'Occupy' types

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Iran. They want to invade bad. It's like they are licking their chops wanting to go balls deep into that country, but understand the public has had it with the war mongering. So they use the constant fear tactic of "nuclear warfare" to continually pump the fear into people and then pass it off as "protecting our freedom"..

WHO wants to invade bad? Joe schmoe on the street? Romney? Santorum? CPAC? There are lots of stupid people who want to do stupid things. Are they relevant to the actual discussion? Are they in a position to make such things occur? If not, who gives a flaming f***. Site to me some credible source that some relevant politician or political group wants to invade Iran or is suggesting it is an option.

As always, you practice in vaguaries and logical leaps. Maybe someone is doing is arguing the position you suggest. You may be right. At the same time, I honestly haven't heard any politician suggest it. WHO, specifically, is using the "tactic of 'nuclear warfare' to continually pump the fear into people and then pass it off as "protecting our freedom' ".

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

My point regarding the military and campaign contributions was to show that many are tired of the pointless fighting and wars to and want to come home. Not so much as they endorse X guy over Y guy. I think they probably would more more inclined to endorse the guy who's going to bring them home as compared to the guy who wants to poke the hornets nest.

And my point regarding the military and campaign contributions is simply that the sample size is far too small to draw any conclusions from it at all.

BUT: Assuming the only reason someone from the military would support Paul is because of his foreign policy positions AND that a contribution constitutes exactly the statement you purport it to be ("Many are tired of pointless fighting") - why is a statement by 2% of the military significant when the other 98% have made no statement or a statement to the contrary. Using your same logical constructs, one could just as easily assert that the silence of the other 96.5% constitutes support for the current US military activities.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin(Edit)

By the way, 2% also assumes each $1.00 represents one active military person. If a more reasonable value is assigned - say, $10.00 per person, the sample size shrinks to .2% (rounding up) of military personnel. Pretty sure no reasonable statistician would draw any conclusions from that sample size.

[Alvin Walton]

We'll never invade Iran, theres no point to it.
Bombing their nuke plants, sure, but invasion? Ha!

They will probably get all uppity after we hit their nuke plants and deploy their navy.
Sure, we'll drop their navy like panties on a prom night but we wont put Marines ashore.
I'd talk about their air force but its pretty much irrelevant.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

We'll never invade Iran, theres no point to it.
Bombing their nuke plants, sure, but invasion? Ha!

They will probably get all uppity after we hit their nuke plants and deploy their navy.
Sure, we'll drop their navy like panties on a prom night but we wont put Marines ashore.
I'd talk about their air force but its pretty much irrelevant.

There was no point to invade Iraq but we did.
There was no point for military actions in Lybia but we did.


What does Iraq, Iran, and Lybia all have in common?


Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006 — Infoplease.com

All three countries are in the top 10 in oil reserves. This is no coincidence. Tell me, why are we talking about air strikes to North Korea? How come we aren't steam rolling the warlords in South Africa? Resources. That's why. Everything in life comes back to two things. Money and Power.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

There was no point to invade Iraq but we did.
There was no point for military actions in Lybia but we did.


What does Iraq, Iran, and Lybia all have in common?


Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006 — Infoplease.com

All three countries are in the top 10 in oil reserves. This is no coincidence. Tell me, why are we talking about air strikes to North Korea? How come we aren't steam rolling the warlords in South Africa? Resources. That's why. Everything in life comes back to two things. Money and Power.

Here we go with the age old liberal mantra of "No blood for oil".
And still we didnt get any oil......pffffftttt
Iran isnt about oil.
Its about fanatics with nukes.
Its about an eight year old wildly swinging a bayonet in a crowded room.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Here we go with the age old liberal mantra of "No blood for oil".
And still we didnt get any oil......pffffftttt
Iran isnt about oil.
Its about fanatics with nukes.
Its about an eight year old wildly swinging a bayonet in a crowded room.

No, we didn't get any oil from Iraq.

But Halliburton did get some lucrative oil production service deals which were unavailable before.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Here we go with the age old liberal mantra of "No blood for oil".
And still we didnt get any oil......pffffftttt
Iran isnt about oil.
Its about fanatics with nukes.
Its about an eight year old wildly swinging a bayonet in a crowded room.

I didn't say we were stealing the oil or that it would be free.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/wo...-pursuits.html

Nah, it wasn't about oil.




Oh, you say it's about fanatics with nukes eh? Much like Saddam Hussein?..lol Didn't we hear this same shit back in 2002?




Number of countries Iran has bombed in the past decade- 0
Number of countries the US has bombed in the past decade- 8


Yemen 2002

Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)

Iraq 2003-present

Afghanistan 2001-present

Pakistan 2007-present

Somalia 2007-8, 2011

Yemen 2009, 2011

Libya 2011

Who's the fanatics with nukes again? I'm confused.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I didn't say we were stealing the oil or that it would be free.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/wo...-pursuits.html

Nah, it wasn't about oil.




Oh, you say it's about fanatics with nukes eh? Much like Saddam Hussein?..lol Didn't we hear this same shit back in 2002?




Number of countries Iran has bombed in the past decade- 0
Number of countries the US has bombed in the past decade- 8


Yemen 2002

Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)

Iraq 2003-present

Afghanistan 2001-present

Pakistan 2007-present

Somalia 2007-8, 2011

Yemen 2009, 2011

Libya 2011

Who's the fanatics with nukes again? I'm confused.

Dude you might want to think about moving.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

There was no point to invade Iraq but we did.

U.N. Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

There was no point for military actions in Lybia but we did.

U.N. Resolution 2009 outlined support for building a Democracy in Lybia

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Blah, blah, blah...Iran

U.N. News: The issue has been of international concern since the discovery in 2003 that Iran had concealed its nuclear activities for 18 years in breach of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

What does Iraq, Iran, and Lybia all have in common?

They fit your narrative?

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006 — Infoplease.com

All three countries are in the top 10 in oil reserves. This is no coincidence.

Yeah, it is.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Tell me, why are<n't> we talking about air strikes to North Korea?

China

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

How come we aren't steam rolling the warlords in South Africa? Resources. That's why. Everything in life comes back to two things. Money and Power.

I hope you're not suggesting South Africa had no resources.......

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

WHO wants to invade bad? Joe schmoe on the street? Romney? Santorum? CPAC? There are lots of stupid people who want to do stupid things. Are they relevant to the actual discussion? Are they in a position to make such things occur? If not, who gives a flaming f***. Site to me some credible source that some relevant politician or political group wants to invade Iran or is suggesting it is an option.

As always, you practice in vaguaries and logical leaps. Maybe someone is doing is arguing the position you suggest. You may be right. At the same time, I honestly haven't heard any politician suggest it. WHO, specifically, is using the "tactic of 'nuclear warfare' to continually pump the fear into people and then pass it off as "protecting our freedom' ".

I figure I wouldn't even have to bother citing who was for military action or bombing Iran since you GOPers should know your own party. Which candidate? All of them save Ron Paul.

You were saying? Nah, he's not pumping fear into the mass public. Nope.
» Gingrich: Iran Nuke Attack on U.S. “Real Danger” Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

“You think about an Iranian nuclear weapon. You think about the dangers, to Cleveland, or to Columbus, or to Cincinnati, or to New York,” Gingrich said while in Cleveland, Ohio. “Remember what it felt like on 9/11 when 3,100 Americans were killed. Now imagine an attack where you add two zeros. And it’s 300,000 dead. Maybe a half-million wounded. This is a real danger. This is not science fiction. That’s why I think it’s very important that we have the strongest possible national security.”

Would President Romney Bomb Iran? - ABC News

Gingrich

Bomb Iran? It's complicated. Gingrich supports regime change, and even suggests that he could topple the regime without military action in a year. "We're going to replace their regime, ideally non-militarily." If necessary, "as a last recourse," he supports military action to effect regime change. Without a change in Iran's government, however, he doesn't believe that bombing would do anything but delay Iran's nuclear weapons production.

Huntsman

Quotable: "I can't live with the thought of what a nuclear Iran brings to the region and what they said about Israel, which is our centerpiece alliance in the region. I can't live -- I can't live in the world with a nuclear Iran."

Perry

"Well, here's where we find ourselves with two really bad-- positions. We're either going to allow this madman to have become in control of a nuclear device or we are going to have a nuclear strike, or excuse me, a military strike, to keep that from occurring, either the Israelis unilaterally, or in a bi-lateral or multi-lateral way with their allies.

Romney.

Bomb Iran? 'Ultimately, regime change is what's going to be necessary," says Romney, who believes both "covert and overt" actions should be used to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He said the U.S. should develop military plans, though he hoped they were never put into effect. "But the Iranians will understand that we have prepared credible military options, that they'll know there is a consequence of becoming nuclear."

Santorum

Bomb Iran? "Yes, that's the plan," said Santorum, when asked if he would order air strikes on Iran if they were going to obtain nuclear weapons. The conservative dark horse who came within eight votes of winning Iowa from Mitt Romney is the most bellicose of the GOP contenders when it comes to Iran. In an interview with Glenn Beck, he said Iran's regime was worse than al Qaeda, and that an attack on Iran would prevent war.

Nah, nobody's been talking about bombing Iran. Not even as far back as 2007.

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran - YouTube

This shit wreaks of how Iraq war started. They pump the fear up into people about WMD (or nukes), and then they come out and say LOOK WE HAVE PROOF OF WMD.....which they invade only to find out nothing is there. Trillions of dollars later, and countless people are dead, nobody is held accountable.

Iran trumpets nuclear advances, deepening standoff with West - Yahoo! News


^^the drum beats of war. If you can hear them, then you aren't listening to the mainstream media much.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I figure I wouldn't even have to bother citing who was for military action or bombing Iran since you GOPers should know your own party. Which candidate? All of them save Ron Paul.

You were saying? Nah, he's not pumping fear into the mass public. Nope.
» Gingrich: Iran Nuke Attack on U.S. “Real Danger” Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!




Would President Romney Bomb Iran? - ABC News

Gingrich


Huntsman


Perry


Romney.


Santorum



Nah, nobody's been talking about bombing Iran. Not even as far back as 2007.
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran - YouTube




This shit wreaks of how Iraq war started. They pump the fear up into people about WMD (or nukes), and then they come out and say LOOK WE HAVE PROOF OF WMD.....which they invade only to find out nothing is there. Trillions of dollars later, and countless people are dead, nobody is held accountable.

Iran trumpets nuclear advances, deepening standoff with West - Yahoo! News


^^the drum beats of war. If you can hear them, then you aren't listening to the mainstream media much.

You're missing the part where the Iranian govt announces every other month that they want to wipe Israel off the map.
While they go about enriching uranium.

And you havent answered Joes question about an invasion.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I figure I wouldn't even have to bother citing who was for military action or bombing Iran since you GOPers should know your own party. Which candidate? All of them save Ron Paul.

How about you assume, when I ask a question that I would like to know the answer to the question asked. As usual, you twist the original question to fit the facts you now find. Originally you asserted:

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Iran. They want to invade bad.

In response, I asked:

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Site to me some credible source that some relevant politician or political group wants to invade Iran or is suggesting it is an option.

Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that when I said "invade" you weren't bright enough to pick up from the context that I meant sending ground troops - not bombing or other "military options".

Let me be clear: I assumed that, when you said:

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

It's like they are licking their chops wanting to go balls deep into that country, but understand the public has had it with the war mongering.

you meant boots on the ground invasion. None of the statements you provided suggest to me that any one of the candidates is suggesting a ground invasion of Iran.

As to bombing or other strikes to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon, it's pretty clear that, at this point, that's where the Republican candidates are (as well as Obama for that matter). Further, I agree with you to the extent that such an option, even if not intended, creates a real possibility of a land war (What happens if one of our planes is shot down and the Iranians are about to execute a US pilot?). It's clear, however, that the concept of Iran with nukes has pretty much most of the west on edge.

Why? I would suggest it is b/c of the jihadist nature of the governing theocracy. You site Israel as having a nuke as a reason to allow Iran's progress to becoming a nuclear power. The difference, I think, is that Israel is a rational state and will not take actions that would lead to the end of its existence as a state. Not so sure the Iranian govt. has those same "thought" processes. The current Iranian regime operates by an agenda not necessarilly governed by a "cost/benefit" analysis. Rather, it is under a authoritarian theocracy that funds/assists and encourages suicide bombers. If you are unconcerned by their gaining the ability to kill millions quickly, then you either one heartless dude or one impassioned zealot.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

This shit wreaks of how Iraq war started. They pump the fear up into people about WMD (or nukes), and then they come out and say LOOK WE HAVE PROOF OF WMD.....which they invade only to find out nothing is there. Trillions of dollars later, and countless people are dead, nobody is held accountable.

^^the drum beats of war. If you can hear them, then you aren't listening to the mainstream media much.

There are a lot of similarities and it is a concern. I agree and I hope that military intervention is ultimately avoided. Even stripping this last statement of your typical hysteria, logical leaps and hyperbole, however, it is much different assertion than your original statement and accusation that unidentified "far right crew" is seeking to put military ground units into and go "balls deep" in Iran.

So ... Let's get the crux. What do you suggest? Are you comfortable with Iran having a nuclear weapon? Do you believe that they will show the same restraint that other nuclear nations have done? Are certain that, once developed, they would share the technology with like minded jihadists regimes or groups? Do you think that their possesion of nuclear arms creates a more stable or less stable middle east? Once in possesion of such a weapon is it your believe they present no threat to the US or our allies? If a threat is presented to our allies - Israel, Saudi Arabia, what backing can/should we give them? If we w/draw from the mideast altogether: How do we protect our shipping lines from piracy? What effect will it have on our economy?

B/c of our reliance on foreign oil, our economy is hopelessly entangled in the middle east. Throw in the US commitment to Israel, and there just aren't simple answers. I suggest to you, again, that Paul's simplistic foreign policy is just as dangerous and destabilizing to both regional and world peace as are the "war drums" that you are so fanatical about.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

How about you assume, when I ask a question that I would like to know the answer to the question asked. As usual, you twist the original question to fit the facts you now find. Originally you asserted:



In response, I asked:



Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that when I said "invade" you weren't bright enough to pick up from the context that I meant sending ground troops - not bombing or other "military options".

Let me be clear: I assumed that, when you said:



you meant boots on the ground invasion. None of the statements you provided suggest to me that any one of the candidates is suggesting a ground invasion of Iran.

As to bombing or other strikes to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon, it's pretty clear that, at this point, that's where the Republican candidates are (as well as Obama for that matter). Further, I agree with you to the extent that such an option, even if not intended, creates a real possibility of a land war (What happens if one of our planes is shot down and the Iranians are about to execute a US pilot?). It's clear, however, that the concept of Iran with nukes has pretty much most of the west on edge.

Why? I would suggest it is b/c of the jihadist nature of the governing theocracy. You site Israel as having a nuke as a reason to allow Iran's progress to becoming a nuclear power. The difference, I think, is that Israel is a rational state and will not take actions that would lead to the end of its existence as a state. Not so sure the Iranian govt. has those same "thought" processes. The current Iranian regime operates by an agenda not necessarilly governed by a "cost/benefit" analysis. Rather, it is under a authoritarian theocracy that funds/assists and encourages suicide bombers. If you are unconcerned by their gaining the ability to kill millions quickly, then you either one heartless dude or one impassioned zealot.





There are a lot of similarities and it is a concern. I agree and I hope that military intervention is ultimately avoided. Even stripping this last statement of your typical hysteria, logical leaps and hyperbole, however, it is much different assertion than your original statement and accusation that unidentified "far right crew" is seeking to put military ground units into and go "balls deep" in Iran.

So ... Let's get the crux. What do you suggest? Are you comfortable with Iran having a nuclear weapon? Do you believe that they will show the same restraint that other nuclear nations have done? Are certain that, once developed, they would share the technology with like minded jihadists regimes or groups? Do you think that their possesion of nuclear arms creates a more stable or less stable middle east? Once in possesion of such a weapon is it your believe they present no threat to the US or our allies? If a threat is presented to our allies - Israel, Saudi Arabia, what backing can/should we give them? If we w/draw from the mideast altogether: How do we protect our shipping lines from piracy? What effect will it have on our economy?

B/c of our reliance on foreign oil, our economy is hopelessly entangled in the middle east. Throw in the US commitment to Israel, and there just aren't simple answers. I suggest to you, again, that Paul's simplistic foreign policy is just as dangerous and destabilizing to both regional and world peace as are the "war drums" that you are so fanatical about.

Nicely done.