Romney 2012?

@snood,

Please do.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Actually, I suppose the terrorists can destroy our economy if they get their hands on an Iranian nuke, and if they do, it will only be because of Obama's failed policy towards Iran.

Why would they bother with an Iranian one? They don't even have a working bomb yet and have done no tests at all that show they are even close to the capacity for one. On the other hand, Pakistan has a lot of nukes and hates us more. Russia left a lot of nuke material floating around out there as well that could easily become a dirty bomb.

So, I would say that your fears are based more on ignorance than actual threats. But, it's a lot easier (and more comfortable) for you to hate on the Iranians than to propose actually doing something about the true threat...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@snood,

No homophobic (or politically opportunistic) twat should ever have ANY say about whether my partner can visit me in hospital, or anywhere else. That is my right to decide, not theirs, and not the right of the religion of someone else. Pathetic. Ugly. Nasty conservative republicans!

Source

Quote:

It's known that Romney stands against rights for LGBT people. In August 2011 he signed the National Organization for Marriage's (NOM) pledge to stand against marriage equality, appoint Supreme Court justices who would also oppose marriage equality, and support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would block the federal government from ever recognizing marriages between gays and lesbians. It should also be noted that Romney won the endorsement of the virulently anti-gay NOM after signing the pledge. It was later revealed that Romney also happens to be a major contributor to NOM. And all this despite a 1994 interview in which he said he would be "better than Ted [Kennedy]" on gay rights.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

A uranium bomb is much easier to design and fabricate than one using more easily separated plutonium. A country, lacking the technical expertise to design anf make the very precise implosion circuitry and explosive device required for a plutonium weapon, could more simply go through the brute force process of enriching the required amount of fissionable uranium, and the rest would be quick and relatively easy -- and that is precisely what Iran is doing.

Iran also has working intermediate ballistic missiles (of unknown accuracy) with sufficient payload capability. Indeed a relatively portable uranium bomb could be manufactured and , without too much difficulty or risk, be positioned and assebbled positioned in a large city, in this country or somewhere else. Indeed even a simple convenrtional explosive device packed with a few kilos of depleted (but radioactive) U-238 could create very expensive havoc in a crowded city.

I think you give too much credence to the factoids you pick up in the blogs you read.

3 Replies

Does this growing drumbeat of "They have weapons of mass destruction" sound familiar to anyone yet?

1 Reply

@snood,

Yep, typical conservative hysteria Cool

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If Iran obtain nukes, the president's policy will, clearly, have failed since he has vowed that they will not get them.

His policy hasn't failed yet because Iran doesn't have nukes.

So you're not, in fact, saying that Obama's policy re: Iran is currently a failure.

Quote:

I think it will and they will, but that's a predicition, not an assessment.

Romney evidently disagrees with you, as he didn't offer anything else that Obama should be doing to head them off. Just agreed with crippling sanctions.

1 Reply

@jcboy,

I swear if they can't cut taxes on the rich or bomb some country into submission, its almost like republicans think government has nothing to do.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

And you immediately assume it was intentional?
Are you that paranoid?

I didn't state it was intentional.

I do find it interesting that all the instances of this seem to be GOP doing it in heavily democratic areas or with democratic voters. If it was random and unintentional then statistically it should happen as often in GOP areas, don't you think?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

OMG.... that sounds like North Korea when Bush was President..... And we all know how they have used their atomic weapons to wipe Japan and California off the face of the planet.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

While the US will be threatened by a Nuclear Iran, in that Iran is the #1 terrorist nation in the world, the most significant threat is to Israel.

Now, since Obama tells us that his Administration is more pro-Israel than any other in history, one would think that he takes this threat very seriously.

Bibi doesn''t think so, but who the hell is he? Just a wild-eyed Likud facist who favors Romney; not the person with ultimate responsibility for the security of his nation and the safety of his people.

But put aside Iran actually ever using their nukes. They're having them changes the geo-political dynamics of the region immeasurably.

Look at what they are doing to establish hegemony over the region without nukes and imagine how much more successful their efforts will be with them.

If they get them, does anyone think that Saudi Arabia with it's trillions in petro-dollars will not make every effort to follow suit?

The Left loves to wail about nuclear proliferation, but their only answer to the problem seems to be US disarmament.

The more second rate nations that have nukes the greater the probability that they will be used.

Should there be a detonation of a nuclear bomb in the next ten years, probability greatly favors that it will be one produced by Pakistan, North Korea and (if we allow them to get them) Iran.

We've already seen how one brilliant fanatic (Abdul Qadeer Khan) can spread the nuclear wealth. Is it so hard to imagine that once nations like Iran have nukes, nations like Venezuala might obtain them?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Indeed even a simple convenrtional explosive device packed with a few kilos of depleted (but radioactive) U-238 could create very expensive havoc in a crowded city.

Are you sure? Uranium-238's half life is measured in billions of years. It can't believe it's that radioactive. Indeed, if I remember correctly, some manufacturers used to make bullets out of it because Uranium is harder and more massive than lead. Surely they wouldn't have done that if the radioactivity had endangered the bearers of the weapon. Is U-238 in a dirty bomb really such a concern?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

How is this different than what you were saying about Saddam Hussein right before the Iraq war?

I didn't buy it then, and I was right.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Indeed even a simple convenrtional explosive device packed with a few kilos of depleted (but radioactive) U-238 could create very expensive havoc in a crowded city.

Are you sure? Uranium-238's half life is measured in billions of years. It can't believe it's that radioactive. Indeed, if I remember correctly, some manufacturers used to make bullets out of it because Uranium is harder and more massive than lead. Surely they wouldn't have done that if the radioactivity had endangered the bearers of the weapon. Is U-238 in a dirty bomb really such a concern?

No. However, consider the uproar following our use of depleted uranium sabots in armor piercing anti tank shells and rocket warheads. The alpha radiation from 2 kg mass would be readily detectable and widespread havoc, (and probably a very expensive cleanup) would likely result, as I suggested. As they get more laboratory reactors on line they will easily be able to produce other, truly dangerous nuclides, such as cobalt 60, in fairly large quantities - and without much risk of detection from the International inspectors.

The advantage of a uranium armor piercing warhead is that it burns with extremely high intensity after high velocity impact - melting its way through.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

How do you know what I was saying before the Iraq War?

In fact, what I was saying was that the issue of WMDs was being overly emphasized.

I did believe that WMDs would be found, as did anyone with half a brain, but there were more important reasons to invade that the Bush administration apparently decided were too subtle for the American people to process.

That you didn't was hardly a result of logical deduction, but more one of partisan swarm mentality.

And now you don't buy that a nuclear Iran is a threat?

Why am I not surprised?

You obviously understand that Obama's vow to keep Iran from having nukes is totally hollow.

1 Reply

The thing abojut heavy metals like uranium, george, is that they play hell with biological systems (like us), quite apart from whether they are radioactive or not. Depleted uranium shells tend to produce lots of uranium dust when they hit and burn, and heavy metals inhaled screw up your lungs.

0 Replies

@snood,

You forgot about how they love telling people (women) what they can do with their bodies.

0 Replies

David Gergen

Quote:

Coming off clear, back-to-back victories in the final two debates, President Obama has now shored up his campaign, and -- given what appears to be a superior ground game -- is again an odds-on favorite to win. But Mitt Romney has also accomplished a great deal in these debates and is poised for a possible surprise. Overall, I would put the chances at about 53% for Obama, 47% for Romney.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/opinion/gergen-who-will-win/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

no slam dunk here in other words.....

0 Replies

If Americans hold Obama accountable for his inaction and subsequent cover up of the terrorists
attack the murdered 4 Americans in Benghazi, winning this election should be a slam dunk for Romney.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

If Americans hold Obama accountable for his inaction and subsequent cover up of the terrorists
attack the murdered 4 Americans in Benghazi, winning this election should be a slam dunk for Romney.

I'm bored working today, can you explain this cover up to me? Cool

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know