Report: Obama to Offer Israel 'Nuclear Umbrella' Against Iran

[Rowdy]

Report: Obama to Offer Israel 'Nuclear Umbrella' Against Iran

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2008/12/11/report-obama-offer-israel-nuclear-umbrella-iran/


U.S. president-elect will offer Israel a strategic pact designed to fend off any nuclear attack on the Jewish state by Iran, an Israeli newspaper reports.

President-elect Barack Obama will offer Israel a strategic pact designed to fend off any nuclear attack on the Jewish state by Iran, an Israeli newspaper reported on Thursday.

Haaretz, quoting an unnamed source, said the Obama administration would pledge under the proposed "nuclear umbrella" to respond to any Iranian strike on Israel with a "devastating U.S. nuclear response."

Granting Israel a nuclear guarantee would essentially suggest the U.S. is willing to come to terms with a nuclear Iran, the paper reported.

According to the paper's source, Obama's nuclear guarantee would be backed by a new and improved Israeli anti-ballistic missile system. The Bush administration took the first step by deploying an early-warning radar system, which enhances the ability to detect Iranian ballistic missiles.

No immediate comment from Israeli officials or the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv was offered.

Iran denies its nuclear program has military designs. But tough anti-Israel rhetoric from Tehran has spread fears that the Israelis, who are believed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, could attack their arch-foe pre-emptively.

The source, according to Haaretz, noted that the discussion of the possibility of a nuclear Iran undermines efforts to prevent Tehran from acquiring such arms.

A senior Bush administration source reportedly said the nuclear umbrella was ridiculous and lacked credibility.

"Who will convince the citizen in Kansas that the U.S. needs to get mixed up in a nuclear war because Haifa was bombed? And what is the point of an American response, after Israel's cities are destroyed in an Iranian nuclear strike?," he said.

[Aikbach]

More war in he region for us ,yay!
The exit strategy I see.:rolleyes:

[jman]

Haaretz, quoting an unnamed source, said the Obama administration would pledge under the proposed "nuclear umbrella" to respond to any Iranian strike on Israel with a "devastating U.S. nuclear response."

Can you say Cold War II...

[Cajuncowboy]

God, this guy is a moron.

Instead of dealing with Iran the right way and preventing them from getting the thing, he says, "After you are nuked and dead, trust me, I'll bomb them for you."

This guy is already an embarrassment. What joke.

[burmafrd]

IF this is true then its the first stupid thing he has thought to do. It has been pretty well established that Israel got nuclear weapons in the late 70's. Iran knows that if they nuke israel they will get it back with COMPOUND INTEREST. So the US offering to retaliate would be the biggest joke in the middle east. I hope this was a typically dumb idea by someone with no real interest- because if this is example of Obama thinking we are in deep doo doo.

[Signals]

God, this guy is a moron.

Instead of dealing with Iran the right way and preventing them from getting the thing, he says, "After you are nuked and dead, trust me, I'll bomb them for you."

This guy is already an embarrassment. What joke.Agree.

Troubled times ahead.

[ninja]

And after they finally get done nuking each other, there will finally be peace in the Modeast. Nothing living there, but real peaceful.

America's response would be too little, too late. Empty promise.

My guess: Israel will take matters into their own hands and destroy Iran's nuke program, very soon, like in the next half year.

[ThaBigP]

Read between the lines. This offer is an attempt to get Israel to abandon any plans they may have for a preemptive strike. Let Iran go nuclear, we will hit them back if they hit you first. Problem of course is that only one or two nukes would be enough to reduce Israel to a stone-age society owing to its small size. The fires and loss of real as well as technological infrastructure (power, water treatment, etc) would keep Israel so busy that Iran could march right in, assuming they even want to march in. Iran may be content with turning Israel to an irradiated glass lake, and let the society collapse on its own. But I even have my doubts as to that. Ahmadinejad has clearly stated his belief in the 12th Imam. In that sect of Islamic thinking, the purpose of the followers is only to hasten the return of the 12th Imam by sparking a world-wide war in as destructive a fashion as possible...nuclear war certainly fits that bill. That being the case, Ahmadinejad probably only wants one or two nukes, hit Isreal forcing a retaliation by both Isreal and the US. He's also counting on other nations, such as Russia, to draw up sides against us. Thereby (in his mind) hopefully sparking a larger war.

[JBond]

I would love to listen in on the conversation's he has promised to hold with the pig of Iran.

[BigWillie]

God, this guy is a moron.

Instead of dealing with Iran the right way and preventing them from getting the thing, he says, "After you are nuked and dead, trust me, I'll bomb them for you."

This guy is already an embarrassment. What joke.

How exactly do your propose we stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon without getting into another war that is absolutely unthinkable given our current military and economic situation?

Remember, talking to them is a no-no as well. Obama was already criticized like crazy or that idiotic thought.

[joseephuss]

God, this guy is a moron.

Instead of dealing with Iran the right way and preventing them from getting the thing, he says, "After you are nuked and dead, trust me, I'll bomb them for you."

This guy is already an embarrassment. What joke.

Where did this article say that Obama doesn't want to prevent Iran from getting nukes in the first place? It doesn't, so that is just a poor assumption on your part. You are the embarrassment who jumps to the wrong conclusions before Obama has even been sworn into office. It is quite comical.

[JBond]

Where did this article say that Obama doesn't want to prevent Iran from getting nukes in the first place? It doesn't, so that is just a poor assumption on your part. You are the embarrassment who jumps to the wrong conclusions before Obama has even been sworn into office. It is quite comical.

I don't understand the need for a 'Nuclear Umbrella' for Israel anyway. Obama promised he would talk to the Muslim world and it's insane leaders and all will be well. No worries. I trust Obama will live up to his promises.

[MetalHead]

Nuclear umbrella?
When I heard Obama was "the one" I did not know he was Neo from "The Matrix"..Neobama...it makes sense now.

[Cajuncowboy]

How exactly do your propose we stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon without getting into another war that is absolutely unthinkable given our current military and economic situation?

Remember, talking to them is a no-no as well. Obama was already criticized like crazy or that idiotic thought.

You don't talk to them without precondition. You give them two options. Stop the development or face stiff sanctions. And if that fails like it probably will, take out the reactor.

You don't think we are able to do that?

[Cajuncowboy]

Where did this article say that Obama doesn't want to prevent Iran from getting nukes in the first place? It doesn't, so that is just a poor assumption on your part. You are the embarrassment who jumps to the wrong conclusions before Obama has even been sworn into office. It is quite comical.

Oh please. You aren't that stupid are you? you really think that he has any desire to stop them? He is on record as saying he would sit down without preconditions with any despite, dictator or thug and talk.

What is embarrassing is there are so many people that actually bought this dope's story, hook, line and sinker.

And comical is watching sycophants play cow tow to his whimsy at every turn.

Oh, he can do no wrong!:rolleyes:

[masomenos]

No one thinks that this would be an increased deterrent?

[Cajuncowboy]

No one thinks that this would be an increased deterrent?

With Israel nuked and essentially destroyed why would Obama then nuke Iran? He would talk about how we need to allow the UN to place sanctions on Iran and creating another all out war in the middle east would not be conducive to peace.

So no, I don't think Obama will nuke Iran over Israel.

Just a hunch.

[masomenos]

With Israel nuked and essentially destroyed why would Obama then nuke Iran? He would talk about how we need to allow the UN to place sanctions on Iran and creating another all out war in the middle east would not be conducive to peace.

So no, I don't think Obama will nuke Iran over Israel.

Just a hunch.

You don't think that the threat of nuclear retaliation from multiple sources would deter Iran from attacking Israel in the first place?

[JBond]

No one thinks that this would be an increased deterrent?

Obama? A deterrent? Are you crazy? Iran not to mention Russia, loves having a neophyte like Barack in office. Why would anyone take Obama seriously? He is a clown birthed from the cesspool of Chicago politics. All fear the mighty community organizer. Beware!

Iran and Russia are laughing right now.

[masomenos]

Obama? A deterrent? Are you crazy? Iran not to mention Russia, loves having a neophyte like Barack in office. Why would anyone take Obama seriously? He is a clown birthed from the cesspool of Chicago politics. All fear the mighty community organizer. Beware!

Iran and Russia are laughing right now.

Obama's a clown who was born in poop, got it.

[ScipioCowboy]

Obama's a clown who was born in poop, got it.

How dare you, sir!

How dare you place the story of my birth in such an unflattering light!;)

[masomenos]

How dare you, sir!

How dare place the story of my birth in such an unflattering light!;)

:lmao2:

[burmafrd]

Deterrence works on people with common sense and judgement who do not let emotions or extreme beleifs rule them. Now look at the mullah's who run Iran. CASE CLOSED

[masomenos]

Deterrence works on people with common sense and judgement who do not let emotions or extreme beleifs rule them. Now look at the mullah's who run Iran. CASE CLOSED

http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9466890

"most of those Israeli experts willing to talk rate the chances of an Iranian nuclear attack as low. Despite Mr Ahmadinejad, most consider Iran to be a rational state actor susceptible to deterrence."

Iran knows that Israel has more firepower than they could hope to acquire and they know that Israel wouldn't hesitate to authorize a nuclear retaliation. Having the arsenal of the U.S. behind them is even more of a deterrent.

[Rogah]

Read between the lines. This offer is an attempt to get Israel to abandon any plans they may have for a preemptive strike. Let Iran go nuclear, we will hit them back if they hit you first.To quote Carla Tortelli: "I concur in spades." I had the exact same reaction and analysis of this news as you.My guess: Israel will take matters into their own hands and destroy Iran's nuke program, very soon, like in the next half year.This is what I have been predicting. Although, to be completely honest, I have been predicting it would happen "within the next 6 months" for about 5 years now. :D

[Rogah]

No one thinks that this would be an increased deterrent?An excellent question. On the one hand, "Mutually Assured Destruction" did a good job keeping us out of war with the Russkies during the past 60 years or so. This Obama strategy would pretty much work the same way, only the destruction would be mutual between Israel and Iran - with the U.S. providing the "assured" part.

But, to quote Tom Clancy, it isn't the guy with 10,000 nukes that scares me; it's the guy with one. My big fear with Iran developing nukes isn't a conventional attack on America or Israel, but rather a terrorist group gaining control of it and trying to detonate it.

I know we would be able to trace any nuke to its country of origin so we would still hold Iran accountable, but sanity seems to be in pretty short supply in that part of the world.

[masomenos]

An excellent question. On the one hand, "Mutually Assured Destruction" did a good job keeping us out of war with the Russkies during the past 60 years or so. This Obama strategy would pretty much work the same way, only the destruction would be mutual between Israel and Iran - with the U.S. providing the "assured" part.

But, to quote Tom Clancy, it isn't the guy with 10,000 nukes that scares me; it's the guy with one. My big fear with Iran developing nukes isn't a conventional attack on America or Israel, but rather a terrorist group gaining control of it and trying to detonate it.

I know we would be able to trace any nuke to its country of origin so we would still hold Iran accountable, but sanity seems to be in pretty short supply in that part of the world.

Yeah, a nuclear nation will never outright attack another nuclear nation, it would be suicide. Will we ever see an incident where terrorists detonate a nuclear weapon or a "dirty" bomb? Hopefully not, hopefully it's something that stays in Mr. Clancy's books and out of our headlines.

[trickblue]

Will we ever see an incident where terrorists detonate a nuclear weapon or a "dirty" bomb?

Unfortunately... yes we will... within 10-20 years at most...

I pray I am wrong...

[Signals]

And after they finally get done nuking each other, there will finally be peace in the Modeast. Nothing living there, but real peaceful.

America's response would be too little, too late. Empty promise.

My guess: Israel will take matters into their own hands and destroy Iran's nuke program, very soon, like in the next half year.

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s248/TorahMom/israelflag3skin.jpg

[ThaBigP]

You don't think that the threat of nuclear retaliation from multiple sources would deter Iran from attacking Israel in the first place?

You might try looking up the 12th Imam, and Ahmadinejad's faithful belief in that sect of Islam. Their followers are called to start a world war, and the more destructive the better. So...there's no such thing as "deterrence". Deterrence requires a sense of self-preservation. When a person becomes twisted enough that they honestly believe that a first nuclear strike on Israel, followed by a massive world-wide reaction involving both retaliatory strikes on Iran, as well as other actors striking one another...and all of this is towards the end of fulfilling prophecy you believe in...good luck with your cute little "deterrence".

[burmafrd]

"Rational state"
They were talking about Iran, right?
Where the mullah's still rule, right?
Yeah, sure.

[Cajuncowboy]

You don't think that the threat of nuclear retaliation from multiple sources would deter Iran from attacking Israel in the first place?

No because there won't be threats from multiple sources.

Now, if only Obama would just say something to the effect of "We will protect them for at least 7 years."...then we will really have something.

[burmafrd]

As I have pointed out deterrence only works on rational and reasonable people. Show me why we should think those Mullah's are either?

[BigWillie]

You don't talk to them without precondition. You give them two options. Stop the development or face stiff sanctions. And if that fails like it probably will, take out the reactor.

You don't think we are able to do that?

What stiffer sanctions do you suggest that are not already in place? The sanctions we already have on Iran cost them around 1/3 of their potential GDP which is about $100 billion. At the same time costs us about $80 billion a year just in buying overpriced oil.

Taking out the reactor would be an act of war which would create an enormous conflict in the Middle East that we will be in the middle of. Even thinking about causing war with Iran is pure insanity. With 2 wars being fought and an economic crisis that is about to get worse, it is simply unthinkable. Unless of course you want to cripple our economy (which WOULD happen) and potentially cripple our military, then it is not possible.

Unless of course you want to pull forces from Afghanistan. But that is blasphemy to even think about.

The last suggestion is to tell Israel to launch a military campaign that we cannot be apart of due to numerous struggles we are already going through. But that is also pure blasphemy to tell someone else to fight their battles themselves. We have to play big brother to everyone.

So again I ask, what is your suggestion?

[BigWillie]

You might try looking up the 12th Imam, and Ahmadinejad's faithful belief in that sect of Islam. Their followers are called to start a world war, and the more destructive the better. So...there's no such thing as "deterrence". Deterrence requires a sense of self-preservation. When a person becomes twisted enough that they honestly believe that a first nuclear strike on Israel, followed by a massive world-wide reaction involving both retaliatory strikes on Iran, as well as other actors striking one another...and all of this is towards the end of fulfilling prophecy you believe in...good luck with your cute little "deterrence".

Why do people continue to believe Ahmadinejad has any real power and his thoughts actually matter? He is a figurehead, nothing more. The only true power in Iran is the Ayatollah Khamenei, the Iranian clerics and some members of the Guardian Council.

Most Iranian politicians have grown tired of Ahmadinejad and even think of him as a 'loose cannon'.

Even the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, Ali Jafari, is considered a very strong opponent to Ahmadinejad's extreme views.

[masomenos]

You might try looking up the 12th Imam, and Ahmadinejad's faithful belief in that sect of Islam. Their followers are called to start a world war, and the more destructive the better. So...there's no such thing as "deterrence". Deterrence requires a sense of self-preservation. When a person becomes twisted enough that they honestly believe that a first nuclear strike on Israel, followed by a massive world-wide reaction involving both retaliatory strikes on Iran, as well as other actors striking one another...and all of this is towards the end of fulfilling prophecy you believe in...good luck with your cute little "deterrence".

It's a good thing that Ahmadinejad doesn't dictate the actions of Iran's military huh? Yes, he's crazy, there's no denying that. However, unless there is a coup and Ahmadinejad assumes control or unless Khamenei dies and Ahmadinejad is appointed "Supreme Leader" then he's relatively harmless. He'll probably be reelected in August and serve another 4 year term, then he's done. And of course all of that is moot if Iran isn't even developing nuclear weaponry.

[masomenos]

No because there won't be threats from multiple sources.

Now, if only Obama would just say something to the effect of "We will protect them for at least 7 years."...then we will really have something.

Even if the U.S. didn't get involved, Israel has more than enough nuclear firepower on its own. An attack by Iran wouldn't be able to destroy Israel's ability to launch a massive "2nd Strike".

[masomenos]

"Rational state"
They were talking about Iran, right?
Where the mullah's still rule, right?
Yeah, sure.

You're not implying that a countries leadership can't be rational when it's heavily influenced by religion are you?

[burmafrd]

Only a lib would use that arguement. To you there probably is no difference between a mullah and the Pope. Luckily most people realize there is a big difference.

[Cajuncowboy]

What stiffer sanctions do you suggest that are not already in place? The sanctions we already have on Iran cost them around 1/3 of their potential GDP which is about $100 billion. At the same time costs us about $80 billion a year just in buying overpriced oil.

Taking out the reactor would be an act of war which would create an enormous conflict in the Middle East that we will be in the middle of. Even thinking about causing war with Iran is pure insanity. With 2 wars being fought and an economic crisis that is about to get worse, it is simply unthinkable. Unless of course you want to cripple our economy (which WOULD happen) and potentially cripple our military, then it is not possible.

Unless of course you want to pull forces from Afghanistan. But that is blasphemy to even think about.

The last suggestion is to tell Israel to launch a military campaign that we cannot be apart of due to numerous struggles we are already going through. But that is also pure blasphemy to tell someone else to fight their battles themselves. We have to play big brother to everyone.

So again I ask, what is your suggestion?

So you are saying sanctions and talking have failed?

Well that leaves one option now doesn't it?

The only question is, do we do it now or wait till they kill thousands of innocent people.

Guess what my call would be?

[burmafrd]

What do you expect? These libs keep trying to ignore the Mullah's that run Iran, despite their hatred and contempt for religion in general. Kind of amusing, isn't it?

[Cajuncowboy]

Even if the U.S. didn't get involved, Israel has more than enough nuclear firepower on its own. An attack by Iran wouldn't be able to destroy Israel's ability to launch a massive "2nd Strike".

OK. let's look at this logically....

Iran has already said it will, not wants to but WILL wipe Israel off the map.

They have said they desire a pure Islamic middle east.

They have called Jews vermin and such.

And they have said when they get the capability they will nuke Israel.

So why would you want to wait around and see if they will actually do it.

They have already made the threat. They have a reactor. They have the technology and they have the material.

Are you just waiting for the big flash?

[masomenos]

OK. let's look at this logically....

Iran has already said it will, not wants to but WILL wipe Israel off the map.

They have said they desire a pure Islamic middle east.

They have called Jews vermin and such.

And they have said when they get the capability they will nuke Israel.

So why would you want to wait around and see if they will actually do it.

They have already made the threat. They have a reactor. They have the technology and they have the material.

Are you just waiting for the big flash?

They haven't said that. Ahmadinejad said it. The leader of Iran, Khamenei, condemned the remarks and said, "the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country". He's also issued a fatwa against nuclear weaponry and he believes that Islamic law doesn't allow for nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad doesn't have the power to "wipe Israel off the map", he just doesn't.

There's nothing logical about attacking a country who's leader has not been openly hostil in any militaristic sense. There's no logic in disregarding the IAEA's latest reports. It's incorrect to assume that crazy Ahmadinejad speaks for the whole of Iran (56% approval rating) or that his comments are indicative of the real leader's foriegn policy views.

[masomenos]

What do you expect? These libs keep trying to ignore the Mullah's that run Iran, despite their hatred and contempt for religion in general. Kind of amusing, isn't it?

I have no hatred nor contempt for religion. In fact, I've spoken to a number of Christian members on this board in regards to their faith and have asked their advice in regards to my own religious questioning. That said, playing the "religion" card is not different than playing the "race" card. You have this very stereotypical view of what a liberal must be or must believe that is just as ignorant as when people paint conservatives as uneducated hillbillies (lookin' at you Scip ;)).

[ABQCOWBOY]

No one thinks that this would be an increased deterrent?


Personally, I think it would be a recipe for disaster. Lets assume a device is detonated in Iran. We would be committed to do what? If Iran contends that it was of Isreali design, then they will demand retaliation by the U.S.. We, in effect, would become the arm of there political and religious retribution. If we failed to act as they demand, then we give Iran a reason to rally that region of the world against us, once again. We have no control over the devices that are held by countries in that part of the world. We don't even know that the countries themselves have clear control over the devices in their own territories.

I think this is asking for trouble, no matter what happens, we are the bad guys. That's not sound political strategy.

[ThaBigP]

It's a good thing that Ahmadinejad doesn't dictate the actions of Iran's military huh? Yes, he's crazy, there's no denying that. However, unless there is a coup and Ahmadinejad assumes control or unless Khamenei dies and Ahmadinejad is appointed "Supreme Leader" then he's relatively harmless. He'll probably be reelected in August and serve another 4 year term, then he's done. And of course all of that is moot if Iran isn't even developing nuclear weaponry.

I can only hope you and Big Willie are right. I know he doesn't have dictatorial powers as such, and there's a HUGE resistance movement in Iran (not only among the power brokers, but even more so among the people). I just hope they can prevail. In the meantime, he *is* President, and is not alone in his belief in the 12th Imam over there. That's why I've always supported the "Reagan doctrine" in handling Iran. There's such a huge movement over there against the clerical rule that it begs to be supported much as the Polish resistance, Soviet resistance, etc were supported by Reagan. He helped the people toss those regimes out both overtly with moral support ("evil empire", siding with the Poles during martial law, etc) as well as subversive support (radio Free Europe broadcasts, printing presses and equipment for the Polish resistance movement, small scale but big impact military "shows of force" such as Grededa to show he's more than just words, etc).

[Cajuncowboy]

They haven't said that. Ahmadinejad said it. The leader of Iran, Khamenei, condemned the remarks and said, "the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country". He's also issued a fatwa against nuclear weaponry and he believes that Islamic law doesn't allow for nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad doesn't have the power to "wipe Israel off the map", he just doesn't.

There's nothing logical about attacking a country who's leader has not been openly hostil in any militaristic sense. There's no logic in disregarding the IAEA's latest reports. It's incorrect to assume that crazy Ahmadinejad speaks for the whole of Iran (56% approval rating) or that his comments are indicative of the real leader's foriegn policy views.




#1 I would like to see a link to a news source that quoted that.

#2 If you don't think ahmedinanutjob doesn't have that kind of influence you're kidding yourself. Any government who has someone go off half cocked like he did and doesn't hold the view of the "leader" would be removed, one way or the other.

It just doesn't make sense.

[Viper]

They haven't said that. Ahmadinejad said it. The leader of Iran, Khamenei, condemned the remarks and said, "the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country". He's also issued a fatwa against nuclear weaponry and he believes that Islamic law doesn't allow for nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad doesn't have the power to "wipe Israel off the map", he just doesn't.

There's nothing logical about attacking a country who's leader has not been openly hostil in any militaristic sense. There's no logic in disregarding the IAEA's latest reports. It's incorrect to assume that crazy Ahmadinejad speaks for the whole of Iran (56% approval rating) or that his comments are indicative of the real leader's foriegn policy views.




I guess I would believe that if hezbollah didn't exist. Unfortunately it isn't just words. Iran has taken an active role in the destruction of Israel. Doubting the rhetoric coming out of Iran would be foolish.

[masomenos]

#1 I would like to see a link to a news source that quoted that.

#2 If you don't think ahmedinanutjob doesn't have that kind of influence you're kidding yourself. Any government who has someone go off half cocked like he did and doesn't hold the view of the "leader" would be removed, one way or the other.

It just doesn't make sense.

#1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/05/comment.military

What is never reported is that Ayatollah Khamenei stated unequivocally immediately afterwards that "the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country".

#2 Ahmadinejad is an elected official, he hasn't done anything that warrants his removal form office. Just like, if Obama said he thought it would be a good idea to "wipe Venezuela off the map" it wouldn't be grounds for removal. Khamanei and Ahmadinejad have a strained relationship and the words of one are not reflective of the opinions of the other. It would be like saying that Nancy Pelosi, as one of our highest ranking elected officials, has been the voice of George W. Bush while he was in office.

[Cajuncowboy]

#1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/05/comment.military



#2 Ahmadinejad is an elected official, he hasn't done anything that warrants his removal form office. Just like, if Obama said he thought it would be a good idea to "wipe Venezuela off the map" it wouldn't be grounds for removal. Khamanei and Ahmadinejad have a strained relationship and the words of one are not reflective of the opinions of the other. It would be like saying that Nancy Pelosi, as one of our highest ranking elected officials, has been the voice of George W. Bush while he was in office.

First, thanks for the link.

Second, if Obama said anything like that about any people group and their country of origin, he would be forced to step down as the outcry from both side would be deafening. At least I would hope so.

TO call them the names he has, and to call for their destruction is, IMO, an act to be acted upon. Especially since he is the spokesperson for that country.

[masomenos]

First, thanks for the link.

Second, if Obama said anything like that about any people group and their country of origin, he would be forced to step down as the outcry from both side would be deafening. At least I would hope so.

TO call them the names he has, and to call for their destruction is, IMO, an act to be acted upon. Especially since he is the spokesperson for that country.

There would be an outcry from both sides, definitely, but it wouldn't be an impeachable offense. I think people, politicians and the general public, would call for his removal but, unless someone took matters into their own hands, I don't think it would happen. Of course that's all just speculation by both of us ::shrugs::

[Cajuncowboy]

There would be an outcry from both sides, definitely, but it wouldn't be an impeachable offense. I think people, politicians and the general public, would call for his removal but, unless someone took matters into their own hands, I don't think it would happen. Of course that's all just speculation by both of us ::shrugs::

True enough.

[BigWillie]

So you are saying sanctions and talking have failed?

Well that leaves one option now doesn't it?

The only question is, do we do it now or wait till they kill thousands of innocent people.

Guess what my call would be?

You tell me. You are the one suggesting more sanctions. These "sanctions" have halted their efforts so far, eh?

And cool. You want to kill our economy, kill more of our soldiers all for a war that has absolutely nothing to do with us.

We all need to face something -- the world hates us for the very reason you are wanting to use to get into this war. Our efforts at playing "big brother" in wars, conflicts and disputes we have no business in have powered generations of terrorists and threats to our nation. Instead of cleaning up the mess, we make it that much larger. But yet we never learn from our mistakes.

First and foremost, we have to clean up our own messes before we even worry about Israel. Considering in this decade we have sold them almost $20 billion in military weapons, have given them $6 billion in military aid this decade so far and now are scheduled to give Israel over $3 billion a year in military aid, I think we do enough for them already.

But hey, lets cripple our economy and our military just to show them Iranians what we are all about!

[burmafrd]

Halted their efforts so far? I guess you have not noticed what the IAEA has said. Or the FACT that they boast about how many centrifuges they have running right now.
HAS nothing to do with us? really.

[masomenos]

Halted their efforts so far? I guess you have not noticed what the IAEA has said. Or the FACT that they boast about how many centrifuges they have running right now.
HAS nothing to do with us? really.

Running centrifuges doesn't mean that Iran is creating weapons grade plutonium and the IAEA's latest report does not seem worried about Iran in the least.

The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accounting reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities.

You may wonder why this paragraph, way at the end of the report, is the most important one. The answer is this: it means that Iran continues to be in compliance with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty for reasons explained in this post.

Paragraphs 2 through 4 states that Iran's enrichment facilities are operating under IAEA safeguards, exactly as they're supposed to be, producing low-enriched uranium (which cannot be used to make bombs, contrary to all the news report that insist on calculating how many bombs Iran can make with these machines) and were even the subject of 17 surprise inspections. The previous report had said that the same facilities were subject to 14 surprise inspections too. (I should point out that there is a legal limit to the number of inspections that are allowed, since the inspections are not supposed to unduly interfere with the operations of the facilities - I wonder how close to the limit we are now.)

http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2008/09/analysis-of-latest-iaea-report-on-iran.html

[burmafrd]

Love your choice of website. Do you REALLY think anyone would believe that part if you also showed a link to the front page of that site?

[masomenos]

Love your choice of website. Do you REALLY think anyone would believe that part if you also showed a link to the front page of that site?

It has text from the actual report. You may not agree with the commentary, that's fine, but Sept. 2008 IAEA quotes are reported accurately. So, when you read "The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accounting reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities," that's what is in the actual report.

[BigWillie]

Halted their efforts so far? I guess you have not noticed what the IAEA has said. Or the FACT that they boast about how many centrifuges they have running right now.
HAS nothing to do with us? really.

That sarcasm flew right by your head and smacked the wall behind you.

If they drop a bomb in Israel, how exactly does that effect us? It damn sure will effect our entire country to get involved by spreading our troops out more, therefore making us more liable to an actual attack on OUR soil. It also forces more military spending to fight ANOTHER costly war, thereby crippling our economy.

And you are okay with that?

IF a nuclear weapon was dropped in Israel (which is not likely), the best and likely option we will offer is intelligence support and possibly weapons support. As far as getting into a full scale war with Iran, you are out of your freakin' mind to even think that is an option.

[burmafrd]

You really think that will have no effect on the US? Are you really that dense?

[burmafrd]

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2008/bog271108.html


About Iran, he said, "There remain a number of outstanding issues, relevant to the alleged studies and associated questions identified in my last report to the Board, which give rise to concerns and need to be clarified in order to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions to Iran´s nuclear programme. Regrettably, the Agency has not been able to make substantive progress on these issues... I also still regret the fact that the Agency has not been able to share with Iran documentation provided by Member States. I call upon the Member States concerned to authorize the Agency to do so."

This is as of 27 November.

Why am I not surprised you deliberately chose an older report. I just went to the IAEA website. WHY didn't you? WE KNOW WHY.

[BigWillie]

You really think that will have no effect on the US? Are you really that dense?

Am I that dense? Are you dense enough to believe that us letting Israel handle their own war would be more damaging to us rather than causing even more worldwide panic by launching a full scale war that kills not only the national economy, but the worldwide economy, would likely lead to riots and looting out of fear and kill hundreds of thousands of our soldiers in another war we did not need to be apart of?

My God the shortsighted nature you have.

No, actually, enlighten me. After we kill tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of soldiers, waste billions in a war, cripple our economy nationally and worldwide among ALOT of other things, what will we be doing? What will we be doing besides getting nukes away from Iran? Something which is what Israeli military should be capable of doing themselves with their own technology and their own army.

Wait, none of that matters. We have to protect everyone because it is in the Worldwide rulebook that we must protect everyone, even when it comes at the expense of our own citizens. It is in Section A Rule 2:1, right under where it says no more men or women with the last name Bush are allowed in any office. Even on your local school board.

[masomenos]

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2008/bog271108.html


About Iran, he said, "There remain a number of outstanding issues, relevant to the alleged studies and associated questions identified in my last report to the Board, which give rise to concerns and need to be clarified in order to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions to Iran´s nuclear programme. Regrettably, the Agency has not been able to make substantive progress on these issues... I also still regret the fact that the Agency has not been able to share with Iran documentation provided by Member States. I call upon the Member States concerned to authorize the Agency to do so."

This is as of 27 November.

Why am I not surprised you deliberately chose an older report. I just went to the IAEA website. WHY didn't you? WE KNOW WHY.

I chose the September report because I had read it. I didn't know there was a report in Nov. But to play along, here's a quote from the latest report...


As indicated in the Director General’s previous report, the Agency currently has no information — apart from the uranium metal document — on the actual design or manufacture by Iran of nuclear material components of a nuclear weapon or of certain other key components, such as initiators, or on related nuclear physics studies (GOV/2008/38, para. 21). Nor has the Agency detected the actual useof nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies.


Scary stuff.

See how cherry picking quotes doesn't provide a full picture of the document? Did you read it or did you just read the news story? The report calls for more transparency from Iran, which is fine and it says that it hasn't made any progress since the last report, which was two months ago. Are there concerns that Iran has undoucmented nuclear material? Yes, but they aren't based on any physical evidence, but rather issues that need clarification.

Here's the entire summary of the report, for everyone...

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-59.pdf


18. The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accounting reports in connection with declared nuclear material and
activities. However, Iran has not implemented the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1 on the early provision of design information. Nor has Iran implemented the Additional Protocol, which is essential for the Agency to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities.

19. Regrettably, as a result of the lack of cooperation by Iran in connection with the alleged studies and other associated key remaining issues of serious concern, the Agency has not been able to make substantive progress on these issues. For the Agency to make progress, an important first step, in
connection with the alleged studies, is for Iran to clarify the extent to which information contained in the relevant documentation is factually correct and where, in its view, such information may have been modified or relates to non-nuclear purposes. Iran needs to provide the Agency with substantive
information to support its statements and provide access to relevant documentation and individuals in this regard. Unless Iran provides such transparency, and implements the Additional Protocol, the Agency will not be able to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear
material and activities in Iran.

20. Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, having continued the operation of PFEP and FEP and the installation of new cascades and the operation of new generation centrifuges for test purposes. Iran has not provided access to the
IR-40, and, therefore, the Agency is not able to verify the current status of its construction.

21. The Director General continues to urge Iran to implement all measures required to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme at the earliest possible date.

22. The Director General will continue to report as appropriate


In regards to the bolded sentence in section 18, I would point out that there are a large number of countries in which the IAEA cannot verify the "absence of undeclared nuclear material or activity" (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Reports/Anrep2004/safeguards.pdf).
However, the inability to verify absence does not mean that IAEA believes there IS an undeclared material or activity. The IAEA does acknowledge the possibility that Iran may be doing some undocumented work and it even says it has "serious concerns". However, that's the same language that the body would use in any situation where they haven't been able to quell all doubt. Reading the report does not leave one with the impression that Iran is an imminent nuclear threat though.

[Cajuncowboy]

You tell me. You are the one suggesting more sanctions. These "sanctions" have halted their efforts so far, eh?

And cool. You want to kill our economy, kill more of our soldiers all for a war that has absolutely nothing to do with us.

We all need to face something -- the world hates us for the very reason you are wanting to use to get into this war. Our efforts at playing "big brother" in wars, conflicts and disputes we have no business in have powered generations of terrorists and threats to our nation. Instead of cleaning up the mess, we make it that much larger. But yet we never learn from our mistakes.

First and foremost, we have to clean up our own messes before we even worry about Israel. Considering in this decade we have sold them almost $20 billion in military weapons, have given them $6 billion in military aid this decade so far and now are scheduled to give Israel over $3 billion a year in military aid, I think we do enough for them already.

But hey, lets cripple our economy and our military just to show them Iranians what we are all about!

Why do you think the Russians are so in favor of helping Iran get nukes?

You can blah blah blah all you want about the evil America and how in your twisted mind we are the reasin people hate us, but the fact is the only countries that hate us are the ones that truly long for freedom. Why? Because they know we have it and they want it.

And if we are not the protector of Israel, who do you think will be? They are an invaluable ally in the region. They are our friends. I would hate to be YOUR friend and have to rely on you in a fight to help out.

As for crippling our economy..Are kidding me? You think war has brought this on? You are truly ignorant about the situation then.

[Cajuncowboy]

That sarcasm flew right by your head and smacked the wall behind you.

If they drop a bomb in Israel, how exactly does that effect us? It damn sure will effect our entire country to get involved by spreading our troops out more, therefore making us more liable to an actual attack on OUR soil. It also forces more military spending to fight ANOTHER costly war, thereby crippling our economy.

And you are okay with that?

IF a nuclear weapon was dropped in Israel (which is not likely), the best and likely option we will offer is intelligence support and possibly weapons support. As far as getting into a full scale war with Iran, you are out of your freakin' mind to even think that is an option.

Wow. I can't believe anyone who got out of the 6th grade wrote this. You can't be serious? What effect would it have on us???

[burmafrd]

maso, you really cannot see it can you. IAEA will diplo speak as long as they can. But the bottom line is this: "Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, having continued the operation of PFEP and FEP and the installation of new cascades and the operation of new generation centrifuges for test purposes. Iran has not provided access to the
IR-40, and, therefore, the Agency is not able to verify the current status of its construction."

Now maybe you know nothing about how uranium enrichment using centrifuges works, but for those that do that is a very worrying thought.

[masomenos]

maso, you really cannot see it can you. IAEA will diplo speak as long as they can. But the bottom line is this: "Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, having continued the operation of PFEP and FEP and the installation of new cascades and the operation of new generation centrifuges for test purposes. Iran has not provided access to the
IR-40, and, therefore, the Agency is not able to verify the current status of its construction."

Now maybe you know nothing about how uranium enrichment using centrifuges works, but for those that do that is a very worrying thought.

Uranium enrichment isn't just used to create weapons grade nuclear material. The IAEA has said that there is no evidence that any of Iran's declared nuclear material has been used for anything other than the creation of low enriched fuel. Iran does have the right to create LEU for use in nuclear power plants.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Why do you think the Russians are so in favor of helping Iran get nukes?

You can blah blah blah all you want about the evil America and how in your twisted mind we are the reasin people hate us, but the fact is the only countries that hate us are the ones that truly long for freedom. Why? Because they know we have it and they want it.

And if we are not the protector of Israel, who do you think will be? They are an invaluable ally in the region. They are our friends. I would hate to be YOUR friend and have to rely on you in a fight to help out.

As for crippling our economy..Are kidding me? You think war has brought this on? You are truly ignorant about the situation then.

Can we get off the myth that countries hate us just because we have freedoms...seriously.

There are a ton of reasons some countries hate us and it is not just because they want our freedoms. Some might want to be free of us.

[BigWillie]

Why do you think the Russians are so in favor of helping Iran get nukes?

You can blah blah blah all you want about the evil America and how in your twisted mind we are the reasin people hate us, but the fact is the only countries that hate us are the ones that truly long for freedom. Why? Because they know we have it and they want it.

And if we are not the protector of Israel, who do you think will be? They are an invaluable ally in the region. They are our friends. I would hate to be YOUR friend and have to rely on you in a fight to help out.

As for crippling our economy..Are kidding me? You think war has brought this on? You are truly ignorant about the situation then.

So countries hate us because we have freedom and they do not? So to get that freedom, they take ours, wipe our allies off the face of the earth, then continue down the same path. Makes a ton of sesne. :rolleyes: Countries hate us because of arrogance and our willingness to stick our nose where it does not belong.

Look at Israel and the reason why Palestinians hate us. We decided to take sides in a conflict that has nothing to do with us.

Please, stop with the personal shots if you want to discuss anything. But as far as that goes, I am looking out for number one. I will protect my own before I protect anyone else. If I cannot even take care of my own, how am I going to take care of anyone else?

Put it this way, you are in financial trouble. The money you have coming in is limited. At the same time, you find out your friend is in financial trouble as well. You are telling me you will look out for your friend before your own? But, but they are my friends! But, but, you look out for your own. Man, I would hate to be your family.

Go look at the Six Day War and look at the capabilities of Israel in the region. This is before billions we spend on their defense system, the billions they actually spend buying defense weapons from us and their technological advances that in some areas top ours. But instead of giving a completely nuclear armed country intelligence support and weapons systems, lets launch a full scale nuclear war that we need to be in the middle of because they are our friends.

http://www.internetretailer.biz/product_images/13/best%20friends%20final.jpg

And Cajun, do you really think a war would NOT cripple our economy? Really? Really?

Wow. I can't believe anyone who got out of the 6th grade wrote this. You can't be serious? What effect would it have on us???

You tell me.

In fact, compare the repercussions of us going in versus us staying out of the war given our current situation.

[burmafrd]

Maybe you remember that little bunch called Al Queeda and how they want to destroy western civilization and replace it with Islamic fundamentalism.

[masomenos]

Maybe you remember that little bunch called Al Queeda and how they want to destroy western civilization and replace it with Islamic fundamentalism.

Wait, who? What's Islam?

[Cajuncowboy]

So countries hate us because we have freedom and they do not? So to get that freedom, they take ours, wipe our allies off the face of the earth, then continue down the same path. Makes a ton of sesne. :rolleyes: Countries hate us because of arrogance and our willingness to stick our nose where it does not belong.

Look at Israel and the reason why Palestinians hate us. We decided to take sides in a conflict that has nothing to do with us.

Please, stop with the personal shots if you want to discuss anything. But as far as that goes, I am looking out for number one. I will protect my own before I protect anyone else. If I cannot even take care of my own, how am I going to take care of anyone else?

Put it this way, you are in financial trouble. The money you have coming in is limited. At the same time, you find out your friend is in financial trouble as well. You are telling me you will look out for your friend before your own? But, but they are my friends! But, but, you look out for your own. Man, I would hate to be your family.

Go look at the Six Day War and look at the capabilities of Israel in the region. This is before billions we spend on their defense system, the billions they actually spend buying defense weapons from us and their technological advances that in some areas top ours. But instead of giving a completely nuclear armed country intelligence support and weapons systems, lets launch a full scale nuclear war that we need to be in the middle of because they are our friends.

http://www.internetretailer.biz/product_images/13/best%20friends%20final.jpg

And Cajun, do you really think a war would NOT cripple our economy? Really? Really?



You tell me.

In fact, compare the repercussions of us going in versus us staying out of the war given our current situation.
Here's the bottom line. You lose Israel, you lose the middle east. It's is really that simple. Then once you've lost them and their ports it's over.

There is more than that reason to protect them though and it's biblical. Scoff at it if you want to but the founding Fathers didn't think that biblical issues were to be scoffed at.

And no, war doesn't cripple an economy. It helps it. Just look at history and you will see that's true.

As for the personal shots, you're right I shouldn't have taken them. Sorry. But I get so frustrated that people have such a blind eye towards Israel. The simple fact of the matter is this...

If America didn't stand up to the bullies of the world, no one would and they would take over one country at a time and it would only be a matter of time before it was us. By then it's too late.

Just look what happened with Iraq. Saddam was a despite and a murderous thug. He bribed the UN for years and the oil for food scandal was a huge deal. He violated UN sanctions, thumbing his nose at us and the rest of the word because he didn't think we had the nads to take him out. Well, he found out he was wrong.

We haven't had another attack on this country since 9/11. Why? Because we had the nads to take the fight to the bad guys.

You see, we NEED Israel to stay relevant regardless of your dislike for them. And if we sit around with some lame arse thing like Obama said about retaliatory strikes, then they will be gone.Because there is no other country willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with them.

[Cajuncowboy]

Can we get off the myth that countries hate us just because we have freedoms...seriously.

There are a ton of reasons some countries hate us and it is not just because they want our freedoms. Some might want to be free of us.

You call it a myth, but in fact that is what radical Islam is all about. Doing away with our freedoms. Where have you been the last 7 years?

[burmafrd]

Trying to ignore the obvious.

[BigWillie]

Here's the bottom line. You lose Israel, you lose the middle east. It's is really that simple. Then once you've lost them and their ports it's over.

There is more than that reason to protect them though and it's biblical. Scoff at it if you want to but the founding Fathers didn't think that biblical issues were to be scoffed at.

And no, war doesn't cripple an economy. It helps it. Just look at history and you will see that's true.

As for the personal shots, you're right I shouldn't have taken them. Sorry. But I get so frustrated that people have such a blind eye towards Israel. The simple fact of the matter is this...

If America didn't stand up to the bullies of the world, no one would and they would take over one country at a time and it would only be a matter of time before it was us. By then it's too late.

Just look what happened with Iraq. Saddam was a despite and a murderous thug. He bribed the UN for years and the oil for food scandal was a huge deal. He violated UN sanctions, thumbing his nose at us and the rest of the word because he didn't think we had the nads to take him out. Well, he found out he was wrong.

We haven't had another attack on this country since 9/11. Why? Because we had the nads to take the fight to the bad guys.

You see, we NEED Israel to stay relevant regardless of your dislike for them. And if we sit around with some lame arse thing like Obama said about retaliatory strikes, then they will be gone.Because there is no other country willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with them.

And Israel is a much more considerable power than any country in the Middle East. They have shown this time and time again that they can stand up in their own battles and defend themselves against damm near anyone. If a nuclear bomb is dropped, their is only one retaliation and Israel is damm sure capable and willing to respond. Why do they need our help in doing that?

And please, spare me any Biblical talk. Think of it like this, if were alive, do you think he would drop a nuclear bomb to kill hundreds of thousands of people to protect a piece of land?

Solider: " , , they killed our people, what should we do?"

: "My son, nuke them, nuke them all!!" *insert laugh here*

But wait, the Bible. The Bible justifies war. Even that great President Dubya Bush used that so many times to justify everything he did.

Please, shutup with that same song and dance. It is old, tired and played out.

Yep, a nuke drops and things will become just dandy. People will begin buying goods a plenty, roaming streets filled with dandelions while the Sound of Music plays in the background. Spare me. The panic people will have out of pure fear will be like nothing we have ever witnessed. To say otherwise is just downright silly.

What was Iraq going to do? The country was in turmoil. They had no WMDs. They had no real armed forces to speak of. The only reason Saddam stayed in power was out of pure fear and nothing else. Saddam was a threat to no one, especially any other country but his own.

And it is completely stupid to even bring up Iraq. We had thousands die from one man and his followers. That man was not Saddam. Instead of going after the man responsible, we decided to show Saddam what was up. Now a murderer of thousands of Americans continues to live, but we still got Saddam. We showed the world! :rolleyes:

Think of it like this, a man walks in your house, shoots your family and walks. You chase the man, have him cornered, but you decide you want to shoot another guy you do not like while the real murderer walks.

That is essentially what we did when we turned our attention away from a man who actually came on our soil and tried to destroy everything we hold sacred.

But hey, who cares, we got Saddam. And we are still chasing that other guy. You know, ole what's his name?

Yep, no attack on this country. Because why do they need to fight on our soil now that we will fight them on there soil in a war that has no end in sight? I mean, lets send another Predator in the air to drop a hundred thousand dollar bomb on a mud hut on the Pakistani border hoping that Ali Akbar is actually in it this time.

It's as stupid as Bill Clinton wasting $40 million dollars in cruise missiles to blow up absolutely nothing. The terrorists have to be laughing at us while we waste millions daily to take out a limited number of Islamic militants. The reason being when these Islamic idiots see a brother being martyred it only helps power a new generation of Islamic fighters and does absolutely crap to stop the fighting.

And Cajun, just stop. You are doing nothing but reaching to try to make a silly point by saying I dislike Israel. I am simply looking out for MY country first, not someone elses. I look out for MY own people before I look out for someone elses.

If Bush doesn't put us in a senseless war in Iraq, I would consider your option. If our economy wasn't in the tank, I would even consider it then even with our military stretched to its limits. However, with an economy in recession with absolutely no end in sight and our military stretched beyond it's means, it's absolutely suicide for our country and it's way of life to even think this way.

I'm all for giving Israel the support we possibly can given our situation, but I'm damm sure not willing to spend billions on ANOTHER war and kill tens or hundreds of thousands of our boys for a war that we have absolutely nothing to do with. Our boys have suffered enough giving everything they have to fight a war in Iraq, they do not need to fight another pointless war as well.

[burmafrd]

The future threat from Saddam was after the sanctions ended (and they were collapsing anyway due to UN corruption- food for oil, what a joke)
He was going to rebuild his WMD. Chemical Ali and others admitted it. He still had the infrastructure and oil money and the technicians and scientists. within 5 years of the sanctions ending he would have had them all back.
He also gave shelter to terrorists (the Achille Lauro master mind to name just one) . And even if he died his sons (who might have even been WORSE) were all set to take over.

[BigWillie]

So they did have them? Wait, they did not. Well, they would have!

If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.

Well heck. What about that. OOPS!

This story of the justification for the Iraqi war sounds like a boyfriend who was just caught cheating by his girlfriend. He uses every story until he finds one that sticks where the former girlfriend finally feels some remorse.

And before someone gets butt hurt thinking I am making this a Dummycrat vs Republican thing, I am not. They were all equally idiotic and both continue to run from their blame in this issue. Democrats avoid it all together and point the finger while Republicans twist and distort to make it seem like they were right all along.

[Cajuncowboy]

Please, shutup with that same song and dance. It is old, tired and played out.

.

Do you actually think you are man enough to do it for me?

Anyone who comes on here with kind of reply has no credibility and an even smaller amount of testosterone.

Sorry little willie. That's how it is with immature internet punks.

You asked a question. I gave you an answer and you don't like. Too bad.

Live with it.

And anyone who says they would rather see the fight on their own soil is not looking out for their own country. They are just plain stupid.

[Cajuncowboy]

The future threat from Saddam was after the sanctions ended (and they were collapsing anyway due to UN corruption- food for oil, what a joke)
He was going to rebuild his WMD. Chemical Ali and others admitted it. He still had the infrastructure and oil money and the technicians and scientists. within 5 years of the sanctions ending he would have had them all back.
He also gave shelter to terrorists (the Achille Lauro master mind to name just one) . And even if he died his sons (who might have even been WORSE) were all set to take over.

These people will never, ever understand this. They only know what they get from the daily kos and such. They are intellectually neutered by the MSM. People like willie think it is much better to fight the war here at home than taking it to them.

He squawks about our boys giving their lives (which is true) but ignores he innocent lives that would be lost here if we fought them on our own streets.

Ignorance kills. And it kills brain cells as well.

[BigWillie]

Do you actually think you are man enough to do it for me?

Anyone who comes on here with kind of reply has no credibility and an even smaller amount of testosterone.

Sorry little willie. That's how it is with immature internet punks.

You asked a question. I gave you an answer and you don't like. Too bad.

Live with it.

And anyone who says they would rather see the fight on their own soil is not looking out for their own country. They are just plain stupid.

:laugh2:

I see someone is wanting to play internet tough guy on something so silly. That same reasoning has been used endless times and it is so silly. If someone disagrees with it, they are likely to be called out as non-religious (as you did when you said I disliked Israel) and labeled as that. So what better way to use that as a crutch?

It just happens to be that I don't particularly care about anyones opinion, especially yours. I can be labeled as a Jew hater, non-religious or anything else that happens to suit your opinion. But frankly, it's your only crutch to justify the killing of millions in a senseless way. Because WWJD? :rolleyes:

Listen, if you want to talk about the point, lets talk about it. No one made this personal in this discussion and past discussion when people do not agree with your point. Only now you want to call me out for the same thing because you are on the receiving end.

Sorry Cajun, not everyone will roll over for you just because you think your alpha-male attitude will rule.

If you want to talk like a grown man, talk like a grown man and quit making so many issues you try to discuss personal.

[Cajuncowboy]

:laugh2:

I see someone is wanting to play internet tough guy on something so silly. That same reasoning has been used endless times and it is so silly. If someone disagrees with it, they are likely to be called out as non-religious (as you did when you said I disliked Israel) and labeled as that. So what better way to use that as a crutch?

It just happens to be that I don't particularly care about anyones opinion, especially yours. I can be labeled as a Jew hater, non-religious or anything else that happens to suit your opinion. But frankly, it's your only crutch to justify the killing of millions in a senseless way. Because WWJD? :rolleyes:

Listen, if you want to talk about the point, lets talk about it. No one made this personal in this discussion and past discussion when people do not agree with your point. Only now you want to call me out for the same thing because you are on the receiving end.

Sorry Cajun, not everyone will roll over for you just because you think your alpha-male attitude will rule.

If you want to talk like a grown man, talk like a grown man and quit making so many issues you try to discuss personal.

Hey little boy. You are the one who told me to shut up. And like most people who have to put the word "Big" in their username, you are compensating for something.

I laid out my reasoning for protecting Israel and you don't like it and you take a shot at my faith. calling it a crutch which is against forum rules.

You are one of those internet jokes who think they are something but are really nothing at all.

Next time you want to slam my faith I suggest you PM it to me so I can properly dispose of you as the guidelines here do not allow that.

And if you are not interested in my opinions as you claim, don't reply to my posts. Better yet, put me on ignore if you can't handle it.

[BigWillie]

Hey little boy. You are the one who told me to shut up. And like most people who have to put the word "Big" in their username, you are compensating for something.

I laid out my reasoning for protecting Israel and you don't like it and you take a shot at my faith. calling it a crutch which is against forum rules.

You are one of those internet jokes who think they are something but are really nothing at all.

Next time you want to slam my faith I suggest you PM it to me so I can properly dispose of you as the guidelines here do not allow that.

And if you are not interested in my opinions as you claim, don't reply to my posts. Better yet, put me on ignore if you can't handle it.

Wow .. are you so pathetic that you are now making penis jokes? Really man? Wow ..

Woah, woah, I take a shot at your faith? How so? Because I told you to quit using the Bible as a crutch for protecting Israel? How is that taking a shot at your faith? The Bible may tell you to protect the Holy land of Israel, but does it tell you to drop nuclear bombs which will ravage the land and kill all inhabitants within hundreds of miles of these bombs?

You see, when was being robbed of his life, called a liar and having his followers tortured, he did not stand up with an AK47 and start dropping cruise missiles. No, he did not even fight back, did he?

God and the Lord taught you love, faith and compassion and yet somewhere in your sick twisted mind you somehow have gotten that he taught death and horror for land.

I mean, stop and really think about what you are saying for a second, then think how the man you believe so deeply in would react. If you cannot honestly tell me that God or would cause so much death, destruction, famine and fear, then I will quit this conversation right now.

The crazy thing is, I could have sworn that the commandments you live by had one in there that stated "Thou shalt not kill". Maybe I missed the part where it said "Thou shalt not kill EXCEPT WHEN..."

And I know you are likely going to bring up Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of the wrath of God. But remember, God took out the believers and only destroyed those who did not have faith. When you drop that nuke, can you promise that same thing?

Cajun, stop letting things get so personal. I did not slam your faith, only your reason for using faith to justify a war. That's just senseless and stupid. You may be the most religious man on this board for all I know, but I do however know that your justification for war is silly. If you did not want to be called out for it, then you should not have brought faith into the discussion. I only happened to call you out on it.

I mean, you questioned my faith. You have questioned my loyalty to my friends. You have taken personal shot after personal shot. But yet you keep coming back more angered than before because I lightly participated in a game you decided you wanted to play? And yet you are still going at it even though I am trying to be rational. Do you not even see how silly you look?

And please, stop with the internet tough guy routine. It's as lame as the penis joke.

[Cajuncowboy]

Wow .. are you so pathetic that you are now making penis jokes? Really man? Wow ..

Woah, woah, I take a shot at your faith? How so? Because I told you to quit using the Bible as a crutch for protecting Israel? How is that taking a shot at your faith? The Bible may tell you to protect the Holy land of Israel, but does it tell you to drop nuclear bombs which will ravage the land and kill all inhabitants within hundreds of miles of these bombs?

You see, when was being robbed of his life, called a liar and having his followers tortured, he did not stand up with an AK47 and start dropping cruise missiles. No, he did not even fight back, did he?

God and the Lord taught you love, faith and compassion and yet somewhere in your sick twisted mind you somehow have gotten that he taught death and horror for land.

I mean, stop and really think about what you are saying for a second, then think how the man you believe so deeply in would react. If you cannot honestly tell me that God or would cause so much death, destruction, famine and fear, then I will quit this conversation right now.

And I know you are likely going to bring up Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of the wrath of God. But remember, God took out the believers and only destroyed those who did not have faith. When you drop that nuke, can you promise that same thing?

Cajun, stop letting things get so personal. I did not slam your faith, only your reason for using faith to justify a war. That's just senseless and stupid. You may be the most religious man on this board for all I know, but I do however know that your justification for war is silly. If you did not want to be called out for it, then you should not have brought faith into the discussion. I only happened to call you out on it.

And please, stop with the internet tough guy routine. It's as lame as the penis joke.

I didn't make a penis joke. i was referring to your ability to make a point. But if that's an issue for you there are plenty of ads that can help you.

As for the rest of your bs, it's just that.

And if it were allowed, I would post biblical passages that said to protect Israel.

I don't do the tough guy thing. But I will resond to some guy who pulls it on me.

You don't know what you are talking about so you should let it go befre you are embarrassed even more than you already are.

[JBond]

Giant willie, I am interested. What formed your views? Why are you for or against religion? Why are you for or against people you don't know paying your way?

[BigWillie]

I didn't make a penis joke. i was referring to your ability to make a point. But if that's an issue for you there are plenty of ads that can help you.

As for the rest of your bs, it's just that.

And if it were allowed, I would post biblical passages that said to protect Israel.

I don't do the tough guy thing. But I will resond to some guy who pulls it on me.

You don't know what you are talking about so you should let it go befre you are embarrassed even more than you already are.

And now you are saying you did not say something you implied. Cool.

Protect Israel, yes. But does it say at what costs? Does it say at the costs of human lives whether it be the believers or the non-believers? Does it say to torch the sacred lands of Israel to make them uninhabitable for future generations? Does it say to bring fear, famine and death to protect those lands?

See, this is where you are getting this confused and misinterpret the true meaning of what 'protect' means. To you it means protect at all costs, no matter the sacrifice of human life or otherwise. To me it means to protect the lands with God's will and with the belief he will do so. In that it does not say kill all those who oppose my word. You see, you are not God. You are not to be the judge of those who are un-Holy or those who deserve to perish from this Earth. But with God's will the lands will always be protected until that final day when the greatest battle every will be fought on these lands.

I have never once pulled the 'tough guy' routine on you. Only you have challenged me to verbal internet smackdown through PMs. :laugh2:

Cajun, you come here spouting off with your holier than thou attitude and obviously are stating a strong religious belief. But at the same time you are showing anger. That same anger you are showing will lead you into eternal dammation and you will never see the Kingdom of God. A religious man like yourself should understand that before being so easily offended and challenging others.

You continue this by trying to verbally beat down my character. Then continue to do so. Only now you decide to point the finger in a 3rd grade manner and act as if you had nothing to do with it and you are above it. Guess what playa, you decided this path. Not myself. Do not complain now.

And lastly, you and only you decided to bring faith into this discussion. NO ONE else did. But yet once faith begins to get discussed on a level in which I want to discuss the true meaning of the Bible and the deeper meaning of protecting Israel do you somehow manage to believe that I personally insult you.

But yet I am embarrassing myself?

You are one cool cat.

[BigWillie]

Giant willie, I am interested. What formed your views? Why are you for or against religion? Why are you for or against people you don't know paying your way?

Views on what? Pretty vague question.

Completely for religion, but not a religious fanatic either. Grew up in a religious household. Grandfather and great-grandfather actually built the church I attended in my younger days which was baptist. Although as I grew a bit older I began to get intrigued by the evangelical church that was right next door to my house.

Church shaped my views from the standpoint I am tolerant of others. I do not go to the extreme that others in this world do.

For example -- homosexuality. Too many religious people are so eager to beat these people down to condemn them to the fiery gates. However, I have never chose to do so. In my eyes it is never my position to judge anyone, no matter race, lifestyle or even favorite sports team. At the end of the day, I will never be the one to pass judgment upon these people, so why should I do so here on earth? At the same time I am willing to tell them the word to help them understand their choices in life and the circumstances that surrounded it. But never will I verbally beat them down with slurs or think I am better than them.

Another extreme that has bothered me in recent years is those who use the Bible to justify violence like that in which Cajun is referring to. He basically gives you a double edged sword. You can either not respond, thereby leaving him and others thinking he is not wrong or you can call him on it. If you call him on it, then you are referred to as un-Holy and beneath someone else. But the thing is with me, I do not care how I am ridiculed for pointing this out. Cajun nor anyone else here knows me personally or knows my values or set of standards, so why should anyone act like they do? But of course they will attempt to act like they know so they can prove their point.

And in what way do you mean "paying my own way"? Welfare? Unemployment? All of the above?

To me, I have no problem with it. Does it kill my pocket book is it just ultimate greed in the fact I know it is likely going somewhere it would not be appreciated? Either way, I don't particularly care.

Unemployment is an evil -- until you need it. While we would all like to keep our jobs and have our employment status never have problems, everyone is not so fortunate. Am I so greedy that my little bit cannot go to someone else in these cases? Nope.

Welfare -- meh. It's a system that is taken advantage of, but does it necessitate taking it away from those who actually need it?

I can go to a store and see someone use their food card or go to the bank seeing a woman taking her check in. Do I think they appreciate what they are getting? I know the chances are slim. Would I feel better keeping a few dollars so more families could live below the poverty line? Nope.

I know, I know. They should get to work. I just don't take a hard line stance to make a child somewhere suffer for the mistakes or laziness of their parents.

[Cajuncowboy]

And now you are saying you did not say something you implied. Cool.

Protect Israel, yes. But does it say at what costs? Does it say at the costs of human lives whether it be the believers or the non-believers? Does it say to torch the sacred lands of Israel to make them uninhabitable for future generations? Does it say to bring fear, famine and death to protect those lands?

See, this is where you are getting this confused and misinterpret the true meaning of what 'protect' means. To you it means protect at all costs, no matter the sacrifice of human life or otherwise. To me it means to protect the lands with God's will and with the belief he will do so. In that it does not say kill all those who oppose my word. You see, you are not God. You are not to be the judge of those who are un-Holy or those who deserve to perish from this Earth. But with God's will the lands will always be protected until that final day when the greatest battle every will be fought on these lands.

I have never once pulled the 'tough guy' routine on you. Only you have challenged me to verbal internet smackdown through PMs. :laugh2:

Cajun, you come here spouting off with your holier than thou attitude and obviously are stating a strong religious belief. But at the same time you are showing anger. That same anger you are showing will lead you into eternal dammation and you will never see the Kingdom of God. A religious man like yourself should understand that before being so easily offended and challenging others.

You continue this by trying to verbally beat down my character. Then continue to do so. Only now you decide to point the finger in a 3rd grade manner and act as if you had nothing to do with it and you are above it. Guess what playa, you decided this path. Not myself. Do not complain now.

And lastly, you and only you decided to bring faith into this discussion. NO ONE else did. But yet once faith begins to get discussed on a level in which I want to discuss the true meaning of the Bible and the deeper meaning of protecting Israel do you somehow manage to believe that I personally insult you.

But yet I am embarrassing myself?

You are one cool cat.

Again, showing ignorance. You can't be much older than 19 with this ignorance so I will dismiss your views as uneducated (as they are) and the lack of life experience you must has as irrelevant.

You should stop while you are behind so you don't get further behind.

And oh, I love the anger part of the post.

That was good comedic relief for a Monday morning. :laugh2:

[Cajuncowboy]

Another extreme that has bothered me in recent years is those who use the Bible to justify violence like that in which Cajun is referring to.



Where did I use my faith to justify violence. I said there was a biblical reason to protect Israel.

You need more life lessons son. Work on it and come back here when you grow up.

[Rogah]

You see, when was being robbed of his life, called a liar and having his followers tortured, he did not stand up with an AK47 and start dropping cruise missiles. No, he did not even fight back, did he?Speaking only for myself, that's why I much prefer the Old Testament to the New Testament. Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. You know... smiting people down old school style :D

[BigWillie]

Again, showing ignorance. You can't be much older than 19 with this ignorance so I will dismiss your views as uneducated (as they are) and the lack of life experience you must has as irrelevant.

You should stop while you are behind so you don't get further behind.

And oh, I love the anger part of the post.

That was good comedic relief for a Monday morning. :laugh2:

And now you are just being a bigot. If I was 12 years old, who cares?

Again, you continue to look down on me because I disagree with your viewpoint, but you do nothing to argue otherwise. Instead of actually talking like a grown man would, you continue to insult. But yet I need life lessons?

Where did I use my faith to justify violence. I said there was a biblical reason to protect Israel.

You need more life lessons son. Work on it and come back here when you grow up.

And because in your view of the Bible and it's writing you believe it justifies violence. Everyone interprets the Bible differently. But in extreme views, some think it justifies violence. I think that is completely out of line and a complete misinterpretation of the word that was written.

Somehow, someway, you took that as a personal insult that I am challenging your faith.

Cajun, in all your attempts to act like you know me, I have never once acted like I have known you. You could be a preacher for all I know and this could just be the way you have found your faith. I do not know. But unlike you, I will never continue to insult or degrade you while pretending I know all about you. I just happen to strongly disagree with your understanding of some of the Bible and you using it as justification for war.

[masomenos]

Speaking only for myself, that's why I much prefer the Old Testament to the New Testament. Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. You know... smiting people down old school style :D

Word. Nothing is more old school than turning people into pillars of salt.

[burmafrd]

I like salt.

[masomenos]

I like salt.

You would.

:banghead:










:)