The Latest IAEA Iran Report

[Annie]

I'm trying to figure out how Iran would possibly pull of projecting a nuclear weapon towards Israel, and accomplishing a strike without it being shot out of the sky. They have all the same missile defense systems that we do. And I'm not certain about this, but I'd bet that their borders are probably a HELL of a lot more secure than ours are.

In the event that Israel did somehow get directly attacked by Iran, why should we be required to do ANYTHING? Are we sqeezing the economic life out of the people of Iran right now to protect ISRAEL? Even Bush himself said Israel has a right to defend itself.

We need to be securing our borders. After 9/11, how could anyone not AGREE with that???

So, there is at least one place Iran could hit that NO ONE would respond, hit with nukes, yet no one would respond.Thanks for being honest, wrong, but honest.

 

[DeadCanDance]

So, there is at least one place Iran could hit that NO ONE would respond, hit with nukes, yet no one would respond.Thanks for being honest, wrong, but honest.

He didn't say that.

Are you drunk again?

 

[Paulie]

So, there is at least one place Iran could hit that NO ONE would respond, hit with nukes, yet no one would respond.

Clarify that please. That sentence is all over the place.

 

[Annie]

Clarify that please. That sentence is all over the place.

Hardly, direct response to your post.

 

[Paulie]

Hardly, direct response to your post.

Well until you clarify what the hell that mess was supposed to mean, I can't give you an adequate response. I have a general idea, but the structure of the sentence is so off, that I don't want to make another assumption.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Hardly, direct response to your post.

No, seriously, he's right. You really need to work on sentence clarity and coherence. Often, I have to read your stuff twice, just to get the general gist of what your trying to say.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The media reports a certain way. They use the same marketing techniques that companies who sell products do. Facial expressions, tones of voice when speaking about a subject, subliminals in the background while they are speaking on TV...Then they mention WAR, and TERRORIST, and NUKES.

It's enough to make someone who was never exposed to the subject of Iran before, think we should go to war. They seem to leave out most of the debatable topics, or they avoid debate on them. At the end of the reports, it leaves you thinking that we'll probably have to go to war eventually, because Iran is "defiant" and "crazy" and Ahmadinejad has said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map". Why have they never reported that he and others in the Iranian government have stated the REAL context of that was to mean the regime of Israel, and it didn't have literal significance of actual wiping off of any proverbial map.

Are they not allowed to clarify their statements? Are they automatically damned for everything they say?



Iran MAYBE pursuing weapons is not going to make any nation cease to exist except IRAN. If they happen to somehow hoodwink the entire world, and sneak out a bomb, once they use it, they're fucked. And then life will go on.

If they managed to get it smuggled into the US, the fault will only lie on the US government for not having made getting it in as impossible to accomplish as they could.

12 million illegal immigrants, and more each day. It only takes ONE of them to be the bearers of a nuclear weapon to be used against us. IF they're getting in that easy, they could literally bring ANYTHING in with them. Why don't we start there FIRST.

Secure the borders. Then, and ONLY then, should Americans support taking the offensive elsewhere. It seems pointless otherwise.

Tell your liberal buddies that want to give illegals ID's and provide them cradle to grave medical care with free schooling and all the benefits of a citizen. And failing that encourage them to riot.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm trying to figure out how Iran would possibly pull of projecting a nuclear weapon towards Israel, and accomplishing a strike without it being shot out of the sky. They have all the same missile defense systems that we do. And I'm not certain about this, but I'd bet that their borders are probably a HELL of a lot more secure than ours are.

In the event that Israel did somehow get directly attacked by Iran, why should we be required to do ANYTHING? Are we sqeezing the economic life out of the people of Iran right now to protect ISRAEL? Even Bush himself said Israel has a right to defend itself.

We need to be securing our borders. After 9/11, how could anyone not AGREE with that???

Again ask your liberal buddies the question about borders, they want to amensty 12 to 20 million illegals AND do nothing to prevent the next flood of 30 million that want amnesty also. Lets just close our Government down and cede ourselves to Mexico. We already have 10 to 20 percent of their population illegally in our country. And the democrats want to make it EASIER for more to come and to grant them amnesty to boot.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well until you clarify what the hell that mess was supposed to mean, I can't give you an adequate response. I have a general idea, but the structure of the sentence is so off, that I don't want to make another assumption.

First you claimed we could and should wipe iran off the map if they ever used a nuke and then you said " well except if they use one on Israel." Clear enough?

 

[DeadCanDance]

First you claimed we could and should wipe iran off the map if they ever used a nuke and then you said " well except if they use one on Israel." Clear enough?

and then you said " well except if they use one on Israel."

He didn't say that. If fact, you put it in quotes to imply that was a direct quote from him. I couldn't find that statement anywhere on this thread, except in your post.

Which is par for the course for you: putting words in people's mouths, and falsely attributing quotes to them.

Dude, we don't NEED to respond to an iranian nuke on israel. Israel has their OWN robust nuclear deterent. Israel retaliatory nukes would make Iran cease to exist in retaliation.

Our nuclear deterent is intended to deter, and possibly retaliate, for attacks on us, or our non-nuclear allies. That's been the whole point of our nuclear umbrella posture for 50 years. You sure you were in the military? You don't appear to know much about military doctrine.

I guarantee you if Iran blew up a nuke in Paris, we would let France take the lead in retaliating against iran with France's OWN nuclear deterent.

ON the other hand, if our non-nuclear ally Japan was attacked by an iranian nuke, we might retaliate proportionally on their behalf, since japan doesn't have nukes.

 

[Paulie]

Again ask your liberal buddies the question about borders, they want to amensty 12 to 20 million illegals AND do nothing to prevent the next flood of 30 million that want amnesty also. Lets just close our Government down and cede ourselves to Mexico. We already have 10 to 20 percent of their population illegally in our country. And the democrats want to make it EASIER for more to come and to grant them amnesty to boot.

My liberal buddies?

95% of my time is spent with my family. The couple close friends I DO associate with don't even follow politics, much less care. A shame for them, but what are you gonna do? The rest are just various people who I involve myself with for the Ron Paul campaign, and not a god damn one of them, nor myself (which you'd know from VARIOUS posts of mine) supports illegal immigration, nor any fiscal or social liberalism. That's precisely why we support RP. But your skewed view of politics that you've obviously learned from watching corporate news all day, would have you believe otherwise I guess. Anti-war automatically means "liberal" for some god forsaken reason.

You're a real piece of work, RGS. Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker these days, and you're resorting to a lot of insults.