Is America Facing Its Worst Danger in 238 Years ??

[BlindBoo]

No, it's not. The greatest danger was mutually assured destruction.

 

[protectionist]

The ones you are posting as off topic are not actually off topic but are not the reasons you want to hear.

Shut up you jerk. If they weren't off topic, they wouldn't have been noted as such. And I don't need coaching, puppy.

And what I "want to hear" is what is ON TOPIC. Post that way, or stay the hell out of here.

The question was: Is America Facing Its Worst Danger in 238 Years ??
Everyone of the posts you tagged as off topic was answering that very question.
You my friend just did not like the answers as they did no fit your agenda. Foolish of me to think that this was a discussion board.
Obviously you do not want dissenting opinions, it is your thread, and I will respect that from this point on.

You idiot! The topic of the thread isn't just the title. It is the entire OP - which happens to be about the security of Pakistsan's nukes. THAT is the topic. Got it now ? Pheeeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)

 

[protectionist]

No, it's not. The greatest danger was mutually assured destruction.

Mutually assured destruction was not a danger, simply because of what it was/is. Those countries run by people who care about getting killed, won't fire their nukes, because they fear the mutual attack and its destruction.

Problem with the Islamist jihadists is, they don't care about dying, in fact they kind of like the idea. So, with them, the mutual deterrent isn't there, making this threat far worse than that of the Soviet cold war.

 

[daws101]

this should give the OP MAJOR WOOD!

 

[BlindBoo]

No, it's not. The greatest danger was mutually assured destruction.

Mutually assured destruction was not a danger, simply because of what it was/is. Those countries run by people who care about getting killed, won't fire their nukes, because they fear the mutual attack and its destruction.

Problem with the Islamist jihadists is, they don't care about dying, in fact they kind of like the idea. So, with them, the mutual deterrent isn't there, making this threat far worse than that of the Soviet cold war.

September 26th, 1983: The day the world almost died | Mail Online


5 times we almost nuked ourselves by accident

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Shut up you jerk. If they weren't off topic, they wouldn't have been noted as such. And I don't need coaching, puppy.

And what I "want to hear" is what is ON TOPIC. Post that way, or stay the hell out of here.

The question was: Is America Facing Its Worst Danger in 238 Years ??
Everyone of the posts you tagged as off topic was answering that very question.
You my friend just did not like the answers as they did no fit your agenda. Foolish of me to think that this was a jdiscussion board.
Obviously you do not want dissenting opinions, it is your thread, and I will respect that from this point on.

You idiot! The topic of the thread isn't just the title. It is the entire OP - which happens to be about the security of Pakistsan's nukes. THAT is the topic. Got it now ? Pheeeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)

You might just want to let the mods do the moderating there Skippy.

 

[protectionist]

No, it's not. The greatest danger was mutually assured destruction.

Mutually assured destruction was not a danger, simply because of what it was/is. Those countries run by people who care about getting killed, won't fire their nukes, because they fear the mutual attack and its destruction.

Problem with the Islamist jihadists is, they don't care about dying, in fact they kind of like the idea. So, with them, the mutual deterrent isn't there, making this threat far worse than that of the Soviet cold war.

September 26th, 1983: The day the world almost died | Mail Online


5 times we almost nuked ourselves by accident

A fair answer to the OP question (with source links). 10-4.

 

[protectionist]

The question was: Is America Facing Its Worst Danger in 238 Years ??
Everyone of the posts you tagged as off topic was answering that very question.
You my friend just did not like the answers as they did no fit your agenda. Foolish of me to think that this was a jdiscussion board.
Obviously you do not want dissenting opinions, it is your thread, and I will respect that from this point on.

You idiot! The topic of the thread isn't just the title. It is the entire OP - which happens to be about the security of Pakistsan's nukes. THAT is the topic. Got it now ? Pheeeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)

You might just want to let the mods do the moderating there Skippy.

Not "let". I DO let them do the moderating. I was just pointing out to you that you were off topic. You're welcome. As for your ludicrous "assessment" of what I "like" or don't like, you got 3 words right >> ("Foolish of me"

Of course I welcome dissenting opinions, and any opinions (which are within the topic) If you want to bring up a new topic, go start your own thread.

 

[Freewill]

If one means danger to the nation internally, then yes, the last few years we have seen a rise in a crazy far right and libertarian wing allied to tearing down America.

That wing was rebuked by RNC a few days and the campaign rules set up to hamper their political influence in the party.

They don't have the numbers, and they can't force their way with violence.

So sane Americans keep them well infiltrated, notified LEO when necessary, and carry on with their lives.

Why yes, bring back 1936 where the German people were scared that their neighbors would turn them in and when they did the police would come and torture a confession out of the accused.

The Tea Party or right wing has not did one thing of violence nor have they did anything illegal. If I missed it then it was just some fool not sanctioned by any part of the party. I am not sure what the RNC might have done, if anything like you imply, but it is not surprising that a party that has fallen so far into disfavor would need to do something to protect themselves. What in the hell has the right wing done to tear down the country? They have had no real power for well over 7 years. But as usually you take a completely different subject and do as you handlers expect and turn it against republicans.

Your implication of violence is disgusting but is what we have come to expect from left wing fanatics such as yourself. You should be ashamed for making such implication.

 

[protectionist]

Yes, we face new threats but then it seems in our history we're always facing new threats.

The Civil War, the Great Depression, WWII, Korean war, Cold War, 9/11, Afghanistan, now Iran and Pakistan, add to that our own internal battle of the budget trying to fund all the government hand out programs. But we always survived and prospered.

However, things are different this time our national government is fractionated and generally corrupt. The population is split with no unity in sight, no messiah to bring us together. Civic responsibility is low. Maybe we won't survive till 2021. I probably won't live that long but I'm pulling for you America. I'll be watching from above (rhetorically speaking)..

I'll be happy if we get through 2016, and not be one huge pile of ashes.

I'm not even worried about it. You can, though ... you might want to hide in Saddam Husain's hole in the ground along with the rest of your rag-tag band of unhappy campers.

Please bump this thread in 2017 after the fall of America and help advise us stupid people on how to survive in the end times.

Neither happy or unhappy. Just being like a security guard on the national level. Observing and reporting. And who was that guy who say "I'm not even worried about it. You can, though .." Oh yeah >> Neville Chamberlain.

 

[protectionist]

Fox News and Rush are threats to American freedoms, albeit lesser ones than Iran.

Compared to MSNBC, Fox News is a beacon of enlightement, and very fair and balanced.

 

[bripat9643]

Obama is the worst danger America has faced in 238 years.

 

[protectionist]

The ones you are posting as off topic are not actually off topic but are not the reasons you want to hear.

Shut up you jerk. If they weren't off topic, they wouldn't have been noted as such. And I don't need coaching, puppy.

And what I "want to hear" is what is ON TOPIC. Post that way, or stay the hell out of here.

The question was: Is America Facing Its Worst Danger in 238 Years ??
Everyone of the posts you tagged as off topic was answering that very question.
You my friend just did not like the answers as they did no fit your agenda. Foolish of me to think that this was a discussion board.
Obviously you do not want dissenting opinions, it is your thread, and I will respect that from this point on.

That "Worst Danger" are the 100+ nuclear warheads in Pakistan, not some other things you et al may dream up. Get it ?

 

[protectionist]

No, it's not. The greatest danger was mutually assured destruction.

FALSE! Mutually assured destruction is far less of a danger simply because of the nature of it. Those who would fire their nukes are afraid of getting nuked back.

Reason why this Pakistani problem is worse, is because the Islamist loons who would shoot these things off, don't care about dying. In fact, they're quite cool with it. So there's nothing to restrain them.

 

[bripat9643]

No, it's not. The greatest danger was mutually assured destruction.

FALSE! Mutually assured destruction is far less of a danger simply because of the nature of it. Those who would fire their nukes are afraid of getting nuked back.

Reason why this Pakistani problem is worse, is because the Islamist loons who would shoot these things off, don't care about dying. In fact, they're quite cool with it. So there's nothing to restrain them.

Killing them works pretty good.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is America Facing Its Worst Danger in 238 Years ??

Generally, no; from the far reactionary right, yes.

 

[protectionist]

No, it's not. The greatest danger was mutually assured destruction.

FALSE! Mutually assured destruction is far less of a danger simply because of the nature of it. Those who would fire their nukes are afraid of getting nuked back.

Reason why this Pakistani problem is worse, is because the Islamist loons who would shoot these things off, don't care about dying. In fact, they're quite cool with it. So there's nothing to restrain them.

Killing them works pretty good.

If anybody knows a way of killling ALL of them (without getting us killed too), please let us know.

 

[protectionist]

Is America Facing Its Worst Danger in 238 Years ??

Generally, no; from the far reactionary right, yes.

So you're not concerned with fanatical Islamists getting nuclear warheads ?

I really thought you were going to challenge me on my Fox News comment though (post 51). Dang!

 

[JWBooth]

The New York Times article reads >> "Afghan pullout seen as new threat for U.S." They're talking about the nuclear weapons in the arsenal of Pakistan. And the possibility of some of those going missing, being stolen by Islamist jihadists.

No doubt about the threat. The Muslim crazies in Pakistan have repeatedly attacked the storage facilities of these nukes. . The situation is so bad that Pakistan now moves these warheads around in ordinary cargo vans (like UPS), through ordinary streets, to keep the jihadists from focusing in on their locations. Problem is though, this also makes them dangerously susceptible to attack, if/whenever the gooneybirds manage to find the vans. On top of that, the Pakistani govt. is quite fragile, and if toppled by the Muslim loonies, the nukes would quickly be in the hands of the same people who attacked us on 9/11 and Fort Hood. In Afghanistan, it is essential for US troops to be in close proximity to Pakistan and it's arsenal of 100+ nuclear warheads. With the troops in Afghanistan, they can be close enough to the Paki nukes to quickly get to them, and secure them from the jihadists.
Note: If I had my way, the troops would enter Pakistan now and secure those nukes, and bring them back to the US, or to another safe location far away from al Qaeda's central operations.

Afghan pullout seen as new threat for U.S. | Tampa Bay Times

WikiLeaks cables highlight Pakistani nuclear terror threat | World news | The Guardian

Pakistan: Nuclear Arsenal Will Be Protected By 8,000 Trainees, Military Says

Enough about Iran, Pakistan's nuclear threat should be our top concern | Fox News

'Pakistan nuclear weapons' threat under estimated' | NDTV.com

Why Pakistan's nuclear bombs are a threat | Asia | DW.DE | 09.04.2013

Pakistan trains 8,000 to guard nuclear arsenal ? USATODAY.com

Fear mongering from the perpetual warfare crowd.

 

[Asclepias]

The New York Times article reads >> "Afghan pullout seen as new threat for U.S." They're talking about the nuclear weapons in the arsenal of Pakistan. And the possibility of some of those going missing, being stolen by Islamist jihadists.

No doubt about the threat. The Muslim crazies in Pakistan have repeatedly attacked the storage facilities of these nukes. . The situation is so bad that Pakistan now moves these warheads around in ordinary cargo vans (like UPS), through ordinary streets, to keep the jihadists from focusing in on their locations. Problem is though, this also makes them dangerously susceptible to attack, if/whenever the gooneybirds manage to find the vans. On top of that, the Pakistani govt. is quite fragile, and if toppled by the Muslim loonies, the nukes would quickly be in the hands of the same people who attacked us on 9/11 and Fort Hood. In Afghanistan, it is essential for US troops to be in close proximity to Pakistan and it's arsenal of 100+ nuclear warheads. With the troops in Afghanistan, they can be close enough to the Paki nukes to quickly get to them, and secure them from the jihadists.
Note: If I had my way, the troops would enter Pakistan now and secure those nukes, and bring them back to the US, or to another safe location far away from al Qaeda's central operations.

Afghan pullout seen as new threat for U.S. | Tampa Bay Times

WikiLeaks cables highlight Pakistani nuclear terror threat | World news | The Guardian

Pakistan: Nuclear Arsenal Will Be Protected By 8,000 Trainees, Military Says

Enough about Iran, Pakistan's nuclear threat should be our top concern | Fox News

'Pakistan nuclear weapons' threat under estimated' | NDTV.com

Why Pakistan's nuclear bombs are a threat | Asia | DW.DE | 09.04.2013

Pakistan trains 8,000 to guard nuclear arsenal ? USATODAY.com

Fear mongering from the perpetual warfare crowd.

They wont be happy until we have a presence in every country and people not afriad to die blowing up our cities back here in the US. How intelligent do you have to be before you realize this war thing creates terrorism.