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 8/21/2014 10:14 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:41:47 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:25:32 -0400, wrote:

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

===

Interesting assertion. Do you know that for a fact?

The Plutonium came from the US, it is fairly well documented.
The science is not really that big a secret anymore.


That is not the assertion he was talking about I think. It's you saying
that Iran wouldn't be looking to wipe Israel off the face of the earth,
and wouldn't be looking for nukes to do it right, is just..... well,
it's ludacris, As long as I remember here, Greg has taken the side
against Zionists or any other religion.. .well except maybe Muslim...

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:42:04 -0400, KC wrote:

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

===

Interesting assertion. Do you know that for a fact?

The Plutonium came from the US, it is fairly well documented.
The science is not really that big a secret anymore.


That is not the assertion he was talking about I think.

===

Actually it was. According to a number of sources, the US did not
give plutonium to Israel although we helped in other ways. Instead
it was the French which helped Israel build the Dimona reactor back in
the late 50s. That reactor is the source of Israel's plutonium. The
reactor's heavy water which is essential, was supplied by Norway in
1959. In 1963, when the reactor started operation, the United States
supplied more heavy water.

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/israel/nuke.html

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:51:21 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:00:56 -0400, wrote:

A drone carrying a few pounds of Semtex is a poor man's cruise
missile

===

The range of quadcopter type drones is very limited, and all we'd have
to do is close their Amazon account. :-)

In all seriousness, that kind of drone could be a deadly weapon for
homegrown local terrorists however.

With no requirement to return, the range of the 2.4GHz transmitters is at least a couple miles.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 22:10:30 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:08:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

The scary thing about these new groups like ISIS is they are not just
goat herders with automatic weapons. They are recruiting college
educated westerners.





Those virgins they are using as bait must be pretty old and wrinkled by
now.

They just find disgruntled kids who can't get a job and like the idea
of jihad to get even with the cruel world of capitalism.

They are getting a lot of disgruntled well-educated kids from Europe also.

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 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....