Blogs 4 Brownback

July 18, 2007

Open Foreign Policy Thread

Filed under: Open Thread — Sisyphus @ 1:36 pm

Whom should we nuke first, Iran or Syria?  Discuss.  (Pacifistic Kumbaya-chanting is NOT discussing, it is trolling.)

20 Comments »

  1. Why first? They both are a threat to Lady Liberty they both need to be dealt with NOW. I vote Syria and Iran at the same time. Once we irradiate a few key government centers those Al Quada back dictatorships will fall like dominos in Damascus and Tehran and their newly freed population with great our boys with flowers and roses. If it wasn’t for the heny penny the sky is falling types in Congress this would have already happened.

    Rep Cunningham said he drop the bomb on Damascus, let’s let him out prision and make up for his mistakes by getting the job done.

    Comment by BJ Tabor — July 18, 2007 @ 1:48 pm | Reply

  2. How about neither? The reprecussions of nuking a few countries are immense. Really, I think you should consider the side-effects.

    Comment by La Mona — July 18, 2007 @ 2:39 pm | Reply

  3. Neither. Nuclear weapons have only been used once, at the end of years of open war. Now you honestly think that blowing up countries that we don’t even particularly have open hostility with is a good idea? The reason nukes exist is so that no one will ever use them. After all, what’s to stop Pakistan or China or France or Russia or England from throwing their nukes at us once we throw ours at anyone?

    Comment by Salmo — July 18, 2007 @ 3:30 pm | Reply

  4. Salmo’s mostly correct, and I say neither as well, but for a different reason.

    Nuking any country will produce massive amounts of radiation and fallout. Not only will this radiation comntaminate its target countries and kill any surviving population (as well as any occupying force), but the radioactive dust the explosion throws around will enter the jet stream and come right around to North America. The fallout that Little Boy and Fat Man threw around was noticeable for two decades in American air quality studies. Now, imagine tens of these weapons, each one hundreds of times more powerful than their predecessors, and you end up with a massive blanket of poisonous dust in the atmosphere, hence the term “nuclear winter”.

    Aside from the direct risks of radiation, the rest of the world would really be put on edge. Fears of MAD (mutually assured destruction) would be rekindled, the nuclear powers like China and Russia would be on their highest alerts, and the entire situation could spiral out of control into all-out nuclear warfare. And needless to say, the American population would be completely devastated by such a war, maybe to the point beyond recovery.

    Though I feel a conflict with (at least) Iran is inevitable, it will most likely be a ground war with conventional weapons.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 18, 2007 @ 5:45 pm | Reply

  5. Neither of them. To go to your America-loving level, if we nuke them, we can and will be nuked by China and many other nations. America — nay, the world — will be pwnd.

    Kumbaya!

    Comment by Linus — July 18, 2007 @ 9:33 pm | Reply

  6. Complaints against Linus may be sent to: fakeemailaddressofdoom@fakelyfakefake.com

    It’s obviously his real email address, as he is clearly a spoof or a spammer.

    Comment by Psycheout — July 18, 2007 @ 10:17 pm | Reply

  7. both atta same time althogh we need to find the iraki wepons that were shipt to seria first befor we bom them bak to the ston aje they all deserve to be kilt the stupid teroris fuks bom them all and tern them to glas thatl teech them to attak the usa miserable basterds

    Comment by JOE — July 19, 2007 @ 2:31 am | Reply

  8. Sorry JOE if you think you can shock us with being a handy-tard, think again: I’ve seen too much on this website. You’re old news, buddy.

    ANYWAYS, I’m not sure the US will ever use nukes again. They just aren’t desperate enough to. Their threats: Syria, Iran, China (eventually), they can handle those on their own. Remember, they’ve still got a lotta firepower up their sleeve!

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 19, 2007 @ 6:57 am | Reply

  9. After all, what’s to stop Pakistan or China or France or Russia or England from throwing their nukes at us once we throw ours at anyone?”

    We’ll still have plenty of nukes to use on them, if they get any ideas. Britain and Russia would probably thank us for taking out Iran and Syria. As for China, they’re too busy rattling sabres at Taiwan and slaughtering Tibetan peasants to care what happens to the villagers of Terhan.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 19, 2007 @ 11:25 am | Reply

  10. “After all, what’s to stop Pakistan or China or France or Russia or England from throwing their nukes at us once we throw ours at anyone?”

    France would only attack us to surrender.

    Comment by BJ Tabor — July 19, 2007 @ 12:31 pm | Reply

  11. “We’ll still have plenty of nukes to use on them, if they get any ideas.”

    That’s not the issue at stake. China has plenty of early-warning systems. If they see anything coming their way over the Pacific, they’ll hit you just as hard. That’s the real problem.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 19, 2007 @ 3:10 pm | Reply

  12. Relax, no sane commander would ever use nuclear weapons inside Earth’s atmosphere, and neither will Bush.

    Comment by Skeptic — July 20, 2007 @ 9:12 am | Reply

  13. President Brownback will learn from the mistakes of the Bush Administration, Skeptic. Not nuking Iran will have been one of those mistakes. Bush still has time to fix it, but I consider it unlikely.

    As for Syria, they are armed with Saddam’s old weapons. If anything, they are even more dangerous than Iran. We should probably pull our troops out of Iraq, nuke Syria, and let the winds carry the fallout across Al Qaeda’s Iraq into Iran. Good riddance to the lot of them.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 20, 2007 @ 9:34 am | Reply

  14. But doesn’t Brownback want to divvy up the newly-pacified Iraq — into the US of Iraq, if you will? It wouldn’t help those goals if he decided to let radioactive fallout kill the populace of that nation, and poison the land so that nobody could ever go there again.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 20, 2007 @ 10:45 am | Reply

  15. If we can still get the oil, no one needs to live there, Adam. We can always partition the graveyard.

    I’m no idiot. I know Brownback can’t say these things while on campaign. I’m just confident these are the positions he’ll come to once he’s in power and struggling to keep America free.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 20, 2007 @ 11:00 am | Reply

  16. “I’m no idiot. I know Brownback can’t say these things while on campaign.”

    So you’re advocating lies and deceit. Just like how BJ advocates murder, even going so far to say “well, it’s not actually us murdering them, it’s God making us help them die”. How disgusting.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 20, 2007 @ 2:34 pm | Reply

  17. Doesn´t matter. Once the nukes start, someone will retaliate and half the planet, including the USA will be radioactive flinders.

    @BJ: They will greet you wiht flowe? Yeah dream on. The Iraquis greeted you with flowers, too. Made of lead.

    Even if there´s no WWIII through such an action, Israel and the whole Middle East would be ROYALLY pissed because of the radiation. Being an US citicen would be like a death sentence down there.

    We’ll still have plenty of nukes to use on them, if they get any ideas. Britain and Russia would probably thank us for taking out Iran and Syria. As for China, they’re too busy rattling sabres at Taiwan and slaughtering Tibetan peasants to care what happens to the villagers of Terhan.

    Not if someone begins throwing nukes around. The simple question those countries will ask will be: “Who´s next? Are the US stabile or could things go out of control? Would it be better to be cautious?” Being cautious mean that they would rapidly increase their alert levels. It would at least be the biggest political crisis since WWII and the US would end up as an international paria.

    France would only attack us to surrender.

    You mean after they nuked your asses into oblivion?

    As for Syria, they are armed with Saddam’s old weapons. If anything, they are even more dangerous than Iran. We should probably pull our troops out of Iraq, nuke Syria, and let the winds carry the fallout across Al Qaeda’s Iraq into Iran. Good riddance to the lot of them.

    Any evidence for that? I guess not. And the plan is dumb. One change in direction by the wind and your beloved allies in ISrael or Suadi Arabia will be screwed.

    Comment by PG — July 20, 2007 @ 3:03 pm | Reply

  18. “Pacifistic Kumbaya-chanting is NOT discussing, it is trolling”

    True American values at work: “opinons that I personally don’t care fore are not allowed!” Wow, that’s freedom of speech for ya.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 20, 2007 @ 10:33 pm | Reply

  19. We tolerate your trolling. Why you’re peeing your pants over your loss of free speech (which isn’t happening) is anyone’s guess. Lay off the jazz cigarettes.

    And why are you calling “fore?” Are you in the middle of a miniature golf session?

    Comment by Psycheout — July 21, 2007 @ 12:49 am | Reply

  20. Nothing seems to be easier than seeing someone whom you can help but not helping.
    I suggest we start giving it a try. Give love to the ones that need it.
    God will appreciate it.

    Comment by Hanylyday — January 21, 2009 @ 7:10 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: