If You Think Bush Is Evil Now, Wait Until He Nukes Iran

Status
Not open for further replies.
Inalienable a right to life may be, it's still moot if you get that head shot you mention. Israel's right to exist is not recognized by their neighbors. They will destroy Israel if they can. Therefore, if their right to exist will not be recognized by their neighbors, they need their ability to destroy those neighbors to be recognized by them. Then, the neighbors may not admit Israel has a right to exist, but they will know that if they choose to act on that belief, Israel can cause THEM to not exist, and they won't get to enjoy the Israel-free Middle East. A moral high ground is pretty freakin' worthless if you're dead (no matter the side you're on).

Israel has proven themselves responsible stewards of a nuclear capability. I'm not convinced their neighbors would have similar restraint.
Click to expand...

You are basically saying there is no such thing as rights at all. You also argue that morality is useless.

Might makes right, huh?
 
If we weren't willing to nuke North Korea for setting off an itty bitty nuke (and we have threated them with nuclear weapons in the past) we aren't going to nuke Iran for building their own nukes.

The nuke program is already costing the theocracy dearly because the Iranian people might like the idea of having nukes but they aren't willing to pay the price for them. Actually having them will trash the economy and ruin the abilities of the mullahs to buy off the Iranian people. Never mind the sudden interest of all the nearby countries in nuclear arms as well.

As far as Bush turning into a mushroom cloud laying mother******, he has all of a year and a half to do it. Doubtful, IMHO.
 
It is highly unlikely that the U.S. will use nuclear weapons in response to anything short of a direct nuclear attack in the CONUS. It would be a complete shift in our modus operandi. Now a conventional attack of some sort would not be out of the question.
The reason that the option cannot be taken off the table so to speak is that the ultimate sanction must remain in place to be an effective backstop.

Jefferson
 
Last edited:
The "neoconservative" has become a boogeyman for the raving left, a villain who seeks to commit only evil, who feasts on the blood of the newborn child and takes delight in the suffering of puppies.
Click to expand...
Well, the word has probably been overused to the point of uselessness. However, there is a specific group of foreign-policy "intellectuals" identified under that name who have established a specific body of writings and who occupied prominent positions in the current administration. They include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, and others who either were in this administration, or who influenced it greatly. Look up "Project for a New American Century."

Oh, and, not to make too blunt of a point, but their policies are directly responsible for this mess we're in in Iraq. I sincerely doubt that anyone is stupid enough to bomb Iran, but I sometimes have a hard time believing we were stupid enough to invade Iraq, either.
 
Pretty much every nation in the middle-east would see an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran as a US/Israeli attack and things will go from bad to much, much worse.
Click to expand...
I get it. So we're supposed to do nothing until Iran nukes us first, right?
 
It's not a term used by people who are engaging in thoughtful and reasoned discussion.
Click to expand...

That's odd, since all the talking heads (Stephanopolous, Will, Donaldson, Roberts, Zacharia, just to mention a few from ABC) use that term in a non-perjorative, rational way, AND many of the neocons call themselves that, too.

The "neoconservative" has become a boogeyman for the raving left, a villain who seeks to commit only evil, who feasts on the blood of the newborn child and takes delight in the suffering of puppies.
Click to expand...

Although that is not true (see above), if the shoe fits.... :)
 
I don't think Bush is evil, nor do I think we are "losing the war in Iraq." We deposed Iraq's Hitlerish leader, and will need to keep an eye on Iran. Terrorism is a real threat, and rogue countries are harboring terrorists and financing them. This thread is becomming a rip and tear free for all, without any consideration given to the expressed plan of Islamic terrorists and radicals. Policing efforts and conflicts with rogue countries will continue as long as Islamic radical terrorism exists from now on. Get used to it. The threat is for real. The leaders of North korea and Iran and other countries like them have chosen to build their war machines and line their own pockets over feeding their own people. Their economies reflect this, and their people are ignorant. Easy to rally the cry that Satan America is responsible.
 
Normally I would say any president would have to be an other-worldly moron to even contemplate such a thing under the circumstances and then I remember who's in charge and suddenly it doesn't sound so implausible. And he's surrounded by people who are every bit as crazy as he is.
 
And after he nukes Iran, he's going to sit down to a hearty dinner of Texas barbque'd human infants.

I've heard that George Bush has always preferred human infants in the 6 to 9 month range -- they're tender, juicy, and succulent, but don't have any of the stringyness that they get when they really start to crawl/walk, and have none of the gamy taste that older infants and toddlers get from eating all that junk food crap.

In fact, I've heard that George Bush has a special section of his range in Crawford, Texas, set aside for free range human infants.

They can enjoy the sun and the warm breezes and don't have any of that "human infant veal" syndrome that comes with being penned up in a small box from birth until time of slaughter.
 
Now Mike that was uncalled for, sick disgusting and funny, but uncalled for.

He only eats puppies,kittens and dolphins from Sea World. And every third baby Bald Eagle.
 
The only rights any posses are those that they can defend. The Antelope has a right to exist only so long as it escapes the lion and Isreal has a right to exist only so long as it can oppose those around it who wish it destroyed.
Click to expand...

Sorry to be late, but this does deserve an answer.

So, if say 20 armed guys storm and take your home away..of course you stop them the best you can with your 1911's and 870 shotguns. Anyway they keep your house so you go to the authorities and say 'they have no right to my property", the they say sorry...you are too weak. They keep your property. Makes sense to me!

Might makes right. If we are not a nation of laws & rights, then why should we be a world of laws & rights.
 
Last edited:
I can't wait 'till Iran gets Nuked, or even the entire Middle East region. Nothing but a 2000 year old stinkhouse of a septic system that all mankind can easily do without. I'll be makin' popcorn for the kids as we enjoy that chapter on TV.

Kudos to our armed forces too. There were/are/being born every day a lot of turd asses back in the Vietnam era you guys had to put up with, but I wasn't one. I'll honor you guys 'till the day I die. And any American that gives our Military **** should be forced to actually serve themselves to see what it's REALLY all about. Don't wanna' serve ya say? Then we send ya over anyways as bait instead - works for me.
 
That does it. Normally I don't quit a thread, but this one makes about as much sense as arguing plastic Glocks VS steel 1911's. Of course 1911's are superior in every way.

I am gone.:barf:
 
Eating human infants is just over the line. Heck, he's supposed to be a fitness buff and kids today are born full of cheeseburgers. I think he should knock it off or be impeached. And too, I heard the only animal on his ranch is a horses ass and it comes and goes as it pleases.
 
But they have not given up. They have a last desperate plan: Bomb Iran. Vice President Dick Cheney is spear-heading the neocon plan, and Norman Podhoretz is the plan’s leading propagandist with his numerous pleas published in the Wall Street Journal and Commentary to bomb Iran.
Click to expand...

The article and this thread are crap. There is nothing offered to support the strawman premise the writer builds. There is no trace of objectivity either. If there is anything to it, I would like to see a much more convincing effort.
 
I really don't believe Bush has actually driven anyone crazy, but the crazies have fixated on him in an amazing way. He's everything they fear, everything they hate, and everything they see climing on the wall.
 
This article doesn't really give Bush any credit. He is the only person currently keeping cheney from doing this. I'm just worried that he'll cave in to cheney eventually.

I get it. So we're supposed to do nothing until Iran nukes us first, right?
Click to expand...
Yes. Iran is not going to try to nuke us and they won't give one to terrorists either. It could be traced back to them if they gave one to a terrorist. If we were attacked with nuclear weapons by anyone I'm pretty sure the middle east would suddenly become a glass parking lot.

The article and this thread are crap. There is nothing offered to support the strawman premise the writer builds. There is no trace of objectivity either. If there is anything to it, I would like to see a much more convincing effort.
Click to expand...
Well don't post here if you dislike it so much.

It would be a complete shift in our modus operandi.
Click to expand...
Which is not the same since the PNAC people took over.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top