# Rules Clarification



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Rock beats Scissors and Paper beats Rock; Yes?



I'm kidding ...

Sort of ...

:devil:

I was reading about the round-ups of LA Street Gangs and I think we could just airlift these guys over to Tehran and let them tear the place down instead of our own Country. Two birds with one stone ... Les Stroud can put it in his video blog ...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Your theory has only but one fatal flaw...

You presume EVERYONE opens their borders to illegal criminals like we do!!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Your theory has only but one fatal flaw...
> 
> You presume EVERYONE opens their borders to illegal criminals like we do!!


 You got me there!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

It is also commonly thought of that the violent nature of the common crimminal would make them good soldiers.

This is frequently incorrect.

The necessary violence to engage with and destroy an enemy requires discipline and honor.

That which most criminals are completely lacking and why a professional fighting force is necessary.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It is also commonly thought of that the violent nature of the common crimminal would make them good soldiers.
> 
> This is frequently incorrect.
> 
> ...


The British Empire was largely conquered by armies of criminal scum. Picket discipline was maintained by floggings and the shooting of any soldier who broke formation (this was the role of sergeants, largely!)

The idea of soldierly discipline and honor is a fairly recent invention - the province of the professional soldier, a quite uncommon creature historically 

A gang of threatened criminals can be remarkably effective as a military fighting force.

DH


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*we already lowered recruitment standards for Bush's war*

I live in the United States, so 'regional' weapons in Iran have no effect on me. Why should I be concerned whatsoever about this if I'm not a (paranoid) racist?


----------



## MarkfromMD (Nov 5, 2008)

I think most of the speculation about possible military action has been focused on a series of heavy air strikes by the air force. No ground invasion. Just knock out known nuclear facilities and missile bases.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> I live in the United States, so 'regional' weapons in Iran have no effect on me. Why should I be concerned whatsoever about this if I'm not a (paranoid) racist?


So, faced with a Rogue nation, headed by an arguably lunatic leadership, driven bi jihadic fanaticism, on the cusp of developing functional thermonuclear weapons, while possessing a proven weapons delivery capability and publicly stating, "the end of Israel is upon us", you are not concerned? Have you any idea what happens when nations start tossing such ordinance back and forth? Might I suggest you go see your family doctor...have him check you over to see if you still have a pulse!


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*note my requested exclusion of paranoid racism*

1. _Rogue nation_. I support national sovereignty, and we've been a rogue nation on occasion. Rogue against who, and who cares? 
2. _Arguably lunatic leadership, driven bi jihadic fanaticism_. Arguably we are worse. The Republic of Iran does not have a tyrannical despot, but a an intricate system of overseeing powers.
3. _Possessing a proven weapons delivery capability_. Regional. This is the difference between a derringer and a sniper rifle, and is a vast difference in technology and expense. This system can not harm anyone in North America. 
4. _"the end of Israel is upon us"_ It's a racist nation that is despised by all of its neighbors. It is not a sustainable nation. Any idiot knows that many, many nations have disappeared from the map over time, none from nuclear annihilation. Repopulation rates alone prove the ultimate demise of Israel, and even Nixon knew it.
5. _Nations start tossing such ordinance back and forth_. Nations. Takes two to tango. And one to start. As North Korea has proven, the armed nation speaks softly and carries a big stick. Also, Iraq allegedly had all these chemical weapons, and they hadn't been used in over a decade. What of oil-poor nuclear nations such as Pakistan and Israel?

In closing, the United States is not Israel. Their national interests are not necessarily our national interests. Their is no threat to American national security.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Dhaller said:


> The idea of soldierly discipline and honor is a fairly recent invention - the province of the professional soldier, a quite uncommon creature historically
> 
> A gang of threatened criminals can be remarkably effective as a military fighting force.
> 
> DH


1. Alas; raping, burning and looting has fallen out of favor!!

2. Can be, but I wouldn't want to rely on it in large numbers. The Dirty Dozen has otherwise been a bad influence on public opinion!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> 2. _Arguably lunatic leadership, driven bi jihadic fanaticism_.
> 
> a)Arguably we are worse.
> 
> b)The Republic of Iran does not have a tyrannical despot, but a an intricate system of overseeing powers.


I always appreciate the roll of Devil's advocate.

a) I call that selective nuance at best as proved by...

b) Does an "intricate system of overseeing powers" actually make it any better??

Else, I suppose the recycled if dangerous isolationist rhetoric would otherwise be amusing.

Reminds me of Pat Buchanan.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Does an "intricate system of overseeing powers" actually make it any better??


Yes. Requiring people to agree on something is a major impediment to action. Besides, the Iranian President does not control the military.

Allow me to make sure that nobody is misled into believing that Iran has any nuclear weapons whatsoever. They admitted having a factory for making atomic energy plant materials, and tested plain old fashioned local missiles. Separate stories. They do not have any nuclear weapons or capability.

Also if someone could point me to a dispute the IAEA has with Iran, I'd appreciate it. It is my understanding that there are no violations.



WouldaShoulda said:


> Reminds me of Pat Buchanan.


Thank you!


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I always appreciate the roll of Devil's advocate.


You forgot the *T* in roll.

Troll, not roll.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Can you even be a "paranoid racist?" I mean, there really are people out there that are different races - it's not paranoia. :devil:

Regardless, the answer is demonstrated in your own behavior. You requested no one else make an argument based on racism then you did it yourself. Thus wanting to have and use a weapon you don't want others to have and use.



chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> 4. _"the end of Israel is upon us"_ It's a racist nation that is despised by all of its neighbors.


Does that make you a "paranoid racist?" I would say no, it makes you human with a preference for self-preservation and competitive advantage. However, it is a complicated diplomatic problem and unrealistic in the modern world. All countries want nukes and all countries with nukes don't want those without them to develop them. This isn't racism. This is just the same old thirst for power.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> *Allow me to make sure that nobody is misled into believing that Iran has any nuclear weapons whatsoever.* They admitted having a factory for making atomic energy plant materials, and tested plain old fashioned local missiles. Separate stories. *They do not have any nuclear weapons or capability.*


And you've worked at the NSC for how long? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*I don't which acronym he's referring to*



ksinc said:


> And you've worked at the NSC for how long? :icon_smile_wink:


Fair enough, it is possible that Iran had nukes, unicorns and a weather machine. I can't prove a negative. However, there is no proof or credible claim that Iran is even close to having nuclear weaponry of any type, despite the misleading association being done by the press, government. Of course this was also the case six years ago with the non-existent Iraqi WMD.


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I mean, there really are people out there that are different races - it's not paranoia. :devil:


...of course there _actually_ aren't people of different races. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Fair enough, it is possible that Iran had nukes, unicorns and a weather machine. I can't prove a negative. However, there is no proof or credible claim that Iran is even close to having nuclear weaponry of any type, despite the misleading association being done by the press, government. Of course this was also the case six years ago with the non-existent Iraqi WMD.


Yeah, that just goes to show you can't trust the national intelligence services. My philosophy has always been that when *reliable* evidence is lacking its better to be safe than sorry. Especially when the cost of not being safe is unacceptable.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> *I don't which acronym he's referring to*


Sorry; NSC= https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/nsc/


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Thom Browne's Schooldays said:


> ...of course there _actually_ aren't people of different races. :icon_smile_big:


Now, you're just being paranoid! LOL

Touche'


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*Glad that nobody is making outrageous unfactual claims*



norton said:


> Yeah, that just goes to show you can't trust the national intelligence services. My philosophy has always been that when *reliable* evidence is lacking...


When have national intelligence services been untrustworthy? Everyone knew that Iraq had nothing, which is why Bush and his cronies had to use smoke and mirrors to sell the lie.
Is there even _un_reliable evidence that Iran has a capability for nuclear weaponry or an intercontinental delivery system? Anyone? Beuller?

Let's recap. Iran has *not* even been accused of violating IAEA restrictions or having any nuclear weapons, weapons program, intercontinental delivery system. Anybody have info to the contrary?


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

*Non-existent WMDs*

When I hear someone refer to the 'non-existent' WMDs in Iraq I am puzzled. The question should have been at the time and should be now, "Where did they go?" They were there and while the UN and the 'international community' issued warnings, they vanished. Not from the earth, but from Iraq.

When someone is involved in a gun crime in this country and does not have the gun in his hand when apprehended at some later time, we don't assume that since he has no gun he could not have done the deed. We find the gun.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Glad that nobody is making outrageous unfactual claims





chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Everyone knew that Iraq had nothing, which is why Bush and his cronies had to use smoke and mirrors to sell the lie.


Are you kidding or is this really sincere?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Is there even _un_reliable evidence that Iran has a capability for nuclear weaponry or an intercontinental delivery system? Anyone? Beuller?


So, to be clear, you are requesting access to classified intelligence information in a public message clothing forum?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> When have national intelligence services been untrustworthy? Everyone knew that Iraq had nothing, which is why Bush and his cronies had to use smoke and mirrors to sell the lie.
> Is there even _un_reliable evidence that Iran has a capability for nuclear weaponry or an intercontinental delivery system? Anyone? Beuller?
> 
> Let's recap. Iran has *not* even been accused of violating IAEA restrictions or having any nuclear weapons, weapons program, intercontinental delivery system. Anybody have info to the contrary?


Jr:

You are very naive. Since the Iranians have successfully demonstrated the ability to launch intermediate range missiles, it doesn't take all that much additional effort to build an intercontinental delivery capability...with solid fuel delivery systems, you simply strap a bigger firecracker to the warheads a**! Having pulled 408 nuclear alert tours in subterranean launch control centers, 90 to 120 feet beneath the cornfields and cow-pies of the great State of Missouri, my perspective on international relationships and nuclear surety is somewhat less trusting than yours.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Once again, someone comes in with a dissenting opinion - and 19 Right Wing Cronies jump on his back. 

Gotta love this board. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

PetroLandman said:


> When I hear someone refer to the 'non-existent' WMDs in Iraq I am puzzled. The question should have been at the time and should be now, "Where did they go?" They were there and while the UN and the 'international community' issued warnings, they vanished. Not from the earth, but from Iraq.
> 
> When someone is involved in a gun crime in this country and does not have the gun in his hand when apprehended at some later time, we don't assume that since he has no gun he could not have done the deed. We find the gun.


Most of Saddam's WMDs were taken out of Iraq right before the invasion and were hidden in the Bekaa Valley. Some were put on a freighter that disappeared and is believed to have gone to North Korea. Some of the WMDs are thought to have been used in a subsequent attempted chemical weapons terror attack in Amman, Jordan in 2004. Nobody talks about the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were trained at the Salman Pak training camp in Iraq. And no one talks about the fact Saddam took credit for 9/11.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Once again, someone comes in with unfounded accusations of racism, lies, and a lack of facts - and he's respectfully asked to offer some minimal substantiation of his own claims. Then mrkleen joins in the fray to paint with his broad brush; once again forgetting this is not Free Republic or Democratic Underground.
> 
> Gotta love this board. :icon_smile_big:


There; I fixed it for you. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## MarkfromMD (Nov 5, 2008)

They may not be able to launch a missile to the States but if they can produce nukes they can supply terrorists with dirty bombs and suitcase nukes.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Hold on, please, while I pipe Eagle back on board:



eagle2250 said:


> Having pulled 408 nuclear alert tours in subterranean launch control centers, 90 to 120 feet beneath the cornfields and cow-pies of the great State of Missouri, my perspective on international relationships and nuclear surety is somewhat less trusting than yours.



Who here knows what that means? Show of hands? Anyone?

Eagle, I've been in WalMart 408 times and since just about everything there is made in China, my perspective on the Chinese is somewhat less trusting than yours. However, I'm really here to say:

Chats, you're magnificent. You're like a candle in a jar on a summer night; all the right wing moths are fluttering about, armed with the crippled logic of the Bush years, sticking their tongue out at you like Glen Beck on the cover of Time.
​


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^


Peak and Pine said:


> ...​
> Who here knows what that means? Show of hands? Anyone?
> ....​


It simply means that I spent a fair period of my life serving on a Minuteman ICBM launch crew and perhaps, having done so, know just a little bit about the subject on which I was posting...solid fuel rocket technology and the edgy concept of nuclear detente.

Whether one is a supporter of the Nation State of Israel or not, I am rather sickened by the seeming reality that one such as Jr. can be so flippant in waving off the possibility of a nuclear attack against them (or any nation), by a country that has the delivery capability and whose leadership has promised nuclear annihilation for Israel...just as soon as they have an operational weapon in hand. My experience also allowed me to witness firsthand, the willingness of nations presently possessing nuclear weapons, to use that status, as they engage in games of nuclear chicken. It is an unimaginably dangerous game and yet it is played out. Alas, people are far less aware of what took place on the battlefields of the cold war, than they are of what took place in the jungles of Southeast Asia or are currently taking place on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq.

We live in a very crazy and a very dangerous world and today's weapon's technology has superseded our intellectual understanding of geographical borders, while forcing upon us very frightening geopolitical realities! Does this help in your understanding?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> 
> It simply means that I spent a fair period of my life serving on a Minuteman ICBM launch crew and perhaps, having done so, know just a little bit about the subject on which I was posting...solid fuel rocket technology and the edgy concept of nuclear detente.
> 
> ...


 It has nothing to do with a "lack of understanding" or questioning your service to our country. It has to do with "better safe than sorry" or "we know more than you, take our word for it" not being enough any longer to justify a war where thousands of American lives and trillions of American dollars are spent.

No one with a semblance of intelligence questions that Iran is a rogue state that will need to be dealt with now and in the future. But let's ratchet down the hyperbole and deal with them with a dose of reality and less of a John Wayne / GW Bush Cowboy attitude.

While we may not like it, Iran has a right to develop a nuclear program. But as Chat correctly states, there is a big leap from Nuclear Power Plant to Nuclear Weapons Plant. We most certainly need to keep an eye on this and engage moderate factions in the government in Tehran on this matter - but we also need to look at the bigger picture of working on reducing nuclear weapons in the entire region.  

Our support of Israel's right to have nuclear weapons, while crushing anyone else in the region that dares to speak of this is patently uneven and seen as unfair in the Arab world. We need to find a better, more balanced policy on this - and try to draw down the numbers of nuclear weapons across all states in the Middle East - rather than encourage a race to acquire bigger and more powerful weapons.

I don't think anyone should underestimate Iran and their ability to do evil and deceitful acts. But the "go in and blow it all up" attitude clearly doesn't work, so it is time to try a different approach.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> Hold on, please, while I pipe Eagle back on board:
> ​Who here knows what that means? Show of hands? Anyone?
> 
> Eagle, I've been in WalMart 408 times and since just about everything there is made in China, my perspective on the Chinese is somewhat less trusting than yours. However, I'm really here to say:
> ...


Chatsworth stated a premise that "*Everyone* knew that Iraq had nothing" to justify his question "When have national intelligence services been untrustworthy?"'

Before you two (P&P, mrkleen) criticize and personally impune the character of others, perhaps you could at least pipe up on whether you agree that "Everyone knew that Iraq had nothing" can be justified? And How? Because frankly you look like left wing cronies jumping on the back of anyone that asks for facts.

The Walmart and Glen Beck comments make you look stupid and ignorant. Since that obviously isn't your intent (you seem to be trying to play the elite intellectual) perhaps that's not quite working for you.

I'll say this for Chatsworth, he disagrees without making such characterizations about others or speaking to the wall and that is why he is engaged where people figuratively just throw stuff at some of you. Instead of complaining that everytime you speak up you get shouted down, perhaps look at why no one gives your posts any credibility or respect. Don't try to collect the dividends of Chatsworth, you're *nothing* like him. If you want to be him, then do it. Drop the Olbermann schtick while you criticize Glenn Beck and his viewers.

I totally disagree with Chatsworth. I think his statement was unsubstantiated and his view unsupported, but at least he's tolerable as a human being and conversing with him is not like talking to a sociopath. And I want to know why he says what he says. He makes me want to dig deeper into his position. And I think some other posters are equally intrigued if not astonished at his viewpoint and are respectfully challenging it. If we can't do that here, then we should in fact close the Interchange down.

I think it's the height of "wimpdom" to shade a guy like Eagle, Are you not the "man" that complained when I called you "Piss & Moan?" Could you please decide if you are a combatant in the Interchange or a fragile observer? Are you neutral or engaged? If we're not allowed to hit you with water balloons; that's fine. There are some people here that do not engage in the Interchange, but you cannot have it both ways. You insult other people and their intelligence, IMHO you are fair game. Pick your poison brother.

FTR I'm a Target shopper. Actually, my Wife goes to Target on my behalf ... I don't go inside either store because I hate kids and kittens. :icon_smile_wink:

(Actually, I don't hate either, but if I'm going to be assumed to be a racist then I might as well enjoy the hall pass.)

Mrkleen, I do appreciate that you are trying to stop doing this and be a man of your word, but as I indicated in a previous post the 19 right wing cronies jumping on a dissenting opinion is NOT intellectually honest represenation of what happened here. I Thank You for continuing to try to distinguish your opponents by name and assign only their own actions to them. Which is I think how you like to be treated in return.

Yes; it's long, I'm tired of this crap, and since demonstrating absurdity by being absurd only got me dinged by Eagle, I'm a little pissy about it too.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Our support of Israel's right to have nuclear weapons, while crushing anyone else in the region that dares to speak of this is patently uneven and seen as unfair in the Arab world.


Are you sure??

Yemen, UAE, The Saudi's and a few others have been unfairly crushed??

Who knew??


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> Our support of Israel's right to have nuclear weapons, while crushing anyone else in the region that dares to speak of this is patently uneven and seen as unfair in the Arab world. We need to find a better, more balanced policy on this - and try to draw down the numbers of nuclear weapons across all states in the Middle East - rather than encourage a race to acquire bigger and more powerful weapons.


Has Israel ever formally acknowledged they have nukes?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Are you sure??
> 
> Yemen, UAE, The Saudi's and a few others have been unfairly crushed??
> 
> Who knew??


 [FONT=&quot]I will concede that my use of the term "crush" was certainly hyperbolic - but surely you are not trying to claim that the United States unyielding, unconditional support of Israel is a popular policy in the Middle East. 

 
[/FONT]


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> [FONT=&quot]I will concede that my use of the term "crush" was certainly hyperbolic - but surely you are not trying to claim that the United States unyielding, unconditional support of Israel is a popular policy in the Middle East.
> 
> [/FONT]


It is clearly acceptable to several moderate regimes and totally unacceptable to Head Chopping Jew Hating Jihadists everywhere.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It is clearly acceptable to several moderate regimes and totally unacceptable to Head Chopping Jew Hating Jihadists everywhere.


 So here we are back to trying to mark everything with a clear black and white line. Either you are a "moderate regime" or you are a "jew hater"

In reality, the Middle East is full of countries that either officially or unofficially despise Israel. They can most accurately be divided into countries that have open disdain for Israel vs. countries under orders from Washington to be allies to Israel. 

The three you mentioned above, don't even recognize Israel as a nation. There is clearly nothing moderate about a country where 15 of the 19 terrorists that executed 9/11 are from. The arrangement between the US and Saudi Arabia, and conversely Saudi and Israel is STRICTLY FINANCIAL.

Yemen, is a country that outwardly regards Israel as an enemy for occupying Arab land, same with Yemen.

Israel has no diplomatic relations with 36 countries, 20 of them members of the 22-member Arab League. Some of the countries, with which Israel has no diplomatic relations, accept Israeli passports and acknowledge other Israeli marks of sovereignty; however, most of these countries do not recognize Israel as a State; 

Africa: Algeria, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Guinea, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia.
Americas: Bolivia, Cuba, Venezuela
East Asia: China, North Korea
Middle East: Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, United Arab Emirates.
South, Central Asia: Afghanistan ,Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Pakistan.
Southeast Asia: Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia

So you so called "moderate regimes" are on the same list as Chad, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba, China, North Korea, Pakistan and Syria? 

Yeah, moderate regimes indeed.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

fenway said:


> Has Israel ever formally acknowledged they have nukes?


Give me a break.

Even a cursory Google search returns thousands of pages talking about this very issue....you know as well as I do, that Israel has nukes.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

*Defacto Nuclear-Weapon States:*

Three states-India, Israel, and Pakistan-never joined the NPT and are known to possess nuclear weapons. Claiming its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes, India first tested a nuclear explosive device in 1974. That test spurred Pakistan to ramp up work on its secret nuclear weapons program. India and Pakistan both publicly demonstrated their nuclear weapon capabilities with a round of tit-for-tat nuclear tests in May 1998. Israel has not publicly conducted a nuclear test, does not admit to or deny having nuclear weapons, and states it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Nevertheless, Israel is universally believed to possess nuclear arms. The following arsenal estimates are based on the amount of fissile material-highly enriched uranium and plutonium-that each of the states is estimated to have produced. Fissile material is the key element for making nuclear weapons. India and Israel are believed to use plutonium in their weapons, while Pakistan is thought to use highly enriched uranium.
*India**: *Up to 100 nuclear warheads. 
*Israel**: *Between 75 to 200 nuclear warheads.
*Pakistan**: *Between 70 to 90 nuclear warheads.​


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

So how many Arab regimes are comfortable with the Persian regime having nukes? Many of the Arab governments would privately cheer Israel if they blew up Iran's nuclear weapons capability.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> So here we are back to trying to mark everything with a clear black and white line. Either you are a "moderate regime" or you are a "jew hater"
> 
> In reality, the Middle East is full of countries that either officially or unofficially despise Israel. They can most accurately be divided into countries that have open disdain for Israel vs. countries under orders from Washington to be allies to Israel.
> 
> ...


Now THAT is what a 10-8 round looks like folks!

We must admit we have a lot of not very nice friends in the world and being put in a position to defend their regimes is a lose-lose for us.

I would point out that Bush tried to address the concept of so-called moderate-evil and was pretty widely ridiculed for it as a simpleton. I think it was both bad policy and bad messaging.

However, Mrkleen has convinced me that you are either with us or you are against us is the proper approach. And someone should email Sarah Palin this excellent substantiation of the Bush Doctrine!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> So here we are back to trying to mark everything with a clear black and white line. Either you are a "moderate regime" or you are a "jew hater"
> 
> In reality, the Middle East is full of countries that either officially or unofficially despise Israel. *They can most accurately be divided into countries that have open disdain for Israel vs. countries under orders from Washington to be allies to Israel.*


1. So says you, not me.

2. See above. (emphasis added)

How about the ones that don't care for Israel but don't pursue nuclear weapons programs either, like Yemen, UAE, The Saudi's or Jordan. Mr. Nuance?? Isn't "Moderate" a realitive term??

Not pursuing nuclear programs or not denying the Holocaust will have to suffice as "moderate" for the time being in the region.

BTW~What drove Egypt to the Peace table??

a. Having it's ass handed to it by Jews in humiliating defeat after humiliating defeat.

or

b. Having it's ass handed to it by Jews in humiliating defeat after humiliating defeat.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> BTW~What drove Egypt to the Peace table??
> 
> a. Having it's ass handed to it by Jews in humiliating defeat after humiliating defeat.
> 
> ...


 Yeah, it doesn't have anything to do with the 28 billion in aid that the US has given to Egypt since 1975.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> However, Mrkleen has convinced me that you are either with us or you are against us is the proper approach. And someone should email Sarah Palin this excellent substantiation of the Bush Doctrine!


 
Clever and nice to see we are not at each other's throats (at least for the time being), but that isnt at all what I said&#8230;.and I highly doubt Mrs Palin would benefit from any such insight, since she is clearly deep in the hole she has been digging since the election.

The US has been involved in a form of coercive diplomacy in the Middle East, since at least World War I , when oil became vital to world affairs, and even more so after WWII when the US assumed the role of central foreign player in the region (taking over from the British)  

I think it is pretty clear that if the United States were not a) buying massive amount of oil, b)sending large checks for aid, or c) both - from nations in the Middle East, they wouldn't care to give us the time of day.

They may be how you define "with us or against us" - but that seems more like "against us, or working with us under duress" if you ask me.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Yeah, it doesn't have anything to do with the 28 billion in aid that the US has given to Egypt since 1975.


See what can happen when you play nice!!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Clever and nice to see we are not at each other's throats (at least for the time being), but that isnt at all what I said&#8230;.and I highly doubt Mrs Palin would benefit from any such insight, since she is clearly deep in the hole she has been digging since the election.
> 
> The US has been involved in a form of coercive diplomacy in the Middle East, since at least World War I , when oil became vital to world affairs, and even more so after WWII when the US assumed the role of central foreign player in the region (taking over from the British)
> 
> ...


I agree. You didn't say that, but you convinced me of it with your itemization. And I agree that "with us" should mean not temporarily or under duress. We need to be realists about our so-called temporary friends. Especially if, as some claim, the oil is running out. What then?

I think your seeing that NOT all registered Republicans and those that voted for 'W' are neo-cons; nor do we like them or some of the influence they had in the administration vs. Conservatives. Imagine if the Democrats had offered anything resembling a decent alternative to W instead of Algore and Kerry; such as a Southern Conservative Democrat Governor (maybe one that can date girls his own age or his Wife even?) :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> Clever and nice to see we are not at each other's throats (at least for the time being), but that isnt at all what I said&#8230;.and I highly doubt Mrs Palin would benefit from any such insight, since she is clearly deep in the hole she has been digging since the election.
> 
> The US has been involved in a form of coercive diplomacy in the Middle East, since at least World War I , when oil became vital to world affairs, and even more so after WWII when the US assumed the role of central foreign player in the region (taking over from the British)
> 
> ...


I don't understand the idea that we should strive to be liked by other countries. Does Russia or China or Germany or India or France strive to be "liked"? Do you expect other countries to trade with us or to cooperate on foreign policy because they "like" us? Diplomacy is the art of getting cooperation from another nation, I know of no other nation that places any value on being liked at the end of the process. Granted, in the long run it would be great if everyone could just get along and all nations respected human rights but I trust the United States to protect my interests more than any other government, although that's not saying much. I want the United States to win even if it isn't liked.

Countries liking each other, what a quaint idea.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

norton said:


> I don't understand the idea that we should strive to be liked by other countries.


Where did we talk about being liked, or being friends with ohter countries in this thread?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I agree. You didn't say that, but you convinced me of it with your itemization. And I agree that "with us" should mean not temporarily or under duress. We need to be realists about our so-called temporary friends. Especially if, as some claim, the oil is running out. What then?
> 
> I think your seeing that NOT all registered Republicans and those that voted for 'W' are neo-cons; nor do we like them or some of the influence they had in the administration vs. Conservatives. Imagine if the Democrats had offered anything resembling a decent alternative to W instead of Algore and Kerry; such as a Southern Conservative Democrat Governor (maybe one that can date girls his own age or his Wife even?) :icon_smile_wink:


To think, we may have actually found some common ground? Oh the horror. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

This is an A+ thread. The knowledge, on both sides, is formidable. As are the conclusions. Have not had a chance yet to digest everything. (That may happen around about 3 a.m. though, when the loons - - - real ones with wings and stuff - - - on the lake wake me up.)

K, I don't know what got into you with that loooong post earlier. The one about me. Hope you feel better. (I could send you a home-made nepenthe if you think it might help.)

P&P​


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> This is an A+ thread. The knowledge, on both sides, is formidable. As are the conclusions. Have not had a chance yet to digest everything. (That may happen around about 3 a.m. though, when the loons - - - real ones with wings and stuff - - - on the lake wake me up.)
> 
> K, I don't know what got into you with that loooong post earlier. The one about me. Hope you feel better. (I could send you a home-made nepenthe if you think it might help.)
> 
> P&P​


I've been particularly grouchy - I got a 74 on REGULATION missing my CPA by 1 point. Sorry. I'm trying to ease the pain as we speak. Good Day and Cheers!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> To think, we may have actually found some common ground? Oh the horror. :icon_smile_wink:


And what I remember is that you've said that about five different times in different threads and you are always surprised. Eventually, we'll wear you down. It's like waterboarding ... :devil:


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> And what I remember is that you've said that about five different times in different threads and you are always surprised. Eventually, we'll wear you down. It's like waterboarding ... :devil:


Man when you can joke with me about waterboarding, who knows what is next? A beer in the rose garden possibly?


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*apologies if I forget something/someone*

My main objective was to clarify the fact that there are no reports of Iran currently having nuclear weaponry, and I've done that. IRL I hear people who are have adopted this untruth as reality and it drives me nuts.

Eagle may be correct that an ICBM and a glorified rocket are more similar than my understanding. Nonetheless, Iran is already being closely monitored and has neither arms nor a long-range system.

Enough of facts, on to opinion! If the alleged Iraqi WMD was a missing handgun, the US is a racist cop that killed a black guy reaching for his wallet. A major selling point of Bush's war was "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The truth was they had learned of a poorly forged document, and the CIA knew that they knew it was phony baloney.

As a registered Republican and NRA member, I'm opposed to gun control. Arms control is the liberal nitwittery of gun control taken to its largest and most absurd scale. Elite nations get nuclear weapons, and primo uranium. The peons need a global nanny to deny them anything beyond inefficient crud. Forget that an armed society is a polite society.

The fact that Iran has at least two enemies within their current range tends to prove that they have no intention of lobbing missiles without serious provocation, and they are merely doing some strategic saber-rattling at the moment. Overreaction is a foolish response, and I give credit to Obama in keeping his cool while making a firm statement.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> My main objective was to clarify the fact that there are no reports of Iran currently having nuclear weaponry, and I've done that. IRL I hear people who are have adopted this untruth as reality and it drives me nuts.
> 
> Eagle may be correct that an ICBM and a glorified rocket are more similar than my understanding. Nonetheless, Iran is already being closely monitored and has neither arms nor a long-range system.
> 
> ...


As a registered Republican that denounced my NRA membership because I support some limits on the RKBA by States; I disagree.

No less than 'the man with no name' once taught us there are two types of people in the world - those with loaded pistols and those who dig.

Overreaction is foolish; inaction is equally foolish.

and as the Rat said, "when you have to shoot; shoot! Don't talk!"

It's movie night, what can I say ...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Man when you can joke with me about waterboarding, who knows what is next? A beer in the rose garden possibly?


You thought that was a joke? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> The fact that Iran has at least two enemies within their current range tends to prove that they have no intention of lobbing missiles without serious provocation, and they are merely doing some strategic saber-rattling at the moment. Overreaction is a foolish response, and I give credit to Obama in keeping his cool while making a firm statement.


Reports I have read seem to substantiate this very idea.

The US learned of the new uranium plant in Iran and notified other members of the UN Security council some time ago...long before the recent Iranian missile test.

This would certainly account for the quick condemnation from not only allies, but even Russia had some words of caution for the government in Terran about the consequences of going down this road.

The US is in a much better diplomatic position to eventually act against Iran (if necessary), if they are forthcoming and transparent with the way they handle the early stages of negotiations.

In the end, as has been said...we need to do what is in our best interest no matter who is on board. But pressure put on Iran, that is applied from all directions (Beijing, Moscow, London, Paris and Washington) is certainly advisable over another unilateral action.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> A major selling point of Bush's war was "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The truth was they had learned of a poorly forged document, and the CIA knew that they knew it was phony baloney.


One of over a dozen points as I recall.

The fact is, Iraq had over 300 tons of yellowcake stockpiled, which was never removed following the first Iraq war, already!!

US invasion would have been justified (IMO) the first time Iraq fired upon a US plane patrolling the no-fly zone after Iraq one.

I am way over it already!!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I am way over it already!!


 4259 dead 
100,000 wounded 
130,000 troops still in Iraq, most on the 4th tour (or more)
900 Billion in tax dollars (and counting)

Yet you are "over it"?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

**News Flash**

War is Hell.

That's why it was discussed, debated and everyone got a chance to vote on it.

There were errors and ommissions as is nearly always the case. 

I'd say it's time to move forward.


----------



## Canadian (Jan 17, 2008)

Didn't Eric Blair say, "we sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready to do harm to those who oppose us" or something like that.

We are able to live lives of luxury and ease, because there are men and women in the world, military or not, who are prepared to risk it all because of the idea that their life is worth sacrificing or devoting to a cause, that will preserve the life of ordinary people in their homeland, and the lives of those who wish to live like us.

There is an expression displayed outside the Royal Canadian Legion on a billboard. Love Freedom? Thank a Veteran. Well, that's not just about WWII. It means that we must respect every man and woman who stood against tyrrany and resisted agression by a rogue nation bent on world destabilization. Whether it's a little Bavarian corporal, or a crazed Korean dictator, or Aminijahad (sp!), they are people we must make our stand against so that we may live free.

I wore the uniform, as many of you did. I never saw combat while serving, but I know if called, I'd answer. I have a nephew and a niece aged 9 and 12. I'd go so they never have to.

Does Iran have WMD? Debatable, and I encourage you do to so in peaceful forums like this one. But should we not stand ready to defend world order and protect our allies, no matter how shallow or disdainful of American luxury they are. Is it not better to sacrifice the few and willing in order to preserve the innocence and benevolence of a great many.

Thomas


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Canadian said:


> *Is it not better to sacrifice the few and willing in order to preserve the innocence and benevolence of a great many.*


No. It's not better to sacrifice anybody to preserve innocence and benevolence or whatever the hell you're talking about. But you get a pass with your post because you wrote it in 1950, right?

Before you reply, zip back a couple of posts and read Mr. K where he lays out a few stats regarding America's most recent endeavor in the sands. Then come back and tell me what it was precisely that all that blood and treasure bought. As to quoting Blair, 1984 has come and gone, or didn't you notice?
​


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

> Peak and Pine;997574]
> 
> Before you reply, zip back a couple of posts and read Mr. K where he lays out a few stats regarding America's most recent endeavor in the sands. Then come back and tell me what it was precisely that all that blood and treasure bought. ​


I suggest waiting a few decades, actually.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Egads, I find myself in one of those rare moments in which I am somewhat in agreement with Peak and Pine, though as Canadian alludes in paragraph 3 of his post, some fights may prove unavoidable...or at least should not be avoided. The loss of a single life is far too many and as the losses add up, the tragedy compounds! However in this instance we seem to be overlooking a critical aspect of the nature of a nuclear holocaust. Combatants will not be the only casualties, or even the most numerous casualties. Nukes are not discriminatory in the slightest degree, they take us all out...maybe now and certainly later.

Pull your Bibles from the shelves, blow the dust from the spines and open them to the Book of Revelations. As you read of The End Times, you will find a surprisingly accurate description of what happens in a nuclear blast. 

Allow me to be the first in this august company we keep to admit, the current state of world affairs scares the hell out of me!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^some fights may prove unavoidable...or at least should not be avoided. The loss of a single life is far too many and as the losses add up, the tragedy compounds! However in this instance we seem to be overlooking a critical aspect of the nature of a nuclear holocaust. Combatants will not be the only casualties, or even the most numerous casualties. Nukes are not discriminatory in the slightest degree, they take us all out...maybe now and certainly later.


You make two points here that I fear far too many overlook. First is that sometimes a fight can't, or shouldn't, be avoided. How many millions of lives could have been saved, although many would surely have been lost, had Chamberlain not tried to avoid war at any cost. By doing so the eventual cost was far greater than it could have been.

Second is your point about nuclear warfare. In these modern times a nuclear war between nations is not limited. It has the potential to destroy life on earth even though most of those folks are far removed from the actual conflict. I believe that nuclear winter is one of the terms used to describe the aftermath.

Ignoring the scary thought of Iran going nuclear, we already have India and Pakistan facing off with nuclear weapons in a region where there exists one of the most unstable nations on earth with an element (the Taliban) that is spreading and attempting to create unrest throughout the region. That's just what the world needs, more unrest between India and Pakistan.

For two centuries the U.S. has been protected by it's oceans. Those oceans provide no protection from nuclear holocaust, no matter where in the world it occurs.

Cruiser


----------

