PDA

View Full Version : A Very SERIOUS Problem



road kill
02-11-2010, 12:36 PM
Even though President Obama apoligized, and did his best to APPEASE Ahmedinijad, and He claimed that "nooooo, we want nuclear power, not weapons...."

Reality now hits home.

This is not good folks........we need some leadership.....soon!!:cool:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1250127/Iran-Revolution-day-protests-Islamic-Republic-nuclear-state.html




rk

road kill
02-12-2010, 06:20 AM
So no one cares that Iran claims to have weapons grade materials and is ready to use them?

Amazing.......



rk

paul young
02-12-2010, 07:38 AM
Stan,

i'm concerned.

but i also know we have a delivery system for enough Nukes to turn the entire country into 1 crater. and they won't even know where they came from.....

they know it , too.-Paul

road kill
02-12-2010, 08:19 AM
Stan,

i'm concerned.

but i also know we have a delivery system for enough Nukes to turn the entire country into 1 crater. and they won't even know where they came from.....

they know it , too.-Paul

There are not many things that scare me.
I have been thru the absolute worst life has to offer.
I could give a ratz azz if Palin or Biden miss speak, though it is fun to joust with youse guys & gals about it.

Knowing what I know about Israel, the tensions in that area and our current administrations inability to stand up to anyone except our own citizens, this scares the HELL out of me!!

Anyone here ever been in combat?
Something you are looking forward to??

Israel won't wait to appease they will act decisevly, which will not be good for the rest of us.
Like it or not, oil flow from the region is essential to our economy!!
Don't think Iran does not know that!!




rk

ducknwork
02-12-2010, 09:24 AM
I think we should get everyone in the country to sign a card that tells Iran how sorry we are for everything we have ever done to them. Then the messiah should hand deliver it and bow to Amadblabla. They will no longer be angry and they will stop developing nuclear weapons.

I can't believe that this solution isn't as blatantly obvious to everyone else as it is to me.


I must be smarter than I thought regards,

Franco
02-12-2010, 10:03 AM
Iran's intent is to give nukes to select terrorist groups that will try and smuggle them into cities they want destroyed i.e. New York, Tel Aviv, Rome etc.

The question is; Do we let them strike first or do we make a preemptive strike?

I say we act before they get a chance to perform horrific damage!

Fowlfeller1100
02-13-2010, 08:45 PM
The question is; Do we let them strike first or do we make a preemptive strike?

I say we act before they get a chance to perform horrific damage!

I'm not saying I'm against the concept, but in reality were still a bit busy with a couple of things that sound a lot like this.

Buzz
02-13-2010, 08:50 PM
Iran's intent is to give nukes to select terrorist groups that will try and smuggle them into cities they want destroyed i.e. New York, Tel Aviv, Rome etc.

The question is; Do we let them strike first or do we make a preemptive strike?

I say we act before they get a chance to perform horrific damage!

There is a difference between preemptive and preventative war.


Commentators as diverse as Dwight Eisenhower and Noam Chomsky have argued that accepting one preventive war would open the floodgates to all preventive wars, reducing the world to "the law of the jungle".

Pete
02-13-2010, 10:04 PM
[QUOTE][The international community has warned Iran against further enrichment activities, threatening new UN sanctions


/QUOTE]

I alway laugh when I read stuff like this.
The time for warning is long gone. Our warnings dont mean jack squat.

However I do see a lovely spot in that picture to place a nuke or two.

Terry Britton
02-13-2010, 11:03 PM
I have learned we have had a serious problem with several countries for some time. The public does not know that enrichment is no longer necessary for a nuclear bomb.

Enrichment just makes a more reliable and smaller bomb, so therefore makes a missles range farther.

Sundown49 aka Otey B
02-14-2010, 07:18 AM
How about this for a phone call........this is just in jest ...

Obama: Hey macmoud this is Obama.....
macmoud.: what do you want you nasty infidel?
Obama: I hear you want your very own A bomb.
Macmoud: yes I want that very much so I can blow all of you non believers off the face of the map....
Obama..well I am gonna give you one all your own......
Macmoud : yahoo !!! my own ..
Obama: well go out in your front yard and catch it its on the way...... should be there in about 10 seconds... Gotta go So long.

Roger Perry
02-14-2010, 10:05 AM
Even though President Obama apoligized, and did his best to APPEASE Ahmedinijad, and He claimed that "nooooo, we want nuclear power, not weapons...."

Reality now hits home.

This is not good folks........we need some leadership.....soon!!:cool:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1250127/Iran-Revolution-day-protests-Islamic-Republic-nuclear-state.html

rk

Well, we could always follow Sarah Palin's advice and go to war with Iran. :rolleyes:

Sarah Palin wants the U.S. President to declare war on Iran
By Andrew Moran.

Speaking in an interview with Fox News recently, former Governor of Alaska and possible 2012 Republican Presidential candidate urged President Barack Obama to declare war on Iran in order to get re-elected in 2012.

On Sunday, former 2008 Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin said in a Fox News interview on Sunday that she also wants the President to declare war on Iran and support Israel to the fullest possible extent.

M&K's Retrievers
02-14-2010, 10:24 AM
Well, we could always follow Sarah Palin's advice and go to war with Iran. :rolleyes:

Sarah Palin wants the U.S. President to declare war on Iran
By Andrew Moran.

Speaking in an interview with Fox News recently, former Governor of Alaska and possible 2012 Republican Presidential candidate urged President Barack Obama to declare war on Iran in order to get re-elected in 2012.

On Sunday, former 2008 Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin said in a Fox News interview on Sunday that she also wants the President to declare war on Iran and support Israel to the fullest possible extent.

Roger, we are at war with Iran declared or not. I'm not a Palin fanatic by any stretch, but perhaps her meaning is to make pur stance toward Iran formal. Just because you have declared war, doesn't necessarily mean sending in troups. It can define our status with them.

Roger Perry
02-14-2010, 11:05 AM
Roger, we are at war with Iran declared or not. I'm not a Palin fanatic by any stretch, but perhaps her meaning is to make pur stance toward Iran formal. Just because you have declared war, doesn't necessarily mean sending in troups. It can define our status with them.

This morning Dick Cheney was also asked about Palin's comments about going in and "ruffing up the Iranians" and Chency said it would mean sending in troops into Iran, not a thing he would do.
Splain that!!!!

M&K's Retrievers
02-14-2010, 11:14 AM
This morning Dick Cheney was also asked about Palin's comments about going in and "ruffing up the Iranians" and Chency said it would mean sending in troops into Iran, not a thing he would do.
Splain that!!!!

If you will read my post, I believe I did "splain" it. You apparently can't understand it. I guess that's Bush's fault as well.

Roger Perry
02-14-2010, 12:16 PM
If you will read my post, I believe I did "splain" it. You apparently can't understand it. I guess that's Bush's fault as well.


Roger, we are at war with Iran declared or not. I'm not a Palin fanatic by any stretch, but perhaps her meaning is to make pur stance toward Iran formal.

Maybe you don't get it. Palin wants Obama to start a war which means sending in troops but before the troops can go in there will have to be air strikes just like Iraq. That is what Palin means, not just a slap on the wrist. Do you really believe we need to be starting an all out war with Iran when Iraq and Afghanistan have proven to to be disasters?

ducknwork
02-14-2010, 12:20 PM
Do you really believe we need to be starting an all out war with Iran when Iraq and Afghanistan have proven to to be disasters?[/SIZE]

But Roger, we have different leadership now. Won't that make it all better this time around?

huntinman
02-14-2010, 12:21 PM
Roger, we are at war with Iran declared or not. I'm not a Palin fanatic by any stretch, but perhaps her meaning is to make pur stance toward Iran formal.

Maybe you don't get it. Palin wants Obama to start a war which means sending in troops but before the troops can go in there will have to be air strikes just like Iraq. That is what Palin means, not just a slap on the wrist. Do you really believe we need to be starting an all out war with Iran when Iraq and Afghanistan have proven to to be disasters?

What is your definition of disaster Roger?

M&K's Retrievers
02-14-2010, 01:10 PM
Roger, we are at war with Iran declared or not. I'm not a Palin fanatic by any stretch, but perhaps her meaning is to make pur stance toward Iran formal.

Maybe you don't get it. Palin wants Obama to start a war which means sending in troops but before the troops can go in there will have to be air strikes just like Iraq. That is what Palin means, not just a slap on the wrist. Do you really believe we need to be starting an all out war with Iran when Iraq and Afghanistan have proven to to be disasters?

How in the Hell do you know what she means? Also, I never said or even implied that we need an all out war with Iran. A formal declared war does not have to mean troups but stating our opposition to their policies as well as giving us the ability to act quickly if needed. If we did have to act, I would not put one boot on the ground over there.

Roger Perry
02-14-2010, 01:33 PM
How in the Hell do you know what she means? Also, I never said or even implied that we need an all out war with Iran. A formal declared war does not have to mean troups but stating our opposition to their policies as well as giving us the ability to act quickly if needed. If we did have to act, I would not put one boot on the ground over there.

Apparently Dick Cheney knew what she meant. Here is an excerpt from ABC's "This week" that was aired today.

PALIN: Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided really to come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do, if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies, I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he -- than he is today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: She's, of course, talking about President Obama, seemed to be implying that this would be a good political move for him. What's your take?
CHENEY:I don't think a president can make a judgment like that on the basis of politics. The stakes are too high, the consequences too significant to be treating those as simple political calculations. When you begin to talk about war, talk about crossing international borders, you talk about committing American men and women to combat, that takes place on a plane clear above any political consideration.

Now please tell me I don't know what Palin meant when Dick Cheney knew perfectly well what she meant.

huntinman
02-14-2010, 01:47 PM
Apparently Dick Cheney knew what she meant. Here is an excerpt from ABC's "This week" that was aired today.

PALIN: Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided really to come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do, if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies, I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he -- than he is today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: She's, of course, talking about President Obama, seemed to be implying that this would be a good political move for him. What's your take?
CHENEY:I don't think a president can make a judgment like that on the basis of politics. The stakes are too high, the consequences too significant to be treating those as simple political calculations. When you begin to talk about war, talk about crossing international borders, you talk about committing American men and women to combat, that takes place on a plane clear above any political consideration.

Now please tell me I don't know what Palin meant when Dick Cheney knew perfectly well what she meant.


Hell, I'm not even sure you know what YOU mean...

M&K's Retrievers
02-14-2010, 01:51 PM
Apparently Dick Cheney knew what she meant. Here is an excerpt from ABC's "This week" that was aired today.

PALIN: Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided really to come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do, if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies, I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he -- than he is today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: She's, of course, talking about President Obama, seemed to be implying that this would be a good political move for him. What's your take?
CHENEY:I don't think a president can make a judgment like that on the basis of politics. The stakes are too high, the consequences too significant to be treating those as simple political calculations. When you begin to talk about war, talk about crossing international borders, you talk about committing American men and women to combat, that takes place on a plane clear above any political consideration.

Now please tell me I don't know what Palin meant when Dick Cheney knew perfectly well what she meant.


Okay, I'll try. Neithor you nor Cheney knows what she meant. No one does. Cheney was stating his opinion. You are stating you opinion as the truth and I am giving mine.

Roger, she isn't president and most likely will not be. If she is ever elected pres, I'm sure it will be Bush's fault.

Oh, since when did you start believing anything Cheney said?

Pete
02-14-2010, 02:20 PM
This morning Dick Cheney was also asked about Palin's comments about going in and "ruffing up the Iranians" and Chency said it would mean sending in troops into Iran, not a thing he would do.
Splain that!!!!

I wouldnt send them in either ..I would pull every last american and warn our allies to get the hell out of their. Then send them a surprise.

declaring war is so mundane

Pete

M&K's Retrievers
02-14-2010, 02:46 PM
I wouldnt send them in either ..I would pull every last american and warn our allies to get the hell out of their. Then send them a surprise.

declaring war is so mundane

Pete

Kinda what I was impling

Pete
02-14-2010, 03:49 PM
Kinda what I was implimg

Well your a smart man then:D

road kill
02-14-2010, 08:03 PM
Roger, we are at war with Iran declared or not. I'm not a Palin fanatic by any stretch, but perhaps her meaning is to make pur stance toward Iran formal.

Maybe you don't get it. Palin wants Obama to start a war which means sending in troops but before the troops can go in there will have to be air strikes just like Iraq. That is what Palin means, not just a slap on the wrist. Do you really believe we need to be starting an all out war with Iran when Iraq and Afghanistan have proven to to be disasters?


Didn't Vice President Biden just say that Iraq is one of the "great acheivements of President Obamas administration??"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEgOPlwi3Oc&feature=related





rk

YardleyLabs
02-14-2010, 08:46 PM
Didn't Vice President Biden just say that Iraq is one of the "great acheivements of President Obamas administration??"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEgOPlwi3Oc&feature=related

rk
Only because we're finally starting to get out after spending eight years and hundreds of billions to counter a threat that wasn't even there. It was a mistake to have gone in and the first six years were mismanaged. We will be paying for that disaster for years to come. But the same people who took us into Iraq are now using the same types of reasoning to get us into the same type of mess again. I'd like to see all future wars financed on a purely pay as you go basis. If you're not willing to vote for the war tax, don't vote for the war.In fact, given their new and belated focus on fiscal responsibility, I'm sure the Republicans will be the first to propose the tax and that Palin will speak in favor.:rolleyes:

road kill
02-14-2010, 08:59 PM
Only because we're finally starting to get out after spending eight years and hundreds of billions to counter a threat that wasn't even there. It was a mistake to have gone in and the first six years were mismanaged. We will be paying for that disaster for years to come. But the same people who took us into Iraq are now using the same types of reasoning to get us into the same type of mess again. I'd like to see all future wars financed on a purely pay as you go basis. If you're not willing to vote for the war tax, don't vote for the war.In fact, given their new and belated focus on fiscal responsibility, I'm sure the Republicans will be the first to propose the tax and that Palin will speak in favor.:rolleyes:
Nothing like taking my post out of context!!!

RP said-"Do you really believe we need to be starting an all out war with Iran when Iraq and Afghanistan have proven to to be disasters?"

Then I said-"Didn't Vice President Biden just say that Iraq is one of the "great acheivements of President Obamas administration??"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEgOP...eature=related

rk"
Which he did say.
So.....Is it a "proven disaster" or a "great acheivement?"
Or both??:rolleyes:



BTW----Do you get paid for explaining to us what they all really meant?:D



rk