Newt on Iran

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3356103,00.html

 

"Three nuclear weapons are a second Holocaust," Gingrich declared, adding: "People are greatly underestimating how dangerous the world is becoming. I'll repeat it, three nuclear weapons are a second Holocaust. Our enemies are quite explicit in their desire to destroy us. They say it publicly? We are sleepwalking through this process as though it's only a problem of communication," Gingrich said.

 

The former House speaker expressed concern that the Israeli and American political establishments were not fully equipped to take stock of the current threat level.

 

"Our enemies are fully as determined as Nazi Germany, and more determined that the Soviets. Our enemies will kill us the first chance they get. There is no rational ability to deny that fact. It's very clear that the problems are larger and more immediate than the political systems in Israel or the US are currently capable of dealing with," said Gingrich.

 

I couldn't agree more. I have no idea what would happen after such a strike, but I do know that I distrust the governments ability to handle it. Especially now with Congress and the President at odds with policy, I can't imagine how decisions would be made in a timely fashion.

[Texsox]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3356103,00.html

 

 

 

I couldn't agree more. I have no idea what would happen after such a strike, but I do know that I distrust the governments ability to handle it. Especially now with Congress and the President at odds with policy, I can't imagine how decisions would be made in a timely fashion.

Decisions do not have to be made by committee. The President has absolute authority to act. But if you are still concerned, be certain to vote for the Dem candidate in '08

[Jenksismyhero]

Decisions do not have to be made by committee. The President has absolute authority to act. But if you are still concerned, be certain to vote for the Dem candidate in '08

 

lol, never!

 

I would vote for Newt though. Ive seen him speak on multiple occasions. Very engaging guy, great speaker, and honestly, I like his way of thinking about issues. You don't hear him sugarcoat things and say the obvious political statements, which admittedly could be because there were no cameras, but still. It was refreshing to hear a politician talk about current events and policy debates without resorting to the typical answers.

[Damen]

Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and is years away. There is a long road ahead filled with plenty of opportunities to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. But even if they do, Israel has plenty of their own nukes to respond.

 

I don't see why we need to keep fighting preventative wars for Israel on the far-off, what-if chance that a country decides to ensure its own destruction by launching a nuclear war with the two most heavily armed countries in the world.

[Jenksismyhero]

Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and is years away. There is a long road ahead filled with plenty of opportunities to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. But even if they do, Israel has plenty of their own nukes to respond.

 

I don't see why we need to keep fighting preventative wars for Israel on the far-off, what-if chance that a country decides to ensure its own destruction by launching a nuclear war with the two most heavily armed countries in the world.

 

I don't think his point is that we (or they) will be attacked tomorrow. I think he's saying that even if it's a few years away we aren't ready for it, nor are they.

 

We can keep laughing at the notion of fighting preventative wars, until something happens, then we'll all wonder why we didn't do anything to stop it. It's not like we have zero basis to go on with Iran. It seems daily the nut-job leader they have is calling for the destruction of Israel and the US.

 

Anyone catch the BBC coverage of the State of the Union? They essentially criticized Bush for speaking badly about Iran (always referring to it as a 'regime' instead of a governmnet). It cracks me up that this guy does nothing but spew hatred and violence and destruction and murder of millions of people and no one says anything, but god forbid Bush doesn't pay respect for his political system.

[southsider2k5]

Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and is years away. There is a long road ahead filled with plenty of opportunities to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. But even if they do, Israel has plenty of their own nukes to respond.

I don't see why we need to keep fighting preventative wars for Israel on the far-off, what-if chance that a country decides to ensure its own destruction by launching a nuclear war with the two most heavily armed countries in the world.

 

Respond to what? It'll take two, maybe three decent tacticle nuclear strikes to destroy all of Israel for eons. We can respond all we want after the fact, it won't change the fact that the largest genocide in our planet's history will probably have just taken place.

 

Let me put it to you this way. Say that you and I have been fighting as long as we have known each other. We have gotten into fist fights and everything along the way, and I have said on more than one occasion that I would kill you if I got the chance. We get into yet another arguement, and I tell you that I am going to get a gun so that I can kill you and your entire family, are you going to do nothing about it, because it is a just a "what-if chance"? I don't buy that for a second.

[Chisoxfn]

lol, never!

 

I would vote for Newt though. Ive seen him speak on multiple occasions. Very engaging guy, great speaker, and honestly, I like his way of thinking about issues. You don't hear him sugarcoat things and say the obvious political statements, which admittedly could be because there were no cameras, but still. It was refreshing to hear a politician talk about current events and policy debates without resorting to the typical answers.

Newt would make an outstanding president. The guy is a political genius and I don't think there is a politician out there that I agree with more than Newt. Newt is also a guy that knows his history and has a great understanding of the past so that we will learn from mistakes and successes we made in that past.

 

He'd never get elected but he'd make a tremendous president.

[KipWellsFan]

Of course he wasn't knowledgeable enough about security to know that the 9/11 attackers didn't come through Canada.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2005/04/21/g...enna050421.html

[Damen]

Respond to what? It'll take two, maybe three decent tacticle nuclear strikes to destroy all of Israel for eons. We can respond all we want after the fact, it won't change the fact that the largest genocide in our planet's history will probably have just taken place.

 

Let me put it to you this way. Say that you and I have been fighting as long as we have known each other. We have gotten into fist fights and everything along the way, and I have said on more than one occasion that I would kill you if I got the chance. We get into yet another arguement, and I tell you that I am going to get a gun so that I can kill you and your entire family, are you going to do nothing about it, because it is a just a "what-if chance"? I don't buy that for a second.

 

And Iran is decades away from destroying Israel so quickly that Israel can't even muster a response. But even if that were the case, then they would face destruction from the rest of the world.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Damen

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

But even if that were the case, then they would face destruction from the rest of the world.

 

 

This is where the problem lies. The current islamofascist regime in Iran doesn't care a whit if they are destroyed after the fact. Their single overriding priority in life is the destruction of Isreal. This is not a rational enemy like the Soviets were.

[Balta1701]

This is where the problem lies. The current islamofascist regime in Iran doesn't care a whit if they are destroyed after the fact. Their single overriding priority in life is the destruction of Isreal. This is not a rational enemy like the Soviets were.

Can you provide us any concrete evidence of actual actions by the Iranian government which suggest that this is the case? They have massively advanced their political position in the Middle East by almost every one of their actions, from support for Hezbollah to their nuclear efforts, and have done so while the strategic positions of both the U.S. and Israel have turned dramatically worse with limited harm coming to the position of their regime.

 

It looks to me like Iran has behaved as a vastly more cunning state-actor than the U.S. has in that region; the U.S. has removed 2 of the 3 potential threats to Iran and bogged itself down in a bloody civil war while Iran's strategic position has skyrocketed (along with oil profits)

 

Can you point to me some evidence of the Iranian state actually acting as a rogue, non-rational nation willing to give up its own power and wealth to move against Israel?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Can you point to me some evidence of the Iranian state actually acting as a rogue, non-rational nation willing to give up its own power and wealth to move against Israel?

 

 

Is it not enough for Ameninawhosits to call for Isreal to be wiped out? Is it not enough for them to back up such threats by developing nuclear weapons? The only reason it hasn't moved on Isreal yet is because they dont have the nukes to do it with. If and when they are allowed to get this capability you can bet your ass they will attack.

 

Meanwhile they are busying themselves by arming, equiping and advising Iraqi insurgents.

[Damen]

Is it not enough for Ameninawhosits to call for Isreal to be wiped out? Is it not enough for them to back up such threats by developing nuclear weapons? The only reason it hasn't moved on Isreal yet is because they dont have the nukes to do it with. If and when they are allowed to get this capability you can bet your ass they will attack.

 

Meanwhile they are busying themselves by arming, equiping and advising Iraqi insurgents.

 

No, it's not. It's far more likely that its political posturing. I find it interesting when Ahminajad writes a letter to Bush, everyone assumes its pointless to take him serious, becuase its just posturing. But when he makes that statement, then there's no possible explanation for it other than he's willing to risk his power and his country to destroy Israel.

 

Its funny how it works. If its a statement that can justify another preventive invasion, we must take it at face value, and nothing else. If its anything else, we can laugh it off, because he's so cwazy.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

No, it's not. It's far more likely that its political posturing. I find it interesting when Ahminajad writes a letter to Bush, everyone assumes its pointless to take him serious, becuase its just posturing. But when he makes that statement, then there's no possible explanation for it other than he's willing to risk his power and his country to destroy Israel.

 

Its funny how it works. If its a statement that can justify another preventive invasion, we must take it at face value, and nothing else. If its anything else, we can laugh it off, because he's so cwazy.

 

How can you write off his aggressive statements about Isreal so easily when he is developing nuclear weapons? That is just incredibly naive. It fits together nicely, his MO does. You have a disingenuous attempt at diplomacy to give ammunition to appeasers and leftists who argue against stern action. Meanwhile he is charging ahead with his crash nuclear weapons program and nothing is being done to stop it. In a few years, barring anything being done about it, these guys will have atomic weapons and when that happens things will be an order of magnitude more ugly in the Middle East.

[Damen]

How can you write off his aggressive statements about Isreal so easily when he is developing nuclear weapons? That is just incredibly naive. It fits together nicely, his MO does. You have a disingenuous attempt at diplomacy to give ammunition to appeasers and leftists who argue against stern action. Meanwhile he is charging ahead with his crash nuclear weapons program and nothing is being done to stop it. In a few years, barring anything being done about it, these guys will have atomic weapons and when that happens things will be an order of magnitude more ugly in the Middle East.

 

I'm not writing it off, I'm just noting the irony in how we'll approach his statements to prepare ourselves to invade another country. And it starts by convincing ourselves that there's no other motive for attempting to gain nuclear weapons other than to destroy their country by using them against Israel.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I'm not writing it off, I'm just noting the irony in how we'll approach his statements to prepare ourselves to invade another country. And it starts by convincing ourselves that there's no other motive for attempting to gain nuclear weapons other than to destroy their country by using them against Israel.

 

 

First of all I dont believe an invasion of Iran is in the offing, a massive bombing raid to destroy their nuclear capability perhaps but not a ground invasion.

 

What other use would a country like Iran have for nukes? It has no neighbors which are now capable of striking it, it has no major enemies at all except for the United States and the only reason we're their enemies is because of their own activities ( these include decades of sponsoring and providing direct aid and support for terrorism and the aforementioned nuclear weapons program ).

 

The blind obsession with destroying Isreal is all that matters to the Islamofascist movement. They will stop at nothing to destroy it and they could care less if they are also destroyed in the bargain. To them its the fullfillment of the apocalypse.

 

Last month Ahmadinejad said publicly that the main mission of the Islamic Revolution is to pave the way for the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5121501428.html

 

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/060523a.aspx

 

 

Hell, even average IRANIANS are terrified of what this man is capable of.

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006030123,00.html

 

This is what we will be faced with if no concrete action is taken. We will be faced with a madman, who is all about creating the apocalypse, with his itchy trigger finger poised on a nuclear button.

 

I also find it highly ironic that while leftists and appeasers the world over commonly refer to Bush as a fascist or a Hitler type character, it's this loony tune Amenenawhosits who has taken a far more hitleresque track to power. He rides into office in an impoverished nation promising to make life better for everyone, then promptly ratchets up the repression, eliminates remaining voices of dissent through terror and puts the world on a path toward a truly catastrophic war.

Edited January 29, 2007 by NUKE

[Rex Kickass]

Iran wants nuclear weapons because it wants to be a regional power. Important to a country with limited resources - because regional influence can get you a lot of economic benefits down the road. It also wants to be able to pursue its own agenda without other states' influence and pressure. Nuclear weapons do, to a large degree, ensure that this can happen.

 

It also most likely views nuclear weapons as a tool to get to the table. The US refused to negotiate with North Korea since 2001. Not even talk to them. That would be "nuclear blackmail." Might have been but our option was to let them go nuclear. And now our position in the region is compromised. We're now forced to deal with the North Korean state in terms more favorable to North Korea than we would like. Iran sees this and is acting upon it. Iran's President may be a hot head, but the folks that actually run the country are not. You don't stay in power with an incredibly oppressive regime for nearly 30 years by doing stupid things like invite nuclear oblivion on your state - no matter what you say you believe.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Iran wants nuclear weapons because it wants to be a regional power. Important to a country with limited resources - because regional influence can get you a lot of economic benefits down the road. It also wants to be able to pursue its own agenda without other states' influence and pressure. Nuclear weapons do, to a large degree, ensure that this can happen.

 

It also most likely views nuclear weapons as a tool to get to the table. The US refused to negotiate with North Korea since 2001. Not even talk to them. That would be "nuclear blackmail." Might have been but our option was to let them go nuclear. And now our position in the region is compromised. We're now forced to deal with the North Korean state in terms more favorable to North Korea than we would like. Iran sees this and is acting upon it. Iran's President may be a hot head, but the folks that actually run the country are not. You don't stay in power with an incredibly oppressive regime for nearly 30 years by doing stupid things like invite nuclear oblivion on your state - no matter what you say you believe.

 

 

Yeah, like negotiating with the North Koreans worked SOOOOOOOO well huh?

 

 

/rolly

[Jenksismyhero]

Don't worry guys!

 

The UN will stop him with 5,000 resolutions that will never be backed with anything but words.

 

I feel safe knowing that we're bombing him with paper and ink. You should too.

[Damen]

Yeah, like negotiating with the North Koreans worked SOOOOOOOO well huh?

/rolly

 

Can you be in the military and still use sarcasm like a 13 year old girl?

[Rex Kickass]

Yeah, like negotiating with the North Koreans worked SOOOOOOOO well huh?

/rolly

 

Actually we didn't negotiate. We shut them out. Then they made nukes. Now we'll talk again. Notice a pattern here?

[Balta1701]

What other use would a country like Iran have for nukes? It has no neighbors which are now capable of striking it, it has no major enemies at all except for the United States and the only reason we're their enemies is because of their own activities.

Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and was essentially dismantled by the U.N. sanctions and inspection regimes. It's military was in shambles, all the money it had was going to Saddam, and it was in no condition to defend itself. The U.S. invaded Iraq.

 

North Korea actually had an active nuclear program, and admitted it publically in the fall of 2002. In early 2003 the U.S. detected the atmospheric signatures of the North Koreans reprocessing their fuel rods to access the plutonium for a bomb. The U.S. invaded Iraq.

 

I don't know, if I'm Iran, I take the message from this series of events that if I want to be safe from the Americans, who have repeatedly threatened the existence of my government, I sure don't want to be the country America thinks it can invade.

[kapkomet]

Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and was essentially dismantled by the U.N. sanctions and inspection regimes. It's military was in shambles, all the money it had was going to Saddam, and it was in no condition to defend itself. The U.S. invaded Iraq.

 

North Korea actually had an active nuclear program, and admitted it publically in the fall of 2002. In early 2003 the U.S. detected the atmospheric signatures of the North Koreans reprocessing their fuel rods to access the plutonium for a bomb. The U.S. invaded Iraq.

 

I don't know, if I'm Iran, I take the message from this series of events that if I want to be safe from the Americans, who have repeatedly threatened the existence of my government, I sure don't want to be the country America thinks it can invade.

The difference is, we are talking about their exisitance of the GOVERNMENT, while they are talking about the existance of a NATION. BIG difference.

[Texsox]

The difference is, we are talking about their exisitance of the GOVERNMENT, while they are talking about the existance of a NATION. BIG difference.

 

existence?

 

How is it different? Either way people die, regimes change. Perhaps in one case you get to put a cool new name on the country.

 

Nukes are a nice way to say, stay the f*** out of my way and off my doorstep you capitalistic pigs.

[Rex Kickass]

The difference is, we are talking about their exisitance of the GOVERNMENT, while they are talking about the existance of a NATION. BIG difference.

 

If YOU are the Government, it's not a BIG difference to YOU.