The Energon Pub

HoosierDaddy wrote:

Professor Smooth wrote:

Ironhidensh wrote:

Moonbase2 wrote:I wonder if he had done something about those attacks if they would've been the blunders like the ones we are seeing now. I would rather we have a prepared army than to just throw one in to appease people who want quick retaliation. Keep in mind that most infantry soldiers are between 18 and 25, and it takes a while to prepare them to be efficient soldiers. Add to that inadequate supplies, unarmored Humvees....had we actually been prepared for this war, strategically, and our soldiers ready, it may not have been such a mess....but then again, you can't change a people that have lived their way for centuries. You can't just erase that kind of hate, that kind of backwards living. It will never happen.

Well, not to sound evil, but a couple of nukes would erase it rather well.

Explain how.

Fear. They only respect fear. If you make them think they'll be completely annihalated for attacks against the west they'll stop. I guarantee it. They understand fear quite well. Fear is how Saddam kept them in check. Pure fear and nukes would bring fear. And they know they can't fight a Gihad when there is noone left to fight. Anybody who doesn't realize what a fear like nukes would do to these neanderthals needs to rethink their position because fear is the way to win this. The world doesn't fear the USA anymore and that is why we get so much disrespect.

BULL. ****.

There is no such thing as a nuclear deterrent. I didn't join CND for nothing. The idea that owning nuclear weapons will make other countires fear you only HEIGHTENS the threat of proliferation and the increasingly real risk of nuclear terrorism. If the US says nukes will keep them safe, then Iran's going to want nukes to keep them safe. Then Israel (though they may already have them), and Egypt, and Syria, and North Korea, and Sudan, every other troubled country that has genuine fears for its security. Then your nuclear 'solution' has bred a world in which everyone and his uncle has their finger on a very dangerous trigger. Then you'll know fear.

actually that's part of the MAD doctrine proliferation is necassary for it to work, all sides in mad need to have the ability to unilaterally destroy their enemies, without that ability MAD cannot work as a deterrent.

MAD only ever worked as a deterrant to nuclear warfare, even during the cold war many proxy wars where fought, and as long as some countries have nuclear arms, all countries will need nuclear arms for mad to work.

the US isn't respected becuase of it's foreighn policy, it's constant faux pas with non-americans things. like spelling jihad with a g

whatever happened to love thy neighbour, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and the rest of the good bits of the bible? i've been assured that scaring your enemies into submission isn't particularily christian.

Tammuz wrote:actually that's part of the MAD doctrine proliferation is necassary for it to work, all sides in mad need to have the ability to unilaterally destroy their enemies, without that ability MAD cannot work as a deterrent.

MAD only ever worked as a deterrant to nuclear warfare, even during the cold war many proxy wars where fought, and as long as some countries have nuclear arms, all countries will need nuclear arms for mad to work.

Am I the only one who fails to see any logic in a prevention doctrine containing the words "assured" and "destruction"? It's called MAD for a reason.

Nukes aren't the answer. 'Sides, who do you nuke? Iraq, then you might as well nuke Iran, Syria, and, and, and... See where I'm going with this. You can't nuke everyone who disagrees with your point of view. That leads to a very dangerous place.

There is no easy answer. We wern't attacked by a nation. We were attacked by an organization.

Jesus Prime wrote:

Tammuz wrote:actually that's part of the MAD doctrine proliferation is necassary for it to work, all sides in mad need to have the ability to unilaterally destroy their enemies, without that ability MAD cannot work as a deterrent.

MAD only ever worked as a deterrant to nuclear warfare, even during the cold war many proxy wars where fought, and as long as some countries have nuclear arms, all countries will need nuclear arms for mad to work.

Am I the only one who fails to see any logic in a prevention doctrine containing the words "assured" and "destruction"? It's called MAD for a reason.

i never said it would work. i just outline it's shortcomings an limitations, mad only works when everyone has nukes, and only agiast those nukes

obviously it doesn't work, and it doesn't make the yanks feel safe, otherwise why would they go to war over WMDs?

I was just adding to your post, not refuting it.

I bought into the whole WMD thing, and when they didn't find any, I went along with the "bringing freedom" idea. Then I took my head out of my ass and saw it for what it was. Even my husband, who is as gung-ho as it gets, knows he is not there for the right reasons. He just sees it as good practice for the military. However, I think he is trying to justify the two years of his life he had to spend in that utter hellhole.

Sure, maybe I'm a little emotional about it, especially since I have a personal stake in the matter. But you can spout what you want if you don't have a loved one over there---it's very different when the father of your babies is getting shot at. Very different. And I DID believe in it. They are the ones that f*cked up.

I never bought that weapons stuff. Anything Saddam had would need to have been bought from the west, be it weapons or the technology to create them. So it couldn't have been a surprise to the world if there had have been weapons in Iraq. Or Iran, or Egypt, or anywhere else. It's been said countless times, but the intelligence they had on that whole weapons idea amounted to a few decades old receipts Junior found in daddy's jacket.

I concur. It didn't matter even if Sadam had a Nuke. If the UN was worried, they should have done something. Meanwhile, we, the US F#ck'n A should have put about 100K more troops into Afganistan looking for OBL.

Now if the UN finally got fed up w/Sadam and they said, "Hey, USA, help us out a little will ya, I mean you're already in the region and all..."

But nooooo, we said let's get that little Saddam and we'll leave a little group of grunts in Afganistan with some UN troops. I'm sure that OBL and his crew will surrender and then the war on terror will be over.

I just find it funny that it's all the SEMPER FI DO OR DIE marines that are all about nuking and fear and the US being the best through what basically amounts to bully tactics.

If a nation declares war on us, and attacks our soil with its military, then I say to hell with them. It's only common sense to fight them. Go all the way into their capitol and blast out their government. Overthrow their whole power structure and maybe even summarily execute their leader, in front of the citizens.

Especially if that nation makes laws that blend religion into state, or treats women like ****, or wants to wipe out an ethic group or three.

But terrorists attacked us. No nation. Taliban Afghanistan was the closest thing. There's a moral grey area.

I'm sick of all the nuke 'em tactics. I'm sick of all the talk that America is so much better. Our way of life is more permissive and less oppressing, yes. But so are a lot of other countries. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, England, and dare I say it, France. America is a great place to live, but how much better is it?

We have to fight back, yes. We have to find Bin Laden and bring him to justice, yes. But why do we have to establish ourselves as the literal best because we have the biggest toys. It's stupid. It's cowboy bullshit.

Sweep in, destroy the Taliban, grab Bin Laden, set up a new government in Afghanistan, and secure economic control over the region. Then go the hell home and build a higher tower.

That's it.

We all need to stop the hating on France. France is a proud, cultured country, and their society has earned that. Everything they do is done right, done well. America loves expensive cars, gadgets, and houses, but we do everything else CHEAP. Cheap food, disposable plates, cheap clothes...not the French. Culturally, in many ways, they are light years ahead of us. Plus, we are arrogant just as they are. "America number one!", anybody?

Moonbase2 wrote:We all need to stop the hating on France. France is a proud, cultured country, and their society has earned that. Everything they do is done right, done well. America loves expensive cars, gadgets, and houses, but we do everything else CHEAP. Cheap food, disposable plates, cheap clothes...not the French. Culturally, in many ways, they are light years ahead of us. Plus, we are arrogant just as they are. "America number one!", anybody?

Preach it sister.

You know France has nuclear power plants everywhere, and they sell the energy surplus.

Why the HELL aren't we doing that????? I want to hit someone with a tack hammer...


Hey Blast Cannon, are you out there? Are you reading this?

Moonbase2 wrote:We all need to stop the hating on France. France is a proud, cultured country, and their society has earned that. Everything they do is done right, done well. America loves expensive cars, gadgets, and houses, but we do everything else CHEAP. Cheap food, disposable plates, cheap clothes...not the French. Culturally, in many ways, they are light years ahead of us. Plus, we are arrogant just as they are. "America number one!", anybody?

Moonbase2, this post isn't directed strictly at you. I'll just address my frustrations here so please, no offense.

But isn't that exactly the point? I mean, it's ok for France to be proud of their country but it's not OK for us to be proud to be Americans? I think one would expect that a person would think his nation is the best and that he would make excuses to prove it even if just for himself. As far as all the nuke talk in this thread, it's gotten out of hand. There was a theoretical question posted and a theoretical answer given. Now all of a sudden all of us "Marines" are nuke happy. Sheesh people!

But back to the "America number one!". I say damn straight we are. We feed and clothe the hungry and needy of the entire world. More so then the rest of the world COMBINED! When there is a natural disaster we are the FIRST ones there every time. Americans are the most giving compassionate people on Earth. And all of you who try to make it look like we are a bunch of loser uncaring assholes should be ashamed of yourselves. What the hell? We have people like Saddam, and Kim Jong Il and Osama and the whole bunch but it's America that is the evil ones. Wow. It is certain that some people really need to get their priorties straight. You want to blame America for trying to "push" our way of life on other countries? Why? Because we want to see everybody live happy prosperous lives like we do? Because we would love to see everybody taste freedome like we do? So sue us. For cripes sake.

If you feed and clothe everyone in the world, then why are so many of your citizens homeless or living below the poverty line?

I seem to recall US citizens having the freedom to go to Mexico and Canada without a passport? Was everyone sleeping when that freedom disappeared?

I'm not saying the US is a bad place to live and I'm not saying its the worst place in the world. But it's not "number 1" in almost anything except for consumption and, perhaps, debt.

Professor Smooth wrote:If you feed and clothe everyone in the world, then why are so many of your citizens homeless or living below the poverty line?

I seem to recall US citizens having the freedom to go to Mexico and Canada without a passport? Was everyone sleeping when that freedom disappeared?

I'm not saying the US is a bad place to live and I'm not saying its the worst place in the world. But it's not "number 1" in almost anything except for consumption and, perhaps, debt.

possibly carbon foot print too.

but that's beside the point, nationalism is very dangerous, i never really got why anyone is proud of their country, it's not like your contry is the be all and end all of everything, trusting you're government becuase they're you're govenment seems idiotic; why should i trust the british government, thieving incompetant bastards, why on earth would you trust a bunch of politicians just becuase they're the same nationality as you?

nobody cares if your american, british, canadian, french, unless you're racist, no? non of the terms are mutually exclusive with the term idiot, no?

Tammuz wrote:

Professor Smooth wrote:If you feed and clothe everyone in the world, then why are so many of your citizens homeless or living below the poverty line?

I seem to recall US citizens having the freedom to go to Mexico and Canada without a passport? Was everyone sleeping when that freedom disappeared?

I'm not saying the US is a bad place to live and I'm not saying its the worst place in the world. But it's not "number 1" in almost anything except for consumption and, perhaps, debt.

possibly carbon foot print too.

but that's beside the point, nationalism is very dangerous, i never really got why anyone is proud of their country, it's not like your contry is the be all and end all of everything, trusting you're government becuase they're you're govenment seems idiotic; why should i trust the british government, thieving incompetant bastards, why on earth would you trust a bunch of politicians just becuase they're the same nationality as you?

I don't trust the government at all. They are all a bunch of corupt bastards. But I still love my country and am proud to be American.

nobody cares if your american, british, canadian, french, unless you're racist, no? non of the terms are mutually exclusive with the term idiot, no?

Don't know what you mean by this.

Professor Smooth wrote:If you feed and clothe everyone in the world, then why are so many of your citizens homeless or living below the poverty line?

Because we are feeding and clothing everybody else. Are you disputing that the US gives more charity to the world than any other country?

I seem to recall US citizens having the freedom to go to Mexico and Canada without a passport? Was everyone sleeping when that freedom disappeared?

Not in my lifetime but even so, we wouldn't notice because who cares about Mexico and Canada?

I'm not saying the US is a bad place to live and I'm not saying its the worst place in the world. But it's not "number 1" in almost anything except for consumption and, perhaps, debt.

You might want to research that then because you are wrong. That is not opinion, it is fact. You are wrong about that. Google it and find out all the good things America does. Try to avoid radical websites while doing so.

you love a country run by corrupt bastards? why?

basically if you start saying I'm better becuase I'm american, is racsim, and you can be idiot no matter your nationality

if your wife(who i assume you love) happened to be french, would you love her any less? if your mates where bangladeshi, would you not hang out with them? if your politicians where italian would they be any more trustworthy?

HoosierDaddy wrote:As far as all the nuke talk in this thread, it's gotten out of hand. There was a theoretical question posted and a theoretical answer given. Now all of a sudden all of us "Marines" are nuke happy. Sheesh people!

That wasn't just to you. I see it a lot. But I did find it disturbing to see SEMPER FI and then advocating nukes in the same post.

HoosierDaddy wrote:But back to the "America number one!". I say damn straight we are. We feed and clothe the hungry and needy of the entire world. More so then the rest of the world COMBINED! When there is a natural disaster we are the FIRST ones there every time. Americans are the most giving compassionate people on Earth. And all of you who try to make it look like we are a bunch of loser uncaring assholes should be ashamed of yourselves. What the hell? We have people like Saddam, and Kim Jong Il and Osama and the whole bunch but it's America that is the evil ones. Wow. It is certain that some people really need to get their priorties straight. You want to blame America for trying to "push" our way of life on other countries? Why? Because we want to see everybody live happy prosperous lives like we do? Because we would love to see everybody taste freedome like we do? So sue us. For cripes sake.

Tammuz is right when he says that nationality is dangerous. It's a tribal instinct that doesn't need to exist today. I understand it to a point, but I'm just saying there are better countries and equal countries in many different aspects, and America is not necessarily the end all be all of places to live.

I see what you're saying about the tragedy that people think America is evil when there are so many actual abusive dictators out there, but I have a hard time equating wanting everybody to "live happy prosperous lives like we do" with war and invasion and dropping bombs. In Afghanistan we killed more people with our bombs than died in all of the 911 disasters. Why the hell was that necessary? Why? Why didn't we just go right into Kabul, guns blazing, and only drop a bomb on the capitol building or something? Sure it's a tragedy to lose historical buildings like that, but they're not lives.

No, I don't know much about military strategy. That's why I'm asking. But it seems to me like those who planned the Iraq war didn't either.

Dark Zarak wrote:Preach it sister.

You know France has nuclear power plants everywhere, and they sell the energy surplus.

Because the liberals and hippy tree huggers don't want anything to do with it. Never mind that's it's safer, cleaner, and cheaper. They'd rather chase golden rainbows like solar power and jack up prices on corn with ethanol product.

The only two nails holding their box of reasoning together are 1) Chernobyl - a unkept facility in a communist country which couldn't or wouldn't upgrade the facility as it aged. It's a recipe for disaster. 2) Three-mile island, where a minor incident barely affected the surrounding area. The most radiation any one person absorbed was the equivalent of a chest x-ray. To this day, there have been no serious illness or adverse affects from this. Also this incident happen a full 7 years before Chernobyl.

So far, there have been hundreds of thousands of deaths as a result of coal mining and oil drilling. Not to mention the toll taken on wild life and environmental problems.
The amount of people who have died as a result of nuclear power in the US... 0.00 (that's zero people, you do the math).
Since then, advances in nuclear power have increased. However, all of our current facilities are aging, but not allowed to build new reactors with newer, safer technology, or not even allowed to upgrade the currect facility.

Professor Smooth wrote:I seem to recall US citizens having the freedom to go to Mexico and Canada without a passport? Was everyone sleeping when that freedom disappeared?

I agree with this to a point, however the freedom to travel between countries isn't exactly a Constitutional protected right. What I opposed was that this measure was passed as some sort of half-assed attempt to keep illegal immigrants from entering the country.

DJDrew&ScoobyDoo wrote:I concur. It didn't matter even if Sadam had a Nuke. If the UN was worried, they should have done something. Meanwhile, we, the US F#ck'n A should have put about 100K more troops into Afganistan looking for OBL.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
The UN...do something? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Oh, God, my side hurts.

I'll agree, we hurt ourselves more by going after Iraq without finishing what we started in Afganistan, but I totally disagree about the UN. They would have done 1)Jack and 2) S#!t
Here's what they would have done: Saddam would quit cooperating for a 100th time, and the UN would have bent over and took it for the 100th time. The UN is about as useless as a golden trash can, it looks pretty but all it does is hold garbage.

Loki120 wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:Preach it sister.

You know France has nuclear power plants everywhere, and they sell the energy surplus.

Because the liberals and hippy tree huggers don't want anything to do with it. Never mind that's it's safer, cleaner, and cheaper. They'd rather chase golden rainbows like solar power and jack up prices on corn with ethanol product.

Chernobyl. Three Mile Island. Windsale. Sellafield.

Jesus Prime wrote:

Loki120 wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:Preach it sister.

You know France has nuclear power plants everywhere, and they sell the energy surplus.

Because the liberals and hippy tree huggers don't want anything to do with it. Never mind that's it's safer, cleaner, and cheaper. They'd rather chase golden rainbows like solar power and jack up prices on corn with ethanol product.

Chernobyl. Three Mile Island. Windsale. Sellafield.

Didn't see anything that was more dangerous then the current methods we have. Let's put in this way, there are dozens of operating nuclear power plants in the US, all of which operate everyday without issues, and have been for more than a quarter of a century. Nuclear energy is cannot be denied as being cheaper, safer, and cleaner then fossil fuels (which let's face it, is a finite resource).

Loki, for once I agree with you 1,000% instead of 50%.

If everyone is so scared, why not build the reactors underground?

Tammuz wrote:you love a country run by corrupt bastards? why?

Umm, every country is run by corrupt bastards. So by your logic every person in every nation should hate their country. Or at the very least not love it. Do you hate Britain? Wait, since you're far to the left of socialism that answer is probably yes. So, do you hate Cuba? Nah, of course you don't, but it's run by corrupt bastards. Or a corrupt bastard if you want to be specific.

basically if you start saying I'm better becuase I'm american, is racsim, and you can be idiot no matter your nationality

How is saying, "America is superior to all other nations," racist? How desperate are you? The term "Americans" makes absolutely no racial implications nor does it carry any racial connotations. It does it explicitly state nationality. Hence someone who makes the claim, "America is superior to all other nations," is in fact a nationalist.

Wow, I'm really surprised that you think racism and nationalism are synonyms. Keep grasping for straws, Tammy.

HoosierDaddy wrote:

Professor Smooth wrote:I seem to recall US citizens having the freedom to go to Mexico and Canada without a passport? Was everyone sleeping when that freedom disappeared?

Not in my lifetime but even so, we wouldn't notice because who cares about Mexico and Canada?

Are you actually claiming to be less that one year old?