Originally Posted by Guest

I’ll start with your latter points first. I’ll accept at face value what you say that you personally don’t think America is “rotten” but I’ve known enough liberals in my life to know you tend to be the exception. Many are driven by guilt, some by envy and increasingly, by a hatred of things religious in general and Christian in particular. It’s a sliding scale of self-hatred and America hatred, with the Bill Ayers type being at one end and the harmless academic on the other. No conservative that I know is in favor of anything you identified as rotten by the way. The whole debate has always been about the perfectibility, or imperfectability of human nature, and thus the best means to achieve socially desirable ends. It also gets into the inescapable reality that people are not, and never have been, equal in terms of productivity, hence unequal outcomes are not only predicable but normal. But, I digress … and back to the main topic.

You still did not get my point about the difference between a secularist / atheist regimes (USSR, North Korea) and an apocalyptic theocratic regime of the Radical Islamic type. They pose a distinctly different threat profile and which enters into the deterrence equation. It’s apples and oranges …not all apples.

The former are DETERRED by the thought of a life ending exchange. That doesn’t mean they won’t probe and exploit weakness, because indeed they will. The latter can potentially be inspired by the thought of going to a greater glory by eliminating the Great Satan, and particularly when mixed with a millenarian apocalyptic world view of the 12th Iman etc. Now, this is not to say that every Iranian leader would be blind to the obvious which is, if they did attack the US, Iran would be likely be counterattacked. (ie likely because a lot would depend on the intestinal fortitude and courage of whoever would be President … it’s not a given).

I’m saying this … if we allow Iran to get nukes, the risk is very high that, and at some point inevitable, they will get a crazy theocratic leader who may THINK he can get away with it. The fact that he can’t is irrelevant if he thinks he could and is rationalized by Islamic fundamentalist zeal. Iran, in this instance, would attack us covertly and never admit it. They could easily find a limitless supply of suicide bombers who would be happy to infiltrate into New York or DC with a small portable nuke… the two most likely targets. Another tactic, and one they have been known to practice, simulates the launch from a nondescript merchant vessel of the coast of the US, and wherein the missile carries an EMP device intended to detonate over the Midwest. One shot, and most of the electricity / electronics in CONUS would be gone for a year or more … our economy would be in effect be destroyed because nothing would or could move.

I agree that the people of Iran are much more inclined to be pro-American, and is one reason Obama dropped the ball when he failed to give them support in their uprising a few years ago. Had he done that, we would not be in the mess we’re in. But, in any regime where the leaders control the guns and police, it doesn’t matter what the people think. China, North Korea, the list goes on.

I’m also arguing that the safest path, and best way to avoid war, is to instill fear in your opponent and never contempt. Iran was terrified of Reagan and that’s why they released our hostages on the day he was inaugurated. By contrast, not only are they unafraid of Obama, I think they hold him in contempt which explains why they’ve dispatched their naval flotilla to Yemen.

Now let me ask you a simple question. Do you think we should allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapons capability?

Very impressed with your thinking!

The difference is we don't see the same weakness. You believe in gunboat diplomacy and I believe in walk softly but carry a big stick. Ask bin laden!

Originally Posted by Guest

The difference is we don't see the same weakness. You believe in gunboat diplomacy and I believe in walk softly but carry a big stick. Ask bin laden!

From everything I've seen of your posts, I'd say it's more "speak hesitantly while dragging a limp noodle "

Ps the operations to glean Intel by which to track and hunt down Bin Laden were put into place well before Obama came into office. He does get credit for finally authorizing the kill ... after missing several opportunities prior to that

So what should the President do?

I say send over our elaborate flotilla and just make our presence known and hope that nothing comes of all this. Wait and see. It is the best thing to do.

Originally Posted by Guest

I’m also arguing that the safest path, and best way to avoid war, is to instill fear in your opponent and never contempt. Iran was terrified of Reagan and that’s why they released our hostages on the day he was inaugurated. By contrast, not only are they unafraid of Obama, I think they hold him in contempt which explains why they’ve dispatched their naval flotilla to Yemen.

Now let me ask you a simple question. Do you think we should allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapons capability?

I don't wish that any country had nuclear weapons. I don't wish that Iran develop them, nor did I prefer the USSR, France, UK, Israel, Pakistan, India, nor North Korea develop them. But where does this nation get the right to tell another country what they can do? We can say we won't trade with you, we will freeze your currency, we will not allow your citizens in to our country, we will make you miserable in many ways, but under what concept of law does the USA get to tell Iran what it can or cannot do internally? I believe that one of our nation's early answers when the powerful nations across the sea tried to tell us what to do was to declare that not only could these world powers not tell the US what to do but they could not even interfere anywhere in the Western Hemisphere (see Monroe doctrine). So I flip the question.. Do you believe that because we have a legal basis to tell any nation that they cannot go forward? Your fear that Iran will sneak a bomb into the US, which you seem to believe is a certainty, is not a reason that I will accept. By the way, the Iranians were certainly not afraid of Reagan. The Iranians wanted Carter to loose and Reagan to win. This would prove that they could over through a US leader as the US had done with implanting the Shah.

New Reports Say 1980 Reagan Campaign Tried to Delay Hostage Release - NYTimes.com

Reagan later certainly was involved in a hostages for military equipment deal with the Iranians (see Iran Contra). Either Reagan knew or a huge US policy decision specifically prohibited by US law was being made without the knowledge of Reagan.

Originally Posted by Guest

From everything I've seen of your posts, I'd say it's more "speak hesitantly while dragging a limp noodle "

Ps the operations to glean Intel by which to track and hunt down Bin Laden were put into place well before Obama came into office. He does get credit for finally authorizing the kill ... after missing several opportunities prior to that

When you said 'limp noodle', I thought you were talking about Rush Limpbaugh again.

Originally Posted by Guest

I don't wish that any country had nuclear weapons. I don't wish that Iran develop them, nor did I prefer the USSR, France, UK, Israel, Pakistan, India, nor North Korea develop them. But where does this nation get the right to tell another country what they can do? We can say we won't trade with you, we will freeze your currency, we will not allow your citizens in to our country, we will make you miserable in many ways, but under what concept of law does the USA get to tell Iran what it can or cannot do internally? I believe that one of our nation's early answers when the powerful nations across the sea tried to tell us what to do was to declare that not only could these world powers not tell the US what to do but they could not even interfere anywhere in the Western Hemisphere (see Monroe doctrine). So I flip the question.. Do you believe that because we have a legal basis to tell any nation that they cannot go forward? Your fear that Iran will sneak a bomb into the US, which you seem to believe is a certainty, is not a reason that I will accept. By the way, the Iranians were certainly not afraid of Reagan. The Iranians wanted Carter to loose and Reagan to win. This would prove that they could over through a US leader as the US had done with implanting the Shah.

New Reports Say 1980 Reagan Campaign Tried to Delay Hostage Release - NYTimes.com

Reagan later certainly was involved in a hostages for military equipment deal with the Iranians (see Iran Contra). Either Reagan knew or a huge US policy decision specifically prohibited by US law was being made without the knowledge of Reagan.

Mark this down please.

If there is an agreement with Iran, the nuke race will begin and rage in the ME...does not matter what the time frame is; the other countries will begin to develop their own while Russia reaps all the benefits, financially and more.

Finally a couple of posts by the opposition that staes their case without sling mud or calling names.

Has to be non regular democrat visiting and responding. The regulars could not put that many words together without bash or trashing somebody.

Quite refreshing actually.

I would think most of the trash talk, name calling, racist, sexist positioning would not be acceptable to others in their party.

Originally Posted by Guest

I don't wish that any country had nuclear weapons. I don't wish that Iran develop them, nor did I prefer the USSR, France, UK, Israel, Pakistan, India, nor North Korea develop them. But where does this nation get the right to tell another country what they can do? .

This is a perfect example of a moral equivalency world view .. ."where does the US get the right?" and is the source of our current weakness in foreign policy.

We get the right because the US is on the correct moral side of the issue and Iran is not. In addition, my personal preference is to not see my country incinerated.

You really need to get the crippling liberal theology and guilt under control .. if nothing else for the sake of your grandchildren's future.

Originally Posted by Guest

When you said 'limp noodle', I thought you were talking about Rush Limpbaugh again.

I know you had to stretch pretty far for that .... I just hope you didn't pop anything

I doubt that Rush is limp around his wife ... given that she is a foxxx.

Here's a photo

Rush Wife Catherine - Bing Images

Originally Posted by Guest

I know you had to stretch pretty far for that .... I just hope you didn't pop anything

I doubt that Rush is limp around his wife ... given that she is a foxxx.

Here's a photo

Rush Wife Catherine - Bing Images

Looks like he got it right with number four.

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

Looks like he got it right with number four.

Yes, sometimes it takes a while to go through women to find the right one, and he certainly did that. In addition to being foxxxy, she's bright and is the marketing genius behind the Rush Revere books which have made them millions.

Iranian Ships Turn Back From Yemen After Standoff - NBC News


The Iranian convoy believed to be carrying weapons has turned around and is heading back to Iran.

An interesting new development, and which impacts freedom of navigation on the seas. Keeping the sea lanes open is something we all have a stake in ...

Iran fires warning shots across bow of cargo ship - The Washington Post

Iran continues to shoot the finger to the West in general, and US in particular. Weakness, as we know, has historically proven to be provocative.

Stay tuned and we'll see what the Obama Administration does next.