Bush warns Iran on Israel

[jhale667]

Originally posted by FORD
And considering they aren't supposed to have ANY, that's quite an achievement. But nobody gives a shit how many UN resolutions they violate.

These fucking hypocritical polices have to end if there is ever to be a hope of peace in this world.

Amen.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Cathedral
he kills me with his talk of diplomacy wrapped in subtle threats...he's fuking gone mad, man.

He's not nuts, he's just really stupid. gw is very poor at formulating strategy. See how we used proxy troops in Afghanistan and FAILED in our objective to destroy Al Qaeda and capture Bin Laden?

How about how we failed to have the common sense to secure ammunitions dumps in Iraq following the invasion after seeing propoganda videos showcasing the Fedayeen and having watched Israel's blunder into Lebanon OVER 20 YEARS AGO?

I really question how the fucker could be SO incompetent. Is it really just negligence and incompetence?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
We could bomb them into oblivion, and that's the only way I think we should if it came to military action. No ground troops, period.

Please cite where and when that has EVER worked.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Please cite where and when that has EVER worked.

Two atomic bombs made by the allied powers {USA and UK} from uranium-235 and plutonium-239 were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively early in August 1945. This action effectively ended WWII.....Today, Japan is one of our strongest Allie's.

But that's beside the point, it isn't plausible here and further war action beside what is on the plate now is NOT AN OPTION!

In my opinion we need to keep reserves ready in the event we are attacked on our soil again.
And the only, and i mean ONLY thing that would change our ability there is if we have ALL our major allies with us in a unified effort to keep Iran from having these bombs.

Nick likes to speak as though 3 years is an eternity, but he forgets that time passes quickly and the fact that they can have a nuke as early as 2009-2010 means that serious attention and efforts to derail their determination to acquire them must be paid and the time is NOW.

I'm all about Diplomacy with this one. Iran isn't Iraq and they won't just roll over. but in the same token they won't do anything stupid like Saddam was known to do because Ahmadinejad may be a Dictator, but he isn't a nut case and will buckle under severe pressure in time.

As far as Israel is concerned, They can take care of themselves and we should NOT be leading the charge here.
Our war drums should remain silent until the need to beat them actually arises.
We should only be a supportive allie to to Israel, not their protector as though we carry a Global Badge.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Two atomic bombs made by the allied powers {USA and UK} from uranium-235 and plutonium-239 were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively early in August 1945. This action effectively ended WWII.....Today, Japan is one of our strongest Allie's.

I think your example lacks relevance.

The atomic bombs were much different than an air campaign like Warham suggested. Also, Japan doesn't compare because we had fought a long land war against them. Yes, it wasn't on their soil.

I fail to see how bombing alone could achieve our objectives. In fact I'm certain it won't be enough.

[Cathedral]

You asked for an example of where and when, I provided one. now you want to add details that change the context? whatever...

I then went on to agree wth you that it isn't viable in this instance.

You asked, I delivered, i'd say it's relevent.

[Warham]

Liberals always move the goalposts, Cat.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Two atomic bombs made by the allied powers {USA and UK} from uranium-235 and plutonium-239 were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively early in August 1945. This action effectively ended WWII.....Today, Japan is one of our strongest Allie's.

But that's beside the point, it isn't plausible here and further war action beside what is on the plate now is NOT AN OPTION!

In my opinion we need to keep reserves ready in the event we are attacked on our soil again.
And the only, and i mean ONLY thing that would change our ability there is if we have ALL our major allies with us in a unified effort to keep Iran from having these bombs.

Nick likes to speak as though 3 years is an eternity, but he forgets that time passes quickly and the fact that they can have a nuke as early as 2009-2010 means that serious attention and efforts to derail their determination to acquire them must be paid and the time is NOW.

I'm all about Diplomacy with this one. Iran isn't Iraq and they won't just roll over. but in the same token they won't do anything stupid like Saddam was known to do because Ahmadinejad may be a Dictator, but he isn't a nut case and will buckle under severe pressure in time.

As far as Israel is concerned, They can take care of themselves and we should NOT be leading the charge here.
Our war drums should remain silent until the need to beat them actually arises.
We should only be a supportive allie to to Israel, not their protector as though we carry a Global Badge.

I didn't say it was an eternity, it's probably more like four of five years before the Iranian bomb can be fashioned. I was just asking why no columnists ever present this fact when they try to whip the Conservative base into a war frenzy?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Liberals always move the goalposts, Cat.

And dopey conservatives always misuse bad football analogies...

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And dopey conservatives always misuse bad football analogies...

LMMFAO, there's no reason for name calling, Nick.

I don't think Iran has a nuke right now. I don't think they'll have one tomorrow either. in fact, I don't know anyone personally that thinks differently.

What i do think, and what people i know, knows, is that it is not in our best interests to turn our backs to the issue and wait until they have these weapons pointing into the sky to react to them.

I've seen plenty of reports that state Iran is 3-5 years away from having the bomb. they could even be 10 years away from it and it doesn't change what they have publicly claimed, and what their ambitions are.

I know you hate Bush and all that stuff, but your combining issues here that should be kept seperate.
Maybe you should try and think about the future of your family, of other families, and realize that doing nothing is a grave error, no matter who is President, no matter which party is in control of the Senate or Congress.......And it is important to think outside our own borders as well.
Nuclear fallout isn't just an isolated threat. that shit will effect the entire global community once it starts getting released into the atmosphere.

An entire race of people would love to see us dead, Nick. and it isn't all about our foreign policy that they want to do this. it doesn't matter to them who is running the country either. if they see an opportunity, they take it.

Let me be a "dopey" conservative here and use another analogy to describe the sitting on the hands scenario you propse, and all in the name of what you claim the media isn't covering, because i know they have, and are.

You step out into the street, you expose your Colt, your enemy does the same. (Cue The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Theme).
You stare each other down and you say, "Wait, you go ahead and pull out your gun and take aim...I'll say "DRAW" and i'll see if i can beat you to the trigger, k?"

We'd be burying Nickdfresh that afternoon, and it would be a terrible loss to the Nickdfresh family all because he underestimated the enemy, and even helped him gun you down.

Sorry man, I'm not that gullible, and i know what the facts are. And i also know what the risks are.
We cannot sit around and wait until after an election in November of '08 to see if you guys can put a Democrat in office. the time to diffuse the situation is now.
I don't like the way Bush is going about it necessarily, but doing nothing is an even bigger mistake.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
BTW, can we try to keep the IRAN articles in one thread, at least for the day???

Perhaps you should only have ONE "Chimpeachment" thread then.

[Nickdfresh]

Geezus, this from a guy that throws around the term "Commie Lib" like it was a rubber ball...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Perhaps you should only have ONE "Chimpeachment" thread then.

Well, I agree, if there are two "Chimpeachment threads" on the same day...

I'm not saying one thread for every topic, I'm merely saying we don't need four different threads on the same day, on the front page, covering the same basic topic (i.e. IRAN nuke program)...

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Geezus, this from a guy that throws around the term "Commie Lib" like it was a rubber ball...

I'm holding back on that, i'm trying to be a bit more reserved.
I'm only aloud 1 "You fucking liberal commie bastard" thread per week now.
But i'm sure disgust will get the better of me in short order and that rubber ball will be a flyin' high once again...

Patience my friend, patience...

[Jerry Falwell]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I fail to see how bombing alone could achieve our objectives. In fact I'm certain it won't be enough.

From what I've read elsewhere, a well planned airstrike would set back Iran anywhere from 5-10 years on the development of a functional warhead. Who says that anyone needs to do anything other than set them back from time to time? I'd be okay with a set back rather than overthrowing their gov't.