Originally Posted by evillally

Well, it ain't a fvcking secret anymore! Thanks, Fox News!

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Look... Fox News is helping the "ter'Rist"!

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Look... Fox News is helping the "ter'Rist"!

Israel is retarded for using nukes though, even low yield nukes. That'll just give someone(Iran, Syria, Jordan etc.) the needed excuse to attack them in return with nuclear ordinance.

Originally Posted by marked8

Israel denying it:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Look... Fox News is helping the "ter'Rist"!

Israel is retarded for using nukes though, even low yield nukes. That'll just give someone(Iran, Syria, Jordan etc.) the needed excuse to attack them in return with nuclear ordinance.

Originally Posted by MAC1

None of them need an excuse to attack Israel, particularly Iran and Syria. Haven't they already been attacking Israel through terrorist groups.

The Middle East is rapidly heading towards a melt down. Though I would like to be optimistic and believe there will be peace, the problem is I don't see anything to indicate peace is on the horizon.

As long as Muslims are willing teach their children to hate Jews and are willing to condone prejudice, how can there be peace?

Originally Posted by fossten

Maybe Israel can show our gov how to deal with a wacko nation like Iran.

Originally Posted by RB3

Fox is owned by News Corp.

Originally Posted by fossten

You keep plumbing new depths of inanity with your statements. As if Iran, who has funded Hezbollah and assisted them in firing rockets into Israel, and has said that they want Israel wiped off the map, and continues to say so, while threatening the world with nukes, NEEDS an excuse to attack Israel?

It's interesting that you don't see this story as Israel simply standing up for itself after all the attacks it's suffered. I suppose you believe Israel should just pack up and move to Europe, just like Ahmadinejad believes, eh?

As if Syria, who has funded and assisted Hezbollah in the exact same mission, needs an excuse?

You know nothing about Jordan except that they are a neighboring country. Nice try.

The fact is that Iran, Syria, and anybody else who threatens Israel are simply afraid of Israel. And they should be. I for one would wholeheartedly support an attack by Israel on Iran. Go get em boys!!

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

I certainly hope so.

Right now it looks like the new Dem leader is demonstrating the only skill she has. (Simply clueless at this point). This might be the only skill she needs on Capital Hill though.

Originally Posted by MAC1

None of them need an excuse to attack Israel, particularly Iran and Syria. Haven't they already been attacking Israel through terrorist groups.

The Middle East is rapidly heading towards a melt down. Though I would like to be optimistic and believe there will be peace, the problem is I don't see anything to indicate peace is on the horizon.

As long as Muslims are willing teach their children to hate Jews and are willing to condone prejudice, how can there be peace?

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

It's funny you often accuse me of not having a point when you fail to read what I write before you attack... I'll just stack this response with all your other knee-jerkers you so readily spew forth. I said "an excuse to attack Israel with nuclear ordinance", key words in sentence, 'nuclear ordinance'.

Interesting how you always try and imply someone is a "Jew Hater" if they don't fully support Israel's every move. Why is that?

As far as Jordan goes, I know they have a "peace" with Israel, but Jordan has been very anti-Jewish/Israel in the past. Nice try on your part.

And If Iran were to threaten Israel, I'd support Israel attacking too, just don't open Pandora's Box and do it with nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by TommyB

As is the Sunday Times. Just wanted to point that out in case you weren't aware.

Originally Posted by fossten

IF Iran were to threaten Israel? Are you kidding? What rock have you been living under? Are you not aware of the almost weekly press releases by Ahmadinejad THREATENING Israel?

Even accepting your premise for the sake of the argument, you still make no sense. For 20 years Iran has denied having nuclear weapons. So how can they threaten Israel with nukes? And what's the difference if they get 'wiped off the map' with nukes or otherwise? Furthermore, you have an uncanny inability to connect dots like I've never seen before. Let me try to help you:

1. Iran is developing nukes
2. Iran is threatening to wipe Israel off the map (see where I'm going here?)
3. Israel is considering destroying Iran's nuclear capability so they won't get wiped off the map (see that natural response - it's called protecting itself?)
4. Iran may use that as an excuse to launch a nuclear attack? (LOL)
5. YOU called Israel RETARDED.
6. You don't believe Israel should protect themselves
7. Ergo, you are either anti-Israel or stupid.

I've never seen people so frightened of Iran, which is a half-assed country that would fold like a tent if Israel decided to go all-out. Go boo-hoo in your little tent, little man.

Originally Posted by fossten

IF Iran were to threaten Israel? Are you kidding? What rock have you been living under? Are you not aware of the almost weekly press releases by Ahmadinejad THREATENING Israel?

Even accepting your premise for the sake of the argument, you still make no sense. For 20 years Iran has denied having nuclear weapons. So how can they threaten Israel with nukes? And what's the difference if they get 'wiped off the map' with nukes or otherwise? Furthermore, you have an uncanny inability to connect dots like I've never seen before. Let me try to help you:

1. Iran is developing nukes
2. Iran is threatening to wipe Israel off the map (see where I'm going here?)
3. Israel is considering destroying Iran's nuclear capability so they won't get wiped off the map (see that natural response - it's called protecting itself?)
4. Iran may use that as an excuse to launch a nuclear attack? (LOL)
5. YOU called Israel RETARDED.
6. You don't believe Israel should protect themselves
7. Ergo, you are either anti-Israel or stupid.

I've never seen people so frightened of Iran, which is a half-assed country that would fold like a tent if Israel decided to go all-out. Go boo-hoo in your little tent, little man.

Originally Posted by 06AtlantaLS

P.S. 95 - when speaking of artillery and weapons and such it's ORDNANCE. An ORDINANCE is a law enacted by a city/town or county.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Don't be a Fossten... I said "an excuse to attack in return with nuclear ordinance", not just an excuse to attack.

Originally Posted by MAC1

The operative word you used that I was responding to is "excuse." You prefaced your comment based on Israel attacking first. However, my point is that neither Iran or Syria in particular need any "excuse" to attack Israel, whether offensively or in retaliation, as evidenced by the fact that both countries have been attacking Israel for decades through terrorist groups as their proxies. The latest being Hezbollah's unprevoked attack.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Your reasoning is simply astonishing (in a moronic way).

1) It is most likely that Iran is developing nukes, there isn't absolute concreate evidence.
2) Iran has been threatening that for a long time
3) I agree, the threats and high probability that Iran is developing a nuke is reason enough to attack; I never said it wasn't, what I am saying is, "DO NOT ATTACK WITH NUKES" (Remember the key word). Israel has the capabilities to entirely flatten Iran's military, let alone a "nuclear power plant".
4) No, if Israel were to attack Iran with nukes first, that would be an excuse to retaliate with nukes and give other Israel hating countries reason to seek nuclear weapons to attack with. Point is, Israel doesn't need and shouldn't be the one to "nuke first" and they can effectively destroy Iran's nuclear capabilites without doing so (see above). Opening the 'Nuclear Warfare' door is bad for everyone.
5) I said they are retarded IF they use nukes, missed a key word again I see.
6) There's that fools-logic again...

Huh? Just another stupid ad-hominem attack with baseless accusations.

Originally Posted by fossten

Per your point 4 and 5, please re-read this part of the article:


Well, let me be the first (and only) person to bow to your superior military and strategic intellect. Obviously you know far more about air strikes and hardened facilities than even the military leaders in the United States and Israel. I guess everybody's retarded EXCEPT YOU. <sarcasm off>

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Let me ask this -

What do you think might happen after such a bombing by Israel occurred?

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

On the flipside, what would happen to Iran if they used a low-yield nuke on Israel first? America/Israel would completely flatten them.

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Therein lies the conundrum. If Israel or the US were to nuke first - we would become the bad guys with most countries - even many of our allies. However, if Iran Nuked Israel, it wouldnt be hard to gain world support for an invasion, similar to Gulf War 1 and Kuwait. Of course, the problem with waiting to be attacked is that you have Israel glowing in the process.

Its kinda like standing in a bar and on the verge of a barfight. You can see him clenchin his fist and you know the guy is about to swing, but if you sucker punch him first, you are the one that goes to jail, whereas is you wait for him to swing, you now have a get out of jail free card when you beat the crap out of him with a barstool.

Originally Posted by TommyB

By the way Fossten, don't fool yourself into thinking Iran would be a cakewalk either. In spite of your assessment that Iran is a "half-assed country that would fold like a tent", they happen to have a formidable military. Iraq doesn't even compare. In terms of active military, they're number eight in number of troops. Add in the paramilitary, and they leap to number one by a long shot (and we move to eight).

Originally Posted by fossten

You sound like a man speaking from experience. Been in a lot of barfights lately?

Your logic only applies if America isn't the most powerful country in the world right now. It's shameful that we don't properly defend our interests like we did in the 1940s and 1950s. If we decided to nuke somebody, there isn't one single damn country on this planet that could do one single thing about it, and you know it. The Democrats and liberals in this country have got us afraid of taking action in our best interests for fear of "looking bad", and we as a nation will pay dearly for that when one of our big cities goes up in a mushroom cloud. Mark my words.

Originally Posted by fossten

Excuse me, Mr. Man-with-a-paper-nose, but there isn't one country on this planet that would have a prayer against us if we decided to FLATTEN it. The problem we have is when we try to go in and save the countryside and population and build them back up. The proper thing to do is go in there and smash them back to nomadic tribes so they can't even make a transistor radio. Then we should leave and let Europe pick up the pieces.

Yes we should have gone into Iraq, but we should have gone in with a bulldozer and then left. I say the hell with the Middle East. Let their tribes fight amongst themselves all they want, but the first one that gives Israel the evil eye gets blasted into sawdust.

Originally Posted by TommyB

Aren't you one of those who keep "reminding" the rest of us what a brutal psychopathic killer Saddam was? That he deserved to die for the million or so that he killed? Yet that's exactly what you're suggesting we should do, only on a much more massive scale. After all, how many people would likely have to die in order to "smash them back to nomadic tribes"? Oh well, just a bunch of sand n*ggers anyway, right?

You just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that your own hatred of Saddam has nothing at all to do with his "killing his own people", and everything to do with pure bloodlust.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

My favorite is when he says "The proper thing to do..." and then he goes on to describe genocide in a nonchalant way.

Originally Posted by fossten

YOu guys are absolutely missing my point. What do you think we did in World War II? We carpet bombed cities and nuked Japan twice until our enemies surrendered. We didn't take any time to avoid civilian casualties. We destroyed much of the French countryside, which by the way was mostly already obliterated by the Germans the first time they steamrolled through.

Would you call what we did in WWII genocide? Hmm?

My point is that the proper way to win a war is to kill the enemy until they give up, not to surgically strike military targets and then stand around taking cheap potshots from guerillas while trying to protect their buildings.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

The format has greatly changed since the 1940's Fossten. Enemies today are not the same as enemies of yesterday; carpet bomb the entire Middle East and then what? Sure you killed a terrorist here and there for every ten-thousand poor non-political bastards (and their families) you just killed, while the greater terrorist threats are hiding in Sweden or training in Southern Algeria.

Originally Posted by fossten

My, my, look who's putting words in my mouth. What are you, a racist? I don't have to defend myself to you, but when you start throwing around the 'n' word you need to back off. I'll bet you don't even know the difference between an Arab and a Persian.

Originally Posted by fossten

In case you haven't noticed, Mr. Coward, we are at war. We've been at war with Iran in particular since 1979, but the entire nation of Islam has been on a jihad with the West for hundreds of years. Get a clue.

Originally Posted by fossten

As far as I'm concerned, ignoramus p*ssies like you are the REASON we haven't won this war yet. People like you cower in fear at the thought of hurting an "innocent" civilian muslim over there in the desert, while you support the wanton slaughter of unborn babies here and abroad.

Originally Posted by fossten

At the same time, you have no compassion for the families of 9/11 victims, who would surely like to have some vengeance done for the unprovoked destruction of their precious lives.

Originally Posted by fossten

People like you make me sick, because you wish to keep us weak and impotent in this war, instead of empowering us to defeat our enemies, who have sworn to destroy us, which also includes you by the way. You weep for the fallen muslims while you curse the American military. Your abject defeatist hypocrisy is disgusting.

Originally Posted by TommyB

Blah blah blah...

"Don't have to defend" yourself? There IS no defense for what you're suggesting. Period. That's why you won't.

And yet the US and Israel supplied Iran with missiles in the 80's (remember Iran-Contra?). Go figure.

More pointless trash talk. You just had to get a jab in there about abortion, pretending to know what I think about it. Nevertheless, it's completely off-topic. Nice try though.

Again, you put words in my mouth. All the while you stand on the corpses of the dead, waving an American flag like a trained chimp, and pretending to know what they would want. What gall you have.

I guess the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't enough "vengeance" for them? Of the thousands of dead Iraqis? Let me know when they've had enough vengeance.

Your main problem is that you can't see anything beyond your own pathetic little life. You delude yourself into thinking that people on the other side of the world will react differently than people here would (or how you think they should). That killing thousands or millions of them would make them submit to our superiority rather than react with vengeance for the things done to them and their loved ones.

YES, I get it. There are those who want to kill us. But large-scale bombing of civilian targets isn't going to change that. I'll even go out on a limb and suggest that it might just make things worse. I can guarantee that it won't make them give up.

By the way, something you ignore when comparing this fight with past wars is that our country is much more dependant on the rest of the world in every way possible. For instance, back in the 40's we were the world leader in manufacturing. No longer. Thanks to globalization, it would take us decades to become as self-sufficient as we were back then. So your fantasies of telling the rest of the world to f*** off are just that: fantasies.

And yet again more words in my mouth.

People like YOU make me sick because you see the use of military might as the one and only solution to every problem, while you ignore the consequences. You run around spouting your phony patriotism, but you would have us discard all the things that made this country great in order to "win". Your cheering for America has about all the depth and meaning of a drunken Packers fan painting his body green and gold and running naked onto Lambeau Field.

You have no desire for stability and peace, if it means we have to compromise one inch. All others must unconditionally submit to us. And that's why you're gonna get us all killed.

Originally Posted by fossten

....... The way to do it is to avoid the population centers and just destroy every industry, building, government complex, oil field, and anything else they can use to make a modern society.

Then we leave, instead of occupying. Let the Europeans pick up the pieces if they want to.

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

And yet you support BuSh's policy of "stay and die" in Iraq?? Make up your mind, flip-flopper.

Originally Posted by fossten

...we should have left rather than sit there and become targets.

Originally Posted by fossten

No, I don't support it anymore, since I've given this some thought, Al-Ahmadinejohnny. I know being intellectually honest is something that's foreign to you, as is being thoughtful, but nevertheless, I believe that although we were right to remove Saddam and free the Iraqis, we should have left rather than sit there and become targets.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Yet you called anyone that you thought implied that we should "Cut and Run" cowards, liberal wussies, terrorist sympathizers, gutless etc. All that talk about if we leave we'll be handing Iraq to Iran who will use it as a terrorist breeding ground... So I ask you now, what will happen to the Iraqis if we just "Cut and Run" like so many "spineless" Democratic leaders suggested in the past?

In a twist of irony, I am all for Bush sending in more troops, if that is what it takes to finally get the job done and Iraq stabilized, then so be it. Though I do not hold high hopes for this admin actually doing it.

Originally Posted by fossten

I'm not suggesting we cut and run. I'm suggesting we increase troop levels and go after Iran, smash them to bits and then come home. Man you people CANNOT READ! If we go after Iran and slash and burn their ability to wage war against Iraq, how will they be able to use Iraq as a terrorist breeding ground?

DUH.

By the way, Deville, the ONLY REASON this admin won't do it, as you say, will be because the Democrats cut funding or refuse to add more money to the war effort. Bush is determined to do it, so I support him in that. But these Sunnis and Shiites do not like each other, and no amount of nicey-nice talkie talk will change that.

The minute we leave there they will start up again, regardless of the so-called Iraqi security. You know that Maliki is an Iran supporter? You people remember history? The ONLY REASON they didn't fight each other under Saddam was because he locked them down with brutal force. The moment we leave, they won't be locked down anymore. Use your common sense, people, these are religious fanatics that use violence to settle their disputes.

Originally Posted by fossten

...we should have left rather than sit there and become targets.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

I read what you write.

In reference to Iraq:
In the past, anyone who said we should leave/pull out of Iraq you said "Liberal... blah...blah...wussies...blah...blah...cut and run..."

I agreed, there has to be a civil war in Iraq where one side is the clear and absolute winner. They have lived "under the sword" for generations, they will not change overnight.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

With a traditonal tactical airstrike: The usual, "Israel is a terrorist state", "America is using Israel as it's long-arm" etc. etc. etc. and Israel may or may not be attacked again, maybe Hezbollah at the command of Iran will start firing their rockets (again). But if Israel uses nukes, then I seriously think that will work as a greater rallying tool for Israel/America hating Islamic Nations and WWII era rockets will be the least of Israel's worries. Point being, the Middle East is a huge mess, no need to make it worse with upping up the ante and dropping nukes.

On the flipside, what would happen to Iran if they used a low-yield nuke on Israel first? America/Israel would completely flatten them.

Originally Posted by fossten

No, I don't support it anymore, since I've given this some thought, Al-Ahmadinejohnny. I know being intellectually honest is something that's foreign to you, as is being thoughtful, but nevertheless, I believe that although we were right to remove Saddam and free the Iraqis, we should have left rather than sit there and become targets.

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

I can't believe what I'm reading!! CRAP! There goes our perfect record of 100% disagreement! (took you long enough to finally come around, though)

Originally Posted by fossten

Sorry, I just now noticed this. You do realize that you have tacitly admitted that the media (who presumably would be making or publishing all these statements) is decidedly anti-Israel and even anti-America. You've also admitted that Iran is fighting a war with one of our allies by proxy.

By the way, I completely disagree that using nukes would be so bad for Israel. If we condone nukes and Israel uses them, I believe the Middle East will display shock and disbelief, but also fear and respect. I don't think Israel will have much to worry about from its neighbors after such an attack, having shown a willingness to go that far. The only enemy that would be able to have an effect is the propaganda that is so willingly abetted by our mainstream press, which would turn the tide of public opinion against Israel.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

The media sways either way, always has, I do not believe "it" is strictly liberal, the point was that Israel is usually seen as the "bad guy" by the rest of the world and little more than America's puppet regardless of circumstances. Perfect example, look what happened in the last Israel/Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict... Hezbollah fires rockets aimed at Israeli civilians, it's seen as "They have to do, what they have to do", Israel demolishes an apartment complex because it is being used as a munitions depot for said rockets, it's seen as 'They're killing women and children out of bloodlust, why are the attacking so much!" I have no doubt that Iran or Iranian groups are funding Hezbollah or at least one of the contributors.

Certainly a possibility, but I wouldn't want to chance a mini-nuke set off in Tel Aviv to find out. Like I said, America/Israel shouldn't be the one to open that box first.

Originally Posted by fossten

Show me where in my post I used the word "liberal." Your lack of attention to detail is stunning. I said "anti-Israel." And you just re-affirmed my point about the media being "anti-Israel." Look at the coverage they got during the last conflict, CNN talking about the poor Lebanese civilians who were being used AS HUMAN SHIELDS BY HEZBOLLAH, while ignoring the poor Israeli civilians who had been TARGETED BY HEZBOLLAH. You have to know that the media and most of the world hates Israel, simply because they have the audacity to exist. But our own media has no excuse for their hateful coverage.

I could argue that Iran has already opened the nuke box by building weapons and threatening Israel with total destruction. I could also argue that there's nothing wrong with using nuclear weapons. They are very effective and unless you are using a city-buster, not that dangerous (except to their targets). Furthermore, I think you are afraid of Iran, evidenced by your apprehension at Israel somehow provoking Iran by using nukes, and oh what a scary prospect that would be. Israel has the ability to defeat Iran completely, do you realize that?

Finally, you are more afraid of Israel using nukes than you are of Iran using nukes. That shows a mixup of priorities. Israel has not threatened nor has she attacked anyone without provocation. Iran cannot make that claim, you have already admitted. So which country would you rather see use nukes, Israel or Iran? Because I can almost guarantee it's going to be one or the other. Choose carefully, and "neither" is not an option (just for the sake of the argument).

I predict you will waffle on the question, because you don't want to admit that Israel can be responsible with nukes, nor can you admit that I might be right.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

I was responding to the bigger picture that the "MSM is Liberally Biased", something which you have said many since I joined this forum. How's that for "attention to detail"? No argument there, I said above the Israel has and will probably be always seen as the "bad guy", who's not paying attention now?

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Yea you could make a good argument out of those points, but I feel that America needs to be the better country and not go there first.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

That's the 3rd or fourth time you tried to label me a coward by saying I am somehow afraid of Iran, I know and agree that Israel could uppercut Iran out of the ring, that doesn't mean I think they should open the nuclear genie bottle. Bringing nukes into use and effectively making them an option is a lose-lose for everyone.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

That's a B.S. question in relevance to my argument.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

I am not "more afraid" of either, while I do realize that Israel isn't a country to use nuclear weapons in a city like Iran [Iran is a country not a city - detail again], that isn't the basis of my argument. It is simplify that the use of nuclear weapons shouldn't be brought into the equation.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

I seriously doubt Iran will ever use a nuke first though, they know such an action WILL guarantee their complete destruction; I feel they want it as a bargaining chip; a "don't mess with us or else.", like the N. Koreans.

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Should they have that bargaining chip and can they be fully trusted with it? I don't think so, but taking it away with the use of nukes is a poor option I think.

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Public relations aside, is really worse to use a precision tactical nuclear BUNKER BUSTER than it is to drop a 20,000lb Daisy Cutter or MOAB?

The real story here is why is Israel finding itself left alone to make the tough decisions regarding Iran? Europe and the rest of the free world are too cowardly to make the difficult decisions, confident that Israel will make it for them, and then they can vilify Israel and take the "higher ground"- while privately comforted by the fact they no longer will be threatened by Iran with mid-range nuclear weapons, or nuclear weapons a days drive from their capitol cities.

Originally Posted by fossten

Actually, Iranian missiles can now reach Europe, and soon they will have the capability to reach our Eastern seaboard. Then, just add some nuclear tips, and voila!

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Exactly- so all the while, Europe and the Americas sit, unwilling to make the rough decisions regarding Iran, confident that Israel will do it for them. And after Israel does the dirty work for them, they'll be the first to condemn it.

And while Israel is in Iran's sites, it's not the only country. Iran can easily hit the EU countries. And once a truck enters a EU country, it moves unrestricted throughout the continent. The risk to Europe is staggering.

Originally Posted by fossten

Good point. I'm telling you, if we just went in and knocked Iran out of the picture, I bet we'd have Middle Eastern countries surrendering by the bucketful. It's such a shame nobody has any guts anymore.

The world has NEVER been this dangerous, not in its entire history.

Originally Posted by fossten

You weren't paying attention to detail because you strayed off topic. You inserted something out of context and then made zero points with it.

Ok, first of all, I never mentioned America going there first, I mentioned Israel. Not paying attention to detail again, but let's move on and assume you meant Israel. Your sentence sounds so namby-pamby and shallow I almost don't know where to begin. You 'feel?' And what set of FACTS are you basing this FEELING on? Be the better country? What the hell does that mean? What is this, some sort of progressyve, liberal conflict-resolution problem?

And how does sitting on your hands while being threatened make you the 'better country?' Iran would view that as you being the 'weaker country' and the 'easier target.' This is war, man. You don't win wars by 'being the better person.' You win wars by eliminating your enemy's desire to fight, usually by killing his people and smashing his toys. I remind you YET AGAIN, Iran HAS ALREADY GONE THERE FIRST by threatening Israel with nukes. That's the 3rd or 4th time I've had to remind you of that.


Explain precisely how Israel using nukes is a lose-lose for everyone. You haven't made any kind of case backing up your statement, you just throw it out there like it's the gospel truth. Let's analyze this, shall we?

The only time nukes have ever been used has been by the United States, a benevolent country, against a malevolent aggressor. This was done twice in 1945. The net effect was to abruptly bring WWII to an end and stave off an imminent invasion of the Japanese homeland, which would have cost MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of Japanese and American lives. I believe that would be called a WIN-WIN, not a LOSE-LOSE. We won the war, and Japan got to keep their lives.

Furthermore, (and I'm speculating here) showing our willingness to use nuclear weapons may have even caused the Soviets to pause in their plans for world domination in the upcoming decade due to a potential nausea over the possibility that we would nuke the hell out of them if they tried to take over Western Europe. Thanks to anti-nuke anti-war activists, and also thanks to a superior technologically advanced conventional military, we have departed from that willingness quite a bit.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think nukes should be used as a first resort, but it looks as if Israel may NEED to use them in order to penetrate Iran's facilities. This would be a tactical strike aimed at hitting precise targets, and would cause little damage to the surrounding country.

Just as I predicted. You dodged the question.

Again, you shed zero light on why this should be. You offer no alternatives in accomplishing the military objective of destroying Iran's nuclear facilities, yet you issue this blanket statement in a knee-jerk fashion. You sound like you are just all teary-eyed and guilty over the fact that Israel even possesses nuclear weapons and can't we all just sing "Give peace a chance" and "Kumbayah." Meanwhile, Iran is singing "Let's kill the Jews" and "Death to America." And that is not hyperbole.

That just shows that you know nothing about Iran's leader. Let me clue you in: He has an apocalyptic world view. He believes that he is the one who will usher in the coming of the 12th Imam, a perfect being who will hasten the destruction of Israel and the West (that's us, by the way). This guy was also identified as one of the hostage-takers back in 1979.

Ahmadinejad does not believe that we or Israel have the will to either preemptively use or respond against nuclear weapons, and probably that is due to the fact that people like you, the Democrats, and the media are so against having or using them, and you don't even know why.

You need to brush up on your Middle East knowledge. Learn how Arab and Persian children are taught that Jews are apes and pigs and that they drink blood. Read about how they are taught from three years old that being a suicide bomber is the ultimate sacrifice to Allah, and that He will reward them with paradise. I'll bet you don't even know that children's cartoons in Arab countries depict suicide bombers killing Jewish trucks, and they are portrayed as heroes.

I guarantee you: if he gets nukes, he will use them, not just on Israel, but on us. Oh, I'm sure he'll use terrorists to do this, but nevertheless, it will come from him.

And again you have no idea why you said what you just said. Maybe you are a pacifist, maybe you just don't believe the Iranian leader is truly evil. Maybe you just want Israel destroyed and America weakened. Maybe you are just ignorant of the real threat in the Middle East. Maybe you don't know that the insurgents in Iraq who are killing our soldiers are being funded and supplied DIRECTLY by Iran. Whatever the reason, just saying that surely makes you feel better that you can't be labeled as some sort of hating warmonger. I assure you, that kind of thinking makes us weaker and the world more dangerous. Go back and read up on the writings of Neville Chamberlain back in the 30's. He was convinced that Hitler posed NO THREAT to Europe. He was wrong.

Anyway, can we agree that taking away Iran's nukes is a good option by itself? So what would be the big deal about using a nuclear-tipped bunker-buster to wipe out nukes, other than the hilarious irony?

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

I never argued that not attacking their nuclear production is wrong or a bad idea, but bringing the use of nukes has a great potential to escalate into greater warfare in the future. IF you could prove that Iran has or is making a nuke with 100% certainty and the ONLY way to destroy said weapons would be with a nuke, then sure, cornered to a wall, you gotta do what ya gotta do. But logically speaking, there probably are other ways to doing it. And yes, the irony is funny.