1.) luv2bowhunt - 03/21/2013

Thinking about that this morning and wondering what the heck do you do to stop it. If you were President what would/could you do?

I understand why Israel is freaking out, a madman Jihadist extremist with missles that can reach Israel in 10 minutes, trying to find a way to put a nuclear warhead on board.

Do you risk a pre-emptive strike against an Arab nation and risk uniting most of them on the common cause against 'Zionists'?

Or do you sit back and let them develop a nuclear bomb and cross your fingers they don't use it? Maybe let Israel take care of it?

Just wondering what the thought among the masses is, and break up the monotony of the forums.


..........oh also, what bow should I buy?:bang:

2.) Deerminator - 03/21/2013

Ya might as well toss N Korea in that arena.

This is what I would do;

Not tell a sole a sing thing about the plan.

3.) luv2bowhunt - 03/21/2013

Oh I'm sure there's plans, lots of plans. But what would YOU do?

4.) Deerminator - 03/21/2013

Remember how Al Pachino took out all of his enemies at the same time in the Godfather movie.

5.) Jon - 03/21/2013

[COLOR="#006400"]If I were the current president, I would put on my best non american clothes, surround myself with non american people and talk down on america. Ohh wait, that IS what our current president is doing.[/COLOR]

6.) XJCraver - 03/21/2013

Why the hell do we even care? Iran doesn't have any missiles that can get this far. It's Israel's problem, let Israel handle it.

Not too worried about NK, either. IF they lob a bomb at us we shoot it down - then we LEVEL their sh!t-stain of a country. Until then, WTF cares.



I'm tired of being at war. I'm tired of reading names of dead soldiers in the paper. It would sure be nice if we could just STFU and take care of the 12- trillion things we've got wrong right here at home.

7.) BULLZ-i - 03/21/2013

MAKE AN EXAMPLE OUT OF IRAN AND QUIT PUSSY FOOTING AROUND PLAY BIG BROTHER. SHOW THE MOFO's WE ARE STRONG AND NOT AFRAID GET GET THE CRAP DONE IN ONE FAIL SWOOP. NO GROUND TROOPS NEEDED.

8.) DParker - 03/21/2013

[QUOTE=XJCraver;3214]Why the hell do we even care? Iran doesn't have any missiles that can get this far. It's Israel's problem, let Israel handle it.

Not too worried about NK, either. IF they lob a bomb at us we shoot it down - then we LEVEL their sh!t-stain of a country. Until then, WTF cares.[/QUOTE]
Well, I do. Mostly because I know that missiles and bombers are not the only ways to deliver nuclear payloads (and we still haven't perfected the ability to "shoot down" those either). Also, because the notion that what happens on the other side of the Atlantic doesn't impact us is a false one.

[QUOTE=XJCraver;3214]I'm tired of being at war. I'm tired of reading names of dead soldiers in the paper. It would sure be nice if we could just STFU and take care of the 12- trillion things we've got wrong right here at home.[/QUOTE]
It would. The problem is that we don't...nor can we...exist in a vacuum here. But that doesn't mean advocating war, and I don't think that any of the current discussion involves troops on the ground someplace else.

9.) luv2bowhunt - 03/21/2013

One thing we've learned, World Wars will suck you in whether you like it or not. If Israel gets nuked or does the nuking, we will not be able to stay out of it IMO.

10.) DParker - 03/21/2013

[QUOTE=luv2bowhunt;3224]One thing we've learned, World Wars will suck you in whether you like it or not. If Israel gets nuked or does the nuking, we will not be able to stay out of it [COLOR=#b22222][B]IMO[/B][/COLOR].[/QUOTE]

Oh, there's no opinion to it. That's a cold, hard, undeniable and history-supported fact.

Just look what the assassination of a single Archduke led to.

11.) Bob Peck - 03/21/2013

This little known event appeared and disappeared off the radar ... being as sharp as I am it didn't get by me. How brilliant. Who needs a bunker buster that wouldn't work anyway?

[url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/19/who-s-sabotaging-iran-s-nuclear-program.html[/url]

12.) TRAVELER - 03/21/2013

Nothing calms down a radical extremists like.......

















[ATTACH=CONFIG]82[/ATTACH]

13.) Bob Peck - 03/21/2013

Who needs nukes when all we have to do (and have done) is cut the power cords? C'mon we need not go high tech when low tech works.

14.) Old Crow - 03/21/2013

I would ask you all to understand not all residence or even a majority may support the views of the radicals our fine media chooses to give air time to ......

Precision strikes if at all

It's arrogent for us in the USA to hold our ability to posses a nuke over any one else and feel the need to police the worlds choices to seek the same WOMD.

15.) DParker - 03/21/2013

[QUOTE=Old Crow;3238]I would ask you all to understand not all residence or even a majority may support the views of the radicals our fine media chooses to give air time to ......[/QUOTE]

True. Unfortunately it is those radicals who are the ones in control of the fissile materials and weapons development programs based on them.

[QUOTE=Old Crow;3238]Precision strikes if at all[/QUOTE]

Absolutely.

[QUOTE=Old Crow;3238]It's arrogent for us in the USA to hold our ability to posses a nuke over any one else and feel the need to police the worlds choices to seek the same WOMD.[/QUOTE]

Well, except when a country is party to a treaty that expressly forbids it from developing/possessing nuclear weapons...and when that same country's leadership has stated that one of our allies should be "wiped from the map".

16.) XJCraver - 03/21/2013

[QUOTE=DParker;3220]Well, I do. Mostly because I know that missiles and bombers are not the only ways to deliver nuclear payloads (and we still haven't perfected the ability to "shoot down" those either). Also, because the notion that what happens on the other side of the Atlantic doesn't impact us is a false one.


It would. The problem is that we don't...nor can we...exist in a vacuum here. But that doesn't mean advocating war, and I don't think that any of the current discussion involves troops on the ground someplace else.[/QUOTE]


Meh. Leave us alone, and we'll stay home and leave you alone. F- with us (i.e.; send your guys over here with suitcase nukes, whatever), and we make you cease to exist (and understand, the retaliation should be just that exact; harm just one American, and your entire country turns to glass.). We need to learn how to be a Bully.

This whole notion that we all (the peoples of the planet) have to get along, or that we "need" a Global Economy, or that we can't exist as a Society without one another, is flawed. We've tried it - it doesn't work.




And yes; I agree that all that ^^^^ is improbable/impossible today. I'm just arguing that it [I]should[/I] be that way.

17.) Old Crow - 03/21/2013

[QUOTE=DParker;3240] Unfortunately it is those radicals who are the ones in control of the fissile materials and weapons development programs.[/QUOTE]

As a eternal fact checker D ..... Please confirm the position title and affiliation of the recent individual in the most recent media and his said control of any weapon you refer to ......

And not talking about past spoutings of omygodineedarimjob

18.) XJCraver - 03/21/2013

[QUOTE=Old Crow;3238]I would ask you all to understand not all residence or even a majority may support the views of the radicals our fine media chooses to give air time to ......

Precision strikes if at all

It's arrogent for us in the USA to hold our ability to posses a nuke over any one else and feel the need to police the worlds choices to seek the same WOMD.[/QUOTE]


I disagree (and not just for the sake of argument either, I promise!).

If the people of Iran (or wherever) are being oppressed, I would argue that it is their DUTY to throw off their oppressors. You know, kinda' like we did here 237 years ago (and, it could also be argued, we [I]almost[/I] need to do again...).

19.) XJCraver - 03/21/2013

[QUOTE=Old Crow;3247]omygodineedarimjob[/QUOTE]


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Bravo! :hb:

20.) DParker - 03/21/2013

[QUOTE=XJCraver;3245]And yes; I agree that all that ^^^^ is improbable/impossible today. I'm just arguing that it [I]should[/I] be that way.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it should be. And I think we should each be supplied with a unicorn that farts rainbows and craps Skittles. But I'm not counting on that happening, so I'm going to approach life based on the assumption that it won't. :cool:

21.) XJCraver - 03/21/2013

[QUOTE=DParker;3250]Yes, it should be. And I think we should each be supplied with a unicorn that farts rainbows and craps Skittles. But I'm not counting on that happening, so I'm going to approach life based on the assumption that it won't. :cool:[/QUOTE]


Rainbows and skittles? WTF is wrong with you?


I want one that craps .223 and 9mm. :wave:

22.) DParker - 03/21/2013

[QUOTE=Old Crow;3247]As a eternal fact checker D ..... Please confirm the position title and affiliation of the recent individual in the most recent media and his said control of any weapon you refer to ......

And not talking about past spoutings of omygodineedarimjob[/QUOTE]

Also sometimes pronounced: [I]"I'm a dinner jacket"[/I] or [I]"I'm a dimmer switch"[/I]

I was referring to the Ayatollahs who hold the real power in Iran. I confess that I don't know who you're referring to. And if you're not talking about someone in power in Iran then I don't know what they're rantings would have to do with the subject.

23.) DParker - 03/21/2013

[QUOTE=XJCraver;3251]Rainbows and skittles? WTF is wrong with you?


I want one that craps .223 and 9mm. :wave:[/QUOTE]

The copper jackets chip my teeth.

24.) Old Crow - 03/21/2013

[QUOTE=DParker;3252]Also sometimes pronounced: [I]"I'm a dinner jacket"[/I] or [I]"I'm a dimmer switch"[/I]

I was referring to the Ayatollahs who hold the real power in Iran. I confess that I don't know who you're referring to. And if you're not talking about someone in power in Iran then I don't know what they're rantings would have to do with the subject.[/QUOTE]

In a lengthy televised address, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah said his organization could kill tens of thousands of Israeli civilians in a future war, by striking strategic Israeli sites with his rocket arsenal.

This I believe is the basis of the recent media not sure whom this man is or his real ability to speak for the Iranian government what control he would have be interesting to see the details.

Just be sure it's not like taking the manifesto of Ted Kazinski and crying for war against the US people

25.) DParker - 03/22/2013

[QUOTE=Old Crow;3254]In a lengthy televised address, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah said his organization could kill tens of thousands of Israeli civilians in a future war, by striking strategic Israeli sites with his rocket arsenal.

This I believe is the basis of the recent media not sure whom this man is or his real ability to speak for the Iranian government what control he would have be interesting to see the details.

Just be sure it's not like taking the manifesto of Ted Kazinski and crying for war against the US people[/QUOTE]




The ramblings of Hezbollah leaders has nothing to do with the issue, except to the extent that they could possibly end up being a recipient of nuke weaponry should Iran develop an arsenal. But if Hezbollah didn't even exist the problem of a nuclear Iran would still remain. This has been a major problem since Bush II's first term (remember all the accusations that Desert Storm was a prelude to an invasion of Iran?) and has been the focus of much coverage even during the current admin.

26.) Swamp Fox - 03/22/2013

Swampy's Seven Point Plan:

First, in all things, reverse the current official foreign policy of FUBAR.

This is less an action point than a total adjustment of position, admittedly. If thebowfanatic would have supported it, do the opposite. However, we must commit to the adjustment, so it IS an action point of a sort.

Second, remove Chuck Hagel as Secretary of State. Not only is he incompetent, he is soft on Iran and even softer on the use of American power.

[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/341257/hagel-obama-and-iran-mona-charen[/url]

Third, tighten and strengthen sanctions. Really. Quit thinking of sanctions as the nice way to get serious. As far as I can tell, we are not levying penalties or even leveraging influence with nations or business entities which are doing business with Iran.

Fourth, reclaim the lost opportunity to support a new Iranian revolution. Obama dithered when there was an opportunity to support iranian dissidents, just as he has dithered in Libya and Syria and places I'm not even thinking of right now. He squandered those opportunities just as he has wasted the chance and moral obligation to solidify gains and positional advantage in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, I said moral.

Fifth, suppport and [B]state[/B] that we support unilateral Israeli action in the name of self-defense, and YES, preemptive self-defense.

Sixth, quit pussyfooting around with the U.N. and the League of Despots. When you know something's a joke, call it out. Put some "diplomats" in place who went to Ranger School instead of Georgetown and American.

Finally, retrace the steps of Obama's "apology tour" to publicly and loudly correct the impression that the United States thinks of itself as anything other than a force for good in the world, that it is something other than the shining and best hope for freedom-loving people everywhere, and that tolerance is something we practice at home in our personal dealings and also in our interactions with those whose who would do us harm.

27.) crookedeye - 03/22/2013

are do what i do..pretend nothings wrong and it'll be better in the morning..

28.) Swamp Fox - 03/22/2013

Yes, the Secretary of State is soft on Iran, and soft on American power just as the Secretary of Defense is. I meant to call for a volume purge of secretaries, at least a two-fer. I was thinking of Chuck "I've Just Been Handed a Note" Hagel and John "Christmas in Cambodia" Kerry at the same time, but only one made it through the keyboard jungle.

Please forgive me. But, to quote our previous Secretary of Ineffectiveness, Hillary Clinton, "What, at this point, does it matter?"

29.) crookedeye - 03/22/2013

chuck is from nebraska..you take that back!

i was watching him get voted in on cpan, they were firing so many question at him he didnt no if he was coming are going..

30.) Swamp Fox - 03/22/2013

That's why we need to make sure he doesn't get the idea he's Secretary of State...

It was a good thing there were people there to pass him notes, or it could have been worse....Like Custer at the Alamo...

31.) crookedeye - 03/22/2013

lol i seen that...he was sure shuffling through the notes to see what he was for are agaisnt..

32.) Swamp Fox - 03/22/2013

:-)

I gotta take off for a few hours or I won't be prepared to answer Deerminator's Death Metal Thread later this morning...I'll be back, though...I'd say it's even odds that the thread is closed or hijacked by then :wink...I'm hoping just hijacked...

:grin: :wave:

33.) crookedeye - 03/22/2013

he made my ears pop last friday ..so im thinking today is even going to be better..

34.) luv2bowhunt - 03/22/2013

Not sure how anyone comes away with the impression that Iran would NOT use nuclear weapons against Israel or the US or US interests if given the chance.

When a country vows to 'wipe them from the face of the earth' I think you have to take that seriously. Europe didn't take Hitler seriously, how did that one turn out?

As far as our country is concerned, we as a whole have gotten the leadership we deserve. The people elected this group in, twice. Now we live or die with the decision.

51% of the country are morons who have voluntarily disengaged their brains. As long as facebook and twitter are up and running, all is well in their world.

35.) DParker - 03/23/2013

I'm going to shift the emphasis here from substance to style, and a contemplation of how one ought to announcing one's intentions. There are competing examples being given on a law blog that I frequent contrasting the classic eloquence of Joan d'Arc when declaring war against England...

[QUOTE]"Jhesus-Maria, King of England, and you, Duke of Bedford, who call yourself regent of the Kingdom of France, you, Guillaume de la Poule, count of Suffort, Jean, sire of Talbot, and you, Thomas, sire of Scales, who call yourselves lieutenants of the Duke of Bedford, acknowledge the summons of the King of Heaven. Render to the Maid here sent by God the King of Heaven, the keys of all the good towns which you have taken and violated in France. She is here come by God’s will to reclaim the blood royal. She is very ready to make peace, if you will acknowledge her to be right, provided that France you render, and pay for having held it. And you, archers, companions of war, men-at-arms and others who are before the town of Orleans, go away into your own country, by God. And if so be not done, expect news of the Maid who will come to see you shortly, to your very great injury. King of England, if you do not so, I am chief-in-war and in whatever place I attain your people in France, I will make them quit it willy-nilly. And if they will not obey, I will have them all slain; I am here sent by God, the King of Heaven, body for body, to drive you out of all France … ([I]Written this Tuesday of Holy Week, March 22, 1429.[/I])"[/QUOTE]

...vs the soul-of-wit brevity of Sviatoslav I, the 10th century Prince of Kiev, who initiated one of his military campaigns thusly...

[QUOTE]“Иду на вы.”[/QUOTE]

...which I'm told loosely translates to, "I'm coming to get you."

Discuss.

36.) Swamp Fox - 03/23/2013

First, Joan of Arc was a chick, plus she was under the impression she was chosen by God.

Everyone knows chicks talk a lot, and they talk way more than men. The feminists are furiously trying to dispute that idea, usually citing a 400-person study of college students that has so many flaws I'm surprised no women have pointed out that it was run by a man. If anyone has been around college students, you know the boys blather on just like girls do: Look at G-man.

Now, also, if you think you're chosen by God, you think you have permisssion to say just about anything you want and people should just stand there and take it. There would be no limit on how much you could say, either, because you are basically the representative of infinite wisdom, power and time.

Put the chick factor together with the gift-from-God factor and you're gonna get an earful. Believe me, I know.

Secondly, people in Kiev back then were too busy trying to squeeze vodka out of a potato or whip it up out of wheat juice that they didn't have a lot of time for chit-chat or embellishments. This is why the Russian word for "yes" sounds a lot like "Duh!" and there are so few Russian names that cannot be discovered in just a couple of episodes of [I]The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show[/I] or within the first two pages of an international intenet dating site.

The third reason is very simple: There were just a lot more words available in the fifteenth century versus the tenth. I mean, do the math: People had 50% more time to develop vocabulary and things to say, so they took advantage.

37.) Floyd - 03/23/2013

Dang Swampy, you don't like girls.

Hold on....

38.) Floyd - 03/23/2013

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;3432]Put the chick factor together with the gift-from-God factor and you're gonna get an earful. Believe me, I know.[/QUOTE]

This was way too funny. Please tell the story.

39.) Floyd - 03/23/2013

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;3432]First, Joan of Arc was a chick, plus she was under the impression she was chosen by God.

Now, also, if you think you're chosen by God, you think you have permisssion to say just about anything you want and people should just stand there and take it. There would be no limit on how much you could say, either, because you are basically the representative of infinite wisdom, power and time.[/QUOTE]


First, Moses was a dude, plus he was under the impression he was chosen by God.

First, _______was a ______, plus she/he was under the impression she/he was chosen by God.

I'm thinking fill in the blank bibles would be much more fun on earth than we are having now. :-)

40.) DParker - 03/23/2013

Geez...I guess I need to repeat...

"I'm going to shift the emphasis here from substance to style"

I'm already over the "what was said" stuff and have moved on to the "who sounded better saying it (whatever it was)?" part.

And stop dissing vodka. :p

41.) Swamp Fox - 03/23/2013

Oh. Sorry. Someone was talking while I was trying to read stuff on the internet. She's going to talk through the basketball games, too.
.
So I didn't catch the fine distinction in your post. When I saw that you were inquiring about substance vs. style and then simply said "discuss", I took it literally.

Again, I humbly beg your forgiveness. [I]Excusez mois, si vous plait.[/I]

:wink

Now though, since I realize that I do not have [I]carte blanche[/I] to discuss any of the pertinent background information to your real question, but must stay strictly and religiously on the main point of how do things sound, I must point out that we are talking about apples and oranges here.

Can we really compare how a eighteen year-old French girl sounds vs. some hairy, guttural old codger from a drafty stone hut in what would become the land of women weight-lifters?

If it weren't for the outrageous French accent, I would pick the eighteen year-old girl every time. I don't know about some of these other guys on here, though.

42.) Go Bucks - 03/23/2013

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;3445] [I]Excusez mois, s'il vous plait.[/I]

[/QUOTE]

fixed it for you.... hint: if you want to hit on Joan of Arc, as a minimum... don't talk like wannabe euro-trash

43.) Swamp Fox - 03/23/2013

Uh...bon jooor...

:p

44.) DParker - 03/24/2013

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;3445]Oh. Sorry. Someone was talking while I was trying to read stuff on the internet. She's going to talk through the basketball games, too.
.
So I didn't catch the fine distinction in your post. When I saw that you were inquiring about substance vs. style and then simply said "discuss", I took it literally.

Again, I humbly beg your forgiveness. [I]Excusez mois, si vous plait.[/I]

:wink[/quote]

Well, you know, we humans need to conduct our interactions according to established rules. We can't have conversations just wandering off willy-nilly (which, btw, sounds much cooler now that I know Joan used it) on uncontrolled tangents. You allow that to happen and the next thing you know people are galavanting through the 15-items-or-less checkout aisle with 17 items, and a formerly ordered society descends into anarchy. Cats and dogs, living together....

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;3445]Now though, since I realize that I do not have [I]carte blanche[/I] to discuss any of the pertinent background information to your real question, but must stay strictly and religiously on the main point of how do things sound, I must point out that we are talking about apples and oranges here.

Can we really compare how a eighteen year-old French girl sounds vs. some hairy, guttural old codger from a drafty stone hut in what would become the land of women weight-lifters?

If it weren't for the outrageous French accent, I would pick the eighteen year-old girl every time. I don't know about some of these other guys on here, though.[/QUOTE]

I don't know about all that, but I do fart in your general direction. Oh, and something about hamsters and elderberries.