Bush the Dimwit, I would not bet against him doing that crap.

I shudder at the thought of nukes being used just to 'rub out' a country that Bush the Second thinks is 'a problem'.

Nukes are not the answer. Obviously Bush the Second did not learn anything about Hiroshima or Nagasaki, other than the nukes we unleashed ended World War II.....he does not think of all the horrible things like radiation poisoning/burns and cancers that Iranian civilians will have to endure!

I think Bush the Second should NOT use nukes, anywhere!

But knowing him, he won't listen to the naysayers. He seems to be just itching to start World War III!

I think if President Bush was seriously threatening to start WWIII, he should be assassinated quicksmart no questions asked. Perhaps by the CIA or something.

Iran has a military alliance with Russia, so I wonder if this would rankle them.

It'd be kind of ironic if it still ends up being Russia and the U.S. who destroy the world.

I can picture it now..

*nuke descending upon Moscow*

"Well the first days are the hardest days, don't you worry anymore..."

*nuke descending on NYC*

"Cause when life looks like easy street, there is danger at your door..."

;D :D

Its like something out of Doctor Strangelove..

Yeah i'm weird.

Nukes are not the answer.


What is the answer to Iran?

No, I don't think he will.  Beneath the thick layers of ineptitude, I think he understands that if he does nuke Iran, there is no turning back from that and we'll be engaged in a nuclear pissing match with people we don't want to get into a pissing match with. 

What is the answer to Iran?


Iran is part of the axis of evil. He has a duty to...

Bush is definately leading us towards WWIII. First Afganistan, then Iraq, and now he is itching to get Iran. I also read something today that I find very disturbing.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/04/12/carrier.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

Could it be that Chavez is right that Dubya wants to invade Venezuela? With all the world watching the Middle East, who is going to see what is going on in South America?



"I am worried about over-committing our military around the world... I don't think nation-building missions are worthwhile." - George W. Bush, 10/11/2000
"My message today to those in Iraq is: We'll stay the course; we'll complete the job." - George W. Bush, 4/13/2004

He seems to be sending a different message, huh?

Be afraid. BE VERY AFRAID!!!



Cat

What is the answer to Iran?
Not nuclear weapons!

Oh yeah, George W. Bush would love nothing more than to make Iran another Hiroshima.....

Maybe Bush the Second should meet the survivors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and even Chernobyl...the Prez needs to wise up and realize that nukes would do more than destroy Iran's nuclear program....Iranian citizens who are just going about their business doing things like working in offices and raising families....wiped out, all because of a power-mad Republican in the d*mn Oval Office!

And by the way, remember to 'duck and cover'..... :o

I'm no Bush defender, not by any stretch of the imagination, but it's amazing how many of you say with certaintly you know what he wants to do. 


You really think he wants to use nuclear weapons?  Knowing full-well that if he does, countries that also possess nuclear capabilities will launch them at us?  You really think he wants full-scale nuclear war? 

He may be an idiot, but he's not suicidal.

Iran is part of the axis of evil. He has a duty to...


I hope you all the sarcasm in my statement.

[quote author=

More weapons would almost certainly be launched, India would launch against Pakistan and Pakistan would launch against India. (GO INDIA!!) Hopefully Israel would launch against Egypt.
I doubt much else would happen.

if not, then as the worlds only remaining superpower it is the obligation of the United States to make sure Iran doesn't develop Short Range or Intercontinental ballistic missiles. AT ANY COST NECCESARY!


Point of information:  Iran already has SRBMs.  ICBMs are a step - though they can always hand over a device to ~mumble~  and slip it onto the west coast by sea.

Question:  What makes you think that in the event of a tactical strike against Iranian refining targets, we'll see an Indo-Pak scenario going hot?  Neither side has a dog in that fight; the two belligerents have largely grown up and realized that it's in neither side's interest to go nuclear over Kashmir.

It goes against my better judgement these days, but I'll speak my mind. 

My two bits' worth:  "Maybe."  We'll use a low-yield pen3tr8ting my00nishun against the hardest targets if damage assessment from conventional *boomthingy* strikes shows that we failed.  If we go this route, fallout and coll8eral d4mage will be minimal - negligible compared to the mess we made with the primitive devices we used at *places in Japan*

/child of the Cold War, when we (and the Russians :) faced down a _real_ nuclear threat.
//spent too much time in physics classes (and related subjects) for his own good.
///will sleep more lightly at night after we nuke Iran than I did last week.
////...but more soundly than I did in the late 80s.

Any author that argues for *or* against the present Administration is being too political for his own good. Ignore him or her. There's a video going around on the 'blogs today that is... well, just plain wrong on so many levels that it's sad.

Stick to authors who know the physics.  Preferably those who wrote most of their books and/or websites before 9/11 politicized everything.

You might want to google a chap named Ca*what a horrible*cough I have today* rey Sub *i wonderif there'a *Ny Such A*gency whosfilters are smarter than a drunk human*lette and his web site.  Aaw hell, if they're any good, they're reading this thread too.  I just hope they're good enough to also realize that when push comes to shove, I'm on their side :)

The *funny* part of all of this is that the physics says it has to happen in late 2007 or early 2008, which will make partisans on both sides of the aisle go absolutely berzerk with confusion :)

[quote author=

I think if President Bush was seriously threatening to start WWIII, he should be assassinated quicksmart no questions asked. Perhaps by the CIA or something.



Uh, have you forgotten something? Daddy Bush was the director of the CIA, and the Bush family does see the CIA as their General Store. The CIA is not there to keep us out of nuclear war. The agency is there to make sure the Big Corporations have free reign worldwide. You say an atomic holocaust would be bad for business, I say the CIA and America, Inc., think otherwise....

:o

VISIONS OF SWASTIKAS IN MY HEAD,
PLANS FOR EVERYONE!!!

--Iggy Pop



The U.S support of Israel has led us in to a situation.
Israel will attack Iran eventually, even if the United States has nothing to do with it, the International community will assume we did.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't, I say we do it!


Thank you, Lemmy!

Remember, Iran is nowhere near the uranium enrichment capability required to produce atomic weapons. I am sure Iran wants them, though, and why wouldn't they? From an objective standpoint, if you become a "nuclear power" you are accorded much more respect in this wicked old world, wouldn't you say? Remember what happened when Kermit Roosevelt went to theran in 1953? Iran figures if they don't get themselves some fissionable insurance, America and co. will go over and f**k with them again. Nobody wants to be f**ked with, right?

No, I don't like the idea of Iran having atomic weapons...I don't like the idea any more than I like America and Israel having them. It is the American Christian Right who lives under the delusional prophesy that Biblical Armageddon must start in the Holy Land of Israel in order for Christ to return and rapture the righteous to their just reward. Dubya is one of these believers.  So, yes, he would start a nuclear war because that boy's craaaazy!!!

I don't know what the '06 elections have in store, but at least it won't be boring!
:o

Bush the Second seems to think it's his duty to wipe Iran and all countries in his self-proclaimed 'axis of evil' off the map by nuking 'em all to Kingdom Come...which is evidence that George W. Bush is truly off his rocker!!

Don't just impeach him...have him committed...

Bush the Second seems to think it's his duty to wipe Iran and all countries in his self-proclaimed 'axis of evil' off the map by nuking 'em all to Kingdom Come...which is evidence that George W. Bush is truly off his rocker!!

Don't just impeach him...have him committed...



You really think that?  Has he ever stated that he wants to use nuclear weapons to wipe out these countries?


Mass hysteria sucks.

You really think that?  Has he ever stated that he wants to use nuclear weapons to wipe out these countries?


Mass hysteria sucks.

I wish he did say just that. I would then feel reassured it would not happen. The guy lies about everything!
:D

It would be incalculably stupid to bomb Iran with convential weapons. Iran is not Iraq. Iran is not Afghanistan. Hey, Dubya, do you know who you're f***ing with?

BTW, the motivation behind the Bushies' war-mongering is even more basic than controlling the price of a gallon of gas. It is a racket to suck taxpayer dollars from the public into the private hands of a few corporations, such as Halliburton and Bechtel. In other words, our government is killing them over there in order to steal from us over here! The private outsourcing of even simple tasks in military operations to Halliburton has been a travesty. That corporation is utterly incompetent for all assignments. But it is not supposed to get the job done, it is supposed to get the investors rich. If the soldiers want potable water to drink, they can--as Dick Cheney would say--go f**k themselves! We are dealing with a Goodfellas foreign policy here!
::)

All of you ARE aware that Iran controlls the Hezbollah right?  Which has it's tentacles all over the world and as of yet because it is a Shiite group and it's main beef is with Israel it has so far remained neutral in the war on terror, at least in regards to us.  If we were to attack Iran don't you think Hezbollah would mobilize against the U.S.?  Gee, we think terror is a problem now.. Also you have to realize that the fundies in Iran can make Southern Iraq light up like a candle anytime they want to, right?  And our boys would be caught in the middle of it.

I sincerely hope the nay-sayers are right, but it scares me that we are even having this conversation.

Dumb-ya is a christian crusading freak of humanity, so hell yeah he would nuke them

Dumb-ya is a christian crusading freak of humanity, so hell yeah he would nuke them
George W. Bush is not a reasonable man. I would not put it past Mr. Dumbya to actually do the deed...would we be attacked by Hezbollah, as well as other America-haters like Al-Qaida? You bet! Then the biggest guilty party would be Dumbya himself for egging them on..of course he'd try to pass the buck to the 'evil Liberals'!

George W. Bush is not a reasonable man.
Undestatement of the year. He's a narcissist with a messianic complex. It's like having David Koresh for President. Dubya is also a dry drunk. He is an alcoholic who has stopped drinking (allegedly) but has not received the therapeutic treatemt it takes to recover from alcoholism. He is also a spoiled rich preppie who is a scion of one the world's most powerful family, but he has self-deluded himself into believing he is a Texas cowboy salt-o'-the Earth. Furthermore he thinks God talks to him in person. This is the same God who sent a messenger, the angel Gabriel, to talk to His very own son, and yet He talks personally to Dubya, to Unca Jerry, to Rat Pobertson, and to every funnymentalist bumpkin who rides the Evangelical choo-choo train!

I would not put it past Mr. Dumbya to actually do the deed...would we be attacked by Hezbollah, as well as other America-haters like Al-Qaida? You bet! Then the biggest guilty party would be Dumbya himself for egging them on..of course he'd try to pass the buck to the 'evil Liberals'!

In this wicked old world, we must concern ourselves about the behavior of those with the most power first, and then concern ourselves with those who have less power in descending fashion. Since the world order is devolving from post-colonial cooperation back to medieval brute force, it would be folly to assume anybody with great power is beneficent. In other words, the most powerful entity on the globe America, Inc., tries to sell us the propaganda that the U.S. government, the U.S. military, and the worldwide corporate cabal that  controls both of the former is a force for GOOD. At the same time, America, Inc., tries to sell us on the fear of ragtag bands of paramilitary maniacs--Al Qaida, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, Hezbollah--are the biggest threat to the human race.
We, the people, are not supposed to ask who has more POWER to influence world politics--America, Inc., or Al Qaida?  We are not supposed to ask WHY lesser powers throughout the world are making hostile overtures t the U.S., and HOW they came to do so. We are called "Honorary members of Al Qiada" merely for asking why the U.S. by its stated pricniples is making the rubble dance in Iraq, but avoiding North Korea.
We are supposed to be good little Busheeshes and say Iraq, Iran, and North Korea is the Axis of Evil, and Islamo-fascists are the biggest threat to peace and world security. Never mind that the Exxon-Mobil corporation has more money and power than half the nations on the planet put together!

It is not about nation. It is not about religion. It is not about political philosophy. What drives the policies of powerful states such as America, Great Britain, Israel, and China is P-O-W-E-R power. Who has power, who can give you power, who can take power away from you, who you can take power from, that's what it is all about. 

I don't care what Alan "torture-the-Arabs-and-God-bless-Isreal" Dershowitz says, the reason Israel did what it did to the Palestinians is because it could. Their message to the Palestinians for sixty bitter years has been, "You savage rag-heads want your land back, com 'n' get it!" So the Palestinians lob rocks at the Israeli soldiers and ride TNT-wired bicycles into cafes. Ain't saying it's "right." It isn't. When the powerful force their will on the vulnerable, they forfeit their authoritiy to make proclamations about "right."

So Sean Hannity can say we "Liberals" are in the "blame America first crowd," but I would say we are in the "take-responsibility-for your-actions crowd." America, Inc., spent the last hundred-plus years beating up on smaller countries and stealing their resources. If you think our international escapades were for the building a free and democratic globe, then you might as well believe God talks to you in person! Nope, sorry, America lied, cheated, extorted, bullied, murdered, and stole its way into World Domination. The British, the French, and the Germans all left that position open for us to take. The Soviets went along way to doing what we did, but we were better at it than they. So those are our actions. What goes around comes around, and that's what America has to live with!

Take this however you want, but the utter contempt for Bush leads me to believe that if he were assassinated, someone here would laugh.  I mean, I understand disliking his politics; at this point, who doesn't?  However, something about the tone of the hate makes me feel that some of you rabid anti-Bush posters would find some kind of glee in him getting knocked off.


And it sickens me that the thought even crossed my mind.

Obviously Bush the Second did not learn anything about Hiroshima or Nagasaki, other than the nukes we unleashed ended World War II.....he does not think of all the horrible things like radiation poisoning/burns and cancers that Iranian civilians will have to endure!



Mind you I fully support the right of Iran to have nukes.  Unless the entire world is gonna ban nukes, who are they NOT to have them?  I do not imagine the State Department will be hiring me any time soon.

Now that said, what exactly would you have proposed that President Truman had done back in '45?  The Japanese were dug in like roaches and they were fighting to the last man.  Gotta give the Japanese credit, by that time we were slaightering the cr@p outta them, but they kept on fighting, albeit in a futile effort to glorify their Emperor/God Hirohito.

They were putting 13-year-olds in kamakazi torpedos and kamakazi airplanes.  Crude but quite deadly devices, especially condiering that guided missiles did not exist back then.

Projections were that 1,000,000 deaths would occur in an assault on the Japanese mainland.  At Nagasaki and Hiroshima, I think we snuffed something like 250,000... AND EVEN THEN it took the Japanese several days to surrender.

Faced with those options what, exactly, would you have done?  ???

Take this however you want, but the utter contempt for Bush leads me to believe that if he were assassinated, someone here would laugh.  I mean, I understand disliking his politics; at this point, who doesn't?  However, something about the tone of the hate makes me feel that some of you rabid anti-Bush posters would find some kind of glee in him getting knocked off.


And it sickens me that the thought even crossed my mind.



No, I wouldn't laugh-in fact, I would be distrubed, very disappointed, and even sadded to a point. My reasons:

1. I don't like the murder of anyone-this includes people who have died under the death penalty. (You could say it is against my religious beliefs.)

2. We would have "Uncle Dickie" as president.  ::)

3. (And problably the MAIN reason why I wouldn't want it to happen) I want to see justice. I want to see him on trial for all his crimes-and yes I do mean CRIMES! Crimes against humanity and crimes against the U.S. Constitution. Some may argue that he has the right to do the things he has done because he is the president but I don't see it that way. I see that made a mockery of this country and is a treat to the U.S. as well as the world and I would like him to pay for that-and killing him off will not pay that debt.




Cat

I'd rather see Bush the Second have to work on a road gang then have him assassinated....  ;)

Would be really funny if Democrats passing by in their hybrid Toyotas jeer the fool!

Mind you I fully support the right of Iran to have nukes.  Unless the entire world is gonna ban nukes, who are they NOT to have them?  I do not imagine the State Department will be hiring me any time soon.


Evidently you're not familiar with the Nuclear non proliferation treaty.

The fact that strategic arms reduction has been going on for years and the United States has removed countless warheads is often overlooked  :)

[quote author=

Basically, I do not expect President Bush to do much of anything about Iran.  And this is for several reasons.

The most important is because Iran is still probably 3-5 years from actually having nukes.  And also because even if they have nukes, they are not a direct threat to the US.  If anything, they would use any nukes against Israel, not the US.

For the next 2 years, the goal of the US will more then likely be aimed at getting Russia and China to join the UN Security Council in supporting sanctions.  If there is going to be any kind of conflict in the region (either US or UN), it will more then likely be in 4-6 years, well into the next administration.

Currently, this is probably the sort of thing that can be solved if the UN would do something.  Once again, the UN is showing how impotant it really is.  And since Russia and China get a large amound of oil from Iran, do not expect them to support any kind of UN Resolution.

And even if Iran had "The Bomb", that in itself would not worry me.  Their current President is the one that really worries me.  Out of all of the leaders who have nukes, this one is the only one that gives the impression that he would use them.  And if he was to use them, Israel would more then likely be the main target.  After all, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated many times that he wants to wipe Israel off of the face of the earth.

I doubt that much of anything will happen militarily unless Iran makes the first move.  The world has had nuclear weapons for over 60 years now, and they have only been used twice.  However, if Iran is crazy enough to use them, I expect things to get very bad very fast.

Myself, I see 3 things as the likely outcome of this. 

1, They build nukes, but never use them.  They simply keep them as a hammer to hold over everybodies heads.

2.  Sometime in the future (before or after they get nukes but before they are ever used), a more stable government takes over in Iran.  In the past 20 years, there have even been attempts to normalize relations under past Iranian Presidents.  Hopefully the people get a "reality check", and stop this lunatic themselves before he makes them an international parriah.

3.  The lunatic develops nukes, and uses them (more then likely in the Middle East against Israel).  If that happens, everything is wide open.  I would not be surprised if Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other area governments backed Israel in that event.  As long as nobody else gets involved, it may be restricted to a "regional nuclear war".  But expect both Israel and Iran to cease to exist as they do now.

I would not expect the US to use nukes in any event.  For one, we are the only nation to have ever used them, and we have not done so in over 60 years.  If we have not used them since, we will not use them again unless it is in retaliation against a first strike by a major Nuclear Power (like Russia or China). 

If Iran does somehow use one against us, I expect any response we do to be conventional.  We have such an overpowering conventional response that useing nukes against Iran would not be needed.  Within 48 hours we could devistate their oil capability, runways, military bases, and infrastructure.  And do not think that in that event we would be the only ones going after them.  I expect that Iran would trip off the worlds fastest and single sided World War in history.

At most, Iran would get support from countries like North Korea, and probably nobody else.  Even countries like Syria and Palestine (who would normally back Iran) would turn against them, because of the damage that would be done to their own countries by fallout and other effects.

Myself, I would like to see the US (and other countries) start to play hardball with Russia and China.  If we would toss at them that their refusal to support a UN resolution would cause revocation of MFN status, they would have little choice but to agree.  China and Russia may need Iranian oil, but they need US Dollars much more.  They can always buy their oil elsewhere.  But noplace else are they able to sell such a huge volume of consumeables as they can to the US.

Here is the lastest


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060418/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_dc_17



It gets scarier and scarier.




Cat

Evidently you're not familiar with the Nuclear non proliferation treaty.

The fact that strategic arms reduction has been going on for years and the United States has removed countless warheads is often overlooked  :)


It only takes one

They'll try to nuke us first, but won't succeed.

Mind you I fully support the right of Iran to have nukes.  Unless the entire world is gonna ban nukes, who are they NOT to have them? 
That's sorta what Julius Rosenberg was saying...
:o

If Iran is five years from developing nuclear weapons, that gives us a crucial window of time in which to talk them out of it. You don't talk them out of it by threatening to bomb them into the stone age. Now, if the Iranian government did develop a nuke, and they decided to go REALLY nuts and drop it on Isreal, then Iran can count going up in a mushroom cloud as the U.S. and Israel retaliate. If you're surrounded by ten guys with machine guns, and all you've got is a revolver, you're not going to start firing if you value your life. If Iran assembles an arsenal of rudimentary nukes, that is the situation they will find themselves in. If they want to swagger and talk fierce, let 'em. The only thing to do is try and stop them from developing their nuikes program. We can do this, but it will take a different kind of administration.
The Bush Administration is the craziest government of consequence this planet has seen since the end of the Cold War!
:o

Here is the lastest

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060418/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_dc_17

It gets scarier and scarier.


Actually, that does not surprise me at all.  But do not read into it to much.  When it comes to Nucelar Weapons and their use, this (and every other) Government has it's own language.

I used to guard the damned things when I was in the Marine Corps.  My first duty station was as Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station.  Located just south of Long Beach, whenever a ship that carried nukes went to Terminal Island for more then 1 month, their nukes were offloaded to our base.  More then once I have had to stand guard outside of a bunker full of the things.

But in early 1984, the decision was made to stop holding them there.  Instead they were shipped to another base further inland (and further from a major city).  The main reason for the timing was the upcomming LA Olympic Games.  But even as late as 1986, we could only respond that "we can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at Seal Beach".  It was not until 1987 when the Marines were pulled off that it became known that there were no more nukes on the base.

This is simply the kind of talk that is used reguarding them.  The government will never state if they will use them or not.  It has been this way since 1945, and will not change any time soon.

Most disturbing to me is the statement from Russia.  "We are convinced that neither the sanctions route nor the use of force route will lead to a solution of this problem," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said, Itar-Tass news agency reported.  In other words, do not expect any sanctions any time soon.

Of course, there is one person who is considering the use of nukes or other force against Iran:

"I think the only justifiable use of military power would be an attempt to deter the development of their nuclear program if we felt there was no other way to do it."

Remember all those old desert dudes who just rotted away from giant, grotesque, necrotic malignant tumors ravaging their bodies inside out 'coz they had the misfortune of living in Nevada in the post-war era?

You don't? No wonder! Our government didn't like to talk about it because they cared so deeply for the American people. They didn't want us to worry about our fellow citizens getting turned into cancerous mush from nuke testing and nuke waste. I mean, the issue was settled. The government-nuclear complex was not up for questioning by the citizens. So like they say in the serenity prayer, "accept the things you cannot change and change the things you can." For instance, you CAN vote for the government officials of your choice...who will then vote for more atomic testing in the deserts and more nuke plants, thus producing more deadly biproducts of fission and more hot waste from the plants.
(Hey...now jesta minnit here!)
:P

Now, when M.W. "Muddy" Smith of Sandinyereye, NV, petitions the government for assistance with his cancer therapies because he's got pus-dripping necrotic black lumps about the face, neck, and upper extremites, plus bright red blood per rectum since the Carter Administration, the bureaucrats in Carson City will say, "The surgeon general has determined that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health," and slam metal counter screen down on his fingers.
An' dat's dat.
Meanwhile, a truckload of spent nuke rods en route from PA to Yucca mountain jacknifes over the embankment and explodes just outside of Jefferson City, MO, and makes the area uninhabitable for 10,000 years...but that's OK, 'coz who the heck wants to live in Jefferson City anyway! Sheesh!
:D

And that's how our government REALLY deals with the noo-q-lar question!

I would not rule out Dumbya ever using nukes. I wonder if he was cutting history class while some teacher talked about Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked back to the Stone Age!

Bush the Second is playing right into the hands of the Iranian government with this Cold War era 'brinksmanship'!

That's sorta what Julius Rosenberg was saying...
:o

If Iran is five years from developing nuclear weapons, that gives us a crucial window of time in which to talk them out of it. You don't talk them out of it by threatening to bomb them into the stone age. Now, if the Iranian government did develop a nuke, and they decided to go REALLY nuts and drop it on Isreal, then Iran can count going up in a mushroom cloud as the U.S. and Israel retaliate. If you're surrounded by ten guys with machine guns, and all you've got is a revolver, you're not going to start firing if you value your life. If Iran assembles an arsenal of rudimentary nukes, that is the situation they will find themselves in. If they want to swagger and talk fierce, let 'em. The only thing to do is try and stop them from developing their nuikes program. We can do this, but it will take a different kind of administration.
The Bush Administration is the craziest government of consequence this planet has seen since the end of the Cold War!
:o


if Israel has them why shouldn't Iran have them?

if Israel has them why shouldn't Iran have them?


Nuclear non proliferation.

If Iran has them, why shouldn't I have them?  ::)

If the end of the world is nigh, I want a good, sturdy underground bunker. Know any places I can get one from?

If the end of the world is nigh, I want a good, sturdy underground bunker. Know any places I can get one from?


I'll dig you one. 300 tinnies.

Nuclear non proliferation.

If Iran has them, why shouldn't I have them?  ::)

You should. It is your Second Amendment Right.

You should. It is your Second Amendment Right.


Not sure that's what was intended.

Not sure that's what was intended.

You mean to tell me our Founding Fathers did not foresee atomic weapons when they passed the Second Amendment? Come on, those guys were like gods, they knew, all they saw all! Rush Limbaugh told me so! If the FF didn't want you to have belt-fed weapons, artillary, anti-personnel mines, bunker busters, or even a long-range nuclear missile, they would have stipulated it in the Second Amendment...but they didn't. They said, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged!"

Now, of course, if you want a nuke, you're going to have buy it on the open market for the best price you can get. None of these loosey-goosey government subisidies for you, my friend!

Message to my liberal friends: there is only one way to enact gun control per the Second Amendment--repeal it!
8)

That's sorta what Julius Rosenberg was saying...
:o

If Iran is five years from developing nuclear weapons, that gives us a crucial window of time in which to talk them out of it. You don't talk them out of it by threatening to bomb them into the stone age. Now, if the Iranian government did develop a nuke, and they decided to go REALLY nuts and drop it on Isreal, then Iran can count going up in a mushroom cloud as the U.S. and Israel retaliate. If you're surrounded by ten guys with machine guns, and all you've got is a revolver, you're not going to start firing if you value your life.

Ever hear the term "suicide by cop"?  Happens all the time.

All it takes is onw whack job in some country to pull that revolver and, as yo say, his country would go up in the biggest weinie roast in the past 61 years.

But that does not do any good for the city that he dropped his bomb on.  Dead is dead.

As I've said before, I support Iran's right to have nukes unless we implement a worldwide ban on such weapons.

But I also know that the old "let's talk them out of it..." does not work.

My point?  If Israel does not like Iran having The Bomb, then let Israel take the military risks. We don't need to.

If the end of the world is nigh, I want a good, sturdy underground bunker. Know any places I can get one from?


http://silohome.com/

The best place to be in the event of WW3... is one of the former targets :)

Enough land aboveground to grow your own food.  Enough fuel storage belowground to... grow your own food. 

DeLorean - $15K
Cessna - $85K.
Silo home, reconditioned, with private airstrip, $150K

"Where we're going, we don't *NEED* roads."

Why is it that when some country our government doesn't like obtains nuclear materials, they always assume it's to blow this country off the face of the Earth?

The same crap happened in the 1950's and 60's...it was called the Cold War. And both Russia and this country are still here.

But I'm not so sure that Dumbya would not nuke Iran.

Ever hear the term "suicide by cop"?  Happens all the time.

All it takes is onw whack job in some country to pull that revolver and, as yo say, his country would go up in the biggest weinie roast in the past 61 years.

But that does not do any good for the city that he dropped his bomb on.  Dead is dead.

As I've said before, I support Iran's right to have nukes unless we implement a worldwide ban on such weapons.

But I also know that the old "let's talk them out of it..." does not work.

My point?  If Israel does not like Iran having The Bomb, then let Israel take the military risks. We don't need to.

God knows the U.S. taxpayer has paid for Israel to be the best fortified little country on the globe. They've got tons of nukes and high-tech weaponry, and military service is compulsory there.  They seemed to do OK in the '67 in the "Six Day War" with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria ganging up on them, but perhaps the have learned since that if they ask the U.S. to fight their battles for them, the U.S. will!
Talk about the REAL American welfare state!
::)

I say send George W. Bush on an all-expenses-paid vacation...to Chernobyl, or Bikini Island! And don't forget to bring the geiger counter!! Maybe Dumbya could catch some three-eyed fish!



You know, if you quit bitching and did the job yourself, you might be able to sleep at night.  I hate the man and what he's done to this country but I would never stoop so low as to wish death on him.  I think of the other people involved in the situation even if he doesn't.  Does that make me better?  I don't know.  Maybe it makes me smarter.

I'm really getting sick and tired of you doing nothing but posting about different ways you want the man killed.  If it's not exposure to radioactivity it's being dragged behind a race car at top speed.  Just quit with it already, okay?  He'll be gone in 2 years and then you'll have a new President you want dead if he doesn't act to your liking.

Why is it that when some country our government doesn't like obtains nuclear materials, they always assume it's to blow this country off the face of the Earth?

The same crap happened in the 1950's and 60's...it was called the Cold War. And both Russia and this country are still here.

But I'm not so sure that Dumbya would not nuke Iran.


There is a huge difference here.  And you are not being factual.

Nobody is worried about Iran "nuking" the US.  I am not worried about it, and I doubt the administration is worried about it.  Unlike the Soviet Union, Iran has neither the capacity to build a large number of weapons, nor the capacity to build intercontinental launching systems.

The worry is that they may well launch them on a neighbor (Israel).  And that he has repeatedly sworn that he is going to wipe one of his neighbors (Israel) "off of the face of the Earth" (his own words).

There are people who I would not worry about with nukes.  In fact, I would not worry if Cuba had nuke.  Because no matter what you say, Fidel Castro is not a fool, and he is not suicidal.  And while 20 years ago I might have worried if Lybia had nukes, the progress that they have made in moderating their government policies and throwing out the terrorists now would make me much less worrysome (I would worry about what government a coup might bring in, but the current government with nukes would not worry me).

Of cours,e were a lot of people in this very same board not saying a year ago that we should be worrying more about Iran and North Korea?  A lot of people were going on and on about how that was the REAL threat, and that we should leave Iraq alone and go after Iran.  Now that attention is being turned that way, they are now saying to leave Iran alone.

Of course, this would not be needed if the UN was not so corrupt and spineless.

Of cours,e were a lot of people in this very same board not saying a year ago that we should be worrying more about Iran and North Korea?  A lot of people were going on and on about how that was the REAL threat, and that we should leave Iraq alone and go after Iran.  Now that attention is being turned that way, they are now saying to leave Iran alone.

Of course, this would not be needed if the UN was not so corrupt and spineless.



I think part of the reason why people are saying leave Iran alone is because of the big mistake of Iraq. The main reason is that we have spread our military too thin. There are many troops in Iraq and Afganistan (remember Afganistan? Oh yeah, that's right-the place that Osama been forgotten is hiding). The Middle East is mess right now-partly because the U.S. is in the thick of it. I think if we go into Iran without doing something about Iraq and Afganistan first would be a HUGH mistake.



Cat

The Middle East is mess right now-partly because the U.S. is in the thick of it. I think if we go into Iran without doing something about Iraq and Afganistan first would be a HUGH mistake.


I'm sorry Cat, but the Middle East has been a mess for over 4,000 years.  And it will be a mess 4,000 years from now.  It was a mess when Babylon tried to run it.  It was a mess when Rome tried to run it.  It was even a mess when the Ottoman Empire ran it.  It was a mess under the French and Brittish, and it is still a mess today.

Personally, I do not think we should get involved with Iran.  It is probably the most unstable Government in the world.  They would love nothing better then to see Israel (and all Jews on Earth) destroyed.  And any country that does not share their radical fundamentalist religion is an Infidel enemy.  I wish that the UN would grow some cajones and make them follow the treaties they themselves agreed to.

However, it is looking more and more like nothing will be done.  Russia and China refuse to enact sanctions, and refuse to help the UN Security Council to enforce it's own sanctions and decisions.  So do not be surprised if within 5 years they have Nukes.  Better go to Israel now, because it may not be safe to visit for the next 500 years after that.

I'm sorry Cat, but the Middle East has been a mess for over 4,000 years.  And it will be a mess 4,000 years from now.  It was a mess when Babylon tried to run it.  It was a mess when Rome tried to run it.  It was even a mess when the Ottoman Empire ran it.  It was a mess under the French and Brittish, and it is still a mess today.

Personally, I do not think we should get involved with Iran.  It is probably the most unstable Government in the world.  They would love nothing better then to see Israel (and all Jews on Earth) destroyed.  And any country that does not share their radical fundamentalist religion is an Infidel enemy.  I wish that the UN would grow some cajones and make them follow the treaties they themselves agreed to.

However, it is looking more and more like nothing will be done.  Russia and China refuse to enact sanctions, and refuse to help the UN Security Council to enforce it's own sanctions and decisions.  So do not be surprised if within 5 years they have Nukes.  Better go to Israel now, because it may not be safe to visit for the next 500 years after that.



I do agree with you that the Middle East has been a mess for quite a while but my point is that the U.S. just makes things worse. I believe it was started when the U.S. put the Shah in power. Yes, Iran probably is a time bomb ready to go off but like I said, I don't feel that the U.S. is capable of handling another war front at this time.

As for going to Israel, been there, done that.




Cat

I think part of the reason why people are saying leave Iran alone is because of the big mistake of Iraq. The main reason is that we have spread our military too thin. There are many troops in Iraq and Afganistan (remember Afganistan? Oh yeah, that's right-the place that Osama been forgotten is hiding). The Middle East is mess right now-partly because the U.S. is in the thick of it. I think if we go into Iran without doing something about Iraq and Afganistan first would be a HUGH mistake.



Cat

They will need a compulsory draft and half a million more pairs of boots on the ground before they even think about nailing Iran...unless they're planning to just saturation bomb the place for a couple years. Who is this HUGH anyway?
::)

No.  :)

teehee.....when I first read this, I thought it said "half a million more pairs of booBs  :-[

Now, I hate to sound like a sexist pig, but THAT might distract the fellas from all the fighting for a while!
:P