1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by tomcrown1, Apr 10, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tomcrown1

    tomcrown1 Hall Of Fame

    1,576
    0
    Jan 16, 2006

    During the sixtes the Army used to transport nukes on truck through various towns. Their was even a report that the Military was missing something like 10 to 20 wareheads. In college I remeber an Iranian spoke up claiming that he and his friends had stolen some war heads. (back then I was pro anything america does and me and some of my follow ROTC friends beat the carp out of him and truned him over to the CIA). Were the wareheads stolen or an accounting error I do not know, but their were fears that some nut group on the left would use the treat of a nuclar weapeon to hold up a city etc.
     
  2. AllieVi

    AllieVi Hall Of Fame

    1,530
    0
    Apr 10, 2002
    I agree that obtaining a U.S. nuclear device would be extremely difficult (assuming, of course, no insiders are part of the plan). The difficulty means a terrorist would choose a different weapon. Chemical and biological agents make a lot more sense, but we tend to fixate on the nuclear option.

    Think of what a little anthrax power can do. Just a trace amount essentially disabled the congressional mail system. Now imagine if someone put a significant amount in the air conditioning/heating system of a high-rise building (or twenty).

    We're extremely vulnerable to all sorts of terrorism. We should remove the incentives that anger people to the point where they want to terrorize us.
     
  3. Tom in TX

    Tom in TX Icon

    714
    0
    Jan 22, 2004
    What was he doing with a carp inside him?? :lol:
    Tom in TX
     
  4. Tom in TX

    Tom in TX Icon

    714
    0
    Jan 22, 2004
    Doesn't sound like much of a treat! :lol:
    Tom in TX
     
  5. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Maybe it has something to do with the fact that if you can't even get the country correct regarding the ports deal, that the rest of what you have to say is just as ignorant.

    But it is interesting how you chose to say "Arab country" rather than "foreign country."

    Well, did it? Let's be realistic here. The boundaries of the land called Palestine were created by the British. It was run by the British. The British controlled all immigration and were the police and judges. There never was an official Palestinian government, language, culture, monetary system or anything else which a country normally has. It was an area populated by Jews and non Jews.
    This is not to say that the people who are known as Palestinian now are non persons, it's just that they never actually had a country which was 'stolen'.

    Should they get a country? Sure. They were offered it on at least 4 different occasions in the 1900's all the way to 2000. They had issues with those offers- right or wrong. But the end result is that they rejected those offers, even as starting points, every single time. And they may have had every right to be disgruntled with the offers. But at least they could have accepted something and started some sort of country. I guarantee that when the Jews accepted the partition plan in 1947, they were not 100% happy with it. In fact, there were a group who were very much against it. They were given desert and very narrow borders. But they took it.

    I don't mind taking it from multiple sides. If someone thinks I'm a hypocrite, prove it, quote it. If you think I want all Muslims dead, quote the passage in which I said it. Or at least quote a passage in which it seems like I'm stongly suggesting it. But what I do mind is when people choose to lie about what I say.

    As much as I disagree with you, Jon, I have to respect the point of view you're coming from. At least in your case I sense logical thought, rather than emotion, behind it; which is why you don't resort to name calling and taking the low road by accusing me of things I never said. You give a point of view backed up by facts an opinions.
     
  6. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    The terrorists we are up against seem to pride themselves on their low-tech approaches. The "weapons skills" of the 9/11 gang consisted of the ability to wield and threaten with sharp objects. A suicide bomber's main attributes consist of wearing a belt or vest and pushing a button or pulling a string. The terrorist "boots on the ground" are willing to die, obviously they often WANT to die. I would guess this type of mindset does not lend itself easily to complex plots and weaponry. Therefore I would think terrorist leaders, the "masterminds", would avoid complications at all costs. Their number one rule is "keep it simple".

    It's not that they wouldn't like to use "WMDs" against us, it's that the odds of pulling off such attacks are greatly reduced by the need for more oversight and control, the lack of which is one of their greatest assets and the reason we find it so hard to pin them down or predict the next attack. Any terrorist "WMD central distribution point" would be detected and destroyed almost immediately. It is this possibility that mandates their continued low-tech methods.

    Undoubtedly bin Laden et al have toyed with the idea of WMD/nuclear attacks, probably as much just to "freak us out" as anything. But I believe they've ultimately rejected the notion because it doesn't fit in with their philosophy of simplicity. They've been very successful with traditional explosives, nails, glass shards and box cutters! I don't see them suddenly dedicating their limited resources to the more high-tech and complicated methods needed for WMD/nuclear.

    This doesn't mean we shouldn't guard against them obtaining such weapons. In fact I suspect they may already have some. At this point however, for the reasons noted above, they have chosen not to use them.

    The only instance of chem/bio/nuclear was the anthrax attack shortly after 9/11. Whoever perpetrated that is still at large. But to the best of my knowledge, no trace has ever been found to link it to al Qaeda or a similar organization. Presently at least, "WMDs" do not seem to be their weapon of choice.
     
  7. davidxlai

    davidxlai AllStar

    75
    0
    Jan 20, 2006
    With a war that makes no sense going badly in Iraq, there is no way to wage a war that makes sense (hint: real WMD) against Iran. Bush really got the country screwed.
     
  8. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    The terrorists we are up against seem to pride themselves on their low-tech approaches. The "weapons skills" of the 9/11 gang consisted of the ability to wield and threaten with sharp objects. A suicide bomber's main attributes consist of wearing a belt or vest and pushing a button or pulling a string.

    Again just like Vietnam. The worst weapons we faced were the primitive booby traps - punji stakes, bear traps, arrow traps, etc. These primitive weapons accounted for about 10% of the American fatalities. The problem of fighting an enemy in their own land is that they are more motivated and are willing to wait for the inevitable withdrawal.
     
  9. Opynion

    Opynion Godfather

    403
    0
    Mar 21, 2006
    As I said it before,
    IF Reagan didn't care for the Kurds that Hussein killed at that time,
    "why did G.B.jr. did care in his administration?
    and since no weapons of mass destruccion were found in Iraq... ¿why do we have soldiers there?
    I forgot that Jr. wants the oil, but he could very waited, and now take the oil from Iran, at least there is a motive to go there, but there was no motive for Iraq;
    and by the way, I really wonder if Iran sees China as infidels :cool: unless they think that Muhammad and Budda were relatives. ;)
     
  10. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    The British may have established the boundaries of the land called Palestine, but the British did not invent the name Palestine. That name has been around for thousands of years. It designated the area and the people who lived there.

    Every time we get into this discussion we hear the revisionist history that claim a large Jewish population had been present in Palestine since the time of King David. That the Jews who migrated to Palestine all bought their property fair and square from the previous owners. That their transition to declaring Israel an independent nation was peaceful and orderly. That the Palestinians were always the ones to turn down any proposal. That it is the Palestinians who want to drive the Jews out of Israel, while all the Jews ever wanted to do was live peacefully side by side with their neighbors. Let's take a look at the history. And yes, this time line is from a Palestinian source. If you have evidence that what is stated here, document it, don't just tell me this can't be trusted because it didn't come from an Israeli source. It is long, but I have out a lot of events. You can use the link to read it all.

    http://www.palestine-net.com/history/bhist.html

    That brings us up to 1950, and the Israeli laws of return and absentee property. Another thread that is active right now mentions how in Florida there are conclaves of Cubans who are still Cubans. They still await their return to Cuba, where the evil Castro and his communist regime have confiscated their homes and land. Our nation has supported their return for generations now. So what is different between Cuba and Israel?

    http://www.onepalestine.org/resources/Israeli_Apartheid_Laws.html
     
  11. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    I did? I thought I said it was a land populated by Jews and non Jews and for whatever reason, "right or wrong," the Palestinian people rejected every partition plan from the early 1900's to 2000.

    But far be it from me to actually expect you to refer to what I actually said rather than referring to what you think I said.
     
  12. audiomaster

    audiomaster DBSTalk Club Member

    383
    8
    Jun 24, 2004
    Please answer for me why we attacked Iraq who may or may not have had weapons... are threatening to attack Iran who doesn't have them yet either... BUT Korea (North) who has them and has publically said "I will aim them at you" in response to being asked about them... we are not attacking Korea?

    Because we need all those Samsung TVs and LG refrigerators! Amd because Korea buys lots of Texas Instruments chips, and you know who is from Texas!
     
  13. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    :icon_dumm

    Well, Thanks for proving my point anyway!:p:grin:

    Regardless of what they did or didn't call themselves, and regardless of what the British(of course well known for respecting the rights and wishs of indiginous peoples in their colonies):rolleyes: did or didn't do, there was a largely Arab population living there for generations and generally in control of the political, social and economic conditions there, their roots going back nearly a millenium.

    And how exactly did the British fall on the name "Palestine" for this region? Is that English? Scotch? Welsh? No. It's what the region was known as, again, for centuries. And surprisingly enough, the people who lived there were known as "Palestinians"!


    Without the colonial machinations of the British, French and others, all with the blessing of the US of course, perhaps there could have been an independent "Palestine". However, the Arabs think of themselves as "one people", all speaking a common language and adhering to Islam as a group. Whatever sheik or emir or empire happens to control their particular territory at any given time has through much of history been irrelevant. Borders were superfluous to this sometimes nomadic population, being literally often no more than "a line in the sand", and MOVABLE! In any case, the colonial designation of "Palestine" to Jordan or Syria or any other convenient and cooperative entity had little or no foundation in the aspirations of the people that lived there.

    The "[T]hey were offered it on at least 4 different occasions in the 1900's all the way to 2000" were not Palestinian solutions or suggestions. They were what Israel felt pressured to offer to at least give the appearance of good faith. We hear about how Hamas or Iran recognizes no right of Israel to exist. But OTOH, Israel has never recognized the right of a Palestinian state to exist either. In fact many Arab nations HAVE recognized Israel's right to exist. Even Arafat's Fatah Party has long conceded the existence of Israel and its right to exist. But Israel and the US didn't want to deal with Arafat, and now they're stuck with Hamas!

    Anyway, there will be no solution and no peace in the region until the Palestinians(or whatever you want to call them) are either offered a voice in Israeli politics comensurate with their numbers.(single state solution, the best option but not gonna happen) Or, a reasonable offer to establish an independent autonomous Palestinian state must be made. And that state must be independent with clearly defined, defensible border WITHOUT pockets of Jewish "settlements"(read colonies) dotting the landscape. The "peace process" is a sham, going on for what 35-40 years now? Some peace! Some process! The US is portrayed here as some sort of "neutral party" to mediate fairly between the two sides. Nothing could be further from the truth. About the only reason the Arabs want the US at the table is because that's about the only way to get Israel to participate at all. But the US rarely challenges Israel to make any real concessions, basically rubber-stamping whatever sham "plan" Israel deigns to put forward.

    The US can either put some real pressure on Israel to come up with an equitable plan for peace, or we can deal with this FOREVER!!!
     
  14. Tom in TX

    Tom in TX Icon

    714
    0
    Jan 22, 2004
    This is so Anti-Semetic it's obscene, even for you!
    Tom in TX
     
  15. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Don't worry, Tom. Israel is pulling out and the world will see how the Palestinians can deal things for themselves. So far they've voted terrorists in to rule them. Hamas may change, you never know.

    But this is the best thing that Israel has done. Build a wall, get out and now let the world deal with the problem.
     
  16. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Did I say that HALFSEK said all these things? At least not in the post I quoted. But all these are revisionist myths that have been mentioned by various people numerous times. What I posted was to illustrate several points. One is that BOTH sides rejected various proposals. Another point was to address your assertion that there never was "an official Palestinian government, language, culture, monetary system or anything else which a country normally has. It was an area populated by Jews and non Jews.
    This is not to say that the people who are known as Palestinian now are non persons, it's just that they never actually had a country which was 'stolen'."


    If you look at the site I linked you will see the history of the area known as Palestine going back prior to the invasion by refugees from Egypt. The area has had a number of rulers, and much of the time it was part of various empires and not in control of its own destiny. Many of the "Palestinians" had been living there for hundreds of years. They owned homes, orchards, businesses and vineyards. Did you read any of what I posted. They were driven from those homes, businesses, orchards and vineyards and forced to flee. A "country" may not have been stolen, except from the British, but homes and livelihood were stolen from families and individuals. Hundreds of thousands of them. For some reason these people were not happy with this. Just like Cubans living in Florida still fret over having been driven from their country.

    Halfsek, if tomorrow an illegal Mexican immigrant showed up at your door, with a bunch of his buddies, armed to the teeth, and told you to get out of his new home, and by the way, not to bother going in to work on Monday, because the business now belonged to him as well, I'm sure you would quickly pack a few essentials and leave, confident in the knowledge that there are plenty of other places to live, and many more jobs to be had, perhaps in the Arizona desert. That is how Israel came to be. By illegal immigration, and by armed terrorist groups forcing the legal owners of homes and businesses to flee, not to mention the government that WAS in place at the time.

    When my family came to this country, we did it legally. When my ancestors came to this land they knew little if any English, but they did come with a bunch of gold so they could BUY farms. What a concept. :nono:

    Yet somehow, the Palestinians are ALWAYS the bad guys, and ANYTHING Israel does is pure and righteous. I've always wondered how a people who had been driven from their homes in so many lands, could turn around and do it to others. The only answer I can find is that they decided to do to others what had been done to them. That seems to be the rule many live by, but it is not what the Old or New Testaments, or the Koran teach.
     
  17. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    The Palestinians voted in a third party to get rid of the corruption of the other parties. Many people here are advocating that the U.S. should do something similar. At least among the Palestinians, Hamas has a reputation of NOT being corrupt. Hopefully they will also learn how to govern, without being corrupt, and by other means than terrorism, although just as the Jews seem to have learned how to drive others from the land they wanted, as others had done to them, the Palestinians have learned this lesson from the Jews.

    Right. It is another way to force Palestinians to give up what is theirs. Don't let them in to their property, and then you can invoke the absentee property law. :nono:
     
  18. Opynion

    Opynion Godfather

    403
    0
    Mar 21, 2006
    If the bible says that Israel is for the jews, then the jews have recovered their land according to bible, and palestinians are no jews, so their property in Israel was never really theirs. :)
     
  19. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    :scratch: What? :lol::bang

    This is so ridiculous it's obscene, even for you!:nono:

    But I guess I should have seen it coming. Any criticism of Israel, or US policies towards Israel, is met with the charge of anti-Semitism.(BTW- isn't it anti-Semitic not to capitalize "Semitic", AND misspell it?):grin:

    The practice is so insidious that the old canard of the self-hating Jew has had to be resurrected. The premise is that any critic of Israel/US Israel policy MUST hate Jews. When in fact there are many Jews critical of Israel and US Israel policy. Including Israeli Jews, Israeli Jews in the IDF!
    http://www.seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp

    There are 550 names on this pledge. Are they all "anti-Semitic"? Are they "self-hating Jews"? And it's a pretty serious pledge for them to make. Just like any military, it's a crime to refuse an order.

    These are not the only Jews, or group of Jews, that find Israeli policy repugnant, or at least wrong-headed and counterproductive not only to Israel as a nation but to ALL Jews!

    Your charge I am anti-Semitic simply because I criticize Israel and US policy towards Israel is outrageous and unfounded. But I guess personal insult is a convenient way to deflect from not having any valid argument.

    I'm not going to go down the road of "many of my best friends are Jewish". But I have spoken to quite a few Jews on this subject and many ARE at least troubled by Israeli and US policies. Of course, maybe they just hate themselves!
     
  20. Opynion

    Opynion Godfather

    403
    0
    Mar 21, 2006
    Or maybe they are just traitors. :cool:
    ____ ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ :rolleyes:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page