Donald Trump Won't Rule Out Using Nukes Against ISIS

Good lord.

Are you really blaming world wide terrorism on Bush and IRaq2?

Your irrational America hating is making your completely ignorant and foolish.

- - - Updated - - -

So, we should just destroy our entire arsenal of nukes?

 

So he was too cowardly to use target discrimination and to fight a counter insurgency using actual COIN tactics.

 

He didn't say he was going to do that, he said that he wouldn't rule it out.

Thats two very distinct things.

 

Why would they believe it?

 

Wouldn't that be awesome? But I would use them against North Korea and Iran.
They need to be taught a lesson.

 

Cowardly Reagan is an oxymoron, just like brave Obama.

 

Good point. Since the 'red lines' and such have been empty threats from our milquetoast administration, and all. Perhaps they should worry a little more about a Trump with "the button". I would.

My point, though, is why would we rule anything out, publicly? To what end?

 

Meaning that we would still use nukes; thus, nukes were not off the table.

 

Good friggen lord. Some of you can't read for (*)(*)(*)(*).

He didn't say he was going to use them, and certainly didn't indicate using them willy nilly.

What he DID say is that he can't rule out using them.

This entire thread is a perfect example of the left twisting what somebody says and then all repeating and echoing how terrible it is, when none of it is true.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody talked about that... except you.

 

Thats just ridiculous Questerr.

Now, you are trying to re-arrange what Trump said, and when challenged, argue that saying they won't be taken off the table is the same as using them.

Absolutely ridiculous.

I carry a gun, for protection, because I want to protect myself. If you ask me if I have a gun and am I prepared to use it, I say "yes".

From your comments, that must mean I HAVE to use it?

You lefties on this forum are getting absolutely asinine.

- - - Updated - - -

HE DIDN'T THREATEN TO USE THEM.

Seriously, did you even read the damn article?

 

Read my Signature line from the 1984 Debate with Mondale.....you believe in the MYTH of Reagan...not the reality.

- - - Updated - - -

What about pregnant Iranian and North Korean women....what happens to their "unborn children"?

 

If you and I are in a fist fight, you hit me, and I run away to throw rocks at you, is that a brave act?

 

I guess the question is, why should he rule it out? Afterall, he is campaigning. So it is either going to hurt or help his campaign. But no matter what he says, if not what he can do as prez if he gets there.

 

An idiot with no foreign policy or military experience with the power to murder millions of innocent people and advisors who think weapons should be used if we have them, yeah, I'd be scared too.

- - - Updated - - -

Nukes were not on the table unless our enemy had nukes and used them first.

Does ISIS have nukes? Have they used nukes first?

 

Some lack common sense intelligence to think through a problem. And can only resort the most extreme method available.

 

Hahaha, they're very selective on when human life should matter.

 

What is the point in leaving nukes on the table is you won't use them or even threaten to use them?

 

So, isn't the fact that he did not rule them out, advantageous to us? My point, though, is why would anyone rule anything out, publicly? To what end?

 

Hmm, didn't think you'd ever call bushkie II a blind idiot. Far nicer words than I would use, but coming from a rightie, fairly harsh words.

 

What is the point in leaving them on the table is you have no intention of actually using them or threatening to use them?

 

Because it shows a complete lack of regard for civilians. I'm absolutely disgusted by the genocide taking place over there. Now we're going to nuke thousands of more civilians? He needs to show a greater regard for innocent human life. In the end it probably won't matter, because it looks like he might have finally jumped the shark with this Heidi Cruz re-tweet today. Up until this point I've ignored the doomsday predictions for Trump's campaign, but this one is pretty damn bad. I personally think there's a lot of upside to a Trump presidency, but his stability is definitely questionable.

 

Again, they're nothing but words to a candidate in campaign mode.
Meant to generate headlines. Harmless in the real world.

 

??? Reagan started a naval bombardment from Vietnam from a safe distance? Against who? The Vietnam War ended in 1974, Ronald Reagan wasn't elected President until 1980. Who was the United States Navy fighting in 1980-1988? I know he activated the old battleship Missouri for a time, until the tragic gun turrent accident, but, what enemy was the Navy firing at in 1980?

 

Too many variables.

 

He said he wouldn't rule out using them, different question. Reagan wouldn't tell the Soviet Union that America wouldn't use its ICBM's in a first strike capability if we felt threatened by them to the extent we thought they were going to launch - and that actually remains American policy to this day. All Trump said was what our standing policy on nuclear weapon's was. Can't you libbies read anything correctly?