Lieberman wants Iran punished

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.
 
Last edited:
MMarsh, you need to work on your recognition of SARCASM. And besides, War Games? C'mon, talk about your bad 80's movies.
 
bulldogg said:
MMarsh, you need to work on your recognition of SARCASM. And besides, War Games? C'mon, talk about your bad 80's movies.
Click to expand...

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. :angel:
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
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. :angel:
Click to expand...

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/content/article/2006/03/30/AR2006033001735.html
 
Last edited:
Donkey said:
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/content/article/2006/03/30/AR2006033001735.html
Click to expand...


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.
 
Chiraq also talked about nuking those countries who threaten french national security last year.... Give me a break, dude
 
phoenix80 said:
Chiraq also talked about nuking those countries who threaten french national security last year.... Give me a break, dude
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
bulldogg said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
AQ has already been issued the fatwah and they have in turn warned us in explicit language that a nuclear attack will be carried out on American soil. Its a foregone conclusion. AQ doesn't bluff, its just a game now of when and where and trying to out**** the ****ers before they **** us. Iran and AQ... two birds of just a slightly different shade. AQ acts on their own with no state. Iran as a state uses proxies to wage its attacks. To my mind this is a specious difference when it comes to protecting my family and friends. I'm willing to go pre-emptive because it is inevitable that there will be a nuke or dirty bomb detonated in my lifetime on American soil.
 
We are currently foiling attempts to detonate dirty bombs here on a large scale. Home grown bombers inspired by the Iran's and AQs of the world with their digusting primitive Immams who prefer not speak English. We suffered from not believing their threats. They think we are such useless bastards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top