Is "We are not taking any option off the table." code-speak for using nukes like Gravel says?

NNN0LHI

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-27-07 07:59 PM
Original message

Is "We are not taking any option off the table." code-speak for using nukes like Gravel says?

Edited on Fri Apr-27-07 08:00 PM by NNN0LHI

I think he may be right. We should get to the bottom of this one way or another before the primaries. Because I won't knowingly give the benefit of the doubt or my vote to any future mass murderers.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BeHereNow

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-27-07 08:04 PM
Response to Original message

1. GO to his web site!!!! I just posted some video clips of him from there! AMAZING SHIT!

Edited on Fri Apr-27-07 08:05 PM by BeHereNow

And yes, he is ABSOLUTELY right- it IS code speak for nukes.
And how would he know?
GO to his web site.
http://www.gravel2008.us/
Also-
Check out the clips I just posted in a thread here in GD.
The man knows much about that of which he speaks, which is why we
must FIGHT to keep his voice heard in the debates!
He is the ONLY candidate actually calling the truth out on
the MIC puppets placed as viable candidates in the democratic
running.
HE was the one who fillibustered and ended the Vietnam DRAFT.
What's there to decide about who our candidate is?
Someone tell me I'm wrong.
BHN

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

patrice

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-27-07 08:05 PM
Response to Original message

2. "We" have never forsworn First Strike.

Edited on Fri Apr-27-07 08:20 PM by patrice

That's significantly different from saying nuclear weapons will be used only for defense.

The justification is that we need nukes if there is a possibility that we are going to be attacked with nukes, so we can strike first, in order to . . . . This is the part where it breaks down for me, in order to do what:

Destroy their weapons on the ground and thus prevent us being hit by their nuclear weapons? - No, they're going to see ours coming and shoot back, even if we get some of them on the ground, it won't be all of them.

Best case scenario, millions dead. What exactly does anyone think justifies that sort of thing? I can't imagine.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Forkboy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-27-07 08:06 PM
Response to Original message

3. Anyone who even thinks about using one should be sent into space.

A one way ticket to Pluto.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

napi21

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-27-07 08:10 PM
Response to Original message

4. If you know anything about negotiating, you NEVER take anything off the table!

You very well may never even consider using a nuke,or an invasion or whatever else, but you don't want your opposition to know that!

I was a buyer for a large national company for 7 years. I madeall kind of threats to the sales repswho came peddeling their stuff. Many of those threats I didn't even have the authority to carry out, but the salesmen never knew that.

I actually think that's also what's going on with Nancy saying impeachment is off the table. It's really not, but nobody knows that for sure.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

patrice

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-27-07 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #4

6. I thought she meant impeachment wasn't even a possibility.

Not that the possibility of impeachment is non-negotiable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

napi21

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-27-07 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #6

9. Of course that's what she said. But I consider Nancy to be a rational

human being. Shs's smart and very good at politics too! I'm POSITIVE if provable evdience comes out that would convince 66% of the House that Impeachment was the only answer, Nancy will put it on the table.

Right now, it's good strategy (IMO) to continue to say it's off the table, but to also keep the investigations going and see what surprises there are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

patrice

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-27-07 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #9

11. That's what I think. They should investigate everything they possibly

can.

I agree, if something solid turns up, they'll go for it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kagemusha

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-27-07 08:22 PM
Response to Original message

5. If said by a sane person, it means, "It depends on how crazy you are."

Options are only on the table to the extent that I'm not sure you're sane. If you are, the options never come into my hand. They stay on the table, unused.

That's a large rhetorical presumption, of course.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TomInTib

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-27-07 09:08 PM
Response to Original message

7. I believe we have already used them (Fallujah).

An air-burst neutron weapon will clear a town in no time.

We left the option on the table, forced everyone we could out of town and proceeded to shake-and-bake.

That is what I sincerely believe and I am far from being a tin-foiler.

I know for a fact that our modern military leadership and government will not hesitate to immolate scores of thousands of innocent civilians.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ContraBass Black

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-27-07 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #7

13. The radiation and seismic disturbance released by a Neutron bomb

Would have been noticed in every country with sensing equipment in the world. Nuclear explosions can not be kept secret.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

OHdem10

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-27-07 09:36 PM
Response to Original message

8. Who in Hell are you going to "Nuke"?

I loved that line for some reason.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

WinkyDink

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-27-07 10:32 PM
Response to Original message

10. Why not? We've nuked before (or would that be "atomic'ed"?).

IOW, we are not above anything.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mmonk

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-27-07 10:49 PM
Response to Original message

12. Yes. there is no other reason for that terminology.

All options means anything including nukes and is known to mean that internationally when the term is used.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

AliceBlitzstein

(39 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-27-07 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #12

14. that's exactly what it means

and all the insiders know it. I am surprised they even aired his statements. This Gravel fellow was a breath of fresh air.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mmonk

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-27-07 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #14

16. And when its used by one nation against another,

it is an international violation from the United Nations that we are bound to. Its a violation for one member to issue threats to another member.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Telly Savalas

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-27-07 11:11 PM
Response to Original message

15. Yes. Sen. Obama is obviously planning to indiscrimminately nuke dozens of countries

if he wins the election.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MadBadger

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-27-07 11:42 PM
Response to Original message

17. He isnt right. It just means that though you may not plan to do something...

You should never say never. There may be some 1 in 1000 situation where you need to do something, and that is why you leave all options on the table.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sat May 04th 2024, 03:37 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.