SilverNRed Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I was just watching hardball, 659300[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 659322[/snapback] What, another liberal media thing, ok.....what about the fans....... To me it was funny.... Besides when you F-up you get grief... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 No, smart people explore all options and ramifications of all options... Stupid people act on the ones I DON'T AGREE with... 657021[/snapback] Joe Biden recently claimed that on numerous occaisions, when he asked Bush how he comes to some of the conclusions he does, he said (more than once) "I have good instincts"....that about says it all...then he prays that he is right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Merovingian Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 The nuclear option? God must be telling our president it's time for armageddon... 656435[/snapback] I guess that you would be more comfortable with no option at all other then the dreaded political solution? Look these guys are nuts and they intend to use the nuke as son as it is avaiable. If we do not have a strategy of some kind in place then any administration would not be doing thier job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I guess that you would be more comfortable with no option at all other then the dreaded political solution? Look these guys are nuts and they intend to use the nuke as son as it is avaiable. If we do not have a strategy of some kind in place then any administration would not be doing thier job. 659382[/snapback] "... and they intend to use the nuke as son as it is avaiable." Know that for a fact do you? Who exactly do they intend to use it on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 "... and they intend to use the nuke as son as it is avaiable." Know that for a fact do you? Who exactly do they intend to use it on? 659388[/snapback] Do you trust the iranians with the bomb, and not selling the product to potential terrorist??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Merovingian Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 "... and they intend to use the nuke as son as it is avaiable." Know that for a fact do you? Who exactly do they intend to use it on? 659388[/snapback] The people of Israel. Or any other Jewish person for that matter. It is the stated goal of the leader of Iran to drive them to the sea and kill all of them. I think that the goal is pretty well stated, and crystal clear. Look it is no big secret that they will NEVER be satisfied as a people until the zionist and the jews are all dead and burning in hell. Hence when the bomb is ready there is little doubt that they will use it. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 The people of Israel. Or any other Jewish person for that matter. It is the stated goal of the leader of Iran to drive them to the sea and kill all of them. I think that the goal is pretty well stated, and crystal clear. Look it is no big secret that they will NEVER be satisfied as a people until the zionist and the jews are all dead and burning in hell. Hence when the bomb is ready there is little doubt that they will use it. Why is this so difficult to grasp? 659414[/snapback] It's difficult to grasp because it's a ridiculously simplistic viewpoint. It assumes that Iran's leader are quite happy to see their country devastated by the massive retaliation of Israel's far superior nuclear arsenal. Despite the rhetoric I simply do not believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Do you trust the iranians with the bomb, and not selling the product to potential terrorist??? 659412[/snapback] Personally, I'd prefer a planet where no one had the bomb. Not the Iranians, not Israel and not the US. However, the fact is that it has been invented and we cant unmake it. Like it or not, more countries are going to get the bomb and there isn't that much that can be done about it. As far as the Iranians selling atomic weapons to potential terrorists goes, I see that prospect as remote. They are not going to invest all this time and money to develop these weapons and then pass them on to any old nutjob who they have little control over and who could draw them into a potentially catastrophic confrontation with the US and/or Israel. No, Iran wants the bomb for the same reasons most countries want it - prestige and deterrance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Do you trust the iranians with the bomb, and not selling the product to potential terrorist??? 659412[/snapback] About as much as I trust the Chinese, Pakistanis, or North Koreans, and we're not doing much about them. But as long as Israel has nukes, it seems unfair to deny them to Muslim states to allow them to have a MAD deterrent. We should call for a nuclear free Middle East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 But as long as Israel has nukes, it seems unfair to deny them to Muslim states to allow them to have a MAD deterrent. Except that the counter to Israeli nukes isn't Islamic nukes. It's US support. Unless survival is at stake, Israel doesn't launch a nuke without tacit US approval. The Islamic states would be kept in place by what? Plus there's the simple fact that we're talking about a culture that honors suicide bombers. MAD might not be a paradigm applicable to the situation. We should call for a nuclear free Middle East. 659454[/snapback] On that, at least, we agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Joe Biden recently claimed that on numerous occaisions, when he asked Bush how he comes to some of the conclusions he does, he said (more than once) "I have good instincts"....that about says it all...then he prays that he is right! 659355[/snapback] Did you see the guy who won the "Rock-Paper-Sissors" contest... Totally ripped into his competition and would take on and win everytime. Me thinks Bush thinks he is this guy... Somebody tell him that he DOESN'T win... Somebody tell this puppy his instincts suck... Back to the RPS winner above... His comments were somethingl like he has good instincts when guessing... IMO, I think he is a magician... Isn't the hand quicker than the eye... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Personally, I'd prefer a planet where no one had the bomb. Not the Iranians, not Israel and not the US. However, the fact is that it has been invented and we cant unmake it. Like it or not, more countries are going to get the bomb and there isn't that much that can be done about it. As far as the Iranians selling atomic weapons to potential terrorists goes, I see that prospect as remote. They are not going to invest all this time and money to develop these weapons and then pass them on to any old nutjob who they have little control over and who could draw them into a potentially catastrophic confrontation with the US and/or Israel. No, Iran wants the bomb for the same reasons most countries want it - prestige and deterrance. 659443[/snapback] I part ways with you on the highlighted. Prestige, yes, but I believe you can replace deterrence with blackmail. Who are they deterring from? We removed their only real regional adversary. I trust nK with nuclear weapons more than I do the Iranians. I don't believe they'd easily hand any over to terrorists, either- too easy to attribute. But, provoking Israel and holding Europe hostage is not outside the realm of possibility. Iran is both xenophobic and nationalistic. As you well know, they are Persian, not Arab. They have a past history of willingly absorbing punishment in quest of a goal. They have an institutionalized pathological hatred and distrust of the Americans, the British and especially the Israelis. Their foreign policy is guided by a misguided idea of where they fit into the world and what the world thinks about them. The man on the street in Tehran might not be enamored of the government, but attack them and they will pull the wagons into a circle through their nationalism. We aren't going to change any regimes by bombing, and our government knows that - in spite of anything Hersh says. Iran is going into a full court press firing up thousands of centrifuges to enrich. There is one and only one reason for them to do this. Problem is, with Iran there are only so many choices, and all of them are bad. They could be dealt with if there were truly a unified effort between the US and certain European nations, and China. But, Europe will continue to lie around with their head in the sand and figure that if push comes to shove, the US will take care of it. China might become more of an ally than one might think, now that they have firmed up so many new oil deals with Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Except that the counter to Israeli nukes isn't Islamic nukes. It's US support. Unless survival is at stake, Israel doesn't launch a nuke without tacit US approval. The Islamic states would be kept in place by what? Plus there's the simple fact that we're talking about a culture that honors suicide bombers. MAD might not be a paradigm applicable to the situation. 659515[/snapback] This might be your finest posting hour. The Israelis are rational, any of the Muslim states (outside of possibly Egypt, S.A, The Gulf States and Kuwait) are not. And the only reason the above ARE rational is that they have too much to lose if they're not. Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Oman, Sudan are all states founded on irrationality. Yes, even iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 This might be your finest posting hour. The Israelis are rational, any of the Muslim states (outside of possibly Egypt, S.A, The Gulf States and Kuwait) are not. And the only reason the above ARE rational is that they have too much to lose if they're not. Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Oman, Sudan are all states founded on irrationality. Yes, even iraq. 659759[/snapback] Actually, they're rational by their standards. Just not ours. It's an important point...one of the reasons, for example, that western liberal democracy isn't likely to work out in the Arab states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 I part ways with you on the highlighted. Prestige, yes, but I believe you can replace deterrence with blackmail. Who are they deterring from? We removed their only real regional adversary. I trust nK with nuclear weapons more than I do the Iranians. I don't believe they'd easily hand any over to terrorists, either- too easy to attribute. But, provoking Israel and holding Europe hostage is not outside the realm of possibility. Iran is both xenophobic and nationalistic. As you well know, they are Persian, not Arab. They have a past history of willingly absorbing punishment in quest of a goal. They have an institutionalized pathological hatred and distrust of the Americans, the British and especially the Israelis. Their foreign policy is guided by a misguided idea of where they fit into the world and what the world thinks about them. The man on the street in Tehran might not be enamored of the government, but attack them and they will pull the wagons into a circle through their nationalism. We aren't going to change any regimes by bombing, and our government knows that - in spite of anything Hersh says. Iran is going into a full court press firing up thousands of centrifuges to enrich. There is one and only one reason for them to do this. Problem is, with Iran there are only so many choices, and all of them are bad. They could be dealt with if there were truly a unified effort between the US and certain European nations, and China. But, Europe will continue to lie around with their head in the sand and figure that if push comes to shove, the US will take care of it. China might become more of an ally than one might think, now that they have firmed up so many new oil deals with Russia. 659749[/snapback] Look at their neighbours - Pakistan has nukes, India has them and so does Israel. If you were president of Iran would you not conclude that Iran too would be safer if they had them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 This might be your finest posting hour. The Israelis are rational, any of the Muslim states (outside of possibly Egypt, S.A, The Gulf States and Kuwait) are not. And the only reason the above ARE rational is that they have too much to lose if they're not. Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Oman, Sudan are all states founded on irrationality. Yes, even iraq. 659759[/snapback] What is your definition of "states founded on irrationality"? Your list seems a bit odd to me. You might not like the Syrian goverment but I find it difficult to see how you could describe it as a state founded on irrationality. That seems to me to be a label that could be more easily applied to Saudi Arabia but I suppose since Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US that automatically makes them rational, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 What is your definition of "states founded on irrationality"? Your list seems a bit odd to me. You might not like the Syrian goverment but I find it difficult to see how you could describe it as a state founded on irrationality. That seems to me to be a label that could be more easily applied to Saudi Arabia but I suppose since Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US that automatically makes them rational, eh? 659776[/snapback] Syria has and would start anothier conflict with its neighbor Israel. SA wouldn't. They understand that the bottom line is that their little corner of hell needs us as much as we need them> Syria harbors no such illusions. Same with Iran. Same with Libya, et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Look at their neighbours - Pakistan has nukes, India has them and so does Israel. If you were president of Iran would you not conclude that Iran too would be safer if they had them? 659772[/snapback] No. I would conclude that through my admitted policies and past performances owning nukes would make me less "safe". Because of their (often illogical) obstinancy, most everyone has been content to pretty well ignore Iran out of frustration. Going nuclear actually makes them a real threat, drawing a lot more negative attention. India and Paksitan have nukes because of India and Pakistan. I'm not aware of any "attack Iran" agendas out of either country. Israel has them (if they do...) because if you ask an Israeli to point out the enemy, he points and describes a circle. But, you are asking me were I President of Iran. I'm a firm believer that Iran does not have nuclear ambitions geared towards deterrence. They have an overvalued sense of self importance in the world, think they should be THE leader of the region and are very likely to adopt very aggressive foreign policies once they have possession. They have already made great strides on delivery systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Syria has and would start anothier conflict with its neighbor Israel. SA wouldn't. They understand that the bottom line is that their little corner of hell needs us as much as we need them> Syria harbors no such illusions. Same with Iran. Same with Libya, et al. 659779[/snapback] Very, very subjective definition. Would you label anyone who starts a war as irrational? In that case, the US would be one of the most irrational states around. And don't forget that Israel continues to occupy Syrian territory. Which country would not fight a war when part of it's territory was illegally occupied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts