Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
No, it's not. The greatest danger was mutually assured destruction.
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
Fox News and Rush are threats to American freedoms, albeit lesser ones than Iran.
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.
No, it's not. The greatest danger was mutually assured destruction.
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.
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.
Is America Facing Its Worst Danger in 238 Years ??
Generally, no; from the far reactionary right, yes.
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
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.