-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Good Idea to Nuke Iran?
- Thread starter Daisy
- Start date
KenH
Well-Known Member
"At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of the world was occurring and that our superior economic and military power offered them a perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the Middle East."
- www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm
- www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm
- Congressman Ron Paul
Oh yes, good old Rep. Ron Paul and his Neo-Conned speech.
Well, some of what he says is unquestionably true, i.e. his argument that the Bush administration is not really conservative in many of it's policies. And I will hand it to him, he stopped short of claiming that 911 was engineered by Bush.
But Rep. Paul has a history of foot-in-mouth disease
A couple of examples:
In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a "half-educated victimologist." In another issue, he said: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
Ron Paul Bio
Rep. Paul voted against Katrina relief in New Orleans, saying, “... The other side claims we need to pump billions of new dollars into the very federal agency that failed (FEMA), while giving it extraordinary new police powers. Both sides support more authoritarianism, more centralization, and even the imposition of martial law in times of natural disasters.”.
Katrina Relief
Yet when Hurricane Rita hit Texas, he immediately called for a federal state of emergency declaration for the entire state of Texas….to include Disaster Unemployment Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, SBA disaster loans, and USDA loans, in addition to assistance from the U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security in general.
Texas State of Emergency
In other words, Ron Paul makes sense some of the time, but is prone to overstatement and hyperbole. I wouldn’t take anything he says too seriously.
emeraldctyangel
New Member
Just because I strongly oppose an action of my government (most actions of this particular administration) does not absolve me from responsibility. This country is mine every bit as much as it is yours - thus the "we".
Oh, a snide personal remark from eac...what a surprise.
Would their having a nuclear weapon disrupt your life? Would our attacking them to pre-empt their getting one disrupt your life?
This thread is not about one boastful press statement, it is about some US military advisors being disturbed that the White House will not take nuking Iran off the table.
From the article in the OP: "Nobody was advocating it, they were just saying a 100% guarantee. Where it becomes interesting, the joint chiefs, in one of its subsequent papers, wanted to withdraw that option because of course it's madness, a nuclear weapon in the Middle East to an Arab [sic] Muslim country, my God. And the White House won't withdraw.
"That's the issue, that the White House, some people there still wanted to have this option. That's what's causing the trauma, not that they're going to do it, but the White House won't take it off the table."
This was in several news reports last week. </font>[/QUOTE]You are correct in not be absolved from responsibility, freedom is not free and all those bumper sticker sayings. You might want to be a tad more responsible in your commentary then, seeing as how what we say on the internet is often the footprint of their nonsense, which in time leads to action on their part. If you want them to stop attacking or threatening to do so, then stop acting like individuals and more like a country. Nobody is advocating that you have to toe the party line, but a little division is considered weakness. Oh wait, I forgot to ask...do you even care about that?
Yeah Im all about questioning authority, Im all about making sure everyone is following the rules, and Im all about free speech. But what I am mostly all about is keeping those who want all those particular liberties to cease, far far away from any and all of us.
Their having a nuclear weapon disrupt my life...to some extent. But I rest easy with the knowledge that they know little of that which they threaten. We arent there yet. But we can go there if they want to. Hence, I am not worried. But if you are, I am sure someone could build you a bomb shelter or something, although I dont think itll really help.
The bottom line is, I know who I am, I know where I came from, and I am certain of where it is that I will go when this life is all over. I am prepared to meet my maker. But they should know that it isnt up to them to arrange that meeting.
Still dont care about chicken little news reports. Nobody is going to worry about that till we get there, but you should rest easy knowing we have a plan. Not a plan for a plan.
I feel my commentary is far more responisble than your own and I stand by it. Our freedom to criticize our government is one of our hallmark freedoms - use it or lose it.
I lack respect for such beliefs.
This thread is about Iran - they have not attacked us. Iraq did not attack us, either - we attacked them. Afghanistan didn't actually attack us but they harbored the ones who did.
I am an individual and I will certainly act like one. That is one of the weirdest admonitions I've ever heard.
Good - this is supposedly the land of the free.
Not in the least - only the insecure are worried about that. We are the world's only superpower and you're worried we may appear weak??? As compared to whom?
We have met the enemy and ....
They don't have a nuclear weapon; we do.
That seems to be their message to us. They're saying that if they had a nuclear weapon, we would think twice before invading them as we did Iraq.
Wrong, a lot of us are going to worry that we seem to be on our way there. We don't have "a" plan, we have many plans, one of which seems to be to nuke Iran.
emeraldctyangel
New Member
OH of course you do Daisy...youre so smart AND share such important details such as newspaper articles written by halfwit journalists! I just dont know how the country survived before you came along!!!
I see youve tweaked your skill of splitting hairs again where you are so firm on your stance of being the other side, that you cant wrap your mind around the fact that you are essentially saying you believe the same thing as those you are arguing against. "A plan" or many, it matters none. We have a plan to protect ourselves against an invasion from Canada too, that must really bother you since your a lot closer to that border than I.
The land of the free to divide I guess. Well at least everyone is clear where youll be standing. So what does your prayer rug look like?
If we have all the nuclear weaponry...then what is all this silly posting about? Sigh. Such drama for nothing I guess. Shows over folks, you can all go home now. Or this is the segway to the next entry by the crazies...the US will nuke its own people!!! AHHH RUN AWAY!!
In case you missed it, Iran can say anything it wants and surely has up to now...Im sure most of us wont be loosing sleep over it. So if you are so gladly posting about many plans, then whats the beef?
I see youve tweaked your skill of splitting hairs again where you are so firm on your stance of being the other side, that you cant wrap your mind around the fact that you are essentially saying you believe the same thing as those you are arguing against. "A plan" or many, it matters none. We have a plan to protect ourselves against an invasion from Canada too, that must really bother you since your a lot closer to that border than I.
The land of the free to divide I guess. Well at least everyone is clear where youll be standing. So what does your prayer rug look like?
If we have all the nuclear weaponry...then what is all this silly posting about? Sigh. Such drama for nothing I guess. Shows over folks, you can all go home now. Or this is the segway to the next entry by the crazies...the US will nuke its own people!!! AHHH RUN AWAY!!
In case you missed it, Iran can say anything it wants and surely has up to now...Im sure most of us wont be loosing sleep over it. So if you are so gladly posting about many plans, then whats the beef?
Is there a point to this tirade other than to express your personal distain for me?
You seem to be saying that I support what I am against? I can't quite make it out....
If one of those plans included strategic nuclear bombing of Canada, then yes, that would really bother me a lot. So far, I have not heard of any such plan being on the table.
There seems to be no middle ground in your world view - either support the president absolutely and voice no dissent on any of his policies or support al Qaeda absolutely. I flatly reject such a false dilemna.
If you had actually read the OP you would know that this thread is about one plan to nuke Iran to prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon of their own and whether that is a good idea or not. So far, most the posters have agreed that by and large it is not and have discussed the reasons for their opinions in a civil manner.
So far, you are the first poster here to pose that possibility; I daresay you will be the last.
If you would take the time to read the OP and the accompanying links, then perhaps you would understand what this discussion is about (perhaps not).
There is more to a debate, or a discussion, than insults and assertions.
emeraldctyangel
New Member
Apparently you wouldnt know that, spending so much time defending your position. Heal thyself physician.
I dont have to re-read the original post. I get it. By page 2 you have already decided whatever the theory is, youre against it. Good for you, take a stand. But you should prob put down your itty sword and spear for a minute to figure out that people agree with you. No nukes. Not even for Iran.
You usually have it all dissected by the time I get time to sit down and read it. Ah the drawbacks to being 6 hours behind. If I was a proper American koolaid drinker, I guess I could just read what you post, with your effective linkies and swallow hard. Not ever gonna happen.
But nonetheless, nobody in their proper senses would ever just lob a D5 and a random middle Eastern country just for kicks. As people have mentioned before, the threat is often sufficient enough. Apparently you cant live with that. Do you sleep at night?
Well youre always good for a laugh, even 6 hours behind East coast time.
I dont have to re-read the original post. I get it. By page 2 you have already decided whatever the theory is, youre against it. Good for you, take a stand. But you should prob put down your itty sword and spear for a minute to figure out that people agree with you. No nukes. Not even for Iran.
You usually have it all dissected by the time I get time to sit down and read it. Ah the drawbacks to being 6 hours behind. If I was a proper American koolaid drinker, I guess I could just read what you post, with your effective linkies and swallow hard. Not ever gonna happen.
But nonetheless, nobody in their proper senses would ever just lob a D5 and a random middle Eastern country just for kicks. As people have mentioned before, the threat is often sufficient enough. Apparently you cant live with that. Do you sleep at night?
Well youre always good for a laugh, even 6 hours behind East coast time.
You seem to be equating, erroneously, defending a position with insulting other people.
Good - you actually did read it once then? And yet you still missed the actual subject... (remember, your posts are still right there; everyone still read what you wrote before)
Hm, I wonder - your comments indicate otherwise.
Whatever what theory is?
Uh-huh...Isn't that what I already said in the post just before? To wit: "If you had actually read the OP you would know that this thread is about one plan to nuke Iran to prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon of their own and whether that is a good idea or not. So far, most the posters have agreed that by and large it is not and have discussed the reasons for their opinions in a civil manner."
Even where there is general agreement a discussion can still be interesting, even pleasant. When there is no interest in a thread, it dies on its on accord.
The OP was posted nearly 2 weeks ago and page 2 ended nearly a week ago - plenty of time for you to have chimed in.
Do you ever read any of the links? If not, how can you dismiss them out of hand when you are totally ignorant of what is in them?
Since you claim to have actually read this thread, you are already aware that no one said they would, so that seems a gratuitous comment at best.
OTOH, gratuitous is a big step up from insulting so - hey, great comment!
Well, I think that is where it gets interesting: Iran claims it wants a nuclear weapon precisely for the deterrent effect it would have on us. They would seem to have a point, the same point you have just made. What do you think of that idea?
That doesn't follow.
I suspect it is you who is insomniac. Please get some sleep.
Thank you.
One of the reasons I never debate Daisy ,that and the fact she is a pragmatic. Emerald surely you'll give it a rest(6 hrs) since you probably want to drag yourself out of a crater.
Wow! the name of this high ordinance is a "Daisy
cutter" how ironic.
Daisy cutter
Daisy cutter
For the record would not use this on Iran in a secret preemptive strike either or any higher ordinance it will get the same response as if it were a nuclear device imho.
Like the marine general said ..they make "a heck of a bang when they go off and their intent is to kill people" odd I thought we were trying to destroy a facility or facilities?
Wow! the name of this high ordinance is a "Daisy
cutter" how ironic.
Daisy cutter
Daisy cutter
For the record would not use this on Iran in a secret preemptive strike either or any higher ordinance it will get the same response as if it were a nuclear device imho.
Like the marine general said ..they make "a heck of a bang when they go off and their intent is to kill people" odd I thought we were trying to destroy a facility or facilities?
The daisy cutters were used to collapse the caves in Afganistan.
The animated film greatly exaggerates the size of the explosion compared to the size of the plane, making it look just like a nuclear explosion. Besides, the animated film is that of the MOAB and not the Daisy Cutter. The designs are completely different.
The real film of the Daisy cutter is also in error when it says the parachute is used to allow the plane to excape the blast. This is also an exaggeration of the power of the bomb. The parachute is to stablize the bomb in the nose-down position so that the directional blast has the optimum effect. Not to allow the airplane to escape. The same thing with the MOAB, but it also slows the weapon so that the GPS receiver can steer the weapon over a larger target area.
There is other ordinance which would be used on Iran's reactors.
Politically, the MOAB or Daisy Cutter would not be considered as a tactical nuke. There is little comparison and the difference is quite obvious even to the casual observer.
The animated film greatly exaggerates the size of the explosion compared to the size of the plane, making it look just like a nuclear explosion. Besides, the animated film is that of the MOAB and not the Daisy Cutter. The designs are completely different.
The real film of the Daisy cutter is also in error when it says the parachute is used to allow the plane to excape the blast. This is also an exaggeration of the power of the bomb. The parachute is to stablize the bomb in the nose-down position so that the directional blast has the optimum effect. Not to allow the airplane to escape. The same thing with the MOAB, but it also slows the weapon so that the GPS receiver can steer the weapon over a larger target area.
There is other ordinance which would be used on Iran's reactors.
Politically, the MOAB or Daisy Cutter would not be considered as a tactical nuke. There is little comparison and the difference is quite obvious even to the casual observer.
emeraldctyangel
New Member
LOL I totally understand Winston Groom now. Thanks Daisy! And A-pal...great movie, but you are standing corrected. Im in no crater apal (and for the record, you are rarely seen as debating anyone really), but thanks for caring. Ive always viewed Daisy as more of an implosion than anything else.
I do have a job Daisy, but it seems you have no work only all this free time to post endless tirades on a Baptist website. How fascinating!
I guess you are not aware that Hawaii is 6 hours away and my posts show in whatever time zone you are in, and that might seem to *you* as if I stay up all night. I dont. I sleep well. As fully disclosed in previous posts. The reason I can sleep so well, is because I know there is nothing in the world that will bring down the US quite that easily.
What I think is that Iran is being presided over by a crazy man. The US is wise to be mindful of what they are dealing with to some extent. I personally dont think much of Iran or what they say. If and that is a big IF, they have a nuke, they know what to do with it, and they fully intend on using it on us...I expect Iran to be a bit of a distant memory, a place where even bacteria cease to exist. That is what I think of Iran and their *deterrent* speech. And yours.
Perhaps with all that spew, your ego is assauged? Glad I could help. Next topic.
I do have a job Daisy, but it seems you have no work only all this free time to post endless tirades on a Baptist website. How fascinating!
I guess you are not aware that Hawaii is 6 hours away and my posts show in whatever time zone you are in, and that might seem to *you* as if I stay up all night. I dont. I sleep well. As fully disclosed in previous posts. The reason I can sleep so well, is because I know there is nothing in the world that will bring down the US quite that easily.
What I think is that Iran is being presided over by a crazy man. The US is wise to be mindful of what they are dealing with to some extent. I personally dont think much of Iran or what they say. If and that is a big IF, they have a nuke, they know what to do with it, and they fully intend on using it on us...I expect Iran to be a bit of a distant memory, a place where even bacteria cease to exist. That is what I think of Iran and their *deterrent* speech. And yours.
Perhaps with all that spew, your ego is assauged? Glad I could help. Next topic.
Nuking Mecca isn't a far fetched idea. The effect would be devastating on all those who want to send us all back to the stone age under the banner of allah akbar, because they are very, very superstitious. We wouldn't even have to use nukes, just a daisy cutter on the black rock idol there. The ripple effect throughout the arab world, i.e., mullahs and imams, would drive them out of business from having such captive audiences every Friday. Terrorism based on the black rock would be out of business.
Well, that would sure put an end to civil wars and local disputes as all of the Moslem world, as well as all who need their oil, would unite against us. Far from driving them out of business, it would drive the liberal & moderate Moslems to join the extremists.
Do you think we'd have enough oil to get by after we get cut off? Would Chavez be our new best friend?
That would be a lot worst than the Taliban blowing up the Buddhas because of all the deaths of the innocents and this being the actual center of their worship....We would be the world's pariah.