Granny Danger Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, Del79 said: Rocket Man Aye it would be funny if the c**t wasn't US president. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del79 Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: Aye it would be funny if the c**t wasn't US president. Indeed. Just need to save up 27k if this continues http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Underground-nuclear-bunker-/253157071648?_trksid=p2141725.m3641.l6368 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Proving the enemy correct, while threatening to kill 25 million civilians. That doesn't look good for Trump at all. I presume that speech was one he wrote himself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Just now, Zetterlund said: Proving the enemy correct, while threatening to kill 25 million civilians. That doesn't look good for Trump at all. I presume that speech was one he wrote himself. Didn't you used to be a Trump fanboy? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Just now, Granny Danger said: Didn't you used to be a Trump fanboy? I certainly wasn't ever a Trump fan, I just thought Clinton was equally as bad. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 12 minutes ago, Zetterlund said: I certainly wasn't ever a Trump fan, I just thought Clinton was equally as bad. Equally. Mmm... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Just now, Granny Danger said: Equally. Mmm... Clinton would be pursuing the same foreign policy at Trump, minus some colourful language. He's just continuing the warmongering agenda of the previous few presidents, or rather the powerful interests behind the presidents. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Just now, Zetterlund said: Clinton would be pursuing the same foreign policy at Trump, minus some colourful language. He's just continuing the warmongering agenda of the previous few presidents, or rather the powerful interests behind the presidents. Clinton would be an horrendous president and yet significantly better than Trump. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tongue_tied_danny Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 2 hours ago, Granny Danger said: Clinton would be an horrendous president and yet significantly better than Trump. PJ O'Rourke hit the nail on the head when he said: She's wrong about absolutely everything but she's wrong within the normal parameters. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheProgressiveLiberal Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 3 hours ago, Zetterlund said: Proving the enemy correct, while threatening to kill 25 million civilians. That doesn't look good for Trump at all. I presume that speech was one he wrote himself. What would you do if North Korea launched a first attack on Japan, South Korea, or the US? What do you think US policy has been for the past 20 years? There's no option but a devastating response. I would personally like to shift responsibility for defense of Asian democracies to those countries, but as long as we are involved a massive strike will be what we have to do. The argument for US involvement is that the Asian countries are much more likely to see a war if the US withdrew. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 On a purely selfish account and not pertaining to know much about the subject, particularly NK nuclear capability. Does the fat one have the range to hit Scotland with one of his bombs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 5 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said: On a purely selfish account and not pertaining to know much about the subject, particularly NK nuclear capability. Does the fat one have the range to hit Scotland with one of his bombs? The bad news is yes. The good news is no further north than Glasgow. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 The bad news is yes. The good news is no further north than Glasgow. And the real answer is??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 1 minute ago, John Lambies Doos said: And the real answer is??? 4 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: The bad news is yes. The good news is no further north than Glasgow. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdhafc1874 Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 And the real answer is??? Zero evidence of Kim having the kind of missile capability to hit the east coast of the USA never mind us on the other side of the Atlantic.The west coast of the USA however... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Zero evidence of Kim having the kind of missile capability to hit the east coast of the USA never mind us on the other side of the Atlantic.The west coast of the USA however... OKClose Thread 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YER SISTERS YER MAW Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Where does the UK test it's nuclear warheads, assuming we actually have weapons of mass destruction? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 17 minutes ago, TheProgressiveLiberal said: What would you do if North Korea launched a first attack on Japan, South Korea, or the US? What do you think US policy has been for the past 20 years? There's no option but a devastating response. I would personally like to shift responsibility for defense of Asian democracies to those countries, but as long as we are involved a massive strike will be what we have to do. The argument for US involvement is that the Asian countries are much more likely to see a war if the US withdrew. If NK attacked someone first then they'd be inviting deserved destruction upon themselves, but there's no reason or evidence to suspect they want to do this. It's ludicrous to suggest there's no other option than the complete destruction of a nation. North Korea has stated repeatedly that they are open to negotiating their nuclear ambitions if the US and the South quit their military games. This is a miniscule concession when the alternative is the almost guaranteed death of hundreds of thousands of people. When Trump etc says talking has failed, they mean demanding on their own terms has failed. We are in a scenario where the US would rather start a devastating war than be shown to be open to compromise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.A.F.C Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 1 minute ago, YER SISTERS YER MAW said: Where does the UK test it's nuclear warheads, assuming we actually have weapons of mass destruction? Cowdenbeath 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YER SISTERS YER MAW Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Cowdenbeath That explains a lot. Thank you! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.