Diplomacy has failed
-
dennisd45 wrote:
We shouldn't have gone in, and now that we have it is his responsibility to fix it.
But what did you say then? If not, did you offer a solution to Iraq's refusal to comply with UN resolutions then? Or are you just complaining because you believe that inaction was the only appropriate action?
dennisd45 wrote:
You haven't addressed the effectiveness or consequences of this action. Check this out, it might not be as easy or as cost free as you think
I never said it would be cost-free, but destroying nuclear facilities would be strategically effective. The link you provided, for some reason, reticently states that Israel's attack on Iraq did not set back Iraq's nuclear ambitions, but it did set back their nuclear program (by about a decade). I don't expect a tactical strike to quell Iran's nuclear ambitions (they are a terrorist state, after all), but that's not really the goal. The only concern is America's actual ability to destroy the facilities from the air. From what I understand, Iran built the facilities far enough underground that bunker buster bombs wouldn't have an effect. But I don't know if they can withstand nuclear bunker busters (which release no radiation since they detonate far below the earth). Those don't need a direct hit since they cause an underground shockwave and could potentially destroy the facilities.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
espeir wrote:
But I don't know if they can withstand nuclear bunker busters (which release no radiation since they detonate far below the earth). Those don't need a direct hit since they cause an underground shockwave and could potentially destroy the facilities.
They don't have enough penetration to seriously limit the radiation released, and would most likely be ineffective against the targets. I suggest you search for RNEP and do a bit of reading. Here's something to get you started: Bombs Away?[^] Ahmadinejad is a posturing, nationalistic, religious fundamentalist jackass -- seems to be a presidential trend these days -- and I think the threat of their nuclear program has been intentionally overstated. The potential cost of action at this point -- especially nuclear action (I can't believe sane people are actually suggesting that option) -- far outweighs the potential cost of inaction.
-
espeir wrote:
But I don't know if they can withstand nuclear bunker busters (which release no radiation since they detonate far below the earth). Those don't need a direct hit since they cause an underground shockwave and could potentially destroy the facilities.
They don't have enough penetration to seriously limit the radiation released, and would most likely be ineffective against the targets. I suggest you search for RNEP and do a bit of reading. Here's something to get you started: Bombs Away?[^] Ahmadinejad is a posturing, nationalistic, religious fundamentalist jackass -- seems to be a presidential trend these days -- and I think the threat of their nuclear program has been intentionally overstated. The potential cost of action at this point -- especially nuclear action (I can't believe sane people are actually suggesting that option) -- far outweighs the potential cost of inaction.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
They don't have enough penetration to seriously limit the radiation released, and would most likely be ineffective against the targets. I suggest you search for RNEP and do a bit of reading. Here's something to get you started: Bombs Away?[^]
According to your teenager-oriented article, they would destroy bunkers up to 1000 feet below the surface, so they most likely would be effective. You really should read your own links. Regardless, it looks like the program was unfortunately scrapped last year and replaced with one that uses conventional weapons that are as effective. I find it interesting that leftists always seem to say that new weapons programs will never work...like the now proven successful missile defense shield. I'm pretty confident that our military would be able to take out a few nuclear facilities.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Ahmadinejad is a posturing, nationalistic, religious fundamentalist jackass -- seems to be a presidential trend these days -- and I think the threat of their nuclear program has been intentionally overstated. The potential cost of action at this point -- especially nuclear action (I can't believe sane people are actually suggesting that option) -- far outweighs the potential cost of inaction.
That's interesting that you equate George Bush to Ahmalamadingdong and that says a lot about your Benedict Arnold attitude to your home country. Your desire for inaction is noted in conjuntion with your trechorous, anti-American stance.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
dennisd45 wrote:
We shouldn't have gone in, and now that we have it is his responsibility to fix it.
But what did you say then? If not, did you offer a solution to Iraq's refusal to comply with UN resolutions then? Or are you just complaining because you believe that inaction was the only appropriate action?
dennisd45 wrote:
You haven't addressed the effectiveness or consequences of this action. Check this out, it might not be as easy or as cost free as you think
I never said it would be cost-free, but destroying nuclear facilities would be strategically effective. The link you provided, for some reason, reticently states that Israel's attack on Iraq did not set back Iraq's nuclear ambitions, but it did set back their nuclear program (by about a decade). I don't expect a tactical strike to quell Iran's nuclear ambitions (they are a terrorist state, after all), but that's not really the goal. The only concern is America's actual ability to destroy the facilities from the air. From what I understand, Iran built the facilities far enough underground that bunker buster bombs wouldn't have an effect. But I don't know if they can withstand nuclear bunker busters (which release no radiation since they detonate far below the earth). Those don't need a direct hit since they cause an underground shockwave and could potentially destroy the facilities.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
espeir wrote:
But what did you say then? If not, did you offer a solution to Iraq's refusal to comply with UN resolutions then? Or are you just complaining because you believe that inaction was the only appropriate action?
You've set up a false set of choices: nuclear attack or inaction. Diplomacy and sanctions are not inaction. It has been shown that the actions of the previous presidents did halt Iraqi nuclear ambitions without war. Libya has modified it's behavior without war. Back at the time Bush was talking of war, I believed the administrations false intelligence about Iraq's nuclear capability, but I also knew that Bush would fail if he invaded, so I didn't think we should invade.
espeir wrote:
The only concern is America's actual ability to destroy the facilities from the air.
No, that's not the only consideration. Iranian response, arab/muslim response. Russia, China, and the rest of the world. You seem to have this odd idea that US actions are without consequences. We can be gotten to, we can be hurt. We do have about 130,000 American troops in Iraq, right now. Quite vulnerable to Iranian retaliation. Nuclear weapons have only been used twice, over 61 years ago. For God-fearing christians, you sure do like to blow things up and kill massive numbers of people.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
Iran is legally authorized to enrich uranium as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As a special signatory to the treaty, the U.S. is legally obligated to ensure Iran receives full access to peaceful nuclear technology. Any attempt by the U.S. to prevent Iran from exercising its treaty rights is a violation of the treaty. The next step should be referral of the U.S. to the Security Council for possible sanctions or other punitive measures as specified under the treaty.
-
espeir wrote:
But what did you say then? If not, did you offer a solution to Iraq's refusal to comply with UN resolutions then? Or are you just complaining because you believe that inaction was the only appropriate action?
You've set up a false set of choices: nuclear attack or inaction. Diplomacy and sanctions are not inaction. It has been shown that the actions of the previous presidents did halt Iraqi nuclear ambitions without war. Libya has modified it's behavior without war. Back at the time Bush was talking of war, I believed the administrations false intelligence about Iraq's nuclear capability, but I also knew that Bush would fail if he invaded, so I didn't think we should invade.
espeir wrote:
The only concern is America's actual ability to destroy the facilities from the air.
No, that's not the only consideration. Iranian response, arab/muslim response. Russia, China, and the rest of the world. You seem to have this odd idea that US actions are without consequences. We can be gotten to, we can be hurt. We do have about 130,000 American troops in Iraq, right now. Quite vulnerable to Iranian retaliation. Nuclear weapons have only been used twice, over 61 years ago. For God-fearing christians, you sure do like to blow things up and kill massive numbers of people.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
You've set up a false set of choices: nuclear attack or inaction.
where did he do that?
dennisd45 wrote:
Diplomacy and sanctions are not inaction.
Diplomacy is what just failed!!!! So now you think sanctions are the answer?
dennisd45 wrote:
Libya has modified it's behavior without war.
Yea, right after we pulled Sadamn out of a spider hole!
dennisd45 wrote:
You seem to have this odd idea that US actions are without consequences.
And you seem to have this odd idea that the inactions of the US are without consequences.
dennisd45 wrote:
Nuclear weapons have only been used twice, over 61 years ago. For God-fearing christians, you sure do like to blow things up and kill massive numbers of people.
I think he was refering to tactical nukes to blow up the facilities.
My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
espeir wrote:
But what did you say then? If not, did you offer a solution to Iraq's refusal to comply with UN resolutions then? Or are you just complaining because you believe that inaction was the only appropriate action?
You've set up a false set of choices: nuclear attack or inaction. Diplomacy and sanctions are not inaction. It has been shown that the actions of the previous presidents did halt Iraqi nuclear ambitions without war. Libya has modified it's behavior without war. Back at the time Bush was talking of war, I believed the administrations false intelligence about Iraq's nuclear capability, but I also knew that Bush would fail if he invaded, so I didn't think we should invade.
espeir wrote:
The only concern is America's actual ability to destroy the facilities from the air.
No, that's not the only consideration. Iranian response, arab/muslim response. Russia, China, and the rest of the world. You seem to have this odd idea that US actions are without consequences. We can be gotten to, we can be hurt. We do have about 130,000 American troops in Iraq, right now. Quite vulnerable to Iranian retaliation. Nuclear weapons have only been used twice, over 61 years ago. For God-fearing christians, you sure do like to blow things up and kill massive numbers of people.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
You've set up a false set of choices: nuclear attack or inaction. Diplomacy and sanctions are not inaction.
No, I specifically asked what you "solution" with Iraq's refusal to comply with UN resolutions would have been. Remember that diplomacy was attempted and had failed, so it was not an option.
dennisd45 wrote:
It has been shown that the actions of the previous presidents did halt Iraqi nuclear ambitions without war. Libya has modified it's behavior without war.
"Ambitions" are irrelevant. Osama Bin Laden has nuclear ambitions. It's capability that matters. And if you recall, Libya gave up their nuclear ambitions because of our war in Iraq. How old are you again?
dennisd45 wrote:
Back at the time Bush was talking of war, I believed the administrations false intelligence about Iraq's nuclear capability, but I also knew that Bush would fail if he invaded, so I didn't think we should invade.
That "false" intelligence turned out to be true. It was demonstrated that Iraq had indeed sent its top nucealr officials to Sudan. That falsity of that intelligence turned out to be false...Something perpetrated by a traitor and his wife trying to set up the president.
dennisd45 wrote:
No, that's not the only consideration. Iranian response, arab/muslim response. Russia, China, and the rest of the world. You seem to have this odd idea that US actions are without consequences. We can be gotten to, we can be hurt. We do have about 130,000 American troops in Iraq, right now. Quite vulnerable to Iranian retaliation.
An Iranian military response would be dealt with quite easily. The Russia/China thing is more of a problem, but we have to accept the fact that communist/communist-sympathetic countries are not our allies, never have been and never will be.
dennisd45 wrote:
Nuclear weapons have only been used twice, over 61 years ago. For God-fearing christians, you sure do like to blow things up and kill massive numbers of people.
The nuclear weapon would be used to destroy a weapons facility, not a city. But yes, if blowing up violent people is necessary to preserve the lives of peaceful people rather than having the reverse happen, I advocate military force.
"I make up
-
dennisd45 wrote:
You've set up a false set of choices: nuclear attack or inaction.
where did he do that?
dennisd45 wrote:
Diplomacy and sanctions are not inaction.
Diplomacy is what just failed!!!! So now you think sanctions are the answer?
dennisd45 wrote:
Libya has modified it's behavior without war.
Yea, right after we pulled Sadamn out of a spider hole!
dennisd45 wrote:
You seem to have this odd idea that US actions are without consequences.
And you seem to have this odd idea that the inactions of the US are without consequences.
dennisd45 wrote:
Nuclear weapons have only been used twice, over 61 years ago. For God-fearing christians, you sure do like to blow things up and kill massive numbers of people.
I think he was refering to tactical nukes to blow up the facilities.
My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
kgaddy wrote:
where did he do that?
espeir wrote:
dennisd45 wrote: What is your real world viable solution? Tactical bunker buster nukes
espeir wrote:
believe that inaction was the only appropriate action?
Those are the only two choices he has offered.
kgaddy wrote:
Diplomacy is what just failed!!!! So now you think sanctions are the answer?
Read the posts. That's not what I said.
kgaddy wrote:
And you seem to have this odd idea that the inactions of the US are without consequences.
Again, you seem the think that if we aren't bombing somebody, then we aren't doing anything.
kgaddy wrote:
I think he was refering to tactical nukes to blow up the facilities.
Oh, right, that makes all the difference!:rolleyes:
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
dennisd45 wrote:
You've set up a false set of choices: nuclear attack or inaction. Diplomacy and sanctions are not inaction.
No, I specifically asked what you "solution" with Iraq's refusal to comply with UN resolutions would have been. Remember that diplomacy was attempted and had failed, so it was not an option.
dennisd45 wrote:
It has been shown that the actions of the previous presidents did halt Iraqi nuclear ambitions without war. Libya has modified it's behavior without war.
"Ambitions" are irrelevant. Osama Bin Laden has nuclear ambitions. It's capability that matters. And if you recall, Libya gave up their nuclear ambitions because of our war in Iraq. How old are you again?
dennisd45 wrote:
Back at the time Bush was talking of war, I believed the administrations false intelligence about Iraq's nuclear capability, but I also knew that Bush would fail if he invaded, so I didn't think we should invade.
That "false" intelligence turned out to be true. It was demonstrated that Iraq had indeed sent its top nucealr officials to Sudan. That falsity of that intelligence turned out to be false...Something perpetrated by a traitor and his wife trying to set up the president.
dennisd45 wrote:
No, that's not the only consideration. Iranian response, arab/muslim response. Russia, China, and the rest of the world. You seem to have this odd idea that US actions are without consequences. We can be gotten to, we can be hurt. We do have about 130,000 American troops in Iraq, right now. Quite vulnerable to Iranian retaliation.
An Iranian military response would be dealt with quite easily. The Russia/China thing is more of a problem, but we have to accept the fact that communist/communist-sympathetic countries are not our allies, never have been and never will be.
dennisd45 wrote:
Nuclear weapons have only been used twice, over 61 years ago. For God-fearing christians, you sure do like to blow things up and kill massive numbers of people.
The nuclear weapon would be used to destroy a weapons facility, not a city. But yes, if blowing up violent people is necessary to preserve the lives of peaceful people rather than having the reverse happen, I advocate military force.
"I make up
espeir wrote:
No, I specifically asked what you "solution" with Iraq's refusal to comply with UN resolutions would have been. Remember that diplomacy was attempted and had failed, so it was not an option.
In Iraq, history shows us that diplomacy and sanctions had not failed. There was no nuclear program.
espeir wrote:
That "false" intelligence turned out to be true. It was demonstrated that Iraq had indeed sent its top nucealr officials to Sudan. That falsity of that intelligence turned out to be false...Something perpetrated by a traitor and his wife trying to set up the president.
You are about the only person in the world you still believes that yellow-cake Niger story. Not even the White House tries to.
espeir wrote:
An Iranian military response would be dealt with quite easily.
Yeah, right, Israel couldn't. We can't even deal with the limited amount of interference that Iran is causing in Iraq right now.
espeir wrote:
The nuclear weapon would be used to destroy a weapons facility, not a city. But yes, if blowing up violent people is necessary to preserve the lives of peaceful people rather than having the reverse happen, I advocate military force.
Bush is bad enough, I'm glad you don't have your finger on the button!
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
kgaddy wrote:
where did he do that?
espeir wrote:
dennisd45 wrote: What is your real world viable solution? Tactical bunker buster nukes
espeir wrote:
believe that inaction was the only appropriate action?
Those are the only two choices he has offered.
kgaddy wrote:
Diplomacy is what just failed!!!! So now you think sanctions are the answer?
Read the posts. That's not what I said.
kgaddy wrote:
And you seem to have this odd idea that the inactions of the US are without consequences.
Again, you seem the think that if we aren't bombing somebody, then we aren't doing anything.
kgaddy wrote:
I think he was refering to tactical nukes to blow up the facilities.
Oh, right, that makes all the difference!:rolleyes:
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
Those are the only two choices he has offered.
I'm not offering "choices". I'm soliciting opinions because leftists so frequently criticize without producing constructive suggestions. So far in this thread I've received 3 basic responses from American-based leftists: 1. I don't know. 2. Do nothing. 3. Sanction the United States. I honestly find that quite sad. I think it's very important for conservatives to take back our educational institutions because they have failed to create responsible citizens.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
They don't have enough penetration to seriously limit the radiation released, and would most likely be ineffective against the targets. I suggest you search for RNEP and do a bit of reading. Here's something to get you started: Bombs Away?[^]
According to your teenager-oriented article, they would destroy bunkers up to 1000 feet below the surface, so they most likely would be effective. You really should read your own links. Regardless, it looks like the program was unfortunately scrapped last year and replaced with one that uses conventional weapons that are as effective. I find it interesting that leftists always seem to say that new weapons programs will never work...like the now proven successful missile defense shield. I'm pretty confident that our military would be able to take out a few nuclear facilities.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Ahmadinejad is a posturing, nationalistic, religious fundamentalist jackass -- seems to be a presidential trend these days -- and I think the threat of their nuclear program has been intentionally overstated. The potential cost of action at this point -- especially nuclear action (I can't believe sane people are actually suggesting that option) -- far outweighs the potential cost of inaction.
That's interesting that you equate George Bush to Ahmalamadingdong and that says a lot about your Benedict Arnold attitude to your home country. Your desire for inaction is noted in conjuntion with your trechorous, anti-American stance.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
espamalamadingdong wrote:
According to your teenager-oriented article, they would destroy bunkers up to 1000 feet below the surface, so they most likely would be effective. You really should read your own links.
I was aiming at your reading level, e. Did I aim too high? Even the most cursory search turns up a truck load of articles -- from the Union of Concerned Scientists, to right-wing bloggers -- stating that the ancillary damage done by RNEP weapons makes them too dangerous to use near populated areas, and ineffective beyond 1000 feet. Are you privy to intelligence that places the targets in Iran within that range? If so, from what I gather, you have better intelligence than the Pentagon. My guess is that you are talking out of your ass, as usual, and have no intelligence at all. As usual.
espn wrote:
unfortunately scrapped last year and replaced with one that uses conventional weapons that are as effective
If the conventional weapons are as effective, why is it unfortunate? Do you have a thing for nukes?
espork wrote:
I find it interesting that leftists always seem to say that new weapons programs will never work
Something that I've never said, by the way, and with which I do not agree.
espeirituallyvoid wrote:
like the now proven successful missile defense shield.
:wtf::laugh:
especiallydense wrote:
I'm pretty confident that our military would be able to take out a few nuclear facilities.
Again, it's a question of justification, and cost/benefit. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
espidiot wrote:
That's interesting that you equate George Bush to Ahmalamadingdong and that says a lot about your Benedict Arnold attitude to your home country. Your desire for inaction is noted in conjuntion with your trechorous, anti-American stance.
Right. He may be a posturing, nationalistic, religious fundamentalist jackass, but he's our posturing, nationalistic, religious fundamentalist jackass! Way to refute my point. And your desire for indiscriminate action makes you as intelligent as our President. Congratulations.
espoodlewalker wrote:
Your desire for
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Those are the only two choices he has offered.
I'm not offering "choices". I'm soliciting opinions because leftists so frequently criticize without producing constructive suggestions. So far in this thread I've received 3 basic responses from American-based leftists: 1. I don't know. 2. Do nothing. 3. Sanction the United States. I honestly find that quite sad. I think it's very important for conservatives to take back our educational institutions because they have failed to create responsible citizens.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
espiroagnew wrote:
So far in this thread I've received 3 basic responses from American-based leftists: 1. I don't know. 2. Do nothing. 3. Sanction the United States.
While the "American-based rightists" have offered: 1. Nuke 'em. 2. I'm not offering choices. And you find the "leftist" responses sad?
-
espeir wrote:
No, I specifically asked what you "solution" with Iraq's refusal to comply with UN resolutions would have been. Remember that diplomacy was attempted and had failed, so it was not an option.
In Iraq, history shows us that diplomacy and sanctions had not failed. There was no nuclear program.
espeir wrote:
That "false" intelligence turned out to be true. It was demonstrated that Iraq had indeed sent its top nucealr officials to Sudan. That falsity of that intelligence turned out to be false...Something perpetrated by a traitor and his wife trying to set up the president.
You are about the only person in the world you still believes that yellow-cake Niger story. Not even the White House tries to.
espeir wrote:
An Iranian military response would be dealt with quite easily.
Yeah, right, Israel couldn't. We can't even deal with the limited amount of interference that Iran is causing in Iraq right now.
espeir wrote:
The nuclear weapon would be used to destroy a weapons facility, not a city. But yes, if blowing up violent people is necessary to preserve the lives of peaceful people rather than having the reverse happen, I advocate military force.
Bush is bad enough, I'm glad you don't have your finger on the button!
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
In Iraq, history shows us that diplomacy and sanctions had not failed. There was no nuclear program.
How can you possibly say that? Saddam Hussein was in power for a dozen years under sanctions. There was no nuclear program because of prior military action.
dennisd45 wrote:
You are about the only person in the world you still believes that yellow-cake Niger story. Not even the White House tries to.
Ummmm...No. There was definately an Iraq-Niger connection[^]. Iraq pursued yellowcake and Niger was interested in selling. The falsity of that report was overshadowed by Plame's "outing" (which also turned out to be bogus).
dennisd45 wrote:
Yeah, right, Israel couldn't. We can't even deal with the limited amount of interference that Iran is causing in Iraq right now.
I repeat...We could easily handle an attack from Iran.
dennisd45 wrote:
Bush is bad enough, I'm glad you don't have your finger on the button!
More criticism without ideas.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
espiroagnew wrote:
So far in this thread I've received 3 basic responses from American-based leftists: 1. I don't know. 2. Do nothing. 3. Sanction the United States.
While the "American-based rightists" have offered: 1. Nuke 'em. 2. I'm not offering choices. And you find the "leftist" responses sad?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
While the "American-based rightists" have offered: 1. Nuke 'em. 2. I'm not offering choices. And you find the "leftist" responses sad?
Did you even read the thread?
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
espamalamadingdong wrote:
According to your teenager-oriented article, they would destroy bunkers up to 1000 feet below the surface, so they most likely would be effective. You really should read your own links.
I was aiming at your reading level, e. Did I aim too high? Even the most cursory search turns up a truck load of articles -- from the Union of Concerned Scientists, to right-wing bloggers -- stating that the ancillary damage done by RNEP weapons makes them too dangerous to use near populated areas, and ineffective beyond 1000 feet. Are you privy to intelligence that places the targets in Iran within that range? If so, from what I gather, you have better intelligence than the Pentagon. My guess is that you are talking out of your ass, as usual, and have no intelligence at all. As usual.
espn wrote:
unfortunately scrapped last year and replaced with one that uses conventional weapons that are as effective
If the conventional weapons are as effective, why is it unfortunate? Do you have a thing for nukes?
espork wrote:
I find it interesting that leftists always seem to say that new weapons programs will never work
Something that I've never said, by the way, and with which I do not agree.
espeirituallyvoid wrote:
like the now proven successful missile defense shield.
:wtf::laugh:
especiallydense wrote:
I'm pretty confident that our military would be able to take out a few nuclear facilities.
Again, it's a question of justification, and cost/benefit. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
espidiot wrote:
That's interesting that you equate George Bush to Ahmalamadingdong and that says a lot about your Benedict Arnold attitude to your home country. Your desire for inaction is noted in conjuntion with your trechorous, anti-American stance.
Right. He may be a posturing, nationalistic, religious fundamentalist jackass, but he's our posturing, nationalistic, religious fundamentalist jackass! Way to refute my point. And your desire for indiscriminate action makes you as intelligent as our President. Congratulations.
espoodlewalker wrote:
Your desire for
You brought out the namecalling early today!
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
While the "American-based rightists" have offered: 1. Nuke 'em. 2. I'm not offering choices. And you find the "leftist" responses sad?
Did you even read the thread?
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
espeir wrote:
Did you even read the thread?
Yes. And I just re-read it in case there was another brilliant solution from your side that I overlooked. There wasn't.
-
dennisd45 wrote:
In Iraq, history shows us that diplomacy and sanctions had not failed. There was no nuclear program.
How can you possibly say that? Saddam Hussein was in power for a dozen years under sanctions. There was no nuclear program because of prior military action.
dennisd45 wrote:
You are about the only person in the world you still believes that yellow-cake Niger story. Not even the White House tries to.
Ummmm...No. There was definately an Iraq-Niger connection[^]. Iraq pursued yellowcake and Niger was interested in selling. The falsity of that report was overshadowed by Plame's "outing" (which also turned out to be bogus).
dennisd45 wrote:
Yeah, right, Israel couldn't. We can't even deal with the limited amount of interference that Iran is causing in Iraq right now.
I repeat...We could easily handle an attack from Iran.
dennisd45 wrote:
Bush is bad enough, I'm glad you don't have your finger on the button!
More criticism without ideas.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
espeir wrote:
How can you possibly say that? Saddam Hussein was in power for a dozen years under sanctions. There was no nuclear program because of prior military action.
That's right a dozen years of sanctions and no nuclear program. You agree that he didn't have nuclear weapons. Why invade?
espeir wrote:
Ummmm...No. There was definately an Iraq-Niger connection[^].
Oh, of course there was. :rolleyes: http://www.uncoveror.com/niger.htm[^]
espeir wrote:
I repeat...We could easily handle an attack from Iran.
Of, course, nothing the US can't handle. Let's bomb Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc we can handle all. No reason to be concerned with consequences.
espeir wrote:
More criticism without ideas.
That's the benefit of being part of the opposition. He has the power, he has the responsibility. The buck stops with him.:laugh:
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
You brought out the namecalling early today!
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
espeir wrote:
You brought out the namecalling early today!
What namecalling?
-
espamalamadingdong wrote:
According to your teenager-oriented article, they would destroy bunkers up to 1000 feet below the surface, so they most likely would be effective. You really should read your own links.
I was aiming at your reading level, e. Did I aim too high? Even the most cursory search turns up a truck load of articles -- from the Union of Concerned Scientists, to right-wing bloggers -- stating that the ancillary damage done by RNEP weapons makes them too dangerous to use near populated areas, and ineffective beyond 1000 feet. Are you privy to intelligence that places the targets in Iran within that range? If so, from what I gather, you have better intelligence than the Pentagon. My guess is that you are talking out of your ass, as usual, and have no intelligence at all. As usual.
espn wrote:
unfortunately scrapped last year and replaced with one that uses conventional weapons that are as effective
If the conventional weapons are as effective, why is it unfortunate? Do you have a thing for nukes?
espork wrote:
I find it interesting that leftists always seem to say that new weapons programs will never work
Something that I've never said, by the way, and with which I do not agree.
espeirituallyvoid wrote:
like the now proven successful missile defense shield.
:wtf::laugh:
especiallydense wrote:
I'm pretty confident that our military would be able to take out a few nuclear facilities.
Again, it's a question of justification, and cost/benefit. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
espidiot wrote:
That's interesting that you equate George Bush to Ahmalamadingdong and that says a lot about your Benedict Arnold attitude to your home country. Your desire for inaction is noted in conjuntion with your trechorous, anti-American stance.
Right. He may be a posturing, nationalistic, religious fundamentalist jackass, but he's our posturing, nationalistic, religious fundamentalist jackass! Way to refute my point. And your desire for indiscriminate action makes you as intelligent as our President. Congratulations.
espoodlewalker wrote:
Your desire for
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Do you have a thing for nukes?
He probably has stock in nucular companies. Also, he knows that a war with Iran is sure to cause oil prices to go through the roof, which will benefit his portfolio. Just follow the money...
Josh: So you have been married twice? You must have been young the first time around. Christian: Yeah, we were young and stupid. I was young, and she was...
-
Iran is legally authorized to enrich uranium as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As a special signatory to the treaty, the U.S. is legally obligated to ensure Iran receives full access to peaceful nuclear technology. Any attempt by the U.S. to prevent Iran from exercising its treaty rights is a violation of the treaty. The next step should be referral of the U.S. to the Security Council for possible sanctions or other punitive measures as specified under the treaty.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Iran is legally authorized to enrich uranium as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As a special signatory to the treaty, the U.S. is legally obligated to ensure Iran receives full access to peaceful nuclear technology. Any attempt by the U.S. to prevent Iran from exercising its treaty rights is a violation of the treaty. The next step should be referral of the U.S. to the Security Council for possible sanctions or other punitive measures as specified under the treaty.
:rolleyes: Hey! Look guys - Ahmadinejihad (or whatever his name is) signed up on CodeProject!
-
Iran is legally authorized to enrich uranium as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As a special signatory to the treaty, the U.S. is legally obligated to ensure Iran receives full access to peaceful nuclear technology. Any attempt by the U.S. to prevent Iran from exercising its treaty rights is a violation of the treaty. The next step should be referral of the U.S. to the Security Council for possible sanctions or other punitive measures as specified under the treaty.
Wow. Four Republican responses -- four and a half if you count espeir's initial knee-jerk -- and not one, single, solitary refutation of your point. :)