Donald Trump: Nukes on the table to stop ISIL. Your thoughts?

[Skylar]

There are about 100,000 ISIS folks or so. Probably much less now. Your solution is to increase their numbers by......is that 4 or 5 orders of magnitude?

In order to defeat ISIS? Wouldn't we want their numbers to go down?

You're thinking we'll run out of bullets?

I think if you want to defeat an enemy increasing their numbers by 1 billion is probably not the best idea. Generally speaking you want the number of our enemies to go down. Not for their current forces to become a rounding error in the massive support you create for them.

And with the US nuking its closest allies, it will be just us. No one would trust us after we nuke both our enemies AND our allies.

So your solution is to strengthen our enemies by 5 orders of magnitude, all while isolating ourselves, losing our allies, and destroying our own economy.

ISIS could never do that to us. Why would we do it to yourselves on their behalf?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

There are about 100,000 ISIS folks or so. Probably much less now. Your solution is to increase their numbers by......is that 4 or 5 orders of magnitude?

In order to defeat ISIS? Wouldn't we want their numbers to go down?

You're thinking we'll run out of bullets?

I think if you want to defeat an enemy increasing their numbers by 1 billion is probably not the best idea. Generally speaking you want the number of our enemies to go down. Not for their current forces to become a rounding error in the massive support you create for them.

And with the US nuking its closest allies, it will be just us. No one would trust us after we nuke both our enemies AND our allies.

So your solution is to strengthen our enemies by 5 orders of magnitude, all while isolating ourselves, losing our allies, and destroying our own economy.

ISIS could never do that to us. Why would we do it to yourselves on their behalf?

So by you Leftwat logic, Japan became 5 times more powerful after we shroomed it.

 

[Skylar]

There are about 100,000 ISIS folks or so. Probably much less now. Your solution is to increase their numbers by......is that 4 or 5 orders of magnitude?

In order to defeat ISIS? Wouldn't we want their numbers to go down?

You're thinking we'll run out of bullets?

I think if you want to defeat an enemy increasing their numbers by 1 billion is probably not the best idea. Generally speaking you want the number of our enemies to go down. Not for their current forces to become a rounding error in the massive support you create for them.

And with the US nuking its closest allies, it will be just us. No one would trust us after we nuke both our enemies AND our allies.

So your solution is to strengthen our enemies by 5 orders of magnitude, all while isolating ourselves, losing our allies, and destroying our own economy.

ISIS could never do that to us. Why would we do it to yourselves on their behalf?

So by you Leftwat logic, Japan became 5 times more powerful after we shroomed it.

Japan wasn't our ally in WW2. You're insisting we nuke not only our enemies....but our allies as well. To use your analogy, it would be like the US nuking Japan....and then for no particular reason, nuking London.

And covering france, canada and russia in nuclear fall out. 'Just because'.

Who would trust us after that?

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and I didn't say '5 times'. I said 5 orders of magnitude. But for the sake of accuracy, lets say 4 orders of magnitude.

Going from 100,000...

To 1,000,000,000. All while making an absolute enemy out of number 1 oil supplier, isolating ourselves in the world, losing all of our allies, losing our trading partners, being subject to pretty much universal sanctions from the rest of the world....if the world didn't decide that we needed to be taken out and join together to make war with us.

ISIS could never do this to us. Why would we ever do this to ourselves?

We're the apex predator right now. We enjoy the world's most advanced military, the largest economy, have the largest number of allies, the most trading partners, the most influence internationally.....with the world unified in its revulsion and opposition for ISIS. The damage ISIS can do to us is, from a national security perspective, incidental.

Why would we give that up?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Oh, and I didn't say '5 times'. I said 5 orders of magnitude. But for the sake of accuracy, lets say 4 orders or magnitude.

Going from 100,000...

To 1,000,000,000. All while making an absolute enemy out of number 1 oil supplier, isolating ourselves in the world, losing all of our allies, losing our trading partners, being subject to pretty much universal sanctions from the rest of the world....if the world didn't decide that we needed to be taken out and join together to make war with us.

ISIS could never do this to us. Why would we ever do this to ourselves?

We're the apex predator right now. We enjoy the world's most advanced military, the largest economy, have the largest number of allies, the most trading partners, the most influence internationally.....with the world unified in its revulsion and opposition for ISIS. The damage ISIS can do to us is, from a national security perspective, incidental.

Why would we give that up?

You know nukes kill people, right? They don't make people stronger. Stop reading all those comic books, your fantasies are starting to take over.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and I didn't say '5 times'. I said 5 orders of magnitude. But for the sake of accuracy, lets say 4 orders or magnitude.

Going from 100,000...

To 1,000,000,000. All while making an absolute enemy out of number 1 oil supplier, isolating ourselves in the world, losing all of our allies, losing our trading partners, being subject to pretty much universal sanctions from the rest of the world....if the world didn't decide that we needed to be taken out and join together to make war with us.

ISIS could never do this to us. Why would we ever do this to ourselves?

We're the apex predator right now. We enjoy the world's most advanced military, the largest economy, have the largest number of allies, the most trading partners, the most influence internationally.....with the world unified in its revulsion and opposition for ISIS. The damage ISIS can do to us is, from a national security perspective, incidental.

Why would we give that up?

You know nukes kill people, right? They don't make people stronger. Stop reading all those comic books, your fantasies are starting to take over.

They do when nuking them mints more mortal enemies for us by orders and orders of magnitude more than we just killed, costs us all of our allies, all of our trading partners, destroys our economy, and isolates us internationally.

We become the new ISIS.

ISIS could never inflict that kind of damage on us. Why would do it for them?

We're fucking King Kong. And your solution is to jump, head first, off the Empire State Building.......in the hopes that we might land on their car when our body crashes to the ground.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

There are about 100,000 ISIS folks or so. Probably much less now. Your solution is to increase their numbers by......is that 4 or 5 orders of magnitude?

In order to defeat ISIS? Wouldn't we want their numbers to go down?

You're thinking we'll run out of bullets?

I think if you want to defeat an enemy increasing their numbers by 1 billion is probably not the best idea. Generally speaking you want the number of our enemies to go down. Not for their current forces to become a rounding error in the massive support you create for them.

And with the US nuking its closest allies, it will be just us. No one would trust us after we nuke both our enemies AND our allies.

So your solution is to strengthen our enemies by 5 orders of magnitude, all while isolating ourselves, losing our allies, and destroying our own economy.

ISIS could never do that to us. Why would we do it to yourselves on their behalf?

That 1 billion is useless. They can't even get rid of the terrorists. The, "oooooh, let's don't make the Muslims angst", bullshit was lame 5 minutes after someone first said it.

 

[Skylar]

There are about 100,000 ISIS folks or so. Probably much less now. Your solution is to increase their numbers by......is that 4 or 5 orders of magnitude?

In order to defeat ISIS? Wouldn't we want their numbers to go down?

You're thinking we'll run out of bullets?

I think if you want to defeat an enemy increasing their numbers by 1 billion is probably not the best idea. Generally speaking you want the number of our enemies to go down. Not for their current forces to become a rounding error in the massive support you create for them.

And with the US nuking its closest allies, it will be just us. No one would trust us after we nuke both our enemies AND our allies.

So your solution is to strengthen our enemies by 5 orders of magnitude, all while isolating ourselves, losing our allies, and destroying our own economy.

ISIS could never do that to us. Why would we do it to yourselves on their behalf?

That 1 billion is useless. They can't even get rid of the terrorists. The, "oooooh, let's don't make the Muslims angst", bullshit was lame 5 minutes after someone first said it.

So since they can't get rid of the terrorists.....make them all our mortal enemies?

Nuke our allies, nuke our enemies, cover Israel, Turkey, Jordan and Iraq in nuclear fall out. Lose all our trading partners, destroy our economy, lose all our allies, and strengthen our enemies.

Why would we *ever* do this?

 

[idb]

Where would you drop it?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

There are about 100,000 ISIS folks or so. Probably much less now. Your solution is to increase their numbers by......is that 4 or 5 orders of magnitude?

In order to defeat ISIS? Wouldn't we want their numbers to go down?

You're thinking we'll run out of bullets?

I think if you want to defeat an enemy increasing their numbers by 1 billion is probably not the best idea. Generally speaking you want the number of our enemies to go down. Not for their current forces to become a rounding error in the massive support you create for them.

And with the US nuking its closest allies, it will be just us. No one would trust us after we nuke both our enemies AND our allies.

So your solution is to strengthen our enemies by 5 orders of magnitude, all while isolating ourselves, losing our allies, and destroying our own economy.

ISIS could never do that to us. Why would we do it to yourselves on their behalf?

That 1 billion is useless. They can't even get rid of the terrorists. The, "oooooh, let's don't make the Muslims angst", bullshit was lame 5 minutes after someone first said it.

So since they can't get rid of the terrorists.....make them all our mortal enemies?

Nuke our allies, nuke our enemies, cover Israel, Turkey, Jordan and Iraq in nuclear fall out. Lose all our trading partners, destroy our economy, lose all our allies, and strengthen our enemies.

Why would we *ever* do this?

Were worried about, "creating more fascists", during WW2?

The message we need to send the Muslims is, "get rid of the jihadists, or we will, by whatever means necessary".

 

[Skylar]

Where would you drop it?

Me? I wouldn't.

The only time nuclear weapons would be on the table....are when they are used against us. Its the Hobbesian Trap of credible deterrence.

 

[Skylar]

There are about 100,000 ISIS folks or so. Probably much less now. Your solution is to increase their numbers by......is that 4 or 5 orders of magnitude?

In order to defeat ISIS? Wouldn't we want their numbers to go down?

You're thinking we'll run out of bullets?

I think if you want to defeat an enemy increasing their numbers by 1 billion is probably not the best idea. Generally speaking you want the number of our enemies to go down. Not for their current forces to become a rounding error in the massive support you create for them.

And with the US nuking its closest allies, it will be just us. No one would trust us after we nuke both our enemies AND our allies.

So your solution is to strengthen our enemies by 5 orders of magnitude, all while isolating ourselves, losing our allies, and destroying our own economy.

ISIS could never do that to us. Why would we do it to yourselves on their behalf?

That 1 billion is useless. They can't even get rid of the terrorists. The, "oooooh, let's don't make the Muslims angst", bullshit was lame 5 minutes after someone first said it.

So since they can't get rid of the terrorists.....make them all our mortal enemies?

Nuke our allies, nuke our enemies, cover Israel, Turkey, Jordan and Iraq in nuclear fall out. Lose all our trading partners, destroy our economy, lose all our allies, and strengthen our enemies.

Why would we *ever* do this?

Were worried about, "creating more fascists", during WW2?

Which of our closest allies did we NUKE in world war 2?

I forget.

Remember, Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. Our closest regional ally. Our presidents have kissed and held hands with their Kings. Nuking Mecca would make them moral enemies.

And lose us EVERY ally we have. As who would trust us. And make mortal enemies out of every Muslim.

Why would we do this?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

You're thinking we'll run out of bullets?

I think if you want to defeat an enemy increasing their numbers by 1 billion is probably not the best idea. Generally speaking you want the number of our enemies to go down. Not for their current forces to become a rounding error in the massive support you create for them.

And with the US nuking its closest allies, it will be just us. No one would trust us after we nuke both our enemies AND our allies.

So your solution is to strengthen our enemies by 5 orders of magnitude, all while isolating ourselves, losing our allies, and destroying our own economy.

ISIS could never do that to us. Why would we do it to yourselves on their behalf?

That 1 billion is useless. They can't even get rid of the terrorists. The, "oooooh, let's don't make the Muslims angst", bullshit was lame 5 minutes after someone first said it.

So since they can't get rid of the terrorists.....make them all our mortal enemies?

Nuke our allies, nuke our enemies, cover Israel, Turkey, Jordan and Iraq in nuclear fall out. Lose all our trading partners, destroy our economy, lose all our allies, and strengthen our enemies.

Why would we *ever* do this?

Were worried about, "creating more fascists", during WW2?

Which of our closest allies did we NUKE in world war 2?

I forget.

Did we nuke Germany?

 

[Skylar]

I think if you want to defeat an enemy increasing their numbers by 1 billion is probably not the best idea. Generally speaking you want the number of our enemies to go down. Not for their current forces to become a rounding error in the massive support you create for them.

And with the US nuking its closest allies, it will be just us. No one would trust us after we nuke both our enemies AND our allies.

So your solution is to strengthen our enemies by 5 orders of magnitude, all while isolating ourselves, losing our allies, and destroying our own economy.

ISIS could never do that to us. Why would we do it to yourselves on their behalf?

That 1 billion is useless. They can't even get rid of the terrorists. The, "oooooh, let's don't make the Muslims angst", bullshit was lame 5 minutes after someone first said it.

So since they can't get rid of the terrorists.....make them all our mortal enemies?

Nuke our allies, nuke our enemies, cover Israel, Turkey, Jordan and Iraq in nuclear fall out. Lose all our trading partners, destroy our economy, lose all our allies, and strengthen our enemies.

Why would we *ever* do this?

Were worried about, "creating more fascists", during WW2?

Which of our closest allies did we NUKE in world war 2?

I forget.

Did we nuke Germany?

Was Germany our ally?

Remember, Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. Our closest regional ally and number 1 supplier of oil. Our presidents have kissed and held hands with their Kings. Nuking Mecca would make them moral enemies.

And lose us EVERY ally we have. As who would trust us? We just nuked our closest regional ally for no fucking reason.

And make mortal enemies out of every Muslim to boot. And destroy our economy, make us international pariahs. And cost us every trading partner.

Why would we do this?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Where would you drop it?

We won't pop a nuke. This is a slobbery brew-ha-ha.

Besides, we have plenty of high-impact ordnance. And we can employ those weapons on high value enemy targets.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

That 1 billion is useless. They can't even get rid of the terrorists. The, "oooooh, let's don't make the Muslims angst", bullshit was lame 5 minutes after someone first said it.

So since they can't get rid of the terrorists.....make them all our mortal enemies?

Nuke our allies, nuke our enemies, cover Israel, Turkey, Jordan and Iraq in nuclear fall out. Lose all our trading partners, destroy our economy, lose all our allies, and strengthen our enemies.

Why would we *ever* do this?

Were worried about, "creating more fascists", during WW2?

Which of our closest allies did we NUKE in world war 2?

I forget.

Did we nuke Germany?

Was Germany our ally?

Remember, Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. Our closest regional ally and number 1 supplier of oil. Our presidents have kissed and held hands with their Kings. Nuking Mecca would make them moral enemies.

And lose us EVERY ally we have. As who would trust us? We just nuked our closest regional ally for no fucking reason.

And make mortal enemies out of every Muslim to boot. And destroy our economy, make us international pariahs. And cost us every trading partner.

Why would we do this?

We're not going to do this. Relax. Stop the fear mongering. Were going keep fiddle fucking around, absorbing attacks for years.

 

[Skylar]

So since they can't get rid of the terrorists.....make them all our mortal enemies?

Nuke our allies, nuke our enemies, cover Israel, Turkey, Jordan and Iraq in nuclear fall out. Lose all our trading partners, destroy our economy, lose all our allies, and strengthen our enemies.

Why would we *ever* do this?

Were worried about, "creating more fascists", during WW2?

Which of our closest allies did we NUKE in world war 2?

I forget.

Did we nuke Germany?

Was Germany our ally?

Remember, Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. Our closest regional ally and number 1 supplier of oil. Our presidents have kissed and held hands with their Kings. Nuking Mecca would make them moral enemies.

And lose us EVERY ally we have. As who would trust us? We just nuked our closest regional ally for no fucking reason.

And make mortal enemies out of every Muslim to boot. And destroy our economy, make us international pariahs. And cost us every trading partner.

Why would we do this?

We're not going to do this. Relax. Stop the fear mongering. Were going keep fiddle fucking around, absorbing attacks for years.

Fear mongering? I think you mean quoting;

When we nuke Mecca, which is in Saudi Arabia, not Syria, we will time it for favorable prevailing winds so the fallout goes where we want it and kills more Muslims.

Post #70

Donald Trump: Nukes on the table to stop ISIL. Your thoughts?

I'm the guy saying what a stupid fucking idea that would be.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Were worried about, "creating more fascists", during WW2?

Which of our closest allies did we NUKE in world war 2?

I forget.

Did we nuke Germany?

Was Germany our ally?

Remember, Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. Our closest regional ally and number 1 supplier of oil. Our presidents have kissed and held hands with their Kings. Nuking Mecca would make them moral enemies.

And lose us EVERY ally we have. As who would trust us? We just nuked our closest regional ally for no fucking reason.

And make mortal enemies out of every Muslim to boot. And destroy our economy, make us international pariahs. And cost us every trading partner.

Why would we do this?

We're not going to do this. Relax. Stop the fear mongering. Were going keep fiddle fucking around, absorbing attacks for years.

Fear mongering? I think you mean quoting;

When we nuke Mecca, which is in Saudi Arabia, not Syria, we will time it for favorable prevailing winds so the fallout goes where we want it and kills more Muslims.

Post #70

Donald Trump: Nukes on the table to stop ISIL. Your thoughts?

I'm the guy saying what a stupid fucking idea that would be.

Quoting, who?

 

[bucs90]

My opinion???

I say we announce to the world that if the United States homeland is hit by an Islamic terrorist attack carried out by ANYONE from the Middle East.....we are dropping a small nuke on Mecca.

Make a list of Islam's 30 holiest places.

We start at #1. Erase it from the map.

Next attack?? #2 is vaporized.

They want a fucking war? Time to give them one.

"TOTAL WAR THEORY"
General Sherman in the American Civil War did it. The US in WW2 did it.

You destroy the enemy...and his land and his buildings and his food and water. Total absolute destruction. They either stop fighting or go extinct.

 

[Skylar]

Which of our closest allies did we NUKE in world war 2?

I forget.

Did we nuke Germany?

Was Germany our ally?

Remember, Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. Our closest regional ally and number 1 supplier of oil. Our presidents have kissed and held hands with their Kings. Nuking Mecca would make them moral enemies.

And lose us EVERY ally we have. As who would trust us? We just nuked our closest regional ally for no fucking reason.

And make mortal enemies out of every Muslim to boot. And destroy our economy, make us international pariahs. And cost us every trading partner.

Why would we do this?

We're not going to do this. Relax. Stop the fear mongering. Were going keep fiddle fucking around, absorbing attacks for years.

Fear mongering? I think you mean quoting;

When we nuke Mecca, which is in Saudi Arabia, not Syria, we will time it for favorable prevailing winds so the fallout goes where we want it and kills more Muslims.

Post #70

Donald Trump: Nukes on the table to stop ISIL. Your thoughts?

I'm the guy saying what a stupid fucking idea that would be.

Quoting, who?

The guy I just quoted.....

Oh, and Buc90.

There are plenty of conservatives that have a total hard on for nuking mecca. They don't really bother to think much farther than that.