Good Idea to Nuke Iran?

[emeraldctyangel]

Wow. Might be time to put aside the personal agendas and deal with the here and now. And Daisy...whats this 'we' business? I suspect you'd be the last to defend yourself or any other in this land.

It is never a good time to use Nuclear warheads. Potentially, we could see the end of the world. So if we are there, we better be prepared to meet our maker. However, nuclear weapons are deterrents, and are only going to deter something if they are used.

I dont know what Iran is doing and frankly, I DONT CARE. I shall keep living my life in the way that I do now, until they disrupt it, and then they will suffer those consequences. There are millions of people out here that feel the same way.

One boastful press statement doesnt make us cower or change the way we live. But it sure changes theirs, doesnt it?

 

[mnw]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I disagree with you likewise.Whilst carrying njo torch for Islam, it does seem that we in the West strike a massive double standard: it's OK for us and 'people like us' to have nuclear weapons but not anyone else; it's OK for us to invade other countries but not anyone else etc.

I think the worldwide agreement, the basis for UN intervention in such cases, is that if you have nuclear weapons then it is a shame but the process must be in place to reduce and ultimately get rid of them. If you do not have nuclear weapons then do not seek to have them.

Nuclear energy is one thing, weapons grade uranium is another. In a world that is meant to be moving for peace why the need for nuclear weapons?

I could be wrong, and probably am.

But that is how I understand it.

The knowledge of particular nations having the willful intent to destory another nation should make us very concerned about that nation getting nuclear capability.

I dont know what Iran is doing and frankly, I DONT CARE. I shall keep living my life in the way that I do now, until they disrupt it, and then they will suffer those consequences. There are millions of people out here that feel the same way.

The danger with this stance is that millions could die before we get a chance to retaliate. Prevention is better than a cure...

 

[Kilad]

MOAB's Yes Nukes No

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Kilad:
MOAB's Yes Nukes No

Bingo!

 

[Phillip]

An interesting sidebar, Kilad. The MOAB was to remain secret until it was tested in Florida and caused a mushroom cloud very much like a nuke. The Army then had to tell the press that it existed or get accused of testing a real nuke.

Why use a nuke when you can simulate the same amount of overpressure with an airburst. Or use some penetrators in combination with a MOAB.

Just some thoughts. I'm assuming if and when military action is used it will be both surgical and put Iran back a few years into the technological darkages.

It is intersting that when the Shah left Iran, the leaders (Ayotolah and such) were so fundamentalist that they would not use techology and started getting rid of anything that was related to western technology, essentially pushing Iran backwards. Interestingly, they have switched their attitude, remaining fundamentalist, but embracing western technology.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by emeraldctyangel:
Wow. Might be time to put aside the personal agendas and deal with the here and now. And Daisy...whats this 'we' business?

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".

I suspect you'd be the last to defend yourself or any other in this land.

Oh, a snide personal remark from eac...what a surprise.

It is never a good time to use Nuclear warheads. Potentially, we could see the end of the world. So if we are there, we better be prepared to meet our maker. However, nuclear weapons are deterrents, and are only going to deter something if they are used.

I dont know what Iran is doing and frankly, I DONT CARE. I shall keep living my life in the way that I do now, until they disrupt it, and then they will suffer those consequences. There are millions of people out here that feel the same way.

Would their having a nuclear weapon disrupt your life? Would our attacking them to pre-empt their getting one disrupt your life?

One boastful press statement doesnt make us cower or change the way we live. But it sure changes theirs, doesnt it?

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.

 

[Phillip]

Daisy, its all about posturing. This method was used successfully in the past by Democrat presidents. Especially, Kennedy.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Daisy, its all about posturing. This method was used successfully in the past by Democrat presidents. Especially, Kennedy.

Yes, you're probably right.

But that's what I thought about the invasion of Iraq .... before it happened.

 

[LadyEagle]

This on Fox News last night:

Tehran Threatens West With Homicide Attacks
Sunday, April 16, 2006

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran has formed battalions of suicide bombers to strike at British and American targets if the nation’s nuclear sites are attacked. According to Iranian officials, 40,000 trained suicide bombers are ready for action.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191910,00.html

I say nuke 'em. But just make sure the wind patterns don't blow where our troops are located next door, Afghanistan.

 

[Daisy]

Nuke them because they want to defend themselves if they're attacked first?

 

[LadyEagle]

Yep, I'm more than just a little sick of these jihadists and their ideology and one of these days, maybe the rest of the civilized world will get sick of it, too.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Daisy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
God loves us best or He wouldn't have given us nukes
That's an interesting thing to say... since I am aware of no conservative or fundamentalist who has ever said it. So basically you are putting words in the mouths of your opposition... the same thing as lying.

And where have I said that any one other than myself has said that? Your saying that I'm putting words in anyone's mouth is simply wrong.

You've accused me of lying, Scott. I have not. You owe me an apology. </font>[/QUOTE] I apologize on the assumption that I misunderstood what you meant. However the way you wrote that response implies that those are things your opponents either have or would say... not that they are words you would say. Would you actually say that God gave us Nukes because He loves us best Daisy or were you in fact implying that a conservative would say it?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
The way I see it Daisy has not lied...everyone knows Daisy is one of the best in the debates and she has credibilty from those from the left and right.

Never said anything different. From the normal implications of what she wrote, she appeared to be saying that someone besides here (presumably someone like me) would say that God loved us best because He gave us nukes. I called her on it.

If it is in fact as I understood then it is not an honest debate tactic and in fact points to someone who is "losing...big time".

beside everyone knows, whoever debates, once the debater calls the other a liar it usually means that person is losing...big time.

Yes. Except when you catch someone using dishonest tactics... and then the reverse is true.

As for Scott J he enjoys his life on a farm far away from people ..he probably debates with the animals...just don't call a Lama a liar
Scott J. less you Dali.

Yes. This is certainly indicative of a master debater who never resorts to ad hominem.

It is immoral for Christians to be pro bombing that goes from Dresden to the London bombings to current IED's in Iraq.

That is an opinion.

The Romans had one of the most ruthless armies of all time at the time of Christ. Can you point to a place where He condemned them for engaging in war? Can you point to any scripture that says that it is immoral for nations to make war against aggressors?

Moral question: If one child could be saved from not bombing or the results of bombing and that one child later becomes a Christian would you still bomb Iran.

Moral question: If one child could be saved by preventing the spread of Islamofascism and later enjoys the freedom to choose whatever religion they want, would you still oppose standing up forcefully against Iran?

Tehrans children beggars could Christians feed them???

FTR, I have no desire to see Iran bombed whatsoever. I have however been around long enough to see the effective differences between classic liberal foreign policy (Carter) and classic conservative foreign policy (Reagan).

It is always best to negotiate from a position of superior strength.

 

[ASLANSPAL]

The fix is in Daisy ..the United States diplomatic corp. is decimated or the Pentagon has taken that over...we are painted into a corner perhaps the voices you are hearing now against Rumsfeld and the bush culture is trying to prevent a mistake since their are a minute amount of voices on the inside that will speak truth to power.

Where is the wise United States and outsmarting the wrongheaded leaders of the world ..where is relationships that when formed together the adversary must change its ways...the bush culture has had an attitude of ignoring them in arrogance...the bush culture is not adolf hitler but I would say it has attributes taken from that regime especially in the area of fear. The things they do on their own is incompetence and laziness.

The hope is that the masses in our democracy will rise up with the help of the Holy Spirit and put down the incompetence and semi-fascism that has taken hold of the bush administration.

bush lost the cooperation of most of the World with Iraq ..he had it when it was totally focused on Al Qaeda and bin laden. If bush does not kill bin laden(because bin laden confessed to the killings) and does not reach out to his fathers past administration he will be the worst President ever for the United States and the World.

When bush does have his secret hit on Iran the nation will rally around nationalism ...perhaps that is what it is all about "wag the dog".

Someones gonna die ..more of them in mass but we will die as well

 

[Scott J]

FTR, I know little about Aslanspal personally. However I am willing to share a little since he's implied that people (like me) outside of the metro areas of America aren't qualified to think/speak about these issues.

I grew up in NC and graduated from a state college there. I have lived in metro Charlotte, Atlanta, Seattle, Chicago, but now rural Missouri. I have not found that city dwellers are more intelligent or rational concerning the issues of the day. No longer are they even better informed since even us backwards farm dwellers have internet access.

As a function of my career, I have visited most of the states and known/dealt with people from all across the country as well as many from other countries.

 

[ASLANSPAL]

Getting back to topic and off of ego.


web page

snippet:
Descent into anger and despair
By James Carroll | April 17, 2006

LAST WEEK, the rattling of sabers filled the air. Various published reports, most notably one from Seymour M. Hersh in The New Yorker, indicated that Washington is removing swords from scabbards and heightening the threat aimed at Iran, which refuses to suspend its nuclear project. It may be that such reports, based on alarming insider accounts of planning and military exercises, are themselves part of Washington's strategy of coercive diplomacy. But who can trust the Bush administration to play games of feint and intimidation without unleashing forces it cannot control, stumbling again into disastrous confrontation?

Ahhh Scott you wouldn't lie to your Lama now would ya?! You are more than welcome to take your pot shots far from people and populations and remain void of reality...just don't call people liars...my gentle admonishment to you.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
Getting back to topic and off of ego.

Just couldn't quite do it could you? You have to continue that line of "I'm better than you..."

Ahhh Scott you wouldn't lie to your Lama now would ya?! You are more than welcome to take your pot shots far from people and populations and remain void of reality

I am far from people but far less "void of reality" than apparently you are judging from your refusal to recognize and apply the lessons of history. As with most liberals, you think the thing wrong with liberal ideas is that they just haven't been tried enough or by smart enough people.

The problem is that the philosophy is void of reality... it doesn't work in real life.

...just don't call people liars

If they do things dishonest then they are lying. In fact, I didn't say that Daisy was a liar. You might want to actually read what I did say.

...my gentle admonishment to you.

You're "admonishment" noted, considered, and rejected on the basis of its complete lack of merit and moral authority.

 

[LadyEagle]

A-Pal, I disagree with you. The fact there have been so many military blunders is simply because the military WASN'T in charge, but Rummy was.

As far as God loving us best because He allowed us to have the nukes, I would say, it is because of God's Grace that America got the nukes first because the German were very, very close to getting it. I just saw a segment about this on the History Channel over the weekend. And, as far as fascism goes, it is the Islamic religion that is closer to fascism than any democracy could ever hope to be. It is precisely because there are Islamofascists that we have the troubles we have in the world today all over the planet - a religious ideology that seeks to suppress, oppress, and repress free people everywhere.

 

[Eliyahu]

I was amazed to hear about the underground churches in Saudi Arabia and in Kuwait. God is patient with Muslims now.
Therefore any random use of Nuke is not right, even though human minds prefer to use it very much. If we do so, we are trying to do what is going to be done by God.

However, I feel it is really high time for US to act, act on Precise and Preemptive Attack on the Nuke site so that the bigger problems may be prevented. That is required by God, for the states and governments to do as they are the shadows of God's judgment and His Justice until He comes. If the governments neglect it, God will pluck them. Governments are different from Individual. There is an order in the International Society as well.

Precise and Tailor Made Action is needed urgently. If the enemy react, we should fight further! We should not be scared about it. We must fight ! That's totally the responsibility of the enemy.

 

[Daisy]

Getting back off topic and on to ego...

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daisy:
God loves us best or He wouldn't have given us nukes...And where have I said that any one other than myself has said that? Your saying that I'm putting words in anyone's mouth is simply wrong.

I apologize on the assumption that I misunderstood what you meant.</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks, Scott. I accept your apology

However...

**sigh** there always is a "however"; translated: "It's not really my fault, you made me".

...the way you wrote that response implies that those are things your opponents either have or would say... not that they are words you would say.

They are not words I'd say except in jest and I was jesting.

You see, I wasn't thinking in terms of "opponents". Matt Black asked for reasons, so I came up with as many tentative "reasons" as I could. I've heard the "God loves us best" reasonning from people on similar issues, but I don't know - I didn't ask - what political persuasion they were because it wouldn't matter - a bad reason is just as bad coming from the left, right or center.

Would you actually say that God gave us Nukes because He loves us best Daisy or were you in fact implying that a conservative would say it?

Thank you for asking - I've already said that I did say it albeit ironically.

I am not implying nor would I imply that "a" conservative "would" say something he didn't actually say because the conservatives I've listened to have a wide range of opinions from deeply sensible and well thought out to utterly senseless and thoughtless depending on the particular conservative and the particular topic.

Satisfied?