- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If you were our President, under what circumstances would you
Posted on 6/28/14 at 9:08 am to LaFlyer
Posted on 6/28/14 at 9:08 am to LaFlyer
How do we defeat a spiritual warrior that hides behind woman and children?
Isn't that what we've been trying to do for the last 13 years?
Most of the conflicts in the middle east are tied to some kind of 'unsettled' spiritual conflict from many many moons ago.
I think we have seen a pretty relentless commitment from people who believe they are fighting on "God's team" and been appointed by him to do his work.
Of course, I think they are fighting on the behalf of Satan, "the father of all lies."
Isn't that what we've been trying to do for the last 13 years?
Most of the conflicts in the middle east are tied to some kind of 'unsettled' spiritual conflict from many many moons ago.
I think we have seen a pretty relentless commitment from people who believe they are fighting on "God's team" and been appointed by him to do his work.
Of course, I think they are fighting on the behalf of Satan, "the father of all lies."
0
Posted on 6/28/14 at 9:19 am to ApexTiger
I have a lib friend who says he would never use them under any circumstances. Even if missiles were comming down on us.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 9:32 am to TrueTiger
quote:
I have a lib friend who says he would never use them under any circumstances. Even if missiles were coming down on us.
I am sure he/she are real nice people.
Pretty sure if his family is being bombed and killed he might have a different take which is place head between legs and say "goodbye"
Posted on 6/28/14 at 9:53 am to ApexTiger
Thread hijack. Nuclear weapons are one reason I will never vote for a woman to be president. There are 2 scenarios I can see (as a woman myself) playing out as the president makes a choice about nuclear war. 1) She would find it difficult to give the okay to kill uncounted children (especially if she is a mother herself) and not make a call that might need to be made. Or 2) she is brash is her decision to go forth with using nuclear wars in an ever unending attempt to not be considered "too soft."
I'm a woman. There would never be a scenario in which I would use nuclear weapons because I couldn't bear the responsibility of harming even one child, much less thousands. I should never be president.
I'm a woman. There would never be a scenario in which I would use nuclear weapons because I couldn't bear the responsibility of harming even one child, much less thousands. I should never be president.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 9:59 am to GeeOH
quote:
winning is the ONLYootuon in war.
The war was already won. Even Eisenhower opposed the bombs.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 10:00 am to LaFlyer
quote:
If the bombs had not been dropped and an invasion took place instead 1,200,000 casualties were expected on the allied side alone.
That's a bullshite statistic by a bomb-eager Administration.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 10:04 am to Rex
quote:
Never. Harry Truman should be tried for two counts of crime against humanity, even posthumously.
Eventually, someone will use a nuke against us because we set the precedent.
quote:
Rex
Posted on 6/28/14 at 10:05 am to ApexTiger
Never.
You don't have to be willing to use them to convince people that you would be willing to use them.
I would literally rather country A attack country B and country B never retaliate as its real response. Imagine the message that sends the world. Personally, I'm a fan of our human race continuing even more than I'm an American. That's saying something, because "America" is something I believe in.
You don't have to be willing to use them to convince people that you would be willing to use them.
I would literally rather country A attack country B and country B never retaliate as its real response. Imagine the message that sends the world. Personally, I'm a fan of our human race continuing even more than I'm an American. That's saying something, because "America" is something I believe in.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 10:07 am to m2pro
We need more people like you... but don't expect to be applauded on this board.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 10:08 am to Rex
quote:
That's a bullshite statistic by a bomb-eager Administration
So you think the Japanese would have just surrendered when they saw American bombers and landing craft approaching the coast?
They would kill themselves before surrendering in the face of an invasion. The death toll on both side would have been catastrophic.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 10:09 am to Rex
quote:
That's a bullshite statistic by a bomb-eager Administration.
Got a link to a less bullshite statistic? I'll wait while you Google feverishly looking for some numbers to slant things your way. Take your time.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 10:10 am to Beerinthepocket
quote:
So you think the Japanese would have just surrendered when they saw American bombers and landing craft approaching the coast?
Of course not, but they were utterly defenseless.
quote:
They would kill themselves before surrendering in the face of an invasion.
Then let them. Their blood would have been by choice rather than by murder.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 10:13 am to tysonslefthook
quote:
Got a link to a less bullshite statistic? I'll wait while you Google feverishly looking for some numbers to slant things your way. Take your time.
Don't have to. It's an OBVIOUSLY manufactured number. There was absolutely no way to estimate how many lives would have been lost if the bombs hadn't been dropped. Might have been less than the number of civilians killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, might have been more. Nobody knows.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 10:15 am to Rex
If anyone knows bullshite, it's Rex.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 10:15 am to Rex
quote:
Then let them. Their blood would have been by choice rather than by murder.
So you'd rather sacrifice more Americans than those who started the war? These are the same guys that decided to blow up Pearl Harbor. What concern did they have for innocent lives when that started?
Posted on 6/28/14 at 10:15 am to Rex
quote:
Then let them. Their blood would have been by choice rather than by murder
Countless Americans would have been killed before the Japanese reached that point.
As a grandson of a man that was within a quarter inch of losing his life due to Nazi gun fire, I'm grateful for every decision made that preserved lives of Americans in WWII. This decision being the biggest.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 10:18 am to Rex
quote:
That's a bullshite statistic by a single payer-eager Administration.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 10:19 am to ApexTiger
In response to a nuclear attack against us or a devastating domestic terrorist attack similar to 9/11. For instance if the Taliban could be positively identified as the source of such a terrorist attack, based on sound intelligence, I would level the area where they are known to congregate in Afghanistan.
Posted on 6/28/14 at 10:19 am to Rex
Rex, how old are you?
Posted on 6/28/14 at 10:23 am to Beerinthepocket
quote:
Countless Americans would have been killed before the Japanese reached that point.
Hitler was close to developing his own A-bomb, and could have used that same excuse to drop a bomb on Philadelphia.
quote:
As a grandson of a man that was within a quarter inch of losing his life due to Nazi gun fire, I'm grateful for every decision made that preserved lives of Americans in WWII. This decision being the biggest.
I understand that sentiment, but I don't agree that we should use the certainty of 200,000 civilian deaths to prevent an American death that might or might not occur.
Page 2 of 15
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News