IAEA Iran 6 to 8 months away from having nuclear weapons .

a reply to: DBCowboy

I get it. But your battle with them has ramifications for the rest of us.

Iran would be Vietnam. We can't just send genz kids to a country who hasn't attacked us, it would be a slaughter.

I'm 29 and can be in fighting shape in a month, but I'm not doing it unless we're attacked. Not out of fear, principle. I don't plan on doing the whole family gambit, I don't really worry about my self, but I'm a prideful f#, and I don't do the bidding of others.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I think you meant gave the world nuclear weapons again...

To quote Oppenheimer (the father of the atomic bomb)...

While he was giving a lecture at Rochester University, during the question and answer period a student asked a question to which Oppenheimer gave a strangely qualified answer:

Student: “Was the bomb exploded at Alamogordo during the Manhattan Project the first one to be detonated?

Dr. Oppenheimer: “Well — yes. In modern times, of course.

I offer you... a rabbit hole.

That's a fascinating quote. What do you think he meant?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: DBCowboy

I get it. But your battle with them has ramifications for the rest of us.

Iran would be Vietnam. We can't just send genz kids to a country who hasn't attacked us, it would be a slaughter.

I'm 29 and can be in fighting shape in a month, but I'm not doing it unless we're attacked. Not out of fear, principle. I don't plan on doing the whole family gambit, I don't really worry about my self, but I'm a prideful f#, and I don't do the bidding of others.

It's not gonna be Vietnam. We won't be invading. If we do take military action, it'll be mostly air and missile strikes and maybe some special ops.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: DBCowboy

I get it. But your battle with them has ramifications for the rest of us.

Iran would be Vietnam. We can't just send genz kids to a country who hasn't attacked us, it would be a slaughter.

I'm 29 and can be in fighting shape in a month, but I'm not doing it unless we're attacked. Not out of fear, principle. I don't plan on doing the whole family gambit, I don't really worry about my self, but I'm a prideful f#, and I don't do the bidding of others.

It's not gonna be Vietnam. We won't be invading. If we do take military action, it'll be mostly air and missile strikes and maybe some special ops.

I'll take things I've heard before Iraq for 1,000 Alex.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I think you meant gave the world nuclear weapons again...

To quote Oppenheimer (the father of the atomic bomb)...

While he was giving a lecture at Rochester University, during the question and answer period a student asked a question to which Oppenheimer gave a strangely qualified answer:

Student: “Was the bomb exploded at Alamogordo during the Manhattan Project the first one to be detonated?

Dr. Oppenheimer: “Well — yes. In modern times, of course.

I offer you... a rabbit hole.

That's a fascinating quote. What do you think he meant?

It's a rabbit hole.

Oppenheimer is your key to the hole.

I have a really good idea of exactly what he meant, but a lot of my belief system is Hopi.

Have fun!

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: DBCowboy

I get it. But your battle with them has ramifications for the rest of us.

Iran would be Vietnam. We can't just send genz kids to a country who hasn't attacked us, it would be a slaughter.

I'm 29 and can be in fighting shape in a month, but I'm not doing it unless we're attacked. Not out of fear, principle. I don't plan on doing the whole family gambit, I don't really worry about my self, but I'm a prideful f#, and I don't do the bidding of others.

It's not gonna be Vietnam. We won't be invading. If we do take military action, it'll be mostly air and missile strikes and maybe some special ops.

I'll take things I've heard before Iraq for 1,000 Alex.

Sending in ground troops was part of the plan from day 1 for Iraq. That's why it was called an invasion. I haven't heard anyone call for invading Iran. Even Bolton hasn't said that.

I'll take things I've heard after every piece of tension between us, North Korea, Syria, Iran, and any number of other countries in this WW3 section of the forums for the past few years. The doom and gloom predictions are always wrong.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I think you meant gave the world nuclear weapons again...

To quote Oppenheimer (the father of the atomic bomb)...

While he was giving a lecture at Rochester University, during the question and answer period a student asked a question to which Oppenheimer gave a strangely qualified answer:

Student: “Was the bomb exploded at Alamogordo during the Manhattan Project the first one to be detonated?

Dr. Oppenheimer: “Well — yes. In modern times, of course.

I offer you... a rabbit hole.

That's a fascinating quote. What do you think he meant?

It's a rabbit hole.

Oppenheimer is your key to the hole.

I have a really good idea of exactly what he meant, but a lot of my belief system is Hopi.

Have fun!

I was willing to read but not if you're not gonna provide me anything. Shame, that.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I don't want war. I've been there and done that.

But what I want is a moot point.

Obama gave Iran funding for their nuke program. They never really stopped, if you believe they did then I have a bridge to sell you.

It's always been the leftist goal to eliminate Israel and to rearrange the power dynamic in the ME.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Anything bad for the country is good for them .

Food for thought .

Do you remember when Israel struck the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 . We’ve been holding them back from a military attack of some kind. If the time is ticking away I doubt will be able to restrain them any longer .

So after the anti-American leftist mobs.

The Joooooooooo haters won’t be far behind. Saying that Israel doesn’t have a right to defend it’s self against the peaceful Iranian government . (Hurl)

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I think you meant gave the world nuclear weapons again...

To quote Oppenheimer (the father of the atomic bomb)...

While he was giving a lecture at Rochester University, during the question and answer period a student asked a question to which Oppenheimer gave a strangely qualified answer:

Student: “Was the bomb exploded at Alamogordo during the Manhattan Project the first one to be detonated?

Dr. Oppenheimer: “Well — yes. In modern times, of course.

I offer you... a rabbit hole.

That's a fascinating quote. What do you think he meant?

It's a rabbit hole.

Oppenheimer is your key to the hole.

I have a really good idea of exactly what he meant, but a lot of my belief system is Hopi.

Have fun!

I was willing to read but not if you're not gonna provide me anything. Shame, that.

There are certain Truths in the world that have a beginning and a path to that Truth.

A Person on seeing that someone has an interest about the path will point out where it begins.

Carrying someone along the path does not get them to the ending, because they have not made the journey.

That's entirely up to you.

And to no longer derail the thread, I will leave it at that.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I don't want war. I've been there and done that.

But what I want is a moot point.

Obama gave Iran funding for their nuke program. They never really stopped, if you believe they did then I have a bridge to sell you.

It's always been the leftist goal to eliminate Israel and to rearrange the power dynamic in the ME.

Of course they didn't stop. They told us where we could inspect, so they just continued it in places we weren't allowed to go. It's insane how naive people were who thought that accomplished anything.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Obama gave Iran funding for their nuke program. They never really stopped, if you believe they did then I have a bridge to sell you.

Yup, and I'll go off about Obama for (what I believe) are the right points, and he is truly one of the worse in so many ways.

The current admin is trying to go through channels to sell weapons to the Sauds, and would ya guess, nuclear "energy" tech.

Saudi Arabia are the closest thing to a sovereign nation attacking us since Pearl Harbor.

National security is a fancy term for politics.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Maybe giving the Saudi's nukes will initiate a MAD scenario and reduce the risk of an Iranian nuke attack against Israel.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: DBCowboy

I get it. But your battle with them has ramifications for the rest of us.

Iran would be Vietnam. We can't just send genz kids to a country who hasn't attacked us, it would be a slaughter.

I'm 29 and can be in fighting shape in a month, but I'm not doing it unless we're attacked. Not out of fear, principle. I don't plan on doing the whole family gambit, I don't really worry about my self, but I'm a prideful f#, and I don't do the bidding of others.

It's not gonna be Vietnam. We won't be invading. If we do take military action, it'll be mostly air and missile strikes and maybe some special ops.

"shock and awe" "mission accomplished".

Longest wars of our country, and arguably the most costly.

Don't mind me, I'm just over here trying to cut federal spending.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Maybe giving the Saudi's nukes will initiate a MAD scenario and reduce the risk of an Iranian nuke attack against Israel.

Israel having nukes isn't enough, or ours in Turkey?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Nope.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Or the US could make a treaty similar to the NATO nuclear sharing program then we could include South Korea .

Everybody’s trying to get nukes .

It’s a MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD world.

a reply to: Fallingdown

Hell, North Korea has them, why not arm everyone!

Now I say this because I'm old and wouldn't last anyway. But it might suck for my kids.

So I'll still sue for peace whenever possible.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Nope.

Well maybe our ICBM's, stealth bombers, and nuclear submarines are enough.

All that money we invested and for what, forever wars? We could literally destroy countries with the push of a button. 6~ trillion on what since post 9/11? And this isn't aimed at you or your team, because your opponent is just as complicit.

But we're not making America great again so long as we put our stock in these BS wars. You can argue we're better off now than a few decades ago when single earners were supporting a household till you're blue in the face.

I'll still love and appreciate you the same as I do with others that have conviction, but it won't stop me from saying you're so wrong. You're wrong man, but I still like ya.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I think you meant gave the world nuclear weapons again...

To quote Oppenheimer (the father of the atomic bomb)...

While he was giving a lecture at Rochester University, during the question and answer period a student asked a question to which Oppenheimer gave a strangely qualified answer:

Student: “Was the bomb exploded at Alamogordo during the Manhattan Project the first one to be detonated?

Dr. Oppenheimer: “Well — yes. In modern times, of course.

I offer you... a rabbit hole.

That's a fascinating quote. What do you think he meant?

It's a rabbit hole.

Oppenheimer is your key to the hole.

I have a really good idea of exactly what he meant, but a lot of my belief system is Hopi.

Have fun!

I was willing to read but not if you're not gonna provide me anything. Shame, that.

There are certain Truths to the world that have a beginning and a path to the end of it.

A Person on seeing that someone has an interest about the path will point out where it begins.

Carrying someone along the path does not get them to the ending, because they have not made the journey.

That's entirely up to you.

And to no longer derail the thread, I will leave it at that.

It's a shame you had to respond like that. I generally enjoy your posts and I was actually looking for something interesting to read. I dunno what you expect me to do, spend hours on Google looking at every link I can find with that quote--99.9% of which will have nothing to do with what you think he meant--seeing if I can randomly come across one that talks about what you mean, without even knowing what you mean. But hey you got to look cryptic and go all Obi-wan on me, so yeah good job I guess?

I don't wanna keep derailing the thread either. If you decide you can be more specific, send me a private message.