MattyT Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 I never said we wouldn't screw up our interests, hence I said earlier I'd be willing to spend $7 a gallon for gas. If we follow the liberal plan (and yours), I hope you're brushing on your Arabic. 724094[/snapback] Assuming that the "liberal plan" (fill in your definition here) is the opposite of your "plan" (millions of people killed, "screw up" our interests, and pay $27 dollars a gallon), then yeah....I'll take option A.
Wacka Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 We are already in a world war, but the left in this country and others around the world don't see it. It is the islamofascists against all non-believers. Attacks in NYC, London, Madrid, Indonesia, India, and Africa make is a world war with terrorism. This has an eerie parallel to the late 30s. There were a bunch of appeasers saying if we just negotiated with Hitler, things would be OK. If there was a pre-emptive strike , maybe WWII wouldn't have happened. It might not be public, but China needs a stable Middle East too. Their economy is really booming now and they have the biggest increase of oil use of any country. The worry is that Iran, when they get nukes will give them to OBL and his minions. They have no problem with using them anyplace.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 I would say that, far from decreasing the Iranian regime's chances of survival, acquiring an arsenal of nukes greatly increases it. I very much doubt that the US would have gone into Iraq had Saddam actually had functioning nukes. Similarly, there's very little speculation about force being used against North Korea precisely because it has nukes and the consequences of attacking it are therefore too severe to be contemplated. 724153[/snapback] Well, if the assumption is that they'd never use them for fear of American reprisal, then what good is it to have them? And if you think military intervention in NK isn't on the plate, you're nuts.
MattyT Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 It might not be public, but China needs a stable Middle East too. Their economy is really booming now and they have the biggest increase of oil use of any country. 724164[/snapback] If what you say about China is true (which I agree that it is) then doesn't this dramatically improve the chances that diplomacy is possible?
Wacka Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 I think these islamofacists are nuts and that diplomacy won't work on them, like Hitler. A lot of these ME countries had alliances with the Nazis, or let them operate unmolested before and during during WW II. A lot of the radical groups can trace their early beginnings to that time. They have a similar aim- erradication of the Jews.
kegtapr Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 The worry is that Iran, when they get nukes will give them to OBL and his minions. They have no problem with using them anyplace. 724164[/snapback] I can't believe I'm about to say this, but Wacka actually makes a good point. If Iran does acquire the knowledge to build nukes, who says they won't be passed out to every terrorist organization that hates America and Israel? I doubt they're stupid enough to launch against another country, but they may pass them out like rubbers on prom night.
IBTG81 Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 Ed, please go back to being a liberal. 724211[/snapback] Helllllllllllllllllllllllll no.
chicot Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 I can't believe I'm about to say this, but Wacka actually makes a good point. If Iran does acquire the knowledge to build nukes, who says they won't be passed out to every terrorist organization that hates America and Israel? I doubt they're stupid enough to launch against another country, but they may pass them out like rubbers on prom night. 724205[/snapback] Because if they did pass them on to terrorist organisations and this could be proved (or perhaps even suspected) the result would be the same as if they had used them themselves.
IBTG81 Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 Because if they did pass them on to terrorist organisations and this could be proved (or perhaps even suspected) the result would be the same as if they had used them themselves. 724219[/snapback] Are you rooting for us to lose in this War on Terror?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 Because if they did pass them on to terrorist organisations and this could be proved (or perhaps even suspected) the result would be the same as if they had used them themselves. 724219[/snapback] Actually, though, that is the administration policy. It's less the fear that Iran (or North Korea, or Iraq for that matter) would use such weapons themselves, but that they's spread the technology around and eventually someone would get it and use it against us. It was one of the prime motivators for invading Iraq. Contrast that to India, who we're giving nuclear technology. India's not likely to spread it around much...since, if they did, it would likely end up in the hands of people who'd turn around and use it against them...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 Are you rooting for us to lose in this War on Terror? 724224[/snapback] Ed, you do realize that no one takes you seriously anymore, don't you?
chicot Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 Are you rooting for us to lose in this War on Terror? 724224[/snapback] I am not rooting on anyone. Believe it or not, this isn't actually some sort of game with a guaranteed win/lose outcome. It's quite possible everyone could turn out the loser.
chicot Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 Ed, you do realize that no one takes you seriously anymore, don't you? 724229[/snapback] You mean Ed was actually taken seriously at some point in the past?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 You mean Ed was actually taken seriously at some point in the past? 724232[/snapback] Good point...
IBTG81 Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 Ed, you do realize that no one takes you seriously anymore, don't you? 724229[/snapback] Coming from someone whose name is Crap Throwing Monkey?
kegtapr Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 Because if they did pass them on to terrorist organisations and this could be proved (or perhaps even suspected) the result would be the same as if they had used them themselves. 724219[/snapback] Who's to say if we could prove it came from Iran, as opposed to missing Russian nukes or Pakistan nukes. If this guy is as crazy as he lets on, I would put my money on him to take a calculated gamble. Also, world opinion (specifically China and Russia) would be much harder to sway in favor of attacking Iran if there is questions as to where the nukes came from, as opposed to knowing they were launched from Iran. There are a lot of variables here and really is no clear answer. Eventually, they'll need to be dealt with though and it's not going to be pretty when it happens. Lets hope China or Russia can convince Hitler Jr. to shape up.
stuckincincy Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 Tehran's water supply - most of it, and electrical power, depends on water works. One ponders, in case of damage, what back up plans are in place, and their effectiveness. Iran is vunerable. It is a question of will, including petroleum disruption.
Chef Jim Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 You're a !@#$nut. Why don't you sign up now so you're ready when the big fighting starts tough gay. 724062[/snapback] Either I missed the sarcasm or that is the all time best TBD Freudian slip.
Recommended Posts