Dayton3/Tracker/Dayton Kitchen’s Greatest Hits

You are confusing Dayton with Federal Farmer. The former specifically said nuking ISIS is not an option in response to the latters demand that we do just that.

Nope. If I was, I would have quoted Federal Farmer's OP. I'm just hipper to Col. Qaddafi's Dayton's MO, than you are.

Note how that thread progressed. FF's OP says that we should nuke ISIS because it'll stop them. Garamet points out that there's no central target, and asks about civilian casualties. Col. Qaddafi Dayton says civilian casualties in such a situation would be the fault of ISIS, not the US, and then fails to offer any of his military "wisdom" as he so often does when he thinks he has the better strategy. His statement in this thread:

Clearly indicates that he's okay with lobbing nukes at that part of the world if "the U.S. faces an imminent nuclear attack." This is not a statement of recognition that such a nuclear strike wouldn't accomplish anything (since its impossible to nuke an idea), and comes from someone who has admitted that he thinks its fully justified to lie to get the US involved in a war. If Col. Qaddafi Dayton thought we needed to go to war in the Mid-East and believed that the only way he could convince the American people to do so would be to claim that we were in imminent danger of a nuclear attack, what do you think he would do?

This is no different than that time when he claimed that he didn't see gay marriage as a big issue, only to admit later on that he was opposed to it, but thinks that preventing abortions is far more important than banning gay marriage. If he'd have felt that lobbing nukes at dozens (or more) cities was an ineffective strategy, he'd have said so.

Who here has suggested using nuclear weapons against cities?

I'm against using nuclear weapons against cities anytime in the foreseeable future.

Where do you think ISIS is located? The middle of the ocean?

Maybe they are conspiring with the dolphins to overthrow humanity?

Why should I care? I was never in favor of using nuclear weapons against them anyway.

But I am in favor of conventional bombing of ISIL positions. And in that regard, if they deliberately position themselves in civilian areas then they are responsible for whatever fates befall the civilians.

That's exactly what they want. Do you see why?

First I've heard of it. But tell me, if you were President, and the only way you could get the US involved in a war fighting them required us to nuke them first, would you do it?

And here's where your idea falls apart. They're in civilian areas, not because they're seeking to use them as human shields, but because in the places they've occupied, they've taken control of the local government functions. This isn't 19th Century warfare where opposing armies square off against one another in a vacant field outside of a city, leaving the civilian population largely intact. They're going in and supplanting every aspect of the local authorities, including police. If you want to "bomb ISIS," not only are you going to have to bomb some cities, you're going to have to bomb all the cities where they're located. Even then, bombing alone isn't going to stop ISIS, nor will sending in ground troops. Its going to take a comprehensive strategy, involving a number different elements and the kind of commitment to detail which you've thus far failed to show in your ravings about what you'd do if the US suddenly took leave of its senses and drafted you to be President.

^This is where he says he's "given up any idea of being President a long time ago," thus distancing himself from any other genocidal plans he may express.

No of course not.

There are limits to everything.

There's no "of course not" when dealing with you on this subject. You've waxed rhapsodic about war with any number of nations and said that you had no problems with lying to get the US involved in a war, the safe assumption with such a person like that is they'll pick the most horrific option, since its most consistent with their pattern.

That is idiotic. On what basis would you be able to conclude that the "most horrific option is the most consistent"?

Because you're always thumping for war, or have you not read most of your comments in this thread?

Or to put it another way, any sane person reading your posts would have the same reaction as George C. Scott does in this clip.

There are limits Tuckerfan and any reasonable person would conclude that.

And yet, as you have so aptly demonstrated in this thread, and so many other, you're not reasonable. There is nothing "reasonable" about this statement of yours:

Reasonable people are disgusted by the idea of treating the deaths of 7 - 9 million human beings in such a casual manner. You are not, therefore, you are not reasonable. QED.

That is a less than died in the Cold War as a whole. Far, far, far less than World War Two.

Note, "The Great Big Book of Horrible Things" by Matthew White (a book on war statistics) figures that at least 11 million people died as a direct result of the Cold War.

Its not merely the number of bodies, you nitwit, its the fact that you're constantly talking about how "great" it would be if we went to war with the Russians or some other country, which is disturbing. The fact that you treat the death of some 9 million or so people as merely the "price of admission" is just icing on the cake of your insanity.

You need this: Theory of Mind. Enjoy!

I agree you have limits on logic but the man stated a fact and you haven't disputed it.

You are correct about limits, that is true. Yet most of your conclusions are not only unreasonable, but also delusional and idiotic. And not only are you enthusiastic about it, but you laud it as a completely acceptable.

It was suggested to me once that a person should be enthusiastic about what is necessary.

Death from war is necessary?



And you wonder why people comment about your arousal from violence and war.

Some wars are Ed629.

Surely you would not deny that?

When is war necessary? If a solution can be found without loss of blood or lives, is that not preferable over war? Or are you saying death is required to achieve a goal that can be solved diplomatically without loss of lives?

I'm fairly certain World War Two was necessary. Closer to home and far more recently I don't think anyone seriously argues that Saddam Hussein was going to give up Kuwait without war.

In between, I've never seen any evidence that Kim Il Sung was going to march his troops back north of the 38th Parallel after invading South Korea in 1950.

For that matter, was the south going to return to the union in 1861 without warfare? Would the British have granted the colonies independence in 1776 or the foreseeable future without war?

If anything the relatively peaceful process of independence for most countries since the age of Empire should show that war isn't always a necessity. Indeed, it wasn't a given that sooner or later the colonies wouldn't have obtained some level of parliamentary representation, be it a minister of state or MPs. What's more the colonies originated as part of the invading force, rather than being of native stock. So it's a bit disingenuous to compare that to dictators hell bent on ethnic cleansing, or perhaps more obviously point out that the necessity of war is not consistent and depends on a great deal of factors involved and the humanitarian consequence of failing to act.

I did say "foreseeable future" El Chup.

Do you even read the whole of a person's post?

Why? Many here don't read the entirety of mine.