Iranian President to US: Just apologize and we're cool.

[IndyDave1776]

When they apologize for holding our folks hostage for years AND holding US flag burning rallies about it then we should think about it , until then I think a few megatons of "apology" should probably do it .

I like it. We could be good neighbors and help them keep their energy costs down by making them glow in the dark.

 

[Lowe0]

When they apologize for holding our folks hostage for years AND holding US flag burning rallies about it then we should think about it , until then I think a few megatons of "apology" should probably do it .

A single nuke costs us around $1.8M. What benefit would we get from nuking Iran that justifies that kind of taxpayer expense?

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I like it. We could be good neighbors and help them keep their energy costs down by making them glow in the dark.

It's probably the best ME policy in years after all , very few of life's problems can't be solved with the proper amount of high explosives .

 

[Expat]

Nice. Dave to Iranian president: "Go f*** yourself!"

Obama to Iranian president: "Thank you sir. May I have another?"

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

A single nuke costs us around $1.8M. What benefit would we get from nuking Iran that justifies that kind of taxpayer expense?

A nice quiet neighborhood for the next 1,000 years .

 

[Jludo]

A nice quiet neighborhood for the next 1,000 years .

Haha no more iran would make for a quiet neighborhood?

 

[yepthatsme]

I fear that any apology, of any kind, will become fuel for the extremest nuts.

I agree. Apologizing at this time would just make us appear even weaker that we already do in our enemies eyes. This would only help Iran to justify their goal to obtain nuclear weapons to attack the evil westerners. Have we made mistakes? Heck yeah. So has every other nation in the world. Do we do more good than harm? Heck yeah. Look at all of the aid we have given to countries in their time of need. That's just a small part of it. Are we making mistakes now? You betcha. We have made ourselves to appear weak and helpless which has helped fuel the unrest we are experiencing now.

We believe that all nations think as we do and react as we do. Thinking like this is just naive. To many of them, apologizing or offering assistance is a sign of weakness and an open invitation for them to attack. No! H*ll no! Do not apologize to Iran!

 

[IndyDave1776]

A single nuke costs us around $1.8M. What benefit would we get from nuking Iran that justifies that kind of taxpayer expense?

Since we are taking this seriously, I would point out that, first, this does not actually cost us that by virtue of the fact that the money has long since been spend and we are not obligated to nor do we need to replace that bomb. After all, you only need enough of them to destroy the planet so many times over anyway.

Second, when you consider the damage to any system of currency that counterfeiting does, and that the Iranian national mint jockeys for position with the North Korean national mint with first and second places alternating for the world's leading counterfeiter of US currency, my guess is that Iran does more than $1.8M per year worth of damage to our economy with printing presses.

Third, I would venture to say that we spend more than $1.8M per year dealing with state-sponsored terrorism of which Iran is the sponsor.

Fourth, we have a constant threat of interference with the world oil market by way of shenanigans with the Strait of Hormuz. I would imagine that we spend more than $1.8M per year preventing this problem from manifesting.

Fifth, the drone that Iran hijacked cost a hell of a lot more than $1.8M.

Sixth, Iran caused more than $1.8M in additional damage and expense through its activities against our troops in Iraq, including but not limited to supplying munitions to people engaged in hostilities against our troops.

Seventh, and certainly not least, Iran has been very true to its word regarding the hostilities in which it would engage when afforded the opportunity, and has plainly declared its intention to eliminate Israel from the face of the planet, and has been very clear in holding us in the same regard. Apparently, Israel gets first priority by virtue of geographic proximity, but lighting up people who have made it clear that they intend to light us up the first chance they get would seem to come with its own reasonable argument.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Haha no more iran would make for a quiet neighborhood?

It certainly wouldn't make it less quiet. It would also have much potential to encourage the others to settle down much as was the case when our neighbors in Tripoli got their asses handed to them by Commodore Decatur.

 

[Jludo]

I agree. Apologizing at this time would just make us appear even weaker that we already do in our enemies eyes. This would only help Iran to justify their goal to obtain nuclear weapons to attack the evil westerners. Have we made mistakes? Heck yeah. So has every other nation in the world. Do we do more good than harm? Heck yeah. Look at all of the aid we have given to countries in their time of need. That's just a small part of it. Are we making mistakes now? You betcha. We have made ourselves to appear weak and helpless which has helped fuel the unrest we are experiencing now.

We believe that all nations think as we do and react as we do. Thinking like this is just naive. To many of them, apologizing or offering assistance is a sign of weakness and an open invitation for them to attack. No! H*ll no! Do not apologize to Iran!

Alright other than the utter bs propaganda being spoutted, where In the world do get the idea that America is projecting weakness? Because we aren't invading countries left and right anymore? What was America strong at the height of the iraq and afghan wars?

 

[yepthatsme]

Since we are taking this seriously, I would point out that, first, this does not actually cost us that by virtue of the fact that the money has long since been spend and we are not obligated to nor do we need to replace that bomb. After all, you only need enough of them to destroy the planet so many times over anyway.

Second, when you consider the damage to any system of currency that counterfeiting does, and that the Iranian national mint jockeys for position with the North Korean national mint with first and second places alternating for the world's leading counterfeiter of US currency, my guess is that Iran does more than $1.8M per year worth of damage to our economy with printing presses.

Third, I would venture to say that we spend more than $1.8M per year dealing with state-sponsored terrorism of which Iran is the sponsor.

Fourth, we have a constant threat of interference with the world oil market by way of shenanigans with the Strait of Hormuz. I would imagine that we spend more than $1.8M per year preventing this problem from manifesting.

Fifth, the drone that Iran hijacked cost a hell of a lot more than $1.8M.

Sixth, Iran caused more than $1.8M in additional damage and expense through its activities against our troops in Iraq, including but not limited to supplying munitions to people engaged in hostilities against our troops.

Seventh, and certainly not least, Iran has been very true to its word regarding the hostilities in which it would engage when afforded the opportunity, and has plainly declared its intention to eliminate Israel from the face of the planet, and has been very clear in holding us in the same regard. Apparently, Israel gets first priority by virtue of geographic proximity, but lighting up people who have made it clear that they intend to light us up the first chance they get would seem to come with its own reasonable argument.

^^^^^ This ^^^^^

 

[Jludo]

It certainly wouldn't make it less quiet. It would also have much potential to encourage the others to settle down much as was the case when our neighbors in Tripoli got their asses handed to them by Commodore Decatur.

Yea I'm sure Saudi Arabia would stop exporting wahhabism, Palestinians would stop fighting for voting rights in the occupied territories and IsIL would lay down their arms, having lost their chief religious enemy in the region

 

[Lowe0]

Since we are taking this seriously, I would point out that, first, this does not actually cost us that by virtue of the fact that the money has long since been spend and we are not obligated to nor do we need to replace that bomb. After all, you only need enough of them to destroy the planet so many times over anyway.

Second, when you consider the damage to any system of currency that counterfeiting does, and that the Iranian national mint jockeys for position with the North Korean national mint with first and second places alternating for the world's leading counterfeiter of US currency, my guess is that Iran does more than $1.8M per year worth of damage to our economy with printing presses.

Third, I would venture to say that we spend more than $1.8M per year dealing with state-sponsored terrorism of which Iran is the sponsor.

Fourth, we have a constant threat of interference with the world oil market by way of shenanigans with the Strait of Hormuz. I would imagine that we spend more than $1.8M per year preventing this problem from manifesting.

Fifth, the drone that Iran hijacked cost a hell of a lot more than $1.8M.

Sixth, Iran caused more than $1.8M in additional damage and expense through its activities against our troops in Iraq, including but not limited to supplying munitions to people engaged in hostilities against our troops.

Seventh, and certainly not least, Iran has been very true to its word regarding the hostilities in which it would engage when afforded the opportunity, and has plainly declared its intention to eliminate Israel from the face of the planet, and has been very clear in holding us in the same regard. Apparently, Israel gets first priority by virtue of geographic proximity, but lighting up people who have made it clear that they intend to light us up the first chance they get would seem to come with its own reasonable argument.

I love how the cost of the bombs is dismissed as sunk cost, but then 3,4,5,6,&7 are all assumed as things that we have to do (and therefore pay for). We don't need troops in Iraq, we don't need drones over Iran, and the rest of the world can start shouldering the cost of fighting terror and policing the Middle East.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Alright other than the utter bs propaganda being spoutted, where In the world do get the idea that America is projecting weakness? Because we aren't invading countries left and right anymore? What was America strong at the height of the iraq and afghan wars?

Have you ever heard that two wrongs don't make a right. You are essentially arguing that Bush's (or perhaps more correctly Cheney's) poor judgment excuses Obama's poor judgment.

How is it 'bs propaganda' to suggest that approaching dangerous sworn enemies and trying to appease them by kissing their asses even harder than you were last month creates a position of strength?

How do you believe that anyone else on the planet is going to take us seriously when we have a president who all but [provides them oral stimulation]?

How do you believe that anyone else is going to take us seriously when our sorry, sorry excuse for a president dismisses the most dangerous terrorist/jihadist organization in modern history as a 'JV team' and stands back and lets it consolidate a multinational power base, and in some cases, assists it in doing so?

Your argument is irrelevant. Obama dropping his pants and grabbing his ankles on our collective behalf does in fact present the world an image of great weakness.

 

[Jludo]

Since we are taking this seriously, I would point out that, first, this does not actually cost us that by virtue of the fact that the money has long since been spend and we are not obligated to nor do we need to replace that bomb. After all, you only need enough of them to destroy the planet so many times over anyway.

Second, when you consider the damage to any system of currency that counterfeiting does, and that the Iranian national mint jockeys for position with the North Korean national mint with first and second places alternating for the world's leading counterfeiter of US currency, my guess is that Iran does more than $1.8M per year worth of damage to our economy with printing presses.

Third, I would venture to say that we spend more than $1.8M per year dealing with state-sponsored terrorism of which Iran is the sponsor.

Fourth, we have a constant threat of interference with the world oil market by way of shenanigans with the Strait of Hormuz. I would imagine that we spend more than $1.8M per year preventing this problem from manifesting.

Fifth, the drone that Iran hijacked cost a hell of a lot more than $1.8M.

Sixth, Iran caused more than $1.8M in additional damage and expense through its activities against our troops in Iraq, including but not limited to supplying munitions to people engaged in hostilities against our troops.

Seventh, and certainly not least, Iran has been very true to its word regarding the hostilities in which it would engage when afforded the opportunity, and has plainly declared its intention to eliminate Israel from the face of the planet, and has been very clear in holding us in the same regard. Apparently, Israel gets first priority by virtue of geographic proximity, but lighting up people who have made it clear that they intend to light us up the first chance they get would seem to come with its own reasonable argument.

I thought this was a tongue in cheek thought experiment, but you're actually trying to make a case for a nuclear first strike on a country that poses no direct military threat?

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Alright other than the utter bs propaganda being spoutted, where In the world do get the idea that America is projecting weakness? Because we aren't invading countries left and right anymore? What was America strong at the height of the iraq and afghan wars?

Probably has something to do with obummer bowing to everybody including the burger king , his calculus keeps changing and let's not forget nothing has been done about Benghazi .

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I thought this was a tongue in cheek thought experiment, but you're actually trying to make a case for a nuclear first strike on a country that poses no direct military threat?

I'm betting there are plenty of soldiers missing limbs that might not agree with you .

 

[jamil]

Yes perhaps we should apologize. Here's my suggested wording for it.






















**** OFF!

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yea I'm sure Saudi Arabia would stop exporting wahhabism, Palestinians would stop fighting for voting rights in the occupied territories and IsIL would lay down their arms, having lost their chief religious enemy in the region

Seriously? Having one LESS enemy will make the world less peaceful. Once again you demonstrate your skill at using completely irrelevant arguments. That just doesn't even make sense.

As for the others, my guess is that at minimum, the threat of being eliminated from the face of the planet, just as they profess the intent and then engage in the actions to do to others, would lead them to stop and consider their actions. As another member is fond of point out, Mohammed was a pragmatic individual. I have noticed that this trait has been passed down pretty reliably, at least to the extent that they only engage in hostilities when they have a pretty solid chance of success. Demonstrate that this chance doesn't exist, and they will knock it off. As it is, they know that we won't do anything, and if we do, it will be more focused on the financial gain of the contractors and suppliers than on actually solving the problem (i.e., liquidating the problem hostile forces).

I love how the cost of the bombs is dismissed as sunk cost, but then 3,4,5,6,&7 are all assumed as things that we have to do (and therefore pay for). We don't need troops in Iraq, we don't need drones over Iran, and the rest of the world can start shouldering the cost of fighting terror and policing the Middle East.

Let's see...

3. I suppose we could simply start accepting terror attacks as a way of life, let it go unfettered, and just accept the notion that so many people a year will die from it, just like disease, accidents, lightening strikes, and so forth. Of course, if we aren't going to use our military to provide safety from foreign threats, preferably before they strike on our soil, we might as well eliminate the military.

4. You are going to concede the economic damage done through counterfeiting but not the economic damage done through driving energy costs through the roof? Do you own a lot of green energy stock?

6. I will grant you that invading Iraq was not the best plan, but that doesn't excuse Iran for jumping in or for stealing our drone, covering point 5.

7. Seriously? The Kenyan just negotiated a deal essentially handing Iran nuclear weapons that they have made it abundantly clear that they intend to use on others which would include us, and you don't consider that worth worrying about? Do you have some type of magical defense over yourself and your home which makes you impervious to nuclear attack? Maybe a bunker somewhere in North Dakota, Wyoming, or Montana?

Last but not least, are you willing to simply absorb the damage from terrorism while we start waiting for the rest of the world to start sharing the wealth? I don't know about you, but deliberately choosing to be an undefended target just doesn't sound very appealing to me.

 

[Jludo]

Have you ever heard that two wrongs don't make a right. You are essentially arguing that Bush's (or perhaps more correctly Cheney's) poor judgment excuses Obama's poor judgment.

How is it 'bs propaganda' to suggest that approaching dangerous sworn enemies and trying to appease them by kissing their asses even harder than you were last month creates a position of strength?

How do you believe that anyone else on the planet is going to take us seriously when we have a president who all but [provides them oral stimulation]?

How do you believe that anyone else is going to take us seriously when our sorry, sorry excuse for a president dismisses the most dangerous terrorist/jihadist organization in modern history as a 'JV team' and stands back and lets it consolidate a multinational power base, and in some cases, assists it in doing so?

Your argument is irrelevant. Obama dropping his pants and grabbing his ankles on our collective behalf does in fact present the world an image of great weakness.

This. This is propaganda. You just have your head too far up Sean Hannity s backside to realize it apparently.

" a president who all but blows them"

"Our president dropping his pants and grabbing his ankles"

Yea that's the measured response of a clear headed adult.

By far the largest and strongest military in the world yet we project great weakness? Weakness and restraint aren't synonymous.