posted
That's the difference between me and you, Snay. I make my insults general, you make yours specific.
At least I had something else to say BESIDES that. You say 'bully' as if you actually believe that someone like Hussein or BinLaden wouldn't stoop to deploying and using such weapons if he had them (or as if you believe that there wasn't a NATO plan to use tac nukes against the Warsaw Pact armies if they had invaded.)
I don't see how availability of 'small nukes' (which are still about the size of the 2 dropped on Japan) will lead to their indiscriminate use now... any more than the availability of 'small nukes' (all there was before the development of the big H-bomb) led to their indiscriminate use then.
[ March 11, 2002, 13:27: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:That's the difference between me and you, Snay. I make my insults general, you make yours specific.
Yes. Bullies generally try and cast as wide a net as possible, while I try and keep my targets limited. Sort of like in war -- you're the kind of guy who'd want to nuke whole countries, while I'd opt to send in ground troops to avoid killing innocents.
And, well, no, you didn't really have anything to say Rob, except "yay nuclear weapons!" which is a fairly immature attitude to have (reminds me of a kid in my high school history class who started cheering "yeah, nuke the fucking jap fucks!" when we watched a film of a nuclear detonation -- teacher grabbed him out of the chair and him suspended for being an idiot).
Anyhoo, your last post was just you whining because you hate it when people aim insults at you after you aim insults at them. BTW, I didn't know you had an inferiority complex. I wouldn't call anything I said (with the exception of being a bully) an insult, tho.
quote:I don't see how availability of 'small nukes' (which are still about the size of the 2 dropped on Japan) will lead to their indiscriminate use now... any more than the availability of 'small nukes' (all there was before the development of the big H-bomb) led to their indiscriminate use then.
FAILURE OF LOGIC!! FAILURE OF LOGIC!!
Back then, they weren't "small" nukes, were they Rob? They were "big" nukes, because there were no nukes larger! Correct? Wow. Once again, Rob is forced to think.
Nukes = Bad.
And once we start dropping them all over the place, why shouldn't we get nuked, hmm?
Oh, but Saddam isn't really a big bully. Oh, sure, to surrounding nations, and his own people, but he really can't do much more beyond that. And, oh YEAH! He was supported by the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! So maybe we're the big teacher who turned a blind eye to the bully when he picked on weaker kids, and then only started punishing him when we realized we could get in good with all those cute moms.
quote:you didn't really have anything to say Rob, except "yay nuclear weapons!"
A lie and a mischaracterization, in one sentence. That's got to be some new kind of record.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I never said they would be 'great' I said they might be useful.
Your inability to distinguish between the two things is annoying, but unsurprising. You have pretty much the same reaction when we talk about guns, after all.
With you, it's either "A is great" or "A must be eliminated."
You seem to have no middle ground, such as "A is unpleasant and I'd be happy to be rid of it, but as long as it may be useful to me I'm going to keep it around."
Admittedly, killing less people is 'great.' It must be awkward for you to be on the side of the people who FAVOR mass destruction...
[ March 11, 2002, 13:46: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:“We will not discuss classified details of military planning or contingencies, nor will we comment on selective and misleading leaks,” Army Lt. Col. Catherine Abbott said Saturday in the Defense Department’s specific response to details in the article. But she noted that the nuclear posture review is required by law and said “it does not provide operational guidance on nuclear targeting or planning.”
quote:Both the British Foreign Office and the Italian defense minister dismissed the plans as routine military planning. A NATO spokesman said it was too early to comment. “Military forces from time to time evaluate their long-term programs even when it is hypothetical,” Italian Defense Minister Antonio Martino was quoted as saying by the ANSA news agency.
quote: On CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Powell said there was “less than meets the eye and less than meets the headline with respect to the story.” “We are always reviewing our options,” he said, adding the nuclear posture review in question was required by Congress. Powell confirmed that the new study had virtually eliminated Russia as a nuclear threat, reflecting the new post-Cold War realities, and had focused now on what the administration has singled out as the new threat facing the United States — nations developing weapons of mass destruction. “All that study said ... is that this class of nations — Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea — are developing the kinds of weapons of mass destruction that should be troubling to all of us,” he said. “We should not get all carried away with some sense that the United States is planning to use nuclear weapons in some contingency that is coming up in the near future,” Powell added. ”It is not the case. What the Pentagon has done with this study is sound, military, conceptual planning, and the president will take that planning and he will give his directions on how to proceed.”
quote: The classified report is not a plan for action, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. The posture review also includes President Bush’s plans to slash the United States’ ready nuclear stockpiles by about two-thirds over the next decade. The top Pentagon arms control official declined to discuss the contents or details of the report. But Douglas J. Feith, the undersecretary of defense, told The Associated Press that “the purpose and the effect of the administration’s nuclear policy as embodied in the nuclear policy review to make the use of nuclear weapons less likely.”
About what I thought.
Then you have folks like the Iranian hard-liners, who would have you believe:
quote:“The order indicates that the U.S. administration is going to wreak havoc on the whole world in order to establish its hegemony and domination,” said the conservative Tehran Times newspaper, which is close to Iran’s hard-liners.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Your inability to distinguish between the two things is annoying, but unsurprising. You have pretty much the same reaction when we talk about guns, after all.
With you, it's either "A is great" or "A must be eliminated."
LIAR! LIAR! I'm going to sue you for libel you stinking liar!
Wow. Felt good to get to yell at Rob for once.
quote:I never said they would be 'great' I said they might be useful.
Yeah but you were crying liar about 'Yah, Nukes!' How was that a mischaraterization? I notice you decided to attack another post altogether. Eyes. Prize. Refocus.
You apparently think its perfectly okay to nuke any city poses a threat, regardless of innocent deaths, so I don't know why you're trying to paint yourself as not being "Yay, nukes!"
Oh, and the Iran quote seems right -- Bush does want to establish dominance over the world. But, then, that's all bullies know how to do.
posted
Can we stop playing tennis with an insult-ball?
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Charles Capps
We appreciate your concern. It is noted and stupid.
Member # 9
posted
This forum is not for personal insults.
If it stoops to this level again, users will be banned. I am very serious about this, and am very, very annoyed that I had to be called in.
Topic Closed
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic