Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by tomcrown1, Apr 14, 2006.
So, this means (applying the same logic) that all Americans support President Bush in every decision he has ever made and any public speach he has ever made? And those same Americans all supported everything that Clinton did before him?
They are American elected officials, right? So everything they say and do MUST (using your logic) be sanctioned, approved, and practiced by every American.
Think about it.
He can't control nuclear weapons they don't yet have.
Sorry....You aren't making any sense........
I think that our elected President has stated that we will strike first if threatened....and Israel has demonstrated that they will strike if threatened......
Some people let their hatred of Bush cloud their logic.:nono:
But if a weaponless man threatens you, when there is a fence between you, does that give you a right to shoot him? An empty threat is not a reason to destroy 12 million people.
So your idea is to wait until he kills some of ours before we strike. I'm sure our victims will appreciate that.
In school, there was this bully that picked on me alot. After awhile I realized either I can continue to be bullied or I can fight back. So the next bully that came along and threatened me, I struck first. No more bullies. Unfortunately because a few pussies in this country have shown that we won't fight back, we are attracting bullies like flies to honey.
Your analogy would seem to apply better to Iran than the U.S.
We intervened in Iran's internal affairs years ago by installing the Shah. Reagan assisted Saddam in his war against Iran. Bush rattled sabers against Iran in a State of the Union speech.
Seems like they're the ones who are reacting toward us the way you did against the bully.
You say I'm not making sense? OK, let's back up a few posts and quote your conversation with AllieVi...
Sooo... your comment seemed to indicate that since one Iranian person said something, that ALL Iranians must be behind that statement. Soooo... I asked you does that mean you agree with everything Bush says AND everything that Clinton said before him? Because you seem to believe an elected official in Iran speaks for every Iranian, then both Bush and Clinton must (using your logic) speak for every American EVEN when they disagreed about things!
Supposedly in the USA we believe in "innocent until proven guilty"... which means that no matter how much you might dislike your neighbor, you can't have him executed for murder just because he says to you one day that he would like to kill you.
You seem to imply that because it is possible Iran may develop WMD and may use them against someone... that we should just nuke Iran now and prevent that from happening.
Hey, you might one day run a red light so pay up right now! And that car accident that you might have in a few years that could disable that man crossing the street that you haven't met yet? Pay him some money too, and go ahead and serve some pre-emptive jail time while you're at it right... because we don't want to wait for you to accidentally run him over to prosecute you!
Your example is responding to a bully that threatened you by hitting him. Did you kill this bully or kill several of his friends to prevent him from hitting you? I'm guessing not.
Suggesting that we attack/bomb/nuke Iran in response to a threat that may or may not ever materialize is just about the definition of an overreaction!
Within 2 years, the U.S. can move the soldiers from Iraq, to Iran, after the U.S. strikes & destroys the airports of Iran, to avoid suicide bombers;
But, I wouldn't be surprised if Iran has been working on those nukes, so they might have them ready sooner than you think, think about it! :scratch:
If those foreign leaders want to provoke a war, then those leaders have to take the risk of getting killed, just like the people they send to war, it's only fair.
It's better to get the leader of Iran in his own funeral, instead of nukin the population of 12,000,000
You're asking for way too much there!
All sense of irony is lost for what is being proposed here. The only impediment to the plan that George Bush might wuss out on this one.:icon_stup
But even ignoring the moral and ethical considerations here, which are HUGE! This kind of attack makes no sense on a practical level either. Maybe a more pragmatic approach will penetrate some thick skulls, although some skulls seem to get thicker as they concentrate on only "the good news".:icon_dumm
George Bush has an affinity for "capital", political and otherwise. Well, we have spent our "capital" in this region, figuratively AND literally. And are about maxed out on plastic too. As the world recoils in horror at what Iraq has turned into thanks to our "liberation", we blithely discuss doing it all over again in their very similar neighbor, Iran.
Nuking "just one city", or even using "tactical nukes" is not going to solve any problems for us, it's only going to create more. Even conventional bombing isn't likely to garner us much praise or gain us many friends. I'm afraid even Tony Blair would find it problematic to be our wingman on this one. Our only possible backer might be Israel. And believe me, if we do launch an attack on Iran, our message to Israel should be "ixnay on the aisepray"!:yesman:
And unless we invade, conquer and occupy Iran,(which we currently have no capacity to do) they are likely to become even more determined to acquire nuclear capabilities. Their rationale again being, they weren't attacked because they were working on "the bomb", they were attacked because they didn't yet have one, so they better damn well get one, and quick!
There's this idea being floated that all we have to do is drop some bombs and the Iranian people will become disillusioned with the mullahs and rise as one to depose them.(I don't know WHERE they get this stuff!) Anyway, the theory goes this popular uprising will appreciate what we've done for them, by BOMBING THEM, and be much friendlier to the US.:rotfl: That we'll be "treated as liberators" so to speak!:bang
Well of course that's exactly what we were told would happen in Iraq. It didn't happen and now look at the mess we're in.
Repressive as they may be, there have been no reports of rape and torture rooms associated with the current regime in Iran. Any history of that kind of abuse goes back most recently to the reign of our puppet the Shah. There are no active resistance or guerilla revolutionary armies operating in Iran as far as I know. And the typical dissident or moderate in Iran is more likely to be a liberal college professor or businessman with secular leanings. They just want to be able to download hip-hop and porn off the web without being visited by the Sharia thought police. Much as they might wish for a little more freedom, I don't believe they're willing at this point to take up arms over it. And they're certainly not waiting for US bombings or a foreign invasion and occupation as a signal to man the barricades.
So let's just stop all the sabre-rattling rhetoric. It's not getting us anywhere. If anything, we're just digging another hole for ourselves to climb out of, if we can. We've opposed every nation that ever wanted nuclear weapons with the result that everyone who really wanted them got them anyway. And Israel, nor anybody else has ever been attacked with "da bomb"! At least not since 1945. Maybe some reverse psychology is in order? Tell 'em "go ahead, build your bomb, but if you EVER use it, you WILL be destroyed completely, and not just one city!"
Like it or not, this is a war of cultures. The radicals, like the leaders of Iran, insist that Israel should be wiped out. Are you willing to sit back and watch it happen? How many millions would die?
None of us here on this message board know how close the Iranians actually are to creating a bomb.
You speak of morals? Bomb carrying fanatics intentionally kill people in cafes, buses, and police stations every day. Theses people are killers who should be eliminated BEFORE they strike.
As the man currently being tried said.....He would kill Americans anywhere, anytime, any way.
For me, that is enough of a threat to act against those with similar desire to kill me and my family.
Which is why no one is ever arrested for trying to hire a hitman right? Intent is a prosecutable offense.
I never suggested that we nuke them, I suggested that we stop the WMD development process, big difference. Earlier I mentioned several ways to stop them, go back and read them.
Most bullies and dictators are cowards. They keep pushing your buttons as far as they can push them. However, if you push back, most will stop. Saddam went and hid in a hole.
Again, never suggested that. Clearly, the nuke will materialize because, no doubt, rogue nuclear states are feeding them the information they need because they are moving very quickly with development.
Again, by whose definition? There are a great number of people in this country (not I), who feel that GWB is a threat to a lot of people too. We can't go around killing other countries leaders! That is not justice.
Agreed... but some folks would have us invade or bomb Iran before they bomb us... when they don't even have the capacity to bomb us... You couldn't execute the hitman for a killing he didn't commit, but if you had reasonable evidence of the hit you could arrest and detain him to prevent the murder perhaps.
There are folks who say "it's us or them" and "bomb them now so they can't bomb us later"... and then they wonder why there may be people in Iran or Iraq or name-your-middle-east-country-here who are thinking "we'd better get a bomb before the US bombs us because their people are being told we want to bomb them and we can't even do that yet".
Most logical people understand that diplomacy will only delay the inevitable. There is no negotiation that will work with Arab countries. But I don't think it is necessary to jump to such an extreme position such as nuclear weapons. We have special forces for a reason. Couldn't we use conventional weapons to destroy the nuclear complexes and use our tactical nukes to keep the rest of the Arab countries at bay? NW's work much better as a deterrent then as a weapon.
I prefer not taking sides. The Hatfields and McCoys of the Middle East will have to work things out among themselves. If Israel is not a viable country without the umbrella of external forces, so be it. Squandering American blood and wealth for a cause that's doomed to fail makes no sense to me.
The U.S. and Israel have put Iran in the position of believing it needs nuclear weapons, because without them they're a paper tiger. Quite ironic.
That's pure bullsh*t. Israel deserves far more land than they have right now. And frankly, Israel can protect itself. Ever heard of the 6 day war?
OK. How much American blood and wealth are you willing to commit? Any of your own? I'm not willing to commit mine.
I'm really not shocked about that at all. Liberals love the rights, but won't defend them. My family has sacrificed plenty for this country.
Please don't dodge the question. How much American blood and wealth? Any of yours? BTW, people who know me never accuse me of being a Liberal.