Iran captures US Drone

usamamasan1

Please, read the posting guidelines or risk being reported.

Discuss the topic or move on. Trolling is not ok.

Byrnzie

usamamasan1 wrote:

I think Obama should have taken one of his multiple options to destroy the downed drone so it did not get in enemy hands. Either have an air strike or commandos do it. He chose not to because he thought that might be perceived as an "act of war" but, like I said, we are already at war...most people just don't know it yet.

So, big mistake on obamas part NOT immediately destroying our sensitive drone that we as USA folks paid for.

Oh well, what do you expect from a President who apologizes for America being awesome....

I get the impression you'll only be satisfied if Dr. Strangelove becomes President.

Byrnzie

usamamasan1 wrote:

Please, read the posting guidelines or risk being reported.

Discuss the topic or move on. Trolling is not ok.

:shh: This one became boring a long time ago.

You'd never make it as a stand-up comic. Don't give up the day job.

mikepegg44

What is the problem with Iran having Nuclear weapons?

Israel has them, Pakistan has them, India has them, Russia has them...

I think a nuclear weapon is the only truly defensive weapon out there. It is a deterrent to attack. The US need not be worried about Iran having a nuclear bomb, they should be working with them to ensure that mad men don't get them. One state will never attack another with a nuclear weapon, especially one with nuclear weapons. All we should ever do is work with people to ensure that no one gets one into the hands of terrorists who will truly try to use one(although I would contend that this won't happen either)...in the end no one wants the destruction of the earth, and that is what Nuclear weapons would bring...some in terrorist organizations blow themselves up, but the leaders do not want to die and if nuclear war started they most certainly would.

There is still evidence from Nagasaki and Hiroshima that show what a bomb can do, and I don't think any country is ready to have that done to themselves...or we can listen to terrifying Government reports about yellow cake and go to war with a country that will have a revolution soon enough.

Jason P

mikepegg44 wrote:

What is the problem with Iran having Nuclear weapons?

They have a Supreme Leader who makes decisions based on a religious ideology.

And it's not a question of a country using a nuclear weapon. It's more important on how good their security measures are and how reckless the groups are that they associate with.

mikepegg44

Jason P wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

What is the problem with Iran having Nuclear weapons?

They have a Supreme Leader who makes decisions based on a religious ideology.

And it's not a question of a country using a nuclear weapon. It's more important on how good their security measures are and how reckless the groups are that they associate with.

I see that, but that supreme leader does not want to die. If he wanted to be reckless they already would be. Some would argue they are, but degree of recklessness may be subjective.

I understand the fear of it, I just think that if we embraced it, worked with them on their nuclear programs, you know...like we did in 1950's...we could build a new relationship up that could possibly get rid of the tension. We need to get past telling people how to live and start working with people as they are...less tension = less worry of nuclear proliferation. As much as I don't want to see that occur, I am not afraid of Iran having them any more than I am of Pakistan, India, or Russia having them.

Jason P

mikepegg44 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

They have a Supreme Leader who makes decisions based on a religious ideology.

And it's not a question of a country using a nuclear weapon. It's more important on how good their security measures are and how reckless the groups are that they associate with.

I see that, but that supreme leader does not want to die. If he wanted to be reckless they already would be. Some would argue they are, but degree of recklessness may be subjective.

I understand the fear of it, I just think that if we embraced it, worked with them on their nuclear programs, you know...like we did in 1950's...we could build a new relationship up that could possibly get rid of the tension. We need to get past telling people how to live and start working with people as they are...less tension = less worry of nuclear proliferation. As much as I don't want to see that occur, I am not afraid of Iran having them any more than I am of Pakistan, India, or Russia having them.

His fear of death depends on how strongly the Supreme Leader believes the message that he uses to control the general population. If he does fear death, then he is a liar that controls by deceit.

I'm concerned with all the countries you listed above. I'm most concerned with Russia because they have the most nukes and are run by a combination of the KGB and the mafia (that is until a NBA owner takes over :crazy: ). Pakistan poses a risk because our relationship is deteriorating and Pakistan helped the Taliban out initially. To say there are people in high ranking positions that lack sound judgement is an understatement.

And last but least, I'm in favor of complete nuclear disarming ... a pipe dream of course ... but the last thing we need is more countries joining the fray. Especially ones that celebrate "Death to America" day.

mikepegg44

Jason P wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

They have a Supreme Leader who makes decisions based on a religious ideology.

And it's not a question of a country using a nuclear weapon. It's more important on how good their security measures are and how reckless the groups are that they associate with.

I see that, but that supreme leader does not want to die. If he wanted to be reckless they already would be. Some would argue they are, but degree of recklessness may be subjective.

I understand the fear of it, I just think that if we embraced it, worked with them on their nuclear programs, you know...like we did in 1950's...we could build a new relationship up that could possibly get rid of the tension. We need to get past telling people how to live and start working with people as they are...less tension = less worry of nuclear proliferation. As much as I don't want to see that occur, I am not afraid of Iran having them any more than I am of Pakistan, India, or Russia having them.

His fear of death depends on how strongly the Supreme Leader believes the message that he uses to control the general population. If he does fear death, then he is a liar that controls by deceit.

I'm concerned with all the countries you listed above. I'm most concerned with Russia because they have the most nukes and are run by a combination of the KGB and the mafia (that is until a NBA owner takes over :crazy: ). Pakistan poses a risk because our relationship is deteriorating and Pakistan helped the Taliban out initially. To say there are people in high ranking positions that lack sound judgement is an understatement.

And last but least, I'm in favor of complete nuclear disarming ... a pipe dream of course ... but the last thing we need is more countries joining the fray. Especially ones that celebrate "Death to America" day.

sounds about right.

whether we all have them or none of us do...it isn't are responsibility to police the world. If we bring home our troops and use them to DEFEND our nation I dare say no one would try to attack us.

Byrnzie

Jason P wrote:

They have a Supreme Leader who makes decisions based on a religious ideology.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'

President told Palestinians God also talked to him about Middle East peace

Ewen MacAskill
The Guardian, Thursday 6 October 2005



Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

Mr Bush, who became a born-again Christian at 40, is one of the most overtly religious leaders to occupy the White House, a fact which brings him much support in middle America...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 68512.html

Blair: 'God will be my judge on Iraq'
By Andy McSmith

Saturday 04 March 2006


Tony Blair has proclaimed that God will judge whether he was right to send British troops to Iraq, echoing statements from his ally George Bush.

Contradicting warnings from advisers not to mix politics and religion, the Prime Minister said that his interest in politics sprang from his Christianity and its "values and philosophy" had guided him in public life.

Explaining how he managed to live with the decision to go to war in Iraq, Mr Blair replied: "If you have faith about these things then you realise that judgement is made by other people. If you believe in God,it's made by God as well." His remarks, made in an interview to be shown on ITV's Parkinson show tonight, invite comparison with President Bush, a born-again Christian, who has made a virtue of bringing religion into politics. But they also carry the risk of inflaming opinion in the Arab world, where the term "crusader" is commonly used to condemn Christian leaders who meddle in the Middle East.

catefrances

oh byrnzie you know 'we' use 'our' God for good and they... ummm....dont. *shrugs*