PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Ahmadinejad: Major nuclear announcement expected within days


Donger
02-11-2012, 11:39 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/11/world/meast/iran-nuclear/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

(CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Saturday that the nation will reveal "several major achievements in the nuclear domain" within days, state media reported.

Ahmadinejad did not offer details during his announcement at a rally to mark the 33rd anniversary of the Islamic Revolution.

But he slammed "hegemonic powers," accusing them of pressuring the nation on the nuclear front.

In the near future, Iran's nuclear demands will be met by the nation's scientists, Ahmadinejad said at the Tehran event broadcast on Press TV

"Today you see that the Iranian nation has become nuclear and can supply many of its demands," he said. "And God willing, in next few days, the whole world will witness the inauguration of several major achievements in the nuclear domain.

The news comes amid heightened tension between Iran and the West over its nuclear program.

The West believes Tehran may be trying to develop nuclear weapons, but Iran has long maintained that its nuclear program is solely for civilian energy production.

Tensions hit a boiling point weeks ago when Iran conducted military exercises in the Persian Gulf after threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial shipping lane for oil.

Iran's threat followed tough sanctions from Western nations aimed at stopping its suspected nuclear weapons program.

Hog Farmer
02-11-2012, 12:08 PM
Their Nuclear announcements don't ever amount to a hill of beans. What do you think they're gonna say? "We just built a nuclear weapon and attached it to a warhead"

Donger
02-11-2012, 12:14 PM
Their Nuclear announcements don't ever amount to a hill of beans. What do you think they're gonna say? "We just built a nuclear weapon and attached it to a warhead"

No. I'd imagine something along the lines of:

1) Number of cascades has been increased.

2) Amount of 20% enriched uranium is now at x amount.

3) New facilities have been opened.

Something like that.

Pioli Zombie
02-11-2012, 12:47 PM
"I will kill you to death!" - Arabs in The Three Stooges

HonestChieffan
02-11-2012, 01:53 PM
Obama will release a statement. He will be strong and forceful. Something about Bush, some reference to US Intel and estimates, a slam against Israel, and a website for donations. Michelle will be on a show somewhere dancing or doing pushups and telling us what to eat.

BucEyedPea
02-11-2012, 02:37 PM
Sounds good!

BucEyedPea
02-11-2012, 02:45 PM
Could it be this?

Turkey FM: Iran Ready to Cut a Deal (http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/10/turkey-fm-iran-ready-to-cut-a-deal/)

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2012, 04:13 PM
Could it be this?

Turkey FM: Iran Ready to Cut a Deal (http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/10/turkey-fm-iran-ready-to-cut-a-deal/)

NO we need a war to deflect the shape of the economy. You can't bitch about anything if there is a war going on.

suzzer99
02-11-2012, 09:37 PM
At what point do you admit the economy is improving? Most people (not this nutjob forum obviously) can see unemployment going down and consumer demand rising on the news and all around them.

I realize it will serious fuck up your worldview to admit the economy is improving, so I wonder what it will take. 8% unemployment? Less?

ClevelandBronco
02-11-2012, 10:01 PM
At what point do you admit the economy is improving? Most people (not this nutjob forum obviously) can see unemployment going down and consumer demand rising on the news and all around them.

I realize it will serious **** up your worldview to admit the economy is improving, so I wonder what it will take. 8% unemployment? Less?

Denial can be a useful tool.

BucEyedPea
02-11-2012, 11:26 PM
At what point do you admit the economy is improving? Most people (not this nutjob forum obviously) can see unemployment going down and consumer demand rising on the news and all around them.

I realize it will serious **** up your worldview to admit the economy is improving, so I wonder what it will take. 8% unemployment? Less?

Prices are also climbing too.

Hog Farmer
02-12-2012, 02:07 AM
Prices are also climbing too.

Yep. Boar jizz has gone from $7 a bag to $24 in three years

HonestChieffan
02-12-2012, 08:47 AM
Yep. Boar jizz has gone from $7 a bag to $24 in three years


$89 Fat hogs, $140 fat cattle and these numb nuts are celebrating how good Obama has made it. Hotdogs and cheetos for most in months to come.

Donger
02-15-2012, 07:05 AM
So, looks like the big news was that they've made their own fuel rods and have inserted them into their research reactor in Tehran.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2012, 07:19 AM
Meanwhile a massive fleet of U.S. Navy warships engage Iran provocatively in the Persian Gulf, while the U.S. media present Iranian patrols as deliberate threats. Our congress wants to fund AQ with weapons in Syria, the soft underbelly of Iran. While these provocations continue, Israeli Madonna fans plead with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to postpone his attack on Iran so it won't ruin her concert world tour which begins in Tel Aviv in May.

Donger
02-15-2012, 07:27 AM
Meanwhile a massive fleet of U.S. Navy warships engage Iran provocatively in the Persian Gulf, while the U.S. media present Iranian patrols as deliberate threats. Our congress wants to fund AQ with weapons in Syria, the soft underbelly of Iran. While these provocations continue, Israeli Madonna fans plead with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to postpone his attack on Iran so it won't ruin her concert world tour which begins in Tel Aviv in May.

Our fleet isn't engaging Iran's navy. We've had a naval presence in the Gulf (which is international waters) for decades.

Please do at least attempt to get your facts straight before popping off prematurely.

HonestChieffan
02-15-2012, 07:28 AM
And this from the nitwit in chief....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/apnewsbreak-us-weighs-options-for-cuts-in-deployed-nuclear-weapons-including-80percent-reduction/2012/02/14/gIQATFkvDR_story.html


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.

Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama’s 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.

No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800, or 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.

The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.

Obama has often cited his desire to seek lower levels of nuclear weapons, but specific options for a further round of cuts had been kept under wraps until the AP learned of the three options now on the table.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-15-2012, 07:33 AM
Wrong headline, it should read "Donger awaits spike in oil prices due to impending world war over they've got Weps of Mass Destruction part two"

Donger
02-15-2012, 07:38 AM
Wrong headline, it should read "Donger awaits spike in oil prices due to impending world war over they've got Weps of Mass Destruction part two"

No, the headline is accurate. This is a major step forward for the Iranians on the nuclear front.

go bowe
02-15-2012, 09:53 AM
No, the headline is accurate. This is a major step forward for the Iranians on the nuclear front.

so, is producing fuel rods a precursor to producing weapons grade material?

Donger
02-15-2012, 10:01 AM
so, is producing fuel rods a precursor to producing weapons grade material?

No. It just shows the ability to produce indigenous fuel rods and another step in the nuclear fuel cycle.

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 10:10 AM
And this from the nitwit in chief....



You're a nitwit if you dont' realize that we have historically had about 100x more nuclear weapons than we could ever possibly need. Classic case of the military-industrial complex being completely out of control.

We had strategic bombers in the air for something like 35 years -- every hour of every day of every week of every year. For 35 or whatever years.

The critical "strategic triad"

Never mind the massive and overwhelming nuclear capability at sea in submarines that the Russians couldn't possibly detect/destroy fast enough to prevent an annihiliatory retributive strike if they started something. Never mind the massive and overwhelming nuclear capability in silos that the Russians were extremely unlikely to be able to ddestroy fast enough...

Keep those bombers in the air.

Every fucking minute

of every fucking hour

of every fucking day

for 35 fucking years.

Donger
02-15-2012, 10:14 AM
You're a nitwit if you dont' realize that we have historically had about 100x more nuclear weapons than we could ever possibly need. Classic case of the military-industrial complex being completely out of control.

We had strategic bombers in the air for something like 35 years -- every hour of every day of every week of every year. For 35 or whatever years.

The critical "strategic triad"

Never mind the massive and overwhelming nuclear capability at sea in submarines that the Russians couldn't possibly detect/destroy fast enough to prevent an annihiliatory retributive strike if they started something. Never mind the massive and overwhelming nuclear capability in silos that the Russians were extremely unlikely to be able to ddestroy fast enough...

Keep those bombers in the air.

Every ****ing minute

of every ****ing hour

of every ****ing day

for 35 ****ing years.

I'm not opposed to further strategic reductions, but I wouldn't want to go below where the Russians are, even though I think we have a few hundred more warheads than they do right now.

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 10:15 AM
Meanwhile a massive fleet of U.S. Navy warships engage Iran provocatively in the Persian Gulf, while the U.S. media present Iranian patrols as deliberate threats. Our congress wants to fund AQ with weapons in Syria, the soft underbelly of Iran. While these provocations continue, Israeli Madonna fans plead with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to postpone his attack on Iran so it won't ruin her concert world tour which begins in Tel Aviv in May.


If the US Navy "engages" the Iranian navy, then the Iranian navy will only be left to history -- you know, that topic that you so frequently misuse and abuse. Since I haven't heard that the Iranian navy has been wiped off the planet, then I think we havent' "engaged"

The Persian Gulf is international waters. We have every right to go there if we wish under international law.

You seem oddly more inclined to believe the Iranian News Agency's version of what goes on than US news agencies. Do you think they're more reliable?

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 10:17 AM
I'm not opposed to further strategic reductions, but I wouldn't want to go below where the Russians are, even though I think we have a few hundred more warheads than they do right now.



No idea where the Russians are, and I'm not sure I much care.

If we have enough to kill every mammal on planet earth 10x over, and they're dispersed in such a way as to give us retaliatory capabilities under just about any circumstance, then we have enough, IMHO.

If the Russians can kill every mammal on earth 12x over, then so what?

HonestChieffan
02-15-2012, 10:25 AM
I'm not opposed to further strategic reductions, but I wouldn't want to go below where the Russians are, even though I think we have a few hundred more warheads than they do right now.

That is if you trust the russians and you trust Obama to make the right decisions. It also is predicated on having the ability to deploy the weapons or the non nuclear weapons in an effective manner without delay if needed. Strategically the effort is not one sided, it involves allies.

At this point in time, I have serious doubts about Obama's strategic and defense mindset. He is too prone to daily changes based on politics. And he is willing to reduce the asset base to gain votes. Add to that the weakened position we seem to have with Nato and the clear moves by Obama to reward the enemies of Israel, and you can see why his decision making should be held in check and not be accepted as well thought out.

The Russians respected Reagan and I do believe they respected Clinton and both Bush's. They didn't like them but they had to respect them. I don't get the feeling anyone respects Obama.
Its never good when your enemies see you as weak.

go bowe
02-15-2012, 10:30 AM
That is if you trust the russians and you trust Obama to make the right decisions. It also is predicated on having the ability to deploy the weapons or the non nuclear weapons in an effective manner without delay if needed. Strategically the effort is not one sided, it involves allies.

At this point in time, I have serious doubts about Obama's strategic and defense mindset. He is too prone to daily changes based on politics. And he is willing to reduce the asset base to gain votes. Add to that the weakened position we seem to have with Nato and the clear moves by Obama to reward the enemies of Israel, and you can see why his decision making should be held in check and not be accepted as well thought out.

The Russians respected Reagan and I do believe they respected Clinton and both Bush's. They didn't like them but they had to respect them. I don't get the feeling anyone respects Obama.
Its never good when your enemies see you as weak.

really?

have we given rewards to iran or syria?

what other countries are enemies of israel?

what rewards have we given to them?

Donger
02-15-2012, 10:30 AM
No idea where the Russians are, and I'm not sure I much care.

If we have enough to kill every mammal on planet earth 10x over, and they're dispersed in such a way as to give us retaliatory capabilities under just about any circumstance, then we have enough, IMHO.

If the Russians can kill every mammal on earth 12x over, then so what?

So, at what ratio do you care about it? 2:1? 3:1? 4:1?

vailpass
02-15-2012, 10:35 AM
If the US Navy "engages" the Iranian navy, then the Iranian navy will only be left to history -- you know, that topic that you so frequently misuse and abuse. Since I haven't heard that the Iranian navy has been wiped off the planet, then I think we havent' "engaged"

The Persian Gulf is international waters. We have every right to go there if we wish under international law.

You seem oddly more inclined to believe the Iranian News Agency's version of what goes on than US news agencies. Do you think they're more reliable?

Truthy.

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 10:40 AM
So, at what ratio do you care about it? 2:1? 3:1? 4:1?



What difference does the ratio make if you can kill every mammal on the planet 10x over?

At that point, the only reason to build more is to have something to "unbuild" to try to get them to "unbuild" also. But, and this is exactly what we didn't do in the 50s and 60s -- if you stop at 10x and they're at 12x and still going, don't you try to get them to realize and agree that building more is stupid and piontless for both sides?

In the Cold War, we frequently grossly OVERestimated the Russians nuclear capabilities, and some people did it intentionally for political reasons to heighten the "red menace", and so we kept building and building and building far beyond what any rational analysis would have suggested.

Donger
02-15-2012, 10:44 AM
What difference does the ratio make if you can kill every mammal on the planet 10x over?

At that point, the only reason to build more is to have something to "unbuild" to try to get them to "unbuild" also. But, and this is exactly what we didn't do in the 50s and 60s -- if you stop at 10x and they're at 12x and still going, don't you try to get them to realize and agree that building more is stupid and piontless for both sides?

In the Cold War, we frequently grossly OVERestimated the Russians nuclear capabilities, and some people did it intentionally for political reasons to heighten the "red menace", and so we kept building and building and building far beyond what any rational analysis would have suggested.

You really don't see a problem with the Russians (or any other potential adversary) having 4x the number of warheads we do?

vailpass
02-15-2012, 10:46 AM
What difference does the ratio make if you can kill every mammal on the planet 10x over?

At that point, the only reason to build more is to have something to "unbuild" to try to get them to "unbuild" also. But, and this is exactly what we didn't do in the 50s and 60s -- if you stop at 10x and they're at 12x and still going, don't you try to get them to realize and agree that building more is stupid and piontless for both sides?

In the Cold War, we frequently grossly OVERestimated the Russians nuclear capabilities, and some people did it intentionally for political reasons to heighten the "red menace", and so we kept building and building and building far beyond what any rational analysis would have suggested.

Logical or not this is a might-makes-right world and we need to be seen as the big dog at all times. It isn't just whether you can win the fight, it's also appearing mean enough that nobody wants to fight you.

Pants
02-15-2012, 10:50 AM
You really don't see a problem with the Russians (or any other potential adversary) having 4x the number of warheads we do?

Why would it be a problem? There won't be anything left to nuke for those 4x the number of warheads they might have.

Pants
02-15-2012, 10:53 AM
Logical or not this is a might-makes-right world and we need to be seen as the big dog at all times. It isn't just whether you can win the fight, it's also appearing mean enough that nobody wants to fight you.

That's like having a one on one gunfight in a 10x10 room where one person has access to 10,000 bullets and the other has access to 1,000. In reality, the first person to put a burst through the other is going to win and there will be either 997 or 9,997 bullets left depending on the winner.

Don't you think having a 1000 bullets would be enough?

Donger
02-15-2012, 10:53 AM
Why would it be a problem? There won't be anything left to nuke for those 4x the number of warheads they might have.

I realize that it's a common perception that "we have enough nukes to kill everything!" but it's not really accurate.

Donger
02-15-2012, 10:57 AM
And, it sounds like Iran is opening up a new yellowcake facility next year. Peachy.

vailpass
02-15-2012, 10:57 AM
That's like having a one on one gunfight in a 10x10 room where one person has access to 10,000 bullets and the other has access to 1,000. In reality, the first person to put a burst through the other is going to win and there will be either 997 or 9,997 bullets left depending on the winner.

Don't you think having a 1000 bullets would be enough?

I don't want to fight either but I'll go up against the guy with 1000 bullets way before I'll mess with the guy with 10,000.

Perception is reality. We need to continue to be not only #1 militarily but a #1 that is so far ahead of #2 that there is no question.

vailpass
02-15-2012, 10:58 AM
And, it sounds like Iran is opening up a new yellowcake facility next year. Peachy.

Let slip the Jews.

Pants
02-15-2012, 11:02 AM
I don't want to fight either but I'll go up against the guy with 1000 bullets way before I'll mess with the guy with 10,000.

Perception is reality. We need to continue to be not only #1 militarily but a #1 that is so far ahead of #2 that there is no question.

My point is that there is no question either way.

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 12:35 PM
You really don't see a problem with the Russians (or any other potential adversary) having 4x the number of warheads we do?


My vast preference is that no one else have any warheads. Failing that I'd rather they not have more than weo do.

But if we can blow up the entire world 10x over? What difference does it make?


Let me put it differently -- Let's assume the Russians can blow up the world 40x over. Am I more comfortable if we can do it 40x over also, versus only 10x over? No, I'm not more comfortable. My comfort level isn't dependent on what they have compared to what I have. We BOTH already have a massive amount of overkill. What difference does the amount of OVERkill matter?

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 12:36 PM
Logical or not this is a might-makes-right world and we need to be seen as the big dog at all times. It isn't just whether you can win the fight, it's also appearing mean enough that nobody wants to fight you.



I get that, but when you have enough to blow up the world 10x over, you've checked the box on nuclear weapons. Now it's the other stuff that starts to matter more.

jiveturkey
02-15-2012, 12:37 PM
How many do the Russian actually have?

Haven't there been talks over the last handful of years for both sides to reduce their arsenal?

KILLER_CLOWN
02-15-2012, 12:41 PM
I like how it's conservative to spend money you don't have on weapons you won't ever need. The government is great at lying just don't and say we do, it's much cheaper.

mikey23545
02-15-2012, 12:47 PM
No idea where the Russians are, and I'm not sure I much care.

If we have enough to kill every mammal on planet earth 10x over, and they're dispersed in such a way as to give us retaliatory capabilities under just about any circumstance, then we have enough, IMHO.

If the Russians can kill every mammal on earth 12x over, then so what?

Hussein is talking about reducing the number of warheads we have to 300. Where the **** do you get the idea that that is enough to wipe out every living thing on earth 10 times over?

Between 1945 and 1992 the US tested 1045 nuclear weapons. The USSR, 715. The rest of the world probably 350 or so.

Hard to believe we're still here, huh?

And do you really believe every last warhead gets launched in that kind of conflict?

I can't wait to see you holding your little paper treaty up to defend yourself as the enemy warheads rain down...

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 12:57 PM
I don't want to fight either but I'll go up against the guy with 1000 bullets way before I'll mess with the guy with 10,000.


In the scenario described (10x10 room), then the sheer number of bullets the two people have is WAAAAY down on my list of things to care about. In fact, it's so far down, you'd need to have identical twins in exactly the same situation before I'd care. I'd be looking first to see if I have a sense of who is a better shot, who has better nerves, who has experience in dangerous situations, who might be a quicker draw, be faster to get behind cover, etc. etc.

Since there's no realistic chance of shooting 1,000 bullets in a 10x10 room and me not being dead, whether he has 9,000 more is pretty irrelevant.


Perception is reality. We need to continue to be not only #1 militarily but a #1 that is so far ahead of #2 that there is no question.


We match, dollar for dollar, the military spending of the entire rest of the world combined. There is no question here. The fact is that nuclear weapons are an impractical method of conveying strength for us. The world knows we won't use them except in a worst case scenario. In 99% of situations, conventional weaponry is far more useful -- and impressive in terms of making something think about things -- than nuclear.

patteeu
02-15-2012, 12:58 PM
At what point do you admit the economy is improving? Most people (not this nutjob forum obviously) can see unemployment going down and consumer demand rising on the news and all around them.

I realize it will serious **** up your worldview to admit the economy is improving, so I wonder what it will take. 8% unemployment? Less?

That sounds similar to what the leader of the Donner party might have said when the snow was letting up a bit, glimpses of the sun could be seen and, thanks to the death of poor old Aunt Gertrude the night before, they finally had a little food on the table.

patteeu
02-15-2012, 01:01 PM
Meanwhile a massive fleet of U.S. Navy warships engage Iran provocatively in the Persian Gulf, while the U.S. media present Iranian patrols as deliberate threats. Our congress wants to fund AQ with weapons in Syria, the soft underbelly of Iran. While these provocations continue, Israeli Madonna fans plead with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to postpone his attack on Iran so it won't ruin her concert world tour which begins in Tel Aviv in May.

It's nice to have our own little Tehran Tabitha here at ChiefsPlanet.

vailpass
02-15-2012, 01:14 PM
In the scenario described (10x10 room), then the sheer number of bullets the two people have is WAAAAY down on my list of things to care about. In fact, it's so far down, you'd need to have identical twins in exactly the same situation before I'd care. I'd be looking first to see if I have a sense of who is a better shot, who has better nerves, who has experience in dangerous situations, who might be a quicker draw, be faster to get behind cover, etc. etc.

Since there's no realistic chance of shooting 1,000 bullets in a 10x10 room and me not being dead, whether he has 9,000 more is pretty irrelevant.





We match, dollar for dollar, the military spending of the entire rest of the world combined. There is no question here. The fact is that nuclear weapons are an impractical method of conveying strength for us. The world knows we won't use them except in a worst case scenario. In 99% of situations, conventional weaponry is far more useful -- and impressive in terms of making something think about things -- than nuclear.

"Since there's no realistic chance of shooting 1,000 bullets in a 10x10 room and me not being dead, whether he has 9,000 more is pretty irrelevant."-
But this one goes to 11.

Agreed, nukes are a small percentage of overall military might.

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 01:15 PM
Hussein is talking about reducing the number of warheads we have to 300. Where the **** do you get the idea that that is enough to wipe out every living thing on earth 10 times over?

Between 1945 and 1992 the US tested 1045 nuclear weapons. The USSR, 715. The rest of the world probably 350 or so.

Hard to believe we're still here, huh?

And do you really believe every last warhead gets launched in that kind of conflict?

I can't wait to see you holding your little paper treaty up to defend yourself as the enemy warheads rain down...


I was discussing hypotheticals, not actual numbers. If we no longer have overkill, then the discussion changes entirely. The entire basis of all of my comments was that we had overkill capability.

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 01:17 PM
That sounds similar to what the leader of the Donner party might have said when the snow was letting up a bit, glimpses of the sun could be seen and, thanks to the death of poor old Aunt Gertrude the night before, they finally had a little food on the table.



Did you really think the economy was going to be anything but pretty bad from 2009-12 or so even with a Republican President? Do you really think it's not going to be substantially better from 13-16 regardless of whether the President has a (D) or (R) next to his name?

patteeu
02-15-2012, 01:31 PM
Did you really think the economy was going to be anything but pretty bad from 2009-12 or so even with a Republican President? Do you really think it's not going to be substantially better from 13-16 regardless of whether the President has a (D) or (R) next to his name?

I don't think the President has direct control over the economy. A good president can experience a declining economy and a bad president can enjoy a rising economy. But that doesn't mean that presidents are irrelevant. Despite what the ronpauls and cynical independents will tell us, there *is* a difference between the two parties. I think Obama represents his party's thirst for greater spending levels and higher taxes on production pretty well. I don't think that's the right way to build a better future for our country.

I do think the President can have a significant effect on the economy through policies that have long term effect and psychology that has a shorter term effect. I think this President has over-promised and under-delivered when it comes to the economy. His focus has been on bandaids to reduce the pain (like extended unemployment benefits) and initiatives that have little to do with reviving the economy (like universal health care coverage). In his desperation to get re-elected, he's decided on a strategy that divides the country along class lines. He's shown me no indication that he has a coherent long term plan to create a positive environment for economic growth. He ignored his own Bowles-Simpson commission recommendations. He seems to be more interested in resetting the level of government spending and catching up with higher taxes. No thanks.

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 01:38 PM
I don't think the President has direct control over the economy. A good president can experience a declining economy and a bad president can enjoy a rising economy. But that doesn't mean that presidents are irrelevant. Despite what the ronpauls and cynical independents will tell us, there *is* a difference between the two parties. I think Obama represents his party's thirst for greater spending levels and higher taxes on production pretty well. I don't think that's the right way to build a better future for our country.

I do think the President can have a significant effect on the economy through policies that have long term effect and psychology that has a shorter term effect. I think this President has over-promised and under-delivered when it comes to the economy. His focus has been on bandaids to reduce the pain (like extended unemployment benefits) and initiatives that have little to do with reviving the economy (like universal health care coverage). In his desperation to get re-elected, he's decided on a strategy that divides the country along class lines. He's shown me no indication that he has a coherent long term plan to create a positive environment for economic growth. He ignored his own Bowles-Simpson commission recommendations. He seems to be more interested in resetting the level of government spending and catching up with higher taxes. No thanks.


Merely for the record, because I agree with significant portions of this, I doubt I will vote for him again.

But it depends on who the Republicans serve up. I'd never vote for Santorum, for example.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2012, 02:40 PM
Let slip the Jews.
Israel doesn't have the capacity as I understand. It's bluff and bluster. But if they do start something, I don't see how it avoids us being dragged into it.

Meanwhile:

"Few Iranian Jews take Ahmadinejad’s anti-Israel rhetoric seriously, and they point to the fact that little has changed for Iranian Jews under him. ‘Anti-Semitism is not an eastern phenomenon, it’s not an Islamic or Iranian phenomenon – anti-Semitism is a European phenomenon,’ Ciamak Morsathegh, head of the Jewish hospital in Tehran, explained. Iran’s forty synagogues, many of them with Hebrew schools, haven’t been touched. Neither has the Jewish library, which boasts twenty thousand titles, or Jewish hospitals and cemeteries."

Irananian Jews have been able to criticize Ahmadinejad’s more excessive statements, say like on the Holocaust. However, nothing, that I know of, about wiping Israel off the map. Ahmadinejad did not say that anyway. Most of all he is not the supreme leader in Iran or the only one who would decide such an important matter.

There is no Iranian policy to wipe out Israel. Iran's leaders are rational enough to have detente. I question our side more.


Michael Rozeff (http://lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff377.html)

dirk digler
02-15-2012, 02:53 PM
You really don't see a problem with the Russians (or any other potential adversary) having 4x the number of warheads we do?


You are a smart guy Donger you know we are facing a totally different type of threat today. We are engaging in asymmetric warfare not the Cold War type so there is no need to have that high number of nukes

Donger
02-15-2012, 02:54 PM
You are a smart guy Donger you know we are facing a totally different type of threat today. We are engaging in asymmetric warfare not the Cold War type so there is no need to have that high number of nukes

I'm not sure what "high number of nukes" you are referring to. I stated that I'm fine with strategic reductions, but I'd prefer not to go drastically lower than Russia (or China).

dirk digler
02-15-2012, 03:01 PM
I'm not sure what "high number of nukes" you are referring to. I stated that I'm fine with strategic reductions, but I'd prefer not to go drastically lower than Russia (or China).

Fair enough. Right now we still have more nukes than Russia but I would be ok with going lower than 1000 or less. We don't need that many.

As of last Sept. 1, the United States had 1,790 warheads and Russia had 1,566, according to treaty-mandated reports by each

dirk digler
02-15-2012, 03:05 PM
China is estimated to have around 300 so that would a good number to be at

BucEyedPea
02-15-2012, 03:06 PM
You are a smart guy Donger you know we are facing a totally different type of threat today. We are engaging in asymmetric warfare not the Cold War type so there is no need to have that high number of nukes

It's an inability to evaluate information so one can see the bullshit. Confirmation bias is in the way simple because Americans and some British don't like Iran for other reasons.
There was no outright war when the Soviets had their huge arsenal.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2012, 03:19 PM
I see our British Empire and mercantilist wants a war so he can make money on oil speculation.

Donger
02-15-2012, 03:21 PM
I see our British Empire and mercantilist wants a war so he can make money on oil speculation.

Are you bored today or something?

Calcountry
02-15-2012, 03:21 PM
NO we need a war to deflect the shape of the economy. You can't bitch about anything if there is a war going on.Gee, I can't wait until code pink goes to Hawaii when Obama is on vacation.

Calcountry
02-15-2012, 03:22 PM
Yep. Boar jizz has gone from $7 a bag to $24 in three yearsCorn has went from 3.5/bushel to a range of 6 to 7 dollars a bushel too.

Calcountry
02-15-2012, 03:23 PM
$89 Fat hogs, $140 fat cattle and these numb nuts are celebrating how good Obama has made it. Hotdogs and cheetos for most in months to come.Sounds like a good reason to increase food stamp benefits.

Calcountry
02-15-2012, 03:24 PM
Meanwhile a massive fleet of U.S. Navy warships engage Iran provocatively in the Persian Gulf, while the U.S. media present Iranian patrols as deliberate threats. Our congress wants to fund AQ with weapons in Syria, the soft underbelly of Iran. While these provocations continue, Israeli Madonna fans plead with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to postpone his attack on Iran so it won't ruin her concert world tour which begins in Tel Aviv in May.Do you think it is a good time for Iran to fly a 747 over the airspace of one of our aegis cruisers. Like the one Will Rogers captained a few years ago?

BucEyedPea
02-15-2012, 10:34 PM
So, looks like the big news was that they've made their own fuel rods and have inserted them into their research reactor in Tehran.

It's a conspiracy!

Donger
02-16-2012, 11:15 AM
It's a conspiracy!

Are you alright?

Bill Parcells
02-16-2012, 05:20 PM
Are you alright?

No, shes not well. she didn't take her medication last night.