Will Israel strike Iran in the next 18 months?

Have yet to happen in 60+ years of having nukes, so I'm not going to lose sleep over that.

Given how many nukes the US has, other countries are more at risk of getting hit by one of ours malfunctioning and launching than the other way around anyway I suppose. :D
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Mentally yes. But it's not really needed.

The real worry is a rogue state or terrorist getting a nuke. They'd be much more likely to use it.
[/QUOTE]

Iran has been waging proxy war against us for some time now by supplying rogue states and terrorists with all manner of other conventional weapons. So why wouldn't they do the same with a nuke?

Plausible deniablity has worked for them pretty well so far.
 
The difference between supplying an IED and a nuke is the difference between stealing a penny and a $100 bill.

I'm not saying Iran wouldn't try, but it would be a lot more noticeable.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Thus far there has NEVER been a military skirmish of any kind between nuclear armed countries.[/QUOTE]
Ever heard of the Kargil War?

I think we need to chill the fuck out over Iran. They told the IAEA 18 months before their new plant will become operational. That is exactly what they were supposed to do. They are not trying to build a nuke, says the CIA, and IAEA twice. They are simply enriching Uranium for nuclear power, which happens to be the cheapest way to generate power, and the easiest way to generate large amounts of it. They are allowing the UN and IAEA to inspect their nuclear enrichment sites, so they can't really be making a weapon without us knowing. All of this war-mongering reminds me of the bullshit Bush pulled with Iraq.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The difference between supplying an IED and a nuke is the difference between stealing a penny and a $100 bill.

I'm not saying Iran wouldn't try, but it would be a lot more noticeable.[/QUOTE]

Yep, and the response would be overwhelming as the official policy is any terrorist attack with a country supplied weapon will result in the same response as if the country had attacked with the weapon themselves.

Thus Iran giving Al Qaeda a nuke that they use on us would result in Iran being nuked. So the same deterrent is there. I don't think they'll be that confident they can do it unnoticed when all eyes are on them, North Korea and Pakistan as countries who could slip a nuke to terrorists. There's just too much to lose.

It's not that hard to see why they want weapons, if you ignore all the posturing. Israel has them (along with most of the western powers) they thus aren't on a remotely level playing field when it comes to negotiations etc.
 
Could rogues get a hold of a nuke? Yes.

Could they launch that same nuke halfway across the world without us knowing about it? Hell no. You think terrorists hiding in caves could somehow dig ICBM silos without anyone knowing about it?

Missile defense doesn't defend us against the most likely form of nuclear attack. Think Oklahoma City. I wouldn't be against putting more detectors at border crossings and along the Mexican border. I doubt the terrorists would shield a weapon enough to evade sensitive nuclear detectors.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Could rogues get a hold of a nuke? Yes.

Could they launch that same nuke halfway across the world without us knowing about it? Hell no. You think terrorists hiding in caves could somehow dig ICBM silos without anyone knowing about it?

Missile defense doesn't defend us against the most likely form of nuclear attack. Think Oklahoma City. I wouldn't be against putting more detectors at border crossings and along the Mexican border. I doubt the terrorists would shield a weapon enough to evade sensitive nuclear detectors.[/QUOTE]

Very good points. Missile defense would be useless against the type of dirty bomb attack which is about all a terrorist group could carry out.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Very good points. Missile defense would be useless against the type of dirty bomb attack which is about all a terrorist group could carry out.[/QUOTE]

Dirty bomb attack? I think we need to get our priorities straight, as a dirty bomb would do very little.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Dirty bomb attack? I think we need to get our priorities straight, as a dirty bomb would do very little.[/QUOTE]

Put a dirty bomb in manhattan new york and you'd cause a few million deaths...

The point of the attack would be the dense cities.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Dirty bomb attack? I think we need to get our priorities straight, as a dirty bomb would do very little.[/QUOTE]

A dirty bomb could spread radioactive particles which could cause cancer in thousands of people in 20 years.

Ahhh, crap.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']Put a dirty bomb in manhattan new york and you'd cause a few million deaths...

The point of the attack would be the dense cities.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you know what a dirty bomb is. There's no fission or fusion reaction. It's just a regular bomb used to disperse radioactive particles. They are really nothing much to worry about, considering that at most a dirty bomb could maybe cause cancer in a couple hundred people. In order to kill more people you would need a more radioactive isotope which, would probably be very hard to transport because it would need a lot of shielding (which would make the bomb very easy to detect, and make the bomb less lethal), or it would kill everyone handling it quickly. As a result of this, the main propose for creating a dirty bomb would have to be to create fear and panic.
There are bigger things to worry than a dirty bomb. Like plane hijackings even.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']I don't think you know what a dirty bomb is. There's no fission or fusion reaction. It's just a regular bomb used to disperse radioactive particles. They are really nothing much to worry about, considering that at most a dirty bomb could maybe cause cancer in a couple hundred people. In order to kill more people you would need a more radioactive isotope which, would probably be very hard to transport because it would need a lot of shielding (which would make the bomb very easy to detect, and make the bomb less lethal), or it would kill everyone handling it quickly. As a result of this, the main propose for creating a dirty bomb would have to be to create fear and panic.
There are bigger things to worry than a dirty bomb. Like plane hijackings even.[/QUOTE]


The isotope used, or reality of it's would be inconsequential. There are people out there that think food irradiation and microwaves are killing people. Public perception of anything "radioactive" would nullify any human activity in the area for years. It's the perfect scenario, and I can't believe it hasn't happened anywhere yet. I'd think it would be much easier than a plane hijacking. All you need is a lead container about the size of an ash can.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']The isotope used, or reality of it's would be inconsequential. There are people out there that think food irradiation and microwaves are killing people. Public perception of anything "radioactive" would nullify any human activity in the area for years. It's the perfect scenario, and I can't believe it hasn't happened anywhere yet. I'd think it would be much easier than a plane hijacking. All you need is a lead container about the size of an ash can.[/QUOTE]

It's true. Three Mile Island released less radiation than the average person gets from background sources in a year, caused no injuries or deaths, and that one incident of operator error (with no harmful results due to the design of the plant preventing anything like Chernobyl from possibly happening) has killed nuclear power plant construction and development in this country for 30 years. No French-style breeder reactors for us! We obviously prefer maximizing waste, minimizing efficiency and promoting idiocy like ethanol instead.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The major issue is none of the missle defense systems are 100% effective. Who knows what the accuracy is. I've seen things from 50% ot 90% mentioned in different places.

Diplomacy and mutually assured destruction is the way to go. Thus far there has NEVER been a military skirmish of any kind between nuclear armed countries.[/QUOTE]

No defense system is 100% effective, yet we use them. How do you expect the systems to improve without more research, development and testing? We didn't start building B-1 bombers in 1905. And when we're talking about nuclear missiles, or even non-nuclear missiles, 50-90% is a hell of a lot better odds of avoiding the consequences than 0%, don't you think?

MAD is fine between rational actors. The question is, are we talking about rational actors here? I don't fear a country like Russia or China firing nuclear-tipped ICBMs at the U.S. They are rational actors. Are terrorists, were they to get control of a missile in Russia or a former Soviet republic, or Pakistan? Is North Korea? Iran's religious nutjob leaders? I'm either convinced they're not rational (terrorists) or they may well not be rational (iran/North Korea). So why do we foreclose the possibility we can defend against their provocations? It's not like anyone in their right mind believes Russian rhetoric that the missile shield was a threat to Russia (12 interceptors vs thousands of Russian warheads...yeah we're really going to stop them).
 
I can't argue with a limited number of interceptors in Eastern Europe that would be ready in case rogues get a hold of a Russian nuke.

Problem is that the Russians did. It seems that they don't like to be called out on their negligence. Didn't they even shut down oil and gas exports to the Ukraine before last winter? They're the abusive old man on the block and no one is gonna tell them to stop beating the step kids.
 
Fareed Zakaria's columns in Newsweek relate to this topic well so I though I'd share them here. The first is on missle defense (see below) the second on Obama's efforts on diplomacy which I'll post in another post below in a couple minutes when I find it online.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/215841

A Return to Reality
Missile defense wasn't the answer.

By canceling plans to station antiballistic-missile systems in Poland and the Czech Re-public, President Obama has traded fantasy for reality. Keep in mind a few facts about missile defense. Since the 1980s, the United States has spent well over $150 billion to develop such systems. That's more than the total cost of the Manhattan Project or the Apollo mission to the moon. Yet in 25 years the program has not produced a workable weapons system, something unprecedented even in the annals of the Pentagon's bloated budgets. A group of leading scientists, including 10 Nobel laureates in physics, wrote a letter to Obama in July, arguing that the Polish and Czech interceptors "would offer little or no defensive capability, even in principle." That's why the Bush administration proposed deploying the system only in 2018, by which point, it hoped, the thing would actually work.

Then there are the threats that these systems are meant to guard against. The nuclear-arms expert Joseph Cirincione pointed out to Congress recently that the threat from ballistic missiles "has steadily declined over the past 20 years. There are fewer missiles in the world today than there were 20 years ago, fewer states with missile programs, and fewer hostile missiles aimed at the United States. Countries still pursuing long-range-missile programs are fewer in number and less technologically advanced than 20 years ago." These numbers are indisputable.

The Iranian weapons program is a potential danger—but to Israel and the Gulf states, not Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama's new proposal—to station short- and medium-range-missile interceptors on ships in the region—is a workable system attuned to the actual threat. This is reality-based defense policy.

So why does it leave a bad taste in the mouth? Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national-security adviser and someone who has always been attentive to Eastern Europe's security, supports Obama's decision but says the administration handled things poorly: "In the way it conveyed the decision, it humiliated two staunch allies that had gone out of their way to embrace U.S. policy." Missile defense has never enjoyed much public support among Poles or Czechs, presumably because they don't believe Iran is planning to lob missiles at them. But Brzezinski notes that "for the governments of those countries, it had become a test of American reliability and support. The administration should have recognized the importance it had taken on."

The timing of the announcement, on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, symbolized the botched diplomacy. Poland's prime minister re-fused to take a midnight call from Obama and then Hillary Clinton, referring the latter to his foreign minister.

The Europeans' real fear, of course, is Russia. The Poles and Czechs worry that the United States is getting soft, and will allow Moscow renewed influence in Eastern Europe. Russia itself declared missile defense a roadblock to cooperation with Washington. But to continue with a bad policy simply because the Russians don't like it is not a sensible basis for U.S. strategy.

Will Russia now become more helpful on Iran? Moscow does not feel the same urgency about Tehran that the United States does. Confrontation between America and Iran would hike the price of oil—bad for the United States and China, but good for Moscow. A military attack would probably result in Iranian retaliation in Afghanistan and Iraq, keeping U.S. forces bogged down there.

And yet the Russians are being moderately helpful. They have deliberately delayed delivery of an antiaircraft defense system, the S-300, to the Iranians (and also refused to sell them the more advanced S-400). Russian language on Iran has toughened. I met with President Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow last week, and he went out of his way to insist that Iran must cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Russia was opposed to any nuclear-weapons program, and that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements about Israel were "unacceptable." "The basic framework of U.S.-Russian relations should be that we want good, cooperative, and productive relations," says Brzezinski. "If Russia wants to flirt with Venezuela, fine. And if Poland wants closer security ties with the West, that should also be fine." In the long run, a better working relationship with Russia could mean lowered tensions everywhere, starting with Eastern Europe.

On missile defense, the Obama administration did the right thing for the right reasons, in the wrong way. It needs to fix the fallout and move on.
Click to expand...
 
And here's the other column.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/216264/output/print

Obama’s Big Gamble
Working with the world, not against it.

At his United Nations debut, Barack Obama urged global cooperation to combat nuclear proliferation, climate change, and other problems that go beyond the borders of any one country. The speech was well received all over the world, except one place—America's right-wing netherworld, which quickly began whipping people into a frenzy. For Michelle Malkin, the speech was evidence that Obama was "the great appeaser," though she then went on to say, "From the sound of it, you'd think you were listening to Thomas Jefferson." (That's bad?) For Rush Limbaugh, Obama's speech was "basically a coup against America." At the National Review's Web site, a debate broke out—an entirely serious debate among serious people—as to whether the speech proved that Obama actually wanted the world's tyrants to win, in the tradition of past intellectuals who admired Mussolini and Hitler. This is the discourse of American conservatism today: Obama is bad because he loves death panels and Hitler.

There is a serious case to be made that it's not worth taking the United Nations seriously, that it's an anachronistic institution based on 60-year-old geopolitics and a platform for tyrants and weirdos. But while much of that is true, the United Nations is the only organization in the world to which all countries belong, and as such, it does have considerable legitimacy. And that means power. As David Bosco points out in Foreign Policy magazine, over the past two decades the Security Council has authorized "more than a dozen peacekeeping missions, imposed sanctions or arms embargoes on 10 states, and created several war crimes tribunals to prosecute those responsible for genocide and crimes against humanity, including sitting heads of state." It's worth putting in the effort to shape its decisions.

Obama's speech was part of a calculated strategy. In sentiment it recalls Richard Nixon's line after losing the California governor's race in 1962: "You don't have Nixon to kick around anymore." Obama was telling the world: the United States is willing to be cooperative, to rejoin international institutions, to adhere to treaties. But in return, other countries will have to help solve some of the world's common problems. You can't just kick us around anymore.

Let's go back just one year. Many countries had come to believe that America showed little interest in the world. This hostility had become an easy excuse to reject even modest concessions to U.S. requests. If this sounds partisan, recall that after he was elected president of France in 2007, the pro-American conservative Nicolas Sarkozy was asked by Condoleezza Rice what she could do to help him. "Improve your image in the world," he said.

There is a phony realism brandished on the right these days that says no one will ever cooperate with America. Russia and China have their own interests, and any attempt to find common ground is naive. We might as well all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya." Now, of course countries have their own interests, which are often in conflict. But they also often share some common interests. A central task of diplomacy is to explore those areas of agreement, build on them, and thus create a more stable world. That's why we have treaties on everything from trade to taxation, adhered to by most nations for their collective benefit.

In fact, Obama's approach has already produced remarkable results. Russia and China, after long opposition, agreed last week to a toughening of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And in a striking shift, Russia signaled that it may support tougher sanctions against Iran. The Obama administration's decision to cultivate a relationship with both countries, to listen to their concerns, is paying off.

Obama's outreach to the world is an experiment, and not just to see if the world will respond. He wants to demonstrate at home that engagement does not make America weak. For decades, it's been thought deadly for an American politician to be seen as seeking international cooperation. Denouncing, demeaning, and insulting other countries was a cheap and easy way to seem strong. In the battle of images, tough and stupid always seemed to win.

Obama is gambling that America is now mature enough to understand that machismo is not foreign policy, and that grandstanding on the global stage just won't succeed. In a new world, with other countries more powerful and confident, America's success—its security, its prosperity—depends on working with others. It's a big, bold gambit. I hope it works.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='elprincipe']No defense system is 100% effective, yet we use them. How do you expect the systems to improve without more research, development and testing? We didn't start building B-1 bombers in 1905. And when we're talking about nuclear missiles, or even non-nuclear missiles, 50-90% is a hell of a lot better odds of avoiding the consequences than 0%, don't you think?[/QUOTE]
I'm curious what percent of our annual GDP you would put up to stop one American city from being nuked. 50, 100, 250, 500%? How many tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars would you pay to stop 5 cities from being nuked?
 
What are you getting at? Cleaning up fallout, dealing with revenue loss, medical costs and infrastructure repairs could be weighed in if you were trying to think about nuclear war economically. Cement and canned food sales would skyrocket though.

The only smart course of action regarding nuclear weaponry is disarmament.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']What are you getting at? Cleaning up fallout, dealing with revenue loss, medical costs and infrastructure repairs could be weighed in if you were trying to think about nuclear war economically. Cement and canned food sales would skyrocket though.

The only smart course of action regarding nuclear weaponry is disarmament.[/QUOTE]
Sure, and I agree. I was just thinking that it's kind of a fool's game for a politician. You can't possibly answer low because it makes you an uncaring scumbag. You can't answer ridiculously high because it makes you look crazy. If you answer in the middle, you're a non-committal jerk.

And really, who would deliver an attack via missile against America? The chances of it versus the chances of it being delivered by any other means is probably quite small, maybe insignificant (and besides the point since if they launch ten, at best 1 is hitting and at worst maybe more than 5, well, who gives a shit about the difference between 5 and 6 the day after?).

We can twist ourselves in knots with this half assed security concern, or we can genuinely model what the day after tomorrow will look like and align our strategic concerns appropriately. Or we can bankrupt ourselves building a defense shield.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I'm curious what percent of our annual GDP you would put up to stop one American city from being nuked. 50, 100, 250, 500%? How many tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars would you pay to stop 5 cities from being nuked?[/QUOTE]

It's difficult to assign numbers, but to say "tens of trillions" is being manifestly dishonest. From the article above, we've spent $150 billion over 25 years. That is $6 billion per year, well less than the pork-barrel earmarks larded around by our incompetent and corrupt Congress every single year, far less than wasteful defense spending every single year -- heck, less than was allocated to a high-speed rail boondoggle in the "stimulus" bill. So forgive me if I don't think that's too much to pay for what I consider one of our top defense priorities.

To pay for it, I applaud Secretary Gates's efforts (with some success) to cut wasteful defense spending such as on the F-22 and presidential helicopters. That's just a start; there are plenty more things that are just eating up money that can go to useful things (like missile defense and the equipment our soldiers actually use).

As for Zakaria's missile defense article, I would inquire of him why repeated successful tests and deployed systems on in Alaska and California do not constitute, in his mind, a "workable" weapons system. I think his bias against missile defense is showing there. And while numbers of missiles may be down, that's because missiles most likely not to be used against us (i.e. Russian missiles) have decreased. Why does he ignore missile tests by the two top potential troublemakers at this point in time, Iran and North Korea? McFly?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']It's difficult to assign numbers, but to say "tens of trillions" is being manifestly dishonest. From the article above, we've spent $150 billion over 25 years.[/quote]
I was just trying to say that the more money we threw at it, theoretically the better it would get. Since we're talking about an American city getting nuked, how much could too much be?
That is $6 billion per year, well less than the pork-barrel earmarks larded around by our incompetent and corrupt Congress every single year, far less than wasteful defense spending every single year -- heck, less than was allocated to a high-speed rail boondoggle in the "stimulus" bill. So forgive me if I don't think that's too much to pay for what I consider one of our top defense priorities.
Click to expand...
Nothing unreasonable about that. I think we should go about it a different way, but that's just difference of opinion.
To pay for it, I applaud Secretary Gates's efforts (with some success) to cut wasteful defense spending such as on the F-22 and presidential helicopters. That's just a start; there are plenty more things that are just eating up money that can go to useful things (like missile defense and the equipment our soldiers actually use).
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%.
 
I'm just always amazed how conservatives are fine spending BILLIONS on defense systems and cry anytime we want to spend money on something like giving everyone access to health care. :roll:

I guess there's some chance they could be killed by a missile, so they care and will support spending there. But they have good health care, so fuck spending for those who don't since it doesn't benefit them.


I support huge cuts in defense period. The best way to improve our national safety is to quit medling in other countries affairs. Stop supporting Israel so directly, quit having troops stationed all over the world. Stop being world police and a lot of countries lose their motivation to attack us. Use diplomacy.

Walk softly, but care a HUGE motherfucking stick. If someone attacks us unprovoked, respond with overwhelming force by wiping out their capitol city. Quit meddling in other countries, have that policy of overwhelming force clearly stated, and use it with no hesitation if we are attacked. Let's see who has the will or balls to attack us then.
 
We'd probably never have to.

1. Stop meddling in other affairs and people have less reason to be anti-american. Mostly have to worry about near by countries and Mexico and Canada aren't attacking us.

2. Mutually assured destruction works. Again there has never been a war between nuclear armed countries. Leaders know what is at stake.

Terrorism is a different issue, but you don't attack the state for that unless it was a nuclear attack with weapons the state supplied--and that is our current policy already anyway. Otherwise you threaten the state to root help root out the terrorists.

So we'd probably be killing less civilians in that case that we have in the past 50+ years of playing world police.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']We'd probably never have to.

1. Stop meddling in other affairs and people have less reason to be anti-american. Mostly have to worry about near by countries and Mexico and Canada aren't attacking us.[/quote]
While I do agree, that we should stop meddling in other countries' affairs, that doesn't mean we shouldn't focus on defense.
2. Mutually assured destruction works. Again there has never been a war between nuclear armed countries.
Click to expand...
That's not true. There HAS been a war between two nuclear armed countries. MAD doesn't really even work. It's morality that works.
Leaders know what is at stake.

Terrorism is a different issue, but you don't attack the state for that unless it was a nuclear attack with weapons the state supplied--and that is our current policy already anyway. Otherwise you threaten the state to root help root out the terrorists.

So we'd probably be killing less civilians in that case that we have in the past 50+ years of playing world police.
Click to expand...

I love your idea of nuking the capital city of a country that attacks us. Great fucking idea. They kill a few hundred of us, we kill a few million of them. Great morality you got there, killing millions of innocent civilians for something they didn't do.
 
Most conservatives I know want an overhaul in defense if not drastic spending cuts as well. Most conservatives I know do not think we should have so many troops stationed overseas.

However, most conservatives I know don't believe you can solve most problems by throwing money at them.
 
Like throwing billions as a missile defense system that's still not been shown very effective despite nearly 30 years of pissing away money on it? Rather than supporting more focus on diplomacy and disarmament.

If by conservatives you mean libertarians I'd tend to agree with your statement. But they've got about as much sway in US politics as the communist party so they're not much worth talking about and aren't want I or other people mean when we say conservatives.
 
And I guess I need to clarify my "nuke their capital statement". That is in response to a major attack--getting hit with a nuke ourselves, a country trying to invade us. Which is why I said we'd probably never have to use that policy--as no one has since WWII with Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Not some small attack, those can be responded with much lower levels of force that are still overwhelming in proportion to the attack on us.

The bigger point is stop playing world police, get bases out of other countries and leave the rest of the world around and we'll be fine. Not much incentive for countries on the other side of the world to come across and ocean to attack us in that case.
 
I have been pretty successful in converting conservatives to more libertarian beliefs. It's relatively easy once you help them realize that there is nothing all that conservative about the republican party or the main stream conservative movement.

They have been brainwashed into believing that defense is the one line item that we should always have a blank check for. Sean Hanity is a great example of this.

I know enough people in the military and intelligence agencies to know just how bad waste is in "defense". And it is bad because of the "throw all we can at it" mentality. Congress routinely signs off on black budgets that are in the tens of billions without knowing where that money goes.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I was just trying to say that the more money we threw at it, theoretically the better it would get. Since we're talking about an American city getting nuked, how much could too much be?[/QUOTE]

Again, hard to argue numbers. Doesn't the federal government have a responsibility to protect the country? Isn't that its prime responsibility, even? Of course you have to stop somewhere...I think we have spent too little over the years, actually, but I understand the tradeoffs. Question: were our missile defenses to shoot down a North Korean nuclear Taepodong II missile headed for Honolulu, would that $150+ billion have been worth it?

[quote name='dmaul1114']I support huge cuts in defense period.[/QUOTE]

I do too. We spend way too much on defense, and a lot of it goes to things like making sure we have way too many ships, planes, tanks, etc. We just can't afford the kind of defense spending we maintained during the Cold War. The Europeans are going to have to pick up the tab for their own defenses (they're horrified at the thought, truthfully). Before someone says "how can you say that and be upset over removing missile defense from Poland and the Czech Republic?" remember that those defenses were supposed to be able to defend the East Coast (including where I live).
 
[quote name='elprincipe']..... remember that those defenses were supposed to be able to defend the East Coast (including where I live).[/QUOTE]

Which was just what I was bitching about above.

Conservatives are fine spending tax payer money if they think it some how benefits them. Spend money on some crappy missile defense system that would likely never need to be used and who knows how effective it would . But the spending be is fine because the remote chance a missile may land in your backyard.

But fuck spending any money to give the less fortunate affordable health care etc. etc. :bomb:


Oy. I think I need another vs. forum break. Coming here just reminds me how much I hate half this shitty country's shitty population.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Which was just what I was bitching about above.

Conservatives are fine spending tax payer money if they think it some how benefits them. Spend money on some crappy missile defense system that would likely never need to be used and who knows how effective it would . But the spending be is fine because the remote chance a missile may land in your backyard.

But fuck spending any money to give the less fortunate affordable health care etc. etc. :bomb:


Oy. I think I need another vs. forum break. Coming here just reminds me how much I hate half this shitty country's shitty population.[/QUOTE]

1. I'm not a conservative.

2. The federal government is responsible for national defense. Thus, I have no problem with the federal government spending a reasonable amount of money (which is much less than we spend now) to accomplish this. However, the federal government isn't responsible for health care. There is nothing in the Constitution, other than if you liberally stretched "provide for the general welfare," to indicate that it's in the federal government's purview.

And we already spend a HUGE amount to give the less fortunate health care. Look up what we spend on Medicaid every year. That is "free," out of your pocket and mine and into providing for the poor. Hospitals, as well, provide "free" (as in you and I pay for it if we visit the hospital) health care to those who can't pay. So cry me a river that we don't spend anything when it's an unbelievably high amount already.
 
Oh, noz. Principe hates the brownz people!


Sorry, just making light, in advance, of the next idiotic, altruistic post by a compassionate Marxist that's sure to be left because you aren't paying your fair share to the disadvantaged people. You selfish bastard.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I know enough people in the military and intelligence agencies[/QUOTE]
No doubt these friendships cultivated during a selfless, gratifying experience of serving America. Mmmmhmmm.

Yea, just being a snarky jerk.
 
[quote name='Raiix']Israel needs to stay the hell out of Iran. We don't need anymore wars.[/QUOTE]

I think Iran needs to stop saying things like "wiping Israel off the face of the earth," while developing a nuclear bomb at the same time. That might help to ease tensions, ya think?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Oh, noz. Principe hates the brownz people!


Sorry, just making light, in advance, of the next idiotic, altruistic post by a compassionate Marxist that's sure to be left because you aren't paying your fair share to the disadvantaged people. You selfish bastard.[/QUOTE]

Well, that's already happened in several threads, including when I opined that Abercrombie can opt not to hire someone for a public relations/model position because they refuse to adhere to their dress code. Which unfortunately I'm not going to go into why that's so funny to me, but trust me it's hilarious.

It's also quite a coincidence that most of the people complaining about us not paying enough taxes don't pay them at all since they're students. Ah, the Internet.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']It's also quite a coincidence that most of the people complaining about us not paying enough taxes don't pay them at all since they're students. Ah, the Internet.[/QUOTE]
I pay taxes goddamn it.

heh.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I think Iran needs to stop saying things like "wiping Israel off the face of the earth," while developing a nuclear bomb at the same time. That might help to ease tensions, ya think?[/QUOTE]
I think it might help if that statement was translated correctly,
Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case. The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.
Click to expand...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/02/comment.usa
and people actually looked at IAEA reports that showed Iran was not developing a nuke. This same shit was pulled so that we invaded Iraq. They didn't have WMDs. Are we going to let this happen again?

And you know, if we never would have overthrown Mosaddeq, Iran probably would still be a democratic state.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']I think it might help if that statement was translated correctly,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/02/comment.usa
...[/QUOTE]


[quote name='from the article']He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about.[/QUOTE]

Right. and the exclamation point of a ballistic missile was really just their new space program. If only there were an English equivalent, we'd be able to understand the real message.

Maybe Iran should stop giving monetary and military aid to Islamic groups who enjoy killing Israeli Jews indiscriminately ? Sorry, what I actually said before was a mistranslation between my thoughts and my mouth.
 
It's amazing how war mongerers try to make a case for Iran nuking Israel. The reason they hate Israel is because of their apartheid regime and opression of the Palestinians. A so-called tactical nuke is going to kill TONS of Palestinians, destory the third most sacred site in Islam, and turn the world's military against them. There is no way that Iran uses a nuke on Israel.

Now Israel has more or less gone rogue in the sense that they have a huge nuclear arsenal, no longer really consult with the US before taking action, and wouldn't think twice about nuking some expansive area loaded full of arabs, persians, and other non-Israelis.

So really, the international community should be looking at ways to stop Israel's nuclear proliferation, rather than focusing on Iran.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well it's more than that. It goes deep into the roots of fundamentalist Islam. The people running the show in that government truly believe it is their holy duty to usher in the Madhi, which takes place AFTER a major battle. They have no quams about starting that battle because they truly believe that god will see them through it, no matter the odds.

Them are dangerous opponents to play mind games with.[/QUOTE]

Ehh...no dude. Just no. There are multiple errors in that post, and I've not once seen someone say, let's start a war so the Mahdi can hurry up and get here. Steve Emerson called, he wants his 5 minutes of fame back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top