Bush planning to use nukes against Iran - Page 3

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Bush planning to use nukes against Iran (Page 3 of 3)

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:33:49 PM EDT

[#1]

Lincoln was a third party candidate, when things get too far out of line the political landscape shifts.

But lets ignore the third party discussion for a moment and concentrate on the real heart of the matter, who can win in '08?

And don't fall for that conservative wet dream " we can beat Hillary" either, because it doesn't matter, she won't be nominated.

Who do we have that can beat Joe Biden? A neoconservative isn't going to do it, too many of us are fed up with them, McCain can't do it, and it wouldn't be a victory if he did, so who?

Ron Paul really is the only choice, you go another direction and the GOP is going to get stomped on, a third party will become established as a voting block significant enough that they can swing presidential elections, and the GOP becomes an irrelevent minority party again.

Republicans are fractured because our president has been a horrible disappointment, that's his legacy. You can whine about the media and the voters and whatever but the bottom line is he's destroyed the parties credibility and set back the conservative movement at the time when we can least afford it.

After november the democrats win the house and senate expect impeachment of Bush. 2008 your going to have frist and mcain up against feingold and gore and edwards Hillary will drop early
feingold gore and edwards will win against frist or mcain.

Time to start petitioning Ron Paul again. He is the only option that is viable. But you need to get the word out.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:34:57 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

The only good third party candidate is the one that skims votes off of your opponent.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner!

-Most accurate thing I've read all day

The system being what it is, giving your vote to 3rd party candidate is almost as good as voting for the other guy. Sucks but hey, that's life. Not always fair, bite the bullet and dow hat you can IMO.

While I agree with it, I didnt say it. You got the qoutes messed up.

Sorry, DigDug gets cred for that one, and why we're at it, I believe it is quote, not qoute.
JK, couldn't resist

Work with me dude, I'm tired and have been drinking and wining and dining all day at a BBQ.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:35:56 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Roosevelt.

As I said, third party candidates get the other major party elected. Did you not see me post that already? Woodrow Wilson won the election...

Better read a bit more about that election Mr. Political so you can actually understand exactly how it played out and what happened.

That said, what you said is indeed right. The party fragmented and we lost.
What your missing here is the underlying reasons. Sure, you can get in the car and drive it, doesnt mean you know how the engine works.

Well, your driving politics but you surely dont understand it.

So in other words, Roosevelt didn't work within the party and screwed the pooch for everyone. How exactly is this being successful at politics? The idea is to WIN elections and hold power. Third parties do nothing but get the other guy elected. You've already agreed with me on this point, so I thank you.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:36:30 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Because I dont like how Bush is doing I'm definately a Democrat.

Of course not. A person could not support President Bush and not be a leftard. You, however, just launched off with an attack that could easily be from DU.

Stop crying about it; people are just pointing out your own words.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:36:31 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
The more time that goes by the more I think Bush is a raving fucking lunatic who is not fit to be a President.

Think about that for a sec. What kinda of man (person) would want to run the most powerful nation in history?

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:38:30 PM EDT

[#6]

Going to bed now. It's been nice arguing with you this evening.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:39:34 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Total leftist Bullshit!

Every fucking country in the Middle East, except Israel, was behind 9-11. Some nations played greater roles than others, but I didn't see a damned one of their leaders, especially Sadam Hussien, condemn the attacks.

Ya never know.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:40:36 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Roosevelt.

As I said, third party candidates get the other major party elected. Did you not see me post that already? Woodrow Wilson won the election...

Better read a bit more about that election Mr. Political so you can actually understand exactly how it played out and what happened.

That said, what you said is indeed right. The party fragmented and we lost.
What your missing here is the underlying reasons. Sure, you can get in the car and drive it, doesnt mean you know how the engine works.

Well, your driving politics but you surely dont understand it.

So in other words, Roosevelt didn't work within the party and screwed the pooch for everyone. How exactly is this being successful at politics? The idea is to WIN elections and hold power. Third parties do nothing but get the other guy elected. You've already agreed with me on this point, so I thank you.

Right, at face value what you say is 100% true, I wont argue that.
You need to look deeper.
TR beat Taft in the election, but due to the split in the party the Republicans lost (So did the third party as well, but thats a given).

My point is this. Roosevelt was backed by more people then Taft. Roosevelt shared Republican beliefs even if he wasnt a "Republican".
Well why the fuck didnt the Republican party back TR?! He WAS a Republican, he was MORE supported then Taft! If the R party had backed Tr he most likely would have won.
But, rather then back ANY other third party candidate the 2 major parties will put up a less popular candidate and face certain defeat. They will do anything to maintain the status quo, even if it means losing.

How ridiculous is that? Rather then back a candidate who is a Republican in everything but name and who is more popular they will lose.

Which brings me back to my point of the 2 major powers leading the sheep around by the nose, and doing whatever they can to make sure NO third party candidate has a snowballs chance in hell.

Maintain the status quo, thats ALL the 2 main parties care about. And they keep feeding mind numbing propoganda bullshit to the stupid masses to make sure that will never change.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:41:24 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Going to bed now. It's been nice arguing with you this evening.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:43:14 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The more time that goes by the more I think Bush is a raving fucking lunatic who is not fit to be a President.

+1. Sorriest excuse for a president ever. His arrogance is exceeded only by his incompetence.

I think DU has suffered another containment breach.

Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound? Apparently not.

Some people are just irredeemably stupid. And that's all I have to say. I have better things to do than argue with ideologues who have no contact with reality.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:44:22 PM EDT

[#11]

For all those here who are bashing bush based on his near open borders policy and then try and pump the libertarian party, maybe you should actually LOOK at the parties platform?

www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml

"The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of allowing free and open immigration, understanding that this leads to a growing and more prosperous America."

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:48:21 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

I think DU has suffered another containment breach.

Agreed.

Posted: 4/8/2006 8:02:39 PM EDT

[#13]

Wow, Classic DU trollery is running strong in this thread.

Posted: 4/8/2006 8:12:05 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound? Apparently not.

Some people are just irredeemably stupid. And that's all I have to say. I have better things to do than argue with ideologues who have no contact with reality.

Not mearly as stupid as some of the comments that have been made about the President in this thread.

I'm not the one waxing eloquent on third parties and standing up for principle despite the consequences.

Idealogues, indeed.

Posted: 4/8/2006 8:24:53 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Only because we make it a 2 party thing! Remember Perot? He wasnt "Option A or Option B". What about the Libertarian Party? The Green Party? How many other parties are there?

Lets be honest, how many here would rather see the Libertarian party in power as opposed to the current President? I know I for damn sure would!

Yeah, and I'd like to see Reagan resurrected and installed as President for Life. Sadly, however, reality gets in the way.

I'll agree with you that the current GOP leadership is hardly Conservative enough. They have failed to govern and we've already agreed on the border. That said, they are still better than the only other viable alternative.

In order for a thrid party (ANY third party) to become powerful would require that a) the two existing parties allow it (fat chance), and a political upheaval which, IMO, we're not ready for.

I sincerely, and with a bad taste in my mouth, believe that the only hope we have is to get the GOP back on track. Short of that, we will have to put up with a generation of liberal rule while the thrid-party alternative gathers enough strength to be able to win.

Keep dreaming of them, "getting back on track."

It will not happen untill they get smacked down by the voters.

All you guys who hold your nose and vote Rep no matter what, and I say having been one of them, are bad authority figures. It is just like bad parenting. It is like the parent you see in the store saying, "put that down, don't do that, if you do that one more time I'l....(fill in the blank)," then they do nothing. They do not follow through. Politicians are your children, we literally brought them into the world of politics, but we are affraid to take them out because of the alternative. The only way they will learn is to get thrown out on their ear.

Posted: 4/8/2006 8:33:54 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Keep dreaming of them, "getting back on track."

It will not happen untill they get smacked down by the voters.

Yep.

Too bad that entails ending up with the likes of Hillary, Kennedy, Schumer, Boxer, and Durbin in power.

Sleep well.

Posted: 4/8/2006 8:41:28 PM EDT

[#17]

It just sounds like to me that they are already trying to make Bush look like some renegade who is going against the wishes of his own damn Generals. Like his will is going to be done regardless of what a group of more knowlegeable people have to say on the subject.

If we NUKE ANYONE...and anyone thinks Bush made the call all on his own...they are the FOOL!!!

Posted: 4/8/2006 9:15:36 PM EDT

[#18]

Wow, this thread descended into the sewer immediately. Damn.

Let's assume this article isn't some dickhead blowing smoke up everyone's ass. Hypothetically.

Maybe it is a disinformation campaign. Perhaps GWB is simply attempting to convince the Iranians that we are getting ready to nuke the bastards. In order to do so he is convincing his own cabinet that he is considering that option. Pure genious if true, esp if it works.
I thought his old man was going to be one of our greatest Presidents. He turned out to be something of a tool but he is a foreign policy genius and his son seems to be made from the same mold.

And if he does nuke them?
Well, no great loss as far as I am concerned. Everyone of those fucking ME nations has been really asking for it for a long time. Way overdue.
On top of that the Socialists will about have a stroke. No loss there either. Fuck 'em.

Posted: 4/8/2006 9:23:55 PM EDT

[#19]

Wouldnt it have been smarter to attack afghanistan. Leave Iraq Alone. Leave the nuclear optionon the table. And If the Dumbfucks make the wrong move Turn there soil into glass? All you had to do was expend some ballistic armament when the wind is blowing west in Iran. Now we got troops in Iraq, No iraqi army that would stand by us. We attack Iran No matter what are troops in Iraq are set up for the slaughter.

If we had stayed out of Iraq, we could nuke the hell out of them and they wouldnt of had a target to retaliate against.

Nuke
Nuke again
Nuke
No more problem
Now we got our own guys over there as Human sheilds for the Iranians

Posted: 4/8/2006 9:26:25 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
I thought his old man was going to be one of our greatest Presidents. He turned out to be something of a tool but he is a foreign policy genius and his son seems to be made from the same mold.

And if he does nuke them?
Well, no great loss as far as I am concerned. Everyone of those fucking ME nations has been really asking for it for a long time. Way overdue.
On top of that the Socialists will about have a stroke. No loss there either. Fuck 'em.

Preach it, shipmate!

Posted: 4/8/2006 9:39:36 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
The nuclear option is always on the table. Always.

+1
Anyone who came up with a war plan that did not include nukes (and chem / bio) is a fool. We have had a nuke option in EVERY battle plan since 1945. Before that every battle plan included strategic carpet bombing.
One of the newer deep penetrator casings with a B61 physics package would make quick work of Irans deeply buried nuke sites.

Posted: 4/8/2006 9:40:36 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Wouldnt it have been smarter to attack afghanistan.
...
Now we got our own guys over there as Human sheilds for the Iranians

The flaw in your thinking (well, one of many flaws) is that Afghanistan also borders Iran, and would presumably also be a 'human shield' target in your twisted view of the world.

Posted: 4/8/2006 10:15:32 PM EDT

[#23]

I'll second the motion that this be quoted.

I remember a lot of morons spewing similar notions about Clinton's presidency.

Quoted:
Quoted:
I dont think there will be a 2008 presidential election. We will ahve a terrorist WMD attack which cannnot be proved of origin but will be blamed on Iran. We will nuke the shit out of them, and martial law will be declared.

Quoted, so that you can't edit away your stupidity.

Posted: 4/8/2006 11:37:12 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Bush 'is planning nuclear strikes on Iran's secret sites'

Good!

I agree -- but I wonder what the repercussions will be.

Posted: 4/8/2006 11:57:42 PM EDT

[#25]

No need to nuke the bunkers themselves.
Just destroy the entrances.
What happens in the bunker, STAYS in the bunker.

Forever.

Posted: 4/9/2006 12:02:17 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Anyone that takes a Seymour Hersh-inspired article at face value has serious problems.

+1

He produces sensational stories that elicit vigorous denials from the people he writes about, usually powerful Washington figures. At first blush, this makes it look like Hersh's story must have struck a little too close for comfort. But in the end? Nothing comes of the bombs Hersh throws, and the vigorous denials sprang from the fact Hersh's stories are a pack of lies. He made his bones with breaking the My Lai massacre way back in the stone age, and has been trying to make lightning strike twice since.

Besides, the DoD plans for EVERYTHING. They have drawn plans to invade Canada, for Christ's sake. No shit they have plans in place to hit Iran. Who is shocked or surprised about that? The readers of the New Yorker, apparently.

Posted: 4/9/2006 12:25:08 AM EDT

[#27]

Holy fucking batshit will you fucking people PLEASE learn the difference between "your" and "you're" already? It REALLY isn't that damn difficult.

I cannot fucking believe how bad the spelling is on this board sometimes. Damn.

Posted: 4/9/2006 2:21:50 AM EDT

[#28]

I'm going to wager that the vast majority (not EVERYONE, mind you) of people that are in favor of nuking, invading, and occupying Iran are not, have not been, and will not be, in the military.

Regardless of what the internet commandos think, totally eliminating the Iranian threat would be no cakewalk. It would be IraqX3.

And then where would we be?

Hundreds of thousands of outstanding Americans in the armpit of the world building town halls and McDonalds while hordes of illegal immigrants swarm across our border and turn our country into the armpit of the world....

Posted: 4/9/2006 2:34:54 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
I'm going to wager that the vast majority (not EVERYONE, mind you) of people that are in favor of nuking, invading, and occupying Iran are not, have not been, and will not be, in the military.

I am going to wager that you are not actually a 'Special Operator'. Not to mention, I don't think that anyone is in favor of nuking then invading; it's pretty much one or the other.

Posted: 4/9/2006 3:28:28 AM EDT

[#30]

OMFG..........Bush is going to kill us.

Posted: 4/9/2006 5:22:16 AM EDT

[#31]

No need to nuke the bunkers themselves.
Just destroy the entrances.
What happens in the bunker, STAYS in the bunker.

Forever.

Just like vegas!

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Bush planning to use nukes against Iran (Page 3 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us