posted on January 1, 2006 08:20:34 PM
I agree with Cheryl,and I think it is more that this country can handle without it thowing us into a Depression and I believe that is what will happen if we get into anymore wars.
**********************************
Two men sit behind bars,one sees mud the other sees stars.
posted on January 1, 2006 08:52:23 PM
fair enough, MAH
But are you saying that a world decision/agreement for NO MORE nuclear programs is to just be discounted/ignored then?
Are you saying if we wait until Iran has a full program in operation that we won't be attacked by them at some point?
And what happens if we are? Talk about cost.....it will be more bodies than money.
I sometimes don't think some people, not singling you out MAH, really understand the consequences of terrorists nations getting ahold of nuclear weapons. Just how serious it is.
posted on January 1, 2006 10:09:10 PM
I am just saying I don't think this country can afford to keep fighting wars,if we take us out because we collapse our Economy into a Depression how are we going to keep going anyway? We are heading down the same road as Rome went. Right now we are trying to price gouge the economy into a Depression,if the government don't stop it soon thats where we will be. There are more ways to destroy a country besides terrorism.
**********************************
Two men sit behind bars,one sees mud the other sees stars.
posted on January 1, 2006 10:19:46 PM
MAH....but if we're all dead or under Taliban rule....the condition of our economy won't really matter at all in the full scheme of things.
PLUS I don't see us going alone. As the article points out....we're talking with NATO. That would mean several countries were in agreement [could be] and would be helping to 'foot' the bill.
I just don't see how we can afford to let terrrists nations have nuclear weapons.
I think we WILL be facing Armageddon [sp] then. When one has it they will sell it to the others....then America loses.
Our economy is strong and growing right now....doing MUCH better than most all the European ones are doing.
IF we HAD to....we can afford it.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 1, 2006 10:22 PM ]
posted on January 1, 2006 10:25:56 PM
::But are you saying that a world decision/agreement for NO MORE nuclear programs is to just be discounted/ignored then?::
But it's not a world descision that no other country will be allowed to have a nuclear program. If New Zealand decided to explore nuclear options do you think anyone would start talking about airstrikes?
It's not "any" country, it's countries we don't like.
If the new democratically elected government of Iraq decides to explore nuclear energy options in order to power their nation, are you going to endorse airstrikes?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on January 1, 2006 11:07:23 PM
No, it's NOT 'countries we don't like'. It's terrorist countries...where they BREED their hatred of the west.
YOU need to do your research and learn just which countries signed a treaty/agreement that THEY would work together to prevent just want is happening in Iran now, from happening.
posted on January 1, 2006 11:21:23 PM
I suppose the widespread ignorance on the subject explains some of the ridiculous, thoughtless posts in this thread.
In no particular order, let's see what can be cleared up.
North Korea is not part of, nor anywhere near the Middle East, nor do they have any concern for, nor connection to the middle East, other than the "Axis of Evil" label. There are about 200 cars in North Korea so they care nothing of oil, they aren't Muslims and all they do is sit around starving because Kim Jong-Il is their "god" and can do no wrong. They already have nuclear weapons, but have not used them and said they are only to prevent an invasion by the US (It worked too, btw - why do you suppose Iran wants some?)
Israel does not need the US to loan it any nuclear weapons since they have enough of their own.
All muslims don't want what the terrorists want, any more than all Christians want what David Koresh wanted. If you feel the need to comment on what the Quran may or may not say, read it first so you don't sound so foolish. It's not very interesting, but at least you can form your own opinion on its message. Like every other worthless religion, it is interpreted in thousands of different ways depending on the disposition of the person reading it.
Iran wants nuclear weapons to protect itself from the US. They are sandwiched geographically between Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which are under US occupation right now, and the US is threatening to make Iran next - wouldn't you want some protection, too? If you doubt that, then ask yourself two very simple questions:
#1 - How many countries has Iran attacked in the last 50 years?
#2 - How many countries has the US attacked in the last 50 years?
Now who is the aggressor?
Also, why is everybody so scared of a muslim country having a nuclear weapon? Do you not realize that Pakistan - one of the more fundamentalist muslim nations (most likely where Bin Laden is stationed now) has nuclear weapons? They haven't used them on anybody.
In fact, there is only one nation that ever has used nuclear weapons on another country, murdering tens of thousands of innocent women and children in the process.
posted on January 1, 2006 11:29:19 PM
oh great....another anti-American policy poster.
The protection of our country is the JOB of our congress and our President. Even when dems hold those offices.
They don't stick their heads in the sand the way you are doing. THEY...can and DO recognize who our enemies are.
To even suggest someone needs to read the entire Koran before giving an opinion of their pubically stated goals...is nuts. Totally nuts. They've made it real clear on their tapes, by their statements what their intention is.
To deny that is nothing nothing but total foolishness.
posted on January 2, 2006 01:19:21 AM
a 'take'/opinion from a journalist I enjoy reading:
Serious or suicidal?
By Thomas Sowell
Jan 2, 2006
When you are boating on the Niagara River, there are signs marking the point at which you must go ashore or else you will be sucked over the falls. With Iran moving toward the development of nuclear weapons, we are getting dangerously close to that fatal point of no return on the world stage.
Yet there are few signs of alarm in our public discourse, whether among politicians, the media, or the intelligentsia. There is much more discussion of whether government anti-terrorism agents should be able to look at the records of books borrowed from public libraries.
The Iranian government itself is giving us the clearest evidence of what a nuclear Iran would mean, with its fanatical hate-filled declarations about wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. But send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.
Just last year, before the American election, Osama bin Laden warned that those places that voted for the re-election of the President would become targets of terrorist retribution.
We could ignore him then. But neither we, nor our children, nor our children's children will ever be able to ignore him again if he gets nuclear weapons from a nuclear Iran.
We will live at his mercy -- of which he has none -- if he can wipe out New York or Chicago if we do not knuckle under to his demands, however outrageous those demands might be.
We will truly have passed the point of no return. What will future generations think of us, that we drifted on past the warning signs, preoccupied with library records and with giving foreign terrorists the same legal rights as American citizens?
We could deter the nuclear power of the Soviet Union with our own nuclear power. But you cannot deter suicidal terrorists. You can only kill them or stop them from getting what they need to kill you.
We are killing them in Iraq, though our media seem wholly uninterested in that part of the story, just as they seem uninterested in the fact that the fate of Western civilization may be at stake just across the border in Iran.
Of course they would like us to prevent Iran from going nuclear -- if it can be done nicely by diplomacy, with the approval of the U.N., and in ways that do not offend "world opinion."
It is as if we were on the Niagara River and wanted to go ashore before it was too late, but did not want to turn on the motors for fear of disturbing the neighbors with excessive noise.
But at that point, the choice is between being serious or being suicidal.
That is where we are internationally today.
Many years ago, there was a book with the title "The Suicide of the West." It may have been ahead of its time.
The squeamishness, indecision, and wishful thinking of the West are its greatest dangers because the West has the power to destroy any other danger. But it does not have the will.
Partly this is because most of our Western allies have been sheltered from the brutal realities of the international jungle for more than half a century under the American nuclear umbrella.
People insulated from dangers for generations can indulge themselves in the illusion that there are no dangers -- as much of Western Europe has. This is part of the "world opinion" that makes us hesitant to take any decisive action to prevent a nightmare scenario of nuclear weapons in the hands of hate-filled fanatics.
Do not look for Europe to support any decisive action against Iran. But look for much of their intelligentsia, and much of our own intelligentsia as well, to be alert for any opportunity to wax morally superior if we do act.
They will be able to think of all sorts of nicer alternatives to taking out Iran's nuclear development sites. They will be able to come up with all sorts of abstract arguments and moral equivalence, such as: Other countries have nuclear weapons. Why not Iran?
Debating abstract questions is much easier than confronting concrete and often brutal alternatives.
The big question is whether we are serious or suicidal.
posted on January 2, 2006 06:14:00 AM
I'm confused - does this mean you can't form an opinion of your own, and have to post an opinion already prepared for you?
And the question still stands: Can you refute any of my points?
posted on January 2, 2006 06:35:51 AMIn fact, there is only one nation that ever has used nuclear weapons on another country, murdering tens of thousands of innocent women and children in the process.
Yes and it ended a war. Your take on murdering is in error and you should learn the difference between enemy and friend. There are no innocents in war and in Japan's case those same women and children were being trained to murder our troops upon a landing. So it was one of the best calls in US history and I would support any President that would order a nuke strike to cancel out an enemy.
As to your points, they are idiotic and don't deserve an answer. You can't project that ludicris take on every country attempting to buck the west and in all probability would use it. Against us? No. Against Isreal most likely considering the moronic statements from Iran's leader of late.
Ron
"Better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you are not."
posted on January 2, 2006 06:47:22 AM
nerfballwillie
I certainly know that Korea is not Muslim and that they are not part of the Middle East. However, it seems of late that its leadership is becomming more and more aggressive and is looking for an excuse to take that aggression out on someone. Iran could be that excuse. We haven't exactly been happy with Korea's leadership either. Knowing that, an attack on Iran could be seen by them as just a step to an attack on Korea.
All of your other points are very true, IMO. It cannot be said that all Muslims are terrorists or even that all terrorists are Muslims. They do not go hand-in-hand. Throughout history, there has been relgious extremists of all faiths. Some pretty nasty things have been done to people in the name of religion.
You are right. Iran has not attacked us. In fact, until Iraq, you didn't hear much about Iran anymore. Now we have to attack Iran like we did Iraq because they may attack us. So, why don't we just start attacking every country that we think just MIGHT attack us? I cannot blame a country for wanting to look to ways to protect itself. We have put them in a precarious position. Sure, we could give them our word and tell them if they stop producing weapons we won't attack them. But, we all know how good this country's word is.
Linda
You really should stop taking people's opinions as an expression of hatred toward this country. They are not. Being able to express your opinion or disagree with the leadership and not be afraid that they'll be dire consequences is part of what makes America, America. No one on this board hates America. In other's eyes it could easily be said that you are the one that hates America because you endorse an administration that sees the Constitution (the very foundation of our freedoms) as nothing more than empty words on a piece of paper.
Now, everyone, try to have a nice day!!
Cheryl
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
posted on January 2, 2006 07:38:45 AM
willie - [i]I'm confused - does this mean you can't form an opinion of your own, and have to post an opinion already prepared for you?
And the question still stands: Can you refute any of my points[/i]?
No, it doesn't. I form all my opinions on my own.
It means I don't care to answer you - since you came in here accusing this President of being with whores and CAN'T/WON'T support your false statements.
I don't choose to discuss issues with people that just make up lies. MY choice.
posted on January 2, 2006 07:45:21 AM
Nerfballwillie said to Linda, "I'm confused - does this mean you can't form an opinion of your own, and have to post an opinion already prepared for you?"
And the question still stands: "Can you refute any of my points?"
An opinion born of ignorance is no opinion at all. Because she is only informed by inferior, biased sources Linda will be unable to answer your question, nerfballwillie. And since she was writing into the wee hours of this morning trying to explain to others why she has not answered their questions I doubt that even a half assed attempt will be made to answer your good question soon, if at all.
I don't understand why you are making a mountain out of a mole hill on my post. Nothing was said in a negative way. I'm merely pointing out how, while you see some's opinions as an expression of hatred for this country, other's see yours in the same light. Meaning, it's a two way street and fighting about it all the time isn't going to change that. I haven't seen any personal attacks aimed at you in this thread. Attacks on opinions are not attacks on anyone personally. They are differences of opinion.
Cheryl
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
[ edited by cblev65252 on Jan 2, 2006 08:14 AM ]
posted on January 2, 2006 08:18:20 AMWashingtonBayer...I'm not arguing whether or not nuking Japan was right or not - I'm not smart enough to know the answer to that. My only point is, plenty of wars have broke out since then, and nobody has used a nuke to end it. We are the only country that has shown the willingness to do so. So why are so many people so sure that Iran would use theirs? They obviously desire a bomb to prevent a US attack as I very clearly pointed out previously.
Let's look at what Iran sees: 3 members of Bushs' Axis of Evil.
#1 Iraq - no bomb, gets attacked.
#2 North Korea - has bombs, not attacked
#3 Iran - Now what do you suppose they should do?
Iran has always talked hardline against Israel, as Israel does towards Iran. If they both have nuclear weapons, what do you suppose the chances of a confrontation are? If history is any guide, zero. No two nuclear armed countries have EVER gone to war against each other, only against unarmed countries. You think these foreign leaders don't know their history?
Everyone seems to think that all muslims desire to strap explosives to their chest and blow up some Jews or Americans on their way to Allah. This leads to the irrational belief that if a muslim country had a nuclear weapon (I suppose Pakistan is different - though nobody has explained to me how) they would launch an attack on the US or Israel, guaranteeing their total annihalation, but gladly taking out some infidels with them. The problem with that theory is that the peasant on the street doesn't have that option. Nuclear weapons would be controlled by the political and military leadership of that country. Now name one leader that has shown the same willingness to take their own life. Even Bin Laden has shown he won't. Nobody in power wants to give that power up, or their life for that matter.
If the leadership of Iran really wanted to commit suicide in an effort to kill Jews and Americans, they could have done it numerous times through conventional means.
posted on January 2, 2006 08:25:09 AM
cheryl....lol....oh brother...it seems EVERYTHING needs to be constantly explained to you progressive/socialist liberals.
MY POINT was....don't tell me what to do...what to say. I can and will disagree with ANYONE'S opinions that I wish to.
Doesn't mean they can't express them....just like NO ONE can surpress MY opinions.
Is that so hard for you to grasp? We all have opinions....but when the lefties, like you did here, see a statement THEY don't like....so they state their OWN opinions.....you, and helen does the same thing, come in and start telling us what we should and shouldn't do or say.
I really think it's pretty clear. I don't understand why you have such a problem with others expressing theres. It works BOTH ways. That's the point I'm making.
posted on January 2, 2006 08:37:16 AM
I HAVE already explained why I won't, helen. Did you miss that too?
Yes, I understand helen that ANYONE who slanders this President has your FULL support and praise.
EVEN thought they can't support their lies.
Yep...that's how low you've sunk...as I said before.
--------------
Here's the slanderous statement....with no support/proof that YOU'RE so supportive of helen.
nerf said: Isn't Cindy Sheehan the Presidents ex-mistress who got mad that he doesn't call on her anymore now that he has DC whores up the block?
Linda_K
posted on January 1, 2006 11:02:33 PM edit
I don't think so...clinton hasn't been in office for over five years now.
nerfballwillie
posted on January 1, 2006 11:26:06 PM
So they both enjoy extra-marital affairs. I guess that makes them men.
Linda_K
posted on January 2, 2006 12:00:41 AM edit
I, for one, would just LOVE to see you post proof of your slander towards this President.
That WH hadn't seen VALUES or MORALS in it for eight long years.
Now for the past five, it has. NOt that you'd be able to recognize it....you obviously think you can just post anything and be believed. NOT HERE willie
---------
So, since you speak of MY ignorance maybe you'd, helen, like to show all of us the PROOF those lies aren't just MORE slander that you support.
posted on January 2, 2006 08:38:09 AMMY POINT was....don't tell me what to do...what to say. I can and will disagree with ANYONE'S opinions that I wish to.
Where was I telling you what to do or say???? If I can't tell my BF what to do or say, I'm certainly not going to try and tell you. Not meant as derogatory.
Cheryl
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
posted on January 2, 2006 08:41:47 AM
Wrong thread, but ok. My comment about Sheehan was a joke - I'm just not into posting smileys. So since my joke about the President has been withdrawn for your safety, care to respond to any of the numerous points I've made? Please try to stick to the discussion at hand.
posted on January 2, 2006 08:44:43 AM
Linda, now you want to change the topic of your thread to nerfballwillies previous posts? Again, linda WHY can't you answer his question? Apparently you agree with my answer.
I'm not getting involved in a dingbat exchange with you, linda. Your ass is on the line here.
Either answer nerfballwillie's question or concede defeat.
sorry...
\
