Republican candidates believe war is option to prevent Iran from creating nuclear wea

Buster · 11-17-2011, 03:51 PM

pons

[URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388046n"]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388046n[/URL]

‘cept Congressman Ron Paul.

Is this just Political pandering or is it plausible US policy?

Warfish · 11-17-2011, 03:52 PM

[QUOTE=Buster;4237035]....or is it plausible US policy?[/QUOTE]

The Obama Administration recently said they would not take "any option" off the table for use in dealing with a potentially nuclear Iran.

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2061372/President-Barack-Obama-doesnt-rule-military-option-deal-Iran-nuclear-threat.html[/url]

The man this question should be directed to is the Commander in Chief of our Millitary and the man who would order any such strike, most likely without formal congressional approval beforehand.

That would be, at current, Mr. Obama. I would venture it will also be Mr. Obama after Nov. of 2012, thru 2016.

Let us know what he says on the matter.

Buster · 11-17-2011, 04:12 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;4237038]The Obama Administration recently said they would not take "any option" off the table for use in dealing with a potentially nuclear Iran.

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2061372/President-Barack-Obama-doesnt-rule-military-option-deal-Iran-nuclear-threat.html[/url]

The man this question should be directed to is the Commander in Chief of our Millitary and the man who would order any such strike, most likely without formal congressional approval beforehand.

That would be, at current, Mr. Obama. I would venture it will also be Mr. Obama after Nov. of 2012, thru 2016.

Let us know what he says on the matter.[/QUOTE]

So the Republican Presidential hopefuls opinions are unimportant?

bitonti · 11-17-2011, 04:44 PM

can someone explain to me why Israel can be trusted with the bomb but Iran can't?

Warfish · 11-17-2011, 05:03 PM

[QUOTE=Buster;4237058]So the Republican Presidential hopefuls opinions are unimportant?[/QUOTE]

You tell me....how (specificly) have they different from the Obama Position of (paraphrasing here) "I take no options off the table, including Millitary Action"?

And unless you think they're going to win (and I don't, at all), then no, they're not that important.

To summarize:

1. Position of (R) is the same as the position of Obama.
2. Obama is probably going to win in 2012.
3. The Speed of Development may have Iran with a Nuke before the 2012 Election.

Warfish · 11-17-2011, 05:04 PM

[QUOTE=bitonti;4237098]can someone explain to me why Israel can be trusted with the bomb but Iran can't?[/QUOTE]

So lets see, today's addition to the "Bitonti Platform"

[U]Item #45:[/U] All nations of the Earth have as much right to nuclear weapons as any other. All nations are equally trustworthy with such weapons. We have no right to interfere.

Direct Question Bit: If you were President, what would you do in re: Iranian Nuclear Weapon ambitions? Please be specific.

AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite · 11-17-2011, 05:06 PM

[QUOTE=bitonti;4237098]can someone explain to me why Israel can be trusted with the bomb but Iran can't?[/QUOTE]

Because when we call up Israel and say hey buddy, we're sending the inspection crew over to see how many you have... Israel says... Sure thing, doors unlocked...

Iran pretends they aren't building them, balks at the idea of or actual imposed sanctions and continues their pursuit of a WMD.

Which guy do you trust more.

Bonhomme Richard · 11-17-2011, 05:08 PM

[QUOTE=bitonti;4237098]can someone explain to me why Israel can be trusted with the bomb but Iran can't?[/QUOTE]

Is this a serious question?

sunmou · 11-17-2011, 05:09 PM

seemly any country that has flirted with nukes, backed off or were
stopped ends up getting invade. i for one can ill afford to pay 10
dollars a gallon so bible thumpers, people with military stocks, or
lunatics who feel an "existential threat" can drag the world down.

AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite · 11-17-2011, 05:10 PM

[QUOTE=sunmou;4237138]seemly any country that has flirted with nukes, backed off or were
stopped ends up getting invade. i for one can ill afford to pay 10
dollars a gallon so bible thumpers, people with military stocks, or
lunatics who feel an "existential threat" can drag the world down.[/QUOTE]

So you're cool with Iran having a nuclear weapon and the capability to produce as many as they like?

bitonti · 11-17-2011, 05:17 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;4237130]

Direct Question Bit: If you were President, what would you do in re: Iranian Nuclear Weapon ambitions? Please be specific.[/QUOTE]

nothing. They are a country they have the right to do what they want, inside that country.

IF they use their nuke inappropriately they will get the same repercussions as anyone else using their nuke.

i don't subscribe to the notion that country A is good and country B is evil. people are people. No world leader is suicidal.

Warfish · 11-17-2011, 05:22 PM

[QUOTE=bitonti;4237151]nothing. They are a country they have the right to do what they want, inside that country.

IF they use their nuke inappropriately they will get the same repercussions as anyone else using their nuke. [/quote]

Thank you for being so straitforward and clear.

Out of curiosity, what (specificly) is "the same repurcussions as anyone else" if Iran (or anyone else) was to use their newfound nukes?

[quote]i don't subscribe to the notion that country A is good and country B is evil. people are people.[/quote]

Nazi Germany and Rooseveldt's USA, the same in your eyes. Neither good, neither evil.

People just being people.

[quote]No world leader is suicidal.[/QUOTE]

Hitler was.

bitonti · 11-17-2011, 05:41 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;4237156]Thank you for being so straitforward and clear.

Out of curiosity, what (specificly) is "the same repurcussions as anyone else" if Iran (or anyone else) was to use their newfound nukes?[/quote]

i would imagine they'd get nuked themselves. Iran can't nuke Israel and expect everything is fine.

[QUOTE=Warfish;4237156]
Nazi Germany and Rooseveldt's USA, the same in your eyes. Neither good, neither evil.

People just being people.
[/QUOTE]

We didn't go to war with Hitler because he was evil, we went to war because he was a threat, not just to Europe but to the whole world, including the USA. In fact we had to be directly attacked by one of his allies the Japanese before we entered the war. WWII wasn't about saving Jews any more than the Civil war was about freeing the slaves. In the end it's all about self interest. We have self interest and so does Iran.

**

ya know how we have gun control threads every so often and someone inevitably brings up how violent crime is lower in places where people can openly carry weapons. Nukes are like that. they don't ask a person if they are good or evil when they apply for a gun permit. The understanding is if you misuse it everyone else will react.

sunmou · 11-17-2011, 06:00 PM

[QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4237139]So you're cool with Iran having a nuclear weapon and the capability to produce as many as they like?[/QUOTE]

No, nuclear weapons, any nuclear weapon is a clear Geneva Convention violation because the weapon is impossible to use against a non-civilian
population. Iran has many times called for a nuclear free middle east.
Do you know why this request is ignored?

AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite · 11-17-2011, 06:22 PM

[QUOTE=sunmou;4237221]No, nuclear weapons, any nuclear weapon is a clear Geneva Convention violation because the weapon is impossible to use against a non-civilian
population. Iran has many times called for a nuclear free middle east.
Do you know why this request is ignored?[/QUOTE]

You want an outmanned country to give up their 'don't **** with us or you'll regret it' card...

I hear you.

Just don't agree.

If libs really felt none of it was our business they would't constantly bash Isreal.

PlumberKhan · 11-17-2011, 07:29 PM

Mutually Assured Destruction worked in the 80's.

Now all of a sudden, we're supposed to be a-scared because some country might get one while we have 1,300?!?

Whatever. Who gives a flying f*ck. Nuke the entire world. Might do it some good.

BTW. Russia's "Perimeter" system is still online. No one realizes that. LMFAO!!! RUN AWAY!! RUN AWAY!!! IRAN!! SCARED!! RUN AWAY!!! :rolleyes:

Warfish · 11-17-2011, 07:59 PM

[QUOTE=bitonti;4237193]i would imagine they'd get nuked themselves. Iran can't nuke Israel and expect everything is fine.[/quote]

So the "realistic worst case" of your policy is, literally, the end of the world in a nuclear armageddon.

Got it.

[QUOTE]We didn't go to war with Hitler because he was evil, we went to war because he was a threat, not just to Europe but to the whole world, including the USA. In fact we had to be directly attacked by one of his allies the Japanese before we entered the war. WWII wasn't about saving Jews any more than the Civil war was about freeing the slaves. In the end it's all about self interest. We have self interest and so does Iran.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for so brilliantly exposing my point.

Had the U.S. (and U.K. and France) acted earlier, and in unison, about 20 million lives could and would have been saved.

You, my friend, have alot of similarity with ol' Neville.

**

[quote]ya know how we have gun control threads every so often and someone inevitably brings up how violent crime is lower in places where people can openly carry weapons. Nukes are like that. they don't ask a person if they are good or evil when they apply for a gun permit. The understanding is if you misuse it everyone else will react.[/QUOTE]

Another brilliant point, just not how you think.

You're right, most folks would open carry, and little would happen cause most would respect it.

But in every population, there is always a VATech shooter, An Arizona Shooter, etc, who WILL shoot and kill as many as they can, consequences be damned.

You, in effect, want to hand JArred Loughner a handgun, grenade, and the keys to a M1A1 Tank.

Nice policy.;)

sunmou · 11-17-2011, 08:12 PM

[QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4237253]You want an outmanned country to give up their 'don't **** with us or you'll regret it' card...

I hear you.

Just don't agree.

If libs really felt none of it was our business they would't constantly bash Isreal.[/QUOTE]

I would not expect them too. I'm just not a fan of hypocrisy. I'm pretty
certain the United States and Britain would destroy any country that would
harm Israel. I don't like laying blame on any people of any state for the lunatics they have in charge of their government, be it Israel, Iran, or the
United States. We are all on a pretty crappy rollacoster.

DeanPatsFan · 11-17-2011, 08:24 PM

[QUOTE=bitonti;4237098]can someone explain to me why Israel can be trusted with the bomb but Iran can't?[/QUOTE]

You've written some dopey sh*t on this forum but this has got to be the dopiest......

Unbelievable........

doggin94it · 11-17-2011, 09:56 PM

[QUOTE=Buster;4237035]pons

[URL]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388046n[/URL]

‘cept Congressman Ron Paul.

Is this just Political pandering or is it plausible US policy?[/QUOTE]

plausible policy. Even if you will not rely on the military under any circumstances, it helps nothing to say so.

Frankly, half the world is crossing their fingers and hoping the Israelis bail them out on Iran - whereupon they will immediately condemn Israel

11-17-2011, 03:51 PM	#1
Buster not a rocket surgeon All League Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar Posts: 4,264	Republican candidates believe war is option to prevent Iran from creating nuclear wea pons [URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388046n"]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388046n[/URL] ‘cept Congressman Ron Paul. Is this just Political pandering or is it plausible US policy?

11-17-2011, 03:52 PM	#2
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=Buster;4237035]....or is it plausible US policy?[/QUOTE] The Obama Administration recently said they would not take "any option" off the table for use in dealing with a potentially nuclear Iran. [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2061372/President-Barack-Obama-doesnt-rule-military-option-deal-Iran-nuclear-threat.html[/url] The man this question should be directed to is the Commander in Chief of our Millitary and the man who would order any such strike, most likely without formal congressional approval beforehand. That would be, at current, Mr. Obama. I would venture it will also be Mr. Obama after Nov. of 2012, thru 2016. Let us know what he says on the matter. Last edited by Warfish; 11-17-2011 at 03:54 PM.

11-17-2011, 05:04 PM	#6
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=bitonti;4237098]can someone explain to me why Israel can be trusted with the bomb but Iran can't?[/QUOTE] So lets see, today's addition to the "Bitonti Platform" [U]Item #45:[/U] All nations of the Earth have as much right to nuclear weapons as any other. All nations are equally trustworthy with such weapons. We have no right to interfere. Direct Question Bit: If you were President, what would you do in re: Iranian Nuclear Weapon ambitions? Please be specific. Last edited by Warfish; 11-17-2011 at 05:08 PM.

11-17-2011, 05:41 PM	#13
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	[QUOTE=Warfish;4237156]Thank you for being so straitforward and clear. Out of curiosity, what (specificly) is "the same repurcussions as anyone else" if Iran (or anyone else) was to use their newfound nukes?[/quote] i would imagine they'd get nuked themselves. Iran can't nuke Israel and expect everything is fine. [QUOTE=Warfish;4237156] Nazi Germany and Rooseveldt's USA, the same in your eyes. Neither good, neither evil. People just being people. [/QUOTE] We didn't go to war with Hitler because he was evil, we went to war because he was a threat, not just to Europe but to the whole world, including the USA. In fact we had to be directly attacked by one of his allies the Japanese before we entered the war. WWII wasn't about saving Jews any more than the Civil war was about freeing the slaves. In the end it's all about self interest. We have self interest and so does Iran. ** ya know how we have gun control threads every so often and someone inevitably brings up how violent crime is lower in places where people can openly carry weapons. Nukes are like that. they don't ask a person if they are good or evil when they apply for a gun permit. The understanding is if you misuse it everyone else will react. Last edited by bitonti; 11-17-2011 at 05:43 PM.

11-17-2011, 04:12 PM	#3
Buster not a rocket surgeon All League Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar Posts: 4,264	[QUOTE=Warfish;4237038]The Obama Administration recently said they would not take "any option" off the table for use in dealing with a potentially nuclear Iran. [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2061372/President-Barack-Obama-doesnt-rule-military-option-deal-Iran-nuclear-threat.html[/url] The man this question should be directed to is the Commander in Chief of our Millitary and the man who would order any such strike, most likely without formal congressional approval beforehand. That would be, at current, Mr. Obama. I would venture it will also be Mr. Obama after Nov. of 2012, thru 2016. Let us know what he says on the matter.[/QUOTE] So the Republican Presidential hopefuls opinions are unimportant?

11-17-2011, 04:44 PM	#4
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	can someone explain to me why Israel can be trusted with the bomb but Iran can't?

11-17-2011, 05:03 PM	#5
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=Buster;4237058]So the Republican Presidential hopefuls opinions are unimportant?[/QUOTE] You tell me....how (specificly) have they different from the Obama Position of (paraphrasing here) "I take no options off the table, including Millitary Action"? And unless you think they're going to win (and I don't, at all), then no, they're not that important. To summarize: 1. Position of (R) is the same as the position of Obama. 2. Obama is probably going to win in 2012. 3. The Speed of Development may have Iran with a Nuke before the 2012 Election.

11-17-2011, 05:06 PM	#7
AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite is all out of fuCks to give... All Pro Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 7,447	[QUOTE=bitonti;4237098]can someone explain to me why Israel can be trusted with the bomb but Iran can't?[/QUOTE] Because when we call up Israel and say hey buddy, we're sending the inspection crew over to see how many you have... Israel says... Sure thing, doors unlocked... Iran pretends they aren't building them, balks at the idea of or actual imposed sanctions and continues their pursuit of a WMD. Which guy do you trust more.

11-17-2011, 05:08 PM	#8
Bonhomme Richard Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 4,089	[QUOTE=bitonti;4237098]can someone explain to me why Israel can be trusted with the bomb but Iran can't?[/QUOTE] Is this a serious question?

11-17-2011, 05:09 PM	#9
sunmou Rookie Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 549	seemly any country that has flirted with nukes, backed off or were stopped ends up getting invade. i for one can ill afford to pay 10 dollars a gallon so bible thumpers, people with military stocks, or lunatics who feel an "existential threat" can drag the world down.

11-17-2011, 05:10 PM	#10
AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite is all out of fuCks to give... All Pro Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 7,447	[QUOTE=sunmou;4237138]seemly any country that has flirted with nukes, backed off or were stopped ends up getting invade. i for one can ill afford to pay 10 dollars a gallon so bible thumpers, people with military stocks, or lunatics who feel an "existential threat" can drag the world down.[/QUOTE] So you're cool with Iran having a nuclear weapon and the capability to produce as many as they like?

11-17-2011, 05:17 PM	#11
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	[QUOTE=Warfish;4237130] Direct Question Bit: If you were President, what would you do in re: Iranian Nuclear Weapon ambitions? Please be specific.[/QUOTE] nothing. They are a country they have the right to do what they want, inside that country. IF they use their nuke inappropriately they will get the same repercussions as anyone else using their nuke. i don't subscribe to the notion that country A is good and country B is evil. people are people. No world leader is suicidal.

11-17-2011, 05:22 PM	#12
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=bitonti;4237151]nothing. They are a country they have the right to do what they want, inside that country. IF they use their nuke inappropriately they will get the same repercussions as anyone else using their nuke. [/quote] Thank you for being so straitforward and clear. Out of curiosity, what (specificly) is "the same repurcussions as anyone else" if Iran (or anyone else) was to use their newfound nukes? [quote]i don't subscribe to the notion that country A is good and country B is evil. people are people.[/quote] Nazi Germany and Rooseveldt's USA, the same in your eyes. Neither good, neither evil. People just being people. [quote]No world leader is suicidal.[/QUOTE] Hitler was.

11-17-2011, 06:00 PM	#14
sunmou Rookie Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 549	[QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4237139]So you're cool with Iran having a nuclear weapon and the capability to produce as many as they like?[/QUOTE] No, nuclear weapons, any nuclear weapon is a clear Geneva Convention violation because the weapon is impossible to use against a non-civilian population. Iran has many times called for a nuclear free middle east. Do you know why this request is ignored?

11-17-2011, 06:22 PM	#15
AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite is all out of fuCks to give... All Pro Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 7,447	[QUOTE=sunmou;4237221]No, nuclear weapons, any nuclear weapon is a clear Geneva Convention violation because the weapon is impossible to use against a non-civilian population. Iran has many times called for a nuclear free middle east. Do you know why this request is ignored?[/QUOTE] You want an outmanned country to give up their 'don't **** with us or you'll regret it' card... I hear you. Just don't agree. If libs really felt none of it was our business they would't constantly bash Isreal.

11-17-2011, 07:29 PM	#16
PlumberKhan BRACE YOURSELVES FOR 12... Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Van down by the river Posts: 21,013	Mutually Assured Destruction worked in the 80's. Now all of a sudden, we're supposed to be a-scared because some country might get one while we have 1,300?!? Whatever. Who gives a flying f*ck. Nuke the entire world. Might do it some good. BTW. Russia's "Perimeter" system is still online. No one realizes that. LMFAO!!! RUN AWAY!! RUN AWAY!!! IRAN!! SCARED!! RUN AWAY!!! :rolleyes:

11-17-2011, 07:59 PM	#17
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=bitonti;4237193]i would imagine they'd get nuked themselves. Iran can't nuke Israel and expect everything is fine.[/quote] So the "realistic worst case" of your policy is, literally, the end of the world in a nuclear armageddon. Got it. [QUOTE]We didn't go to war with Hitler because he was evil, we went to war because he was a threat, not just to Europe but to the whole world, including the USA. In fact we had to be directly attacked by one of his allies the Japanese before we entered the war. WWII wasn't about saving Jews any more than the Civil war was about freeing the slaves. In the end it's all about self interest. We have self interest and so does Iran.[/QUOTE] Thank you for so brilliantly exposing my point. Had the U.S. (and U.K. and France) acted earlier, and in unison, about 20 million lives could and would have been saved. You, my friend, have alot of similarity with ol' Neville. ** [quote]ya know how we have gun control threads every so often and someone inevitably brings up how violent crime is lower in places where people can openly carry weapons. Nukes are like that. they don't ask a person if they are good or evil when they apply for a gun permit. The understanding is if you misuse it everyone else will react.[/QUOTE] Another brilliant point, just not how you think. You're right, most folks would open carry, and little would happen cause most would respect it. But in every population, there is always a VATech shooter, An Arizona Shooter, etc, who WILL shoot and kill as many as they can, consequences be damned. You, in effect, want to hand JArred Loughner a handgun, grenade, and the keys to a M1A1 Tank. Nice policy.;)

11-17-2011, 08:12 PM	#18
sunmou Rookie Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 549	[QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4237253]You want an outmanned country to give up their 'don't **** with us or you'll regret it' card... I hear you. Just don't agree. If libs really felt none of it was our business they would't constantly bash Isreal.[/QUOTE] I would not expect them too. I'm just not a fan of hypocrisy. I'm pretty certain the United States and Britain would destroy any country that would harm Israel. I don't like laying blame on any people of any state for the lunatics they have in charge of their government, be it Israel, Iran, or the United States. We are all on a pretty crappy rollacoster.

11-17-2011, 08:24 PM	#19
DeanPatsFan Lib Free Or Die..... All Pro Annoying Chowd Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,123	[QUOTE=bitonti;4237098]can someone explain to me why Israel can be trusted with the bomb but Iran can't?[/QUOTE] You've written some dopey sh*t on this forum but this has got to be the dopiest...... Unbelievable........

11-17-2011, 09:56 PM	#20
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,395	[QUOTE=Buster;4237035]pons [URL]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388046n[/URL] ‘cept Congressman Ron Paul. Is this just Political pandering or is it plausible US policy?[/QUOTE] plausible policy. Even if you will not rely on the military under any circumstances, it helps nothing to say so. Frankly, half the world is crossing their fingers and hoping the Israelis bail them out on Iran - whereupon they will immediately condemn Israel