MichFan Posted September 27, 2004 Posted September 27, 2004 Wouldn't they want to accelerate their plans in the face of such a threat, figuring that we will not invade a nuclear armed country? Seems to me the opposite approach didn't work too well with Carter/Clinton in N. Korea. I think it foolish for him to say, "and if it doesn't work we will attack you" I agree, if that is actually what Bush said verbatim in quotes as you indicate. However if you are paraphrasing what he actually said and putting your spin on it, then I think it is foolish of you to interpret what he really said in this way.
Typical TBD Guy Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 This is pretty much Bush's answer: Extend diplomatic relations until Iran, based on international intelligence, reaches a point where they are pretty close to having nukes. Then, at that point, regardless of what the UN says, you launch missiles from afar and destroy all nuclear facilities located from our satellite GPA systems. No new US or other international troops will have to be committed. There are currently 8 countries in the nuclear family as far as I can recall: US, England, France, Israel, Russia, China, India, and Pakistan. North Korea, along with Iran, is on the verge of joining this family. It should be the goal of the UN and especially the US to keep no new members from joining - at all costs, war or no war, troops or no troops, draft or no draft. This is pretty much Kerry's answer: Go along with the UN no matter what. If Iran does develop nuclear weapons, so be it. Let's just all hold hands and pray nothing bad comes of it.
Typical TBD Guy Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 hey..I agree with you. We are in the early stages of World War III. I think we probably disagree on whose fault it is though. 46664[/snapback] Let me guess, it's America's fault right???
_BiB_ Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 This is pretty much Bush's answer: Extend diplomatic relations until Iran, based on international intelligence, reaches a point where they are pretty close to having nukes. Then, at that point, regardless of what the UN says, you launch missiles from afar and destroy all nuclear facilities located from our satellite GPA systems. No new US or other international troops will have to be committed. There are currently 8 countries in the nuclear family as far as I can recall: US, England, France, Israel, Russia, China, India, and Pakistan. North Korea, along with Iran, is on the verge of joining this family. It should be the goal of the UN and especially the US to keep no new members from joining - at all costs, war or no war, troops or no troops, draft or no draft. This is pretty much Kerry's answer: Go along with the UN no matter what. If Iran does develop nuclear weapons, so be it. Let's just all hold hands and pray nothing bad comes of it. 47595[/snapback] Oh, don't get me started... That makes you a "NeoCon", didn't you know?
Typical TBD Guy Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 Oh, don't get me started... That makes you a "NeoCon", didn't you know? 47598[/snapback] Yup! And according to Mickey on another thread, if you happen to agree with the "NeoCons" on many issues, then you are stupid; the "intellectuals" are to be found only on the liberal side.
Mickey Posted September 28, 2004 Author Posted September 28, 2004 Yup! And according to Mickey on another thread, if you happen to agree with the "NeoCons" on many issues, then you are stupid; the "intellectuals" are to be found only on the liberal side. 47601[/snapback] You sir, are a liar. That is not what I said and as for what I actually did say, it was replete with smiley faces: Va Bills: He read that but he ignored you. He is from the Bush bad, anyone else crowd. Mickey: A crowd which is far better dressed and infinitely more eloquent than the Kerry bad, Bush good crowd. Buffaloborn1960: Typical Arrogant, Elitist, know-it-all response we have grown to expect from the Kerry crowd.... might be one of the reasons he is not doing better.. RabidBillsFanVt: HAHA!! A witty comeback, and it is automatically arrogant and elitist! Hey Mickey, maybe you should have said: Typical hotpocket response. OR Lemming! OR Flightsuit! Then you would have looked FAR less arrogant and elitist!!! Mickey (to RabidBillsFanVt): The republican party has always been anti-intellectual but it has only recently become pro-stupid. From Ike to Richio. Oh how the reasonable hath fallen. Mickey (to Buffaloborn1960): I am sure that to you, any person who has more than a rudimentary grasp of language appears to be "elitist". To appear not so, we on the left would have to display the same stumbling, fumbling, burbling inability to express a coherent thought as your leader, the great "Unificator". How do I count the lies? Where is it that I mentioned the "Neocons"? Where is it that I said that the intellectuals can only be found on the liberal side? The whole exchange was meant in good humor and it was Buffaloborn who first personalized it by calling me an elitist. If Bush can poke fun at his struggles with language, why can't I? First you take what is clearly meant as a joke seriously and then you lie about its contents. Well done.
chicot Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 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? 46395[/snapback] The only problem with this argument is that Iran has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and hence is under an obligation not to pursue nuclear technology for military use. There is a great deal of hypocrisy in the US deciding who is "responsible" enough to have nuclear weapons, given that it has one of the largest stockpiles in the world, is the only nation to have actually used them in a war and is, even now, actively researching new ways to use nuclear technology in warfare.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 The only problem with this argument is that Iran has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and hence is under an obligation not to pursue nuclear technology for military use. There is a great deal of hypocrisy in the US deciding who is "responsible" enough to have nuclear weapons, given that it has one of the largest stockpiles in the world, is the only nation to have actually used them in a war and is, even now, actively researching new ways to use nuclear technology in warfare. 47803[/snapback] Good point there about the responsibility factor. Not that we haven't used them during any war or combat action since WWII... few people actually knew what kind of destruction it would impose, and if Japan knew, then they would have given up before we dropped the bombs.
_BiB_ Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 The only problem with this argument is that Iran has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and hence is under an obligation not to pursue nuclear technology for military use. There is a great deal of hypocrisy in the US deciding who is "responsible" enough to have nuclear weapons, given that it has one of the largest stockpiles in the world, is the only nation to have actually used them in a war and is, even now, actively researching new ways to use nuclear technology in warfare. 47803[/snapback] Yep, too bad. If you don't see the difference between the US and Great Britain having weapons, and Iran and North Korea having them, I don't know what to tell you.
MichFan Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 If you don't see the difference between the US and Great Britain having weapons, and Iran and North Korea having them, I don't know what to tell you. Must be a Carter Liberal -- America bad, evil dictators who force their people to live in oppression good.
chicot Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 Must be a Carter Liberal -- America bad, evil dictators who force their people to live in oppression good. 48009[/snapback] Not to be pedantic (ok, so I am being pedantic ) but Bib was talking about me seeing no difference between them. In your example, there would have been a difference.
IBTG81 Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 Must be a Carter Liberal -- America bad, evil dictators who force their people to live in oppression good. 48009[/snapback] No, Chicot is a jew-hating Muslim. I give him no cred. Anyone that defends the terrorists like he does... :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:
Tux of Borg Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 Nukes are for kiddies... kills everything on contact. Want to impress me, build yourself a Electro-Magnetic Pulse(EMP) Bomb and put the middle east back into the dark ages.
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 Must be a Carter Liberal -- America bad, evil dictators who force their people to live in oppression good. 48009[/snapback] Must be another Republican master of hyperbole.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 No, Chicot is a jew-hating Muslim. I give him no cred.Anyone that defends the terrorists like he does... :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: 48136[/snapback] Anti-Israel, of which I am a part of, is NOT anti-Jewish.... that's like saying because you are Anti-Syria that you are anti-Muslim. Until Israel backs off its shoot first, token attempts at peace attitude, I'm in that category. COME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't worry chicot, I am one of the few Americans on this board who understand that Israel kills just as many people as Palestinians do. They are terrorists with a country.
_BiB_ Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 Not to be pedantic (ok, so I am being pedantic ) but Bib was talking about me seeing no difference between them. In your example, there would have been a difference. 48131[/snapback] Damn, Dave. You know one can't post more than three sentences here. In spite of what everyone might think or what they want to believe, the US is THE last Super Power, for the time being. We watch over many. They rely on us to do so. Our nuclear deterrent is a huge part of that. We are also responsible with not only the use of the weapons, but the related security of them as well. In the interest of civilization as a whole, we would be irresponsible NOT to be heavily involved in non-proliferation and counter-proliferation. Were Iran to cap Tel Aviv with 25KT, what do you think would happen?
GG Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 Don't worry chicot, I am one of the few Americans on this board who understand that Israel kills just as many people as Palestinians do. They are terrorists with a country. 48346[/snapback] Yeah, ok. And how many Afghanis were on the planes?
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 Yeah, ok. And how many Afghanis were on the planes? 48435[/snapback] But I do know how many people are a$$ out because Israel wants to play the shell game instead of working towards a real peace.
SD Jarhead Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 But I do know how many people are a$$ out because Israel wants to play the shell game instead of working towards a real peace. 48613[/snapback] Oh yea...that's right, it was Isreal who walked away from the table at the Dayton accords.
GG Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 But I do know how many people are a$$ out because Israel wants to play the shell game instead of working towards a real peace. 48613[/snapback] And if you believe that OBL launched the planes because he's so concerned about the Palestinians, then you'll have a lot of history classes to take. Ask yourself why a large majority of Israelis prefers a peaceful solution, but a large majority keeps voting for a government that is tough on the PLO savior? Ask yourself how many Israeli PMs need to hammer the point home, that there is no working towards a "real peace" with a POS scum that has sold out his people and their lives for a suicidal legacy. Oh wait a minute, he's not even Palestinian. But I guess it doesn't matter to the supporters of the freedom fighter.
Recommended Posts