Obama to unilaterally disarm the United States

Discussion in 'Politics' started by 377OHMS, Feb 14, 2012.

  1. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    No can do Kimosabe
    Huh? I haven't asked for anything. You dreaming again?
     
    #41     Feb 15, 2012
  2. piezoe

    piezoe

    Maybe it's time for a new forum: "The insanity Forum."
     
    #42     Feb 15, 2012
  3. +1 to Maxi. I take back anything I may have said about him. It's getting so hard to pigeon-hole people these days. Now I'm confused..I need a nap.
     
    #43     Feb 15, 2012
  4. Brass

    Brass

    That's a lot of stock you're putting into one comment that states the obvious. Let's see what happens when you two discuss economics and he starts trickling down.
     
    #44     Feb 15, 2012
  5. What comment that "states the obvious"? We have a second Canadian on the board who "thinks" he knows how many nuclear weapons we need?
     
    #45     Feb 15, 2012
  6. Brass

    Brass

    No, you're the only expert here who's ready to educate the Pentagon on what's what.
     
    #46     Feb 15, 2012
  7. The Pentagon's not recommending we reduce our nuclear weapons to 300, idiot. Why don't you stick to things you know about that concern your own country for a change?
     
    #47     Feb 15, 2012
  8. Brass

    Brass

    As I understand it, neither did Obama. The question is about reduction, and a number of levels are being considered by all concerned, including the Pentagon. You're the only one who has the right numeric answer to everything because you're clinically insane. You really are.
     
    #48     Feb 15, 2012
  9. wjk

    wjk

    I don't have an issue with a reduced amount of warheads in our arsenal providing we don't underfund missile defense and associated research.

    A successful missile defense system would act as a deterrent from a hostile country that would foolishly believe just having more nukes creates a winnable first strike option. It would be best to have a workable shield in place prior to unilateral disarmament.
     
    #49     Feb 15, 2012
  10. You don't understand it. And from your ignorant comments, you didn't even read the article at the OP (or understand it if you did). Nor do you get the context.
    Show me where I claimed to have "the right numerical answer" to this, Gayfly. My point went completely over your head. And you're in no position to call anyone insane, Thunderpussy-->Gayfly-->brASS, given that your life is so pathetic as a Canadian you spend your time stalking us and our politics here, spewing nonsense like accusations of treason without even knowing what it meant. Fuck off loser.
     
    #50     Feb 15, 2012