:lmaobama:

[YocumRidge]

 

The nuclear cat's long out of the bag, and nearly every crackpot government out there is soon to have a piece of it.

 

It also has to be clearly understood that we not only can, but will with no uncertainity, ahniliate any entity that initiates action against us.

 

 

Oh yes, you will annihiliate any entity, grandpa, including yourself, in no time at all. Just lets get more bombs in.

[olyclimber]

i remember living in a cave, and fearing those bastards with their clubs who might come take my fire. hopefully the children of today can learn these lessons.

[prole]

Yes, you're correct. You're beginning to understand, although I don't think you know it yet. There are a lot of people out there who want to take it from us because they don't have what we have, what we've worked for, and "their god" is on their side and said it's ok. Well, it's not ok with me, and to whatever degree possible, I'll not let it happen.

 

It's unfortunate, but that's what it takes. I'd prefer to live out my life without having to concern myself with these kinds of problems. I despise the need for locks, passwords, showing ID when writing checks and enemy states with the desire, and increased ability, to do me the kids and grandkids harm.

 

So when I see an influential person, and ESPECIALLY the President say something as simple-minded as "I'd trade my prize for disarmament", it makes me very concerned for my, for OUR way of life. For my grandkids lives as they grow up. There is no reasonable excuse for that rhetoric. None.

 

When I was their age, I recall walking to school, occasionally looking up in the sky to see if the Russians and their bombers were coming yet. They were not, and now I know why. You should know also.

 

And it looks like what you are beginning to realize is that over 60 years of nuclear supremacy hasn't made you or your grandkids safer. How is the increased proliferation of nuclear weapons going to square that circle?

[tvashtarkatena]

 

When I was their age, I recall walking to school, occasionally looking up in the sky to see if the Russians and their bombers were coming yet. They were not, and now I know why. You should know also.

 

I know this a troll, but just for fun...

 

...yeah, yeah. Half of us here grew during the Cold War. I spent my entire childhood in a country involved in a shooting war. Most of us realized that the U.S., in it's post WWII belligerence, was half the problem, however. Most of us also didn't buy the military industry's sales brochure about the Cold War and a huge military as being a GOOD THING that KEEPS US SAFE: we're only still here today, after many very close calls, out of shear dumb luck and the thread-bare reasonableness of a few men...nearly all of them Russians, not Americans. If the American attitude had prevailed on both sides say, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we'd all be dead.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

It's unfortunate, but that's what it takes.

 

That's pretty much why the sane among us voted you kooky fascist fuckers out of office.

[tvashtarkatena]

Our fathers and grandfathers, MY father, didn't beat the NAZIs all the way back to Berlin only to have fascist fucks like you take over the joint and shit all over our ideals and constitution. I don't know what you think your way of life is, but MY way of life is to make YOUR way of life, or any other brand of fascism, disappear forever.

Edited October 11, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[AlpineK]

Here's a good investment for the family grandpa.

 

TERA-X & ORCAS

 

Once the big shooting match is over you and your family can start the new world.

[grandpa]

You guys don't get it. It isn't just about who has the most, biggest bombs, the most biggest nuke tipped missiles. It's about keeping "them" at bay. It's the ability of our leader to make "them" understand that we will destroy them if we have to, as well as having the tools to do it.

 

It's about the men, women and machines who will make it happen if necessary, led by someone who knows how and when (and when not)to "pull the trigger".

 

Kennedy did it right (I suspect most of you who are arguing the point now, were not even a grin on your daddy's face when this happened), Reagan did right, Bush Sr did it (almost) right.

 

But for Obama to make such a statement, it clearly illustrates the complete naivete of the man. A gracious "thank you", etc would have been appropriate. But him making a statement that could be construed by enemy forces as evidence of him being weak on defense is inexcusable. That's just a dare for someone to try it again. That kind of change I want no part of.

 

Think about it before you reply to this old guy's rant. Do you want to assume that everyone who is smiling at you is your friend (until they stab you in the back when you turn around), or would you prefer to keep 'em guessing, and never mess with you? I like the second choice, thank you.

 

My son has been to many countries around the world, and had views similar to some I've seen expressed here until he saw how other countries do things, and how the people have to live.

 

This is why I believe that EVERYONE (NO exceptions - except for mental inability - I don't care how important your daddy is), should do 2 years military duty right after high school. Then on to college, work and life with kids. It would give everyone a better understanding of what it takes to keep the freedoms we have.

 

Ok, back to your chatter, I have housework to finish, we have company coming over tomorrow for dinner....

[prole]

If the notion of deterrence is based on having more weapons than the other guy then we're need alot more beater-ass Toyota pickups, donkeys, and bombs made out of garbage and rebar 'CAUSE THAT'S WHO'S KICKING OUR ASS in case you don't read the paper!

[olyclimber]

i'm glad that obama won the peace prize if for only the reason we are now having this debate: Is peaceful human existence possible? Or do we live in a constant state of skull fucking each other?

 

Unfortunately there is a lot of history written for the latter. What does seem lame is to just give up the idea that peace is obtainable.

[Mr. Spock]

It's about keeping "them" at bay. It's the ability of our leader to make "them" understand that we will destroy them if we have to, as well as having the tools to do it.

 

Most illogical...

[klenke]

Most illogical...if humans were computers.

 

But humans aren't computers.

 

Is this a valid point of view?

[olyclimber]

that has to be one of the more bizarre arguments i have ever read. last i checked people are still killing each other all over the world, and i'm fairly certain that if these parties are trying their best to get the biggest bombs they can.

 

just look at Pakistan right now...Al Qaeda could have nukes soon.

 

regarding the argument that "might is right" and bombs=peace...this might work in the world of superpowers, where it is China, the Russian Mafia State, and the USA pointing nukes at each other...but the conflicts of late (i.e. the Twin Towers coming down, etc) could be made insanely bad with the introduction of the bomb. our having lotso bombs isn't going to deter this threat.

 

unfortunately we might be looking back at the days of living in fear of a cold war with the Soviet Union as the "good old days".

 

 

rather a gloomy post, so i thought i would add a pic of a unicorn to cheer it up

 

[tvashtarkatena]

i'm glad that obama won the peace prize if for only the reason we are now having this debate: Is peaceful human existence possible? Or do we live in a constant state of skull fucking each other?

 

Unfortunately there is a lot of history written for the latter. What does seem lame is to just give up the idea that peace is obtainable.

 

It's not about maintaini

ng peace. Gramps isn't sophisticated enough to grasp this, but then again, a whole lot of Americans stand, cow eyed, right alongside him.

 

It's about maintaining our 'way of life', which means cheap goods and oil. That's what all the guns are for. With 40% of the world's weapons, and a defense expenditure that exceeds the next ten nations combined, any argument that it's about 'defense' is a fucking joke.

 

Maintaining our 'way of life' through foreign military invasion and occupation is fascism, plain and simple. Gramps probably doesn't consider himself a fascist. Most Germans during the Reich wouldn't have characterized themselves that way, either, but they supported the cause, all if it, nonetheless. They were simply patriots who believed that national security was the state's paramount mission. Sound familiar?

 

Germany imploded under the weight of their ambitions. America is undergoing that process as we speak, albeit in a somewhat less violent way...so far, anyway. Our collapse is more similar to the Soviets: Our addiction to military expenditures and other excesses have buried us, and, like any addict, we've gotten ourselves into an unserviceable mountain of debt in a failed attempt to keep the dream alive.

 

And like the Soviets, our vast military power some of us get such a hard on about has turned out to be paper tiger, but even paper tigers are an expensive pet to keep. Cheap consumer technology and 60 years of a booming arms industry has created a world where a 15 year old with a garage door opener and stolen artillery shell can defeat a state of the art, 60 million dollar main battle tank operated by the most highly trained and well equipped army the world has ever seen. So much for the enemy shaking in its sandals in the face of our 'massive firepower' (Mr. MO-JO, RI-ZIN!). The internet and broadcast media has insured that there is an inexhaustable supply of those 15 year olds. Of coures, we could kill everyone who isn't American, which seems to be what Gramps would be willing to do if 'the shit went down', you know, to preserve our way of life...our 'freedom'. Because they hate us for that.

 

It's all very much like a 1st grade writing assignment, I know, but this is the state of critical thinking across a huge swath of our population. The Gramps-of-America lap up the messaging, created by coke snorting 30 something Madison Avenue word warriors, and employed by politicians who would (and do) put a million of their crackerhead constituents out of their homes to get re-elected. Our Granpas need legitimacy for their bigotry, a vent for their seemingly inexhaustable supply of anger, and 'a cause', however amorphous, poorly defined, and mythical. Right Wing politics provides such services. It's the movement of instant gratification; no analysis or thinking required, go with your gut, celebrate your ignorance, and the pull tab says 'you win!"...nothing, of course.

 

In most other civilized countries American style Right Wing conservativism has been appropriately marginalized to a minority of dunces and kooks, where it can do only limited damage to the populace at large.

 

We should be so lucky.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

I takes about a nano-second after reading the Klenke post to realize that the 'Thank you, nuclear weapons!' argument gets vaporized once nuclear nations actually go to war with other. The assumption that 'this would never happen' because people are too rational and machines are too reliable is ridiculous on its face for anyone who knows any people or deals with any machines.

 

People who make this argument have not done their homework. The U.S. and the Soviets have come fantastically close to a nuclear exchange on several occasions. Had one person made one decision slightly differently, or had one military commander acted wrongly, none of us would probably be here today arguing about how great nukes are. Personally, that doesn't seem like a very 'secure' system to me.

 

While in the Navy, we wargamed on computers with 'the Soviets' (teams populated by our colleagues, of course). Average time to a tactical nuclear escalation once hostilities begin: 5 minutes. Nearly all analysis of such conflicts strongly indicates that a tactical nuclear exchange would almost immediately escalate to full blown strategic nuclear war.

 

Yeah, I'm feeling safer already.

 

Then there's the reliability argument. We all know that the more complex the system, the more reliable it is. The Space Shuttle comes to mind. Star Wars provides another example. Perhaps the two can be combined for an even more reliable, space based defense system?

 

And, finally, the coups de grace: the proliferation problem. All Cold War, pro-nuke arguments assume a) only large state actors will have the toys and b) the security of those toys is absolute.

 

Pakistan. North Korea. The former USSR. Nuff said there.

 

There is only one conclusion any sane person can come to regarding nuclear weapons: The only security from nuclear annihilation will come from the elimination of those weapons.

 

It's not rocket science, folks.

[grandpa]

...The only security from nuclear annihilation will come from the elimination of those weapons...

 

 

I agree, completely, with this statement. Absolutely.

 

However, I also believe that it will not happen. Never. Under any circumstances. Therefore, the next best option (in my opinion) is to make sure that no one can do it to us first. It's that simple.

 

What I saw here in reponse to me voicing my OPINIONS, was what appeared to be angst, anger, and namecalling. And for any of you to become angry to that degree because my opinion differed from yours is rational?

 

Was it because I held these opinions, or voiced them?

 

As one respondant stated, "illogical".

 

bye

 

 

[olyclimber]

come on grandpa. this is a kill or be killed world, designed for utmost efficiency. don't get all liberal on us.

[tvashtarkatena]

I nuked you from space, Grandpa. Know why? For fun. Plus, I never knew either one of my Grandpas, so the concept means nothing to me.

 

Human beings are capable of just about anything. I know Grandpas are supposed to say "It can't be done", it's their job, kind of, but everything is possible. If the correct answer is "no nukes", that's what you work towards.

 

We all know that human beings suck. Nobody here needs a geriatric to fill them in on that little nugget of reality. But human beings are herd animals. Get a few people headed in the right direction for long enough and, every once in a while, the herd follows.

Edited October 12, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

It's easier to bag more pelts that way.

[tvashtarkatena]

Look at it this way: if we don't disarm, nuclear war is inevitable. Eventually, it will happen...again, I suppose I should say. It will happen for the very same reason we built nuclear weapons in the first place: because human beings suck.

 

The sooner we disarm, the less likely that extremely bad outcome will be. To state that this will never happen is to accept the outcome of a nuclear armageddon.

 

No thank you.

 

 

[AlpineK]

It's superiority in mine shafts that's the key to our survival.

 

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C10NA3sPuU&feature=related

[rocky_joe]

Is "glock" how you say "cock" when you have one in your mouth, pretty boy?

 

How about:

 

Obama, he said, "would trade every award as humbling and important as this one is for the dissolution of nuclear arsenals" and "to get our economy moving in a way that creates more jobs and more opportunities."

 

What a Nazi! Right, hooded Klansman?

 

 

yeah, except neither of those quotes have a thing to do with Obama being awarded the prize. He hasn't done anything.

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mMR9Ztva58

[prole]

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mMR9Ztva58

 

Isn't the idea with impersonations that you're supposed to talk and act like the person you're impersonating? This is terrible, we deserve better.

[Choada_Boy]

America deserves better Obama impersonators.

[prole]

I have hope that we can believe in change.