And again with the “you’re all crazy” line of argument.

but i’m not saying that katie (or anyone else) is crazy. i don’t know katie (or anyone else). i simply can’t comment on her sanity.

what i am saying that the notion that we should use nukes to bomb terrorist training camps in friendly countries is a crazy idea. you (megan) seemed to think that i was misreading what katie wrote. so i explained above why i thought the paragraph i quoted could only be read the way i was reading it. then i ended with “please explain your alternative explanation if you have one.”

and you’re wrong that i used “using less than one full sentence.” see my first comment, where i quoted an entire paragraph from the post. then go to my second comment, where i explain what i thought that paragraph meant, where i say stuff like “in the very next sentence”, which i couldn’t say if i was only talking about a fragment of a single sentence?

but back to your reading of what katie meant:

The full statement you’re questioning here would be, “If the CIA or FBI gets information that a terrorist camp is going to fly people over to kill us is he seriously not going to bomb them first? First we get rid of nukes, then what is next?” The principle of mutually-assured destruction is what carried the world through the Cold War - even through Khrushchev’s promise to “bury” the west - in one piece. Any measure of disarmament by the United States leaves mutually-assured destruction completely null and void to the advantage of terrorist organizations.

the interesting thing is that you seem to have done what you accused me of doing. you pulled two sentences out of the entire paragraph i was critiquing to argue that katie didn’t imply that we should nuke pakistan or afghanistan. and reading them on their own, i guess i could see that interpretation. i just think that it’s a less likely reading because nukes are so central to the rest of the paragraph. in that context, the “what is next?” question seems to diminish in significance.

but i could be wrong. unfortunately katie herself hasn’t stepped in to clarify whether she is pro- or anti-nuking iran. so we both could be wrong in puzzling out what she is trying to say.

oh, and even if megan’s reading is correct, i still think the argument makes much sense. different weapon systems have their uses and their liabilities. trying to eliminate one kind of weapon (e.g. nukes) because our country decides that the liabilities outweigh the benefits, doesn’t mean the same conclusion will be reached with regards to any other weapons system.

and i gotta back up john for criticizing obama for being willing “to negotiate with Iran and not with Pakistan.” as john pointed out, obama never said he isn’t willing to negotiate with pakistan. in fact, the whole way that his openness to negotiate with iran even came up is because he was saying on the stump that the u.s. should be open to negotiate with every country that prompted the questions “even iran and cuba?” during the debates. as it says on the campaign web site “Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe.“

Guilty as charged. I should have parsed that more carefully. You never answered the question though.

“And yes, I do criticize Obama for his apparant willingness to negotiate with Iran and not with Pakistan.

I do criticize you for your apparent ignorance in this regard. Of course Obama would negotiate with Pakidstan. The issue is that Obama stated that IF we had actionable intelligence that Osama was in Pakistan, and IF the Pakistanis refused (during negotiations, obviously) to do anything, he would act. I am confident you don’t find fault with that.

Of course, that hypothetical is nonsensical with regards to Iran. Osama isn’t hiding in Iran, and the negotiations are regarding Iranian weapons development.

I understand that the reality isn’t important though. It’s only important that you criticize Obama.

No, we didn’t have SDI on 9/11, and no, it wouldn’t have helped one whit on that particular day.
But it proved to us how unstable the world is and how badly intelligence can fail. Do you genuinely think that the fact that terrorists used an unconventional weapon on that day means that they will never be willing to use a conventional weapon?

I think you might want to reexamine your wording in this statement: “Do you disagree with our contention that *no sane person would object to a nuclear strink against a terrorist camp in Pakistan*?” Don’t worry, I know that word choices can get mixed up sometimes when typing, happens to everyone.

And yes, I do criticize Obama for his apparant willingness to negotiate with Iran and not with Pakistan.

Megan, do you disagree that with our contention that no sane person would object to a nuclear strike against a terrorist camp in pakistan?

Obama said he would “take out” Osama in pakistan if he had actionable intelligence and the pakistanis refused to act. You criticize him for this, and yet you say he is weak for taking nuclear wepaons off the table for such a strike?

Get out of the ostrich suit and come back to reality Megan.

Meanwhile, congratulations for pulling Katie’s words completely out of context - using less than one full sentence. The full statement you’re questioning here would be, “If the CIA or FBI gets information that a terrorist camp is going to fly people over to kill us is he seriously not going to bomb them first? First we get rid of nukes, then what is next?” The principle of mutually-assured destruction is what carried the world through the Cold War - even through Khrushchev’s promise to “bury” the west - in one piece. Any measure of disarmament by the United States leaves mutually-assured destruction completely null and void to the advantage of terrorist organizations.

I’m sure you’ll try to tell me that MAD is a flawed policy - but it’s certainly what the left clung to when Reagan tried to introduce missile defense. Just think - if liberals had supported missile defense twenty years ago, the United States could safely get rid of our nuclear weapons without being left vulnerable! You don’t want us to have SDI, you don’t want us to be well-armed…how DO you want the U.S. to protect itself from rogue organizations?

then how do you explain the paragraph i quoted at the beginning of my last comment? katie objects to obama’s promise to work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons by saying he’s forgotten that “our country was attacked by terrorists”. then she goes on to talk about terrorist training camps in afghanistan and pakistan and asks “is he seriously not going to bomb them first?”

remember this is all katie’s criticism of obama’s position on nuclear bombs. so when katie asks “is he seriously not going to bomb them first?” it seems rather clear that she’s talking about a nuclear bombing. in fact, she refers to nukes again in the very next sentence.

i understand why you may not want to believe katie is really saying what she seems to be saying, megan. i had that reaction too! i mean, could katie really be that insane? but i really don’t see how else to interpret it. please explain your alternative explanation if you have one.

“I dropped by this blog for laughs, but I didn’t expect to see this much lunacy.” That’s it! If you can’t argue on the facts, you’ll just call us crazy. Thanks for stopping by!

holy crap, are you serious? are you saying the u.s. should consider nuking afghanistan and/or pakistan because they have terrorist training camps in part of their territory? you realize the u.s. has friendly relations with both the pakistan and afghan governments, and that any nuclear strike on those countries would kill a whole lot of people who are not terrorists, right? does that mean that you’d be okay if an african country nuked the u.s. because of the white supremacist compounds in idaho?

i dropped by this blog for laughs (h.t. john), but i didn’t expect to see this much lunacy

Heavens to betsy, maybe he did! We should plant thousands of tiny American flags from China in the ground on 9/11 and remind people to vote republican! Oh, and to memorialize the victims, honor the fallen, etc etc.