Page 28 of 43 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 428

Thread: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

  1. #271
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayton3 View Post
    Except that the Soviet missiles never became operational in Cuba before they agreed to remove them. And though the Soviets did try to give the local Soviet general authority to fire them, his authority was actually rescinded BEFORE the earlier communications ever arrived.
    How is that relevant to the question whether the R-12 and R-14 missiles in Cuba, each with a one-megaton warhead there ready to be mounted on it, gave the Soviet Union the ability to launch an effective nuclear missile strike on the U.S. before 1964? Do you really think those missiles and warheads would not have worked? The most knowledgeable people on that subject in the U.S. must have been pretty sure they would.

    If the Cuban Missile Crisis had "gone hot" the U.S. would've suffered "some" damage. A handful of cities destroyed at most (probably one or two is more realistic)
    That is just idle speculation on your part. Neither you nor anyone else has any way of knowing that most of those R-12's and R-14's, and their nuclear weapons, would not have done exactly what they were meant to do. There is no reason to think that weapons which had been well tested would probably not work. President Kennedy and his advisers certainly did not think those sixty missiles could probably destroy only one or two U.S. cities, or a handful at most, nor did they cavalierly dismiss the results of one-megaton hydrogen bombs going off over a number of large U.S. cities as only "some" damage.

  2. #272
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    To the bolded, Well then I guess I won't give any regard to your views either and then we can both be about other business.
    I think you can be sure that quite a few people who have seen your views here have given due regard to them, and that they have reached their conclusions about those views and what motivates them.

  3. #273
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Having run across a lot of leftists over the years, I've come to believe many of them are desperate to hide the fact they are ignorant hicks. And they imagine that feigning a worldly, cosmopolitan air, while ascribing to conservatives the very deficiencies they are so conscious of in themselves, helps them do that.
    Left and right are ideologies, not barometers of intelligence, there are both smart and stupid people subscribing to both. What a failed observation.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  4. #274
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by JANFU View Post
    A provocation, yes, act of war, no. A blockade is an act of war.
    If talks fail, sanction will increase dramatically.
    A blockade is also considered an act of war, you are correct. But it's up to the one bearing the weight and discomfort of economic warfare to decide when they've had enough, and reciprocate. Cause and effect. You can tell Russia and Iran that they aren't suffering enough under the economic oppression of your sanctions to have a legitimate cause to strike at you, but what would that mean?
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  5. #275
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    I know that everything that Iran says is a lie, and that everything the US says is the truth, no need to roll your eyes at me Mr.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  6. #276
    Living in Gods country


    JANFU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    17,864

    Re: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    A blockade is also considered an act of war, you are correct. But it's up to the one bearing the weight and discomfort of economic warfare to decide when they've had enough, and reciprocate. Cause and effect. You can tell Russia and Iran that they aren't suffering enough under the economic oppression of your sanctions to have a legitimate cause to strike at you, but what would that mean?
    Legal or illegal war as they say- does not change anything- just how it is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Hillary is the only defense I or anyone else needs.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Not once have I showed my dick to a woman and she thought it was creepy. In fact, in 100% of the cases, they were pretty excited about it. I don't know who you're showing your **** too.

  7. #277
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    You have made several claims that the only possible deduction from them is that you are in favor of Iran gaining nuclear capabilities.

    Such claims are;

    - The claim that Western nations having nukes bothers you more than Iran having it.
    - The claim that Iran isn't trying to gain nukes.
    - The claim that Iran having nukes is as legitimate as any other nation having it.
    - The comparison between Iran and the US.

    Apparently you wanna be dishonest about it, sure go ahead, but don't accuse me of manipulating your words when I clearly haven't.
    If anything that's quite hypocritical considering you've claimed more than once that I supported the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when I've never stated so.
    Ok, to the bolded, I have stated that the other nations having nukes bothers me more than Iran having them, especially the US, which has actually used them.

    I haven't claimed that Iran isn't trying to gain nukes. One can't prove such a negative. What I have claimed is that no one can produce evidence that their nuclear program is a weapons program.

    I have not claimed that Iran having nukes is as legitimate as any other nation having them. Namely, because such weapons have no legitimacy, and there use cannot be justified. And I'm exhausted with telling you that I DO NOT WANT IRAN OR ANYBODY ELSE TO HAVE OR USE THEM.

    As to the comparison between Iran and the US, I assume you harken back to my statement of fact that both nations have used terrorism to advance their interests, if so, then yes.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  8. #278
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Thank you for the confirmation of the point.
    You mean to say that you believe that the whole sum of Americans at any given time are responsible for US foreign policy??? I find that hard to believe. Only a tiny fraction of Americans participate in the federal government, and less yet in that portion of it responsible for setting and executing foreign policy. So, you being coy is about the only thing I've confirmed. My criticisms of US foreign policy throughout the years is not a condemnation on 300,000,000 Americans today, or 150,000,000 Americans during WW2, etc.. As a matter of fact until Roosevelt succeeded in provoking a Japanese attack, 80% of Americans were against US involvement in another world war, and as such they bear no responsibility. More recently, despite the fact that the Obama administration with a whole lot of neo-con support made three attempts to secure a resolution for the use of force in Syria, 70% of Americans were against it. They too bear no responsibility, nor do they get any of my criticism. The broad brush claims by yourself and others that I am anti-American, think America is bad, am not patriotic, etc., are cheap politic ploys, designed to deflect that attention, that spotlight shinning on the very few, who through deceipt, manipulation, intrigue and dishonesty have compromised the integrity of our foreign policy. Deal with it cp.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  9. #279
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by JANFU View Post
    Legal or illegal war as they say- does not change anything- just how it is.
    And what do you mean by that. Define for me a legal war, and an illegal war, lol.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  10. #280
    Educator
    Dayton3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    07-20-17 @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,153

    Re: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    How is that relevant to the question whether the R-12 and R-14 missiles in Cuba, each with a one-megaton warhead there ready to be mounted on it, gave the Soviet Union the ability to launch an effective nuclear missile strike on the U.S. before 1964? Do you really think those missiles and warheads would not have worked? The most knowledgeable people on that subject in the U.S. must have been pretty sure they would.



    That is just idle speculation on your part. Neither you nor anyone else has any way of knowing that most of those R-12's and R-14's, and their nuclear weapons, would not have done exactly what they were meant to do. There is no reason to think that weapons which had been well tested would probably not work. .
    Actually there is EVERY reasons to believe most of the Soviet nuclear weapons would not have detonated.

    The first generation of Polaris SLBMs were deployed by the U.S. around this time frame.

    Years later, the U.S. found out that fully SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT of their warheads WOULD NOT detonate (see "The Cold War At Sea" by Kit Bonner). The Polaris warheads and the Soviet IRBM warheads were the same generation of weapons. There is no reason to believe the Soviet weapons would have worked better than the American ones.

    At any rate, I was doubting that the Soviets could've successfully launched the majority of missiles before U.S. nuclear warheads starting impacting on their launch sites.

Page 28 of 43 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •