Dumb Question- - Page 6 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Hatterasguy · #76 07-31-2012, 06:11 PM

I wish we would totally pull out of the middle eastern wars, its a damn waste of a fine military if you ask me.

If we want to take it over we should just nuke it.

cullennewsom · #77 07-31-2012, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

If we want to take it over we should just nuke it.

Someone tell that guy that his account's been hacked by a 13 year old.

Botnst · #78 07-31-2012, 07:02 PM

You're not going to last long here by insulting folks. Especially long-time contributors who are well-liked.

cullennewsom · #79 07-31-2012, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

You're not going to last long here by insulting folks. Especially long-time contributors who are well-liked.

Oh! You don't think he was joking? In that case, I'm definitely not sorry.

PS I've been here a while. My attendance is sporadic, I normally avoid the off-topic and political discussions. I don't know what possessed me; I must have eaten some spoiled food.

Botnst · #80 07-31-2012, 07:27 PM

Oh, an intentional insult.

I understand and wish you well.

davidmash · #81 07-31-2012, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benhogan

seriously, how can you tell the good guys from the bad?

The ones who kill people or plot to kill people are bad. The people who get killed are good. I hope that clears it up for you.

davidmash · #82 07-31-2012, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

This is actually a very interesting thread, I wouldn't even respond to Larry, because within one page, we all know it will turn into a thread about him being persecuted and his dislike of Obama.

This sounds like an interesting book, im all for the US getting out of Afghanistan as soon as practical, but it has to be done properly. From the standpoint of having not read the book though, id be curious at how we arrived at the assumption that the presence of US troops on the ground is more of a deterrent than before.

After all, India tested their first nuclear device as far back as 1974. With Pakistan following, and supposedly having nuclear capability in 1984, though they didn't test anything till the 90s.

So my question is that India and Pakistan have had the ability to nuke each other since before the Russians got out of Afghanistan. When the Russians withdrew in 89, it didn't happen then, so how much more different are the circumstances now, as far as a power vacuum created?

Why would we naturally assume that the absence of US ground forces would make that much difference?

I agree with most of what you say and I think it would be nice to pull out the 'right' way. My concern is that there is no right way. My concern is no matter how we withdraw, when we withdraw, who is in charge and how the planets align that the end result will be the same. My concern is that if there is a right way no one will know what it is.

I do not like the idea of going into a country with no plan, and then pulling out and watching it self destruct. There are good people in both Iraq and Afghan. There are innocent children. They did not ask for this. They do not deserve this. I fear they are screwed what ever is done.

Botnst · #83 07-31-2012, 08:06 PM

The way to withdraw is the way that Julius Caesar withdrew from conquered principalities in Gaul. After defeating some tribe or other he'd kill the leaders and put the strongest surviving noble family from an adjoining kingdom or tribe in charge. Then he'd garrison a small force of legionnaires by the capital town to support the weak new guy. This created a patchwork of weak local states each dependent on the local centurion for his authority.

Another way to do it is also a strategy of Caesar's, also employed in Gaul. You conqure a people, kill the leaders (or take family hostages, which you kill if they new folks fork-up) then put somebody new in charge of the conquered tribe and then leave. If it doesn't work out you again invade and kill the leadership and establish a new political family as leader. Then shake your finger at the new family and say, "Make it work or I'm coming back for you and your family and friends".

panZZer · #84 07-31-2012, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

Passivists ALWAYS ask for fewer troops. Not having sufficient strength in a war theater is a good way to suffer more casualties.

Yea--whats with those j ass's??
We need many more --sitting around playing pinockle,
like you.

MS Fowler · #85 07-31-2012, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

The ones who kill people or plot to kill people are bad. The people who get killed are good. I hope that clears it up for you.

Coming out of the first Lord of the Rings movies, a friend who knew I had not read the book was concerned that I was able to follow the story. I replied, dressed in black and dripping blood are the bad guys, dressed in white are the good guys.
Too bad real life isn't that simple.

t walgamuth · #86 07-31-2012, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennewsom

I posted an abbreviated list of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests which occurred within the borders of the continental US. The list did not include tests conducted in the Pacific, or the Atlantic. Nor did it include tests conducted by other nations. Nor did it include underground tests. It does indeed indicate that your estimate of the extent of weapons testing done in the stated time and place was low. I expect that anyone with the ability to add sums and do long division to also agree that there were more than "1 or 2 per year"

Which other nuclear armed states do you propose are itching for a brawl? I've listed them for your convenience; because I know how you hate to click a link or do any research yourself. US, UK, France, Russia, Israel, North Korea, China

I looked again at your list and see the numeral at the end of each line. I missed that the first time I looked at the list and assumed it was one test for each line. So now I conclude that that means there were that many explosions at that location in that year. Does it tell how big they were and so forth?

These facts are apparently germaine to the discussion but I am no expert on the various ways nuclear warheads can be tested.

I only know what was reported in the book and what was discussed about the ramifications of the actions of the US in Afganistan.

cullennewsom · #87 07-31-2012, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

I looked again at your list and see the numeral at the end of each line. I missed that the first time I looked at the list and assumed it was one test for each line. So now I conclude that that means there were that many explosions at that location in that year. Does it tell how big they were and so forth?

These facts are apparently germaine to the discussion but I am no expert on the various ways nuclear warheads can be tested.

I only know what was reported in the book and what was discussed about the ramifications of the actions of the US in Afganistan.

Here's where I copied and pasted the table from, for no particular reason other than they had presented it in a simple table form. My formatting was quick and dirty, sorry about that. There are many websites that have archived this information, and in many cases you can follow links back official gov't documents if you're a proper skeptic.

Gallery of U.S. Nuclear Tests

Click on one of the links such as Operation Plumbbob and you'll see details of the test including the time and date of each bomb detonation, and photographs, and charts or other data if available; as an example:

Quote:

Plumbbob released some 58,300 kilocuries of radioiodine (I-131) into the atmosphere. This was more than twice as much as any other continental test series. This produced total civilian radiation exposures amounting to 120 million person-rads of thyroid tissue exposure (about 32% of all exposure due to continental nuclear tests). This can be expected to eventually cause about 38,000 cases of thyroid cancer, leading to some 1900 deaths.

t walgamuth · #88 08-01-2012, 07:59 AM

Thanks for this additional information.

Can we agree that a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India is something we would like very much to avoid?

MS Fowler · #89 08-01-2012, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Thanks for this additional information.

Can we agree that a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India is something we would like very much to avoid?

Are WE capable of preventing it?
Are WE responsible to prevent it?

I read more people complaining about the US should not be the world's policeman. Are you saying need should be the policeman to the world? Who pays that cost?

Air&Road · #90 08-01-2012, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Are WE capable of preventing it?
Are WE responsible to prevent it?

I read more people complaining about the US should not be the world's policeman. Are you saying need should be the policeman to the world? Who pays that cost?

Don't worry, Hillary and B.O. will have us as just another member of the world government before too long, so it won't matter.