likearock
-
Content
2,275 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by likearock
-
Yeah, the filibuster itself is quite a story. Its origins seem almost accidental: Source For some reason, I can't seem to find the "right to unlimited debate" in the Constitution.
-
It requires three-fifths (if all 100 seats are filled). ...three fifths of the votes cast, of those present, or of the seats filled? Seats filled: Source
-
But you're just proving my point. MAD works against states, for example, Iraq. It does not have the same power against "nationless groups" to use your own terminology. I would argue it's not an issue of can terrorists groups be deterred but how to do it. There are some who argue that terrorists can’t be deterred. Others like Paul Kapur (Naval War College), Lew Dunn (SAIC) & me argue that it can. The methods of the Cold War against a peer competitor or other states are not the model, imo. VR/Marg Man, that's a first. A nerdgirl post without a hyperlink. How about one, Marg?
-
But you're just proving my point. MAD works against states, for example, Iraq. It does not have the same power against "nationless groups" to use your own terminology.
-
Dude, you're talking about Mutually Assured Destruction. Unless you're clueless or can't remember the past 30 seconds of a conversation, it's a given that it's a nuclear discussion. Better yet, look out in the world. Without any real linkage to 9/11, Americans were happy to take out all of Iraq in retribution, and that was for an attack that isn't remotely close to a nuclear attack. Right, and US action in Iraq effectively distracted us from the real fight against Al Qaeda. In other words, it was an ineffective example of retribution. Are you now saying that the war in Iraq should strike fear in the hearts of terrorists and that will deter them from a nuclear strike? Give me a break. If you really believe that terrorists will be deterred from using nukes because they fear retribution, God bless you. Because the only way you can believe that is with a healthy dose of religion.
-
I wasn't aware that the Mumbai attackers used tactical nukes, or any kind at all. Same for Al Queda. So nothing relevant to the discussion is indicated. Resolve that fallacy if you want to continue. Nice way to snip context. You said that terrorists fear retribution. You didn't qualify it as "they only fear retribution if it's nuclear".
-
you answered your own argument. You might also recall what happened to the Taliban. Nationless groups still have fear of retribution. The Mumbai attacks seem to indicate otherwise. So do all the Al Qaeda attacks over the years. BTW, when the terrorists detonate a nuke or dirty bomb in a populated area, where do you retaliate in kind exactly?
-
Do you know many 'terrorist' LEADERS who don't care about their own lives, and therefore don't fear the inevitable response from their actions? Did Osama fly the planes? No, he sent dumb followers to do that dirty work. The whole basis of MAD is fear of retaliation in kind. But if we're talking about terrorists with nukes you have to ask: "Who do you retaliate against?" Bin Laden doesn't represent a country per se. Of course, we could always do the Iraq thing and pick some relatively arbitrary place to express our anger.
-
Okay, I'll Admit It...We Could be Doing Worse...
likearock replied to Gawain's topic in Speakers Corner
Kennedy, Carter: 1980 Reagan, Ford: 1976 -
I figured as much. well the pointing and laughing must be paying off if you are actually "figuring" now instead of making baseless posts from a point of ignorance. Go You
-
You are shitting me you dont know your recent history very well do you that's why i rarely post in here. To many people with too many opinions based in ignorance, but some times you lot do make me laugh Do have some facts or are you just content to mouth off? My job here is not to educate the lazy, merely to point and laugh ^ ^ ^ ^ This is me pointing and laughing I figured as much.
-
You are shitting me you dont know your recent history very well do you that's why i rarely post in here. To many people with too many opinions based in ignorance, but some times you lot do make me laugh Do have some facts or are you just content to mouth off?
-
I agree. In my mind, the next use of a nuclear weapon in anger - and it's just a matter of time - is more likely than not to be in the India-Pakistan theater. it doesn't make me think that at all the same could have easily been said anytime over that last 50 years from any nuclear nation. Here's the difference. It's only recently that we have a nuclear country (read Pakistan) where there is close cooperation between terrorist groups and high agencies of the state (read ISI). That is a lethal combination if it is not addressed and Obama should see this as one of his highest foreign policy objectives. Once nukes fall in the hands of a terrorist organization game over. Do you really think those people give a shit about mutually assured destruction?
-
India and Pakistan have been at each others throats for YEARS, and no nukes have gone off yet. But it does make you think. Suppose somehow those same terrorists got a hold of some nuclear material and used it against India. You think it would be so easy to show restraint then when evidence points to Pakistan? Something like that could end up as a full fledged nuclear war. In this case, I doubt if the Pakistani government itself was involved but the ISI is another matter.
-
I think you've put your finger on it. There's definitely a pattern here: Moderate Muslims warming to U.S. - extremists have to attack. Moderate Pakistani Muslims warming to India - extremists have to attack. It's up to us to resist lumping all Muslims in with the extremists, which would be just what the extremists want to happen.
-
I also think it's kind of stupid to just blame Bush for this but we don't know what the real motivation for these attacks is yet. Pakistan has been making some peaceful overtures to India since the new civilian government took over. It's possible these recent acts were an attempt to drive a wedge between the countries. However, a lot of things here are not typical of other Pakistani attacks. For example, the fact that the terrorists targeted hotels and were said to be looking especially for Americans and British to take hostage. That seems to point to a wider issue.
-
That doesn't mean anything. John was the one that made the statement "Why do you insist on trying to find him guilty, when a jury which heard all the evidence found otherwise?" If you have a gripe, take it up with him.
-
To be fair, the husband's murder charge was dropped. He never went to court. Thanks, but to be fair again, it did go to a grand jury.
-
Well if you're brandishing it, the offender is going to assume that you have the potential to fire it. So I don't see the distinction you're trying to draw. How is the perpetrator going to know whether or not your gun is loaded? Exactly, and had the husband showed that kind of restraint, a man's life would have been spared.
-
John, at no point did I say that you had to shoot if you draw a weapon. I was taking offense to the previous post that implied that brandishing a weapon was a crime deterant in and of its self. That's not what I said. I said "Responsible gun ownership should include the ability to deter a crime by showing your gun and only firing it when absolutely necessary." Brandishing the gun is not a deterrent in and of itself. Brandishing the gun and having the potential to fire it is.
-
Yes, but let's not confuse the situation. Once you're in a deadly force situation, and you draw your gun, you still don't necessarily have to shoot. If the offender sees your gun and runs away, you can stand down. That's one of those situations where guns can be displayed but not fired. And there are a lot of criminal situations defused in this manner. That's what I thought.
-
Perhaps not. But an unarmed man was shot and killed and there doesn't even seem to be a claim that he was shot in self defense. Why do you insist on making excuses for him?
-
So you were a witness? Did you see OJ kill Nicole?
-
Not always. You don't have to have a weapon to pose a significant threat to life. Perhaps not. But at the very least, you have to be attacking someone rather than just running away. As has been said before, this had nothing to do with protection and everything to do with revenge. They were right to hold the wife accountable for contributing to the death. They were dead wrong to let the husband off the hook.
-
That's a cop out. A deadly force scenario is if you see that the other person is armed. And none of the reports so far support that to be the case. The victim was unarmed and trying to get away. In your own words, the husband's action was "a prime example of a lack of maturity and a lack of responsibility".