IBTG81 Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 And if you do something and it all blows up in your face, you'll be looking back thinking "geez, maybe we shouldn't have done something then". 724046[/snapback] How's it going to blow up in our face? You do realize that we could wipe the mideast off the map if we wanted to, correct? I do believe, however, that you want us to lose.
IBTG81 Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 What're you talking about? Nuke'em all! It's cool! It worked on my video game! 724049[/snapback] Koom-bay-ya BushBad! Koom-bay-ya
chicot Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 How's it going to blow up in our face? You do realize that we could wipe the mideast off the map if we wanted to, correct? I do believe, however, that you want us to lose. 724052[/snapback] There are umpteen ways that it could blow up in your face. If you can't understand that, then I'm not sure I can be bothered trying to explain it to you.
Benjamin Franklin Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 Why don't we all hold hands and sing a song. I'm sure that would work, you tool. Typical liberal response. 724050[/snapback] You're a !@#$nut. Why don't you sign up now so you're ready when the big fighting starts tough gay. What's your party affilliation today? Aren't you ready to switch again?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 There are umpteen ways that it could blow up in your face. If you can't understand that, then I'm not sure I can be bothered trying to explain it to you. 724060[/snapback] And you think the middle east won't eventually end up in conflagration if Iran is allowed to attain nukes?
Benjamin Franklin Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 You do realize that we could wipe the mideast off the map if we wanted to, correct? 724052[/snapback] No. I didn't realize that. Please let us all know how we would do that and not !@#$ our own interests in the process. Make sure your next car has airbags.
chicot Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 And you think the middle east won't eventually end up in conflagration if Iran is allowed to attain nukes? 724063[/snapback] I certainly don't think that's a given. You could have said the same about Stalin getting hold of nukes or about India and Pakistan getting nukes. All those things happened but the only country to have actually used them remains the US.
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 No. I didn't realize that. Please let us all know how we would do that and not !@#$ our own interests in the process. 724066[/snapback] Because the rest of the world will obviously have no problem with this and bow down to our supremacy and hand us moneybags and cans of crude in celebration. We're bigger, badder, and nuclear-er. Ed's Army will prevail.
UConn James Posted July 17, 2006 Author Posted July 17, 2006 Why don't we all hold hands and sing a song. I'm sure that would work, you tool. Typical liberal response. 724050[/snapback] Ed, I'm glad there are saner people than the likes of you in charge of our government and military. I don't know how much saner, but.... Attacking Iran would all but guarantee a major strike on the homeland and 9/11 will look like a carnival ride. The administration is taking the proper course.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 I certainly don't think that's a given. You could have said the same about Stalin getting hold of nukes or about India and Pakistan getting nukes. All those things happened but the only country to have actually used them remains the US. 724068[/snapback] What would Iran's impetus be for NOT using weapons it's struggled so long to attain? Not trying to be a smart-ass, looking for your honest opinion.
GG Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 What would Iran's impetus be for NOT using weapons it's struggled so long to attain? Not trying to be a smart-ass, looking for your honest opinion. 724073[/snapback] It would be entry into the most exlusive club, and knowing that other countries will take you seriously when you talk. It's still a long shot that they will obtain them, and a longer one that they will use them, but to run the risk of a crazy regime having them is not overly palatable to the administration. The problem is that the risk vs reward of taking out the nuke capability right now, is on the wrong side for US.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 It would be entry into the most exlusive club, and knowing that other countries will take you seriously when you talk. It's still a long shot that they will obtain them, and a longer one that they will use them, but to run the risk of a crazy regime having them is not overly palatable to the administration. The problem is that the risk vs reward of taking out the nuke capability right now, is on the wrong side for US. 724078[/snapback] If that's the case, when will the equation of risk/reward be favorable?
UConn James Posted July 17, 2006 Author Posted July 17, 2006 What would Iran's impetus be for NOT using weapons it's struggled so long to attain? 724073[/snapback] Uhm... survival? About 40 seconds after Iran launches a nuke, we'll be speculating about the half-life of Tehran.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 Uhm... survival? About 40 seconds after Iran launches a nuke, we'll be speculating about the half-life of Tehran. 724086[/snapback] OK, well, if survival was their motivation, why not abandon the nuke idea altoghether?
GG Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 If that's the case, when will the equation of risk/reward be favorable? 724085[/snapback] When you have a stable Iraq. Welcome to the mideast Catch 22.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 When you have a stable Iraq. Welcome to the mideast Catch 22. 724088[/snapback] One of them, you mean. There's NO WAY that Israel will feel secure with a nuclear Iran.
IBTG81 Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 What's your party affilliation today? Aren't you ready to switch again? 724062[/snapback]
IBTG81 Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 No. I didn't realize that. Please let us all know how we would do that and not !@#$ our own interests in the process. 724066[/snapback] 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.
cromagnum Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 If we follow the liberal plan (and yours), I hope you're brushing on your Arabic. 724094[/snapback] With the ability to annihilate any arab threat, that above statement is nonsense. But your mantra has successfully worked in the U.S. endeavor in Iraq using those scare tactics. You definitely have dusted off that playbook for this next easy conquest that you would like to see happen. Tokoyo rose=IBTG81
chicot Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 OK, well, if survival was their motivation, why not abandon the nuke idea altoghether? 724087[/snapback] 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.
Recommended Posts