agree with a liberLWnut, but about a dozen well placed nukes over there would reduce the radical islamic forces to below kindergarten status.

Fascinating.

 

[bodecea]

Why bother having nuclear weapons if we don't use them.

You never heard of Mutual Deterrent ? It's been around for 60 years.

Reagan considered it madness.

Reagan was a liar.

Uh Oh....now you've done it!

 

[deltex1]

We blow up Taliban in Pakistan all the time...so do the pakis.

Taliban is not Pakistan...and Pakistan controls their nukes...we give them money to do that.

 

[protectionist]

Why bother having nuclear weapons if we don't use them.

You never heard of Mutual Deterrent ? It's been around for 60 years.

Reagan considered it madness.

Reagan was a liar.

Uh Oh....now you've done it!

Done what ?

 

[protectionist]

We blow up Taliban in Pakistan all the time...so do the pakis.

Taliban is not Pakistan...and Pakistan controls their nukes...we give them money to do that.

You don't get it. I'm not talking about the fragile Pakistani govt that we give money too (who also shielded Osama bin Laden). I'm talking about the JIHADIST lunatics who could acquire the nukes, if/whenever that fragile govt is toppled. Get it ?

 

[protectionist]

We blow up Taliban in Pakistan all the time...so do the pakis.

Taliban is not Pakistan...and Pakistan controls their nukes...we give them money to do that.

You don't get it. I'm not talking about the fragile Pakistani govt that we give money too (who also shielded Osama bin Laden). I'm talking about the JIHADIST lunatics who could acquire the nukes, if/whenever that fragile govt is toppled. Get it ?

And yes, the Taliban is Pakistani. That's where they come from.

 

[boilermaker55]

It would have been so thrilling to see that happen to the Rebels of the South during the War Between the States.

So now we are in an (unprecedented) era in our US history, when we define our US military as a force that can't be sent overseas to fight a war against a real professional military force, led by former Army generals, that openly vows to attack the US, and has already killed Americans , as well as thousands of Middle Easterners. A force that has acquired banks, oil fields, and enormous wealth.

Well, if we cant send our troops out to fight a vicious enemy like this, who would they be sent to fight ? If not ISIS, then who ? If not now, then when ? I'd have to say, there IS NO SCENARIO in which US ground troops would EVER be sent to fight, anywhere/anytime. So this being the case, what's the point of having a US Army, US Marines, and US Air Force (the planes conducting airstrikes are Navy planes from an aircraft carrier) We have NAtional Guard here at home to guard the nation, as well as millions of local and state police forces.

So why have a national military equipped to fight internationally, when you're not going to use it under critical circumstances ? Especially when that military is very expensive. So they can march around in US military bases and train, and practice to fight a war they can't be sent to ?

This is all lunacy. To say we are not going to put boots on the ground, and can't do that, is the most idiotic thing I've seen in politics in my whole life, and I'm not particularly young. Imagine if some bonehead came up with that idea in 1942. Wow! Where would we be now ? WHAT would we be ? If we would exist at all.

And what must the 1500 troops who ARE over in Iraq right now be thinking ? As well as the ones who fought to secure Fallujah, which ISIS took over in Jan. 2014, while Obama was calling them a JV team.

And the other part of that is when we do use our military, it is with a host of ROE...just to make it fair. We fight at the level of our opponents. Massacre them in the quickest most efficient way possible...then kill their goat.

 

[deltex1]

It would have been so thrilling to see that happen to the Rebels of the South during the War Between the States.

So now we are in an (unprecedented) era in our US history, when we define our US military as a force that can't be sent overseas to fight a war against a real professional military force, led by former Army generals, that openly vows to attack the US, and has already killed Americans , as well as thousands of Middle Easterners. A force that has acquired banks, oil fields, and enormous wealth.

Well, if we cant send our troops out to fight a vicious enemy like this, who would they be sent to fight ? If not ISIS, then who ? If not now, then when ? I'd have to say, there IS NO SCENARIO in which US ground troops would EVER be sent to fight, anywhere/anytime. So this being the case, what's the point of having a US Army, US Marines, and US Air Force (the planes conducting airstrikes are Navy planes from an aircraft carrier) We have NAtional Guard here at home to guard the nation, as well as millions of local and state police forces.

So why have a national military equipped to fight internationally, when you're not going to use it under critical circumstances ? Especially when that military is very expensive. So they can march around in US military bases and train, and practice to fight a war they can't be sent to ?

This is all lunacy. To say we are not going to put boots on the ground, and can't do that, is the most idiotic thing I've seen in politics in my whole life, and I'm not particularly young. Imagine if some bonehead came up with that idea in 1942. Wow! Where would we be now ? WHAT would we be ? If we would exist at all.

And what must the 1500 troops who ARE over in Iraq right now be thinking ? As well as the ones who fought to secure Fallujah, which ISIS took over in Jan. 2014, while Obama was calling them a JV team.

And the other part of that is when we do use our military, it is with a host of ROE...just to make it fair. We fight at the level of our opponents. Massacre them in the quickest most efficient way possible...then kill their goat.

Yes, you are an asshole.

 

[boilermaker55]

So all you see is what you want to see!! My asshole! Your obsession with that part of the anatomy is revealing.

It would have been so thrilling to see that happen to the Rebels of the South during the War Between the States.

So now we are in an (unprecedented) era in our US history, when we define our US military as a force that can't be sent overseas to fight a war against a real professional military force, led by former Army generals, that openly vows to attack the US, and has already killed Americans , as well as thousands of Middle Easterners. A force that has acquired banks, oil fields, and enormous wealth.

Well, if we cant send our troops out to fight a vicious enemy like this, who would they be sent to fight ? If not ISIS, then who ? If not now, then when ? I'd have to say, there IS NO SCENARIO in which US ground troops would EVER be sent to fight, anywhere/anytime. So this being the case, what's the point of having a US Army, US Marines, and US Air Force (the planes conducting airstrikes are Navy planes from an aircraft carrier) We have NAtional Guard here at home to guard the nation, as well as millions of local and state police forces.

So why have a national military equipped to fight internationally, when you're not going to use it under critical circumstances ? Especially when that military is very expensive. So they can march around in US military bases and train, and practice to fight a war they can't be sent to ?

This is all lunacy. To say we are not going to put boots on the ground, and can't do that, is the most idiotic thing I've seen in politics in my whole life, and I'm not particularly young. Imagine if some bonehead came up with that idea in 1942. Wow! Where would we be now ? WHAT would we be ? If we would exist at all.

And what must the 1500 troops who ARE over in Iraq right now be thinking ? As well as the ones who fought to secure Fallujah, which ISIS took over in Jan. 2014, while Obama was calling them a JV team.

And the other part of that is when we do use our military, it is with a host of ROE...just to make it fair. We fight at the level of our opponents. Massacre them in the quickest most efficient way possible...then kill their goat.

Yes, you are an asshole.