IS RUSH A CONSERVATIVE?? WHAT DOES HE CONSERVE?

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

What if we flew a couple of B52's to the country responsible,
and dropped a couple of thermonukes?

Vengeance is not as good as preventing the original offense.

David

@Thomas,

American interests r purely defensive.
We just don 't wanna get nuked by fanatical Moslems
who detest the great satan and who only regret
that 9/11/1 lacked a nuclear component.
(Witness the fact that we have no problem with
the English, possessing nukes.)
It is too risky, too intolerably, suicidally dangerous to allow
Persians burning red hot with hatred against America, to develop nuclear weapons
in their quest to spread Islam, as thay did 1,OOO years ago.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Our country and our allies are already working on prevention. Have you ever traveled through an airport lately?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Our country and our allies are already working on prevention.

Let them do the job RIGHT, at the source of the problem.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Have you ever traveled through an airport lately?

Of course. That means nothing.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

But then again, the US hasn't ruled out using nuclear weapans against Iran either. (Some circles appear to be quite fond of nuclear bunker busters.)

There will not be any need to use nukes against Iran.

Iran's bunkers are pretty incompetent, and can be destroyed by conventional 5,000-pound bunker busters like the ones in Israel's arsenal.

The US has conventional 30,000-pound bunker busters.

Thomas wrote:

So if your thought experiment suggested to me that America should get tough on Iran, it would also suggest to an Iranian that Iran should get tough on the USA.

There is no moral equivalence between the US and a rogue nation like Iran.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Thomas wrote:

But then again, the US hasn't ruled out using nuclear weapans against Iran either.
(Some circles appear to be quite fond of nuclear bunker busters.)

oralloy wrote:

There will not be any need to use nukes against Iran.

Iran's bunkers are pretty incompetent,
and can be destroyed by conventional 5,000-pound bunker busters like the ones in Israel's arsenal.

The US has conventional 30,000-pound bunker busters.

I hope that u r right qua the attributed incompetence.
I 've heard on the news that some of them r buried deep, very deep.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Have you ever tried taking explosives past airport security?

It doesn't mean anything? You have no idea, and just spit out bull shite.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I made the mistake of taking your post seriously.
U r not worthy of conversation.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Of coarse not! Your analysis of security into the US is based on ignorance.

Ignorant people like you like to ignore me, because you can't handle facts. You only post bull shite rather than knowledge about the issue(s)!

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Thomas wrote:
But then again, the US hasn't ruled out using nuclear weapans against Iran either.
(Some circles appear to be quite fond of nuclear bunker busters.)

There will not be any need to use nukes against Iran.

Iran's bunkers are pretty incompetent,
and can be destroyed by conventional 5,000-pound bunker busters like the ones in Israel's arsenal.

The US has conventional 30,000-pound bunker busters.

I hope that u r right qua the attributed incompetence.
I 've heard on the news that some of them r buried deep, very deep.

In my opinion they are buried very shallow.

They are "slightly" deeper than a typical shallow bunker, but they still have the characteristics of a shallow bunker as opposed to those of a deep bunker.

I've heard it suggested that because the bunkers are slightly deeper, Israel would want to drop a second 5000-pound bunker buster down a hole made by a first 5000-pound bunker buster.

The people who make such suggestions think that doing this is well within Israel's capabilities.

I am not convinced that the slight increase in depth is significant enough to make that necessary, but I agree that Israel is capable of doing it.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

American interests r purely defensive.
We just don 't wanna get nuked by fanatical Moslems
who detest the great satan and who only regret
that 9/11/1 lacked a nuclear component.

That's a paranoid fantasy in America without a basis in the economics of terrorism. The 9/11 attacks proved that low-tech weapons such as box cutters are incredibly effective at achieving the terrorists' goals. (Al Quaida's Madrid train bombings of 3/11/2004 proved the same thing again.) Why would they trade that for thermonuclear weapons?

OmSigDavid wrote:

(Witness the fact that we have no problem with
the English, possessing nukes.)

The English aren't a good counterpoint because they were America's allies. There's no obligation on the nuclear powers of the world to be allies of America. A better statistical control would be the Soviets. They were homicidal bastards but not suicidal bastards, just as Iran's leadership is today. America didn't attack them. It was the right decision.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

There is no moral equivalence between the US and a rogue nation like Iran.

Yes there is. An American attack on Iran would be exactly as bad as an Iranian attack on the US. And if preventive war is a legitimate way act of prevention for the US, it also is for Iran.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Yes there is. An American attack on Iran would be exactly as bad as an Iranian attack on the US. And if preventive war is a legitimate way act of prevention for the US, it also is for Iran.

Oralboy has the simplistic mindset of a violent video game. The Iranians are all evil, they are developing nuclear weapons with the intention of nuking both Israel and America. This military operation will be very straightforward, he has carried it out on his X box hundreds of times.

You can't reason with someone who stopped thinking a long time ago.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Most Americans also think and believe all Muslims are dangerous. There's no cure for stupid.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

American interests r purely defensive.
We just don 't wanna get nuked by fanatical Moslems
who detest the great satan and who only regret
that 9/11/1 lacked a nuclear component.

Thomas wrote:

That's a paranoid fantasy in America without a basis in the economics of terrorism.

Were the odd events of 9/11/1 a paranoid fantasy?
U think its a paranoid fantasy that the Moslems wanna do it AGAIN, with a bigger "BANG!"?????
(Someone once remarked that Leon Trotsky may well have been paranoid,
but that did not stop the NKVD that were following him with an ax from doing the job on him.)

Thomas wrote:

The 9/11 attacks proved that low-tech weapons such as box cutters
are incredibly effective at achieving the terrorists' goals.

Yes, indeed; good point. Handguns were quite unnecessary.

Thomas wrote:

(Al Quaida's Madrid train bombings of 3/11/2004 proved the same thing again.)
Why would they trade that for thermonuclear weapons?

To get a bigger BANG; its more dramatic. Is it THAT bad??
I thawt we were only discussing the Moslems getting fission boms.

OmSigDavid wrote:

(Witness the fact that we have no problem with
the English, possessing nukes.)

Thomas wrote:

The English aren't a good counterpoint because they were America's allies. There's no obligation on the nuclear powers
of the world to be allies of America. A better statistical control would be the Soviets.

They were homicidal bastards but not suicidal bastards, just as Iran's leadership is today.

Yeah, the Moslems r not suicidal I 'm pretty sure,
but lemme consult with Atta on that point, just to be certain.
Now, WHERE? can I find him?!?
We have not seen much of him since Sept. of 2001.

Thomas wrote:

America didn't attack them. It was the right decision.

For the commies themselves it was, yeah.
If we had taken them out early enuf, that woud have been OK, as I saw it.
I lived in a state of quiet terror in the background of life
from the 2nd World War thru the end of the 3rd one.
I expected the bad guys to win, because of both defensive incompetence
of the liberal leadership, and because of tacit sympathy from the liberals
in their clandestine love n admiration of collectivist authoritarianism.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Were the odd events of 9/11/1 a paranoid fantasy?

No, not the odds of it. But paranoid fantasies definitely fed into Americans' perception of how great an atrocity 9/11 was. To be sure, those 3,000 murders were terrible, but they were a fraction of the murders that Americans committed on each other in 2001. They were a fraction of how many Americans were killed in accidents that year. Accordingly, preventing future Al-Quaeda killings deserves a fraction of the priority that's appropriate for crime prevention, traffic safety, and safety regulations for swimming pools and firearms.

A similar picture emerges from an international perspective. The 9/11 atacks killed a fraction of the number of foreigners America routinely kills in the pursuit of its wars abroad. So a once-off atrocity killing 3,000 Americans is no more than what the US government bargained for by choosing its interventionist foreign policy over George Washington's avoidance of foreign entanglements. If America doesn't want such atrocities, it should withdraw from its interventionist foreign policy.

I am not a Republican, but I have to hand it to Ron Paul: He is the only US politician who's setting the right priorities on terror prevention. Everybody else, including his Republican competitors and the Democratic incumbent, have promised more of the same. I expect more of the same results from them.

OmSigDavid wrote:

U think its a paranoid fantasy that the Moslems wanna do it AGAIN, with a bigger "BANG!"?????

Yes. "THE" Muslims dislike terror as much as "THE" Christians and "THE" Jews do. That is to say, they generally dislike it, but some of them dislike some people even less, and accordingly approve of terror against them. Because of this mindset, some Americans---including you I suspect---happily supported various death squads in Central America. Similarly, some Muslims are currently supporting terrorist attacks against oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia's, and against the chief supporter of the Saudi oppressors, the United States of America. If you were a freed0m-loving citizen of Saudi Arabia, you'd probably support Al-Quaida against the United States.

OmSigDavid wrote:

I thawt we were only discussing the Moslems getting fission boms.

Pakistan already has fission bombs, and Pakistan is a Muslim country. This horse is out of the barn.

4 Replies

@Thomas,

Good stats on America's own killings that exceeded the 3,000 lost lives from the NYC twin towers. The other dynamics that have also hurt the US is the false impression that all Muslims are terrorists, and even today by over 50% believe Obama is a Muslim.

Our government and news media created this false impression, and never took the step to correct this misinformation.

Trying to change minds with facts are useless.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Surviving nazis must have gotten a good chuckle out of THAT !

They got an even bigger chuckle out of being brought into the employ of the US government.

The US sure didn't want to waste all that talent, Dave. Think of all the US learned from those Nazis.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I think one should focus on that the U.S. embassy hostages back in 1979 has not had closure yet. The Iranians then, in their religious revolution, put a line in the sand, so to speak. Perhaps, we are now addressing it for closure. If I remember, President Reagan's winning the election then just allowed the hostages to come home, but there was no closure.

The moral of the story is "don't f### with the U.S., we don't forget" In line with that, note how Cuba is still persona non grata. The history books need to have closure, so that posterity sees the U.S. as victorious, for as long as it is a superpower.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Quote:

I think one should focus on that the U.S. embassy hostages back in 1979 has not had closure yet.

You are such a stupid piece of ****, Foofie. None of the Native Americans who were murdered by acts of US genocide haven't had closure.

The hundred thousand or so Filipinos murdered at the turn of the 20th century haven't had closure.

A democratic Iran, overthrown by the US and the UK surely hasn't had closure.

Why are you so blind? Why hasn't what has happened to the Jews given you any measure of compassion for others?

You constantly wish for more Holocausts, visited upon others.

1 Reply

IS RUSH A CONSERVATIVE?? WHAT DOES HE CONSERVE?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know