RE: Afghanistan

RE: Afghanistan (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

truckinslave -> RE: Afghanistan (3/13/2009 11:20:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoiJen How more likely do you get than a boat sitting outside of Cuba aiming it's weapons at us and daring us to make "one wrong move"? And this... "Had I been forced to bet I of course would have bet you would have refused- or been unable- to answer the q." ...is a shitty disposition. boi PS- as a matter of fact, she still has declined to answer the question, really.

truckinslave -> RE: Afghanistan (3/13/2009 11:27:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoiJen I had no idea that a decedent of Washington was among us...wow. Back to reality... OUR freedom is not what is at stake with our abroad missions and deployments. Other people in other countries who are responsible for their own freedom...those people are who are stake. And frankly, we fought for our freedom, they need grab their balls and fight for theirs. I'm tired of American lives being lost in countries where not one of those people will remember the person that just died for them. OUR brothers and sisters and daughters and sons and husbands and fathers and mothers and wives deserve better. We are not thanked for the efforts that we take to help other countries and quite often we take political heat for it. fuck it...I'm tired of of seeing American hands being held out to help people and American dollars being spent elsewhere. Bring them home. All of them. Now. boi BTW, it's neither unusual or in many cases particularly difficult to to trace yourself back to some famous person or other. If you go back very many generations in the Va area you probably can trace back to GW or TJ. Many in the NE trace back to one or more of the Founding Fathers. Six of my great-grandparents were born in WV, with seven of them tracing back to Va before that. I know of two connections to Gen Gates, one to Pres Washington, and I'm close to proving one to Thomas J. Shawnee, Cherokee, Chinese, and African as well.

truckinslave -> RE: Afghanistan (3/13/2009 11:33:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoiJen quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou We can do that, but be careful what you ask for. Cutting back the military means downsizing troop strength. All those ex-military personal are then faced with finding jobs. Now that being said, whether you like it or not, we have reasons for maintaining overseas military installations besides helping out foreign people. Our economy is tied to the rest of the world. Our strength abroad is an intricate part of protecting our economic and political interests around the globe. The military is not a club for people to join for a paycheck and benefits. It's a job, and it's voluntary. I feel for families that have members overseas, but the simple fact of the matter is that it's voluntary. Yes because our people spending money else where right now has helped us SO much economically. Yep... I can see it now. The reality is this...you bring them to enforce our borders and OUR primary military needs and troop strength doesn't diminish. Our "interests" around the globe are actually minimal at this rate. Part of what has driven us into our current economic mess is spending (something like) 8 million dollars a day on another country. And a great deal of that is spent through our military resources who could be giving our own country that kind of boost. Yeah it's voluntary. It's a voluntary position that is practically handed to people from communities that enduring poverty. This is often the best job any of them could ever hope for and have been fed that their entire lives. Now... NOW their countrymen (civilians) and their leadership throw their lives away because their lives are expendable. That voluntary is taken with the understanding that their lives are supposed to be cared about and the value of their lives will be considered before taking military action. Repeated occupation of countries that will do just fine without us and sacrificing their lives is not taking into consideration their lives and their value. And besides when the fuck did it become our military's job to take care of economic and political interests? I thought it was their job to take our physical and strategic safety and guarantee tomorrow for Americans. I thought it was their job to stand on a wall at night so that a civilian didn't have to. I did not think it was their job to go around kissing babies and rebuilding other people's countries because they were dumb enough to harbor terrorists or pick fights with their neighbors. boi I would have left Iraq a smoking ruin the day after Pres Hussein (theirs, not ours) was shot and killed trying to escape. I would do the same for Iran's nuclear facilities tomorrow.

LadyPact -> RE: Afghanistan (3/13/2009 12:20:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave The Sheriff's Department is expensive too..... It sure is. Thanks for bringing up that really good point. In a lot of places, law enforcement is underfunded. But guess what? Every dollar spent on the Sheriff's Department benefits people in this country. Directly. The lives that do get lost in law enforcement, our lost protecting and serving our citizens. Not any other place in the world. While we're at it, the Sheriff's Department is filled with American citizens. We don't as members of other nations to come here and police our streets. Asking them to do so wouldn't make a bit of sense. What you're implying is that the reverse is true. It isn't this country's job to police the world. Our military's position shouldn't be that of Sheriff to settle the disputes in other countries or to protect their boarders. We should be protecting our own.

BoiJen -> RE: Afghanistan (3/13/2009 12:31:12 PM)
I'd like to highlight that "our boarders" includes our airways and our waterways. Personally, if a Mexican wants a job in the US they should go through proper channels. If they choose not to then their risk should be being shot at the boarder. Our economy suffers because those illegal aliens aren't taxpaying citizens. Now, I do believe that if people want to come work in the US the US should allow better ways for that to happen than what we see now. I also think our prison system should mirror the Mexican prison system (where their prisoners pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the facility). boi

LadyPact -> RE: Afghanistan (3/13/2009 12:54:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: ORIGINAL: BoiJen How more likely do you get than a boat sitting outside of Cuba aiming it's weapons at us and daring us to make "one wrong move"? And this... "Had I been forced to bet I of course would have bet you would have refused- or been unable- to answer the q." ...is a shitty disposition. boi PS- as a matter of fact, she still has declined to answer the question, really. I didn't specifically say that I thought North Korea may overtake South Korea. They'd probably do a good bit of killing each other. To tell you the truth, I don't especially think it would last long, but a good many of their resources would be lost in the process. Civil war tends to do that. Afterwards, what economic resources they would have would continue to dwindle. Since the private businesses in South Korea would no longer have any trade with the U.S., they wouldn't have quite the market they do now. The small businesses that currently depend on their income from current military soldiers stationed there would fold. North Korea would have to spend more of it's military funds to keep South Korea, so they'd probably have to spend more of their own funds on that action than deciding to try to muck up matters for other places in the world. In the end, not much that would directly affect your average American citizen, except with those who have members of their families in their native Korea and the positive effect that American military families don't have to go through undue hardships. There's not one thing that we're benefiting from in Korea that we can't find in another market. I think you missed My point earlier when I did answer the question to a lessor extent. The fact is, it doesn't matter to Me much if North and South Korea fight each other into oblivion. If American lives aren't being lost, I've got no problem with it.

MasterShake69 -> RE: Afghanistan (3/13/2009 1:40:54 PM)
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/bill_clinton_hi.html Bill Clinton: Hillary was right on Rwanda Posted by Scott Helman, Political Reporter December 10, 2007 06:47 PM NEWTON, Iowa -- The question to Bill Clinton was a good one: What decisions that you made as president did Hillary Clinton disagree with? At first, the former president, stumping for his wife before several hundred people at a YMCA here today, talked about things he had done wrong on health care and briefly discussed welfare reform. And then, using a more somber tone, he explained that she had wanted the United States to intervene in Rwanda in 1994, when hundreds of thousands of people died in a genocide that lasted just a few months. Clinton has often said that not acting in Rwanda was one of his biggest regrets. It's a decision, he said, for which he continues to try to make amends. Had he listened to his wife, Clinton said, things might have been different. "I believe if I had moved we might have saved at least a third of those lives," he said. "I think she clearly would have done that." He went on to explain how America, which did intervene in the former Yugoslavia, could only take on so much at once. But not acting in Rwanda, he suggested, was a mistake his wife wouldn't make. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Oddly enough, the article that you linked specifically states that, after UN forces pulled out, it was the rebels who ended the internal problems of the country. So, like boiJen said, because we weren't there, they fought for their own rights without American lives having to be lost. Plus, we didn't spend this country's resources into a country that doesn't benefit us anyway. The nice attempt to get the bleeding heart angle wasn't bad, but it didn't work to support your argument.

LadyPact -> RE: Afghanistan (3/13/2009 1:42:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou The "guard our borders" argument is a popular one, but it's a bogus one. Who are they going to guard it from? The military are not customs agents or immigration officers. We have a problem with illegal immigrants crossing our southern border looking for work. Do you want to put soldiers trained for warfare down on the border to stop poor Mexicans sneaking across looking for a job? We aren't in any danger of Canada or Mexico invading us, so it's an absurd idea. The REALITY is that our interests around the world are rather large. We depend on other regions of the world for our fuel, for one thing. You can scream for alternative fuels all you want, but we don't have that capability yet. We depend on our military to secure shipping lanes. We'd be in deep shit if we were at the mercy of other nation's navies. So your position is that we continue to have military installations in places like South Korea and Okinawa because we're protecting shipping lanes? I find that highly improbable. quote: People join the military for a variety of reasons. It's not all people from impoverished communities joining out of desperation. Even the folks that do what your describing have other choices. Pell grants, scholarships, working while going to school, or just plain moving to another area are all among them. Oddly enough, the latest reports from all branches of the military, recruiters are stating the economy as the primary reason that people are joining up. Enlistment is actually up. There's a bigger surge now than after 9/11. It's not all kids coming out of high school, either. The biggest rise in enlistment figures come from a higher age bracket and correlate with areas that unemployment figures are higher. quote: You're being melodramatic when you say that their lives are being thrown away. The military's purpose is warfare. We are not taking in recruits, giving them a rifle, and then throwing them into the trenches. Recruits are given extensive training, the best equipment in the world, and every effort is made to protect them. Unfortunately death and injury are uncontrollable results of combat. I don't know what repeated occupation of countries you're talking about. We are occupying two countries right now. We will be leaving one next year. We are not occupying Germany, Japan, or South Korea. We have military installations there as a result of our treaties with those nations. We haven't "repeatedly" occupied any nation. You're mistaken. The fact of the matter is that we have no treaty with North Korea. What we actually have is a cease fire. quote: When? Since this country's inception. Our first overseas military intervention was to protect American shipping; look up the Barbary Wars. You can also study the Mexican War, which was fought solely to secure more territory for American expansion. What do you think the reason for that expansion was? I'll answer that question for you, it was economics. If you want further examples, the Indian Wars were fought completely for territorial expansion in the pursuit of profit. The Spanish-American War was fought under the guise of humanitarianism in order for us to grab up colonial holdings from the Spanish. Not one bit of this thinking applies to South Korea. quote: I don't write any of this to be heartless. I am an Army brat. My father is a retired Colonel in the U.S. Army. I do care about our people overseas. But I am not for isolationism. We tried that before, and it was a mistake. We'd be living in a completely different and very scary world had we not dropped that philosophy in the 20th Century. For an Army brat, your attitude surprises Me. Actually, for those of us with family members/friends serving active duty, the world's already a pretty scary place all on it's own. I'm surprised you don't remember that. One of My favorite people on this planet stands about three feet tall. She didn't volunteer for anything. To tell you the truth, she was kind of excited to see all of the big planes at the airport that day. We'd been teaching her the word "Korea" for several weeks before that. It was the only word we had to give her in answer to her questions in the days and weeks that followed after she watched the big plane fly into the sky. That word didn't change the tears that came with the questions. I'm still grateful that we weren't teaching the word "Iraq" instead. The word "Afghanistan" is one we'll definitely be adding to the vocabulary when the next round of questions of "where's our clip" and "where's our Bubba" are asked.

LadyPact -> RE: Afghanistan (3/13/2009 1:46:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/bill_clinton_hi.html Bill Clinton: Hillary was right on Rwanda Posted by Scott Helman, Political Reporter December 10, 2007 06:47 PM NEWTON, Iowa -- The question to Bill Clinton was a good one: What decisions that you made as president did Hillary Clinton disagree with? At first, the former president, stumping for his wife before several hundred people at a YMCA here today, talked about things he had done wrong on health care and briefly discussed welfare reform. And then, using a more somber tone, he explained that she had wanted the United States to intervene in Rwanda in 1994, when hundreds of thousands of people died in a genocide that lasted just a few months. Clinton has often said that not acting in Rwanda was one of his biggest regrets. It's a decision, he said, for which he continues to try to make amends. Had he listened to his wife, Clinton said, things might have been different. "I believe if I had moved we might have saved at least a third of those lives," he said. "I think she clearly would have done that." He went on to explain how America, which did intervene in the former Yugoslavia, could only take on so much at once. But not acting in Rwanda, he suggested, was a mistake his wife wouldn't make. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Oddly enough, the article that you linked specifically states that, after UN forces pulled out, it was the rebels who ended the internal problems of the country. So, like boiJen said, because we weren't there, they fought for their own rights without American lives having to be lost. Plus, we didn't spend this country's resources into a country that doesn't benefit us anyway. The nice attempt to get the bleeding heart angle wasn't bad, but it didn't work to support your argument. You've still yet to convince Me that I should believe that those lives are more important than American ones. I agree. What happened there is a sad thing. I don't see how it had any negative impact to this country (U.S.) or the people living here.

subrob1967 -> RE: Afghanistan (3/13/2009 2:38:06 PM)
I said from day one we were fighting the wrong type of war, it should have been the black ops shooters going after the Mullas who preach hatred....EVERYWHERE. No borders, no politics, find the Preachers, and their brainwashed masses and take em out. But since Bush decided to go the conventional route, I'd hope Obama would be smart enough to pull the troops out of Iraq before opening a third front in Pakistan, but alas, he's already attacking Paki villages.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Afghanistan (3/13/2009 9:05:24 PM)
quote: So your position is that we continue to have military installations in places like South Korea and Okinawa because we're protecting shipping lanes? I find that highly improbable. What large, immerging, economic superpower with over 6 billion people armed with nuclear weapons are those countries near? China already tries to claim the entire South China sea as it's territorial waters. It has clear intentions to completely dominate East Asian economics. It is spending it's new found wealth heavily on military infrastructure. You need to think about the possible future implications of that now. It's very probable that we may have to protect our interests in that part of the world in decades to come. quote: You're mistaken. The fact of the matter is that we have no treaty with North Korea. What we actually have is a cease fire. No I'm not. I didn't mention North Korea. The Mutual Defense Treaty between the U.S. and South Korea has been in effect since 1954. You do understand what a treaty is? It's not a cessation of war; it's an agreement between two or more parties under international law. For example, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is one of many treaties we have signed. We also have a treaty with Japan called the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan. quote: Not one bit of this thinking applies to South Korea. South Korea is a major trading partner with the United States. It also is strategically important because of it's position in relation to China, eastern Russia, and the east Pacific. Protection of American economic interests most certainly applies to South Korea. quote: For an Army brat, your attitude surprises Me. Actually, for those of us with family members/friends serving active duty, the world's already a pretty scary place all on it's own. I'm surprised you don't remember that. I'm actually pretty moderate in my views. My father is a staunch hawk and firmly anti-isolationist. He's a Vietnam veteran, and he was an infantry officer. The majority of career military men I met growing up were like that. I don't know why that would surprise you. The world is scary right now. But I assure you if we had maintained our isolationist stance prior to 1941, we'd be living in a nightmare world.

DomKen -> RE: Afghanistan (3/13/2009 10:30:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave BTW, it's neither unusual or in many cases particularly difficult to to trace yourself back to some famous person or other. If you go back very many generations in the Va area you probably can trace back to GW or TJ. Many in the NE trace back to one or more of the Founding Fathers. Six of my great-grandparents were born in WV, with seven of them tracing back to Va before that. I know of two connections to Gen Gates, one to Pres Washington, and I'm close to proving one to Thomas J. Shawnee, Cherokee, Chinese, and African as well. You cannot have a blood connection to President Washington. He had no offspring of his own.

TheHeretic -> RE: Afghanistan (3/13/2009 11:26:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You cannot have a blood connection to President Washington. He had no offspring of his own. And was born of a virgin, the very first on his family tree.... It would be impossible to be a descendant, not a relative.

truckinslave -> RE: Afghanistan (3/14/2009 6:25:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave BTW, it's neither unusual or in many cases particularly difficult to to trace yourself back to some famous person or other. If you go back very many generations in the Va area you probably can trace back to GW or TJ. Many in the NE trace back to one or more of the Founding Fathers. Six of my great-grandparents were born in WV, with seven of them tracing back to Va before that. I know of two connections to Gen Gates, one to Pres Washington, and I'm close to proving one to Thomas J. Shawnee, Cherokee, Chinese, and African as well. You cannot have a blood connection to President Washington. He had no offspring of his own. True enough, which is why I tried to use the more accurate "connection" (as opposed to "descendant", which I used in my earlier post). Our tie is to JA Washington, and by marriage at that. Are you aware of the claims he (GW) had a child by his sister-in-laws slave Venus?

rulemylife -> RE: Afghanistan (3/14/2009 6:50:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 I said from day one we were fighting the wrong type of war, it should have been the black ops shooters going after the Mullas who preach hatred....EVERYWHERE. No borders, no politics, find the Preachers, and their brainwashed masses and take em out. But since Bush decided to go the conventional route, I'd hope Obama would be smart enough to pull the troops out of Iraq before opening a third front in Pakistan, but alas, he's already attacking Paki villages. HE'S already attacking Paki villages? Have you been living in a cave with the mullah's for the past year? The strikes into Pakistan were initiated under Bush (maybe his last-chance effort to save face on his promise to get Bin-Laden "dead or alive"?).

DomKen -> RE: Afghanistan (3/14/2009 8:23:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave BTW, it's neither unusual or in many cases particularly difficult to to trace yourself back to some famous person or other. If you go back very many generations in the Va area you probably can trace back to GW or TJ. Many in the NE trace back to one or more of the Founding Fathers. Six of my great-grandparents were born in WV, with seven of them tracing back to Va before that. I know of two connections to Gen Gates, one to Pres Washington, and I'm close to proving one to Thomas J. Shawnee, Cherokee, Chinese, and African as well. You cannot have a blood connection to President Washington. He had no offspring of his own. True enough, which is why I tried to use the more accurate "connection" (as opposed to "descendant", which I used in my earlier post). Our tie is to JA Washington, and by marriage at that. So no, you are not related to GW. Thanks for clearing that up. quote: Are you aware of the claims he (GW) had a child by his sister-in-laws slave Venus? Claim all they want. I believe in evidence and they don't have any.

UPSG -> RE: Afghanistan (3/14/2009 11:34:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou quote: So your position is that we continue to have military installations in places like South Korea and Okinawa because we're protecting shipping lanes? I find that highly improbable. What large, immerging, economic superpower with over 6 billion people armed with nuclear weapons are those countries near? China already tries to claim the entire South China sea as it's territorial waters. It has clear intentions to completely dominate East Asian economics. It is spending it's new found wealth heavily on military infrastructure. You need to think about the possible future implications of that now. It's very probable that we may have to protect our interests in that part of the world in decades to come. SB, Some of the things you've stated in this thread I agree with you on; most especially on the issue of isolationism. However, I think we tend make the Chinese out to be a larger threat than they are to the United States. You are correct that China has increased it's military spending - I believe by roughly $1 billion. But that is rather small, at least in relation to their totally spending on their military. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm remembering correctly the United States spends far more on its military than any other nation on earth. The Chinese also have a right to develop their military, especially in relation to their influence within their region of the world (the Vietnam War was in some respects a proxy war between the U.S. and China). But more importantly, only one nation has ever dropped a nuclear bomb, and that nation - the United States - has threatened nuclear retaliation on nations ever since. John Foster Dulles encouraged the President (Eisenhower I believe) to use nuclear weapons on China during the Korean War. The odds are, if any nation purposely launches a nuclear attack, it will be the United States. Of course, since other nations have nuclear weapons (a handful of nations), depending on what nation we strike, another nation may launch their nuclear weapons on us not only in protection of their interests with the nation (the one we hit) they are friendly with but to gain an upper hand before we hit them. The strategic (ICBM's) nuclear weapons that China has - I'm not speaking of tactical nukes (e.g. ship or air delivered) - if I remember correctly take 30 minutes to fuel up for launch due to an outdated system. We can launch our strategic nukes in fairly short order, and all our strategic nukes can hit any part of Russia within 30 minutes of launch (the same is true of Russian nuclear ICBM's, they will hit any target area [any city with a population of 100,000 or more are assumed targeted, and most especially industrial cities like Chicago or ones that boarder water supplies like Milwaukee] with 30 minutes of launch). I bring this up because I'll assume we can hit any part of China within 30 minutes of launch as well. Russia in the mid 1990's almost launched nuclear weapons on the United States. When I say almost I mean Russia went to it's highest level of nuclear alert and the President stood posed to give the order to launch, but at the last minute the satellite rocket shot by the United States, veered off course for no explained reason, and the Russians realized it was not a U.S. nuclear missile their satellites/radars had picked up. I believe one military historian, who I heard on television, when he stated that if a nuclear war does occur, he believes it will come about by one or more nations guessing incorrectly one or more things.

truckinslave -> RE: Afghanistan (3/14/2009 11:54:54 AM)
UPSG- It's my understanding that we have threatened 1 nation and 1 nation only with nuclear weapons- Japan. We told them we would keep dropping bombs we didn't have. Otherwise we have: 1. Pledged "no first use" and 2. Nuclear attack will be met with nuclear response I pretty much agree about China. In a conventional war they are surprisingly vulnerable- 6 cruise missiles can drown up to half the Chinese population and starve half of what's left within 6 months.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Afghanistan (3/14/2009 12:00:24 PM)
quote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm remembering correctly the United States spends far more on its military than any other nation on earth. We spend more total money than anyone else. But we don't spend the most as a percentage of our GDP. In those terms, China is about equal with us. China spends 4.3% of their GDP on their military; we spend 4.06% of our GDP. You can see the stats on CIA Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html One of the reasons we spend so much more in total dollars is that our technology is much more advanced. China doesn't have the military technology that we have, but they are working on it. In 20 or 30 years, I suspect they will have caught up with us. quote: The Chinese also have a right to develop their military, especially in relation to their influence within their region of the world (the Vietnam War was in some respects a proxy war between the U.S. and China). But more importantly, only one nation has ever dropped a nuclear bomb, and that nation - the United States - has threatened nuclear retaliation on nations ever since. John Foster Dulles encouraged the President (Eisenhower I believe) to use nuclear weapons on China during the Korean War. Sure they have a right to develop their military. We should still be concerned and prepare for any possible future scenario. When people say we should end our cooperation with other countries and pull our military back from around the world, I think they're wrong. It's better to be prepared if something does happen than to be thrust into action at the last minute. We had to do that in 1941. We were woefully unprepared when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. We were woefully unprepared for war with Germany. Thankfully we were isolated enough and resourceful enough to be able to mobilize quickly. We don't have that luxury anymore. Oh just to correct you; it was Truman that considered using nuclear weapons during the Korean War. As to the rest of what you wrote. I hope nothing serious happens in the future. But we should be prepared for it. Our prescence in East Asia is a deterrent towards the Chinese. We don't know what might happen in 30 years. Famines, natural disasters, war between India and China, etc, etc. The entire idea of isolating ourselves is something we can't do anymore. We are a world power whether we like it or not.

UPSG -> RE: Afghanistan (3/14/2009 12:21:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave UPSG- It's my understanding that we have threatened 1 nation and 1 nation only with nuclear weapons- Japan. We told them we would keep dropping bombs we didn't have. Otherwise we have: 1. Pledged "no first use" and 2. Nuclear attack will be met with nuclear response I pretty much agree about China. In a conventional war they are surprisingly vulnerable- 6 cruise missiles can drown up to half the Chinese population and starve half of what's left within 6 months. Well, let me first make clear I'm not trying to imply the United States and or the United States Government is evil or essentially evil, although one or both of those have arguably been involved in evil one or more times throughout its history. But arguably the same is true of all nations and states on earth. The United States still currently holds to the strategy of "massive nuclear retaliation," or that is to say, the United States will not fire a nuclear weapon on any nation-state unless the United States is attacked with nuclear weapons, and in such a case the United States will launch enough nuclear weapons to obliterate said nation-state. This is all chalked up under "game theory" strategy which I believe a few Ivy League graduates hired by the Government in the 1950's created - or at least further developed. But the language of the United States Government has been contradictory. I'm not the best when it comes to remembering names and dates or more especially matching the two with precision. So, feel free to correct me if match the wrong President and or people to the wrong dates and events. But off the top of my head I'm pretty sure it was Eisenhower that was in office during the Korean War. With that assumption I'm going to say that Eisenhower was the President who refused to take the use of nuclear weapons off the possible options to deal with the Chinese threat if you will. Fortunately, he was of more sound mind when it came to nukes the John Foster Dulles, who I believe was Secretary of State at the time. Dulles name is etched into my memory because I read about him adamantly encouraging the President to strike China with nukes. The President, however, understood that if not a question of ethics, then at least it was a question of politics and the political fallout could be very damaging. Nonetheless, the President used language with the Chinese that would logically lead them - and others - to believe that he would not refuse nuclear weapons as an option. That in itself, I regard as a threat to another nation, albeit a non-spoken or indirect one. There were those in the U.S. Government advocating for the use of nuclear weapons during the Vietnam war too. However, Kennedy led the nation into the direction of limited war and the use of counterinsurgency (and if I remember correctly he is the one that authorized the creation of the U.S. Navy SEAL's).

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875