1 darthstar  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:13:29pm

Isn’t it nice having a president who sits down with foreign leaders and works out agreements without having to give away the farm or make a big deal out of looking into the other leader’s soul?

I know it’ll be twenty or thirty years before it gets recognized nationally, but our president is currently kicking ass and taking names nukes.

2 jamesfirecat  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:14:37pm

I look forward to tuning into Fox News and finding out how this moves us one step closer to the destruction of the world in general and America in particular, maybe now that Russia doesn’t have to fear Ukraine’s fissionable material they’ll be free to invade!

3 sandbox  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:16:05pm

IMHO, the unspoken issue is the Obama admin. acceptance of inevitability of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. They are just going thru the motions re Iran.

4 windsagio  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:16:10pm

re: #1 darthstar

You couldn’t be more wrong. Its clearly a sign of weakness.

5 darthstar  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:16:59pm

re: #4 windsagio

You couldn’t be more wrong. Its clearly a sign of weakness.
///and a motherfuckin’ /

There. Fixed.

6 jamesfirecat  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:17:04pm

re: #3 sandbox

IMHO, the unspoken issue is the Obama admin. acceptance of inevitability of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. They are just going thru the motions re Iran.

What do you want them to do instead?

7 windsagio  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:17:58pm

re: #3 sandbox

Reality bites, don’t it?

Any country that really wants nuclear weapons and has any money will get them.

8 brookly red  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:20:22pm

wait we can store other people’s N waste for safe keeping, OK I guess that is good… so when can we start storing our own?

9 darthstar  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:20:28pm

re: #3 sandbox

IMHO, the unspoken issue is the Obama admin. acceptance of inevitability of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. They are just going thru the motions re Iran.

Give me a fuckin’ break. You have no idea what kinds of discussions are going on with Iran right now (and for that matter, neither do I). But I can assure you that negotiations are taking place, and despite the public and media rhetoric about Ahmadinejad refining uranium faster than you can bake a pan of brownies, and having a nuke in 5, 4, 3, 2…oh, fuck, he’s got a THOUSAND AIMED AT FUCKING IOWA!!!OMFGZ!1A!

Take your WEGOTTABOMBIRANBEFORETHEYKILLUS paranoia elsewhere.

10 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:21:12pm

re: #6 jamesfirecat

What do you want them to do instead?

How about bar Iran from importing gasoline. Use our Navy to prevent it from being shipped to Iran. The Mullahs dismantle their nuclear program, or their nation comes to a halt.

11 sandbox  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:21:29pm

re: #6 jamesfirecat

Re Iran:
1. support the domestic opposition.
2. stop refined gas from being shipped into Iran.
3. allow Israel to bomb Iranian nuke sites.
4. be hostile to Iranian allies—like Venezuela and Syria.
I’ll think of more.

12 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:21:50pm

re: #8 brookly red

wait we can store other people’s N waste for safe keeping, OK I guess that is good… so when can we start storing our own?

Next year, after Harry Reid gets run out of office on a rail.

13 jamesfirecat  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:22:58pm

re: #11 sandbox

Re Iran:
1. support the domestic opposition.
2. stop refined gas from being shipped into Iran.
3. allow Israel to bomb Iranian nuke sites.
4. be hostile to Iranian allies—like Venezuela and Syria.
I’ll think of more.

Umm… number 3 is gonna start a f***ing war….

14 brookly red  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:23:42pm

re: #12 Dark_Falcon

Next year, after Harry Reid gets run out of office on a rail.

well hey I see an up side to this, with all that new spent fuel think of all the 30mm ammo we can make.

15 darthstar  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:23:59pm

re: #8 brookly red

wait we can store other people’s N waste for safe keeping, OK I guess that is good… so when can we start storing our own?

Yes, there will be controversy over this. Nobody wants it in their back yard, but since you volunteered, please send your address to the White House and let them know you’ve got room to spare.
/

Seriously, this will be a major bone of contention in the media. The Republicans will say, “WE CAN’T TAKE THAT STUFF! IT’S DANGEROUS!” while arguing out the other side of their mouths for storing domestic nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. There will need to be compromise somewhere.

My vote is to load that shit into a rocket and send it into the sun. The problem there, of course, is what happens if the rocket blows up before leaving our atmosphere…that’d suck.

16 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:24:04pm

re: #12 Dark_Falcon

Nah. He’ll retire as a flipping bazillionairre. I don’t pity him.

17 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:24:50pm

re: #15 darthstar

You obviously did not watch “Superman; The Quest for Peace”.

18 blueraven  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:25:14pm

re: #3 sandbox

IMHO, the unspoken issue is the Obama admin. acceptance of inevitability of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. They are just going thru the motions re Iran.

I don’t think that is true at all. And for people who say that, I always ask; what did the former administration do about it? Lots of tough talk with no action. China and Russia have at least agreed that some sanctions are necessary. Now, how far they are willing to go is another matter. We are slowly getting the rest of the world on our side.

19 darthstar  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:25:33pm

re: #11 sandbox

Re Iran:
1. support the domestic opposition.
2. stop refined gas from being shipped into Iran.
3. allow Israel to bomb Iranian nuke sites.
4. be hostile to Iranian allies—like Venezuela and Syria.
I’ll think of more.

Try to think of one that doesn’t involve killing other people.

20 Cato the Elder  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:25:57pm

re: #9 darthstar

Give me a fuckin’ break. You have no idea what kinds of discussions are going on with Iran right now (and for that matter, neither do I). But I can assure you that negotiations are taking place, and despite the public and media rhetoric about Ahmadinejad refining uranium faster than you can bake a pan of brownies, and having a nuke in 5, 4, 3, 2…oh, fuck, he’s got a THOUSAND AIMED AT FUCKING IOWA!!!OMFGZ!1A!

Take your WEGOTTABOMBIRANBEFORETHEYKILLUS paranoia elsewhere.

Maybe.

Tell it to Israel.

21 Cato the Elder  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:26:38pm

re: #13 jamesfirecat

Umm… number 3 is gonna start a f***ing war…

As opposed to waiting until Iran nukes Israel.

22 Athens Runaway  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:27:14pm

Raise your hand if you were afraid of Ukraine or Canada using its nukes on anyone. Or afraid of the Ukraine or Canada, period.

Although I suppose that this prevents the ol’ Canadian Bacon scenario.

WE NOW HAVE THE UPPER HAND MUAHAHA.

23 brookly red  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:28:02pm

re: #15 darthstar

Yes, there will be controversy over this. Nobody wants it in their back yard, but since you volunteered, please send your address to the White House and let them know you’ve got room to spare.
/

Seriously, this will be a major bone of contention in the media. The Republicans will say, “WE CAN’T TAKE THAT STUFF! IT’S DANGEROUS!” while arguing out the other side of their mouths for storing domestic nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. There will need to be compromise somewhere.

My vote is to load that shit into a rocket and send it into the sun. The problem there, of course, is what happens if the rocket blows up before leaving our atmosphere…that’d suck.

no I think we will take it just fine…

24 jamesfirecat  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:29:07pm

re: #21 Cato the Elder

As opposed to waiting until Iran nukes Israel.

I’d rather never throw the first punch.

That’s easy for me to say of course because last time I checked Iran can’t get its rockets to reach us yet.

But still if the time comes, I’d rather not start another war over the prospect that someone might have WMDs or would have them in the future, lets wait till they actually have them if there’s one nice thing about that guy whose name I can’t spell correctly is that he’s doubtlessly crazy enough to let us know in advance.

25 blueraven  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:29:12pm

re: #10 Dark_Falcon

How about bar Iran from importing gasoline. Use our Navy to prevent it from being shipped to Iran. The Mullahs dismantle their nuclear program, or their nation comes to a halt.

DF that would rally all the citizens of Iran, as they would all suffer. There goes any chance of resistance from the green movement. We would be the enemy of the people of Iran, not just the government. Is that what you want?

26 darthstar  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:29:45pm

re: #18 blueraven

I don’t think that is true at all. And for people who say that, I always ask; what did the former administration do about it? Lots of tough talk with no action. China and Russia have at least agreed that some sanctions are necessary. Now, how far they are willing to go is another matter. We are slowly getting the rest of the world on our side.

But hopey-changey! Hopey-changey! Obama just needs to make it so and then we can spin this as the completion of a job that Bush started!
/end-bullshit

I’m willing to put up with the pathetic “he’s going to give our daughters to the mullahs!” paranoid rhetoric so long as the president continues doing what he’s been doing…restoring our name abroad, negotiating realistic and peaceful solutions, and working on fixing our economy.

27 brookly red  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:30:35pm

re: #21 Cato the Elder

As opposed to waiting until Iran nukes Israel.

well it was us that said we wouldn’t use nukes to retaliate… not them.

28 sandbox  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:31:08pm

re: #26 darthstar

So it sound like you’re Ok with Iran getting nuke weapons.

29 jamesfirecat  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:32:20pm

re: #28 sandbox

So it sound like you’re Ok with Iran getting nuke weapons.

I for one would rather have Iran get nuclear weapons then start a war with them to stop them from getting them.

That is something else entirely than starting a war with them to keep them from using them obviously.

30 sandbox  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:33:20pm

re: #29 jamesfirecat

Thank you for your honesty.

31 darthstar  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:33:30pm

re: #20 Cato the Elder

Maybe.

Tell it to Israel.

I’ll address the paranoia here in the US.

32 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:33:38pm

re: #28 sandbox

So it sound like you’re Ok with Iran getting nuke weapons.

the phrase “nuke weapons” sounds really weird

33 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:33:38pm

re: #1 darthstar

Isn’t it nice having a president who sits down with foreign leaders and works out agreements without having to give away the farm or make a big deal out of looking into the other leader’s soul?

I know it’ll be twenty or thirty years before it gets recognized nationally, but our president is currently kicking ass and taking names nukes.

You’re right about that. Ukraine is no longer a threat to the world with their nuclear program because Obama is the toughest leader on the planet. Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have to be quaking in their boot right now. I expect both of them to throw in the towel tomorrow!

34 Tiny alien kittens are watching you  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:34:15pm

Hey I’m all for it as long as Obama has incorporated my email suggestion and obtained for me an 5’-10” to 6’-1” statuesque blond with at least some limited english as my own personal war treaty trophy.

/If my blond ain’t coming then to hell with this and that goofy Obama.

35 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:34:16pm

re: #25 blueraven

DF that would rally all the citizens of Iran, as they would all suffer. There goes any chance of resistance from the green movement. We would be the enemy of the people of Iran, not just the government. Is that what you want?

We’re already the enemy. The people of Iran would hate us, but they would do as we demanded since they would not have a choice. I’d rather be hated and obeyed than thought well of and ignored.

36 brookly red  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:34:42pm

re: #29 jamesfirecat

I for one would rather have Iran get nuclear weapons then start a war with them to stop them from getting them.

That is something else entirely than starting a war with them to keep them from using them obviously.

well OK so we should wait to that point? I am not really sure what you mean…

37 darthstar  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:34:54pm

re: #28 sandbox

So it sound like you’re Ok with Iran getting nuke weapons.

Where the fuck did I say that? I said we don’t know what negotiations are going on between the US and Iran…certainly they’re not going to publicize them at this point so self-righteous assholes can criticize them as being ‘too lenient’ before their finalized.

38 American-African  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:35:23pm

I stayed home today, so I checked on Fox News to see how they would address this, and whenever I tuned in, they glossed over it as though it were completely unimportant. Maddow actually ran a story on Chile giving up material just before the quake. This is really a big deal, but not much in the media about the meaning.

39 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:36:10pm

re: #32 WindUpBird

Semantics will stop the question from being valid?

40 Cato the Elder  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:36:25pm

re: #24 jamesfirecat

I’d rather never throw the first punch.

That’s easy for me to say of course because last time I checked Iran can’t get its rockets to reach us yet.

They can reach Israel. As can all the Hezbollah rockets they’re assembling daily in Lebanon.

If my neighbors were doing that shit, I wouldn’t think twice about attacking first.

Which goes a) to show Israel’s continuing remarkable restraint and b) as evidence that we may indeed still have some time. If the clock for Israel were at five minutes to midnight, there would be stuff going on right now. It wouldn’t be pretty, but I would support it.

41 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:36:26pm

re: #29 jamesfirecat

I for one would rather have Iran get nuclear weapons then start a war with them to stop them from getting them.

That is something else entirely than starting a war with them to keep them from using them obviously.

I don’t agree, but I echo sandbox in thanking you for the honesty. At least you let us know where you stand.

42 Cato the Elder  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:36:50pm

re: #27 brookly red

well it was us that said we wouldn’t use nukes to retaliate… not them.

Actually, no, we said exactly the opposite.

43 brookly red  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:36:51pm

re: #34 ausador

Hey I’m all for it as long as Obama has incorporated my email suggestion and obtained for me an 5’-10” to 6’-1” statuesque blond with at least some limited english as my own personal war treaty trophy.

/If my blond ain’t coming then to hell with this and that goofy Obama.

Poof! Mr. Ausador meet Ann Coulter… all yours sign here.

44 jamesfirecat  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:36:53pm

re: #36 brookly red

well OK so we should wait to that point? I am not really sure what you mean…

I’m saying that what we should do is to work on the tech we need to shoot down ICBMs in flight and then sit back and wait.

Let them fire the first shot…

I want to go back to the days when America didn’t start wars…

45 Usually refered to as anyways  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:37:26pm

Sort of OT

Australian laser ‘threatens nuclear security’
By Washington correspondent Craig McMurtrie


As a summit of world leaders begins in Washington, a prominent US physicist is warning that an Australian invention poses a significant threat to nuclear security.

Dr Francis Slakey, from Georgetown University in Washington DC, says a revolutionary uranium enrichment process using lasers has the potential to make it much easier for rogue countries or terrorist organisations to conceal any nuclear program.

More Here…

Does anyone think it is possible to contain the nuclear threat?

As this technology has been proven successful how long before its technology proliferates?

silex.com.au


Is this a means to and end?
Or
The end by any means?

46 Cato the Elder  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:37:46pm

re: #31 darthstar

I’ll address the paranoia here in the US.

What paranoia?

47 windsagio  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:37:48pm

Oops, israel and Iran.

Cue everyone turning their brains off, and me leaving.

48 Stanley Sea  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:37:59pm

re: #27 brookly red

well it was us that said we wouldn’t use nukes to retaliate… not them.

wrong

49 brookly red  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:38:23pm

re: #42 Cato the Elder

Actually, no, we said exactly the opposite.

yes your right, my bad.

50 darthstar  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:38:41pm

re: #47 windsagio

Oops, israel and Iran.

Cue everyone turning their brains off, and me leaving.

Hold the door! I’m coming too!

51 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:38:47pm

re: #9 darthstar

Give me a fuckin’ break. You have no idea what kinds of discussions are going on with Iran right now (and for that matter, neither do I). But I can assure you that negotiations are taking place, and despite the public and media rhetoric about Ahmadinejad refining uranium faster than you can bake a pan of brownies, and having a nuke in 5, 4, 3, 2…oh, fuck, he’s got a THOUSAND AIMED AT FUCKING IOWA!!!OMFGZ!1A!

Take your WEGOTTABOMBIRANBEFORETHEYKILLUS paranoia elsewhere.

I say Israel hits within the next year to fifteen months.

52 goddamnedfrank  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:39:00pm

re: #10 Dark_Falcon

How about bar Iran from importing gasoline. Use our Navy to prevent it from being shipped to Iran. The Mullahs dismantle their nuclear program, or their nation comes to a halt.

An embargo is an overt act of war, you can’t treat it like a separate measure from all out war. Also there’s no way to enforce a naval blockade against Iran without destroying the thousands of surface to surface missiles they have dug into the mountains that line the Persian Gulf. You should also aware that Iran borders the Caspian Sea. We have no unilateral way of dealing with that border, we need at the very least for Russia to agree before we can even think of preventing gasoline from entering Iran. Otherwise a fine idea.

53 bratwurst  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:39:57pm

re: #33 NJDhockeyfan

You’re right about that. Ukraine is no longer a threat to the world with their nuclear program because Obama is the toughest leader on the planet. Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have to be quaking in their boot right now. I expect both of them to throw in the towel tomorrow!

Gee…I don’t know what you have been reading, but I am not expecting anything like that at all!

54 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:40:05pm

re: #29 jamesfirecat

I for one would rather have Iran get nuclear weapons then start a war with them to stop them from getting them.

That is something else entirely than starting a war with them to keep them from using them obviously.

If Iran succeeds in building nukes it will start an arms race in the ME that nobody wants to see. I have no doubt they will share their new weapons with radical Islamists with the intent if destroying Israel and other Western targets aimed at the US & Britain. Iran getting nukes is a very bad idea.

55 darthstar  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:40:16pm

re: #51 SanFranciscoZionist

I say Israel hits within the next year to fifteen months.

I do hope you’re wrong about that. And now, I’m bowing out of this discussion completely (for a while, anyway).

56 brookly red  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:40:32pm

re: #44 jamesfirecat

I’m saying that what we should do is to work on the tech we need to shoot down ICBMs in flight and then sit back and wait.

Let them fire the first shot…

I want to go back to the days when America didn’t start wars…

so what happens if they come in wrapped in kilos of cocaine? we don’t seem very good at keeping them out of the country>

57 brookly red  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:42:56pm

re: #55 darthstar

I do hope you’re wrong about that. And now, I’m bowing out of this discussion completely (for a while, anyway).

I will second that.

58 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:43:00pm

re: #27 brookly red

sorry, had to down ding.

you wouldn’t have guessed it from watching FNC or reading the Ny Post………………… but…………. the Obama review does not apply to countrys in breach of or not signed up to non proliferation.

He can turn Iran green and glowing if he really wants.

59 sandbox  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:43:53pm

And if Iran attacks our ships in the Gulf, I want the US to shoot back.

60 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:44:48pm

re: #59 sandbox

who says you can’t?

61 researchok  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:45:21pm

re: #51 SanFranciscoZionist

I say Israel hits within the next year to fifteen months.

They have no choice. They are morally obligated to do that.

62 jamesfirecat  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:46:06pm

re: #56 brookly red

so what happens if they come in wrapped in kilos of cocaine? we don’t seem very good at keeping them out of the country>

If they do then it will explode and kill some people… I think starting another premptive war so soon after the last one will do more damage to “America” (And what I believe America is all about) than any single nuclear blast could. (Says the catnip smoking liberal college student who has never lost anyone important to him due to either of the wars we’re in now or 9/11)

My personal preference is, if this is such a big deal, I do no have a problem with Isreal throwing the first punch (I know they’ve done it before) and us coming in as their ally, I just don’t want the US to go around starting wars, only finishing them.

63 Cato the Elder  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:46:42pm

re: #47 windsagio

Oops, israel and Iran.

Cue everyone turning their brains off, and me leaving.

I don’t see anyone among the rational posters here turning their brains off, except the ones who are leaving because they can’t bear to look at the actual choices involved for Israel.

64 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:46:50pm

re: #52 goddamnedfrank

An embargo is an overt act of war, you can’t treat it like a separate measure from all out war. Also there’s no way to enforce a naval blockade against Iran without destroying the thousands of surface to surface missiles they have dug into the mountains that line the Persian Gulf. You should also aware that Iran borders the Caspian Sea. We have no unilateral way of dealing with that border, we need at the very least for Russia to agree before we can even think of preventing gasoline from entering Iran. Otherwise a fine idea.

It would be tough, and you’re right about the obstacles. But all out war still strikes me as better than letting Iran have a nuke. that said, it would be something we’d need to debate publicly. People should know what stopping Iran will cost.

65 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:46:53pm

re: #58 wozzablog

downding revrersed.

66 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:46:58pm

re: #61 researchok

They have no choice. They are morally obligated to do that.

I hope they don’t have to go it alone. I know they will if they have to.

67 goddamnedfrank  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:47:51pm

re: #51 SanFranciscoZionist

I say Israel hits within the next year to fifteen months.

The only reason they haven’t yet is that hitting fueled facilities means a guaranteed radiological catastrophe. If and when they do it will truly be a measure of desperate last resort, as both the literal and figurative fallout would be incredibly ugly.

68 researchok  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:49:11pm

re: #66 NJDhockeyfan

I hope they don’t have to go it alone. I know they will if they have to.

From a Spiegel article:

The pacifist reaction that the Israeli defensive war has triggered in Germany and Europe is not well thought out and is disingenuous. It is also counter-productive. An immediate cease-fire would merely result in a worse conflict in the future. The consequences drawn from Adolf Hitler’s World War II — “Never again fascism! Never again war!” — were intended to prevent an anti-Semitic war from ever again taking place. Today, that lesson has been forgotten. “Never again war against fascism” is all that remains.

Israel must not be forced to abandon its war against Hezbollah, rather it must win the conflict. Just as Hezbollah is fighting the war as Iran’s proxy, Israel is fighting genocidal Islamism as the proxy for the rest of the Western world. The least Israel should be able to expect from the West is that it not be betrayed.

69 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:50:03pm

re: #64 Dark_Falcon

all out war would involve israel fighting on multiple fronts, and taking mass casualties to rockets and conventional arms.

Iraq would be officially subsumed into Iran…………

Surgical strikes could just about avert that - but if people start beating the all out war drums israel isn’t going to have to glow to be destroyed.

70 Cato the Elder  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:51:36pm

re: #69 wozzablog

all out war would involve israel fighting on multiple fronts, and taking mass casualties to rockets and conventional arms.

Iraq would be officially subsumed into Iran…

Surgical strikes could just about avert that - but if people start beating the all out war drums israel isn’t going to have to glow to be destroyed.

Just curious - is there a reason you capitalize Iran and Iraq but not Israel?

Are you a quadruple agent of some kind?

71 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:52:41pm

re: #39 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Semantics will stop the question from being valid?

no, it just sounds weird!

I don’t get into the foreign policy so much ;-)

72 researchok  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:53:05pm

re: #69 wozzablog

all out war would involve israel fighting on multiple fronts, and taking mass casualties to rockets and conventional arms.

Iraq would be officially subsumed into Iran…

Surgical strikes could just about avert that - but if people start beating the all out war drums israel isn’t going to have to glow to be destroyed.

I don’t think the Russians would let Iran get involved in a full scale war.

They have the gas deals to protect.

73 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:53:19pm

re: #70 Cato the Elder

i’m playing the it’s 03:52am card with two ims and three forums opem/

74 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:53:49pm

re: #72 researchok

can only hope.

75 researchok  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:54:10pm

re: #73 wozzablog

i’m playing the it’s 03:52am card with two ims and three forums opem/

When does the juggling chainsaws act start?

76 blueraven  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:54:58pm

re: #59 sandbox

And if Iran attacks our ships in the Gulf, I want the US to shoot back.

Doh! Do you think we wouldn’t? Why would you even have to say something like that.

With all the talk of fiscal responsibility, seems so many on the far right care little about the costs for all these wars. If we can avoid war with Iran, we should. Not at any cost, but certainly not before everything else has failed to work.

77 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:55:21pm

re: #75 researchok

just missed it, its at quarter to the hour and lasts 30seconds.

the state sponsored trip the emergency room follows immediately after.

78 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:57:16pm

re: #76 blueraven

Doh! Do you think we wouldn’t? Why would you even have to say something like that.

With all the talk of fiscal responsibility, seems so many on the far right care little about the costs for all these wars. If we can avoid war with Iran, we should. Not at any cost, but certainly not before everything else has failed to work.

What haven’t we done to stop Iran from building nukes?

79 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:57:19pm

re: #76 blueraven

The wars are essentially free, if you only pay the minimum monthly rate on the credit card………

which we were, until Obama had to go and put them on the books officially. large part of him “trebling” the deficit was just taking stuff off credit cards and putting it on the bottom line in the way the chickenshit budgetsquat predecessors didn’t.

80 Tiny alien kittens are watching you  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:58:20pm

Man I sure wish we had a Republican in office to deal with Iran, he would handle them like the last one did with North Korea!

He would talk and talk and threaten and bluster and then once they test fired a nuke and sent missiles over Japan to prove that they could use them he would quietly take them off of the terrorist countries list and pretend it never happened so people wouldn’t make too big a deal out of it.

/That really showed em huh?

81 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:59:15pm

re: #80 ausador

(shhhhh, don’t mention Bush…..)

82 davesax  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 7:59:43pm

If military action is taken against Iran by either Israel or the United states, Israel will be attacked by Hezbollah, Hamas, and maybe even Syria.

If no action is taken against Iran by either Israel or the United States, there is a good chance Iran will get the bomb (sanctions most likely won’t work). Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria will be emboldened to attack Israel.

There are no good answers.

But one thing is for sure: no “peace process” can take place with the radioactive mullahs backing Hezbollah and Hamas. Obama must know this. I’m not a foreign policy expert, and yet it seems so obvious. Imagine a 3rd intifada, sparked by a PA or Hamas broadcast, with a nuclear Iran in the background.

83 Tiny alien kittens are watching you  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:01:12pm

re: #81 wozzablog

(shhh, don’t mention Bush…)

I didn’t, you did. ;)

84 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:01:21pm

re: #82 davesax

Nasty thought. Good to see you back, Dave? How are you?

85 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:01:33pm

re: #83 ausador

touche.

touche.

86 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:01:50pm

re: #81 wozzablog

(shhh, don’t mention Bush…)

it’s so cute when the standards change, isn’t it?

87 davesax  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:02:19pm

re: #84 Dark_Falcon

I’m pretty good.

Worried about this stuff, though. It’s very scary.

How are you?

88 Cato the Elder  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:06:19pm

re: #77 wozzablog

just missed it, its at quarter to the hour and lasts 30seconds.

the state sponsored trip the emergency room follows immediately after.

Crap, you’re brave…that’s the really dangerous part.

89 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:06:54pm

re: #82 davesax

catch 22.

i guess we should just all keep our fingers crossed for incremental change in iran.

If the student democracy movement can truly take the capital - a massive internal crackdown would shift their national focus.

There isn’t going to a palatable government in Iran for quite sometime - even if the students win, but a less unpalatable one would go a very very long way.

90 Cato the Elder  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:07:13pm

re: #78 NJDhockeyfan

What haven’t we done to stop Iran from building nukes?

Obama has done more with his recent nuclear posture statement than Bush did in eight years of blustering.

91 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:07:56pm

re: #87 davesax

I’m pretty good.

Worried about this stuff, though. It’s very scary.

How are you?

Still looking for a job. I’ve got an early interview tomorrow, and another interview on Wednesday. Both are for good jobs and I’m looking forward to them.

92 blueraven  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:07:58pm

re: #78 NJDhockeyfan

What haven’t we done to stop Iran from building nukes?

Implemented tough, targeted sanctions backed by the UN, including Russia and China.

93 Cato the Elder  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:08:39pm

re: #82 davesax

If military action is taken against Iran by either Israel or the United states, Israel will be attacked by Hezbollah, Hamas, and maybe even Syria.

If no action is taken against Iran by either Israel or the United States, there is a good chance Iran will get the bomb (sanctions most likely won’t work). Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria will be emboldened to attack Israel.

There are no good answers.

But one thing is for sure: no “peace process” can take place with the radioactive mullahs backing Hezbollah and Hamas. Obama must know this. I’m not a foreign policy expert, and yet it seems so obvious. Imagine a 3rd intifada, sparked by a PA or Hamas broadcast, with a nuclear Iran in the background.

There is no “peace process”.

94 Cato the Elder  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:10:30pm

re: #89 wozzablog

catch 22.

i guess we should just all keep our fingers crossed for incremental change in iran.

If the student democracy movement can truly take the capital - a massive internal crackdown would shift their national focus.

There isn’t going to a palatable government in Iran for quite sometime - even if the students win, but a less unpalatable one would go a very very long way.

Keeping one’s fingers crossed is what people do while real men are making other plans…

95 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:10:46pm

re: #61 researchok

They have no choice. They are morally obligated to do that.

I think if it has to be done, they’ll know. And I’ll be surprised if Obama hasn’t been apprised of what the necessary conditions will be.

96 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:11:04pm

re: #93 Cato the Elder

There is no “peace process”.

It remains an important illusion.

When a critical mass is reached that it doesn’t exist - there is officially no reason to try and do anything.

While it still *exists* there is a glimmer - and sometimes, just sometimes thats all people need not to increase the killing thousand fold.

97 davesax  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:11:50pm

re: #91 Dark_Falcon

Good luck, Falcon!

98 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:12:18pm

re: #66 NJDhockeyfan

I hope they don’t have to go it alone. I know they will if they have to.

It’s probably better for us and them if there’s some plausible deniablity about our involvement.

Osirak was a one-shot deal, but unfortunately a lot has been learned since then.

99 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:12:28pm

re: #90 Cato the Elder

Obama has done more with his recent nuclear posture statement than Bush did in eight years of blustering.

Last I saw Iran has ramped up the nuclear program. Is that what Obama’s nuclear posture is supposed to be doing? If so he’s doing a great job.

100 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:14:05pm

re: #94 Cato the Elder

like all out nuclear war?………………………

the obliteration of atleast one nationstate in blowback?……………

Hoping for the best to emerge in Iran - and i have a journo friend who is there and talking to young people on a semi regular basis - is only as dangerous as the alternatives.

IMHO the previous mentions of firm sanctions and moving china and russia are the prefereable options that should be used to buy the internal opposition time.

101 Cato the Elder  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:15:11pm

re: #22 Athens Runaway

Raise your hand if you were afraid of Ukraine or Canada using its nukes on anyone. Or afraid of the Ukraine or Canada, period.

Although I suppose that this prevents the ol’ Canadian Bacon scenario.

WE NOW HAVE THE UPPER HAND MUAHAHA.

Just saw this. It’s a stupid comment.

It’s not about being afraid of Ukraine using its nukes; it’s about their ultimate disposition.

This is a win.

102 researchok  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:15:40pm

re: #95 SanFranciscoZionist

I think if it has to be done, they’ll know. And I’ll be surprised if Obama hasn’t been apprised of what the necessary conditions will be.

They’ll go with our blessing- maybe behind closed doors, but with our blessing.

Europe will be on board too- even if they publicly deny it.

103 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:17:07pm

good night everybody.

104 researchok  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:17:23pm

re: #100 wozzablog

like all out nuclear war?…

the obliteration of atleast one nationstate in blowback?…

Hoping for the best to emerge in Iran - and i have a journo friend who is there and talking to young people on a semi regular basis - is only as dangerous as the alternatives.

IMHO the previous mentions of firm sanctions and moving china and russia are the prefereable options that should be used to buy the internal opposition time.

That’s the $64,000 question- how much time is here?

105 blueraven  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:17:40pm

re: #99 NJDhockeyfan

Last I saw Iran has ramped up the nuclear program. Is that what Obama’s nuclear posture is supposed to be doing? If so he’s doing a great job.

I guess its reasonable to expect Obama to resolve this issue after one year in office, when no progress was made over the last 8 years.
/

At least he is making the effort.

106 researchok  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:17:50pm

re: #103 wozzablog

nite

107 Tiny alien kittens are watching you  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:18:07pm

re: #82 davesax

If military action is taken against Iran by either Israel or the United states, Israel will be attacked by Hezbollah, Hamas, and maybe even Syria.

If no action is taken against Iran by either Israel or the United States, there is a good chance Iran will get the bomb (sanctions most likely won’t work). Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria will be emboldened to attack Israel.

There are no good answers.

But one thing is for sure: no “peace process” can take place with the radioactive mullahs backing Hezbollah and Hamas. Obama must know this. I’m not a foreign policy expert, and yet it seems so obvious. Imagine a 3rd intifada, sparked by a PA or Hamas broadcast, with a nuclear Iran in the background.

All it means is that M.A.D. will come to the middle east, big deal, we have lived with it for 60 years now. Israel has nukes and will use them if attacked, when (not “if” since they are partners with North Korea on every technology including missiles and nukes) Iran has nukes absolutely nothing will change, nothing.

Iran has been playing up to Hezbollah, Hamas, and Fatah and other arab extremists for many years by saying Israel must be destroyed. Their actions will not match their words when they have to face the reality of their assured destruction in trade. This really is a non-issue of sorts, Iran is just one of a dozen countries currently on the verge of gaining nuclear weapons.

You cannot stop or turn back the clock, nor can you bottle up the nuclear genie that has already been released. We are going to have to live with more and more nuclear armed countries on this planet, what used to be exotic science has now become basic technology if you can acquire the materials. We cannot stop it…

108 Athens Runaway  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:18:41pm

re: #101 Cato the Elder

Just saw this. It’s a stupid comment.

It’s not about being afraid of Ukraine using its nukes; it’s about their ultimate disposition.

This is a win.

Not saying it’s not a “win,” but it’s hardly the touchdown that people are claiming.

Besides, it was half-joking. Take a chill pill.

109 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:19:34pm

re: #104 researchok

last post of the night.

the answer to your question - more time than the good folks at Heritage and the AEI would like you to think.

110 Cato the Elder  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:19:40pm

re: #96 wozzablog

It remains an important illusion.

When a critical mass is reached that it doesn’t exist - there is officially no reason to try and do anything.

While it still *exists* there is a glimmer - and sometimes, just sometimes thats all people need not to increase the killing thousand fold.

Who needs to be deluded by that illusion? The American press? The American public? The people on the ground in the Middle East already all know it’s all bullshit.

This is one of those few cases where Tom Friedman is right. Abandon the “peace process” as a matter of official US policy and tell all the parties concerned to dial 1-800-AMERICA if something changes.

111 Cato the Elder  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:20:23pm

re: #99 NJDhockeyfan

Last I saw Iran has ramped up the nuclear program. Is that what Obama’s nuclear posture is supposed to be doing? If so he’s doing a great job.

They’ve been ramping it up for the last ten years.

112 Cato the Elder  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:21:41pm

re: #108 Athens Runaway

Not saying it’s not a “win,” but it’s hardly the touchdown that people are claiming.

Besides, it was half-joking. Take a chill pill.

Got a benny instead?

113 Athens Runaway  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:23:15pm

re: #112 Cato the Elder

Got a benny instead?

Fresh out, sorry

114 researchok  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:23:38pm

re: #111 Cato the Elder

They’ve been ramping it up for the last ten years.

You know, iy just occurred to me that Saddam moved his air force to Iran when the going got hot.

I wonder if he sent the Iranians his nuclear program (at least the parts that weren’t buried in various gardens) as well.

115 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:23:47pm

re: #111 Cato the Elder

They’ve been ramping it up for the last ten years.

it just only COUNTS as ramping now!

116 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:25:08pm

re: #105 blueraven

I guess its reasonable to expect Obama to resolve this issue after one year in office, when no progress was made over the last 8 years.
/

At least he is making the effort.

The previous administration made all kinds of efforts as well. What kind of statement is that?

117 blueraven  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:25:28pm

re: #114 researchok

You know, iy just occurred to me that Saddam moved his air force to Iran when the going got hot.

I wonder if he sent the Iranians his nuclear program (at least the parts that weren’t buried in various gardens) as well.

Why would he do that? They were enemies.

118 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:27:30pm

re: #111 Cato the Elder

They’ve been ramping it up for the last ten years.

Exactly and there no stopping them except with bunker-busters and cruise missiles. Diplomacy has been an utter failure. Iran doesn’t have any interest in ending their nuke program. They are doing it for the Mahdi.

119 researchok  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:27:33pm

re: #117 blueraven

Why would he do that? They were enemies.

The enemy of my enemy… and so on. That’s for real over there.

He did send almost his entire air force to Iran.

120 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:29:06pm

re: #119 researchok

The enemy of my enemy… and so on. That’s for real over there.

He did send almost his entire air force to Iran.

He sent the bulk of his WMDs to Syria according to one of his Generals.

121 blueraven  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:29:08pm

re: #116 NJDhockeyfan

The previous administration made all kinds of efforts as well. What kind of statement is that?

What efforts? Idle threats and chest pounding?

Obama is trying to get all the major powers on board so that we are not alone in this. With some success as of very recently. That doesnt make sense to you?

122 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:29:16pm

re: #118 NJDhockeyfan

Exactly and there no stopping them except with bunker-busters and cruise missiles. Diplomacy has been an utter failure. Iran doesn’t have any interest in ending their nuke program. They are doing it for the Mahdi.

Quite Concur. Either we ramp up our pressure till they cannot bear it, we attack Iran, or we let them have the bomb. Those are our options. I see no other effective course.

123 researchok  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:30:19pm

re: #120 NJDhockeyfan

He sent the bulk of his WMDs to Syria according to one of his Generals.

Good info.

Makes sense

124 3eff Jeff  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:33:46pm

re: #67 goddamnedfrank

The only reason they haven’t yet is that hitting fueled facilities means a guaranteed radiological catastrophe. If and when they do it will truly be a measure of desperate last resort, as both the literal and figurative fallout would be incredibly ugly.

The PR fallout would be incredibly ugly. There’s a lot I do not know about Iran’s program, but it really depends on the design of their reactors. For the centrifuges, Uranium Hexaflouride is a solid at STP, so it would crystalize out and fall to the ground. It reacts with water to for form Uranyl Flouride and Hydrogen Flouride, both of which are water soluble and toxic. Mind you, by toxic, I mean that chemical toxicity. They are much more dangerous as poison than because they are radioactive.

For the reactors, they’ve contracted out to German firms for the Bushehr I, which means it’s a modern pressurized water design. This means it will have a negative void coefficient and will shutdown on its own when Israel bombs it. There will be a little mess if the bombs manage to knock any of the fuel loose, but I rank that as highly unlikely. The reactor will have two massive, reinforced concrete blast shells around it (to keep the reactor from blowing up and out, but they should work pretty well in the opposite direction). Israel can take out the reactor, but probably won’t make a huge mess.

Except when the news gets a hold of the OHNOESRADIOMACTIVES!!!1! BS.

125 jamesfirecat  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:35:15pm

re: #114 researchok

You know, iy just occurred to me that Saddam moved his air force to Iran when the going got hot.

I wonder if he sent the Iranians his nuclear program (at least the parts that weren’t buried in various gardens) as well.

SO THATS WHERE THOSE WMDS GOT TO!

Guess now we’ve got no choice but invade Iran!

126 3eff Jeff  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:36:17pm

re: #124 3eff Jeff

PIMF. Bah, the wording on my first paragraph is dumb because I realized there was probably enough documentation on Wikipedia to figure out some basic details about the reactor.

127 sagehen  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:37:07pm

re: #124 3eff Jeff

There’s a lot I do not know about Iran’s program, but it really depends on the design of their reactors.

well then, I guess it’s a good thing we got one of their top nuclear scientists to defect to us, huh?

You and I still know next to nothing about the design of their reactors, but Obama and whoever it is he takes advice from on the topic now know a whole heck of a lot.

128 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:38:49pm

re: #121 blueraven

What efforts? Idle threats and chest pounding?

Obama is trying to get all the major powers on board so that we are not alone in this. With some success as of very recently. That doesnt make sense to you?

Bush did the same thing. There were lots of low level talks going on behind the scenes as well as the Europeans talking with them. Nothing worked. Obama’s charm isn’t going to stop a madman.

129 Cato the Elder  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:40:37pm

re: #128 NJDhockeyfan

Obama’s charm isn’t going to stop a madman.

I don’t believe he believes it will.

130 Fozzie Bear  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:40:39pm

re: #27 brookly red

well it was us that said we wouldn’t use nukes to retaliate… not them.

umm… quote me the part of the NPR where it was stated we won’t use nukes to retaliate against nuclear attacks….

131 researchok  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:41:25pm

re: #125 jamesfirecat

SO THATS WHERE THOSE WMDS GOT TO!

Guess now we’ve got no choice but invade Iran!

So there were never any WMD’s?

132 3eff Jeff  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:41:41pm

re: #127 sagehen

well then, I guess it’s a good thing we got one of their top nuclear scientists to defect to us, huh?

You and I still know next to nothing about the design of their reactors, but Obama and whoever it is he takes advice from on the topic now know a whole heck of a lot.

Re-read my second paragraph. I did some basic checking (not enough, because I missed that it’s really a Russian design, but the negative void coefficient stuff stands). It’s a VVER reactor, and it’s designed not to melt down catastrophically. A hit isn’t going to make a huge mess (3 Mile Island, NOT Chernobyl).

133 blueraven  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:43:22pm

re: #128 NJDhockeyfan

Bush did the same thing. There were lots of low level talks going on behind the scenes as well as the Europeans talking with them. Nothing worked. Obama’s charm isn’t going to stop a madman.

No, Bush didnt do the same thing. His attitude was always “you are with us or you are against us”. He never worked hard to get all other nations on board. It has nothing to do with personal charm, it has to do with diplomacy.

134 3eff Jeff  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:43:24pm

re: #127 sagehen

Obama and whoever it is he takes advice from on the topic now know a whole heck of a lot.

Oh yeah, Obama has smart people who know what is going on advising him. I really hope he manages to keep this far enough under control that Israel does not find the need to attack Iran (because they will, and it will not be a good thing).

135 Cato the Elder  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:44:47pm

re: #100 wozzablog

IMHO the previous mentions of firm sanctions and moving china and russia are the prefereable options that should be used to buy the internal opposition time.

Moving China and Russia to where? Madagascar?

136 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:46:38pm

re: #133 blueraven

No, Bush didnt do the same thing. His attitude was always “you are with us or you are against us”. He never worked hard to get all other nations on board. It has nothing to do with personal charm, it has to do with diplomacy.

Total bullshit.

137 blueraven  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:49:13pm

re: #136 NJDhockeyfan

Total bullshit.

Whatever dude.

138 jamesfirecat  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:51:53pm

re: #131 researchok

So there were never any WMD’s?

By jove I think he’s got it!

139 researchok  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:58:47pm

re: #138 jamesfirecat

By jove I think he’s got it!

Then Bill Clinton was quite the as quite the liar.

CNN Transcript:

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors….

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq…

…we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Actually, we went to war because Bill Clinton told the truth.

140 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 9:01:30pm

re: #139 researchok

Actually, we went to war because Bill Clinton told the truth.

Clinton lied. people died!
///

141 researchok  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 9:03:27pm

re: #140 NJDhockeyfan

Clinton lied. people died!
///

Fact is, Clinton was right on Iraq. Reluctant, but right.

142 Cato the Elder  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 9:20:54pm

re: #24 jamesfirecat

I’d rather never throw the first punch.

As to that:

I got into an altercation with a really drunk kid late at night here in Baltimore this past weekend. He had just insulted a friend of mine with a totally homophobic shit-stirring slur.

Unfortunately, when I confronted him, I had my dog on the leash in one hand and a sixpack in the other.

He ended up whacking me upside the head with a beer can. He won.

Now, given that I was at fault in that you should always release your dog and put down the sixpack in its brown paper bag before initiating hostilities, tell me: should I have waited for him to throw the first punch?

143 sagehen  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 9:24:34pm

re: #142 Cato the Elder

When the police arrive and start asking questions, it will go better for you if the other guy struck first.

144 avanti  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 9:25:36pm

Funny comment on the stalker blog where I was just stalking:

“that commie “b” gurta on Fox New is putting ideas out to sway the truth..

“are the Tea Parties part of the Ron Paul movement”

Gurta must blog on lgf’s .00001..

any one think she may be ice weasle…???”

145 jamesfirecat  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 9:40:19pm

re: #142 Cato the Elder

As to that:

I got into an altercation with a really drunk kid late at night here in Baltimore this past weekend. He had just insulted a friend of mine with a totally homophobic shit-stirring slur.

Unfortunately, when I confronted him, I had my dog on the leash in one hand and a sixpack in the other.

He ended up whacking me upside the head with a beer can. He won.

Now, given that I was at fault in that you should always release your dog and put down the sixpack in its brown paper bag before initiating hostilities, tell me: should I have waited for him to throw the first punch?

Yes, because if you hadn’t, then you might be in jail for assult.

146 Cato the Elder  Mon, Apr 12, 2010 10:31:27pm

re: #145 jamesfirecat

Yes, because if you hadn’t, then you might be in jail for assult.

Well, then, mutatis mutandis, if Israel gets in a sitch where they have to drop the dog leash and the sixpack and strike first, you think they’re gonna be all upset about an assault charge?

Granted, I’m not Israel, and my fightin’ skillz are negligible, but I would still have preferred charges being preferred against me than letting a little shit like that win.

The fun part was he dropped the beer can in his flight, and I got to drink it later.

147 ClaudeMonet  Tue, Apr 13, 2010 1:27:53am

re: #143 sagehen

When the police arrive and start asking questions, it will go better for you if the other guy struck first.

Not if the other guy’s first punch is the last punch of the fight. This is kind of like nuclear war.

“Back in the day”, I was the counter-punching type, as befits the smaller guy in a fight. Let the other guy throw his one off-balance haymaker (yeah, like I was going to stand still and let myself get hit), then hit him somewhere hard enough to make him stop even thinking of throwing another punch. Kidneys are a good place to attack.

BTW, Cato—Was it good beer, or just “free” beer?

148 captdiggs  Tue, Apr 13, 2010 4:44:52am

re: #90 Cato the Elder

Obama has done more with his recent nuclear posture statement than Bush did in eight years of blustering.

Bush was responsible for a series of sanctions imposed on Iran despite the foot dragging of the EU and others.
Then in ‘07 he was blindsided and hamstrung by the NIE which (falsely) stated that Iran had given up its program. After that report, there was little he could do to get any support for further actions. In addition, he had Mohammed El-Barradei leading the IAEA who was also covering up and whitewashing Iran’s activities.

Obama now has a different NIE and a different IAEA leadership which both assert that Iran is moving full steam ahead.

Obama, imo, has already accepted a nuclear armed Iran, and his recent and public scuffle with Israel is far less about settlements than about weakening Israel’s ability to strike Iran.

149 jamesfirecat  Tue, Apr 13, 2010 6:11:56am

re: #146 Cato the Elder

Well, then, mutatis mutandis, if Israel gets in a sitch where they have to drop the dog leash and the sixpack and strike first, you think they’re gonna be all upset about an assault charge?

Granted, I’m not Israel, and my fightin’ skillz are negligible, but I would still have preferred charges being preferred against me than letting a little shit like that win.

The fun part was he dropped the beer can in his flight, and I got to drink it later.

Let work with your analogy a little further if you don’t mind.

Odds are low that anyone is going to get killed by a single punch, so using “throwing the first punch” as analogy for nukes is a bad one in my opinion.

Instead lets us “firing the first shot” instead.

At the moment Israel has a gun, and Iran wants a gun.

It’d be wrong of Israel to shoot Iran as Iran walks into a guns & ammo store and then later say “well he was going in there to buy a gun which I then knew he’d later be trying to shoot me with…” Lets wait till we know for sure that Iran has a gun.

That said, once again I say this from the safety of my college dormitory, the US is a big and strong country and it’d take more than even a (single) nuclear weapon to wipe us off the map, and Iran doesn’t have the capacity to launch its nukes at us.

So I don’t consider myself in a good place to truly judge what Israel may need to do to survive, all I’m saying is let Iran throw the first punch, let Israel throw the first punch if it feels it needs to, I just don’t want to see the US throwing the first punch….

150 steve_davis  Tue, Apr 13, 2010 6:20:17am

re: #10 Dark_Falcon

How about bar Iran from importing gasoline. Use our Navy to prevent it from being shipped to Iran. The Mullahs dismantle their nuclear program, or their nation comes to a halt.

that would be an internationally-recognized act of war.

151 captdiggs  Tue, Apr 13, 2010 10:07:09am

re: #149 jamesfirecat

The trouble is that no one is talking about “guns”. The reality is nuclear weapons and the fact that even one dropped on Israel is a disaster of unimaginable proportions. Iran could do in minutes what it took Hitler more than 10 years to do.
Another aspect of Iranian nukes is the fact that they would use that new found stick to wield in the world’s oil patch and, the shiite possession of such weapons would lead to a massive race to nuclear weapons by the sunni nations.
Not a pretty picture, even without the threat to Israel.
The middle eastern arab nations and Iran all armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons.
These are some of the most unstable nations on earth with large segments of the population sympathetic to radical Islamic theology. The attendant threat of further proliferation and the chance of leakage of these weapons to terrorist groups would rise exponentially.
So this is not just all about Israel, it is about US and world security.

152 hokiepride  Tue, Apr 13, 2010 10:21:12am

re: #149 jamesfirecat

Lets take the analogy of the gun a bit further…as yours is not complete..

I am at a gun store with a loaded gun trying to purchase ammo..and in walks my mortal enemy who has repeatedly threatened to kill me in the past. He has an empty gun and he orders ammo and mentions that this ammo is for killing me. He then buys the ammo and starts loading his gun. Should I wait for him to strike first?

Heck no, I would strike first. Iran has an empty gun and now they are preparing the ammo and have repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map. The US should be solidly behind Israel and utilize every means to dissaude Iran and to weaken the Mullahs.

153 Sacred Plants  Wed, Apr 14, 2010 4:43:56am

A nation giving up its nuke materials can mean different things. It can mean that it gives up its own nuclear arms program, or dual use capacity, such as in the case of Ukraine. But it can also mean to lay off a sharing agreement that includes access rights to another nation’s nuclear arsenal. The U.S. are involved in several such deals in Western Europe, which is out of itself ironic since these were enacted with regard to Soviet nukes in Eastern Europe, which includes Ukraine. That leaves the nuclear have-nots in Central Europe with a capacity, whose declared purpose has not only practically expired but now also is being formally abandoned. That they continue to exist may be due to the fact that giving up nuke materials also means giving up jobs, only that Ukraine apparently decided to leave its experts unemployed for a higher reason.

But there also is a security risk in this. Since Frau Merkel’s political leadership is just as fragile as that of Mr. Obama - in the event of a loss of the face at the top of the totem pole the entire hierarchy beneath might be reshuffled - and the wingnut aristocrats in her cabinet whom she barely manages to contain might think of pulling an Osirak reenaction farce on Persia to galvanize the German people, and leave their nuclear patron with the diplomatic fallout and an outlook plastered with the best wishes for Israel. It may even buy some time for the price of blasting open the door towards nuclear sharing agreements as a diplomatic instrument for all nations nuclear or not.

154 Solomon2  Thu, Apr 15, 2010 10:55:02am

Just what material are they giving up? Weapons? Chernobyl waste? Bomb-grade wasn’t just stockpiled there; in Soviet days, Ukraine mined and processed it, too. The Zheltye Vody facility was famous for being run by the slave labor of condemned criminals - they’d work ‘em a month or so, then ship them away elsewhere to die because they ingested radioactive materials.

Cleaning up Ukraine is a BIG job…


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 116 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 277 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1