I Wear Pants;977283 wrote:Reps.

Reps for loving America and knowing that we must fight them there so they don't attack us here.

It seems I can't rep you until I spread some rep around.

dwccrew;977308 wrote:Reps for loving America and knowing that we must fight them there so they don't attack us here.

It seems I can't rep you until I spread some rep around.

We have to be rep whores on this site. Justin loves whores (just look at his wife).

I Wear Pants;977362 wrote:We have to be rep whores on this site. Justin loves whores (just look at his wife).

I'd rather not.

Now I said, I didn't necessarily think an invasion of Iran was in order, and quite frankly, none of us really has the inside knowledge whether such would be feasible or warranted, but it is a no brainer that the United States not abdicate it's responsibility as the lone country capable of policing nuclear weapons proliferation. The military option should never be taken off the table. Not ever not no how.
Now you can subscribe to the doddering reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain who had the conviction to state (as quoted from World Net Daily

Paul said a better art of persuasion would be to offer friendship, the way the U.S. approached the Soviets and Chinese. “I was in the military during the ’60s and it was dangerous. But we didn’t think we have to attack the Soviets. They had capabilities. The Iranians can’t make enough gasoline for themselves.
For them to be a threat to us or to anybody in the region I think is just blown out of proportion,” he said

Really Ron?....an oil rich nation like Iran can't make enough gasoline? You'd think they'd try to get the technology to build REFINERIES rather than risk sanctions by appearing to build and aquire nuclear technology and all the scrutiny and sanctions that non compliance with the IAEA offers. Duh!!!

.....but there are a lot of people on OC that think Paul is God and they are honorable men.,,,,,

P.S. don't care about fukkkkin reps.

They um, do have gas shortages in Iran. They even ration gasoline. There were riots about it and everything. And building refineries isn't exactly simple or cheap. The Iranian government isn't really keen on spending money to make the lives of their people better so you don't see them dropping tons on refineries.

The military option should be off the table in all but the most extreme circumstances you war monger. We have no right or responsibility to police anyone.

P.S. QQ that you don't have more reps.

Military action is off the table unless we are prepared to collapse our entire economic and monetary system. U.S. credit default swaps are rising and the Fed had to print more money to buy up our treasuries at the latest failed t-bill auction. Where are we going to get the money? No one wants to buy any more of our debt. Do you warmongers understand this?

Exactly, even if we had the right or responsibility (we don't) to be world police we cannot, absolutely cannot, afford it.

And building refineries isn't exactly simple or cheap. The Iranian government isn't really keen on spending money to make the lives of their people better so you don't see them dropping tons on refineries.

But they have money to develop nuclear? They won't build refineries...but they'll do nuclear....ugly, dangerous nuclear. You want to deal with this government with weakness? Re read my posts. I am not advocating military intervention. You can argue that we can't afford "it" But what you are really talking about is an Iraq style occupation. I get that. That is not the only military option....and you don't (at least publicly) take those remaining options off the table. Not in this part of the world.

I Wear Pants;977533 wrote:And building refineries isn't exactly simple or cheap.

I'll buy not cheap, but not simple? As compared to a nuclear weapons program, an oil refinery is quite straightforward.

HitsRus;977686 wrote:But they have money to develop nuclear? They won't build refineries...but they'll do nuclear....ugly, dangerous nuclear. You want to deal with this government with weakness? Re read my posts. I am not advocating military intervention. You can argue that we can't afford "it" But what you are really talking about is an Iraq style occupation. I get that. That is not the only military option....and you don't (at least publicly) take those remaining options off the table. Not in this part of the world.

Now I'm not saying Iran is sincere, but the way I understand it is that the Iranians say they want Nuclear so they can rely on that for their own domestic energy needs and leave more of their oil wealth available for exportation.

fish82;976823 wrote:Even if they do get a nuke, they don't have the balls to use it...they know full well they'd get turned into a parking lot in short order.

Fishy for the win!!

Reps for you!!. And all this time you thought I was a dikc.

HitsRus;977686 wrote:But they have money to develop nuclear? They won't build refineries...but they'll do nuclear....ugly, dangerous nuclear. You want to deal with this government with weakness? Re read my posts. I am not advocating military intervention. You can argue that we can't afford "it" But what you are really talking about is an Iraq style occupation. I get that. That is not the only military option....and you don't (at least publicly) take those remaining options off the table. Not in this part of the world.

We cannot afford any military operations against anyone. At all. Bombing, whatever. What part of "we have no money" doesn't make sense?

Unless we're being attacked we should not be killing people. Our military actions account for a large part of the dislike, and subsequent hostilities towards the US. It's nothing to do with the religion of the majority of our citizens, our freedom, or anything else. It's because we kill an unbelievable number of people. Hundreds of thousands of them. Sure they're in "justified" conflicts most of the time. But say a Christian who had some support in the US bombed some place in China. And then they blew the hell out of a ton of places in the US killing thousands and thousands. We wouldn't care about the justification, we'd say "I didn't know the fucking guy that did that, nor did I support his violent actions, you have no right to kill my family and friends". Then we would do everything we could to seek vengeance.

It's a vicious cycle that can only end when we stop trying to be the police of the world. There is no other way about it. We cannot kill everyone that wants to harm us because everytime we kill someone their brother, or husband, or son, etc now has an incredible hatred for the United States.

We can't afford any more wars or bombing missions financially or morally. They're wrong in every sense of the word. They are making us less safe, not more, and are compromising our economic security as well.

queencitybuckeye;977888 wrote:I'll buy not cheap, but not simple? As compared to a nuclear weapons program, an oil refinery is quite straightforward.

You forget though that the government would like the recognition and respect that comes with being a nuclear power, they could really give a shit if their citizens have gas for their cars.

I Wear Pants;977134 wrote:How in the **** is Iran going to take a US city "hostage"? Seriously. They have a history of taking hostages consisting of people who put in place the dictators they just deposed.

I believe that whether or not Iran does or does not have WMD is completely irrelevant to whether or not we should go to war with them. We have no right to either way. We are not, should not, and have no right to be telling other nations what to do.

Inb4 "but but but Israel".

As for fish claiming it's just posturing for the base...**** us, seriously **** the United States if the base of one of our two parties would be happy about starting an unprovoked war with a country, especially one that would make us in 3 concurrent wars at the same time. The difference between Obama saying "we should be out now" or whatever he said and the GOP candidates talking about bombing Iran is that one should have been what we did and the other is morally wrong and insane.

Who said anyone would be "happy" about it? Seriously bro...could you BE a little more of a drama queen?

Footwedge;977943 wrote:Fishy for the win!!

Reps for you!!. And all this time you thought I was a dikc.

I don't think you're a dikc.

You're one of the few that can hang with Fish...jousting with you is fun.

fish82;979222 wrote:Who said anyone would be "happy" about it? Seriously bro...could you BE a little more of a drama queen?

Easily.

There are a lot of assumptions built off a lot of these posts.
First, someone had it right that the R's are talking a big game because its the primary. All talk, no substance.
Second, Iran still has a lot to do to make a nuke.
Mainly, if they want to enrich their uranium from 20% to weapons grad and 90%, the so called breakout, they need to kick the IAEA out, withdraw from the IAEA safeguards agreement, and then enrich.
Assuming they do that, and then have no diplomatic consequences (which is unlikely), they would still have to enrich the uranium, which would take from 1-2 years given their technology and reliability of centrifuges.

Or, Iran will continue on its current course, just enriching uranium up to 20% and keep stockpiling it, while not overtly doing anything to notify the world that they have a weapons program. That includes secretly enriching small amounts over years to high levels, and not testing a weapon and not telling anyone in the region. That gives Iran the huge trump card to act as it sees fit.

Another assumption is say Iran announces, that the only options are live with it, or bomb. Well, that ignores the technical sanction, the cyber attacks, and the assassinations that we can use. Also, the rest of the region can take measures to arm themselves and use their own force to establish deterrence with Iran. This can also involve missile defense systems set up in the Gulf.

There a lot of different ways the situation can go. In addition, there are internal rumblings between the clergy and the President. It is unknown how that will play out. Also, it is unknown how the rest of the region, mainly Turkey and Saudi, will act if Iran moves toward nukes. They could establish their own programs, or ask the U.S. to extend a nuclear umbrella over them.

ptown_trojans_1;979696 wrote:There a lot of different ways the situation can go. In addition, there are internal rumblings between the clergy and the President. It is unknown how that will play out. Also, it is unknown how the rest of the region, mainly Turkey and Saudi, will act if Iran moves toward nukes. They could establish their own programs, or ask the U.S. to extend a nuclear umbrella over them.

I can see the Saudis establishing their own nuke program. They certainly have the resources. That, of course, would piss off the Israelis and plunge the region into further flux.

As far as Turkey is concerned, as a member of NATO they already have a sort of nuclear umbrella provided by the member states via Article 5 of the NATO alliance. That, of course, assumes the members have the balls to honor their commitments.

Oops, wait a minute....apparently not: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_EUROPE_MILITARY_SPENDING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-11-19-08-24-57

I Wear Pants;978832 wrote:We cannot afford any military operations against anyone. At all. Bombing, whatever. What part of "we have no money" doesn't make sense?

Unless we're being attacked we should not be killing people. Our military actions account for a large part of the dislike, and subsequent hostilities towards the US. It's nothing to do with the religion of the majority of our citizens, our freedom, or anything else. It's because we kill an unbelievable number of people. Hundreds of thousands of them. Sure they're in "justified" conflicts most of the time. But say a Christian who had some support in the US bombed some place in China. And then they blew the hell out of a ton of places in the US killing thousands and thousands. We wouldn't care about the justification, we'd say "I didn't know the ****ing guy that did that, nor did I support his violent actions, you have no right to kill my family and friends". Then we would do everything we could to seek vengeance.

It's a vicious cycle that can only end when we stop trying to be the police of the world. There is no other way about it. We cannot kill everyone that wants to harm us because everytime we kill someone their brother, or husband, or son, etc now has an incredible hatred for the United States.

We can't afford any more wars or bombing missions financially or morally. They're wrong in every sense of the word. They are making us less safe, not more, and are compromising our economic security as well.

America....Love it or leave it.

We cannot afford any military operations against anyone. At all. Bombing, whatever. What part of "we have no money" doesn't make sense?

The part where we spend $850 billion on Obama care.

believer;980327 wrote:I can see the Saudis establishing their own nuke program. They certainly have the resources. That, of course, would piss off the Israelis and plunge the region into further flux.

As far as Turkey is concerned, as a member of NATO they already have a sort of nuclear umbrella provided by the member states via Article 5 of the NATO alliance. That, of course, assumes the members have the balls to honor their commitments.

Oops, wait a minute....apparently not: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_EUROPE_MILITARY_SPENDING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-11-19-08-24-57

Yeah, we do have B61 nukes, under NATO, in Turkey.
The actual usage of those bombs is not actually subject to full authority under NATO. The U.S. owns them and can use them with or without the alliance.
The Turks know that and may want a nuke capacity of their own.

The thing is, if the other states in the region wanted their own nuke program, it won't be until at least 2017-18 range given that both Saudi and Turkey have no nuclear infrastructure or knowledge base.

Consistency must count for something in this world, even if it is the consistency of hatred for America. The idea that our nation is an evil force in this world continues. We find Americans with a kind word for Al Queda and the Taliban, repeated justification for the killers of our countrymen. These Americans worry over the rights of Osama bin Laden, Ala Waki and John Walker Lindh. Again and Again they refuse to see our nation's motives as good while ignoring the religious fanaticism that drives our enemies.

isadore;983210 wrote:Consistency must count for something in this world, even if it is the consistency of hatred for America. The idea that our nation is an evil force in this world continues. We find Americans with a kind word for Al Queda and the Taliban, repeated justification for the killers of our countrymen. These Americans worry over the rights of Osama bin Laden, Ala Waki and John Walker Lindh. Again and Again they refuse to see our nation's motives as good while ignoring the religious fanaticism that drives our enemies.

Lol.

"I'm a insane nationalist and if you say anything bad about our country then you're unamerican and are sympathizing with terrorist scum" - isadore/Hitler if you exchange "unamerican" for unpure/ungerman.

ts1227;983265 wrote:

It begins anew.