Raqqa captured

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 4 of 16 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Ray in Houston Houston 20 Oct 17 5.07pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays I don't know why you find 'facts' so difficult to understand. I'll repeat...read it slowly. NK's ability to hit the west emerged as a realistic possibility during Obama's watch. You can bulls* around that all you like. That's just you bullsing, like you did over the idea that there are valid medical reasons for your circumcision support. You are cherry-picking. I can opine that the threat emerged under Bush, when NK successfully tested a nuke, but that's just opinion. The truth is that this program has been in development for decades, and decades of sanctions and isolation slowed it down, but it was happening all along. You desperately want to tie this around Obama's neck, but facts won't let you. I hope that doesn't spoil your weekend. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa*ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 20 Oct 17 5.07pm

Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I don't know why you find 'facts' so difficult to understand.

I'll repeat...read it slowly. NK's ability to hit the west emerged as a realistic possibility during Obama's watch.

You can bulls*** around that all you like. That's just you bulls***ing, like you did over the idea that there are valid medical reasons for your circumcision support.

You are cherry-picking. I can opine that the threat emerged under Bush, when NK successfully tested a nuke, but that's just opinion. The truth is that this program has been in development for decades, and decades of sanctions and isolation slowed it down, but it was happening all along.

You desperately want to tie this around Obama's neck, but facts won't let you. I hope that doesn't spoil your weekend.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 20 Oct 17 5.11pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston But, you know, f* South Korea because they don't matter. Right? When it comes down to my kids or your kids.....I might not like it....but it's my kids mate. My kids are now about five years away from being in direct threat. I grew up in that...and now my kids have to too. Originally posted by Ray in Houston** Or, in your heavily edited history book, did North Korea not have a massive conventional army and arsenal parked about 35 miles from Seoul back then? Sure....it's a far bigger problem now than years ago. Like I said.....all deferred decisions because there was no perfect win. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

20 Oct 17 5.11pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

But, you know, f*** South Korea because they don't matter. Right?

When it comes down to my kids or your kids.....I might not like it....but it's my kids mate.

My kids are now about five years away from being in direct threat. I grew up in that...and now my kids have to too.

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

Or, in your heavily edited history book, did North Korea not have a massive conventional army and arsenal parked about 35 miles from Seoul back then?

Sure....it's a far bigger problem now than years ago. Like I said.....all deferred decisions because there was no perfect win.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 20 Oct 17 5.12pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston You are cherry-picking. I can opine that the threat emerged under Bush, when NK successfully tested a nuke, but that's just opinion. The truth is that this program has been in development for decades, and decades of sanctions and isolation slowed it down, but it was happening all along. You desperately want to tie this around Obama's neck, but facts won't let you. I hope that doesn't spoil your weekend. You can test a nuke, but they couldn't get accuracy on it. Sure, Bush also shares blame for this. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

20 Oct 17 5.12pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

You desperately want to tie this around Obama's neck, but facts won't let you. I hope that doesn't spoil your weekend.

You can test a nuke, but they couldn't get accuracy on it.

Sure, Bush also shares blame for this.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 20 Oct 17 5.14pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays I don't know why you find 'facts' so difficult to understand. I'll repeat...read it slowly. NK's ability to hit the west emerged as a realistic possibility during Obama's watch. You can bulls* around that all you like. That's just you bulls*ing, like you did over the idea that there are valid medical reasons for your circumcision support. Well in that case the Soviet Union's ability to hit The West with nuclear weapons happened under the tenures of Churchill and Truman so you can lump them alongside Obama. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 20 Oct 17 5.14pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I don't know why you find 'facts' so difficult to understand.

I'll repeat...read it slowly. NK's ability to hit the west emerged as a realistic possibility during Obama's watch.

You can bulls*** around that all you like. That's just you bulls***ing, like you did over the idea that there are valid medical reasons for your circumcision support.

Well in that case the Soviet Union's ability to hit The West with nuclear weapons happened under the tenures of Churchill and Truman so you can lump them alongside Obama.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 20 Oct 17 5.17pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 Well in that case the Soviet Union's ability to hit The West with nuclear weapons happened under the tenures of Churchill and Truman so you can lump them alongside Obama. Churchill wanted to attack the Soviets after WW2. Truman didn't support him. Truman also holds some blame for Vietham for supporting the French there. He should have battled for influence with the Vietnamese by supplying aid. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

20 Oct 17 5.17pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

Well in that case the Soviet Union's ability to hit The West with nuclear weapons happened under the tenures of Churchill and Truman so you can lump them alongside Obama.

Churchill wanted to attack the Soviets after WW2. Truman didn't support him.

Truman also holds some blame for Vietham for supporting the French there. He should have battled for influence with the Vietnamese by supplying aid.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 20 Oct 17 5.20pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays You can test a nuke, but they couldn't get accuracy on it. Sure, Bush also shares blame for this. Yes, there was no ability to deliver a nuke in 2006 - when they first tested one. But you have to have a nuke to deliver; chicken/egg. But before Bush it was Clinton, because they didn't just pluck a nuke out of thin air in 2006. And before him is was Bush Sr. and Reagan before him. Sans coup d'�tat, there rarely is a single event that turns a country on a sixpence. There have been multiple Presidents, and multiple Crazy Kims, who have been in office while this was developing. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 20 Oct 17 5.20pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

You can test a nuke, but they couldn't get accuracy on it.

Sure, Bush also shares blame for this.

Yes, there was no ability to deliver a nuke in 2006 - when they first tested one. But you have to have a nuke to deliver; chicken/egg.

But before Bush it was Clinton, because they didn't just pluck a nuke out of thin air in 2006. And before him is was Bush Sr. and Reagan before him.

Sans coup d'�tat, there rarely is a single event that turns a country on a sixpence. There have been multiple Presidents, and multiple Crazy Kims, who have been in office while this was developing.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 20 Oct 17 5.23pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Churchill wanted to attack the Soviets after WW2. Truman didn't support him. Truman also holds some blame for Vietham for supporting the French there. He should have battled for influence with the Vietnamese by supplying aid. Eh? That is a massive non-sequitur and nothing to do with the point I was making. Viable nuclear weapons were developed by the Soviets under the watches of Churchill and Truman. It is unarguable. Exactly the same as what you are saying about Obama and NKorea. Churchill, Truman and Obama. It's a good pub quiz question. What do they have in common? Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 20 Oct 17 5.23pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Churchill wanted to attack the Soviets after WW2. Truman didn't support him.

Truman also holds some blame for Vietham for supporting the French there. He should have battled for influence with the Vietnamese by supplying aid.

Eh? That is a massive non-sequitur and nothing to do with the point I was making. Viable nuclear weapons were developed by the Soviets under the watches of Churchill and Truman. It is unarguable. Exactly the same as what you are saying about Obama and NKorea.

Churchill, Truman and Obama. It's a good pub quiz question. What do they have in common?

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 20 Oct 17 5.27pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 Eh? That is a massive non-sequitur and nothing to do with the point I was making. Viable nuclear weapons were developed by the Soviets under the watches of Churchill and Truman. It is unarguable. Exactly the same as what you are saying about Obama and NKorea. Churchill, Truman and Obama. It's a good pub quiz question. What do they have in common? Non-sequitur? I just said.....Churchill wanted to attack the Soviets....rather obviously before they got the bomb. Churchill doesn't fit your criticism. Truman does. Keep up in the slow lane. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

20 Oct 17 5.27pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

Churchill, Truman and Obama. It's a good pub quiz question. What do they have in common?

Non-sequitur?

I just said.....Churchill wanted to attack the Soviets....rather obviously before they got the bomb. Churchill doesn't fit your criticism. Truman does.

Keep up in the slow lane.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 20 Oct 17 5.32pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays When it comes down to my kids or your kids.....I might not like it....but it's my kids mate. My kids are now about five years away from being in direct threat. I grew up in that...and now my kids have to too. Sure....it's a far bigger problem now than years ago. Like I said.....all deferred decisions because there was no perfect win. So the whole world owes your kids a duty of protection? On your logic - being that your kids are more important than South Korea - why the f*** should the US continue to support NATO? We'd save a lot of money just leaving Europe to its own devices and letting Putin's tanks run all the way up to the channel coast. That way we in the US could better defend our kids because there's a good chance that Putin would'nt be too bothered about further expansion once he had control of Europe. I say this not to wish any harm on you or your kids; I say this to highlight the myopia (your favourite word of the day) of your world view. Everyone else somehow has to sacrifice for the very specific wellbeing of you and your family. That's hardly a practical global strategy, especially as you criticized Obama for being too hands on with the US military in the fight against ISIS. Imagine if they had to ask you what you wanted every time a general had a drone up and ISIS leaders in its sights? What if that happened during a Palace match? We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 20 Oct 17 5.32pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

When it comes down to my kids or your kids.....I might not like it....but it's my kids mate.

My kids are now about five years away from being in direct threat. I grew up in that...and now my kids have to too.

Sure....it's a far bigger problem now than years ago. Like I said.....all deferred decisions because there was no perfect win.

So the whole world owes your kids a duty of protection? On your logic - being that your kids are more important than South Korea - why the f*** should the US continue to support NATO? We'd save a lot of money just leaving Europe to its own devices and letting Putin's tanks run all the way up to the channel coast. That way we in the US could better defend our kids because there's a good chance that Putin would'nt be too bothered about further expansion once he had control of Europe.

I say this not to wish any harm on you or your kids; I say this to highlight the myopia (your favourite word of the day) of your world view. Everyone else somehow has to sacrifice for the very specific wellbeing of you and your family.

That's hardly a practical global strategy, especially as you criticized Obama for being too hands on with the US military in the fight against ISIS. Imagine if they had to ask you what you wanted every time a general had a drone up and ISIS leaders in its sights? What if that happened during a Palace match?

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 20 Oct 17 5.33pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 Churchill, Truman and Obama. It's a good pub quiz question. What do they have in common? They were all born in Kenya? We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 20 Oct 17 5.33pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

Churchill, Truman and Obama. It's a good pub quiz question. What do they have in common?

They were all born in Kenya?

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 20 Oct 17 5.39pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Non-sequitur? I just said.....Churchill wanted to attack the Soviets....rather obviously before they got the bomb. Churchill doesn't fit your criticism. Truman does. Keep up in the slow lane. No, not 1945 Churchill, 1951 Churchill. Soviets hadn't developed viable nukes in 1945. I'm looking behind waving at you. Edited by Kermit8 (20 Oct 2017 5.40pm) Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 20 Oct 17 5.39pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Non-sequitur?

I just said.....Churchill wanted to attack the Soviets....rather obviously before they got the bomb. Churchill doesn't fit your criticism. Truman does.

Keep up in the slow lane.

No, not 1945 Churchill, 1951 Churchill. Soviets hadn't developed viable nukes in 1945.

I'm looking behind waving at you.

Edited by Kermit8 (20 Oct 2017 5.40pm)

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 20 Oct 17 5.48pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston So the whole world owes your kids a duty of protection? On your logic - being that your kids are more important than South Korea - why the f*** should the US continue to support NATO? We'd save a lot of money just leaving Europe to its own devices and letting Putin's tanks run all the way up to the channel coast. That way we in the US could better defend our kids because there's a good chance that Putin would'nt be too bothered about further expansion once he had control of Europe. I say this not to wish any harm on you or your kids; I say this to highlight the myopia (your favourite word of the day) of your world view. Everyone else somehow has to sacrifice for the very specific wellbeing of you and your family. That's hardly a practical global strategy, especially as you criticized Obama for being too hands on with the US military in the fight against ISIS. Imagine if they had to ask you what you wanted every time a general had a drone up and ISIS leaders in its sights? What if that happened during a Palace match? This is so ridiculous. The US supports NATO because its an alliance that also supports them. If any one is attacked it's an attack on all. South Korea isn't in Nato. North Korea is the country that is threatening my children. South Korea has to take care of itself. When Germany invaded France and took over, the British sunk the French navy in port.....We killed our own allies rather than increasing the chances of being defeated ourselves. Sorry mate....no such thing as 'total wins' in war. It's horrible but if my hand is forced and there is no better option. I come before you and that's human nature. Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Oct 2017 5.49pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

20 Oct 17 5.48pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

This is so ridiculous.

The US supports NATO because its an alliance that also supports them. If any one is attacked it's an attack on all. South Korea isn't in Nato.

North Korea is the country that is threatening my children. South Korea has to take care of itself.

When Germany invaded France and took over, the British sunk the French navy in port.....We killed our own allies rather than increasing the chances of being defeated ourselves.

Sorry mate....no such thing as 'total wins' in war. It's horrible but if my hand is forced and there is no better option. I come before you and that's human nature.

Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Oct 2017 5.49pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 4 of 16 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Raqqa captured

Site Map

Sponsors