Gunny
Gold Member
In the thread about Iran.
Now can I get an answer to my question?
About the time you explain how THAT statement is "warmongering."
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In the thread about Iran.
Now can I get an answer to my question?
About the time you explain how THAT statement is "warmongering."
So is not letting fanatics possess nuclear weapons.
The implications of it are not clear. I am asking so that I don't accuse him of doing something before it is clear that is what he is doing. It is a line of questioning you would do well to avail yourself of on occasion.
Not letting them means not allowing them to have them. Not allowing them to have them would require US strikes or a US invasion.
Really...this is simple stuff. You said it, we all know what you meant, why are you trying to squirm out of it?
If 2 years ago (that would be 2005) this same NIE said Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons." and that caused concern with US leaders, don't you think that was prudent...?
And now with a new assessment of Irans capabilities, I would expect that the rhetoric will change to reflect todays intell.....
Just as suspect Al Gore would not repeat this in todays world.....
"We know that he(Saddam) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Al Gore, Sept. 23, 200
It ain't rocket science...
I see. So you think you can fill in the blanks with your assumptions and they are correct just because you have decided so?
Rather than me squirming, you have stepped in it ... again ... by presuming to think what someone else is thinking.
FYI, I have not advocated using specific means of deterring Iran from having nuclear weapons. I have only advocated that Iran should be deterred from having them. That does NOT necessarily mean by use of force, and in fact, I would prefer a peaceful solution.
All this says to be is be skeptical about US intel. I wish some individuals, specifically in our government, had a bit more skeptical before invading other countries based on said intel.
As I hope some individuals will be a bit more skeptical of what todays intell. may imply....some will ignore the rhetoric from Iran and some will believe it....
and over reaction in either direction could be a serious mistake as you NOW find out the facts about Iraq.....but what was believed in 2002 about Saddam, and what we now know about Saddam is 20/20 hindsight....
And since you seem to want to squirm, I will ask you point blank.
Would you use force to rid Iran of suspected nuclear weapons?
These would be the same US intelligence agencies that you all LOVE to quote about being wrong about Saddam's WMDs, right?
Its not much of a blank ol boy.
I would never presume to think what you are thinking. I have much higher standards than that.
No, it does not necessarily mean by use of force, but the obvious interpretation of your statement is that it includes the use of force.
Me? I'd wait on confirmation, rather than act on suspected nuclear weapons.
But I'd hope someone acts before the confirmation is seen in the sky over Europe or Isreal or over a US Naval fleet at sea....thats the nature of the problems the west faces....
Yes it is 20/20 and the far left was right and everyone else was wrong. Life's a bitch, ain't it?
Yeah....and the worlds intell. was wrong, along with dozens of UN unanimous votes on resolutions against Iraq...lifes a bitch
As for Iran considering the claims are almost identical to what the claims were in Iraq (they have a secret weapons program!...oh noes the sky is falling!), by an administration which I trust not one whit, I am quite skeptical of the claims of a nuclear Iran. I am significantly more concerned with Pakistan, which nobody seems to give a damn about, than Iran.
The only real difference between the two is Iraq actually used WMD, so the beliefs were not as suspect....Iran has the centrifuges and is using them to enrich the uranium, they don't even deny that, its their final application that is still suspect.....
You assumed. You assumed wrong. Period.
The "obvious interpretation" is you just ain't half as smart as you wish you were.
So...would you use force if necessary to rid Iran of suspected nuclear weapons Gunny? Yes or No?
I would not use force for "suspected" nuclear weapons.
So what level of proof would you require? Would US intell guaranteeing that they have them be enough for you?
Their[Irans] idea of a peaceful resolution and coexistence is each and every one of us dead.
Do you try and negotiate with rattlesnakes? I shoot them.
Fallacy #2: That we need to invade Iran. Locating the facilities and blowing them back into the desert from whence they came would suffice.