Donald Trump Won't Rule Out Using Nukes Against ISIS

And if they gain control of the chemical weapons in Syria and start using them in Europe/Turkey against US military installations? All realistic possibilities the way ISIL is "constructed right now".

 

Well you got the part about your being intellectually inferior to those of us who support Mr. Trump correct, glad you finally saw the light. But
Salivating? I might cast a vote for the guy as President if he takes the GOP nomination, but won't be salivating doing it. I think one gets locked up for doing that in public, particular a voting station............oh - you were being metaphorical? I see! In that case, using the word salivating in your discussion you should be talking about one of the Clinton's - not Mr. Trump, or the Obama supporter's who canonized him as a saint when they elected him to an office he was unqualified to occupy and govern in - twice, expecting the second coming!

Compulsive liar? Believe the incident's in Paris and Brussels have confirmed Mr. Trump's credibility regarding closing America's borders off to Muslim-nation refugees - unlike Clinton and OBama who support taking a chance on them - until they have been vetted. We go through a vetting process in almost everything we do, from obtaining a driver's license, to education, to job interviews, to running for public office. Why in hell would we not hold back a flow of refugees and vette them to see if they have ties to ISIS or other terrorist organizations before they arrive on our soil to commit the exact same type of crimes they are committing in Europe. Hope you're not riding the subway or running in the NYC or Boston Marathon, when a cell of them pulls off a catastrophe that could have been avoided by following Mr. Trump's advice in advance............

 

ISIS has chemical weapon plants now. We should stop draggin our asses and be putting boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria now. Using nukes is idiotic. There would be too many casualties.

 

Use of chemical; biological or nuclear weapons against America, under our long standing foreign policy, requires a nuclear response. Just how many times does that have to be printed up on the board before some of you understand it?.............

 

Well, if you are writing about a Republican turncoat and special interest fool like a Mitt Romney; a political diaper baby talking head like a Marco Rubio; an uncle Festus-type lame like Jeb Bush; or an evangelical gawd is my savior fool like Ted Cruz, probably nothing whatsoever, but none of them will ever occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. It doesn't appear that kind controls the party anymore with Mr. Trump leading the race and well on the way to the nomination. Besides, why are you spouting the Hillary Clinton political mantra anyways?.........

 

Because America is the Great Satan that will fulfill their eschatological fantasies.

Threats are threats. They don't necessarily have to mean that something will happen, they just have to mean that something could happen.

 

And none of them would be American "boots" if I were the one to make the call.

 

The very purpose of NATO as it was developed, and America leaving thousands of our troops and holding air bases in Germany after World War II, was to stop any further advance of the Soviet Union's army, and any future advance or attempt to advance on NATO countries. If Warsaw Pact nations, under USSR control, moved against any NATO nation, the U.S. would depend upon nuclear weapons to stop them, that was the consensus. NATO together, could not stop the USSR troops in time. American manpower and airpower could hold them back for a short time, but in a conventional war - the American's would be slaughtered, and the citizenry would never accept such a loss, so would approve of nuclear attack to prevent Soviet domination. The USSR knew this would occur, which is probably why they never tested the theory. NATO has changed over the years, its role and function, as has the financial contributions of its member states, with America maintaining the largest, as it does for the UN, contributor to the alliance which keeps Europe safe.

When one is a mighty technological power, and goes against an enemy which can't match up well with them on the hardware or technological side (i.e. - Vietnam), the enemy usually goes low tech, as occurred in Iraq, with the snipers and the IED's used against American and allied forces, causing mayhem. ISIS's methods are simply more of the same, using low tech terror methods against modern nation-states which have enjoyed on unprecedented run of peace for over 70-years due to NATO and the American military umbrella, and in Europe's case, contributing little to the cost of the alliance, and receiving all of its benefits.

That is one of Mr. Trump's complaints regarding NATO, that, like the UN, we maintain an unfair financial burden to protect the European continent from just a couple of enemies - Russia and now ISIS. His complaint is valid, and many Europeans, while enjoying the fruits of American protection free all of these years, routinely criticize and refuse to embrace our contributions. Why should we be so anxious to rush to their defense, or in the case of President Obama, run a world wide apology tour of those states, for American mistakes in protecting them? That alone should make most American's hate and despise Obama.

NATO is located in Brussels; London - Paris - Budapest - Bonn - Belgrade - Ankara - Athens - Rome - Madrid - Warsaw - Dublin - can't defend themselves? Why? Because they permitted unregulated immigration from the Middle Eastern Islamic states, and ISIS managed to smuggle in terrorists and create murderous cells and commit atrocities; Madrid trains; London subway; Paris nightclub and Jewish magazine employee attack; and now Brussels attack - all of which simply shows that these people totally depend on the U.S. without paying a fair share of the alliance, and are now reaping the whirlwind of terrorism, they allowed to infiltrate their nations.

Mr. Trump is against allowing that to happen in America, thus his call for temporary ban on refugees and immigration from Islamic countries. It is the correct call, unlike Europe, America has thousands and thousands of targets that could seriously damage this country. Subways; stadiums; ports; airports; government buildings and capital's, Federal and local; power plants - nuclear and conventional; an Interstate Hgwy. system that a few bombs could put out of business and eliminate cross country trade and traffic easily.

But - as Obama-Clinton-Kerry say, let them all in, we trust them. Let them butcher each other in the Middle East, any American currently remaining in the Middle East is crazy, the State Department has ordered most of them out of that area, only military personnel remain. But, would they repeat such butchery while on American soil - naw - we are immune to such disaster's - that's the liberal line. Willing to sacrifice all of us for their PC logic. Why you don't understand these simple truths which Mr. Trump has dared to drag into the spotlight of public opinion, gaining popular support because his ideas are correct, while the PC liberals and the mainstream media denigrate those ideas nightly on every broadcast, is really hard to believe. When it happens here, and it will happen here if you put in a Clinton or other candidate like that, you will think twice about eradicating ISIS even if it takes a nuke dirty bomb to do it................

 

And the fact that they are a Islamic theocracy has nothing to do with it too right?

 

Been 63 years since the Shah was put on the throne in Iran - not many influential people remain alive to have remembered it, and if they do they are at retirement age. Plus the fact that Islamic theocracy is just as brutal to its own citizens, as the Shah of Iran was when he was in charge, and we still remain the "Great Satan" to that government. Iran is one country in the Middle East that actually surprises me why the people haven't revolted against their government. Their population is very Westernized, had a long taste of Western influence in fashion; music; education; transportation; etc., under the Shah. They didn't suffer from Sharia Law as they do today, and as a whole, that population was very friendly toward America, came of age under American influences, unlike an American ally, Saudi-Arabia (huge financier of terrorism in the Middle East), which enjoys massive American support, and controls a population totally hostile toward us. Surprised Iran hasn't joined the host of other Middle Eastern countries that have revolted against their despotic leaders. Would be a tough call for America, who to support, in an Iranian uprising - the revolutionaries, or Saudi-Arabia. Would require a statesman - we haven't had one of those in the White House since Richard Nixon...........

 

Maybe the use of some small tactical nukes would when applied to key targets would be enough to scare the rest of the world into doing something to crush ISIS, I would wait until a major attack on the US or an ally over some suicide bombings maybe use of a radium bomb or a chemical weapon then drop the hammer on them. Then tell the world deal with them or we will and you saw what weapons we will be happy to use so get off your butts and deal with them once and for all.

Terror should work both ways and I think scaring the crap out of our enemies could be practical as an option its clear being nice isn't working.

 

Well he may want to talk to Israel before he sends any missiles over. I am sure Israel will want to know and make sure they are not downwind.

 

Not sure how you digested that "I" would be part of putting Clinton in the WH, but trust me, I'm not that guy.

 

And threats also have to be credible.

 

Gorn, I'm not that concerned about Neo-Conservatism or the Rep Party, I'm concerned about the country & the people in it.

 

Trump has gone from stupid to brain dead. His supporters are no better.

 

Get back to me when that actually happens. Ask yourself, how did IRAN require TONS of enriched uranium with sanctions in place? And, if they did, how will this deal prevent them from having twice that amount? I mean, now that they have a few billion & an import/export green light.

 

Yeah nuke the Middle East with America's staunches ally there in Israel right in the middle. That's real smart.

 

They did it in December:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/29/w...kpile-of-enriched-uranium-to-russia.html?_r=0

As for how they won't make more, part of the deal was decommissioning their centrifuges and agreeing to have the IAEA provide their nuclear fuel.

 

I think destabilizing the entire mideast even more than it was it about the most lunatic thing anyone could do.
But hey, some oil buddies gots more oil.

 

WWII was the last war we really won. Would you rather lose?

 

Judging from Syria, Russia could probably be convinced to launch their own. Perhaps you feel doing nothing while people die is a better solution? It worked so well in Benghazi.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). We won Grenada.

 

With the use of nukes comes consequences; millions of innocent people would die if meatball decided that his ego was bruised and decided to go to the nukes. You should know that radioactive fallout doesn't just end at the country's border.

 

Come on, is that even possible? Read the frikkin hand writing on the wall.