DC Tom Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Wrong. If Israel goes at this alone it would cause such political domestic pressure on our Arab allies, that not even they would be able to support the strike, which would cause an upheaval specially in this "Arab Spring" middle east world we are living in today. What would be more politically palpable for our Arab allies is to have a unified coalition. There is a reason Jim, why Israel hasn't already done this, and that's because we have been telling them for years not to. This has been happening from both the Bush and Obama administration. Why? Because of the point that I just made. The funny thing being that the Middle East governments would fully support Israel (in private, at least) if they did. Almost everyone on the Saudi peninsula is terrified of a nuclear Iran, and would very much like to see them taken down a peg or six. The people, however, would rise up and overthrow any Arab leader who supported it.
dpberr Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) If Israel launches an attack, we all better hope they are successful. I don't think the US or Israel is Iran's largest threat, or even who this nuclear ambition is aimed at. It's convenient, however, dangerous public cover. I think all of the Iranian military buildup is aimed at Turkey, it's longtime foe in the region and Azerbaijan, which besides being an oil power, has invested heavily into Israeli military and commercial technology and equipment. I think the Iranians are looking east to assemble an oil empire, and take back Armenia, Azerbaijan and become more closely aligned with Georgia, and take back parts of Northern Afghanistan and parts of Iraq. Unfortunately, Turkey and for now, the United States, stands in the way of that grand plan. Nuclear capability puts them on par with the Turks. Persians love to empire build, whether in a historic or present context. Edited November 16, 2011 by dpberr
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted November 16, 2011 Author Posted November 16, 2011 Fan-f'n-tastic!!! http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267570/out-dust-tweets-and-trivia-emerged-gingrich-katrina-trinko The literati sent out their minions to do their bidding. Washington cannot tolerate threats from outsiders who might disrupt their comfortable world. The firefight started when the cowardly sensed weakness. They fired timidly at first, then the sheep not wanting to be dropped from the establishment’s cocktail party invite list unloaded their entire clip, firing without taking aim their distortions and falsehoods. Now they are left exposed by their bylines and handles. But surely they had killed him off. This is the way it always worked. A lesser person could not have survived the first few minutes of the onslaught. But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead those who won’t be intimated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces. But eventually I knew Conner was a real person. I wonder if Dave isn't a conservative just chiming in to stir the pot and trying to make libs look ridiculous. Kind of like a reverse Colbert. Actually I'm a housing historian, just like Newt!
Headwest Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Newt knows more about foreign and domestic policy than anyone else involved, including Obama and Biden. The debates between Newt and Obama would be very interesting
3rdnlng Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Newt knows more about foreign and domestic policy than anyone else involved, including Obama and Biden. The debates between Newt and Obama would be very interesting I'd like to see Newt get the nomination just to see Obama debate him. It would be hilarious.
B-Man Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 I'd like to see Newt get the nomination just to see Obama debate him. It would be hilarious. Me too. According to the Associated Press, Gingrich addressed his connection to Freddie Mac this way today: “It reminds people that I know a great deal about Washington. We just tried four years of amateur ignorance, and it didn’t work very well. So having someone who actually knows Washington might be a really good thing.”
RI Bills Fan Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 "Other methods"? What "other methods?" And how do you address the backscatter issue in the C-band? Or do they just launch bearing-only off a visual fix? Please don't drop this. You have no idea how entertaining it would be for me if you two actually debated anything related to weapons system guidance.
DC Tom Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Please don't drop this. You have no idea how entertaining it would be for me if you two actually debated anything related to weapons system guidance. Don't worry. He won't even try.
PTS Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 If you ask me Newt is the one who should be the GOP nominee. The guy is intelligent, experienced in domestic and foreign affairs, and puts his love for country above all else. Here's a little taste. youtube.com/watch?v=qtjfMjjce2Y I love me some Newt as well. I think he would be an excellent President.
3rdnlng Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 I love me some Newt as well. I think he would be an excellent President. At least he would have some historical perspective and know that Hawaii, even though being part of Asia, truly is one of the 57 states.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted November 18, 2011 Author Posted November 18, 2011 Don't worry. He won't even try. You are right, you must be an expert or something? So you believe the silkworm missles won't be a threat to shipping in the straights? How about their artillary? I love me some Newt as well. I think he would be an excellent President. He's tops in the polls now! Boy, I sure hope he can maintain the lead. I'd love to see President Obama vs. Newt the Housing Historian What did Newt get his PHD in?
DC Tom Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 You are right, you must be an expert or something? So you believe the silkworm missles won't be a threat to shipping in the straights? How about their artillary? All I claimed to believe is that you're a moron. Your argument for "Silkworms are a threat" is based on nothing more than "Silkworms exist." That's idiotic, and panicky on par with "Iraq has WMDs." I don't even have to know anything about their guidance package to know you're a moron talking completely out of his ass.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted November 18, 2011 Author Posted November 18, 2011 All I claimed to believe is that you're a moron. Your argument for "Silkworms are a threat" is based on nothing more than "Silkworms exist." That's idiotic, and panicky on par with "Iraq has WMDs." I don't even have to know anything about their guidance package to know you're a moron talking completely out of his ass. Oh no, the point that if we attack them they have the oil weapon to play in many ways is a fair argument, silkworms or no silkworms. Sorry you got so angry over a weapon, gees get a grip. You are just trying to split hairs and be pedantic over something you have a small bit of knowledge in. That's sophomoric.
DC Tom Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Oh no, the point that if we attack them they have the oil weapon to play in many ways is a fair argument, silkworms or no silkworms. Sorry you got so angry over a weapon, gees get a grip. You are just trying to split hairs and be pedantic over something you have a small bit of knowledge in. That's sophomoric. Really? If that were your point, then why did you bring up Silkworms? You're the (*^*&%^$^#that equated geopolitics to a weapons system.
3rdnlng Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Newt knows more about foreign and domestic policy than anyone else involved, including Obama and Biden. The debates between Newt and Obama would be very interesting http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/obamas-maneuver-a-federal-umbrella.html This shows Obama's ability to think on his feet.
Adam Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 Nothing against Gingrich, who has been the best republican candidate by far (from the very beginning), but I still think Condoleeza Rice would be a much better candidate.
Rob's House Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Nothing against Gingrich, who has been the best republican candidate by far (from the very beginning), but I still think Condoleeza Rice would be a much better candidate. Why?
3rdnlng Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Why? Adam's response: Well, on the one hand.....................and on the other hand.............
Adam Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Why? I am not sure if you were asking about the Gingrich or Rice comment, so I will address both. First, Gingrich has more credibility than any of the other candidates. I can't imagine any of the others as President. Some people look at Gingrich as a hypocrite, but he is a guy who makes mistakes, just like anyone else. On foreign policy, he US one of the few that isn't a total joke. I think Rice is even better at those positive traits. She would easily be the most dignified candidate, which would immediately take away romney's top asset. You would be hard pressed to find someone with more knowledge on foreign policy. I could easily picture her as President.
Rob's House Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) I am not sure if you were asking about the Gingrich or Rice comment, so I will address both. First, Gingrich has more credibility than any of the other candidates. I can't imagine any of the others as President. Some people look at Gingrich as a hypocrite, but he is a guy who makes mistakes, just like anyone else. On foreign policy, he US one of the few that isn't a total joke. I think Rice is even better at those positive traits. She would easily be the most dignified candidate, which would immediately take away romney's top asset. You would be hard pressed to find someone with more knowledge on foreign policy. I could easily picture her as President. I don't know if Rice has enough attack dog in her. Plus, I don't know a whole lot about her economic philosophy. She seems classy enough, but when I hear her mentioned for President (moreso from Republicans than from you) I alway wonder if they really think she'd make the best President, or if its just because they think a clean, articulate, black female, who might well be conservative, and doesn't have a lot of baggage, would have the best chance of winning. Edit: And so they can show how not racist they are by really liking that Cunnillingus Rice. Edited November 20, 2011 by Rob's House
Recommended Posts