On 8/21/2014 8:25 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:15:04 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


That's an undoubtedly bad reading of U.S. policy.


How do you think that is wrong?
It certainly is not oil.
We would buy the oil from whomever controls the region.


Really? Buy oil from ISIS? You're kidding.

We buy oil from Chavez and most of the western world was buying oil
from Saddam in spite of our embargo. The shieks are pretty scummy guys
and we don't seem to care what is happening in Nigeria.

Why not?

You only have to look at the other places with evil things going where
we have no problem buying oil to see that. Oil companies and dictators
get along just fine.

Without the Israel problem, we would just pull out the military and
let the big dog eat.


How does that address Iran seeking nukes?

If we had not given Israel nukes, they would not feel the need to have
them.

AYFKM? Their clearly stated motive is to "wipe Israel off the face of
the earth"... They know damn well the west would never let Israel use
them as a first strike force, you know it, Israel knows it, Iran knows
it but it. Israel is not looking to "wipe" anyone off the face of the
earth, that's why so much of their weaponry is defensive....



This is a good enough policy statement.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2...ast_strategy_b
ack_to_balancing
"So what are U.S. interests in the Middle East? I'd say the United
States has three strategic interests and two moral interests. The three
strategic interests are 1) keeping oil and gas from the region flowing
to world markets, to keep the global economy humming;

Oil always finds a way to market, even when we try to stop it.

2) minimizing the danger of anti-American terrorism

If we were not there, they would not have much incentive to come here.
The major beef from Bin Laden was US troops in Saudi Arabia.

3) inhibiting the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Since they mostly came from the west, that is not that much of an
issue.

The two moral interests are 1) promotion of
human rights and participatory government,

One "moral" interest and we obviously don't have that much moral
objection in the rest of the world. Again, I simply have to point to
Africa,.

2) helping ensure Israel's survival.

That is purely a political interest, there is not much "moral" in that
objective.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 00:34:52 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:35:51 -0400, KC wrote:

On 8/21/2014 8:25 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:15:04 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


That's an undoubtedly bad reading of U.S. policy.


How do you think that is wrong?
It certainly is not oil.
We would buy the oil from whomever controls the region.


Really? Buy oil from ISIS? You're kidding.

We buy oil from Chavez and most of the western world was buying oil
from Saddam in spite of our embargo. The shieks are pretty scummy guys
and we don't seem to care what is happening in Nigeria.

Why not?

You only have to look at the other places with evil things going where
we have no problem buying oil to see that. Oil companies and dictators
get along just fine.

Without the Israel problem, we would just pull out the military and
let the big dog eat.


How does that address Iran seeking nukes?

If we had not given Israel nukes, they would not feel the need to have
them.

AYFKM? Their clearly stated motive is to "wipe Israel off the face of
the earth"... They know damn well the west would never let Israel use
them as a first strike force, you know it, Israel knows it, Iran knows
it but it. Israel is not looking to "wipe" anyone off the face of the
earth, that's why so much of their weaponry is defensive....


There is no such thing as a defensive nuke

As a matter of fact, part of the planning to stop a Soviet Invasion of Europe through the Fulda Gap
included the use of defensive nukes to form barriers.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:08:13 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 08:15:57 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 00:34:52 -0400, wrote:



There is no such thing as a defensive nuke

As a matter of fact, part of the planning to stop a Soviet Invasion of Europe through the Fulda Gap
included the use of defensive nukes to form barriers.

That was insanity not strategy.
It sounds like the same people who described Europe as a place where
towns were 2 kilotons apart.

These would have been between 10 tons and 1 kiloton. Itty bitty nukes. Here's some info on same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special...ition_Munition

We actually had those down at the Engineer Battalion level.

On 8/22/2014 12:34 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:35:51 -0400, KC wrote:

On 8/21/2014 8:25 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:15:04 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


That's an undoubtedly bad reading of U.S. policy.


How do you think that is wrong?
It certainly is not oil.
We would buy the oil from whomever controls the region.


Really? Buy oil from ISIS? You're kidding.

We buy oil from Chavez and most of the western world was buying oil
from Saddam in spite of our embargo. The shieks are pretty scummy guys
and we don't seem to care what is happening in Nigeria.

Why not?

You only have to look at the other places with evil things going where
we have no problem buying oil to see that. Oil companies and dictators
get along just fine.

Without the Israel problem, we would just pull out the military and
let the big dog eat.


How does that address Iran seeking nukes?

If we had not given Israel nukes, they would not feel the need to have
them.

AYFKM? Their clearly stated motive is to "wipe Israel off the face of
the earth"... They know damn well the west would never let Israel use
them as a first strike force, you know it, Israel knows it, Iran knows
it but it. Israel is not looking to "wipe" anyone off the face of the
earth, that's why so much of their weaponry is defensive....


There is no such thing as a defensive nuke


Ok, deterrent nukes..

On 8/22/14 9:51 AM, KC wrote:
On 8/22/2014 12:34 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:35:51 -0400, KC wrote:

On 8/21/2014 8:25 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:15:04 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


That's an undoubtedly bad reading of U.S. policy.


How do you think that is wrong?
It certainly is not oil.
We would buy the oil from whomever controls the region.


Really? Buy oil from ISIS? You're kidding.

We buy oil from Chavez and most of the western world was buying oil
from Saddam in spite of our embargo. The shieks are pretty scummy guys
and we don't seem to care what is happening in Nigeria.

Why not?

You only have to look at the other places with evil things going
where
we have no problem buying oil to see that. Oil companies and
dictators
get along just fine.

Without the Israel problem, we would just pull out the military and
let the big dog eat.


How does that address Iran seeking nukes?

If we had not given Israel nukes, they would not feel the need to have
them.

AYFKM? Their clearly stated motive is to "wipe Israel off the face of
the earth"... They know damn well the west would never let Israel use
them as a first strike force, you know it, Israel knows it, Iran knows
it but it. Israel is not looking to "wipe" anyone off the face of the
earth, that's why so much of their weaponry is defensive....


There is no such thing as a defensive nuke


Ok, deterrent nukes..


Is that like the "Q-Bomb" from the Mouse that Roared?

On 8/22/2014 10:08 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:51:39 -0400, KC wrote:

There is no such thing as a defensive nuke


Ok, deterrent nukes..

How has that been working out for them?


Pretty good, I haven't seen any of the surrounding armies/nations try
to take the land by military force, no invasion, so I say it's working
perfectly.

On 8/22/2014 10:42 AM, KC wrote:
On 8/22/2014 10:08 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:51:39 -0400, KC wrote:

There is no such thing as a defensive nuke


Ok, deterrent nukes..

How has that been working out for them?


Pretty good, I haven't seen any of the surrounding armies/nations try to
take the land by military force, no invasion, so I say it's working
perfectly.

Oh, and not to mention... once Iran gets it's nukes and it will, those
Israeli nukes will be the *only* thing slowing Iran down on using it on
them.... period. How hard is it to figure out Israel wants to live, and
has no aspirations on surrounding countries, Iran wants to take over the
world and has no problem wiping out populations to clear the way....

On 8/22/2014 11:17 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:44:37 -0400, KC wrote:

On 8/22/2014 10:42 AM, KC wrote:
On 8/22/2014 10:08 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:51:39 -0400, KC wrote:

There is no such thing as a defensive nuke


Ok, deterrent nukes..

How has that been working out for them?


Pretty good, I haven't seen any of the surrounding armies/nations try to
take the land by military force, no invasion, so I say it's working
perfectly.

Oh, and not to mention... once Iran gets it's nukes and it will, those
Israeli nukes will be the *only* thing slowing Iran down on using it on
them.... period.

Then why does Iran want a nuke?


Oh brother....

On 8/22/2014 2:15 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:44:51 -0400, KC wrote:

On 8/22/2014 11:17 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:44:37 -0400, KC wrote:



Oh, and not to mention... once Iran gets it's nukes and it will, those
Israeli nukes will be the *only* thing slowing Iran down on using it on
them.... period.

Then why does Iran want a nuke?


Oh brother....

It is a valid question. If Israelis nukes are such a deferent, why
would Iran want one ... unless it was seen as defensive for them.
You seem to want this both ways.


Why are you being so closed minded, black and white.. I never said the
deterrent was the end all, just a deterrent... Might work, might give
the rest of the world time to stop things, the only thing black and
white here is Iran's clearly stated intent to "wipe Israel into the
sea"... that is well documented, and they are working hard at that end
every day...

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:17:41 -0400, wrote:

Oh, and not to mention... once Iran gets it's nukes and it will, those
Israeli nukes will be the *only* thing slowing Iran down on using it on
them.... period.

Then why does Iran want a nuke?

===

Because it lessens the risk of a pre-emptive strike by a western
power.