Lieberman wants Iran punished - Page 5




 
--
Lieberman wants Iran punished
 
June 15th, 2007  
bulldogg
 
 
Lieberman wants Iran punished
Radioactive Oil... now THAT will improve your mileage for sure... change Citgo to Citglow.

June 15th, 2007  
mmarsh
 
 
THINK PEOPLE!!!

We use Nukes and somebody down the road is going to use that as an excuse to nuke us, Or somebody (like China) will get scared that they'll be targeted next and launch a preemptive strike first on us. One way or another, it would result in a nuclear detonation somewhere in the USA.

Didn't you all see the movie "WAR GAMES"? The point of the movie was everybody loses in a Nuclear War.
June 15th, 2007  
bulldogg
 
 
MMarsh, you need to work on your recognition of SARCASM. And besides, War Games? C'mon, talk about your bad 80's movies.
--
Lieberman wants Iran punished
June 15th, 2007  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
MMarsh, you need to work on your recognition of SARCASM. And besides, War Games? C'mon, talk about your bad 80's movies.
I wasn't really referring to your post but some other people's post, and I am not so sure they were being sarcastic. Besides, there are people who are serious about using Nukes on Iran. If you watched the GOP debates last week their were 3 or 4 of candidates (including your favorite Duncan Hunter) that considered using a Nuke as a viable option for Iran. It made my blood freeze.

Actually I thought it was really cool (for an 80's movie), but I am a computer geek so I admit I come from a bias position.
June 15th, 2007  
Donkey
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
I wasn't really referring to your post but some other people's post, and I am not so sure they were being sarcastic. Besides, there are people who are serious about using Nukes on Iran. If you watched the GOP debates last week their were 3 or 4 of candidates (including your favorite Duncan Hunter) that considered using a Nuke as a viable option for Iran. It made my blood freeze.

Actually I thought it was really cool (for an 80's movie), but I am a computer geek so I admit I come from a bias position.
You crazy man...

Besides the US already "nuked" a country and guess what no one has used any since (besides testing)....

Ok would this be better...

"You're right MOAB'em, carpet bomb'em 24/7" ooooo I know phaser them with a big ION cannon in the sky....

Dont we have this really really big conventional bomb, just we cant figure out how to transport it yet....let's use that

See we are working on conventional ways to solve these problems http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...033001735.html
June 15th, 2007  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donkey
You crazy man...

Besides the US already "nuked" a country and guess what no one has used any since (besides testing)....

Ok would this be better...

"You're right MOAB'em, carpet bomb'em 24/7" ooooo I know phaser them with a big ION cannon in the sky....

Dont we have this really really big conventional bomb, just we cant figure out how to transport it yet....let's use that

See we are working on conventional ways to solve these problems http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...033001735.html

Thats because nobody else had the bomb when we bombed Japan, its easily to bomb a country when there is no risk of retaliation. We try that now whole different story...

And yes conventional weapons are better because they dont give off radioactive death clouds the way a Fission weapon can.

If the Pentagon really has a Conventional Bomb that can do the job then you agree with me that we don"t need a nuke.

Please tell that to people like Duncan Hunter, he doesn't agree he thinks we should use nukes as an option.
June 15th, 2007  
phoenix80
 
 
Chiraq also talked about nuking those countries who threaten french national security last year.... Give me a break, dude
June 15th, 2007  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix80
Chiraq also talked about nuking those countries who threaten french national security last year.... Give me a break, dude
Nope, not when your're twisting facts like this.

Chirac threatened to Nuke countries that COMMITTED terror acts against France, not if they threatened them. There is a difference between a threat and an actual attack. Chirac did not threaten a preemptive nuclear strike only a retaliatory one.
June 16th, 2007  
bulldogg
 
 
You are splitting hairs MMarsh and you're smart enough to know it.

I'd prefer if nuclear weapons are to be used that they are employed to save the lives of my fellow citizens not after they are killed.
June 16th, 2007  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
You are splitting hairs MMarsh and you're smart enough to know it.

I'd prefer if nuclear weapons are to be used that they are employed to save the lives of my fellow citizens not after they are killed.

Not really. There is a difference between preemptive (a strike to prevent the other guy from striking you first) and retailitory (a punitive strike in response to actual aggression). What Chirac said was if Iran was to conduct terrorist attacks within France (like they did in Germany during the 80's) the French response would be nuclear. Its not the same at all to what Phoenix01 was saying.

On your second point, thats just the problem. If you use nuclear weapons then somebody at sometime will use Nuclear weapons back at us. In the long term, you will have endangered more American citizens then if you hadn't acted.
 


Similar Topics
As U.S. Puts Pressure On Iran, Gulf's Religious Rift Spreads
U.S. Bid To Limit Iran Gets Wary Response
De-Arabization of Iran
What If Iran Gets the Bomb? Good Analysis
Rice warns Iran of UN sanctions