Iran. Nuclear. World War 3. Iran. Nuclear. World War 3. Iran. Nuclear. World War 3

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Here's an idea, guys: don't elect reborn Christian presidents who think it's their duty to make Armageddon happen as soon as possible to hasten Christ's return.

:laugh: Good luck with that 😉 ALL your 2008 candidates are out then hehe

 

[Sacrilege]

You guys are out of touch with your elected officials. I think war with Iran is inevitable, because Bush thinks it's inevitable and Congress will go along with it. Just like the Iraq War was inevitable. It might not happen in Bush's presidency, though. If Hillary is elected, she will order the strike. The Air Force is convinced that it can attack Iran effectively with no ground backup, and Cheney is thoroughly convinced. It won't take much more to convince Hillary.

The bottom line is, Israel will attack Iran if we don't. The US president and Congress are willing to attack Iran for Israel.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: bamacre
The vast majority of Americans are already sick of Iraq, they don't want another one.

The American people have as much credibility as self-proclaimed Libertarians who obstinately vote Republican, because at the heart, they are. The people say they don't want another Iraq and yet they continue to grovel on their knees at the sight of other republican candidates who are plenty likely to do an Iraq II. In short, they are not putting their money where their mouth is (on the phallas of their party, "loyal" to the end).

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: bamacre
The vast majority of Americans are already sick of Iraq, they don't want another one.

The American people have as much credibility as self-proclaimed Libertarians who obstinately vote Republican, because at the heart, they are. The people say they don't want another Iraq and yet they continue to grovel on their knees at the sight of other republican candidates who are plenty likely to do an Iraq II. In short, they are not putting their money where their mouth is (on the phallas of their party, "loyal" to the end).

Republican semen is the best.

 

[biostud]

I thought Nuclear weapons was mostly used as a defensive weapon. If you attack us, we nuke one of your cities, or rather if attacking US, Russia, China etc., if you attack us, we nuke your entire country, or similar just with traditional weapons. So why would any country try to attack US directly, if they knew they country would be turned into a glass dessert. If Iran gets nuclear weapons it will limit the possibilities of dealing with Iran in middle east situations using military force. The reason why countries gets nuclear weapons is to be able to say: "stay out of this business or we nuke", and whether that is good or bad really depends on which interests are being protected.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: biostud
So why would any country try to attack US directly, if they knew they country would be turned into a glass dessert. .

When God tells you to do something, it's best not to ask "why".

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: biostud
So why would any country try to attack US directly, if they knew they country would be turned into a glass dessert. .

When God tells you to do something, it's best not to ask "why".

Terrorists might have that notion, but generally most governments are dealing with more earthly matters, oil, Israel, penis sizes etc.

 

[Stoneburner]

I don't think he was saying he wants world war 3 or that world war 3 will occur if Iran doesn't comply but that Iran with nukes would cause world war 3.

I don't see how really. Who is going to join with Iran? Not the arab nations, not any of the muslim regions east of Iran. I doubt Russian support would go so far, and the chinese aren't ready. This is just fear mongering of a different sort.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I don't think he was saying he wants world war 3 or that world war 3 will occur if Iran doesn't comply but that Iran with nukes would cause world war 3.

I don't see how really. Who is going to join with Iran? Not the arab nations, not any of the muslim regions east of Iran. I doubt Russian support would go so far, and the chinese aren't ready. This is just fear mongering of a different sort.

Russia may not go that far today, but I am sure retribution in various forms will follow suit if we attack Iran and stop nuclear proliferation.

What Bush said was tactless and thus very stupid. Otherwise, the truth of what he said is spot on ? the Iranian situation is part of the foundation for the deepening divide and tensions between the western world and the east. The lines are being drawn for a potential world war should the other side wish to rid itself of the ?Great Satan?.

Russia and China are squarely behind defending Iran, the real question is how far they will go. Whether or not they go to war to protect its current regime is irrelevant to the consequences of worsening relations and heightened tensions as a result. It is what comes AFTER the war in Iran that is relevant to WW3, and action in Iran would lay the foundation for it.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

What Bush said, exactly:

"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

How do you keep Iran from 'having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." Do we somehow stop their Universities from teaching Physics?..laughable...

We're repeatedly hearing that we can't, we just CAN'T allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon, and that we should be prepared to bomb their facilities to stop them.

In the early 1960s China, then known as "Red China," was developing nukes at Lop Nor, near the Turfan Depression of Sinkiang. And the National Review type dittoheads back then were taking about the same thing and using the same arguments.

To wit:

"Those people are fanatics and you can't reason with them!"

"They're committed to the destruction of the West!"

"We can send in a precision strike to neutralize them!"

"We can't deter them because they don't value life the way we do!"

"If we don't stop them now we'll never have a better chance!"

"The rest of the world has to back us on this!"

A more constructive step might be to tell the Iranians we aren't going to bomb them and invade them, and to relax. That would require getting rid of the Bush cabal, but hey, that's a win-win. And in the future, don't blindly pick countries off of a world map and denounce them as Evil!" in a State of the Union speech to score cheap political points...it tends to make other countries, some of them with industrial capability, nervous about their own safety.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Even though Im a Republican, some of the things that come out of GWB's mouth make me shake my head...

and I'm relieved to hear you say that since that implies some republicans are finally learning that Bush Inc. does not in ANY fashion properly represent the principles republicanism was founded upon.

Dont put words in my mouth.
*I have never held the belief Saddam STILL has WMD's, although just about everyone thought so AT THE TIME.
*I have NEVER held the belief Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, and neither did GWB. He mentioned 9/11 in the same sentance as Iraq, but only the liberals decided thats what he meant. No one on Fox news has ever thought so either.
*I have NEVER thought Iraq would directly attack the USA, with exception to possibly individuals via our wide open border.

That said, I believe in in the Iraq war and what we're striving for. I believe it's a terrible thing that Americans are dying in war, but also understand the men and women that are dying knew the chance they were taking, and thought it was worth the risk. They are true heroes.

But dont go put words into my mouth that I think GWB is some kind of cowboy and trashes the Republican party. He does NOTHING without the approval of congress. He does NOTHING without permission from congress. If he borders on what is acceptable or not, he is simply playing within the rules congress gave him, albeit at the fringes. If they didnt want him to be able to do certain things it's no one's fault but THEIRS for allowing it. The fact that they wont even start impeachment hearings, AND the fact that HR333/impeachment of Cheney is rotting away in commitee is proof positive even the Democrats think what he's doing is fine. Actions speak louder than words.

/rant

Sorry. Didnt mean to derail. Im not so blind as to recognize some things ANY leader says are just plain WTF. Including our POTUS.

Wrong. he senta letter to congress stating that said...


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President🙂

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:



(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and


(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

George W. Bush


Seems pretty clear there in HIS letter that he is saying that going after Iraq is the same as going after those that carried out 9/11.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Even though Im a Republican, some of the things that come out of GWB's mouth make me shake my head...

and I'm relieved to hear you say that since that implies some republicans are finally learning that Bush Inc. does not in ANY fashion properly represent the principles republicanism was founded upon.

Dont put words in my mouth.
*I have never held the belief Saddam STILL has WMD's, although just about everyone thought so AT THE TIME.
*I have NEVER held the belief Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, and neither did GWB. He mentioned 9/11 in the same sentance as Iraq, but only the liberals decided thats what he meant. No one on Fox news has ever thought so either.
*I have NEVER thought Iraq would directly attack the USA, with exception to possibly individuals via our wide open border.

That said, I believe in in the Iraq war and what we're striving for. I believe it's a terrible thing that Americans are dying in war, but also understand the men and women that are dying knew the chance they were taking, and thought it was worth the risk. They are true heroes.

But dont go put words into my mouth that I think GWB is some kind of cowboy and trashes the Republican party. He does NOTHING without the approval of congress. He does NOTHING without permission from congress. If he borders on what is acceptable or not, he is simply playing within the rules congress gave him, albeit at the fringes. If they didnt want him to be able to do certain things it's no one's fault but THEIRS for allowing it. The fact that they wont even start impeachment hearings, AND the fact that HR333/impeachment of Cheney is rotting away in commitee is proof positive even the Democrats think what he's doing is fine. Actions speak louder than words.

/rant

Sorry. Didnt mean to derail. Im not so blind as to recognize some things ANY leader says are just plain WTF. Including our POTUS.

Wrong. he senta letter to congress stating that said...


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President🙂

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:



(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and


(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

George W. Bush


Seems pretty clear there in HIS letter that he is saying that going after Iraq is the same as going after those that carried out 9/11.

Good Lord not his again. OK let me explain this for you since your knowledge of the english language structure seems to be a little thin.

See this line here: "necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations"? This is the outline of who this action is against. This could also include any nation in the (cough) axis of evil. OK.

Next, RIGHT after that, you see the comma there? The primary purpose of a comma is to inject a brief pause in the sentence, or thought flow. It is used to inject further information into a sentence, that is typically relevant to the subject matter, but not always. So. We have a comma, which ADDS the following info: including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

OK. See where it says INCLUDING? That seperates the information following it as being seperate, but inclusive. Thus the word including. Let me pick another example for you. Lets say your car gets into a minor fender bender and only affects the front of your car. Lets say you take it into the repair shop and decide you want the whole thing repaired, because you had a few other issues before that crash. Your estimate would read "Cost of repairs including those caused by the accident on 10/13/07. Does it say ALL repairs are a result of that accident? No. It just says it INCLUDING those. Same thing.

For people who actually understand the english language instead of presuming what they think it means, it is clear Iraq is not implicated in 9/11. Besides. Iraq isnt even singled out.

You are excused from class now.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
blah blah blah bs blah blah blah bs bs bs blah blah

For people who actually understand the english language instead of presuming what they think it means, it is clear Iraq is not implicated in 9/11. Besides. Iraq isnt even singled out.

You are excused from class now.

I could care less about your word-parsing, revisionist history and manipulation. The 'FIX was in' in the buildup to The Bush War of Illegal Occupation in Iraq. Your Contard Nation of Corrupt Republicans falsely implicated Iraq in 9/11 in an endless drumbeat of obfuscation and propaganda.

Now the drumbeats for Iran . . . . BOO!! . . . the Iranian BOOGIE MEN !!! . . . . We don't want the MUSHROOM CLOUD of an ISLAMIC Iranian nuke. . . . . BOO!!! . . . Be VERY afraid !!!!! . . . Blah Blah Blah . . ..

DUBYA DUBYA THREE !!! !!! .... iran . . . . DUBYA DUBYA THREE !!! . .. iran . . .. DUBYA DUBYA THREE !!! . . .. iran

Fool me once . . . shame on . . .shame on, me . . . Fool me twice . . .. Won't get fooled again!

 

[Jaskalas]

So heyheybooboo, you clearly think Iran should have nuclear weapons, is that right?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
So heyheybooboo, you clearly think Iran should have nuclear weapons, is that right?

If anyone else can, so can they.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
So heyheybooboo, you clearly think Iran should have nuclear weapons, is that right?

If anyone else can, so can they.

Curious, what line do you draw between who can possess one and who cannot? Clearly you wouldn?t give one to me. A corporation perhaps. Maybe you?d let blackwater have one? Should every single country on the planet have one, and why wouldn?t it then progress to private organizations?

I say not everyone is fit to possess a gun, and not everyone is fit to possess a nuclear weapon. What say you?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: blackangst1
blah blah blah bs blah blah blah bs bs bs blah blah

For people who actually understand the english language instead of presuming what they think it means, it is clear Iraq is not implicated in 9/11. Besides. Iraq isnt even singled out.

You are excused from class now.

I could care less about your word-parsing, revisionist history and manipulation. The 'FIX was in' in the buildup to The Bush War of Illegal Occupation in Iraq. Your Contard Nation of Corrupt Republicans falsely implicated Iraq in 9/11 in an endless drumbeat of obfuscation and propaganda.

Now the drumbeats for Iran . . . . BOO!! . . . the Iranian BOOGIE MEN !!! . . . . We don't want the MUSHROOM CLOUD of an ISLAMIC Iranian nuke. . . . . BOO!!! . . . Be VERY afraid !!!!! . . . Blah Blah Blah . . ..

DUBYA DUBYA THREE !!! !!! .... iran . . . . DUBYA DUBYA THREE !!! . .. iran . . .. DUBYA DUBYA THREE !!! . . .. iran

Fool me once . . . shame on . . .shame on, me . . . Fool me twice . . .. Won't get fooled again!

Now thats intelligence at its finest!

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
So heyheybooboo, you clearly think Iran should have nuclear weapons, is that right?

If anyone else can, so can they.

Curious, what line do you draw between who can possess one and who cannot? Clearly you wouldn?t give one to me. A corporation perhaps. Maybe you?d let blackwater have one? Should every single country on the planet have one, and why wouldn?t it then progress to private organizations?

I say not everyone is fit to possess a gun, and not everyone is fit to possess a nuclear weapon. What say you?

My personal preference is that no one have them. However if we, as a long time global aggressor, are allowed to have them then I see no reason that Iran (a longtime recipient of global aggression, though certainly not always undeservedly) should be refused.

Yes, I understand the whole 'we want to erase Israel' thing, but lots of people/nations have claimed that and modern Iran is no where near as unified behind these types of sentiments as either side would have you believe. If I had gone through the types of abuses that Iran had I would likely want some big guns to hold western nations in check as well...I just can't blame them. Certainly if they use them offensively then we need to wipe them off the planet...but until that happens (and especially considering that Iran is what it is today only because of direct US interference previously) they are a sovereign nation and should be treated accordingly. Mind you, this is all dependent on them actually getting weapons, and not just researching it, or developing power options, or anything else. There needs to be certainty of that from a non-US source before I'd even look twice at the situation.