Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 86

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

  1. #41
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,953
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4242004]I absolutely agree about self-interest. So let me ask you why is it in the USA's self interest to go to war to stop Iran from possessing nukes... that they can't deliver against the USA?[/quote]

    Says who?

    Please site your source than there is no way an iranian weapon could be smuggled into the U.S. via your beloved open-southern-border, and used withint he U.S.

    Or are you going to pull out the "no leader si that suicidal! No one would ever give away a nuke in order to kill 20 million americans! Tahst sillyness!" argument again?

    [QUOTE]Serious question. What is the military risk to the USA of Iran having short range nukes?[/QUOTE]

    Serious answer. A retarded child could get a nuke across our souther border, and into a major city. The risk is the loss of one of more major American metroplex to nuclear destruction.

    [QUOTE]do you think they are going to scrape every sliver of uranium up for 20 years to make a weapon and then just give it away to a terrorist for a suicide mission?[/QUOTE]

    Yes, actually. It;s funny, I tend to believe folks when they say they will wipe other nations off the map, and that we (along with Israel) are the biggest evil on the planet.

    [QUOTE]follow up question when's the last time we were attacked by an Iranian based terror organization?[/QUOTE]

    Guess you missed the assassination plot Obama's boys foiled recently.

    Oh, right, thats not an attack.

    [quote]what is the threat of Iranian terrorists to the USA?[/QUOTE]

    Asked and answered.

  2. #42
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4242019]
    Please site your source than there is no way an iranian weapon could be smuggled into the U.S. via your beloved open-southern-border, and used withint he U.S.
    [/quote]

    [QUOTE=Warfish;4242019]
    Serious answer. A retarded child could get a nuke across our souther border, and into a major city. The risk is the loss of one of more major American metroplex to nuclear destruction.[/quote]

    You can't just carry a nuke around. a man would die of radiaition poisoning before he got from Juarez to El Paso.



    [QUOTE=Warfish;4242019]
    Yes, actually. It;s funny, I tend to believe folks when they say they will wipe other nations off the map, and that we (along with Israel) are the biggest evil on the planet.[/quote]

    so they have 1 bomb are they gonna use it on Israel or America? One target is 150 miles away the other is 4000 miles away. I say again it's not our problem.

  3. #43
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,953
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4242030]You can't just carry a nuke around. a man would die of radiaition poisoning before he got from Juarez to El Paso.[/quote]

    Because our enemies are lacking in people willing to die (Suicide) for their causes?

    Because there is no such thing as radiation shielding, or even partial shielding, or (amazing idea), keeping it in the back of a track or the like.

    We all know how hard it is to get a truck or one man accross the border, right?

    [QUOTE]so they have 1 bomb are they gonna use it on Israel or America?[/QUOTE]

    If they're smart, the U.S.

    [quote]One target is 150 miles away the other is 4000 miles away. I say again it's not our problem.[/QUOTE]

    One decapitates the only World Superpower. The other, does far less and risks (in immediate retaliation) far more.

    It's ok Bit, I get it. You don't care if millions die. In the Civil War, you wouldn;t have helped free a single slave. In WWII you wouldn't save a single Jew. And today, you wouldn't lift your little finger to save a single American Citizen. But get you started on the value and pure awesome of illegal aliens.....

    You're a lost cause. :(

  4. #44
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4242099]
    One decapitates the only World Superpower. [/QUOTE]


    If Iran did this, wild scenario, create a bomb, smuggle it into a major US city (without killing the delivery man), they'd be glowing. we have 5000 nukes. we'd literally wipe em off the face of the Earth. Mutually Assured Destruction was real in the cold war and it's just as real today.

    you make all these statements like I hate America or whatever but I live in reality. and the reality is no one's ever used nukes, except us.

    oh and for the record 1 major US city would be a tragedy but it wouldn't decapitate the USA. not even close.

  5. #45
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4241809]Yes, we used a nuke, against a country who attacked us in an unprovoked war, in order to end the war instantly and without further loss of american life. What a shame. We should all cry sparkly tears of sadness, like you do, about it. If we cry enough sparkly tears of sorrow, maybe all the really good folks on Earth (like Iran, and AQ) will forgive us our many sins, and we can all live in peace and equallity (of outcomes) together in a grand union of workers!

    Then all people could just be people, no one would care about money or war anymore, and Capt. Picard would never ever ever have need to facepalm again.

    Naive and self-hating doesn't even begin to cover your policy ideas Bit. I'm not convinced you wouldn't LIKE to see the U.S. attacked by anuke, and taken down a serious notch or broken apart, just as long as it doen't effect you personally. Is there any part of the U.S. you actually think IS good?

    Of course not, I forgot, you don't think people are good or bad, just people. People like Hitler, peoeple like Obama, just people being people, all perfectly the same in Bitworld.[/QUOTE]

    Bitoni is just repeating Ron Pauls foreign policy ideas in this thread. Those policies by Paul are the reason he is not electable for someone like me. I do find it interesting that you (fish), a resident libertarian that has said that you would only vote for Paul, are making the counterpoint here.

  6. #46
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4242030]You can't just carry a nuke around. a man would die of radiaition poisoning before he got from Juarez to El Paso.





    so they have 1 bomb are they gonna use it on Israel or America? One target is 150 miles away the other is 4000 miles away. I say again it's not our problem.[/QUOTE]

    If they want Israel back for the Palestinians (they don't by the way) why would they bomb it and make the country uninhabitable?

  7. #47
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,953
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4242123]If Iran did this, wild scenario, create a bomb, smuggle it into a major US city (without killing the delivery man), they'd be glowing. we have 5000 nukes. we'd literally wipe em off the face of the Earth. Mutually Assured Destruction was real in the cold war and it's just as real today.[/quote]

    Because it's so easy to prove who the source was in minutes, amirite? And because the U.S. is so unified when our Capital or biggest City id destroyed in a flash, right?

    [QUOTE]you make all these statements like I hate America[/QUOTE]

    Reality is you never seem to fall on the side of American citizens or their freedoms, or of national-self-interest or defense. You always side with the reasoning and arguments of our enemies and rivals. You are universal in your support of Tyrants and Tyrany.

    [quote]oh and for the record 1 major US city would be a tragedy but it wouldn't decapitate the USA. not even close.[/QUOTE]

    And there we have it. "Acceptable Losses" Bit, no worries for him if we lose Washington, or Israel. Although I think you're rooting it will be Israel, as I think you think that would end allllll the problems in the middle east.

    That ok Bit, you can pretend to hide your anti-semitism along with your communist leanings.

    Hey, bonus, if we're attacked it might make it easier to get rid of that nasty Capitalism too after the attack! A win/win for Bitonti.

  8. #48
    I'm embarrassed that there are Americans who feel the way you do, Bit.

  9. #49
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4242160]Because it's so easy to prove who the source was in minutes, amirite? And because the U.S. is so unified when our Capital or biggest City id destroyed in a flash, right? [/quote]

    we went to war with Iraq over a mushroom cloud that doesn't exist you want to do the same thing in Iran?

    Im going to repeat this again because apparently you didn't hear me the first time: THEY. DONT. HAVE. A. DELIVERY. SYSTEM.

    this wild scenario of a smuggled lone nuke in a lead lined container is outrageous. it's completely unrealistic. the chances of it happened are minute. so small as to not even be a concern. certainly not a realistic enough threat to go to war.

  10. #50
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4242160]
    That ok Bit, you can pretend to hide your anti-semitism along with your communist leanings.
    [/QUOTE]

    ive been called alot of things. America hater, Anti-Semite, Communist.

    Here's what I believe I am: Logical, Rational, and everything goes under the lens of history.

    is there a realistic scenario where this Iranian nuke will be used inside the continental USA? if not then shut the front door with all this name calling. I could use a word here: paranoia. There's no way IRan is gonna nuke the USA, without ICBMs and using their entire arsenal in 1 attack. it's literally not a concern.

    you all love war so much you should study the military history of war on Earth.

  11. #51
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,919
    The long term, worldwide nuclear weapon situation is very complex, and unfortunately, there are no easy solutions.

    In my view the long term nuclear armament of the majority of the world's countries is pretty much an inevitability. As societies and technologies advance, nuclear programs will be able to build and expand with more and more ease.

    The question is how can you stop it? Is it even possible to stop it in the long term?

  12. #52
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,953
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4242312]ive been called alot of things. America hater, Anti-Semite, Communist.

    Here's what I believe I am: Logical, Rational, and everything goes under the lens of history.[/quote]

    Self-Delusion, Best Delusion.

    I don't "call" you things Bit.

    I correctly assign the speficic policies you support to their appropriate ideological types.

    For example, if you say a policy I strongly support is libertarian, thats not an insult, it's a description of policy.

    You are a Policy-Tyrant and a Policy-Anti-Capitalist, and unquestionably a Policy Anti-Israeli/Anti-Semite. You said it yourself, you literally do not care in any way if Israel was destroyed totally by Iran.

    [QUOTE]is there a realistic scenario where this Iranian nuke will be used inside the continental USA?[/QUOTE]

    Yes, several. And while you may be discounting it, I assure you, Obama and Co. is not. I don;t want to fry your talking-points issuing programming, but isn;t everything bama deos "actually a good thing..."?

    [quote]you all love war so much you should study the military history of war on Earth.[/QUOTE]

    Says the IT Drone, fifth programmer to the left.

    Want to compare personal libraries?;)

  13. #53
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,953
    [QUOTE=parafly;4242344]The question is how can you stop it? Is it even possible to stop it in the long term?[/QUOTE]

    Perhaps I've read too much Sci-Fi, but I'm still hoping for the Rocket to the Mars Colony and the inevitable MArs Revolt for Independence from Earth thingy.

    Then you dumb bastards can let whomever you like have whatever nukes you like. Best of kluck.

  14. #54
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4242354]

    Want to compare personal libraries?;)[/QUOTE]

    So, based on your studies, what would you say is the chances of success of a land war in Iran?

    i.e. even if we grant Iran having the bomb is this terrible awful thing, it's not like we are in a position to do anything about it.

    Wage (another) guerilla war 4000 miles away?

    Wouldn't you rather secure the border with that trillion dollars?

  15. #55
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,919
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4242360]Perhaps I've read too much Sci-Fi, but I'm still hoping for the Rocket to the Mars Colony and the inevitable MArs Revolt for Independence from Earth thingy.

    Then you dumb bastards can let whomever you like have whatever nukes you like. Best of kluck.[/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure if this is a joke, but I think long term nuclear prospects and capabilities raise a legitimate point.

    How much trouble (i.e. invasion, nation building, bombings, sanctions) should we go through at present to prevent a nuclear Iran when there is a distinct possibility that 100 or 200 years from now nuclear materials could be enriched to weapons grade in the lab of any amateur?

  16. #56
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,953
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4242366]So, based on your studies, what would you say is the chances of success of a land war in Iran?[/quote]

    Too many factors left unknown in your beginning proposition Bit, and as a Millitary Tactician, you should know that.

    For example, who is on "Our side"? Just us? Odd, I though Obama was the GReat Coalition Builder and U.N. Supporter.....

    Or is it the entire World, under the auscipses of the U.N.? Very different story.

    And why does it have to be specificly a "Land War", other than your enjoyment of Priness Bride quotes? Why can it not be dealt with in similar ways to the brilliant Obama-led War-for-Oil in Libya? Air Strikes to destroy infrastructure, combined with local fighters (Iranian Freedom Movement folks) or U.N. (i.e. many nations) special Forces surgical ground missions?

    [QUOTE]i.e. even if we grant Iran having the bomb is this terrible awful thing, it's not like we are in a position to do anything about it.[/QUOTE]

    Again, it's the flip-floppiness you exibit thats just killing me here.

    Are you seriously going to tell me that Obama could craft a colilition of nations and the U.N. to "save" a few Libyan lives (and inr eality, wind up killing thousands more than were saved), but he couldn't put together U.N. support or a colition to stop Iran from being a Nuclear Power?

    [quote]Wouldn't you rather secure the border with that trillion dollars?[/QUOTE]

    Except you don't support that either, and would fight it tooth and nail. So nice deflection, but it's a dishonest one. You say yourself, open borders and unlimited unregulated immigration is where it's at in the future Americano Nationale de Norte Mexicano.

  17. #57
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,953
    [QUOTE=parafly;4242391]I'm not sure if this is a joke, but I think long term nuclear prospects and capabilities raise a legitimate point.

    How much trouble (i.e. invasion, nation building, bombings, sanctions) should we go through at present to prevent a nuclear Iran when there is a distinct possibility that 100 or 200 years from now nuclear materials could be enriched to weapons grade in the lab of any amateur?[/QUOTE]

    You do know that future is one of human extinction, right? In an unrelgulated nuclear-weapon world, at some point a Jarred Loughner, a Hitler, or a KKK Grand Wizard is going to get one, use one, and thats that for that. There is little chance of a mult-capable nuclear world sitting idle when one goes off, someone is going to get jittery and use theirs too, and the bal only rolls from there.

    So, you tell me. Do we do what we can to slow or stop that process? Or do we help it come faster?

    I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that one idea is "fund education around the world" with U.S. taxpayer dollars. Do I win a prize?

    **** it, I want on the first rocket off this godforsaken rock, and a new start at the who civilization thing someplace else, and I'm being 100% honest in that remark. You folks go your way to your moon, and me and my folsk will go mine. In 10,000,000 years our now differently evolved progeny can war it our like good homo titianians and homo martians should.

  18. #58
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4242446] Why can it not be dealt with in similar ways to the brilliant Obama-led War-for-Oil in Libya? Air Strikes to destroy infrastructure, combined with local fighters (Iranian Freedom Movement folks) or U.N. (i.e. many nations) special Forces surgical ground missions?
    [/QUOTE]

    Unless we are making them up, there are no Iranian Freedom fighters. You can wage a Libya type war only when there is a rebel army on the ground. I would support that type of conflict if it were to come about in Iran. BUt Syria looks more likely. As long as US Troops aren't on the ground Im ok with that.

  19. #59
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4242123]If Iran did this, wild scenario, create a bomb, smuggle it into a major US city (without killing the delivery man), they'd be glowing. we have 5000 nukes. we'd literally wipe em off the face of the Earth. Mutually Assured Destruction was real in the cold war and it's just as real today.

    you make all these statements like I hate America or whatever but I live in reality. and the reality is no one's ever used nukes, except us.

    oh and for the record 1 major US city would be a tragedy but it wouldn't decapitate the USA. not even close.[/QUOTE]

    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

  20. #60
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,784
    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.

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