You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #35: Why ruin a good fear tactic with the truth? nt [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
35. Why ruin a good fear tactic with the truth? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Help me out here: Why would Iran having 1 or 2 nuke bombs be a reason to panic? karlrschneider  May-03-07 09:38 PM   #0 
  - don't try to bring facts and reality into it  Viva_La_Revolution   May-03-07 09:41 PM   #1 
  - That is my mission.  karlrschneider   May-03-07 09:42 PM   #3 
  - It has to do with fealty to the west  Lerkfish   May-03-07 09:41 PM   #2 
  - They don't have any bombs or any capacity to make any bombs.  Warren Stupidity   May-03-07 09:45 PM   #4 
  - Yes, it was hypothetical but it was somewhat practical as a general proposition.  karlrschneider   May-03-07 10:04 PM   #12 
  - Because Repukes & the MSM need for us to believe this and be verrrry afraid!  southerncrone   May-03-07 09:46 PM   #5 
  - It's not. Unless you're Israel.  BlooInBloo   May-03-07 09:47 PM   #6 
  - Why? Israel has a survivable nuclear deterrent.  Warren Stupidity   May-03-07 09:54 PM   #8 
     - I'm sure that's a great relief to the millions who'd already be dead.  BlooInBloo   May-03-07 10:04 PM   #13 
        - You don't understand MAD then.  Warren Stupidity   May-03-07 10:07 PM   #14 
        - Exactly. Evan an insane maniacal leader knows better than to destroy  karlrschneider   May-03-07 10:11 PM   #18 
           - Then he's ipso facto not insane.  BlooInBloo   May-03-07 10:16 PM   #23 
              - No, Ahmidinijad isn't insane. He's a prick but not insane.  karlrschneider   May-03-07 10:21 PM   #27 
                 - Sigh. And it's on that very question that I wouldn't be excited about betting...  BlooInBloo   May-04-07 09:43 AM   #36 
                    - And what about the "countrymen" of the US who might have to die as a result of...  originalpckelly   May-05-07 08:50 AM   #44 
        - Are you saying Iran's government would risk their own near-certain  karlrschneider   May-03-07 10:07 PM   #15 
           - I'm saying I wouldn't want to bet the lives of my countrymen that they *wouldn't*.  BlooInBloo   May-03-07 10:09 PM   #16 
              - Then you simply do not understand MAD.  Warren Stupidity   May-03-07 10:12 PM   # 
                 - lol! All disagreement must be my misunderstanding, eh? lol!  BlooInBloo   May-03-07 10:16 PM   #21 
                    - No just this particular one.  Warren Stupidity   May-05-07 07:57 AM   #37 
                       - The proposition of a conflict between two states armed with nukes would necessarily lead to death  Selatius   May-05-07 08:28 AM   #40 
                          - Well that is exactly the point.  Warren Stupidity   May-05-07 08:31 AM   #41 
  - And how do they deliver them anyway?  dave_p   May-03-07 09:48 PM   #7 
  - Missiles of course, Iran has reasonable missiles.  Warren Stupidity   May-03-07 09:56 PM   #10 
     - There's missiles and there's missiles  dave_p   May-03-07 10:44 PM   #34 
        - I was being generous to the argument that they could strike  Warren Stupidity   May-05-07 08:34 AM   #42 
  - Because it would then be impossible to repossess all of our NG and petroleum  loindelrio   May-03-07 09:54 PM   #9 
  - then we can't invade them anymore  kenny blankenship   May-03-07 09:56 PM   #11 
  - Yes, they're expected to bomb Israel with them. n/t  madeline_con   May-03-07 10:10 PM   #17 
  - "Expected"?? What does that mean?  karlrschneider   May-03-07 10:16 PM   #22 
     - Just what it says.  madeline_con   May-03-07 10:25 PM   #30 
  - Nuke's are useless as weapons...great for status.  Forkboy   May-03-07 10:12 PM   #19 
  - Because OMG who SAYS they will STOP at 1 or 2!!!!!!!!!11  uppityperson   May-03-07 10:15 PM   #20 
  - Well, I bow to your obviously superior interlocutory skills.  karlrschneider   May-03-07 10:19 PM   #25 
     - Who needs facts and reality when you can impose fear.  uppityperson   May-03-07 10:23 PM   #29 
  - It's called "PROJECTING". We used 2 nukes on civilians, so we think others will.  Bonobo   May-03-07 10:18 PM   #24 
  - Maybe but in 1945 nobody else had any.  karlrschneider   May-03-07 10:22 PM   #28 
  - Couple reasons I can think of...  SayWhatYo   May-03-07 10:19 PM   #26 
  - There is already a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The other  lectrobyte   May-03-07 10:31 PM   #31 
  - I also would like for nukes to be "un-invented" but it's a Pandora thing.  karlrschneider   May-03-07 10:34 PM   #32 
  - Given that we are moving in the opposite direction  Warren Stupidity   May-05-07 03:46 PM   #53 
  - I have to agree. I do not see a nuclear armed Iran as a threat  Zodiak Ironfist   May-03-07 10:42 PM   #33 
  - Why ruin a good fear tactic with the truth? nt  Javaman   May-03-07 10:47 PM   #35 
  - Because they're evil, crazy, unfriendly ferigners.  greyhound1966   May-05-07 08:09 AM   #38 
  - What happens when Iran gets tactical nukes. Do you doubt Bush would use tactical nukes?  cryingshame   May-05-07 08:10 AM   #39 
  - It would force the use of diplomacy  bonito   May-05-07 08:46 AM   #43 
  - ALERT: LAUNCH DETECTED. I think a nuclear war is now more iminent than during the cold war.  conspirator   May-05-07 09:27 AM   #45 
  - Because only responsible countries are allowed to have them  SoCalDem   May-05-07 10:19 AM   #46 
  - A lot of it is based on the assumption that Iran is not a "rational" actor  rockymountaindem   May-05-07 10:35 AM   #47 
  - thanks, RMD  paulk   May-05-07 12:14 PM   #49 
     - Now hang on, I didn't go that far  rockymountaindem   May-05-07 12:46 PM   #50 
     - We can also look back in history to see how Iran (or Persia)  Warren Stupidity   May-05-07 04:05 PM   #55 
     - Not entirely true  rockymountaindem   May-05-07 06:08 PM   #59 
        - I didn't say they were perfect.  Warren Stupidity   May-05-07 06:29 PM   #61 
     - ok  paulk   May-05-07 04:23 PM   #57 
     - Hmmm... well Israel is at least partially a theocracy as well.  Warren Stupidity   May-05-07 03:59 PM   #54 
        - Israel is not a theocracy, that's bullcrap.  JohnLocke   May-05-07 04:27 PM   #58 
           - Israel is generally considered a partial theocracy, as I stated.  Warren Stupidity   May-05-07 06:28 PM   #60 
  - it seems that those who insist that everyone is safer when everyone  bbgrunt   May-05-07 10:50 AM   #48 
  - hmmmmmm, what a point!  libodem   May-05-07 12:52 PM   #52 
  - "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed  Tierra_y_Libertad   May-05-07 12:51 PM   #51 
  - The problem is not Iran having nukes. The problem is the US occupation of the middle east.  conspirator   May-05-07 04:14 PM   #56 
  - The US would have to treat them as allies, the way we do Pakistan.,  McCamy Taylor   May-05-07 08:24 PM   #62 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC