Zaac
Well-Known Member
Don't be mad just because your hypocrisy displays you looking at the same type of race pimps as your heroes as you point the finger at Blacks for doing.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Obama would surrender after Iran atomic attack
- Thread starter church mouse guy
- Start date
Don't be mad just because your hypocrisy displays you looking at the same type of race pimps as your heroes as you point the finger at Blacks for doing.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Your rambling diatribe makes no sense. It is incomplete but what there is is false. i have attempted to show you and others blacks who have accomplished something often rising above their circumstances and not blaming whites as you do!
1. Ward Churchill has said that the USA should be bombed with atomic bombs.
2. No one has said that Iran should be stopped from getting the atomic bomb and clearly the Democrats are not stopping Iran.
3. No one has denied that the USA is the prinicipal target of Iran, as Dr. Sowell has suggested. The Iranians have always said that Jerusalem would be the site of the first Iranian attack and then Paris.
4. There are already terrorist sleeper cells in the USA for many decades. The Muslim
Brotherhood, a Nazi-Islamic offshoot, has a rich foundation operating openly for 40 years in the USA.
5. The border is so wide-open that criminals, communists, and terrorists can just walk into the country.
6. The military is a hollow military and an atomic attack might mean that the entire world would declare war on us.
7. No one denies that Obama could surrender. His sympathies lie with Jeremiah Wright.
8. It is unclear if patriots could fight on if Obama surrendered and used drones on the patriots.
9. The police probably could not keep domestic order in the event of an atomic attack.
10. The Persians have good reason to hate us after what Carter did to their country.
2. No one has said that Iran should be stopped from getting the atomic bomb and clearly the Democrats are not stopping Iran.
3. No one has denied that the USA is the prinicipal target of Iran, as Dr. Sowell has suggested. The Iranians have always said that Jerusalem would be the site of the first Iranian attack and then Paris.
4. There are already terrorist sleeper cells in the USA for many decades. The Muslim
Brotherhood, a Nazi-Islamic offshoot, has a rich foundation operating openly for 40 years in the USA.
5. The border is so wide-open that criminals, communists, and terrorists can just walk into the country.
6. The military is a hollow military and an atomic attack might mean that the entire world would declare war on us.
7. No one denies that Obama could surrender. His sympathies lie with Jeremiah Wright.
8. It is unclear if patriots could fight on if Obama surrendered and used drones on the patriots.
9. The police probably could not keep domestic order in the event of an atomic attack.
10. The Persians have good reason to hate us after what Carter did to their country.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Your hypocritical diatribe makes perfectly good sense to those of us who can see through poop.
You've attempted to do nothing but try to exonerate your white privilege from being part of the problem you profess to want to help Blacks rise above.
You're cloaked in that same fakeness as another on this board.
You need to reel that racial prejudice in.
Who cares? He exercised his freedom of speech, and was later fired (a firing that was upheld by the Supreme Court) for plagiarism and unprofessional conduct. He's not on anyone's radar except as a whacko.
No disagreement; but what's the point?
Please explain what you mean by "hollow military."
Surrender to who?
It is very clear that patriots would fight on. You must be a city boy if you don't understand that.
Used drones on patriots? That presumes that the military would take up arms against their own countrymen, or hand over control of the drones to be used against their own countrymen.
If you believe either of those options is remotely possible, you don't know many--if any--service members.
The more likely scenario if Obama were to try to surrender, is that the military would revolt, along with members of Congress; Obama would be arrested; and a new president would immediately be sworn in.
"Probably"? Definitely. Martial law would be declared, and police would be subordinated to military control.
Meh, they're always looking for a reason to hate someone.
I deny it. Now your statement is false.
So now Obama will not only surrender, but still be in a position of power to use drones on the remaining loyal citizens? I assume somewhere in your imagination, Obama is set up to run this newly surrendered land because he cooperated?
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
That's what I'm trying to figure out here. "Oh no! They hit us with everything they had! ... And now they are no threat to us. Let's go destroy them."
To be fair -- he said Obama could surrender. In fairness, Obama could try to surrender...and somehow, I think CMG would be right there with us resisting if Obama tried....
Ya know, all ya gotta do is play Risk with the "special weapons" option, where you can use a nuke to remove all the armies from a country...but no one's allowed to occupy that country for 3-5 turns to simulate the effects of radiation...and one could start to understand the strategic problems with the scenario this thread has introduced...
To define a hollow military, it is the term that was used for our military between World War I and World War II. That is, an army on paper but not ready to fight. Many have noted that we could no longer fight on two fronts at once.
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
We've been fighting on two fronts for the last decade. I think we haven't lost that in the last year.
And believe me, I know for a fact our active duty is ready to fight. I can't speak for any reserve components, but active is ready.
(It's a misunderstanding; the defense department has been reporting to Congress for several years that we're unable to fight two conventional war fronts at the same time; i.e., China and some other country in a conflict consisting of standard employment of ground, sea, and air power.
What has been described in this thread, and what we have been fighting for the last decade, is unconventional; and thus, the use of a "hollow military that can't fight on two fronts" as a justification for the flights of fancy presented here is ludicrous. Might as well read Orson Scott Card's "Empire" series....
I know you know this; I post it here for the enlightenment of others who aren't as familiar with these classifications)
Zaac
Well-Known Member
I think people would be utterly surprised at how many fronts we can fight on at the same time if we took off the kid gloves and said screw all these parameters that our enemies and the rest of the world think we have to be hemmed in by.
We've got the most powerful, most skilled military in the world many times over.
We could have already decimated the two fronts we're fighting on IF we wanted to.
Last edited by a moderator:
In World War II---the Germans found out that they COULD fight on two fronts at the same time
although
they could not sustain that fighting force for any more length of time than what they did without being "pinched" in the west and being "run over" on in the east
And it was the Germans then---who had the most skilled, most reliable military in the world
although
they could not sustain that fighting force for any more length of time than what they did without being "pinched" in the west and being "run over" on in the east
And it was the Germans then---who had the most skilled, most reliable military in the world
Interesting, but Hitler insisted on going east. They went in about June and by October or so were stalled outside Moscow. From then on they were slowly pushed out and Russia eventually took Berlin and murdered Patton. Do you agree that the German defeat looks much like the French defeat in Russia?
As for atomic devastation, Sowell points out that Japan only took two attacks.
Had Hitler gone on to conquer the Caucasus instead of turning north toward Moscow----I believe that would have led to Russia's defeat
When did Russia murder Patton??
Stalin caused an automobile wreck that rammed a huge truck into Patton's car on December 8, 1945.