Crap Throwing Monkey

Actually, though, that is the administration policy. It's less the fear that Iran (or North Korea, or Iraq for that matter) would use such weapons themselves, but that they's spread the technology around and eventually someone would get it and use it against us. It was one of the prime motivators for invading Iraq. Contrast that to India, who we're giving nuclear technology. India's not likely to spread it around much...since, if they did, it would likely end up in the hands of people who'd turn around and use it against them...

I think a prole stole his hermeneutical ideal...

Wow. I actually managed to hide behind SDS in that picture. Who'd have thought it was even possible?

And have the entire region blow up in our faces? You can't deal with Iran as though they exist in a vacuum...

Both the -15I and the -16I have an unrefuelled combat range of about 800 miles. Not that they could carry much in the way of munitions over that distance...but they can operate at that range... And let's not forget Jordan and Syria, either. The Jordanians would probably let an Israeli strike through unhassled (they'd rather live - they've got a history of being practical and looking the other way). The Syrians would not only challenge a strike overflying Syria, I wouldn't be surprised if they challenged a strike overflying Jordan. And yes, I know the stock answer is that the IAF can take apart any Arab air force or air defense in short order...but we're not talking about dominating defended airspace, we're talking about overflying it, which are two very different things. Unless someone also wants to postulate a full campaign against Syria to take down their entire air defense network as a prelude to a limited strike against Iran...which would be even more insane than overflying Iraq without permission...

Gotta be me. Has to be.

I like you, tater...

Didn't Covington have a 19-tackle game at some point as a starter? By the way...the guy who killed him was acquitted of murder...

Actually, all I meant was to quote Kelso's Helmet's stupidity. But, since we're going to discuss it...yeah, what Chicot said. It's not a question of "Can we bomb Iran, please?", but "Can we fly through your airspace to bomb Iran, please?" Yes, Israel could fly through Iraqi or Saudi air space without so much as a "by your leave" to us... But look at it this way: in 2003, during the invasion of Iraq, a US Patriot battery shot down a British Tornado fighter-bomber. The plane was returning in a designated safe flight lane, transmitting all the right IFF codes...it still got shot down accidently. That was between too allies cooperating closely. Imagine the disaster that could befall an Israeli strike package flying through Iraqi air space (i.e. US air space) without coordinating with the US. The Israelis could do it, sure. It would be an absolutely insane risk to take, though.

Yeah...what the hell is THAT all about, anyway? Who suddenly pissed in his Wheaties, and why is he blaming me? Maybe he's just another Fit buyer distressed at finding out he bought a gay car - er, automobile of alternative sexual lifestyle...wouldn't want to sound homophobic now, would I?

Uhhhh...0. It doesn't exist. You probably meant F-15I...800 miles, realistically. Tehran's at the extreme edge of their range...but that's only if they can get through Saudi or Iraqi air space. Which is functionally our air space. Which means the only way the IAF can hit Iran anyway is if they send a big flower basket and a "Pretty please with sugar on top" to the White House. Which is not a foregone conclusion, BTW. The last thing the White House wants is for Israel to piss off Iran in a region-wide conflict with us stuck in between them in Iraq...which little adventure, oh-by-the-way, we undertook to stabilize the region to begin with, which sure as hell would go straight down the crapper if Israel hit Iran with our blessing...

Give me a !@#$ing break. The entire sum of your knowledge on any topic boils down to "Libtards suck!" I'm supposed to respond to that sh-- with "You're misinformed because of x, y, and z..."? "You're an idiot" is not only a much easier and worthwhile response to your nonsense...it's also the most accurate.

And that's just the world news...never mind the financial news... But I don't drink coffee...

No, we don't call Ed gay. We call Ed's car gay. Ed's not gay...he's just sort of an asexual celibate...

Quinn Early? He played with the Bills for 3 years, over that three year span, only Andre Reed had more receiving yards, and only Reed and Antowain Smith had more touchdowns. Early wasn't great...but worst of the last 15 years? And Scott Norwood? Yeah, he didn't have a lot of leg strength...but have we all completely forgotten about the cover-your-eyes awful 2001 Jake Arians performance? And Fina? He only started for ten years...and look at the stiffs that have replaced him so far. And how the hell do you put together a "worst of..." list that manages to ignore both Lonnie Friggin' Johnson and Gabe Friggin' Northern. I promise you, though...when it comes time to put together a "Worst "Worst of" Lists of the past 15 years", yours is at the top of mine.

I use yahoo.com for news. Of course, I use my.yahoo.com...where I can add any damn RSS feed I want. I get a nice summary of AP, UPI, International Hearld-Trib, BBC, and al Jazeera every morning...

So you want to talk about it...just so you don't have to think about it? Again: This is why you get treated with contempt.

And that's why it's a waste of time discussing it with you. When you can ONLY see it in those terms, there's no room for discussion anyway. The question of Iran policy is an interesting discussion...with people like X. Benedict, or KTFABD, or Blue Fire, or KRC, who are actually capable of discussing it. With morons like you, or Wacka, or stuckincincy, it's useless.

For what?

I believe it's a tax thing, as well. I read that somewhere a while ago, don't know if it's true or not.

Discussing it isn't a waste of my time. Discussing it with you is a waste of my time. Your sorry ass has already reduced the problem to a binary set (Iran has nukes/Iran doesn't have nukes), and reduced the solution to a binary set (bomb/don't bomb). You've already set the world speed record for establishing total ignorance of a topic...so why the hell should I bother discussing intricacies like the effect of bombing Iran on Amman, when your only likely answer is "Who cares! Either Iran gets nukes or they don't!" I'll reserve serious discussion for people who can handle it. You're just a waste of bandwidth.

The Communist Party in China has about as much to do with communism as the conservatives in America have to do with conservatism.

My take is: you're wrong, and I don't feel particularly compelled to waste my time explaining to you something you probably wouldn't understand anyway.

I love this... So ultimately, internet gambling will be shut down, except such as it benefits the state. No self-serving hypocrisy there...

Yeah, that's what I said. Because there's only two possible ways to address the situation: let Iran become a nuclear power, or let Israel bomb the sh-- out of them.