posted on January 2, 2006 09:18:02 AM
Admit defeat, helen?
Nope, that's YOUR position...what you called for.
I don't see America EVER admitting defeat....you radicals would give our way of life away....just like kerry, who wanted to help Iran out WITH their nuclear weapons program.
Yes, I see you and him as traitors to our country.
America won't EVER admit defeat. It's whether we want to deal with terrorsts who would like to wipe Israel off the face of the earth....now or later.....then they'll attempt that with us.
posted on January 2, 2006 09:29:46 AM
I'm going to reply to several statements people have made, but I'm not going back to see who said what. Just MAYBE we can get this thread back on track.
----------------------------------------
"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."
Yet. I seem to remember a year or two back when India and Pakistan where "this close" to lobbing nukes at each other. Everyone got lucky that time. The more countries that have nukes, the more likely someone will eventually use them, and since the middle-east has always been a hotbed of military activity, it's far more likely for someone in the region to use them.
I have read the Quran several times, and I can tell you it is evey bit as violent as the Hebrew Bible. Yes, it can be translated any way you want, but less so than the vague and often allegorical Bible. The Quran is much clearer than the Bible (at least the English transaltation is easier). Also, historically, the Muslims have been theocratic empire-builders, while the Christian churches have rarely been in actual direct control of a country.
Tell me honestly... Do you think that if Saddam had nukes back in the first Gulf War that he would have used them or not? Remember the scuds launched on Israel? You know darn well he would have nuked them if he was able.
----------------------------------------
On Korea and Iran:
No, they are not allies, but their fates may be linked. Many strategists have suggested that the minute we attack Iran, N.K. will use the opportunity to attack Japan or S.K. or another of our allies in the belief that we are stretched too thin (which may in fact be the case).
It's a similar situation as Germany and Japan in WWII. Neither of these two countries gave a crap about the other, but by making their alliance, they were able to increase the pressure against their enemies.
----------------------------------------
"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. "
and
"You really should stop taking people's opinions as an expression of hatred toward this country. They are not."
And yes, in my opinion, this statement is "Hate America" speech. America is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapions in a war, that statement is a fact. The rest of that sentence is extremely judgemental and anti-American.
----------------------------------------
"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? "
The sixty years (less in most countries) that atomic weapons have existed is not history, it's a blip on the timeline of history. The middle east has been a breeding ground for violence and hatred for six thousand years-- ALL of recorded history n fact.
It's also a fact that no two Democratic countries have ever attacked each other. Whichi statement would you rather base your life on, yours or mine. Let's keep building Democracy in the Middle-East.
---------------------------------------
Now look, I resonded to multiple posts and didn't call anyone names. Let's see if you all can do the same. This place can be a lot of fun if people stop trying to get the last word in and just play nice.
---------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum sonatur.
posted on January 2, 2006 09:42:03 AMLINDA...You are changing the subject again. I did not mention the Iraq war. This thread is about nuking Iran.
I said,
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.
So, YOU answer his question or concede defeat. The ball is in your court.
posted on January 2, 2006 11:04:52 AM
Nerfballwillie, your post(below) is too filled with reason, logic, common sense. The neoconjobs HATE that.
Let's face it, linda didn't start this thread to DISCUSS anything...just scream insults at anyone who doesn't agree with her 100%. You can't reason this issue with a woman who thinks genocide of all Muslims is a great idea.
BTW, your post was excellent but I doubt linduh bothered to read it:
nerfballwillie
posted on January 2, 2006 08:18:20 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WashingtonBayer...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 11:10:50 AM
You mention that Pakistan hasn't used nuclear weapons - yet, insinuating that they are probably going to. However, if you research the history of the conflict between India and Pakistan you will see that they are on better terms since Pakistan developed nukes than they ever were before. They've gone to war more than once and had armed skirmishes numerous times before, but it's revealing how well they are playing togehter now that they know the other side has nukes. Pakistan has never shown any indication that they would use their nukes despite having their next-door neighbor invaded by the US and of course their supposed natural hatred for the US and Israel since they are muslim. Not once have they shown any indication - so to say they haven't yet, would be to say the same for England, France, Israel, China, US, Russia, North Korea etc.
You say that the more countries have nukes, the more likely someone will use them....Based on what? Not history. The only time a country used it against another country was when nobody else had them, remember? There are at least 9 countries that have nukes, 4 of which are recent to the club, and yet not one has threatened to use them offensively, only in defense of themselves.
As to the Quran, it is violent just like the Bible - I already stated that. All religion is interpreted based on that persons disposition. Violent people interpret Christianity violently as well - remember the Crusades? You seem to forget the Holy Roman Empire and all the excursions to bring native peoples of all lands to Christianity at the end of a sword. The Holy Roman Empire was just as theocratic and merciless, but bigger than any muslim empire. I hate theocracies of any kind, but lets not be biased.
As far as Saddam goes, I'm not sure if he would have used a nuke, but I doubt it. Comparing a scud - a conventional weapon, less accurate, but no different than the thousands of missiles we have/had launched on Iraq, to nukes is ridiculous. Saddam had chemical/biological weapons at one point - we know this because we gave them to him in the 80's to aid Iraq in its war against Iran. He never used them against Israel. Why not? As I stated above, he - like every leader- did not want to die, and it would have meant certain annihilation - just as a nuke would. If you discount his fear for his own life, why did he allow himself to be captured alive? Fear of death. Nuking us or Israel would have guaranteed death.
That is not to say I would like to have seen him with nukes - although it would have prevented this stupid ass war we are in now - because from what I can tell of his personality, he would have used them as pawns to pressure the entire region, and not just as a defense against attack.
You suggest that North Korea might use an attack of Iran as an opportunity to attack the South or Japan based on the US being thin. That is possible, and if anybody would use a nuke offensively, Kim Jong-Il might be the one, but again, why haven't they yet? They already have nukes. The US is already too thin (too thin to even think of anything more than airstrikes on Iran).
The problem is, what would North Korea gain? If they nuked South Korea or Japan, they would be wiped off the face of the earth by the US. What would be the purpose? Suicide? Why not do it now? No matter how thin the US is and how many wars the US is in, a nuclear assault can easily be launched on targets without any soldiers or support equipment being needed.
Allow me to quote myself: 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.
You claim that part of that sentence is fact, but the rest is "extremely judgemental". The entire sentence is fact. Tens of thousands of innocent women and children were killed as a result. I didn't pass judgment on the act. In fact I stated in this very thread that I couldn't say it was the wrong decision. But facts are facts and thousands of innocents were killed as a result. You might not like it, but it is still a fact that even the US government has acknowledged. Was it necessary? Maybe. As I said already, we made the right decision to defend ourselves against Japan, and against future loss of life. Maybe more lives would have been lost if we let the war drag out longer. I'm not smart enough to say definitively one way or the other. But to say that it is judgmental is wrong. It is fact.
You define the length of time that nukes have existed as a blip in history. That is true. However, during that blip, there have been hundreds of wars all over the world, and numerous opportunities for nukes to be used, so the point is irrelevant.
Your point about no two democracies ever warring would be great, if it were true. Just because Congress doesn't call it a war, doesn't mean it isn't. We invaded Panama and Haiti which both had democratically elected leaders. It wasn't much of a war, because they are small defenseless nations, but we still went in.
In fact, what is your definition of Democracy? If it is a system in which the people elect their representatives, then what about Hitler? He was elected, doesn't that count as a democracy warring against another democracy.
Just because a country elects a leader, doesn't mean they are going to be the types of leaders the US wants, and it doesn't guarantee they won't attack another country that elected it's leaders - see WWII. If your definition of democracy, is US friendly democracy, then just say so.
Very good post nonetheless, but I hope this helps to clear some of it up.
posted on January 2, 2006 11:11:08 AM
"Read the thread, replay."
I have read the thread, and I'm not about to guess which of the questions is causing the stink. You won't even ask the question again, and you expect someone to ANSWER it?
If you state a concise, clearly worded question, and I GUARANTEE someone will answer it.
--------------------------------------
Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum sonatur.
If you read page 2 of this thread you can't fail to see the question that nerfballwillie challenged Linda to answer.
After linda objected to nerfballwillies post, he asked her, "Could you refute ANY of my points?" Instead of an answer she responded with a copy paste of a townhall editorial which did not address her objection to his post.
He then said again, Can you refute any of my points?
posted on January 2, 2006 11:37:41 AM
It really saddens me to read some on the left being just SO sure that terrorists nations only have good intentions.....while they support the position that America is the 'bad guy'.
posted on January 2, 2006 11:49:27 AMLet's face it, linda didn't start this thread to DISCUSS anything...just scream insults at anyone who doesn't agree with her 100%.
wrong as usual. Your crystal ball is still broken.
You can't reason this issue with a woman who thinks genocide of all Muslims is a great idea.
Target bombing of their known nuclear sites would NOT be nor cause 'genocide'. Just like it didn't in 1998 when clinton 'target bombed' what we believed were their nuclear weapons programs were located.
Get real....and speak for yourself. I can speak for myself and it's so much better than reading all your constant LIES.
mingotree/crowfarm - posted on December 20, 2005 "Ya but linda, I'M the nasty atheist, scummy LIBERAL and YOU are the enlightened "christian"?? How quickly you lower yourself to my level.
posted on January 2, 2006 11:54:46 AM
nerfballwillie has made some logical points here and it was interesting to read his point of view.
Bin Laden's and Al Qaeda's goal is to ruin the economy of the US and the war in Iraq is not enough to do it so there will be more wars.
Iran or Syria are likely choices and possibly another attack on the US will be their way to start another war.
Bush and his administration have been very predictable to Bin Laden and the terrorists so it's been made easier for them to try to achieve their goals once attention was diverted to Iraq.
posted on January 2, 2006 11:59:38 AM
I still don't understand why Helen can quote other posters, but made me DIG for these questions. I assume she meant these questions:
"#1 - How many countries has Iran attacked in the last 50 years?"
I have no idea. I assume the answer you are looking for is NONE. Let's ignore the Hostage thing in the 70's since you want to pretend that didn't happen. I imagine in 1938, the French were asking "Who has Germany attacked in the last 14 years?" Maybe this isn't the best example, but the point is made. They can be quiet for years and still attack someone. 50 Years of peace doesn't mean they never will attack someone.
"#2 - How many countries has the US attacked in the last 50 years? "
Several. So what? The rest of the world agreed with us every time. There are a few dissenters with the Iraq thing, but not many. Most countries sent some assistance to show support, if in name only. In most cases, we were playing "police" for the United Nations.
This is like asking how many people have been shot by the police? Lots. Do you want to do away with the police department?
Are there any OTHER questions to which you all need answers?
--------------------------------------
Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum sonatur.
posted on January 2, 2006 12:14:01 PM" I still don't understand why Helen can quote other posters, but made me DIG for these questions. I assume she meant these questions."
Replay are you reading my posts? I just spelled out the question and you ignored it completely. It wasn't addressed to YOU. It was addressed to LINDA.
I'll repeat the information one more time.
If you read page 2 of this thread you can't fail to see the question that nerfballwillie challenged Linda to answer.
After linda objected to nerfballwillies post, he asked her, "Could you refute ANY of my points?" Instead of an answer she responded with a copy paste of a townhall editorial which did not address her objection to his post.
He then said again, Can you refute any of my points?
Linda responded, I don't care to answer you.
So REPLAY That's the QUESTION for LINDA which she cannot answer.
And linda, it's not a lie that you have suggested genocide.
Linda said, " I agree, piinthesky. And I would support them doing so too. And maybe if the day ever comes when they do the same thing to us....more American's will join in agreement to using the 'genocide' option."
"We did in Japan and we did it twice. It worked. But now things have changed and it's not PC to go after those who want to destroy all of us or our Nation." Too many liberal 'do-gooders' unwilling to protect us. "They still believe they CAN be talked out of their goals."
Your words, linda would lead any reasonable person to the same conclusion that without impediments you would support genocide.
posted on January 2, 2006 12:19:26 PM
oh helen....there you go again. If anyone reads my comments on page one....there they will see how I view this important decision...and why.
Rather than being so pushy about me posting....post yourself instead of taking a ride on nerf's shirt-tails.
You seem MUCH more interested in demanding I respond to someone else than you do for posting your OWN views.
But that's normal for you. Ride those shirt-tails helen.
Try and FORCE me to do something ...why? ... BECAUSE YOU DEMAND IT.
I think replay has answered nerf's point extremely well. And I've ALREADY posted my opinions on this issue.
posted on January 2, 2006 12:25:29 PM
Pakistan is a secular country, Iran is a Theocracy.
The Iranians are fanatical in the "death to Israel" bs, but more importantly they are compelled by their religion to purify not just the poor schlubs within reach of their blades, but the whole world. Only this way can they achieve the true measure of heaven. You don't have to make this stuff up, just ask them.
How do you lame-brained lefties fit the endless "open a dialog", negotiate, "it's our fault" nonsense into this equation?
There is no rational thought process going on here. If they launch, there cannot be the argument that there will only be 3 people left in that part of the world. If 2 of them are wearing turbans, Allah will be happy.
posted on January 2, 2006 12:25:37 PM
LOL yes, hellen I know you think mingotree/crowfarm is a reasonable person. I just don't she her the same way you do.
Oh...and why aren't you addressing replay's comments....why do you only post a quote....with NO link to show what EXACTLY was being posted.
Some reason you're afraid to do so? Like maybe giving a totally diffent impression that the one that ACTUALLY occurred?
Post the link. Let's see if I called for a genocide on all Muslims....as mg/cf/lb has stated above.
mingotree/crowfarm CLAIMED:
You can't reason this issue with a woman who **thinks genocide of all Muslims** is a great idea.
YOU want to butt in....then DEFEND her statement for all of us.
You're always defending her....might try not riding her shirt-tails either. Learn to stand on your own helen, address the topics yourself. Would be a nice change for you.
posted on January 2, 2006 12:31:51 PM
Linda, I agree with Nerfballwillie's points. There is no need for me to counter anything that he has stated. You, on the other hand object to his statements but when asked to define your objections you say, "I don't care to answer you" and then sit back to ride on Replay's shirt tail. So It appears that you are both a rider of Replay's shirt tails and a handholder with Dbl. What's next, pitiful thing?
posted on January 2, 2006 12:43:26 PM
"Can you refute any of my points?"
THAT'S the question you are making such a silly show over?
That's IT?
You derailed an entire sensible thread over that silliness?
Linda, if you want to show just how silly this thread has become just answer "Yes" or "No." Then they can shut up over whether or not you CAN refute a post.
I refuted the points in a previous post, Just say you agree with me.
[ edited by replaymedia on Jan 2, 2006 12:44 PM ]
posted on January 2, 2006 12:49:46 PMand a handholder with Dbl.
Posted by kraftdinner: "Linda, I see you've bumped up this thread and are still chattering away about me not answering your questions. Did you even go to sleep last night?"
oh wait, wrong thread...wrong reply. I was only in this thread having a double giraffe samwhich joke with colin and classic and stopped by for a quick spit with Linda about 2006 - wasnt even involved in the topic - but the mad hatter and dishevelved den keeper here, helen (who cant seem to focus on the topic much) must drag me into her putrified rants. Oh yuck. Get over it already madhatter helen. Linda's not so alone against you and your posse anymore. You cant deal with that at all, can you? And the funny part is when the two of us do combine forces, we can take down 6 of you like its nothing!
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Jan 2, 2006 01:03 PM ]
posted on January 2, 2006 12:57:02 PM
Thank you helen....now my point CAN be seen by more, as you say, reasonable people.
I did NOT call for the genecide of ALL Muslims.....
what I said was:
"[i]It's not like it's one or two whole countries we could drop the bomb on....they're scattered throughout the world....they mix themselves in with innocent muslims and everyday 'normal' people. They know we would never take out all the innocents, intentionally, just to get a few hundred/thousand of them. That puts us at a extreme disadvantage, but it always has."
