Cable Forum
Page 89 of 144 « First 397985868788 89 9091929399139 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   U.S Election 2016 (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33702280)

martyh 30-12-2016 22:59
Re: US Election 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35878486)
Yes really .no where in the entire article does she ever mention using nuclear weapons as retaliation for a cyber attack and if you believe that then you are as deluded as Mick .What she said was

Quote:
"As President, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic, and military responses," she told the attendees, largely made up of veterans and their supporters.

"We are going to invest in protecting our governmental networks and our national infrastructure," she continued. "I want us to lead the world in setting the rules in cyberspace. If America doesn't, others will."

Which is a very long way from nuclear war as Mick said ...twice

---------- Post added at 21:59 ---------- Previous post was at 21:48 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35878487)
Russia are not going to take any more economic sanctions lying down, I still don't believe Russia held 63 million Trump voters at gun point, and as I pointed out, Clinton and the US wanted to put their own interests first back in 2006, when Clinton said they should have done something in the 2006 Palestine Elections to determine who was going to win? We had this discussion pages back !
Between Dumb Ass Trump and Crooked Tillerson Russia won't have any worries about sanctions from the US

pip08456 30-12-2016 23:10
Re: US Election 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35878490)
Yes really .no where in the entire article does she ever mention using nuclear weapons as retaliation for a cyber attack and if you believe that then you are as deluded as Mick .What she said was
You quoted Mick as saying (your bold)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35878408)
So whats your solution ? You would prefer a nuclear conflict with Russia : Remember what I said above about Clinton and that she would respond with Military action as a potential response to cyber hacking. So she would have responded with military action and thats the world plunged into a bloody nuclear conflict, what a fantastic start to 2017. :D
With the response

Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35878480)
No ,that is not what she said at all and you know it ,stop making crap up
However she did.

Mick 30-12-2016 23:23
Re: US Election 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35878494)
You quoted Mick as saying (your bold)



With the response



However she did.
Lol and with her saying that, any kind of military response towards Russia, is going to be met by nuclear retaliation from Russia, hence my original point about a nuclear conflict being averted, still standing.

TheDaddy 30-12-2016 23:25
Re: US Election 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35878367)
Wrong again Mr K.
It's Mrs May that is wrong if she thinks Israel is democratic. Still I have every faith that the donald will let them down to just like he has with pretty much every promise he's back tracked on during his campaign

pip08456 30-12-2016 23:28
Re: US Election 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35878503)
It's Mrs May that is wrong if she thinks Israel is democratic. Still I have every faith that the donald will let them down to just like he has with pretty much every promise he's back tracked on during his campaign
Are you saying the Israeli govenment was not democratically elected?

TheDaddy 30-12-2016 23:33
Re: US Election 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35878504)
Are you saying the Israeli govenment was not democratically elected?
I'm saying Israel isn't a democracy

martyh 30-12-2016 23:56
Re: US Election 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35878494)
You quoted Mick as saying (your bold)



With the response



However she did.
Mick seems to think that nuclear is the default response here's his posts

Quote:
We know how far Hillary Clinton would have gone, she once stated if she was President, she would have treated cyber attacks like any other attack and responded with serious political, economic and military responses. So that's a nuclear world war averted then.
and again
Quote:
So whats your solution ? You would prefer a nuclear conflict with Russia : Remember what I said above about Clinton and that she would respond with Military action as a potential response to cyber hacking. So she would have responded with military action and thats the world plunged into a bloody nuclear conflict, what a fantastic start to 2017.
nobody mentioned nuclear ....apart from Mick ...again :rolleyes:

He's twisted statements to say things that weren't said .A military response or a economic response or a political response (depending on what is justified) is not by any stretch of the imagination a nuclear response as Mick keeps suggesting

pip08456 31-12-2016 00:01
Re: US Election 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35878507)
I'm saying Israel isn't a democracy
Was the government democratically elected?

martyh 31-12-2016 00:04
Re: US Election 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35878510)
Was the government democratically elected?
You cannot have a Jewish state that is a democracy ,it's one or the other

pip08456 31-12-2016 00:24
Re: US Election 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35878512)
You cannot have a Jewish state that is a democracy ,it's one or the other
That does not answer the question. All it requires is yes or no.

Mick 31-12-2016 00:57
Re: US Election 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35878513)
That does not answer the question. All it requires is yes or no.
Good luck with that. martyh makes his own crap up as he goes along and still argues black is white and he suggests to others to stay off the coffee :rolleyes:

...He has pointed out twice now, that I have said 'Nuclear response', no that is not what I said, I said Nuclear conflict, because that is the end result. Doh!

It does not take a genius, to work out that a military response aimed towards Russia, sparks off a Nuclear world conflict, because they are not going to respond back with a smile.

Let's have a look at the Scenario:-

US Military Response > Russia > Russia engages in full Nuclear strike back against US > US Allies with Nuclear capability, engage in Nuclear strike back against Russia > World War III.

TheDaddy 31-12-2016 00:59
Re: US Election 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35878513)
That does not answer the question. All it requires is yes or no.
It's not a yes or no answer at all, unless you're ignorant enough to believe apartheid south Africa was democratic to, then it is as simple as yes or no

1andrew1 31-12-2016 01:59
Re: US Election 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35878520)
Good luck with that. martyh makes his own crap up as he goes along and still argues black is white and he suggests to others to stay off the coffee :rolleyes:

...He has pointed out twice now, that I have said 'Nuclear response', no that is not what I said, I said Nuclear conflict, because that is the end result. Doh!

It does not take a genius, to work out that a military response aimed towards Russia, sparks off a Nuclear world conflict, because they are not going to respond back with a smile.

Let's have a look at the Scenario:-

US Military Response > Russia > Russia engages in full Nuclear strike back against US > US Allies with Nuclear capability, engage in Nuclear strike back against Russia > World War III.
Are you assuming that Russia would retaliate with nuclear weapons or is such a scenario evidence-based?

Mick 31-12-2016 04:09
Re: US Election 2016
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35878524)
Are you assuming that Russia would retaliate with nuclear weapons or is such a scenario evidence-based?
Doh, what the hell do you think they would do Andrew ?

A major country declares war on Russia, because to respond militarily, you are automatically declaring war on them. You think they are just going to ignore that they have nuclear war heads?

RizzyKing 31-12-2016 05:42
Re: US Election 2016
 
If and it's a big if the US was to take any military action against Russia it would eventually escalate beyond initial intentions including the use of nuclear weapons be they tactical or strategic. Putin has made it very clear that no military attack on Russia would go unanswered and once one starts it it will quickly escalate. Clinton was very happy to antagonise and provoke the Russians and obama as with most things sat on his backside and said and did nothing. I'm no fan of putin personally i think he's dangerous and is a threat but Russia has a large nuclear arsenal and that means different rules for them like it or not.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:25.
Page 89 of 144 « First 397985868788 89 9091929399139 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum