Donald Trump: Nukes on the table to stop ISIL. Your thoughts?

[Likkmee]

Nukes are always a last resort weapon. We do not need them against ISIS. A small ground force with air support will kill the bulk of them.

YUP. Like it did the NKorean, Vietcong, Afgnanis, Taliban, Iraquis, Somalia rebz(Blackhawk what ?).
OH WAIT.......

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

ABC News just reported that Donald Trump said that if he were President nuclear weapons would be a last resort against ISIL. What do you think about using nukes on them?

I think the world already has an over abundance of sand. Who will be upset if we just use a little of it to create some glass?

 

[Papageorgio]

Abandon our moral principles?????

The first one is, and always will be, to protect those that can't, on their own, protect themselves.

Ya know, like those on a train or standing in line to check in at airports.

And do you the no unleashing nuclear weapons is the way to protect ourselves? What is the target? What of collateral damage? How can we then work to eliminate nuclear weapons? How do we respond when ISSUES S uses a nuke on one of our allies?

Do you think nuclear weapons are just another arrow and n our quiver, or must nuclear weapons be used only in the most dire circumstances? What is our ultimate responsibility where nuclear weapons are concerned?

Let's see, nukes vs Spit balls???

Hmmmmmm

You are neither cogent nor mature enough to be taken seriously.

And you are niether informed enough nor rational enough to debate the topic with, commie.

If responsibility and reluctance to throw nuclear weapons around is the mark of a Communist, call me comrade.

Please don't imply that Capitalists want to use nuclear weapons.

Kennedy had the nuclear option on the table when he was President. Knucklehead.

 

[Papageorgio]

ABC News just reported that Donald Trump said that if he were President nuclear weapons would be a last resort against ISIL. What do you think about using nukes on them?

More reason why we shouldn't allow Trump near the trigger

Kennedy was close to pulling the trigger, are you saying he was wrong for considering this as a last resort?

 

[ZackB]

Nukes are always a last resort weapon. We do not need them against ISIS. A small ground force with air support will kill the bulk of them.

YUP. Like it did the NKorean, Vietcong, Afgnanis, Taliban, Iraquis, Somalia rebz(Blackhawk what ?).
OH WAIT.......

Don't question me, dumbass. I don't owe you a fucking history lesson!

Korea and Vietnam - both proxy wars; both had outside support and financing going to the enemy

Afghanistan and Iraq - both easy military victories; the problem came during occupation due to having undermanned occupation forces, then political failures in leadership

Somalia - never was something we dedicated significant resources to.

Don't fucking bother me again unless you have something halfway intelligent to say, you stupid fuck stain!

 

[rightwinger]

ABC News just reported that Donald Trump said that if he were President nuclear weapons would be a last resort against ISIL. What do you think about using nukes on them?

More reason why we shouldn't allow Trump near the trigger

Kennedy was close to pulling the trigger, are you saying he was wrong for considering this as a last resort?

There was a danger of a nuclear strike from the Soviets. Kennedy kept it open as mutually assured destruction

How many nukes does ISIS have?

 

[Nosmo King]

And do you the no unleashing nuclear weapons is the way to protect ourselves? What is the target? What of collateral damage? How can we then work to eliminate nuclear weapons? How do we respond when ISSUES S uses a nuke on one of our allies?

Do you think nuclear weapons are just another arrow and n our quiver, or must nuclear weapons be used only in the most dire circumstances? What is our ultimate responsibility where nuclear weapons are concerned?

Let's see, nukes vs Spit balls???

Hmmmmmm

You are neither cogent nor mature enough to be taken seriously.

And you are niether informed enough nor rational enough to debate the topic with, commie.

If responsibility and reluctance to throw nuclear weapons around is the mark of a Communist, call me comrade.

Please don't imply that Capitalists want to use nuclear weapons.

Kennedy had the nuclear option on the table when he was President. Knucklehead.

Kennedy also had the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. ISIS cannot retaliate with nuclear weapons the way the U.S.S.R. could. The use of nuclear weapons is something to be considered in the gravest terms possible.

 

[rightwinger]

Let's see, nukes vs Spit balls???

Hmmmmmm

You are neither cogent nor mature enough to be taken seriously.

And you are niether informed enough nor rational enough to debate the topic with, commie.

If responsibility and reluctance to throw nuclear weapons around is the mark of a Communist, call me comrade.

Please don't imply that Capitalists want to use nuclear weapons.

Kennedy had the nuclear option on the table when he was President. Knucklehead.

Kennedy also had the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. ISIS cannot retaliate with nuclear weapons the way the U.S.S.R. could. The use of nuclear weapons is something to be considered in the gravest terms possible.

Trump has no clue about the tactical uses of nuclear weapons

Other than kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians......What can a nuke do that conventional smart bombs and missiles can't?

 

[Slyhunter]

You are neither cogent nor mature enough to be taken seriously.

And you are niether informed enough nor rational enough to debate the topic with, commie.

If responsibility and reluctance to throw nuclear weapons around is the mark of a Communist, call me comrade.

Please don't imply that Capitalists want to use nuclear weapons.

Kennedy had the nuclear option on the table when he was President. Knucklehead.

Kennedy also had the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. ISIS cannot retaliate with nuclear weapons the way the U.S.S.R. could. The use of nuclear weapons is something to be considered in the gravest terms possible.

Trump has no clue about the tactical uses of nuclear weapons

Other than kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians......What can a nuke do that conventional smart bombs and missiles can't?

kill tens of thousands of terrorist Islamists.

 

[Pop23]

Reality - Isis vs The World

JV, right?

You're asceared! They can do minor painful things, but they can't win. Ever. They have lost 1/4 of the territory they captured this past year.

Cons seem to need some demon they can point to and say "RUN AWAY, IT'S COMING". It used to be the Soviet Union. Then Russia, then Russia became their buddy. Then China. Then 'libruls'.

You're afraid of life. I feel sorry for you, but you're abject fear of the world leaves you and your leaders unable to see real threats and how to deal with them properly. i.e. you elect Bush who lies about WMD's to get the world to invade Iraq.

And look how that has turned out.

Conservatives YOU are the JV team.

You'd feel a bit different kneeling in the sand with the cameras rolling, a knife at your throat while these asses yell Allah Akbar

You're an emotional little fella aren't you.

The Japanese tortured, beheaded people, and strapped bombs to themselves and crawled under tanks and blew them up. The current extremists aren't doing anything new.

It's only new to you because you don't read history and fear drives your entire life.

What a simple mind you have, and short sighted as well.

You want historical data?

Look at what the great Khans accomplished against far superior forces and technology.

Do that remind you of anything?

No?

 

[Pop23]

You are neither cogent nor mature enough to be taken seriously.

And you are niether informed enough nor rational enough to debate the topic with, commie.

If responsibility and reluctance to throw nuclear weapons around is the mark of a Communist, call me comrade.

Please don't imply that Capitalists want to use nuclear weapons.

Kennedy had the nuclear option on the table when he was President. Knucklehead.

Kennedy also had the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. ISIS cannot retaliate with nuclear weapons the way the U.S.S.R. could. The use of nuclear weapons is something to be considered in the gravest terms possible.

Trump has no clue about the tactical uses of nuclear weapons

Other than kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians......What can a nuke do that conventional smart bombs and missiles can't?

Other then posing a much more imposing threat?

Nothing I guess

 

[rightwinger]

And you are niether informed enough nor rational enough to debate the topic with, commie.

If responsibility and reluctance to throw nuclear weapons around is the mark of a Communist, call me comrade.

Please don't imply that Capitalists want to use nuclear weapons.

Kennedy had the nuclear option on the table when he was President. Knucklehead.

Kennedy also had the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. ISIS cannot retaliate with nuclear weapons the way the U.S.S.R. could. The use of nuclear weapons is something to be considered in the gravest terms possible.

Trump has no clue about the tactical uses of nuclear weapons

Other than kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians......What can a nuke do that conventional smart bombs and missiles can't?

Other then posing a much more imposing threat?

Nothing I guess

What is imposing about a nuke?

ISIS would love it if we used nukes against them. It would confirm their claims about what tyrants we are

 

[NoNukes]

ABC News just reported that Donald Trump said that if he were President nuclear weapons would be a last resort against ISIL. What do you think about using nukes on them?

How would you do it without killing innocent people?

 

[HenryBHough]

What is imposing about a nuke?

ISIS would love it if we used nukes against them. It would confirm their claims about what tyrants we are

And right there we have the strongest possible argument that not a single one should be left alive.

 

[Pop23]

If responsibility and reluctance to throw nuclear weapons around is the mark of a Communist, call me comrade.

Please don't imply that Capitalists want to use nuclear weapons.

Kennedy had the nuclear option on the table when he was President. Knucklehead.

Kennedy also had the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. ISIS cannot retaliate with nuclear weapons the way the U.S.S.R. could. The use of nuclear weapons is something to be considered in the gravest terms possible.

Trump has no clue about the tactical uses of nuclear weapons

Other than kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians......What can a nuke do that conventional smart bombs and missiles can't?

Other then posing a much more imposing threat?

Nothing I guess

What is imposing about a nuke?

ISIS would love it if we used nukes against them. It would confirm their claims about what tyrants we are

Will they send thank you notes?

So, the threat is made with the statement..........

Give up the members of ISIS, their leaders, or rise up and kill them yourselves, or our retaliation will be swift and complete.

I'm thinking that would be motivational.
You?

 

[Pop23]

ABC News just reported that Donald Trump said that if he were President nuclear weapons would be a last resort against ISIL. What do you think about using nukes on them?

How would you do it without killing innocent people?

Like the ones riding trains and boarding airliners?

 

[NoNukes]

ABC News just reported that Donald Trump said that if he were President nuclear weapons would be a last resort against ISIL. What do you think about using nukes on them?

How would you do it without killing innocent people?

Like the ones riding trains and boarding airliners?

It is not like attacking a country. These terrorists are in other people's countries.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

If responsibility and reluctance to throw nuclear weapons around is the mark of a Communist, call me comrade.

Please don't imply that Capitalists want to use nuclear weapons.

Kennedy had the nuclear option on the table when he was President. Knucklehead.

Kennedy also had the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. ISIS cannot retaliate with nuclear weapons the way the U.S.S.R. could. The use of nuclear weapons is something to be considered in the gravest terms possible.

Trump has no clue about the tactical uses of nuclear weapons

Other than kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians......What can a nuke do that conventional smart bombs and missiles can't?

Other then posing a much more imposing threat?

Nothing I guess

What is imposing about a nuke?

ISIS would love it if we used nukes against them. It would confirm their claims about what tyrants we are

No they would not love it. That would end them.

 

[Pop23]

ABC News just reported that Donald Trump said that if he were President nuclear weapons would be a last resort against ISIL. What do you think about using nukes on them?

How would you do it without killing innocent people?

Like the ones riding trains and boarding airliners?

It is not like attacking a country. These terrorists are in other people's countries.

So why then is the left so damn concerned about their rights? The Geneva convention? Good lord.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

ABC News just reported that Donald Trump said that if he were President nuclear weapons would be a last resort against ISIL. What do you think about using nukes on them?

How would you do it without killing innocent people?

Like the ones riding trains and boarding airliners?

It is not like attacking a country. These terrorists are in other people's countries.

But they occupy territory in those countries. Tactical nukes would provide a more tailored response. I know Leftists think the only nukes that exist are the big ones, but we have nukes in many sizes, even one that can be fired from a howitzer.