Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Neon, Nov 4, 2011.
Duck and cover, Johnny...
no one cares thanks to the lefts war on war in iraq.the propaganda has worked completely. any mention of any kind of nuclear threat will be regarded as bogus.
Yet they were mostly supportive of a buildup in Afghanistan. Come on, you're smarter than that.
I remember reading last week of some "report" that said a lot of guys weren't going home from Iraq, that a lot would be redeployed around Iran and we'd increase the presence of aircraft carriers in the area.
Didn't somebody hack their system and put in a virus that destroyed most of what they were trying to accomplish?
I miss the days of Mutually Assured Destruction as a deterrent to the dickheads of the world.
Stuxnet. It mostly just delayed them a lot.
Being moved to the Iran/Afghanistan border, maybe. We're still leaving Iraq.
A few GBU-28s would have worked a lot better.
Be careful what you wish for.
The sooner Israel (or whomever) deals with this problem, the better.
Hundreds of Katyushas randomly striking Israel beats a nice, big mushroom cloud over Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.
More likely a dirty bomb. I highly doubt Iran would overtly nuke Israel because they know Israel would respond in kind. However, they would absolutely sell some material to Hizbullah or Hamas or Al-Qaeda for a dirty bomb attack in Tel-Aviv or London or New York.
Or they sell a complete nuke to them and you see a mushroom cloud over Israel. The US is far less likely, IMO, simply because iran has no prayer of stopping us from retaliating, and we would wipe them off the fact of the earth. Israel would do the same, fo course, but Iran might think they'd have a chance of deflecting long enough, denying involvement, or the nuke disabling or stalling Israel's ability to immediately retaliate.
Good article Neon, but using bold font loses its value if you use it for over 70% of the post.
Yeah. I generally read the article and highlight the important parts as I go. I didn't notice how much I bolded until I posted the thread.
I was thinking plausible deniability. I don't know how nuclear forensics work, but if some terrorist cell detonated a dirty bomb in the US, how easily could it be tied back to Iran on the basis of the actual nuclear material? I'd think they could disguise any money trail or something. Point is, they would be banking that the evidence wouldn't be strong enough to justify a merciless American nuclear strike on Iranian civilians.
you know as well as i do that we will be bombarded with comparisons between the road to war ala wmd's in iraq and any reports about Iranian nukes.you will see the code pink wing out in full force giving us two options:
A there are no Iranian nukes or B they should be allowed to have them.
i have always maintained that the anti iraq war shpiel was simply anti war period.this was a move by the suicidal pacifist left regardless of the specific gripes.it didn't matter to the left what the actual case for war was it was more important for them to end it.
the righteous war in Afghanistan all the sudden isn't so righteous anymore now that the political football of iraq is non exsistent.turns out iraq wasn't the "eye off the ball" sine the real game was to end any american war.the dialogue,rhetoric and propaganda has become so coarse and loud that you now have republican candidates beating the peace drum buckets away from Afghanistan even though the party cant politicly (or in my opinion ethically) wash its hands of it.
side note folks: where is the outrage at the politically driven n.i.e. by certain elements within the cia that claimed iran wasn't working on nukes?
gee wouldn't it be great if a certain country could be strong enough to deal with its own neighbors or at the very least give us a place close to the problem where we could have a base of operations to deal with issue...we heard you ...no wmd's.
well someone had his eye on the ball.
A there are no Iranian nukes.
A there are no Iranian nukes.
That's all well and good but, how do you explain the fact that you said it was the the "suicidal pacifist left" that would be driving this. Seems more like Paultards to me.
You're smiley is not allowing me to respond adequately, please remove it.
Would it make you happy if I said the anti war crowd? Do you think i care where that voice comes from? Why is the label of the person spouting the bad position important to you? Its a bad position period. Stop trying to label me as a party hack. You want play semantics and label games?...fine I'll play.
I see Pauls anti war stance as a McGovernite leftist position. He's basically a leftist with right leanings. A Neoliberal if you will as coined by the American Spectator.
I correctly predicted what the talking points would be to a fucking T from day one.
Why is it important to you? You do it all the time.
Stop doing hacky things. You're more informed than to resort to that kind of shit.
I see him as right wing with leftist leanings on two things only: Immigration and interventionism.
Except a vast majority of the left are giving the current administration a current pass on this because he's one of theirs. It seems the loudest objection right now is from people that lean right on almost every other political plank.
I'm actually agreeing with you on most of your points with Iran and its nuclear ambitions, just trying to point out that there's people that lean left on other things who also agree with you and you piss them off when you lump them in with the Code Pink crowd.
I will relent with the caveat on the correct labeling of paul (i'm not gonna repost the american spectator article on paul as i'm sure you've read it by now).
I will step back and rephrase to "the anti war crowd" .