Thread: OK Decker................

Originally Posted by dg806

Sanctions alone will not solve the issue. Never have, never will.

What sanctions do is make some people in the U.N. a lot of money.

Originally Posted by DOMS

What sanctions do is make some people in the U.N. a lot of money.

**Sarcasm on** Nooooooo. They wouldn't do THAT. Would they? They're here to HELP us, right? **Sarcasm off**

Hey, they're an international body, they're morally and ethically perfect; unlike everyone else.

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

Not correct. Why did you doubt me DOMS? Israel flew in and waxed Iran's nuke plant like it was just target practice.

"Israel Bombs Iraq's Osirak Nuclear Research Facility"

At any rate Israel wouldn't be more than a concept if the US did not fund their needs. Yeah we hold them back ... like a pit bull gets held back at a dog fight. We use them very completely to control the region as best as Israel has the potential to do ... thus the hatred of us by Islamic factions.

The US, the Brits, and the UN got Israel started, but they keep themselves going. Unlike the rest of the Middle East (read: Arabs), they have a good worth ethic and do things (for the most part) intelligently.

And Israel is only a drop in the bucket of hate that Arabs have for the US.

Originally Posted by dg806

Agree. Neither Korea or Iran will never agree to diplomacy. That is why things are where they stand now. They totally refuse to listen or talk to anyone. They will get bombed. Question is, who does it?

I disagree with this. Diplomacy is always the best choice. The idea that Iran or North Korea's leaders are irrational men prone to any act is pure propaganda. Unfortunately, the popular script out there is that Iran/NK have maniacal leaders capable of attacking the US at a whim. Sort of like Hussein, remember? The choice isn't capitulation or bombing. That's false. There's always room for diplomacy. Ideas are stronger than militants in the long run.

Originally Posted by dg806

I will agree with one thing they said. Sanctions alone will not solve the issue. Never have, never will. Let the bombing begin. Then maybe they will talk

I don't think so. Sanctions seemed to work pretty well with Iraq as far as building any sort of threat to the US is concerned.

Originally Posted by DOMS

The US, the Brits, and the UN got Israel started, but they keep themselves going........

Not so true. The US gives more foreign aid to Israel than any other country. http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/poli...oreign-aid.htm So their success is not all from self-reliance and work ethics.

Not all, but it accounts for the majority of their prosperity. Compare the amount the US gives to them every year against their GDP.

And they sure as hell do a lot better with what they've got than the Arabs do.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Not all, but it accounts for the majority of their prosperity. Compare the amount the US gives to them every year against their GDP.

And they sure as hell do a lot better with what they've got than the Arabs do.

It looks like Israel gets way more than any other country when indexed to its GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._%28nominal%29

Israel is ranked with the United Arab Emirates as far as GDP is concerned. Israel lags behind Iran, Saudi Arabia, Poland, South Africa, Malaysia and Thailand yet it still receives way more US aid than any of those countries.

Originally Posted by Decker

I don't think so. Sanctions seemed to work pretty well with Iraq as far as building any sort of threat to the US is concerned.

Not true IMO. What happens if they succeed in getting weapons while we are trying to get them to talk, and then use them on Israel? That is a BIG threat to us.

Originally Posted by Decker

It looks like Israel gets way more than any other country when indexed to its GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._%28nominal%29

Israel is ranked with the United Arab Emirates as far as GDP is concerned. Israel lags behind Iran, Saudi Arabia, Poland, South Africa, Malaysia and Thailand yet it still receives way more US aid than any of those countries.

As they should, save maybe UAE(they are mostly a good ally)

Originally Posted by Decker

I disagree with this. Diplomacy is always the best choice. The idea that Iran or North Korea's leaders are irrational men prone to any act is pure propaganda. Unfortunately, the popular script out there is that Iran/NK have maniacal leaders capable of attacking the US at a whim. Sort of like Hussein, remember? The choice isn't capitulation or bombing. That's false. There's always room for diplomacy. Ideas are stronger than militants in the long run.

(Emphasis mine.) Your use of absolutes here is your downfall. No matter how much you want it to work, there comes a time when diplomacy fails. The only way this country can possibly survive is to have leadership that is willing to face that fact, recognize when we've reached that point and ACT when that time arrives. Now, no matter how much I huff and puff, I realize diplomacy should be the FIRST choice. I also recognize it needs to be given time to work. But, when that time has been alloted and diplomacy has done nothing to alleviate the problem, it's time to break out the big stick.

Originally Posted by ALBOB

(Emphasis mine.) Your use of absolutes here is your downfall. No matter how much you want it to work, there comes a time when diplomacy fails. The only way this country can possibly survive is to have leadership that is willing to face that fact, recognize when we've reached that point and ACT when that time arrives. Now, no matter how much I huff and puff, I realize diplomacy should be the FIRST choice. I also recognize it needs to be given time to work. But, when that time has been alloted and diplomacy has done nothing to alleviate the problem, it's time to break out the big stick.

I was very conscious of my choice of "always" in that sentence. Speak softly and carry a big stick----sounds like Topolo's game for scoring with the boys. I shouldn't pick on him since he's not here anymore.

But no doubt ALBOB, use force is at times necessary. However if all diplomacy with Iran breaks badly, I don't want the US attacking Iraq with Bush at the helm. He couldn't even manage Iraq or Afghanistan. I don't him within a Texas mile of Iran.

When I look at the media treatment and Whitehouse pronouncements about Iran, I see Iraq lies happening all over again.

Originally Posted by Decker

I was very conscious of my choice of "always" in that sentence. Speak softly and carry a big stick----sounds like Topolo's game for scoring with the boys. I shouldn't pick on him since he's not here anymore.

But no doubt ALBOB, use force is at times necessary. However if all diplomacy with Iran breaks badly, I don't want the US attacking Iraq with Bush at the helm. He couldn't even manage Iraq or Afghanistan. I don't him within a Texas mile of Iran.

When I look at the media treatment and Whitehouse pronouncements about Iran, I see Iraq lies happening all over again.

If I didn't know better I'd say you and I are in complete agreement here.

Originally Posted by Decker

Speak softly and carry a big stick----sounds like Topolo's game for scoring with the boys.

ROFLFOFMAOFNAFIUbew9b8fh2ojdiqnoefwfn X 100000000000000

Originally Posted by dg806

Not true IMO. What happens if they succeed in getting weapons while we are trying to get them to talk, and then use them on Israel? That is a BIG threat to us.

That's a big 'what if.' Is weapons grade enrichment for domestic purposes the same as for building weapons?

So far all indications are that Iran is really pursuing nuclear power for domestic purposes. They have that right.

There's an excellent chance that Israel has nuclear weapons already. Aside from that point, I don't believe that Iran is itching to nuke the world. Iran's leaders are not irrational. Just look at India and Pakistan--enemies to the core--they haven't annihilated each other yet. Both have the bomb.

Originally Posted by ALBOB

If I didn't know better I'd say you and I are in complete agreement here.

In the common parlance of the day, "I got your back my friend..."

Originally Posted by Decker

Is weapons grade enrichment for domestic purposes the same as for building weapons?

If it's weapons grade, is that not for building weapons?
Not an expert here, but I don't think fuel for energy is the same?

Originally Posted by dg806

If it's weapons grade, is that not for building weapons?
Not an expert here, but I don't think fuel for energy is the same?

I agree. I was trying to pose a rhetorical question. I know there are differences. Weapons grade requires a more sophisticated and expensive process. In that respect, I believe the CIA's own NIE report concluded that Iran is not seeking weapons grade materials.

Also, even though Iran is a signatory to the Nonproliferation treaty, that doesn't bar them from manufacturing nuclear power for domestic use.

Originally Posted by Decker

I agree. I was trying to pose a rhetorical question. I know there are differences. Weapons grade requires a more sophisticated and expensive process. In that respect, I believe the CIA's own NIE report concluded that Iran is not seeking weapons grade materials.

Also, even though Iran is a signatory to the Nonproliferation treaty, that doesn't bar them from manufacturing nuclear power for domestic use.

I'm just going by my initial post that said the material was for weapons and not energy.