Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 25 Jan '17 16:04 / 1 edit
    Ok so the guy is a vain, narcissistic bully-boy who grabs pussy and offends virtually everyone. Park that for a moment.

    He says he will wipe out extremist islamic terrorism. Mmm OK sounds good at a glance but the problem is that waving a red rag at a bull is not a good idea. The extreme Islamic right could retaliate/respond with another serious attack on the U.S such as 9/11.

    I am becoming increasingly convinced that he is modelling himself on the Martin Sheen President in the movie The Dead Zone. If the U.S. is attacked, Trump will use nukes in return.

    That's what scares me.
  2. 25 Jan '17 16:22
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Ok so the guy is a vain, narcissistic bully-boy who grabs pussy and offends virtually everyone. Park that for a moment.

    He says he will wipe out extremist islamic terrorism. Mmm OK sounds good at a glance but the problem is that waving a red rag at a bull is not a good idea. The extreme Islamic right could retaliate/respond with another serious attack ...[text shortened]... he Dead Zone. If the U.S. is attacked, Trump will use nukes in return.

    That's what scares me.
    "He says he will wipe out extremist islamic terrorism. Mmm OK sounds good at a glance but the problem is that waving a red rag at a bull is not a good idea. The extreme Islamic right could retaliate/respond with another serious attack on the U.S such as 9/11."

    that's not a good reason to dislike him saying he will "wipe out extremist islamic terrorism". what do you want, beg the terrorists to leave you alone? play dead and hope they will forget the times they screamed "death to america"? there aren't more terrorist attacks in the US because they are hard work to pull off, not because Obama is polite with terrorists (remember just how many drone strikes against terrorists we know off).

    the reason to be scared about Trump saying he will wipe out terrorists is because he didn't followed it with ANYTHING remotely resembling a plan how to do it. He has no idea what he is doing and besides General Mattis he surrounded himself with maniacs or corporate greedy pigs.


    "If the U.S. is attacked, Trump will use nukes in return."
    unless it's attacked with nukes, the US won't use them first. do you think he actually has a button to press and let nukes fly? he orders people to order other people on a nuclear sub or whatever to launch them. How many psychopaths need to be along this chain that wouldn't question the order? Do you think his cabinet will agree to launch nukes if some russian boat opens fire on an american boat? Soviet Russia had a false positive of an all out nuclear attack by the US and they waited before starting the apocalypse. Most people are sane. They will keep the insane baboon in check.
  3. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    25 Jan '17 16:34
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    unless it's attacked with nukes, the US won't use them first. do you think he actually has a button to press and let nukes fly? he orders people to order other people on a nuclear sub or whatever to launch them. How many psychopaths need to be along this chain that wouldn't question the order?
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38651616

    If this was a long-term, measured policy decision to say, carry out a pre-emptive strike on country X, then a lot of people would be involved. The vice-president, National Security Adviser, and much of the cabinet would all be likely to be included in the decision-making process.
    But if there was an imminent strategic threat to the United States, ie if an inbound launch of ICBMs from a hostile state had been detected and were minutes from reaching the US then, he said, "the president has extraordinary latitude to take the sole decision to launch."
  4. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    25 Jan '17 16:37
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Ok so the guy is a vain, narcissistic bully-boy who grabs pussy and offends virtually everyone. Park that for a moment.

    He says he will wipe out extremist islamic terrorism. Mmm OK sounds good at a glance but the problem is that waving a red rag at a bull is not a good idea. The extreme Islamic right could retaliate/respond with another serious attack ...[text shortened]... he Dead Zone. If the U.S. is attacked, Trump will use nukes in return.

    That's what scares me.
    If the Muslims were actually responsible for 9/11, you might have a point.
    But let's (as you say) park that for the moment.

    Let's just say that Islamic terrorists actually were the masterminds behind 9/11, and if we poke that bear, they'll do it again.
    Wouldn't the easiest way to thwart another attack be to simply rid the world of box cutters and then internally assure our multi-faceted detection and defense system was always on alert--- even when conducting cross-agency tests?
  5. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    25 Jan '17 16:45
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38651616

    If this was a long-term, measured policy decision to say, carry out a pre-emptive strike on country X, then a lot of people would be involved. The vice-president, National Security Adviser, and much of the cabinet would all be likely to be included in the decision-making process.
    But if there was an imm ...[text shortened]... S then, he said, "the president has extraordinary latitude to take the sole decision to launch."
    And Trump's the kind of guy who'll want a real button on his desk. Then one day he'll be watching TV, want to change channel, and press the button on what he thinks is the TV remote control ...
  6. 25 Jan '17 16:47
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Ok so the guy is a vain, narcissistic bully-boy who grabs pussy and offends virtually everyone. Park that for a moment.

    He says he will wipe out extremist islamic terrorism. Mmm OK sounds good at a glance but the problem is that waving a red rag at a bull is not a good idea. The extreme Islamic right could retaliate/respond with another serious attack ...[text shortened]... he Dead Zone. If the U.S. is attacked, Trump will use nukes in return.

    That's what scares me.
    Maybe if a foreign adversary simply says extremely offensive things about Trump that become widely disseminated, he will blast them with a small, tactical nuclear weapon. I don't think he would need much provocation. Indeed, he has said he doesn't really think we should be concerned with civilians who get in the way of one of our bombs. The world is a highly connected economic entity. Sooner or later, this is not going to end well for the United States, especially since Trump is actively alienating many of our allies.
  7. 25 Jan '17 23:41
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Let's just say that Islamic terrorists actually were the masterminds behind 9/11, and if we poke that bear, they'll do it again.
    Wouldn't the easiest way to thwart another attack be to simply rid the world of box cutters and then internally assure our multi-faceted detection and defense system was always on alert--- even when conducting cross-agency tests?
    So who was behind 9/11 then, flat-earth boy!

    What are " of cutters" and why would "ridding the world" of them make Trump less likely to use nukes?
  8. 25 Jan '17 23:51
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "He says he will wipe out extremist islamic terrorism. Mmm OK sounds good at a glance but the problem is that waving a red rag at a bull is not a good idea. The extreme Islamic right could retaliate/respond with another serious attack on the U.S such as 9/11."

    that's not a good reason to dislike him saying he will "wipe out extremist islamic terrorism". ...[text shortened]... before starting the apocalypse. Most people are sane. They will keep the insane baboon in check.
    How many psychopaths need to be along this chain that wouldn't question the order? ...Most people are sane. They will keep the insane baboon in check.

    How many people support "the insane baboon"? Is that enough?

    How many people, in the end, follow the chain of command? Is that enough?
  9. 26 Jan '17 00:31
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    [b]How many psychopaths need to be along this chain that wouldn't question the order? ...Most people are sane. They will keep the insane baboon in check.

    How many people support "the insane baboon"? Is that enough?

    How many people, in the end, follow the chain of command? Is that enough?[/b]
    "How many people support "the insane baboon"? Is that enough?"
    no, not enough.


    "How many people, in the end, follow the chain of command? Is that enough?"
    not when it comes to nukes. there have been incidents where protocol absolutely justified launching. still, the humans involved refused to start armaggedon.


    how about you all take some chill pills and stop with this alarmist crap. trump can make crap decisions that may cost some people's lives. nobody is going to let him launch nukes on a whim though.
  10. 26 Jan '17 02:58
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "How many people support "the insane baboon"? Is that enough?"
    no, not enough.


    "How many people, in the end, follow the chain of command? Is that enough?"
    not when it comes to nukes. there have been incidents where protocol absolutely justified launching. still, the humans involved refused to start armaggedon.


    how about you all take some chill ...[text shortened]... ons that may cost some people's lives. nobody is going to let him launch nukes on a whim though.
    What exactly is " alarmist" about what I wrote?
  11. Subscriber mchill
    cryptogram
    26 Jan '17 08:06
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Ok so the guy is a vain, narcissistic bully-boy who grabs pussy and offends virtually everyone. Park that for a moment.

    He says he will wipe out extremist islamic terrorism. Mmm OK sounds good at a glance but the problem is that waving a red rag at a bull is not a good idea. The extreme Islamic right could retaliate/respond with another serious attack ...[text shortened]... he Dead Zone. If the U.S. is attacked, Trump will use nukes in return.

    That's what scares me.
    If the U.S. is attacked, Trump will use nukes in return.


    Yes, should make for an interesting 4 years.
  12. 26 Jan '17 08:41
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    What exactly is " alarmist" about what I wrote?
    "the us military is comprised of enough lunatics that they would obey an order to launch a nuclear strike out of the blue"

    by out of the blue i mean anything except being attacked with nukes in the first place.

    the system is designed to allow a fast response in the case of a nuclear attack on the US. It doesn't allow the president to nuke a country because they might have shot a US plane down at some point maybe.
  13. 26 Jan '17 08:42
    Originally posted by mchill
    If the U.S. is attacked, Trump will use nukes in return.


    Yes, should make for an interesting 4 years.
    no he bloody won't. they're not his personal nukes.
  14. 26 Jan '17 19:15
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    no he bloody won't. they're not his personal nukes.
    Yes he will.
  15. 26 Jan '17 22:47
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Yes he will.
    ooooookay.