Trump's pyrrhic victory: The US opts for path that can only lead to war

[iceberg]

Trump’s Pyrrhic Victory: the US Opts for a Path That Can Only Lead to War

Brilliant article and 100% right.

Lol, you stupid fuckers said he was going to start a war with North Korea. What happened to that? You idiots should shut up, you’ve never been right about anything.

After accelerating their program because of Trump’s actions, NK accidentally blew up that program. Do you think the same thing will happen in Iran? Or will the neocons Trump has surrounded himself with finally get a new war?

Trump will get them to the table, he will hammer out a deal that will actually work. Watch and learn.

He's going to negotiate with terrorists?

didn't obama spend 8 years telling us they weren't?

and if talking to them is bad, what is making deals and giving them $400,000,000 mean?

 

[basquebromance]

John Kelly: Trump is 'a super smart guy'

 

[candycorn]

We're not going to war with Iran.

Okay, if you were Iran and you see what happens to non-nuclear powers when the US gets a President who has no problem invading, why in the world would you not want a nuke in your back pocket?

Defending Khomeini?

No...asking what you would do if you were the guy calling the shots in Iran in reference to the recent history of the US invading non-nuclear middle eastern nations....

If I were a murderous religious fundamentalist authoritarian who wanted to see the literal elimination of a neighboring sovereign state, I guess I'd do just what he's doing.

But I'm not.

I would certainly be quite thankful for those in the one country on the planet I hate the most for running cover for me for domestic political advantage, that's for sure.
.

Not sure what "domestic political advantage" liberals would derive from another unwinnable war in the middle east but that is your creation. Some of us take matters more seriously than you do it seems.

What you ignore, of course, is the 50+ y/o lesson that the USA/USSR standoff taught the world; that the greatest advantage to nukes is not that you will use them but that you have them in your inventory. Because every other nation is on notice that if you go to war in our front yard, you will have a nuke land in your back yard. The issue is that in those 50+ years the stand off was that the stakes are either destruction or destruction; there was no middle ground so super empowered individuals and groups learned that the nuclear deterrent didn't apply to them so they had no problem attacking the US since we wouldn't use a nuke on a tent in the desert.

Iran's calculation is different. They will nuke Israel if we come at them. So we won't come at them if they have it.

 

[iceberg]

We're not going to war with Iran.

Okay, if you were Iran and you see what happens to non-nuclear powers when the US gets a President who has no problem invading, why in the world would you not want a nuke in your back pocket?

Defending Khomeini?

No...asking what you would do if you were the guy calling the shots in Iran in reference to the recent history of the US invading non-nuclear middle eastern nations....

If I were a murderous religious fundamentalist authoritarian who wanted to see the literal elimination of a neighboring sovereign state, I guess I'd do just what he's doing.

But I'm not.

I would certainly be quite thankful for those in the one country on the planet I hate the most for running cover for me for domestic political advantage, that's for sure.
.

Not sure what "domestic political advantage" liberals would derive from another unwinnable war in the middle east but that is your creation. Some of us take matters more seriously than you do it seems.

What you ignore, of course, is the 50+ y/o lesson that the USA/USSR standoff taught the world; that the greatest advantage to nukes is not that you will use them but that you have them in your inventory. Because every other nation is on notice that if you go to war in our front yard, you will have a nuke land in your back yard. The issue is that in those 50+ years the stand off was that the stakes are either destruction or destruction; there was no middle ground so super empowered individuals and groups learned that the nuclear deterrent didn't apply to them so they had no problem attacking the US since we wouldn't use a nuke on a tent in the desert.

Iran's calculation is different. They will nuke Israel if we come at them. So we won't come at them if they have it.

iran openly says when they can they will blow them off the map.

is this another n korea or will they do it? since their "culture" is that dying is fine as long as you take out the infidel, do you really think if they had nukes they'd just sit around and go "well, now what do you wanna do, ayatola?"

if you think they're bluffing, great. but how often have they bluffed in the past vs. how many times have they died for their religion?

 

[OldLady]

Anyone who claims there can only be one future outcome is full of shit

Do you people believe the psychic predictions in the Star and Enquirer too?

You're forgetting the daily horoscope.

 

[Mac1958]

We're not going to war with Iran.

Okay, if you were Iran and you see what happens to non-nuclear powers when the US gets a President who has no problem invading, why in the world would you not want a nuke in your back pocket?

Defending Khomeini?

No...asking what you would do if you were the guy calling the shots in Iran in reference to the recent history of the US invading non-nuclear middle eastern nations....

If I were a murderous religious fundamentalist authoritarian who wanted to see the literal elimination of a neighboring sovereign state, I guess I'd do just what he's doing.

But I'm not.

I would certainly be quite thankful for those in the one country on the planet I hate the most for running cover for me for domestic political advantage, that's for sure.
.

Not sure what "domestic political advantage" liberals would derive from another unwinnable war in the middle east but that is your creation. Some of us take matters more seriously than you do it seems.

What you ignore, of course, is the 50+ y/o lesson that the USA/USSR standoff taught the world; that the greatest advantage to nukes is not that you will use them but that you have them in your inventory. Because every other nation is on notice that if you go to war in our front yard, you will have a nuke land in your back yard. The issue is that in those 50+ years the stand off was that the stakes are either destruction or destruction; there was no middle ground so super empowered individuals and groups learned that the nuclear deterrent didn't apply to them so they had no problem attacking the US since we wouldn't use a nuke on a tent in the desert.

Iran's calculation is different. They will nuke Israel if we come at them. So we won't come at them if they have it.

You're making a great deal of simplistic assumptions and projections, which is what partisans do regularly for political advantage. On both ends.

Maybe you don't see that. Who knows.
.

 

[candycorn]

Trump’s Pyrrhic Victory: the US Opts for a Path That Can Only Lead to War

Brilliant article and 100% right.

Lol, you stupid fuckers said he was going to start a war with North Korea. What happened to that? You idiots should shut up, you’ve never been right about anything.

After accelerating their program because of Trump’s actions, NK accidentally blew up that program. Do you think the same thing will happen in Iran? Or will the neocons Trump has surrounded himself with finally get a new war?

Trump will get them to the table, he will hammer out a deal that will actually work. Watch and learn.

He's going to negotiate with terrorists?

didn't obama spend 8 years telling us they weren't?

and if talking to them is bad, what is making deals and giving them $400,000,000 mean?

I never said it was bad.

 

[OldLady]

Oh, that's brilliant, Billy.
Who told you that?

The agreement itself. Was it ratified by the Senate? No, it was never presented as a treaty.

Did Iran sign it? No, Obama did not insist Iran sign it.

Anything else?

It's sure being seriously considered a broken agreement though, whatever excuses you want to make for Trump's actions.

a non binding one.
If it was so important, and such a good idea, obamas ass should have done it the right way.

Well, if Russia, China, France, Germany, UK, Iran, and the U.N. all thought it was a real agreement and actually did what the agreement said they should do, and if everyone except the U.S. is now treating it as a broken agreement, I don't think the excuses matter. They are only to make Trump look acceptable in doing this.
If it brings Iran around, I'll be glad. It sure doesn't look that way right now. I'm beginning to wonder if the gossip about Israel and S.A. might be true--they just want us on their side in a war with Iran. Iran and Israel gave it a good kickoff last night.

you still don't get it. It's a lost subject for you. when you don't understand what you're talking about, it's tough to have a discussion. just saying. If you can't accept that trump had the authorization to do it, you're beyond objectivity and not worth any further debate. It's obvious you can't accept the fact that trump had the authorization.

You misunderstood me. I am not arguing Trump COULDN'T do this; of course he could. What I am hearing from just about everyone who knows stuff about Iran and the Middle East in general is that he SHOULDN'T have. I don't know how this will end anymore than you do. But right now I don't see Trump proceeding to a well thought out Plan B. I don't think he's got one. Meanwhile, Iran and Israel took the opportunity to lob missiles at each other a couple days ago. Yesterday the Trump administration said that if Israel goes to war with Iran, America will support them. What does that say to you?

 

[OldLady]

We're not going to war with Iran.

Okay, if you were Iran and you see what happens to non-nuclear powers when the US gets a President who has no problem invading, why in the world would you not want a nuke in your back pocket?

Defending Khomeini?

No...asking what you would do if you were the guy calling the shots in Iran in reference to the recent history of the US invading non-nuclear middle eastern nations....

If I were a murderous religious fundamentalist authoritarian who wanted to see the literal elimination of a neighboring sovereign state, I guess I'd do just what he's doing.

But I'm not.

I would certainly be quite thankful for those in the one country on the planet I hate the most for running cover for me for domestic political advantage, that's for sure.
.

Not sure what "domestic political advantage" liberals would derive from another unwinnable war in the middle east but that is your creation. Some of us take matters more seriously than you do it seems.

What you ignore, of course, is the 50+ y/o lesson that the USA/USSR standoff taught the world; that the greatest advantage to nukes is not that you will use them but that you have them in your inventory. Because every other nation is on notice that if you go to war in our front yard, you will have a nuke land in your back yard. The issue is that in those 50+ years the stand off was that the stakes are either destruction or destruction; there was no middle ground so super empowered individuals and groups learned that the nuclear deterrent didn't apply to them so they had no problem attacking the US since we wouldn't use a nuke on a tent in the desert.

Iran's calculation is different. They will nuke Israel if we come at them. So we won't come at them if they have it.

Sounds like North Korea six months ago.

 

[candycorn]

Okay, if you were Iran and you see what happens to non-nuclear powers when the US gets a President who has no problem invading, why in the world would you not want a nuke in your back pocket?

Defending Khomeini?

No...asking what you would do if you were the guy calling the shots in Iran in reference to the recent history of the US invading non-nuclear middle eastern nations....

If I were a murderous religious fundamentalist authoritarian who wanted to see the literal elimination of a neighboring sovereign state, I guess I'd do just what he's doing.

But I'm not.

I would certainly be quite thankful for those in the one country on the planet I hate the most for running cover for me for domestic political advantage, that's for sure.
.

Not sure what "domestic political advantage" liberals would derive from another unwinnable war in the middle east but that is your creation. Some of us take matters more seriously than you do it seems.

What you ignore, of course, is the 50+ y/o lesson that the USA/USSR standoff taught the world; that the greatest advantage to nukes is not that you will use them but that you have them in your inventory. Because every other nation is on notice that if you go to war in our front yard, you will have a nuke land in your back yard. The issue is that in those 50+ years the stand off was that the stakes are either destruction or destruction; there was no middle ground so super empowered individuals and groups learned that the nuclear deterrent didn't apply to them so they had no problem attacking the US since we wouldn't use a nuke on a tent in the desert.

Iran's calculation is different. They will nuke Israel if we come at them. So we won't come at them if they have it.

You're making a great deal of simplistic assumptions and projections, which is what partisans do regularly for political advantage. On both ends.

Maybe you don't see that. Who knows.
.

Afghanistan...invaded 2001.
Iraq, invaded in 1990 and again in 2003
Panama invaded in 1989
Syria
Sudan
Somolia
Lybia

All since 1990. All had one thing in common; no nukes.

North Korea has a nuke. Nobody has invaded.

There are no assumptions being made. History teaches some of us a lesson. Maybe you don't see that. Who knows?

 

[Mac1958]

Defending Khomeini?

No...asking what you would do if you were the guy calling the shots in Iran in reference to the recent history of the US invading non-nuclear middle eastern nations....

If I were a murderous religious fundamentalist authoritarian who wanted to see the literal elimination of a neighboring sovereign state, I guess I'd do just what he's doing.

But I'm not.

I would certainly be quite thankful for those in the one country on the planet I hate the most for running cover for me for domestic political advantage, that's for sure.
.

Not sure what "domestic political advantage" liberals would derive from another unwinnable war in the middle east but that is your creation. Some of us take matters more seriously than you do it seems.

What you ignore, of course, is the 50+ y/o lesson that the USA/USSR standoff taught the world; that the greatest advantage to nukes is not that you will use them but that you have them in your inventory. Because every other nation is on notice that if you go to war in our front yard, you will have a nuke land in your back yard. The issue is that in those 50+ years the stand off was that the stakes are either destruction or destruction; there was no middle ground so super empowered individuals and groups learned that the nuclear deterrent didn't apply to them so they had no problem attacking the US since we wouldn't use a nuke on a tent in the desert.

Iran's calculation is different. They will nuke Israel if we come at them. So we won't come at them if they have it.

You're making a great deal of simplistic assumptions and projections, which is what partisans do regularly for political advantage. On both ends.

Maybe you don't see that. Who knows.
.

Afghanistan...invaded 2001.
Iraq, invaded in 1990 and again in 2003
Panama invaded in 1989
Syria
Sudan
Somolia
Lybia

All since 1990. All had one thing in common; no nukes.

North Korea has a nuke. Nobody has invaded.

There are no assumptions being made. History teaches some of us a lesson. Maybe you don't see that. Who knows?

I'm sure you're right. No doubt Trump is gonna nuke 'em any day now.

I saw it on the internet!
.

 

[iceberg]

The agreement itself. Was it ratified by the Senate? No, it was never presented as a treaty.

Did Iran sign it? No, Obama did not insist Iran sign it.

Anything else?

It's sure being seriously considered a broken agreement though, whatever excuses you want to make for Trump's actions.

a non binding one.
If it was so important, and such a good idea, obamas ass should have done it the right way.

Well, if Russia, China, France, Germany, UK, Iran, and the U.N. all thought it was a real agreement and actually did what the agreement said they should do, and if everyone except the U.S. is now treating it as a broken agreement, I don't think the excuses matter. They are only to make Trump look acceptable in doing this.
If it brings Iran around, I'll be glad. It sure doesn't look that way right now. I'm beginning to wonder if the gossip about Israel and S.A. might be true--they just want us on their side in a war with Iran. Iran and Israel gave it a good kickoff last night.

you still don't get it. It's a lost subject for you. when you don't understand what you're talking about, it's tough to have a discussion. just saying. If you can't accept that trump had the authorization to do it, you're beyond objectivity and not worth any further debate. It's obvious you can't accept the fact that trump had the authorization.

You misunderstood me. I am not arguing Trump COULDN'T do this; of course he could. What I am hearing from just about everyone who knows stuff about Iran and the Middle East in general is that he SHOULDN'T have. I don't know how this will end anymore than you do. But right now I don't see Trump proceeding to a well thought out Plan B. I don't think he's got one. Meanwhile, Iran and Israel took the opportunity to lob missiles at each other a couple days ago. Yesterday the Trump administration said that if Israel goes to war with Iran, America will support them. What does that say to you?

except the people who live there - well they love it that trump has done this but you won't hear that in US media on either side really.

i can dig up links or just google and find some of your own. saudis were thrilled about it. other countries were thanking god. while europe russia and china are "not happy" - they don't live there. all the people who live there aside from iran and their friends, are happy about it.

so "should" would seem to be which direction you want to go. do we pretend that iran isn't making a bomb or trying to or do we admit they are and do something about it? why people seem to think iran has zero intentions to create a bomb that will "kill the infidels" is beyond me at times, but i'll keep talking to try and understand.

if the "treaty" had zero way to enforce, we shouldn't have done it. i felt the same way about the global warming "treaty" that had no teeth and all $$$ from the US.

 

[iceberg]

Defending Khomeini?

No...asking what you would do if you were the guy calling the shots in Iran in reference to the recent history of the US invading non-nuclear middle eastern nations....

If I were a murderous religious fundamentalist authoritarian who wanted to see the literal elimination of a neighboring sovereign state, I guess I'd do just what he's doing.

But I'm not.

I would certainly be quite thankful for those in the one country on the planet I hate the most for running cover for me for domestic political advantage, that's for sure.
.

Not sure what "domestic political advantage" liberals would derive from another unwinnable war in the middle east but that is your creation. Some of us take matters more seriously than you do it seems.

What you ignore, of course, is the 50+ y/o lesson that the USA/USSR standoff taught the world; that the greatest advantage to nukes is not that you will use them but that you have them in your inventory. Because every other nation is on notice that if you go to war in our front yard, you will have a nuke land in your back yard. The issue is that in those 50+ years the stand off was that the stakes are either destruction or destruction; there was no middle ground so super empowered individuals and groups learned that the nuclear deterrent didn't apply to them so they had no problem attacking the US since we wouldn't use a nuke on a tent in the desert.

Iran's calculation is different. They will nuke Israel if we come at them. So we won't come at them if they have it.

You're making a great deal of simplistic assumptions and projections, which is what partisans do regularly for political advantage. On both ends.

Maybe you don't see that. Who knows.
.

Afghanistan...invaded 2001.
Iraq, invaded in 1990 and again in 2003
Panama invaded in 1989
Syria
Sudan
Somolia
Lybia

All since 1990. All had one thing in common; no nukes.

North Korea has a nuke. Nobody has invaded.

There are no assumptions being made. History teaches some of us a lesson. Maybe you don't see that. Who knows?

except no one ever said "nukes" in many of those wars. hell, the reasons get lost with admin to admin.

as for n korea - it was china, not n korea that stopped it. be real.

 

[pismoe]

----------------------------------- they don't think like you do , they are wierd as they follow 'mohamad' , they are muslim , Feck , they will chop off your head for drawing a picture of 'mohamad' Slade .

You will have to excuse my lack in confidence in your understanding about how Muslims think. Perhaps you can provide me a little background which gives you such insights?

Tell me what you know about 12'ver Shia.

I don’t know anything about it. Please do explain

'12th Imam,' Key Facet Of Islamic Prophecy, Fuels Middle East Turmoil


.

That’s an interesting read but I did find it odd that the source of much of its information came from a evangelical baptist Christian (Wagner). Wouldn’t you find an explaination from an actual Muslim, perhaps both a Shiite and a Sunni, to be a little more interesting and accurate when trying to explain their own point of views and interpretations?

The 12th Imam seems to be a similar story as the 2nd coming of Jesus which is a popular Christian belief.

------------------------------------------------ well , i did make the point that muslims are weird and that 'islam' is the 3rd or newest in line of the 3 Judeo based and largest religions in the world today . My point with that is that 'mohamad' was nothing more than a BSer in the arabian desert inventing 'islam' around 650 A.D. and was stealing and copying Jewish and Christian Holy writings , key words and thoughts . And as i say , that copier of Jewish and Christian thoughts and key words named 'mohamad' is the reason that similarities are seen in the Jewish , Christian and 'muslim' religions Slade .

 

[pismoe]

----------------------------------- they don't think like you do , they are wierd as they follow 'mohamad' , they are muslim , Feck , they will chop off your head for drawing a picture of 'mohamad' Slade .

You will have to excuse my lack in confidence in your understanding about how Muslims think. Perhaps you can provide me a little background which gives you such insights?

Tell me what you know about 12'ver Shia.

I don’t know anything about it. Please do explain

'12th Imam,' Key Facet Of Islamic Prophecy, Fuels Middle East Turmoil


.

That’s an interesting read but I did find it odd that the source of much of its information came from a evangelical baptist Christian (Wagner). Wouldn’t you find an explaination from an actual Muslim, perhaps both a Shiite and a Sunni, to be a little more interesting and accurate when trying to explain their own point of views and interpretations?

The 12th Imam seems to be a similar story as the 2nd coming of Jesus which is a popular Christian belief.

------------------------------------ and as well as my explanation in post number 194 you will find that muslims are big practitioners of a muslim and 'mohamad' approved form of lying called 'taqiyah' where they will happily lie as a way of furthering 'islams' goal of making the world a 'house of peace' for and under 'mohamad' rule Slade .

 

[candycorn]

No...asking what you would do if you were the guy calling the shots in Iran in reference to the recent history of the US invading non-nuclear middle eastern nations....

If I were a murderous religious fundamentalist authoritarian who wanted to see the literal elimination of a neighboring sovereign state, I guess I'd do just what he's doing.

But I'm not.

I would certainly be quite thankful for those in the one country on the planet I hate the most for running cover for me for domestic political advantage, that's for sure.
.

Not sure what "domestic political advantage" liberals would derive from another unwinnable war in the middle east but that is your creation. Some of us take matters more seriously than you do it seems.

What you ignore, of course, is the 50+ y/o lesson that the USA/USSR standoff taught the world; that the greatest advantage to nukes is not that you will use them but that you have them in your inventory. Because every other nation is on notice that if you go to war in our front yard, you will have a nuke land in your back yard. The issue is that in those 50+ years the stand off was that the stakes are either destruction or destruction; there was no middle ground so super empowered individuals and groups learned that the nuclear deterrent didn't apply to them so they had no problem attacking the US since we wouldn't use a nuke on a tent in the desert.

Iran's calculation is different. They will nuke Israel if we come at them. So we won't come at them if they have it.

You're making a great deal of simplistic assumptions and projections, which is what partisans do regularly for political advantage. On both ends.

Maybe you don't see that. Who knows.
.

Afghanistan...invaded 2001.
Iraq, invaded in 1990 and again in 2003
Panama invaded in 1989
Syria
Sudan
Somolia
Lybia

All since 1990. All had one thing in common; no nukes.

North Korea has a nuke. Nobody has invaded.

There are no assumptions being made. History teaches some of us a lesson. Maybe you don't see that. Who knows?

I'm sure you're right. No doubt Trump is gonna nuke 'em any day now.

I saw it on the internet!
.

Now you're just being stupid. Unfortunately we have an either/or choice now that we didn't face last week....we either are going to go into Iraq militarily and take their nuke from them or we are going to live with Iran as a nation that has nuclear bombs.

 

[candycorn]

No...asking what you would do if you were the guy calling the shots in Iran in reference to the recent history of the US invading non-nuclear middle eastern nations....

If I were a murderous religious fundamentalist authoritarian who wanted to see the literal elimination of a neighboring sovereign state, I guess I'd do just what he's doing.

But I'm not.

I would certainly be quite thankful for those in the one country on the planet I hate the most for running cover for me for domestic political advantage, that's for sure.
.

Not sure what "domestic political advantage" liberals would derive from another unwinnable war in the middle east but that is your creation. Some of us take matters more seriously than you do it seems.

What you ignore, of course, is the 50+ y/o lesson that the USA/USSR standoff taught the world; that the greatest advantage to nukes is not that you will use them but that you have them in your inventory. Because every other nation is on notice that if you go to war in our front yard, you will have a nuke land in your back yard. The issue is that in those 50+ years the stand off was that the stakes are either destruction or destruction; there was no middle ground so super empowered individuals and groups learned that the nuclear deterrent didn't apply to them so they had no problem attacking the US since we wouldn't use a nuke on a tent in the desert.

Iran's calculation is different. They will nuke Israel if we come at them. So we won't come at them if they have it.

You're making a great deal of simplistic assumptions and projections, which is what partisans do regularly for political advantage. On both ends.

Maybe you don't see that. Who knows.
.

Afghanistan...invaded 2001.
Iraq, invaded in 1990 and again in 2003
Panama invaded in 1989
Syria
Sudan
Somolia
Lybia

All since 1990. All had one thing in common; no nukes.

North Korea has a nuke. Nobody has invaded.

There are no assumptions being made. History teaches some of us a lesson. Maybe you don't see that. Who knows?

except no one ever said "nukes" in many of those wars. hell, the reasons get lost with admin to admin.

as for n korea - it was china, not n korea that stopped it. be real.

Said "nukes"...no idea what you mean by that.

 

[Mac1958]

If I were a murderous religious fundamentalist authoritarian who wanted to see the literal elimination of a neighboring sovereign state, I guess I'd do just what he's doing.

But I'm not.

I would certainly be quite thankful for those in the one country on the planet I hate the most for running cover for me for domestic political advantage, that's for sure.
.

Not sure what "domestic political advantage" liberals would derive from another unwinnable war in the middle east but that is your creation. Some of us take matters more seriously than you do it seems.

What you ignore, of course, is the 50+ y/o lesson that the USA/USSR standoff taught the world; that the greatest advantage to nukes is not that you will use them but that you have them in your inventory. Because every other nation is on notice that if you go to war in our front yard, you will have a nuke land in your back yard. The issue is that in those 50+ years the stand off was that the stakes are either destruction or destruction; there was no middle ground so super empowered individuals and groups learned that the nuclear deterrent didn't apply to them so they had no problem attacking the US since we wouldn't use a nuke on a tent in the desert.

Iran's calculation is different. They will nuke Israel if we come at them. So we won't come at them if they have it.

You're making a great deal of simplistic assumptions and projections, which is what partisans do regularly for political advantage. On both ends.

Maybe you don't see that. Who knows.
.

Afghanistan...invaded 2001.
Iraq, invaded in 1990 and again in 2003
Panama invaded in 1989
Syria
Sudan
Somolia
Lybia

All since 1990. All had one thing in common; no nukes.

North Korea has a nuke. Nobody has invaded.

There are no assumptions being made. History teaches some of us a lesson. Maybe you don't see that. Who knows?

I'm sure you're right. No doubt Trump is gonna nuke 'em any day now.

I saw it on the internet!
.

Now you're just being stupid. Unfortunately we have an either/or choice now that we didn't face last week....we either are going to go into Iraq militarily and take their nuke from them or we are going to live with Iran as a nation that has nuclear bombs.

I'm sure you're right. I trust your judgement on this.

I mean, why wouldn't I?
.

 

[candycorn]

Not sure what "domestic political advantage" liberals would derive from another unwinnable war in the middle east but that is your creation. Some of us take matters more seriously than you do it seems.

What you ignore, of course, is the 50+ y/o lesson that the USA/USSR standoff taught the world; that the greatest advantage to nukes is not that you will use them but that you have them in your inventory. Because every other nation is on notice that if you go to war in our front yard, you will have a nuke land in your back yard. The issue is that in those 50+ years the stand off was that the stakes are either destruction or destruction; there was no middle ground so super empowered individuals and groups learned that the nuclear deterrent didn't apply to them so they had no problem attacking the US since we wouldn't use a nuke on a tent in the desert.

Iran's calculation is different. They will nuke Israel if we come at them. So we won't come at them if they have it.

You're making a great deal of simplistic assumptions and projections, which is what partisans do regularly for political advantage. On both ends.

Maybe you don't see that. Who knows.
.

Afghanistan...invaded 2001.
Iraq, invaded in 1990 and again in 2003
Panama invaded in 1989
Syria
Sudan
Somolia
Lybia

All since 1990. All had one thing in common; no nukes.

North Korea has a nuke. Nobody has invaded.

There are no assumptions being made. History teaches some of us a lesson. Maybe you don't see that. Who knows?

I'm sure you're right. No doubt Trump is gonna nuke 'em any day now.

I saw it on the internet!
.

Now you're just being stupid. Unfortunately we have an either/or choice now that we didn't face last week....we either are going to go into Iraq militarily and take their nuke from them or we are going to live with Iran as a nation that has nuclear bombs.

I'm sure you're right. I trust your judgement on this.

I mean, why wouldn't I?
.

ok

 

[iceberg]

If I were a murderous religious fundamentalist authoritarian who wanted to see the literal elimination of a neighboring sovereign state, I guess I'd do just what he's doing.

But I'm not.

I would certainly be quite thankful for those in the one country on the planet I hate the most for running cover for me for domestic political advantage, that's for sure.
.

Not sure what "domestic political advantage" liberals would derive from another unwinnable war in the middle east but that is your creation. Some of us take matters more seriously than you do it seems.

What you ignore, of course, is the 50+ y/o lesson that the USA/USSR standoff taught the world; that the greatest advantage to nukes is not that you will use them but that you have them in your inventory. Because every other nation is on notice that if you go to war in our front yard, you will have a nuke land in your back yard. The issue is that in those 50+ years the stand off was that the stakes are either destruction or destruction; there was no middle ground so super empowered individuals and groups learned that the nuclear deterrent didn't apply to them so they had no problem attacking the US since we wouldn't use a nuke on a tent in the desert.

Iran's calculation is different. They will nuke Israel if we come at them. So we won't come at them if they have it.

You're making a great deal of simplistic assumptions and projections, which is what partisans do regularly for political advantage. On both ends.

Maybe you don't see that. Who knows.
.

Afghanistan...invaded 2001.
Iraq, invaded in 1990 and again in 2003
Panama invaded in 1989
Syria
Sudan
Somolia
Lybia

All since 1990. All had one thing in common; no nukes.

North Korea has a nuke. Nobody has invaded.

There are no assumptions being made. History teaches some of us a lesson. Maybe you don't see that. Who knows?

except no one ever said "nukes" in many of those wars. hell, the reasons get lost with admin to admin.

as for n korea - it was china, not n korea that stopped it. be real.

Said "nukes"...no idea what you mean by that.

and i have no idea what you mean by nukes in all the counties above as not all have been "nuke" issues?