Obama On Terrorism

[BushMasterBoy]

recently stated

[jhood001]

I'm thinking somebody on here needs to educate me regarding the allegedly evil and sinister Iran.

I personally think the notion is absolutely ridiculous and anyone that actually believes they would, let alone could do anything to the US homeland is simply buying into a massive lobbying effort by AIPAC and other more imperialistic minded lobbies. Regardless, maybe there is something I'm missing?

What is the basis for branding Iran as our new bogeyman?
What historical precedence is there for believing they have any hegemonic ambition whatsoever (within 200 years, please)?
What makes them more scary than the PRK?

Perhaps I'm missing something. And whether I disagree or agree with any evidence, or even opinions provided, I would still love to hear what some of us here think.

[Mazin]

Have you heard anything the Iranian President has said in the last couple years?

Have you heard of the "Great & little Satans"?

Just saying....

[Marlin]

Israel may deal with "I'm a nut job" long before he can do anything here.

I'm fairly sure the Massad could tell you how many times a day he picks his nose.

[BPTactical]

Sounds like somebody is setting the table for a semi auto and high cap mag ban.
Play on the peoples fears to further your agenda.
Classic Cloward and Piven.
"Never let a good crisis go to waste"








Again

[Bailey Guns]

I'm thinking somebody on here needs to educate me regarding the allegedly evil and sinister Iran.

I personally think the notion is absolutely ridiculous and anyone that actually believes they would, let alone could do anything to the US homeland is simply buying into a massive lobbying effort by AIPAC and other more imperialistic minded lobbies. Regardless, maybe there is something I'm missing?

What is the basis for branding Iran as our new bogeyman?
What historical precedence is there for believing they have any hegemonic ambition whatsoever (within 200 years, please)?
What makes them more scary than the PRK?

Perhaps I'm missing something. And whether I disagree or agree with any evidence, or even opinions provided, I would still love to hear what some of us here think.

Oh, yeah. You're missing something.

The whole issue of the dangers a nuclear Iran (and of course, a nuclear Korea in that region) poses to not just the US, but the middle east, Israel and many parts of the world has been discussed here and elsewhere, in the news, in books and many other venues ad-nauseum. If you haven't picked up on it before I doubt you'd pick up on it now.

Maybe you just disagree that it would be a problem, which is fine. But pretending that Iran hasn't been a problem for the US in the past is ridiculous.

And BTW... Iran has only been an Islamic state for about the last 30-ish years.

[Bailey Guns]

I just wanted to add that I'm not defending everything that's happened to Iran in the past whether it includes US involvement or not. But since the overthrow of the shah Iran has been nothing but a pain in the ass for most of the world.

[Hoosier]

The whole issue of the dangers a nuclear Iran (and of course, a nuclear Korea in that region) poses to not just the US

A nuclear Russia posed a danger to us as well. Mutually Assured Destruction works fine as a deterrent. I don't think that even if a nuke was smuggled in, we would have a hard time figuring out who did it.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2002/10-17-722025.shtml


Maybe you just disagree that it would be a problem, which is fine. But pretending that Iran hasn't been a problem for the US in the past is ridiculous. And BTW... Iran has only been an Islamic state for about the last 30-ish years.

There's a handful of countries that are a problem for us, but what he asked is why they're being painted as the bogey man now? I mean, they held American captives for 400 days, they raided our embassy, they are a totalitarian theocracy -- it's all wrong, but I still don't see why we continue to have the level of saber rattling. We aren't capable of launching a ground invasion of Iran, so why bluster?

Their little President can talk all the shit he wants to. From their point of view we've spent the last 30 years shit talking them. Words here have very little meaning, just actions. I'm more concerned with them feeding military grade weapons to 3rd party nationals than I am about their nuclear program.

FWIW both the US and Israel very likely did strike Iran, via the Stuxnet worm, which they have confirmed did do fairly substantial damage to their effort to refine nuclear material. The net effect seems to have made them even more stubborn, they've said they're going to double the number of centrifuges now.

H.

[jhood001]

So we've got rhetoric and the 'it would be bad if they had nukes' argument. I'm dismissing the rhetoric flat out. If the nations of the world always reacted based on rhetoric, we would probably all be ash at this point.

While the reports on whether they're even pursuing nuclear weapons or are even close are pretty conflicting from what I've seen, let's say they did acquire them. What then?

Is Iran someone we consider to be just crazy enough to use them? And if so, what is that assumption based on?
Or is the real concern a matter of Iran then being able to better project their influence throughout the middle east with less options available to Israel and her allies to do something about it?

And I'm sorry to de-rail this thread. That statement from the White House stinks of being a part of the anti-gun movement. I personally don't think that Norway fool would have gotten 1/10 as far in the US as he did over there. Unless, of course, he was in some gun-free zone. Campus, etc. Imagine that.

[Bailey Guns]

There's a handful of countries that are a problem for us, but what he asked is why they're being painted as the bogey man now?


Painting Iran as a problem isn't something new. The fact that they're currently working on their nuclear arsenal and apparently have the capability to build nukes is the more recent issue.

They only developed that capability recently. Therefore nobody was realistically concerned about a nuclear Iran more than 10-15 years ago.

And sometimes, when a guy like Ahmadinejad threatens to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth", you need to believe that's exactly what he wants to do.

[jhood001]

And sometimes, when a guy like Ahmadinejad threatens to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth", you need to believe that's exactly what he wants to do.

He never said that. Our western media said he said that.

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "regime." pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh" is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's president threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." despite never having uttered the words "map." "wipe out" or even "Israel."
The Proof:
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
Word by word translation:
Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).


We said we wanted Saddam removed from power. A vastly different desire than eradicating Iraq and all of it's people in it's entirety. I don't mean to defend the guy. He's a moron, but it seems to me that every single reason we use to paint Iran as a threat is either misinformation, or intentional disinformation.

[Bailey Guns]

Gee...I guess I'm failing to see the distinction.

Do you believe what he was referring to was the destruction of Israel? I do.

[ronaldrwl]

Terrorist are just 'folks'. Right?

[jhood001]

Terrorist are just 'folks'. Right?

Not in my book. They're evil bastards. But by weighing in with this comment, are you implying that Iranians are terrorists?

[jhood001]

Gee...I guess I'm failing to see the distinction.

Do you believe what he was referring to was the destruction of Israel? I do.

No, I do not. I think they desire a change in leadership in Israel. Just like we do in NK, Iran, Venezuela, Libya (this month anyway), and so on and so on. 'Destruction' is again, your word.

But again, we're back to using rhetoric as a basis for killing a whole shit-load of people in another foreign nation.

So setting rhetoric aside.... again, can anyone explain to me what the real threat of Iran is?

[tmckay2]

Is this a joke? I'm serious. Is this a joke? The reason Iran and north Korea are such a threat is that their people have zero power, they have nut job dictators that just might be crazy enough and in the case of Iran they are somewhat driven by a religion that states their very purpose in life is to kill infidels (for those keeping score at home, that's us). The Russians had their problems but the fact was they had too many people that would have to ok such an action and they have always had their security and beat interest at heart. They're crazy but not that crazy. Any of the above, however, are fully capable of handing a small nuke to some extremist and sneaking it into the country. No one cares until it's their building of work at the epicenter. There is no reason to seek nukes except to threaten us and our allies and god forbid possibly use them. The fact that both regimes keep pushing to develop them regardless of our warnings should at least make you alarmed. I know several Iranians. The people aren't the enemy, nut job dictator an lunatic religious fanatics are.


No, I do not. I think they desire a change in leadership in Israel. Just like we do in NK, Iran, Venezuela, Libya (this month anyway), and so on and so on. 'Destruction' is again, your word.

But again, we're back to using rhetoric as a basis for killing a whole shit-load of people in another foreign nation.

So setting rhetoric aside.... again, can anyone explain to me what the real threat of Iran is?

[Bailey Guns]

I've done a little research from the article that was C&P'd above re: what Ahmadinejad actually said. I can't find a lot about Arash Norouzi...except he's really popular on sites like the DailyKos and HuffPo.

I guess that explains why I haven't read or heard much about him.

As a matter of fact, every place I found that article published was a far left, anti-war website of one sort or another. Granted, I didn't look at every single result.

So I'm hopeful if you'll forgive me for thinking you're just a little disingenuous and quite hypocritical by posting:


...anyone that actually believes they would, let alone could do anything to the US homeland is simply buying into a massive lobbying effort by AIPAC and other more imperialistic minded lobbies.

It's obvious that you're simply buying into the same lobbying effort from the far left if you can't see the ultimate wish of Ahmadinejad is to destroy the Jews, specifically those in Israel.

You can pick nits all you like...it doesn't change the basic premise of what he said.

[Bailey Guns]

WTF??? Are you nynco reincarnated? Where are all the lefties coming from lately?

[jhood001]

Is this a joke? I'm serious. Is this a joke? The reason Iran and north Korea are such a threat is that their people have zero power, they have nut job dictators that just might be crazy enough and in the case of Iran they are somewhat driven by a religion that states their very purpose in life is to kill infidels (for those keeping score at home, that's us). The Russians had their problems but the fact was they had too many people that would have to ok such an action and they have always had their security and beat interest at heart. They're crazy but not that crazy. Any of the above, however, are fully capable of handing a small nuke to some extremist and sneaking it into the country. No one cares until it's their building of work at the epicenter. There is no reason to seek nukes except to threaten us and our allies and god forbid possibly use them. The fact that both regimes keep pushing to develop them regardless of our warnings should at least make you alarmed. I know several Iranians. The people aren't the enemy, nut job dictator an lunatic religious fanatics are.

So you're presenting the case that that if they get nukes, their leaders are crazy enough to use them on us or our allies through a proxy. And by using a proxy, they can somehow stay out of our crosshairs for retaliation. I can buy into that.


I know several Iranians. The people aren't the enemy, nut job dictator an lunatic religious fanatics are.

Thank you for clarifying that. I think that far too many people fail to see the distinction.

[jhood001]

I've done a little research from the article that was C&P'd above re: what Ahmadinejad actually said. I can't find a lot about Arash Norouzi...except he's really popular on sites like the DailyKos and HuffPo.

I guess that explains why I haven't read or heard much about him.

As a matter of fact, every place I found that article published was a far left, anti-war website of one sort or another. Granted, I didn't look at every single result.



The mis-translation got a brief bit of play in the MSM and that is how it originally caught my intention. Regardless of who the author is, or what is political leanings are, the translation still stands.




So I'm hopeful if you'll forgive me for thinking you're just a little disingenuous and quite hypocritical..



Forgiven!



It's obvious that you're simply buying into the same lobbying effort from the far left if you can't see the ultimate wish of Ahmadinejad is to destroy the Jews, specifically those in Israel.
.

I'm not buying into anything. I just don't think they're out to be jew-slayers. And I tend to question things when the focus of our military ambitions is repeatedly in the same resource rich sandbox when we have just as many other seemingly pressing issues elsewhere in the world.

[jhood001]

WTF??? Are you nynco reincarnated? Where are all the lefties coming from lately?

Not sure who 'nynco' is, but if lumping people together for asking questions and stating a few opinions helps you categorize things and sleep better at night, more power to you, friend.

And aside from some long hair and some disagreements from time to time regarding geopolitics goes, I'm nowhere close to to being what you more than likely consider a 'leftie'.

P.S. My favorite football team is far superior to yours.

[Bailey Guns]

OK...let me see if I've got this straight. If I believe Ahmadinejad wants to destroy Israel or kill jews it's because I'm buying "into a massive lobbying effort by AIPAC and other more imperialistic minded lobbies."

But if you don't believe that's the case it's because you've done independent research and don't approve of the way the US conducts affairs in oil-rich areas of the world.

Got it.


Regardless, maybe there is something I'm missing?

Yeah. Credibility.

[Bailey Guns]

I'm nowhere close to to being what you more than likely consider a 'leftie'.

And you'd know that how?


P.S. My favorite football team is far superior to yours.

Probably is. I'm not a fan.

[Bailey Guns]

Found this article...very interesting perspective:




A Lesson from Riyadh About the True Threat to Middle East Peace (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/06/30/a-lesson-from-riyadh-about-the-true-threat-to-middle-east-peace/)

Evelyn Gordon (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/author/evelyn-gordon/) | @evelyng1234 (http://twitter.com/evelyng1234)http://www.commentarymagazine.com/wp-content/themes/commentary/img/twitter_handle.png 06.30.2011 - 10:00 AM
All those Westerners who deem Israel “the greatest threat (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/02/israel.eu)to world peace” ought to read a fascinating story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/29/saudi-build-nuclear-weapons-iran)in the Guardian yesterday: A senior Saudi official informed the paper that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will be forced to follow suit.
“We cannot live in a situation where Iran has nuclear weapons and we don’t. It’s as simple as that,” the official said. “If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, that will be unacceptable to us and we will have to follow suit.”
Why is this noteworthy? Because Israel is widely thought to have had nuclear weapons for almost 50 years now. Yet Riyadh never felt that Israel’s alleged nukes were threatening enough to necessitate acquiring its own nuclear deterrent, even though it has been formally at war with the Jewish state since Israel’s creation and has no diplomatic relations with it. Iran, in contrast, is a fellow Muslim state with which Riyadh has full diplomatic relations; they also share membership in groups like OPEC and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Yet Saudi Arabia deems Tehran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons so threatening as to require an immediate response in kind.

The reason for this seeming paradox is simple: Because they live in the region, Saudi officials know what too many Westerners seem to have forgotten: Israel has never once attacked anyone that didn’t attack it first. And since Saudi Arabia, for all its anti-Israel rhetoric, has not actually participated in anti-Israel hostilities since 1948, it knows it’s perfectly safe from whatever military capabilities Israel has.

Iran, in contrast, has a record of unprovoked military meddling outside its borders even without the immunity nuclear weapons would bring. For instance, it offers extensive military support to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and Shi’ite militias in Iraq – all three of which have fomented civil wars in their respective territories, while the first two have fomented cross-border wars as well. Thus, a nuclear-armed Iran would be a real threat.

Why do so many Westerners seem ignorant of what Saudi officials know about Israel’s nonaggression? For this, Western media bear much of the blame. Consider just one typical example – Ethan Bronner’s New York Times piece this week (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/world/middleeast/29gaza.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&sq=bronner&st=nyt&scp=2)on Gaza’s agricultural revival, in which former World Bank President James Wolfensohn recalled his dashed hopes for a thriving agriculture business in Gaza following Israel’s 2005 withdrawal:
But between the looting, security delays and corruption of border guards — both Israeli and Palestinian, he noted — and then after Israel’s three-week offensive in 2008-9 and the naval blockade, the economy fell apart.
Note what’s missing in this description of Bronner’s: the roughly 6,000 rockets and mortars Palestinians fired at southern Israel from Gaza in the three years following the withdrawal. This rocket fire was the reason for both the military offensive and the blockade.

But an uninformed reader would never know it: He would conclude from this piece that Israel was guilty of unprovoked aggression, having launched a military offensive and imposed a naval blockade (which is also an act of war) for no reason at all.

But actions, they say, speak louder than words. And the vast difference in Riyadh’s response to Iranian versus Israeli nukes speaks volumes about the true threat to peace in the Middle East.

[Bailey Guns]

Make sure you read the "fascinating story" link in the first paragraph. It's the Saudi perspective and it's very telling.

Pretty much dissolves your whole AIPAC propaganda theory.

[roberth]

Obama recently stated that he is most concerned about a "lone wolf" type terrorist attack such as that happened in Norway. Personally, I'm more concerned about Iran building a small nuclear weapon, hiding it in the lead keel of a sailboat and sailing it up the Potomac...don't say I told you so. See link below.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-lone-wolf-terror-attack-biggest-concern-223347040.html

The reason Obama said that is because he is only worried about his own ass, he could not care less about anyone else.

The Iranian leadership is infinitely more worrisome than some 'lone wolf'. The Iranian leadership has repeatedly stated that they want Israel off the map. Israel will take care of business, I have no doubts about this.

[jhood001]

And you'd know that how?


The fact that you labeled me a leftie after a disagreement regarding whether or not Iran is a threat and what their true intentions MAY be combined with a little deductive reasoning on my behalf.

Or is it as simple as anyone will be a 'leftie' to you if they disagree with you regarding any one issue? If that is the case, than you have me figured out. Solely you.

[jhood001]

Make sure you read the "fascinating story" link in the first paragraph. It's the Saudi perspective and it's very telling.

Pretty much dissolves your whole AIPAC propaganda theory.

Skimmed it, but I'm heading out. I'll read it in its' entirety this evening. Thanks for putting it up. I might learn somethin' yet!

[Bailey Guns]

Well, let's see:
You've accused those of us who believe Israel's existence is jeopardized by Iran of basically being brainwashed by AIPAC and other "imperialistic minded lobbies".
Most conservatives see Iran as a threat.
You used the term "imperialistic minded lobbies". Don't think I've ever heard anyone on the right use that term...unless quoting a liberal that used it.
When others have opinions to you it's simply "rhetoric", even though you say you're interested in other views...classic liberal tactic.
There have been several rational explanations as why a nuclear-armed Iran is a threat and you've simply not responded to them or dismissed them.
You like Mosin-Nagant commie rifles.
OK...just kidding on the last one. [Beer]

[rockhound]

here's a nice quote

The Jews are “the filthiest and greatest of criminals, who [only] appear to be human,” said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during a speech last week


wasn't last week anymore, but you get the picture.

[TFOGGER]

If you have any doubts about President Ahmanutjob, read the transcript of his 60 Minutes interview. Basically, he dodged every question concerning Israel, the Iranian Nuke program, and pretty much every other subject of substance.

[Hoosier]

Well, let's see:
You've accused those of us who believe Israel's existence is jeopardized by Iran of basically being brainwashed by AIPAC and other "imperialistic minded lobbies".
Most conservatives see Iran as a threat.
You used the term "imperialistic minded lobbies". Don't think I've ever heard anyone on the right use that term...unless quoting a liberal that used it.
When others have opinions to you it's simply "rhetoric", even though you say you're interested in other views...classic liberal tactic.
There have been several rational explanations as why a nuclear-armed Iran is a threat and you've simply not responded to them or dismissed them.
You like Mosin-Nagant commie rifles.
OK...just kidding on the last one. [Beer]

Welcome to the board! Anyone who doesn't adhere to the rightest wing policy on every single issue is a libtard. I've been tar'd and feathered already, they mostly tolerate my middle of the road views -- except I suspect a few have me blocked.

H.

[SAnd]

Well, let's see:

You like Mosin-Nagant commie rifles.

What about Non-Commie Mosin-Nagant rifles?[Dunno]

[jerrymrc]

Welcome to the board! Anyone who doesn't adhere to the rightest wing policy on every single issue is a libtard. I've been tar'd and feathered already, they mostly tolerate my middle of the road views -- except I suspect a few have me blocked.

H.

I never thought of you that way but then I have some views that are not hard core right. Nothing really left but more libertarian in that respect. Not a big RP supporter in some of his views but everyone to his own.

At least we do not have Dabs on the board and only a few will get that. :)

[Bailey Guns]

Anyone who doesn't adhere to the rightest wing policy on every single issue is a libtard.

Correct...or, right.

See? How hard was that?

BTW: That was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I guess it didn't come across that way.

[jhood001]

Read your article. And read a few other things along the way. Learned a few things specifically about Israel's non-aggression policies. One being, that I had always believed that Israel started the 7 Day War. They definitely shot first, but it seems justified to me now. I didn't know they had so much hostile force stacked up on their borders just waiting for the word. I still believe they take their pre-emption a little further than they should, but given the history there... I don't blame them... anymore.

In regards to the Saudi's expressing that they will be forced to develop nuclear weapons in response to Iran acquiring them-
I agree that it is pretty telling to just how worrisome Iran is to nations in that region and as such, I agree more now that they are a threat to that region. Although the comments in the linked article talking about how the Saudi's have never worried about Israel because of their record of non-agression is bullshit in my opinion. Saudi Arabia isn't worried about Israel because of the U.S.'s relationship with both of them and for no other reason. That is simply my opinion though.

Ahmadinedjad's rhetoric does seem to be getting out of hand. Some of you pointed out some things I had never seen before. I'm not sure if he is acting as the voice for Iran's leadership when he say's those things or not, but he's their mouth-piece so I suppose I need to take what he says with some more gravity. I'll also say that I think a lot of what that twit says is more for rallying his own power-base in what I've read is becoming a real contest for future control of the country. Allah-willing, the Ayatollah will drop that moron in a very deep and dark hole in the near future and start having their other leaders play nice with their neighbors.

In regards to your super-sleuth liberal detection, Mr. Bailey Guns:


Well, let's see:
You've accused those of us who believe Israel's existence is jeopardized by Iran of basically being brainwashed by AIPAC and other "imperialistic minded lobbies".
That wasn't my intent if that is what you got out of my statements. I was specifically talking about Iran as a threat to the US. Not her allies or interests and I will stand behind my statement that conversation regarding Iran as a threat to the US does originate from those sources. 'Brainwashed' is your word.



Most conservatives see Iran as a threat.

Well if everyone else is doing it, I better get with the herd! Give me some time to work on my 'baaaaaaah's and grow my wool out.
...
Seriously?



You used the term "imperialistic minded lobbies". Don't think I've ever heard anyone on the right use that term...unless quoting a liberal that used it.

Identifying certain lobbies as 'imperialistic' is a liberal thing? What should I have called them? The desire to spread the influence of the United States throughout the world and over other countries is imperialism. I think calling a rock a rock isn't liberal, conservative, or anything else other than maybe 'smart'.



When others have opinions to you it's simply "rhetoric", even though you say you're interested in other views...classic liberal tactic.

No. Something that someone states is an opinion of theirs is an opinion to me. In this discussion, I called What Ahmadinedjad say's on a continuing basis to be 'rhetoric'. He's standing on a pedestal spewing varying degrees of bullshit to his followers. How is that not rhetoric, man? And further, how does your misunderstanding of the english language constitute any sort of 'tactic' on my behalf?



There have been several rational explanations as why a nuclear-armed Iran is a threat and you've simply not responded to them or dismissed them.

Pretty sure I said this -


So you're presenting the case that that if they get nukes, their leaders are crazy enough to use them on us or our allies through a proxy. And by using a proxy, they can somehow stay out of our crosshairs for retaliation. I can buy into that.


in direct response to a quote that gave just such a rational explanation.
Reading comprehension for the win.



You like Mosin-Nagant commie rifles.

I consider them to be prisoners of war, honest. Ignore the fact that I keep them in the same place as their american counter-parts.

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/9555/noprejudice.jpg



OK...just kidding on the last one. [Beer]

I know.

[Bailey Guns]

BTW: That was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I guess it didn't come across that way.

Guess you also missed that part.

But aside from that it's good to see you may have learned something about Israel and Iran.

[Sharpienads]

Wow, I joined this thread way late and don't have enough time comment on everything. But basically if you don't think a nuclear armed Iran is a bad thing, you're crazy. And trying to split hairs between "wipe Israel of the map" and "remove the Israeli regime from the pages of time"... Really? What's the difference? That's like saying Ahmedinajad doesn't hate gay people, they just don't have the "gay phenomenon" in their country. We all know Ahmedinajahd is a freakin' nut case.


Identifying certain lobbies as 'imperialistic' is a liberal thing? What should I have called them? The desire to spread the influence of the United States throughout the world and over other countries is imperialism. I think calling a rock a rock isn't liberal, conservative, or anything else other than maybe 'smart'.

Your definition of imperialism is wrong. Imperialism is not spreading a country's influence to other countries. By that definition, a country could either be 100% imperialistic or 100% isolationist. Imperialism is controlling other countries, not influencing. By your definition, just about every country in the world (besides maybe N Korea) would be imperialistic.

I specifically point this comment out because imperialism is one of those words that gets tossed around without any thought. Kinda like Nazi, fascist, democracy, and the like. Democracy today is code for socialism, and any time you hear a leftie use the word, what they really mean is "We hate the constitution because it keeps us from doing whatever we want so we like democracy better because then we worry about violating individual liberty". Conservatives are constantly called Nazis and/or fascists, even though those two are on opposite ends of the political spectrum from conservatism. Imperalism gets thrown out there all the time, too. Doing what's best for a nation's interests or influencing other countries is not imperalistic. Imperialism is a word libtards like to use to describe conservatives, even though the way they use it is not the real definition.

Speaking of libtards, is there a "libtard" equivilent for conservitives? Contard doesn't roll off the tongue like libtard does. Maybe we could come up with something?

[UberTong]

This thread was pure comedy...rhetoric...rhetoric...rhetoric....I know its you nynco, I missed your sweet self.

[Ronin13]

Ah ha! I found one that I can weigh in on with some fun little facts...
Iran is evil, as presented to me and a group of other US Army Intelligence Professionals by a senior analyst for the ME Desk in Langley, VA (for those kids that don't do math and can't put 2 & 2 together, that's CIA)...
Iran having nuclear weapons is bad for the west. 1) Nuclear weapons must be strictly guarded and accounted for, the former Soviet Union did a piss-poor job at this and "lost" some of their stockpile, Iran "loosing" just one 5MT nuclear weapon would be beyond bad. 2) Iran has outwardly and loudly supported anti-western and pro-Palestine terrorist organizations (Hezbollah comes to mind, and they fucking HATE us), so it would come as no surprise that a nuke could slip into the hands of one of these groups and next thing you know that lovely area once known as Tel Aviv is wiped off the map (not to mention they could even target DC, NY, LA, etc.). 3) Does no one remember the hostage crisis in the 1980s? 4) Even if they don't intend to weaponize and use nuclear fission technology in a bad way, what if in their all too wonderful abilities (I'm referring to a 2009 incident where their nuclear enrichment program was brought to a screeching halt by a flash drive introduced virus- no one knows who was behind the cyber attack) they somehow manage a colossal fuck up like the USSR did at Chernobyl... well I can tell you none of us would shed too many tears, until the prevailing winds push the fallout to somewhere like Afghanistan and we start ending up with US troops coming down with radiation sickness- perhaps the worse way to die.
Thus, if you look at the logical and sound reasons why Iran should definitely NOT have anything to do with nuclear technology and still ask "Why do we see Iran as evil?" you need your head examined... Iran is a crazy crazy place that is in a constant struggle to deal with being a strict sharia Islamic republic and a modern fast growing society... too bad the moderates are shut up pretty fast by the likes of Wahhabi clerics and hard-line Muzzies.

[BushMasterBoy]

Terrorists using these against our nuclear power plants would be crippling to this country. The amount of fissile material needed is much less than strategic nuclear weapons. My original post was to point out the presidents concerns of the threat of an active shooter versus the sophisticated threat of terrorists using small nuclear weapons. It is my understanding that the weapon shown in the link below weighs about 150 lbs and is deliverable by a man wearing a parachute. I bet with todays technology you could make the same weapon even smaller.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition

[Ronin13]

Terrorists using these against our nuclear power plants would be crippling to this country. The amount of fissile material needed is much less than strategic nuclear weapons. My original post was to point out the presidents concerns of the threat of an active shooter versus the sophisticated threat of terrorists using small nuclear weapons. It is my understanding that the weapon shown in the link below weighs about 150 lbs and is deliverable by a man wearing a parachute. I bet with todays technology you could make the same weapon even smaller.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition

They have developed a hydrogen bomb (I believe it was back in the 1980's) that is the size of a modern day laptop and weighs about 5-7lbs... scary chit right there. But if you really look at it, you don't need something as complex as a refined and built nuclear weapon, just some TNT and some radioactive material and you have a nice little dirty bomb. The UK did a big exercise on that scenario back in '04 and found that there was a 55-60% death rate at their current readiness, well '04 readiness. Now that is scary. Imagine living in DC when a dirty bomb goes off and you have SW winds, VA is fuk't, and at a kill rate of 55-60%, well you're looking at a large number dead within the first week, not to mention the fallout thereafter. Nuclear weapons, one of those things we wish we could dis-invent.

[jhood001]

Frightening weapons for sure.

I wonder what the US response would be to say... a dirty bomb in DC if there was:

1. Little intelligence regarding who was ultimately behind the attack
2. Cut and dry evidence that pointed directly to the the attacker.

Would it be an immediate (within hours) response on our known list of enemies regardless of how much intelligence was available regarding the attackers identities?

Any information out there regarding our official or 'unofficial' response to such a scenario? I guess I'm basically wondering if these hostile nations have been put on notice that they better make damn sure that nothing like this happens or else we're lumping them into one big group and punishing them all accordingly.

[Ronin13]

Frightening weapons for sure.

I wonder what the US response would be to say... a dirty bomb in DC if there was:

1. Little intelligence regarding who was ultimately behind the attack
2. Cut and dry evidence that pointed directly to the the attacker.

Would it be an immediate (within hours) response on our known list of enemies regardless of how much intelligence was available regarding the attackers identities?

Any information out there regarding our official or 'unofficial' response to such a scenario? I guess I'm basically wondering if these hostile nations have been put on notice that they better make damn sure that nothing like this happens or else we're lumping them into one big group and punishing them all accordingly.

I seriously doubt our current administration would react very quickly... c'mon they almost shut the government down a couple months ago! I doubt Obeyme would go after a certain country appropriately if they were the culprit, and they'd probably make damn sure they had the right one first. I think the anonymous attacker scenario is most likely, considering some of that is really hard to trace. Of course if I were president and that happened and it was discovered that a country was behind it you can bet your ass I'd have a Los Angeles Class boomer parked in whatever sea or gulf nearby and blast them back to the stone age with a few trident nuclear ballistic missiles... of course when you get punched you punch back.

[SAnd]

Don't kid yourself. Obama would react immediately. Within hours he would be apologizing to anybody and everybody for existing. It's our fault if anybody doesn't like us!

I'm being facetious but I also believe it to be what he would actually do.

[Ronin13]

Don't kid yourself. Obama would react immediately. Within hours he would be apologizing to anybody and everybody for existing. It's our fault if anybody doesn't like us!

I'm being facetious but I also believe it to be what he would actually do.

Ah the old history repeating itself... him apologizing for America's "arrogance" when he first took office- I say toss him out and put someone in the job that knows what they're doing and actually likes America.

[jhood001]

Wow, I joined this thread way late and don't have enough time comment on everything. But basically if you don't think a nuclear armed Iran is a bad thing, you're crazy. And trying to split hairs between "wipe Israel of the map" and "remove the Israeli regime from the pages of time"... Really? What's the difference? That's like saying Ahmedinajad doesn't hate gay people, they just don't have the "gay phenomenon" in their country. We all know Ahmedinajahd is a freakin' nut case.



Your definition of imperialism is wrong. Imperialism is not spreading a country's influence to other countries. By that definition, a country could either be 100% imperialistic or 100% isolationist. Imperialism is controlling other countries, not influencing. By your definition, just about every country in the world (besides maybe N Korea) would be imperialistic.

I specifically point this comment out because imperialism is one of those words that gets tossed around without any thought. Kinda like Nazi, fascist, democracy, and the like. Democracy today is code for socialism, and any time you hear a leftie use the word, what they really mean is "We hate the constitution because it keeps us from doing whatever we want so we like democracy better because then we worry about violating individual liberty". Conservatives are constantly called Nazis and/or fascists, even though those two are on opposite ends of the political spectrum from conservatism. Imperalism gets thrown out there all the time, too. Doing what's best for a nation's interests or influencing other countries is not imperalistic. Imperialism is a word libtards like to use to describe conservatives, even though the way they use it is not the real definition.

Speaking of libtards, is there a "libtard" equivilent for conservitives? Contard doesn't roll off the tongue like libtard does. Maybe we could come up with something?

Come up with whatever word you like for conservative. You're already inventing new meanings for words, I won't stop you.

I'm sorry if 'imperialism' drums up negative connotations for you. That doesn't, however, make our country exempt of that label just because it simply falls on the opposite side of 'negativ'e in your mind.

Look up the word. Look up the origin of the word. Look at the development of the word. Then come back here and try to continue on with an argument regarding the meaning of the word and how it applies to things you may or may not like.

A definition from our good friends at Webster follows. And whether you think them learnd'd folks are 'libtards' cuz of them edubcations or not; in this case, I'm going to follow their 100+ years of expertise over yours.

: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>

The United States has over 60 military bases around the world. The United States has hundreds of thousands of military personnel stationed around the world. The United States routinely removes leaders and governments from countries around the world that don't do what she wants them to do. The United States routinely combats other countries around the world for having different beliefs than hers. The United States provides more 'aid' around the world to cooperative governments around the world than any other nation. How is my definition of 'imperialism' wrong?

Do I believe we have the best system, and for the most part, the best people on the planet all centralized under one flag? Yes. Do I think the U.S. does more good throughout the world than evil? Absolutely. Do I think the majority of our foreign intervention throughout the world is for the greater good of our future planet? Yep. Do I need to find proof that literacy in this country is on the decline? No. Your post did it for me. [Beer]

[spyder]

Spank! or something like that... [LOL]

[Sharpienads]

the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>

The key word in you arguement here is "broadly". Broadly defined, as I said, just about every country in the world would fall under this definition of imperialism. If you want to base the definition of imperialsim off of influence, fine.

If you want to argue that the US is too involved with the rest of the world's affairs, you need to find somebody else to argue with, because I agree with that.

But how much territory has the US gained after all the wars we've been involved in in the last 100 years? How much land have we conquered and added to our country? How many of the over 60 countries we have bases in either a) want us there, b) made treaties or other agreements to have us there, or c) are active war zones?

Again, if you want to define imperialism soley by influence, then you are correct. But if you want to define imperialism as

Dictionary.com - "the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies"

World English Dictionary - "the policy or practice of extending a state's rule over other territories "

Merriam-Webster - "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas"

Then I stand by my comments.

Maybe you should look at the origin and development of the word and then tell me if it's more about influence or dominance. And Noah Webster started writing his first dictionary a little more than 100+ years ago. Unless by 100+ years, you mean 200+ years.

And I can read just fine, thank you.