Mickey Posted September 27, 2004 Posted September 27, 2004 I guess starting one war before the one at hand is done is a habit with this administration. Looks like we go into Iran next. Can you say "World War III"? Can you say "draft"? Why not? We're invincible, right? Bush says we will not let Iran have nuclear weapons. Iran is close to having one. It will be war unless Iran just ups and decides to embrace peace. That won't happen so war it is. Bush says no way Iran is allowed to have Nukes
Bill from NYC Posted September 27, 2004 Posted September 27, 2004 Mick, maybe Kerry will win and dress up in a Herman Munster costume. This, and the would be First Hag should be enough to scare Iran away from any nukes.
Rich in Ohio Posted September 27, 2004 Posted September 27, 2004 I guess starting one war before the one at hand is done is a habit with this administration. Looks like we go into Iran next. Can you say "World War III"?Can you say "draft"? Why not? We're invincible, right? Bush says we will not let Iran have nuclear weapons. Iran is close to having one. It will be war unless Iran just ups and decides to embrace peace. That won't happen so war it is. Bush says no way Iran is allowed to have Nukes 46199[/snapback] So mick, do you suggest that we allow france to be responsible for making sure that Iran does not aquire nuclear weapons? Or do you simply not mind if they have them in the first place? Oh i forgot, you are hoping that kerry will be elected, and then he will be able to get the rest of the world to deal with iran an make sure that thy behave. yea...right!
Tux of Borg Posted September 27, 2004 Posted September 27, 2004 Ofcourse we're not going to let them develop nuclear weapons. Its a very volatile area full of Islamic extremist. But hey... lets run away from the problem and pretend it doesn't exist. That way my kids can deal with it when they are older.
SD Jarhead Posted September 27, 2004 Posted September 27, 2004 OK, Mick...how would YOU handle Iran? 46274[/snapback] Exactly...You've identified a problem Mickey, so what's the solution? I don't want to be a wisea*s, but you seem to be trolling into Tenny's territory. The sooner the American public opens up their eyes and sees that we're in the early stages of WWIII, the better off we'll be. We may need a draft before this whole thing is over...only time will tell. The sad truth is that if Iran is left to aquire nukes, we're in a big stevestojan sandwich. So it's basically either us or Isreal who takes action.
BigAL Posted September 27, 2004 Posted September 27, 2004 Just out of curiosity for those on the left and the right.... what gives the US or the UN the right to say who can and can't have nuclear weapons?
DC Tom Posted September 27, 2004 Posted September 27, 2004 I guess starting one war before the one at hand is done is a habit with this administration. Looks like we go into Iran next. Can you say "World War III"?Can you say "draft"? Why not? We're invincible, right? Bush says we will not let Iran have nuclear weapons. Iran is close to having one. It will be war unless Iran just ups and decides to embrace peace. That won't happen so war it is. Bush says no way Iran is allowed to have Nukes 46199[/snapback] No, actually. Same war. Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Syria...all just campaigns in the same war.
Mickey Posted September 27, 2004 Author Posted September 27, 2004 That's right yell at me, that'll help. Forget the guy whose brilliant diplomacy has led us to the verge of world war three. Why would Iran feel they need a nuclear weapon? I wonder. It couldn't be because of that stupid freaking axis of evil speech now could it? Naaaaa. It couldn't be because we just destroyed Iraq could it? Naaaaa. Surely they understand that we mean them no harm, don't they? Teddy Roosevelt, what did he say? I remember, "Speak softly" he said. Not for this braggart of a President. "Axis of evil", "bring 'em on", mission accomplished and now this. He says that first he would try diplomacy. How in the world is diplomacy to work when he announces at the outset that we will basically go to war with them if they don't do precisely as we order them to? Think we'll be met with sweets and flowers? Is there any way we can pretend that they were connected to 9/11 or AQ? Shiites, Sunnis, they are all the same, right? Sure, Zaquarwi has been targeting Shias in Iraq but that is probably a smokescreen to cover their joint operations. Here is a thought, what if it was a World War and it was the world on one side and us and Israel on the other? Is there any calamity occuring on this guys watch that you will not excuse simply because he is a republican? How bad do things have to get?
Mickey Posted September 27, 2004 Author Posted September 27, 2004 Exactly...You've identified a problem Mickey, so what's the solution? I don't want to be a wisea*s, but you seem to be trolling into Tenny's territory. The sooner the American public opens up their eyes and sees that we're in the early stages of WWIII, the better off we'll be. We may need a draft before this whole thing is over...only time will tell. The sad truth is that if Iran is left to aquire nukes, we're in a big stevestojan sandwich. So it's basically either us or Isreal who takes action. 46350[/snapback] Lots of nations are going to have nukes, that dam has burst. North Korea and Pakistan. Frankly, I'm more comfortable with Iran having nukes than them. Who has Iran invaded lately? What military aggression has Iran exhibited?
DC Tom Posted September 27, 2004 Posted September 27, 2004 Why would Iran feel they need a nuclear weapon? I wonder. It couldn't be because of that stupid freaking axis of evil speech now could it? Naaaaa. It couldn't be because we just destroyed Iraq could it? Naaaaa. Surely they understand that we mean them no harm, don't they? 46393[/snapback] Iran's nuclear program predates all of that by a wide margin...
Mickey Posted September 27, 2004 Author Posted September 27, 2004 Exactly...You've identified a problem Mickey, so what's the solution? I don't want to be a wisea*s, but you seem to be trolling into Tenny's territory. The sooner the American public opens up their eyes and sees that we're in the early stages of WWIII, the better off we'll be. We may need a draft before this whole thing is over...only time will tell. The sad truth is that if Iran is left to aquire nukes, we're in a big stevestojan sandwich. So it's basically either us or Isreal who takes action. 46350[/snapback] I would start with a change on November 2. I would also consider the same mutual assured destruction situation that kept the US and USSR from coming to blows for around 4 decades give or take. Or we could just make stupid public threats because people always react well to that.
SD Jarhead Posted September 27, 2004 Posted September 27, 2004 I would start with a change on November 2. I would also consider the same mutual assured destruction situation that kept the US and USSR from coming to blows for around 4 decades give or take. Or we could just make stupid public threats because people always react well to that. 46400[/snapback] As Tom opined above, as much as you'd like to be able to blame the whole situation on GW, Iran's quest for a nuke goes back MUCH farther than GW...but if that's what allows you to sleep at night, believe what you want. Your solution sounds like it came directly from a Kerry sound bite...change on Nov. 2nd...right. You're much smarter than that. As far as mutually assured destruction ala the cold war, it's a different game now and you know it. The rules have changed. Why can't we go back to the days of the Carter administration when those pesky Iranians were so much more kind and gentile? In order to determine a direction to head in, I believe you(we) must first decide if Isreal is a an ally we want to keep, because once Iran completes it's quest, chances are Isreal won't be around for long.
SilverNRed Posted September 27, 2004 Posted September 27, 2004 I would also consider the same mutual assured destruction situation that kept the US and USSR from coming to blows for around 4 decades give or take. 46400[/snapback] Yeah, except the religious maniacs we're fighting don't seem to care if they die. What's the old quote again? "We love death as much as you love life." No thanks. I'm not interested in finding out how much of a hurry the 'spiritual leaders' on the other side of the world are in to get their 72 virgins.
Alaska Darin Posted September 27, 2004 Posted September 27, 2004 That's right yell at me, that'll help. Forget the guy whose brilliant diplomacy has led us to the verge of world war three. 46393[/snapback] Yeah, fuggin' Jimmy Carter was an idiot. That is who you're referring to, right?
Mickey Posted September 27, 2004 Author Posted September 27, 2004 Yeah, fuggin' Jimmy Carter was an idiot. That is who you're referring to, right? 46440[/snapback] Yeah, that $@#$. It all comes down to those darn Camp David Peace Accords. We just couldn't see it then. If not for the peace between Israel and Egypt that has endured since, none of this would be happening.
Mickey Posted September 27, 2004 Author Posted September 27, 2004 Yeah, except the religious maniacs we're fighting don't seem to care if they die. What's the old quote again? "We love death as much as you love life." No thanks. I'm not interested in finding out how much of a hurry the 'spiritual leaders' on the other side of the world are in to get their 72 virgins. 46437[/snapback] Who have these religious maniacs in Iran invaded since their revolution? What military adventurism have they shown? How many times have they used chemical weapons? Obviously, no one wants Iran to have nukes or frankly, anyone else I can think of but if the choice is WW III, I'm thinking maybe we should have a national discussion about it first.
Mickey Posted September 27, 2004 Author Posted September 27, 2004 Iran's nuclear program predates all of that by a wide margin... 46398[/snapback] But certainly they played a role in Iran continuing to pursue nukes and their apparent jugment that the risk they were taking in doing so was a risk they had to take. Again, how could a diplomatic mission succeed when you have a President making public cracks about an axis of evil. That is why you "speak softly."
Mickey Posted September 27, 2004 Author Posted September 27, 2004 As Tom opined above, as much as you'd like to be able to blame the whole situation on GW, Iran's quest for a nuke goes back MUCH farther than GW...but if that's what allows you to sleep at night, believe what you want. Your solution sounds like it came directly from a Kerry sound bite...change on Nov. 2nd...right. You're much smarter than that. As far as mutually assured destruction ala the cold war, it's a different game now and you know it. The rules have changed. Why can't we go back to the days of the Carter administration when those pesky Iranians were so much more kind and gentile? In order to determine a direction to head in, I believe you(we) must first decide if Isreal is a an ally we want to keep, because once Iran completes it's quest, chances are Isreal won't be around for long. 46425[/snapback] Why won't Israel be around? They have nukes as well. It is a mutual assured destruction scenario. Iran would have to decide that destroying Israel is worth destroying itself first. Pakistan has them and by and large they are more radical and inclined to jihad and foreign military adventures than Iran.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 27, 2004 Posted September 27, 2004 Go to war with Iran if they refuse to give up their nuclear weapons program. Absolutely. Iraq and Iran are two totally different animals... this is actually a legitimate possibility because it ACTUALLY THREATENS us. I am just curious what will happen when Joe Schmo terrorist gets a hold of a nuclear weapon... getting HIM won't be nearly as easy.
Recommended Posts