Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 277
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    The fact that you didnt read it doesnt make it go away. The administration has not denied it, and in fact responded with, "all options are on the table".
    Saying "all options are on the table" is not the same as saying "we are planning on using nukes". But I noticed you completely ignored the real point of my statement which was: Which came first? The threat to the US or the threat to Iran?

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    1.)Your attempt to question my integrity by using the word Bogus, calls in to question your own character.
    What??? Okay, would you rather I use the term "invalid"? If it makes you feel better, your argument is invalid.

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    2.) Again you are attempting to draw attention away from the substance of the argument. If you dont like the choice of Nations I used in my analogy, then choose any 2 you like. North Korea threatening to nuke Japan if they dont stop persuing nukes. Be creative. The point is the arrogance, and contradiction apparent in the stance.
    Actually, if Japan started a nuclear weapons program and also threatened to wipe NK or one of its few allies off the face of the earth, then I would assume NK would make this threat. But that doesn't change the fact that Japan isn't and we haven't. Thus, your analogy is invalid.

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    3.) Again, you can have an opinion that what has come out of the white house does not constitute threats, but you forget that your opinions are not fact.
    Whether it constitutes a threat is irrelevant. There was no direct threat of nuclear force as was your analogy.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Of course there is, I am simply pointing out the obvious Irony inherent in nuking a country for trying to get nukes.
    I almost feel foolish for asking but don't you see a difference between "nuking Iran" as you would say and "using nukes to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program"? It seems as though you make no distinction and want to equate it to dropping a nuke in downtown Tehran.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by dstrauss
    The effectiveness of quick decisive action shouldn't be underestimated. I'm sure you are unalterably opposed to my jingoistic bent, as much as I am of your left wing diatribe. That's a given. Just tell me WHERE and WHEN appeasement has ever worked in history to back down a rogue state? Just one little example please.
    It's not just appeasement vs. military action. Besides, there are lots of examples where military action led nowhere: Pig Bay/Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia, and, possibly, Iraq come to mind. And there is at least one huge example where no (direct) military action did the trick in the end: the Sowjet Union.

    But still, in a year or two, in case Iran is indeed still on the path to nuclear bombs, military action may be warranted.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Which came first? The threat to the US or the threat to Iran?
    From a historical perspective: the action of the US against Iran was first (removing the elected Prime Minister from power, supporting the Shah, supporting Saddam Hussein's attack on Iran, etc.). That does not necessarily have to influence which action should be taken now, but you might nevertheless acknowledge the fact.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    From a historical perspective: the action of the US against Iran was first (removing the elected Prime Minister from power, supporting the Shah, supporting Saddam Hussein's attack on Iran, etc.). That does not necessarily have to influence which action should be taken now, but you might nevertheless acknowledge the fact.
    Supporting the Iranian Shah, for centuries the traditional head of state of Iran, was an action against Iran?
  6.    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    You just agreed with me. We didn't develop nuclear weapons for power, but neither did we say so. If Iran want to be honest, I will welcome there efforts toward honesty (though not that efforts toward weaponization). But it is borderline comedy to hear them say they are interested in nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.
    Is Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf working or Iran now?

    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/01/2006 at 10:42 PM.
  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    It's not just appeasement vs. military action. Besides, there are lots of examples where military action led nowhere: Pig Bay/Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia, and, possibly, Iraq come to mind. And there is at least one huge example where no (direct) military action did the trick in the end: the Sowjet Union.

    But still, in a year or two, in case Iran is indeed still on the path to nuclear bombs, military action may be warranted.
    If Iran is as close to being able to produce nuclear weapons as many suspect, we may not have a year or two to wait. Iran needs to allow an internantional team in now and not play games with the team to verify the status of the program.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    It's not just appeasement vs. military action. Besides, there are lots of examples where military action led nowhere: Pig Bay/Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia, and, possibly, Iraq come to mind. And there is at least one huge example where no (direct) military action did the trick in the end: the Sowjet Union.

    But still, in a year or two, in case Iran is indeed still on the path to nuclear bombs, military action may be warranted.
    You are right, there are failed military actions as well, but its interesting that three of the four took place on Democratic watches.

    Your example of the Soviet Union as a diplomatic success is way off base. The rapid military build up under Reagan, coupled with international (US led) economic advancements (think Coca Cola, McDonalds, and Microsoft) brought down the Berlin Wall, and then Red Square - NOT a bunch of pinhead diplomats like Dean Rusk who thought you could talk the bear down.
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  9.    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    It's not just appeasement vs. military action. Besides, there are lots of examples where military action led nowhere: Pig Bay/Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia, and, possibly, Iraq come to mind. And there is at least one huge example where no (direct) military action did the trick in the end: the Sowjet Union.

    But still, in a year or two, in case Iran is indeed still on the path to nuclear bombs, military action may be warranted.
    Sure there are failed military examples (or else the Military Channel would loose half of it's programming ), but there are certainly successful ones as well that seem to tip the scale in the opposite direction.

    Sure, not one shot was fired officially (though many were fired and many died covertly), but the fall of Russia was NOT due to appeasement, negotiations, and talking to them. It was about building up a military might that could be used as a moments notice. All options were always on the table with little doubt that it would be used without hesitation if needed or provoked. It was only thru the threat of military might, economic pressure, etc...that it succeeded.

    WWII is a perfect example of both approaches. France and other EU nations tried to reason with and negotiate with Hitler without really any serious military alternative. What happened and what caused his downfall?

    Please do NOT misinterpret my response as military might....fight, fight, fight! I am saying diplomacy, negotiations, talks, etc... only go so far when the other side continually exercises stall tactics as they need time on their side to get what they want. Sanctions can then become a viable next step, on a case by case basis. But all along military action, is never taken off the table and willing to back it up the moment it is needed.....and not before.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Please do NOT misinterpret my response as military might....fight, fight, fight! I am saying diplomacy, negotiations, talks, etc... only go so far when the other side continually exercises stall tactics as they need time on their side to get what they want. Sanctions can then become a viable next step, on a case by case basis. But all along military action, is never taken off the table and willing to back it up the moment it is needed.....and not before.
    See, we can agree on something. It is quite clear that Iran is still quite some time away from enough weapon-grade Plutonium for a bomb. I guess the US and the rest of the western world have to start doing some homework: decrease dependency on oil, namely Middle Eastern oil fast. It will not be fast enough for this time, but maybe next time?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  11.    #31  
    No I do not think we are still on the same line of thought.....though yes with many of the same actions in our lines of thought. I think there is strong possibility that we do NOT have that much time. But the process that we must take CAN take a long time. Especially considering that if we go the sanctions rout, wait for the Iran to comply, and then have to go back to the UN set forth consequence, wait for time to comply before consequences are enacted, then back to the UN to enact them, wait to see if they comply, and then back to the UN again to enforce the decision to follow thru with consequences.....ect...

    Anytime during this time Iran, says...."There now there is no debate, we have been enriching the whole time and now we are just about to successfully test our nuke weapon". It has to be clear what will trigger military action. Developing a nuke weapon, which they say they are not doing it, is one of those triggers that if offered as a threat needs to be acted upon and followed thru immediately.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    You just agreed with me. We didn't develop nuclear weapons for power, but neither did we say so. If Iran want to be honest, I will welcome there efforts toward honesty (though not that efforts toward weaponization). But it is borderline comedy to hear them say they are interested in nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.
    I am pretty sure our nuke program was 100 percent a secret, but if we had been asked in 1941 why we were enriching uranium, I will bet you would have heard the same bullsh1t.
  13. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I am pretty sure our nuke program was 100 percent a secret, but if we had been asked in 1941 why we were enriching uranium, I will bet you would have heard the same bullsh1t.
    I doubt it. I am sure it was a military secret, but don't believe we were being told that those explosions and mushroom clouds were us trying to improve energy sources. I know it is silly to ask, but did you happen to have any sort of reference to back your bet?
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  14.    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I am pretty sure our nuke program was 100 percent a secret, but if we had been asked in 1941 why we were enriching uranium, I will bet you would have heard the same bullsh1t.
    Man.....do you know your history?.....it was in the hight of one of the most major wars in the history of the World. We were fighting two fronts on the opposite sides of world. It was a race of survival, and nothing less. No one really knew what the nuke would do as a weapon beyond calculations on a chalk board as they were developing it. Atomic Energy use was only a theory at the time. Japan and Germany were working together to try to develop the nuke before we did. We (aka USA with majority of kudos going the British on the Germany side of the pond) actively took out several of the nuke facilities with military and covert means to stop Germany & Japan from developing the weapon. When the first test went off, the developers were stunned with what they created.

    There is simply no comparison in any way, shape, or form, between 1941 and now.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/01/2006 at 04:03 PM.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I am pretty sure our nuke program was 100 percent a secret, but if we had been asked in 1941 why we were enriching uranium, I will bet you would have heard the same bullsh1t.
    So once again, you are agreeing with me. Iran is building nuclear weapons. It is getting easier to convice people all the time!
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    So once again, you are agreeing with me. Iran is building nuclear weapons. It is getting easier to convice people all the time!
    lol, of course they are
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Man.....do you know your history?.....it was in the hight of one of the most major wars in the history of the World. We were fighting two fronts on the opposite sides of world. It was a race of survival, and nothing less. No one really knew what the nuke would do as a weapon beyond calculations on a chalk board as they were developing it. Atomic Energy use was only a theory at the time. Japan and Germany were working together to try to develop the nuke before we did. We (aka USA with majority of kudos going the British on the Germany side of the pond) actively took out several of the nuke facilities with military and covert means to stop Germany & Japan from developing the weapon. When the first test went off, the developers were stunned with what they created.

    There is simply no comparison in any way, shape, or form, between 1941 and now.
    Sigh, Thank you for educating me with the history lesson Hobbes.

    Again.

    I will try to refrain from calling you arrogant.

    Of course there is no comparison between 1941 and now because in 1941, WE were the ones building the bomb to drop on the bad guys, and everyone knows we are the good guys.

    And it's not entirely relevant to the parties engaged in a Nuclear arms race, how much of the world is involved, nor does it matter what bull**** cover story they give while they are developing the bomb, their survival is always equally at stake.
  18. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Sigh, Thank you for educating me with the history lesson Hobbes.

    Again.

    I will try to refrain from calling you arrogant.

    Of course there is no comparison between 1941 and now because in 1941, WE were the ones building the bomb to drop on the bad guys, and everyone knows we are the good guys.

    And it's not entirely relevant to the parties engaged in a Nuclear arms race, how much of the world is involved, nor does it matter what bull**** cover story they give while they are developing the bomb, their survival is always equally at stake.
    spin, spin , spin

    d@mn, you change your stories fast.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  19.    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I am pretty sure our nuke program was 100 percent a secret, but if we had been asked in 1941 why we were enriching uranium, I will bet you would have heard the same bullsh1t.
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Of course there is no comparison between 1941 and now because in 1941
    Guess I was confused as it appeared you were attempting a comparison between our development of the nuke in 1941 and Iran's attempts now.....and with a contradicting statement following my response.



    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I will try to refrain from calling you arrogant.
    I guess if that is meaning I was being factual.....



    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    does it matter what bull**** cover story they give while they are developing the bomb, their survival is always equally at stake.
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Again you are attempting to draw attention away from the substance of the argument. If you dont like the choice of Nations I used in my analogy, then choose any 2 you like. North Korea threatening to nuke Japan if they dont stop persuing nukes. Be creative. The point is the arrogance, and contradiction apparent in the stance.
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    If I lived in Iran, and I heard George Bush give a speech where he listed me in the "Axis of Evil". Then he invaded the country to my left which was the first on the list, and then literally made plans to drop the bomb on me. I would want the nukes as well.
    I cannot figure out if you are for Iran obtaining the nuke bomb or not?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/01/2006 at 11:05 PM.
  20. #40  
    Let's remember:

    Hostage crisis as described by the author of Black Hawk Down.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5373517
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions