U.S. report: Iran stopped nuclear weapons work in 2003

[Dos Equis]

If ever there were a deserving eye roll... You do know that during that time, according to our estimates or propaganda?, they outnumbered us like 7 to 1 on nuclear arms.  At the height, there would not have been a winner under any scenario you could image so please don't suggest we would have kicked their ass   Your answer of arms race, spy etc is insufficient since that was already common place before Afghanistan.  With what you just said, Russia should have done nothing which is pretty much what they did.  Now what would you have done, nothing or something?

I guess that means you don't like my answer?     I got nothing more dude.  The fact they had more nuclear weapons means they did exactly what I said they should have done:  arms race. 

And yes, we would have beat the snot out of the Russians.  We had better soldiers, a better air force, better commanders, better equipment, etc.  Just look at how much trouble they had in Afghanistan.  We would have killed the Russian military. 

We also did well by promoting glasnost, which probably helped cripple communism as much or more than the arms race. 

But I'm done.  Have to get on a plane in a few hours. . . . 

[Hugo Chavez]

I guess that means you don't like my answer?     I got nothing more dude.  The fact they had more nuclear weapons means they did exactly what I said they should have done:  arms race. 

And yes, we would have beat the snot out of the Russians.  We had better soldiers, a better air force, better commanders, better equipment, etc.  Just look at how much trouble they had in Afghanistan.  We would have killed the Russian military. 

We also did well by promoting glasnost, which probably helped cripple communism as much or more than the arms race. 

But I'm done.  Have to get on a plane in a few hours. . . . 

guy, this answer is still not adequate...  There was already an arms race.  Again, no we would not have beat the snot out of the Russians... had there been a full scale war it would have gone nuclear and all else on the ground is irrelivant.  Nobody wins...  good god, I shouldn't have to acutally make this case...

you have nothing more?  You didn't even address the most pressing and relevant question??

and futher, what are you suggesting we do now?  Two plans are on the table of which only one is suggested as workable which is a total shock and awe, on a level not ever seen before, of Iran according to neocon think tank BS...  This plan is in focus rather than a limited strike because of the possibility that Iran has the capability otherwise to retaliate in Iraq, according to their logic...  The thinking is that with a large scale attack, the retaliatory ability of Iran will be eliminated...  Of course I believe this would only further fuel extremism leading us down an even more dangerous future. You're commander and chief, what do you do?  I know what I would do, what would you do?

[Decker]

I would have done precisely what Russia did for years:  arms race, spy, etc.  Would not have attacked the U.S., because the U.S. would have kicked Russia's butt. 

I don't know what we should do, but doing nothing is not an option, because it endangers the troops.  I wish we could just find suppliers and blow them up.  Maybe Special Forces, etc. are already doing something. 

The special explosives showing up in Iraq and attributable only to Iranian manufacturing has been dealt with already.  A factory for producing those explosives was found a few miles outside of baghdad.

[240 is Back]

I would have done precisely what Russia did for years:  arms race, spy, etc.  Would not have attacked the U.S., because the U.S. would have kicked Russia's butt. 

"Kicked russia's butt"?

Um, you do know that we were dueling nuclear superpowers, right?

We may have killed 90% of their population and they only got 40% of ours, but dude...

"Kicked their butt"?

What grade are you in?

[OzmO]

"Kicked russia's butt"?

Um, you do know that we were dueling nuclear superpowers, right?

We may have killed 90% of their population and they only got 40% of ours, but dude...

"Kicked their butt"?

What grade are you in?

This is one war no one would have won and one war that nukes kept us out of.

How ever, conventionally we would have dominated them in a protracted war.

[240 is Back]

This is one war no one would have won and one war that nukes kept us out of.

How ever, conventionally we would have dominated them in a protracted war.

Any conventional war between nuclear powers will go nuclear the minute one of them is about to lose their shirt.

BB's assertion that "we'd kick their butt" is asinine.

[Dos Equis]

guy, this answer is still not adequate...  There was already an arms race.  Again, no we would not have beat the snot out of the Russians... had there been a full scale war it would have gone nuclear and all else on the ground is irrelivant.  Nobody wins...  good god, I shouldn't have to acutally make this case...

you have nothing more?  You didn't even address the most pressing and relevant question??

Yes I did: 

"I don't know what we should do, but doing nothing is not an option, because it endangers the troops.  I wish we could just find suppliers and blow them up.  Maybe Special Forces, etc. are already doing something."
 

[Dos Equis]

The special explosives showing up in Iraq and attributable only to Iranian manufacturing has been dealt with already.  A factory for producing those explosives was found a few miles outside of baghdad.

So we have identified and eliminated the source of Iranian weapons to insurgents? 

[Dos Equis]

"Kicked russia's butt"?

Um, you do know that we were dueling nuclear superpowers, right?

We may have killed 90% of their population and they only got 40% of ours, but dude...

"Kicked their butt"?

What grade are you in?

   Shush.  Go play. 

[Dos Equis]

This is one war no one would have won and one war that nukes kept us out of.

How ever, conventionally we would have dominated them in a protracted war.

Exactly.  Neither the U.S. nor Russia would have used nukes.  Both countries would have been wastelands. 

No contest in a conventional war.  I doubt it would have even been protracted. 

[Dos Equis]

Regarding the original topic, I was flipping through radio stations and listened to Rush Limbaugh for about 2 minutes (about all I could stand).  He actually made an interesting observation:  Iran stopped trying to build nukes when we invaded Iraq.  Is it possible they knew they were next if they didn't stop their program? 

[Hugo Chavez]

Yes I did: 

"I don't know what we should do, but doing nothing is not an option, because it endangers the troops.  I wish we could just find suppliers and blow them up.  Maybe Special Forces, etc. are already doing something."
 

  We should do something but you have no opinion on what that should be?

[Dos Equis]

  We should do something but you have no opinion on what that should be?

Correct.  I indicated what I wish we could do ("find suppliers and blow them up").  But realistically speaking, I don't know precisely what we should do.  I'm all in favor of anything that will protect our men and women in uniform, but I will leave the decision on what needs to be done to the Commander in Chief. 

Why is it so important that I have an opinion on this anyway? 

[Hugo Chavez]

Correct.  I indicated what I wish we could do ("find suppliers and blow them up").  But realistically speaking, I don't know precisely what we should do.  I'm all in favor of anything that will protect our men and women in uniform, but I will leave the decision on what needs to be done to the Commander in Chief. 

Why is it so important that I have an opinion on this anyway? 

Because you said something should be done. Of course it's not our decision, but on something of this level, public debate is not only ok, but a good idea.  If it's unwarrented, why do we even have to bother with them making a case for war with the public?  They ought to just do it if we're not to debate it. I told you the options on the table as noted in a recent History Channel program put together by neoconservatives.  Are you for a full scale shock and awe of Iran or not?  Are you for a limited strike?  If so what of the neoconservative notion that a limited strike is unworkable do to Iran's ability to strike in Iraq and against Israel--their words not mine.

[Dos Equis]

Because you said something should be done. Of course it's not our decision, but on something of this level, public debate is not only ok, but a good idea.  If it's unwarrented, why do we even have to bother with them making a case for war with the public?  They ought to just do it if we're not to debate it. I told you the options on the table as noted in a recent History Channel program put together by neoconservatives.  Are you for a full scale shock and awe of Iran or not?  Are you for a limited strike?  If so what of the neoconservative notion that a limited strike is unworkable do to Iran's ability to strike in Iraq and against Israel--their words not mine.

I do not have enough information to say whether or not "shock and awe," limited strikes, or any other military option (other than a full-scale ground invasion, which would be bad) is a good idea.

BTW, there is a small restaurant in one of the towns near a military base that has been advertising a "Shock and Awe Breakfast" since about 2003.  Only $2.99.      

Yes debate, discussion, etc. is always good, but you don't have to immediately have a solution in mind to identify a problem that needs to be fixed, particularly if you're not the decision maker.  This isn't like that darn pothole I've been rolling over for the past three stinkin months (I keep forgetting to call the pothole hotline).  It's a complicated problem.   

[Hugo Chavez]

I do not have enough information to say whether or not "shock and awe," limited strikes, or any other military option (other than a full-scale ground invasion, which would be bad) is a good idea.

BTW, there is a small restaurant in one of the towns near a military base that has been advertising a "Shock and Awe Breakfast" since about 2003.  Only $2.99.      

Yes debate, discussion, etc. is always good, but you don't have to immediately have a solution in mind to identify a problem that needs to be fixed, particularly if you're not the decision maker.  This isn't like that darn pothole I've been rolling over for the past three stinkin months (I keep forgetting to call the pothole hotline).  It's a complicated problem.   

Well, if you're going to support a cause where the main proposed solution is shock and awe on a scale never seen before, I think it's a good idea to know what you're backing don't you?  It's rather convienent for one to back something and dust off their hands where blood is spilt.  "I support it, but it wasn't my choice to wack them..."    I'm just saying, if you're going to buy it, own it..

[Hedgehog]

Honestly, I don't think we're going to attack Iran. 

I think some in the neocon camp would love to.  They've tried to sell it but resources are thin and without a draft, we don't have the men to do it.  With a draft, public support ends and the economy tanks. I think we did try to instigate it in March with those UK soldiers who let themselves be captured.  Perhaps if they had been killed, we would have had war with them.

But a false flag, today, would be so obvious that I don't think many would buy it.  60+% of americans at the very least allow the possibility that 911 was an inside job.  If there's another attack, the firs tthing they'll say is "Inside job!" whether it is or not.

(cue the dickheads to say "no one I know believes this.." when repeated polls show that yes, people do consider inside job a possibility).

Everything in bold, I agree with, and the post above it was also right on target, pointing out that the Bush administration made two claims that turned out to be nothing but... UNTRUE.



But then...then you start off with some stuff about how soldiers "let themselves be captured".

Ok, give me some source on that.

And, your usual stuff about how 9-11 was really planned by the government.

Feeling a little more Conspirational than usual today, mon ami?

[240 is Back]

  Shush.  Go play. 

You are ruining a good thread.

I completely dismantled your argument, and you respond with "shush".

You are a terrible mod and very poor debater.

[Dos Equis]

Well, if you're going to support a cause where the main proposed solution is shock and awe on a scale never seen before, I think it's a good idea to know what you're backing don't you?  It's rather convienent for one to back something and dust off their hands where blood is spilt.  "I support it, but it wasn't my choice to wack them..."    I'm just saying, if you're going to buy it, own it..

?  I'm not supporting a cause. 

[Dos Equis]

You are ruining a good thread.

I completely dismantled your argument, and you respond with "shush".

You are a terrible mod and very poor debater.

   You crying again?  Good grief.  Go find some Leggos and do something constructive. 

[Hugo Chavez]

?  I'm not supporting a cause. 

"cause" was not the correct word, but you must know what I mean after several posts on the subject...

If we know someone is supplying the "enemy" we have to do something IMO.

  Specifically this is about being hehind "doing something"

[Hugo Chavez]

I do not have enough information to say whether or not "shock and awe," limited strikes, or any other military option (other than a full-scale ground invasion, which would be bad) is a good idea.

BTW, there is a small restaurant in one of the towns near a military base that has been advertising a "Shock and Awe Breakfast" since about 2003.  Only $2.99.      

Yes debate, discussion, etc. is always good, but you don't have to immediately have a solution in mind to identify a problem that needs to be fixed, particularly if you're not the decision maker.  This isn't like that darn pothole I've been rolling over for the past three stinkin months (I keep forgetting to call the pothole hotline).  It's a complicated problem.   

Also, how can you say you don't have enough information to have an opinion?  There is plenty of available information for the purposes of debating between a few people on this small forum... Nobody is asking you to advise the president

[Dos Equis]

Also, how can you say you don't have enough information to have an opinion?  There is plenty of available information for the purposes of debating between a few people on this small forum... Nobody is asking you to advise the president

I view this is as a discussion, not a debate. 

I can say I don't have enough information, because I don't have enough information.     It looks like the nuclear issue is contained.  I don't know enough about weapons being provided to insurgents and what the appropriate response should be.  Whatever we can do to stop it, if it's still happening, is what needs to be done.  If you're asking precisely what that action should be, I'll tell you again I don't know.   

I'll talk to some of my military friends about it and see what they say.   

[240 is Back]

  You crying again?  Good grief.  Go find some Leggos and do something constructive. 

you're really terrible at what you do here.  Really.

[Dos Equis]

you're really terrible at what you do here.  Really.