Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 86

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

  1. #61
    [QUOTE=Buster;4243946]The world is more fearful of Pakistan and their nutty and often changing leadership than of Iran. Iran seems rational. They want “the Persian race” to rule again. Being utterly destroyed in a nuclear war would stop this from happening. Whereas in Pakistan it seems plausible that at any minute there could be new leadership that is “heck-bent” on getting-even with India even if that means mushroom clouds and tens of thousands of deaths.

    IMHO, Iran getting the bomb is not good thing. But I also think whoever is US President will whip-out the old “…If you nuke us or any of our friends or allies the USA will make Iran uninhabitable for 10,000 years...” promise and Iran will get back in -ine. The bad (good?) thing is we cannot invade Iran once they have a nuclear weapon.[/QUOTE]

    You know what we could do...

    Hey, we're not going to even give you the opportunity to be capable of nuking us or our allies.

    If you continue to pursue building a nuclear weapon, we will make Iran uninhabitable for 10,000 years.

  2. #62
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,784
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4243681]MAD made sense when missile launch was the likely method of delivery, since there would be enough warning that a first strike would be responded to, and it was easy to track the source[/QUOTE]

    So a week later Iran would be as inhabitable as the planet Mercury.

    I doubt it would eveb take a week. I believe physicists can tell where bombs come from by their “radiation signatures”.

  3. #63
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,784
    [QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4243947]You know what we could do...

    Hey, we're not going to even give you the opportunity to be capable of nuking us or our allies.

    If you continue to pursue building a nuclear weapon, we will make Iran uninhabitable for 10,000 years.[/QUOTE]



    There are 75 million Iranians.
    That would be mass murder

  4. #64
    [QUOTE=Buster;4243949]There are 75 million Iranians.
    That would be mass murder[/QUOTE]

    So mass murder is cool only after they mass murder us or are buddies.

    Libs are ****ing pussies.

  5. #65
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,784
    [QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4243950]

    So mass murder is cool only after they mass murder us or are buddies.

    Libs are ****ing pussies.

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you paraphrasing ‘Mein Kampf’ or is that a direct quote?

  6. #66
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4237098]can someone explain to me why Israel can be trusted with the bomb but Iran can't?[/QUOTE]

    Israel would only use it in self defense. Iran is run by a houseful of deranged morons. Thats why.

  7. #67
    [QUOTE=Buster;4243955]Are you paraphrasing ‘Mein Kampf’ or is that a direct quote?[/QUOTE]

    I must be a nazi. Got it. I bet those guys really give a sh!t about Isreal like me.

    You're more like them tbh. You wont get off your ass unless Isreal was nuked...

  8. #68
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4243681]MAD made sense when missile launch was the likely method of delivery, since there would be enough warning that a first strike would be responded to, and it was easy to track the source[/QUOTE]

    What are you talking about? The Soviets had nuclear subs that couldn't be detected that were only a few miles off our shores that had nuclear payloads that could have wiped out North America. What a great warning system that was.

    Mutually Assured Destruction is going on right now between the US, China, North Korea, Pakistan etc.

    Iran and their Islamo-facist government is a wildcard because they are more ideologically motivated than the governments of China and North Korea who simply want to maintain and consolidate power. I'm all for destroying sites where the Iranian gov't is developing nuclear capabilities like the Israelis did with Iraq in the early 80's but as far as the whole "let's nuke them before they nuke us" garbage that is just dumb.

  9. #69
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4237098]can someone explain to me why Israel can be trusted with the bomb but Iran can't?[/QUOTE]

    If at some point an Israeli movement invades our embasy and takes our diplomatic core hostage to further their political objective of taking over their country I would be all for going to war with Israel and reducing their nuclear stockpile to rubble. Since they haven't and we have diplomatic relations with them I can live with Israel having Nukes.

    Iran has allready shown they have no issue going to war with the US, why would I let them get the ultimate weapon if I could stop them at a reasonable cost?
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 11-21-2011 at 05:34 AM.

  10. #70
    Today the Iranian Government has declared war on England. Another reason they shouldn't be allowed to have Nukes under any circumstances.

    Go figure another State sponsored attack on an embassy and diplomats by the Iranian Theocracy.

    [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/world/middleeast/tehran-protesters-storm-british-embassy.html?_r=1&hp[/url]

    [QUOTE]LONDON — In the latest sign of deteriorating relations with the West, a group of Iranian protesters stormed the British Embassy compound in Tehran on Tuesday, chanting “death to England,” tearing down a British flag and ransacking offices, according to British officials and images broadcast live on state-run Iranian television...[/QUOTE]
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 11-29-2011 at 10:57 AM.

  11. #71
    republicans are out of touch with the American people. polls say the public is overwhelmingly against more pre-emptive war.

  12. #72
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4256550]republicans are out of touch with the American people. polls say the public is overwhelmingly against more pre-emptive war.[/QUOTE]

    A direct attack on our closest ally is not pre-emptive.

  13. #73
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,955
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4256550]republicans are out of touch with the American people. polls say the public is overwhelmingly against more pre-emptive war.[/QUOTE]

    Wasn't Libya Preemptive?

    Didn't the United States (and it's supporters in NATO) act to preempt some event or threat to the peace that the Libyan millitary offered? Clearly Libya was of no threat to the United States at that moment in history, so to lauch an offensive there could only be a preemptive action against a perceived future threat, in this case a threat of a "humanitarian crisis".

    Also, has the Obama strikes into Pakistan, Yemen, Syria and other locales also been premeptive? We're not in a declared state of war with those countries, are we? We attacked to preempt a potential threat we say in those nations, either to us and our troops, or to civillians/protestors/etc.

    Clearly, you've expressed support for pre-emptive actions many times during this administration. And I'll bet if Obama chooses to act against Iran in some form (like long-range air power projection), you will come out in asupport of that action as well.

    In today's case, Iran has acted against our closest ally in the U.K. Now, I'm not saying we SHOULD act, but an action to protect our ally is not (as Winston points out) preeptive, ir reactive.

  14. #74
    so let's be clear, the Iranian students that trashed the British embassy... that's an act of war?

  15. #75
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4256596]Wasn't Libya Preemptive?

    Didn't the United States (and it's supporters in NATO) act to preempt some event or threat to the peace that the Libyan millitary offered? [/QUOTE]

    not really. Libya had a long list of transgressions, including Pan Am lockerbie flight. It's a reaction to decades of activity.

  16. #76
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,955
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4256625]not really. Libya had a long list of transgressions, including Pan Am lockerbie flight. It's a reaction to decades of activity.[/QUOTE]

    Pan Am, eh? 1988. We repsond in 2011, 23 years later?

    Can you please show me where Obama (the man in charge) clained our involvement was "a reaction ro decades of activity" and where he details that activity.

    Because I can show you were he said:

    [QUOTE=Obama]In the face of the world’s condemnation, Qaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign [U][B]against the Libyan people[/B][/U]. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. Water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misurata was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques were destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air.

    Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean......And so at my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass a historic resolution that authorized a no-fly zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.

    Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Qaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.

    At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Qaddafi declared he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we wanted -- if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

    It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago....I authorized military action to stop the killing....[/QUOTE]

    Sure sounds like we went in not to protect anything U.S., but to preempt the killing of Libyans by other Libyans.
    Last edited by Warfish; 11-29-2011 at 11:53 AM.

  17. #77
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4256620]so let's be clear, the Iranian students that trashed the British embassy... that's an act of war?[/QUOTE]

    Iranian students, funny stuff.

  18. #78
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,230
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4256659]Pan Am, eh? 1988. We repsond in 2011, 23 years later? [/QUOTE]

    We were just waiting for them to drop their guard. You see Lybia awoke a sleeping giant by their actions in 1988 but America had taken an Ambien so it took much longer to wake up and clear our heads.

  19. #79
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,955
    [QUOTE=Trades;4256664]We were just waiting for them to drop their guard. You see Lybia awoke a sleeping giant by their actions in 1988 but America had taken an Ambien so it took much longer to wake up and clear our heads.[/QUOTE]

    All I want is consitency of argument.

    What bugs me is if Obama orders U.S. action in or against Iran, in any form, I know the same posters talking against the idea now, will rise to support it fully, with long lists of reasons why Obama is doing the "right thing".

    They'll be reams of posts as to why Iran is different from "insert (R) orders Wars here", and how Obama is doing th eonly moral thing, or how deeply in U.S. interests it really is if you look at it from this angle, or how Oil isn't a factor at all, etc, etc, etc.

    There is almost no consistency here.

  20. #80
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4256671]All I want is consitency of argument.

    What bugs me is if Obama orders U.S. action in or against Iran, in any form, I know the same posters talking against the idea now, will rise to support it fully, with long lists of reasons why Obama is doing the "right thing".

    They'll be reams of posts as to why Iran is different from "insert (R) orders Wars here", and how Obama is doing th eonly moral thing, or how deeply in U.S. interests it really is if you look at it from this angle, or how Oil isn't a factor at all, etc, etc, etc.

    There is almost no consistency here.[/QUOTE]

    Iran and Pakistan are the two biggest supporters of State sponsored terrorism and one has nukes and the other is trying to get them. Unlike Iraq and Libya, Iran and Pakistan's current government and military are actively involved in terrorist action against the the US and Western allies.

    I would hate to see us go to war in Iran, it's clear we are in a secret war in Pakistan right now. I can at least understand the real national security issue.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us