Originally Posted by Guest

And the stained shorts comment was ok cause it comes from the right? Double standard again by the gang of six. I don't get intimidated easily!

First of all I am not sure why I bother anymore. I guess it is the challenge OF CONSISTENTLY incorrect CONCLUSION AND OR RE-STATEMENT.
The usual totally incorrect allegation of who you are quoting.
And mostly the incredible way you ignore, deflect, change the subject, never respond to the specific asked.

First sentence. Absolutely nothing to do with my post.
Second sentence. My standard is very consistent. The problem is yours and your interpretation wags all over the place. No comment on the useless ganf of 6 darts.
Last sentence; there was no such intent. It is these throw away out of the blue or left field statements or accusations that were never intended, or included, or hinted or even within the realm of reading between the lines.
I do detect a certain.....paranoia....the only word that fits.
Intimidation? You must be kidding.

Originally Posted by Guest

You lead the charge. I'm right behind you. Oh I thought so. You ever seen a war up close and personal or did you send someone else's kids to die for you?

Yes, I have see war up close and personal, and have the Combat Action Ribbon amongst others. But, a better question for you is ... why do you think weakness in the face of an obvious threat will lead to peace??

History is replete with examples and lessons... the gist of which is, the best way to avoid war is to deter an enemy, not appease him.

Why is that so difficult for you to see that? The irony is you are the true warmonger, not me.

Originally Posted by Guest

First of all I am not sure why I bother anymore. I guess it is the challenge OF CONSISTENTLY incorrect CONCLUSION AND OR RE-STATEMENT.
The usual totally incorrect allegation of who you are quoting.
And mostly the incredible way you ignore, deflect, change the subject, never respond to the specific asked.

First sentence. Absolutely nothing to do with my post.
Second sentence. My standard is very consistent. The problem is yours and your interpretation wags all over the place. No comment on the useless ganf of 6 darts.
Last sentence; there was no such intent. It is these throw away out of the blue or left field statements or accusations that were never intended, or included, or hinted or even within the realm of reading between the lines.
I do detect a certain.....paranoia....the only word that fits.
Intimidation? You must be kidding.

Try. Don't bother. My comments were directed to you passing judgement on me. Not your responsibility but of course that is your way, along with your cronies on this board! I believe the stain your shorts comment to me was an act of cowardice. I'm not justifying my feelings to you or anyone else. If you don't like it look at that keyboard for the off switch and do us all a favor, push the button!

Originally Posted by Guest

And the stained shorts comment was ok cause it comes from the right? Double standard again by the gang of six. I don't get intimidated easily!

Who in the heck is the "gang of six" ?????

Originally Posted by Guest

Who in the heck is the "gang of six" ?????

Actually, this seems to be a product of a certain poster's paranoid delusion as best I can tell.

Originally Posted by Guest

Try. Don't bother. My comments were directed to you passing judgement on me. Not your responsibility but of course that is your way, along with your cronies on this board! I believe the stain your shorts comment to me was an act of cowardice. I'm not justifying my feelings to you or anyone else. If you don't like it look at that keyboard for the off switch and do us all a favor, push the button!

I will remain polite about the wrong conclusion snap back answer by simply stating what you ARE doing is assigning other "guest" posts to some that you think made the post.

Liking or not has nothing to do with it. Just simply trying to point out when incorrect allegations or re-staements are made of my specific posts....nobody elses.
Your suggestion of what to do if I don't like it is very inaccurate as usual. I am a proponent of Trumans statement if you can't stand the heaat then get out of the kitchen.
Dislike or liking has nothing to do with any of it. Also did not ask you to justify your feelings.

I just wish the admin had a way to allow applying the ignore feature on this forum. It was the only way to tolerate the original political forum. Your s would be on the list a long time ago.

Time to go pursue something worthwhile; this merry go round is going nowhere.

Originally Posted by Guest

Do you really advocate 'reasoning' with a radical Islamic theocracy? Come on .... for real?

During every phase in American world dominance we have negotiated with enemies. Some were enemies we opposed in shooting wars, some in cold wars, some in economic wars. But negotiating is the only option to fighting. You do recognize don't you that our adversaries hold us in the same contempt as you hold them and believe we cannot be trusted. They have ample evidence of our underhandedness and onesidedness. Does any country have a better spy network of satellites, easedropping, human spies, than the US? Has any other country adamantly insisted on UN inspections of one side's nuclear projects while simultaneously refusing any inspection or accounting of its own arsenal? I know, we only use our might for good against the "evildoers" so we don't have to be open, just trust us. So yes, I would advocate negotiating with radical Islamic theocracies I think we already do that with the most radical theocracy, Saudi Arabia. You know the country that has a LOT OF OIL, and where most of money for 911 and most of the pilots for 911 and most of the heads being chopped off by a government is being done. And Reagan, he of blessed memory, of course was adept at reasoning with those godless heathen atheistic commies including giving away our right to have as many ICBM's and nukes as we wanted. Reasoning with a country whose leader had pledged to "bury us"

Reasonable post above.
The big difference from my viewpoint past presidents and leaders of other countries represent that here country is one thing or another, or not. But they do represent their country.

Our president attempts to represent our country while condeming it in public to gain points with other countries. He makes no attempt to disguise his leanings toward race, Muslims and Islamic terrorists. He is will to take secondary positions as opposed to MAINTAINING the USA position of strength.
He too often openly aplologizes for the actions of the USA, again to gain personal points.

My opinion, in these regards, he is at a disadvantsge because he IS NOT representing the USA in the same manner as our adversaries. He just does not subscribe to the credo..."do not tread on me"....he in fact does it for the adversary.

Originally Posted by Guest

During every phase in American world dominance we have negotiated with enemies. Some were enemies we opposed in shooting wars, some in cold wars, some in economic wars. But negotiating is the only option to fighting. You do recognize don't you that our adversaries hold us in the same contempt as you hold them and believe we cannot be trusted. They have ample evidence of our underhandedness and onesidedness. Does any country have a better spy network of satellites, easedropping, human spies, than the US? Has any other country adamantly insisted on UN inspections of one side's nuclear projects while simultaneously refusing any inspection or accounting of its own arsenal? I know, we only use our might for good against the "evildoers" so we don't have to be open, just trust us. So yes, I would advocate negotiating with radical Islamic theocracies I think we already do that with the most radical theocracy, Saudi Arabia. You know the country that has a LOT OF OIL, and where most of money for 911 and most of the pilots for 911 and most of the heads being chopped off by a government is being done. And Reagan, he of blessed memory, of course was adept at reasoning with those godless heathen atheistic commies including giving away our right to have as many ICBM's and nukes as we wanted. Reasoning with a country whose leader had pledged to "bury us"

The communists were professed atheists and secularists, which means they believed life on this earth is all they get. This is significant because, no matter how belligerent they were, they did NOT have a death wish. Hence, when the “correlation of forces” per Marxist dogma finally went against them, they behaved accordingly. This was the genius of Reagan and why we won the Cold War, although most liberals will go to their grave denying that. Reagan’s versions of negotiation, I might also add, was based on “trust but verify” whereas Obama’s seems to be “trust is good enough” especially given that Iran has given us the finger on inspecting their military sites.

By contrast to the Soviet Union, the Iranian leadership is a theocracy (ie something liberals are supposed to be concerned about) that is clearly a Radical Islamist regime. Even you will not deny that. Their brand of Islamic fanaticism has the 12th Imam millenarian twist to it which gets into pretty scary apocalyptic scenarios, especially when nukes are added into the equation. You also don’t understand the difference between the Saudi Sunni based monarchy and Iranian Shia based theocracy which is why you make a false comparison. (the Saudis are the home of Wahhabism true, but since 1945 when FDR met with King Saud, we’ve been able to work with them for the most part, their crazy factions notwithstanding.) The point remains … we cannot reasonably negotiate with Iran. To advocate that path is essentially a mixture of cowardice and, in my opinion, also includes some type of subliminal liberal self hatred factor which has always concerned me.

I also have to note … your comments and mocking tone are more evidence, yet again, of moral equivalence. Most liberals seem to genuinely distrust and dislike their own country, and ascribe it to be in effect no better that our enemies. I’m guessing one of the many reasons you think America is so incorrigibly rotten is that we don’t yet have universal gender neutral bathrooms?

Bottom line: if we allow Iran to get nukes, they WILL use them at some point against homeland USA. Think about it.

Originally Posted by Guest

The communists were professed atheists and secularists, which means they believed life on this earth is all they get. This is significant because, no matter how belligerent they were, they did NOT have a death wish. Hence, when the “correlation of forces” per Marxist dogma finally went against them, they behaved accordingly. This was the genius of Reagan and why we won the Cold War, although most liberals will go to their grave denying that. Reagan’s versions of negotiation, I might also add, was based on “trust but verify” whereas Obama’s seems to be “trust is good enough” especially given that Iran has given us the finger on inspecting their military sites.

By contrast to the Soviet Union, the Iranian leadership is a theocracy (ie something liberals are supposed to be concerned about) that is clearly a Radical Islamist regime. Even you will not deny that. Their brand of Islamic fanaticism has the 12th Imam millenarian twist to it which gets into pretty scary apocalyptic scenarios, especially when nukes are added into the equation. You also don’t understand the difference between the Saudi Sunni based monarchy and Iranian Shia based theocracy which is why you make a false comparison. (the Saudis are the home of Wahhabism true, but since 1945 when FDR met with King Saud, we’ve been able to work with them for the most part, their crazy factions notwithstanding.) The point remains … we cannot reasonably negotiate with Iran. To advocate that path is essentially a mixture of cowardice and, in my opinion, also includes some type of subliminal liberal self hatred factor which has always concerned me.

I also have to note … your comments and mocking tone are more evidence, yet again, of moral equivalence. Most liberals seem to genuinely distrust and dislike their own country, and ascribe it to be in effect no better that our enemies. I’m guessing one of the many reasons you think America is so incorrigibly rotten is that we don’t yet have universal gender neutral bathrooms?

Bottom line: if we allow Iran to get nukes, they WILL use them at some point against homeland USA. Think about it.

Originally Posted by Guest

The communists were professed atheists and secularists, which means they believed life on this earth is all they get. This is significant because, no matter how belligerent they were, they did NOT have a death wish. Hence, when the “correlation of forces” per Marxist dogma finally went against them, they behaved accordingly. This was the genius of Reagan and why we won the Cold War, although most liberals will go to their grave denying that. Reagan’s versions of negotiation, I might also add, was based on “trust but verify” whereas Obama’s seems to be “trust is good enough” especially given that Iran has given us the finger on inspecting their military sites.

By contrast to the Soviet Union, the Iranian leadership is a theocracy (ie something liberals are supposed to be concerned about) that is clearly a Radical Islamist regime. Even you will not deny that. Their brand of Islamic fanaticism has the 12th Imam millenarian twist to it which gets into pretty scary apocalyptic scenarios, especially when nukes are added into the equation. You also don’t understand the difference between the Saudi Sunni based monarchy and Iranian Shia based theocracy which is why you make a false comparison. (the Saudis are the home of Wahhabism true, but since 1945 when FDR met with King Saud, we’ve been able to work with them for the most part, their crazy factions notwithstanding.) The point remains … we cannot reasonably negotiate with Iran. To advocate that path is essentially a mixture of cowardice and, in my opinion, also includes some type of subliminal liberal self hatred factor which has always concerned me.

I also have to note … your comments and mocking tone are more evidence, yet again, of moral equivalence. Most liberals seem to genuinely distrust and dislike their own country, and ascribe it to be in effect no better that our enemies. I’m guessing one of the many reasons you think America is so incorrigibly rotten is that we don’t yet have universal gender neutral bathrooms?

Bottom line: if we allow Iran to get nukes, they WILL use them at some point against homeland USA. Think about it.

Ok, I have thought about it. Why do you believe that Iran is going to use nuclear weapons against us? The same thing was said about USSR. The same thing was said about North Korea, a far crazier government than anything in Iran, the same was said about Pakistan, a very severe Islamic state, far more so than Iran which is actually very westernized.

Perhaps these countries simply believe as we do that deterrence is the best defense or as it was called MAD. Iran certainly faces a nuclear threat from Israel, a country which has already shown its willingness to strike first when it feels its safety is endangered. If Iran had the bomb, would it be to protect it from Israel or to use it on us. What possible interest would Iran have in using nuclear weapons against the US with the 100% certainty that if they did, in 15 minutes Iran would be a smoldering uninhabitable wasteland for the next century.

It is the starting point of where we cannot reach the same conclusions that we don't start with the same assumptions. I believe that the US is a wonderful but not perfect country. I believe that it has been wrong in many of its international adventures and tends to think it should project its military might to get other countries to cower. I believe that might does not make right, in fact just the opposite. Like Gandhi and King and Mother Teresa, America can achieve its long term goals by showing some humility, by admitting our flaws, by being clear in our objectives for a better world. Sadly you don't understand liberalism at all if you believe what you have typed. And that you would reduce it to gender neutral bathrooms suggests you need to somehow stop thinking about sex all the time. Liberals don't think America is rotten. We do tend to believe that racism is rotten, that sexism is rotten, that homophobia is rotten, that segregation was rotten, that letting children starve is rotten, that denying health care is rotten, that Columbine and Oklahoma City and 911 were all rotten. But no liberal that I know believes that America is rotten and it is very sad that you are so unable to see that. Most liberals I know would not make such conclusions about conservatives.

Originally Posted by Guest

You lead the charge. I'm right behind you. Oh I thought so. You ever seen a war up close and personal or did you send someone else's kids to die for you?

Originally Posted by Guest

What possible interest would Iran have in using nuclear weapons against the US with the 100% certainty that if they did, in 15 minutes Iran would be a smoldering uninhabitable wasteland for the next century.

If "a nuke" detonated today in NYC you're saying we would annihilate Iran within 15 minutes?

Originally Posted by Guest

Ok, I have thought about it. Why do you believe that Iran is going to use nuclear weapons against us? The same thing was said about USSR. The same thing was said about North Korea, a far crazier government than anything in Iran, the same was said about Pakistan, a very severe Islamic state, far more so than Iran which is actually very westernized.

Perhaps these countries simply believe as we do that deterrence is the best defense or as it was called MAD. Iran certainly faces a nuclear threat from Israel, a country which has already shown its willingness to strike first when it feels its safety is endangered. If Iran had the bomb, would it be to protect it from Israel or to use it on us. What possible interest would Iran have in using nuclear weapons against the US with the 100% certainty that if they did, in 15 minutes Iran would be a smoldering uninhabitable wasteland for the next century.

It is the starting point of where we cannot reach the same conclusions that we don't start with the same assumptions. I believe that the US is a wonderful but not perfect country. I believe that it has been wrong in many of its international adventures and tends to think it should project its military might to get other countries to cower. I believe that might does not make right, in fact just the opposite. Like Gandhi and King and Mother Teresa, America can achieve its long term goals by showing some humility, by admitting our flaws, by being clear in our objectives for a better world. Sadly you don't understand liberalism at all if you believe what you have typed. And that you would reduce it to gender neutral bathrooms suggests you need to somehow stop thinking about sex all the time. Liberals don't think America is rotten. We do tend to believe that racism is rotten, that sexism is rotten, that homophobia is rotten, that segregation was rotten, that letting children starve is rotten, that denying health care is rotten, that Columbine and Oklahoma City and 911 were all rotten. But no liberal that I know believes that America is rotten and it is very sad that you are so unable to see that. Most liberals I know would not make such conclusions about conservatives.

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?

You lead the charge. I'm right behind you. Oh I thought so. You ever seen a war up close and personal or did you send someone else's kids to die for you?

Originally Posted by Guest

Originally Posted by Guest

Yes, I have see war up close and personal, and have the Combat Action Ribbon amongst others. But, a better question for you is ... why do you think weakness in the face of an obvious threat will lead to peace??

History is replete with examples and lessons... the gist of which is, the best way to avoid war is to deter an enemy, not appease him.

Why is that so difficult for you to see that? The irony is you are the true warmonger, not me.

Repeated for your benefit