It's Brietbart they don't release any video undoctored. Ever.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
What an easy experiment. The same video should be on NPR. Watch it, and compare the two. Are they doctored? Y/N?
"Hey! That really sweet deal you were going to give us? I want more! NOW NOW NOW NOW!"
Super effective negotiating strategy, there.
GasBandit
Staff member
Now you're just tinfoil hatting. The NPR interview is a matter of public record, as Terrik said. There'd be no point in doctoring the video because it'd immediately be caught.
That's because, as I said before, the governments of those two nations are secular, not theocratic, and furthermore they share a border - nuking each other is nuking themselves. Even further, the root of their dispute is a territorial one - the Kashmir region, first and foremost. Territorial disputes can still be settled conventionally, and it would be stupid to ruin an area you want by dumping fallout on it. Iran is a different beast - it is a Theocratic government which ascribes to an apocalyptic version of the prophesy of the return of the 12th Imam, there's quite a distance between them and their primary target, and they already have a means of delivery which gives them a layer of plausible deniability - they don't have to launch an ICBM and then take credit for it, they can use their terrorist proxies to deliver and detonate it.
Actually, it does completely excuse it. Hiroshima and Nagasaki broke the Japanese will to fight and saved millions of lives (including Japanese lives) that would have been lost in a land invasion of the island. Furthermore, you're comparing atomic apples to thermonuclear oranges - Fat Man and Little Boy were 15 and 21 kiloton bombs. We have 18 kiloton conventional bombs now (and we used them in Iraq). Current thermonuclear technology yields explosions in the dozens of megatons.
The people aren't stupid and evil, but they're oppressed and powerless. We sure as hell didn't come to their aid recently when uprisings started, either. Their *leaders,* however, are quite plainly and demonstrably evil. Unless you're going to tell me that putting homosexuals and adulteresses to death, and sponsoring worldwide terror isn't evil.[DOUBLEPOST=1428590461,1428590423][/DOUBLEPOST]
Remember what I said? Negotiation is only a tool to use the west against itself as "stalling with monetary bonuses."
Dave
Staff member
We have allies who do the same shit and we don't seem to care. So why is Iran different?
GasBandit
Staff member
You're referring to Saudi Arabia, I assume, and the first reason we treat the Saudis differently is - cynically enough - oil. They're top dog at OPEC and oil is the lifeblood of western civilization. Washington wants Riyadh kept close to help check the cost of importing oil. The second reason is, obviously enough, they're not attempting to build nuclear weapons. If that changed, I suspect you'd see a major policy shift.
The US is completely unconcerned about evil leaders doing evil things to innocent people within their own borders. That doesn't make the evil not evil. But there's a marked geopolitical difference between that and one armed with nuclear weapons. You don't nuke your own people...
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...arabia/saudi-arabia-is-a-us-ally-not-a-friend
I'll let Shirley Sherod know that since her video was doctored she has no reason to worry about her job. She'll be overjoyed.
And I'm glad that ACORN is able to continue their mission.
And if you go and read the transcripts he is talking about the situation prior to the deal.
Like I said brietbart doctor's all their videos.
GasBandit
Staff member
No, he isn't.
From the transcript:
TLDR version, he thinks Iran is within a year of nukes, and his deal is (or rather, would have been, since it looks like it might be derailed by Iran) buying 10, maybe 15 years.President Obama said:
GasBandit
Staff member
That's assuming those are the only two options. AND that the deal actually works.
If you really don't want a military intervention, than, yes, diplomatics and not doing anything are pretty much the only two other options.
That's kind of the kicker... we're basically at the point where we need to decide if we want to risk an invasion (and potentially having Iran detonate it's own nukes to stop us or smuggle them out to make it pointless) or decide that we won't and risk ether someone using their nukes to instigate World War 3 or wait for Israel to do it for us.
There are no good solutions to this and it's Iran's fault, not ours, because the only reason they need nukes is to prevent Israel from invading... something that wasn't going to happen anyway unless Iran was being aggressive.
There are no good solutions to this and it's Iran's fault, not ours, because the only reason they need nukes is to prevent Israel from invading... something that wasn't going to happen anyway unless Iran was being aggressive.
Ash, that's your view. Their view is that Israel is on the warpath, has been on the warpath for years, and is constantly warmongering to make it seem acceptable if and when they finally do use their nukes. And frankly, that isn't far off, either. Israel should never have been allowed to develop nukes, much like Iran. I'm not exactly sure which of those two countries is scarier as a nuclear power.
GasBandit
Staff member
Israel has never been "on the warpath." They've been constantly attacked. And they've conceded territory to buy peace again and again and again, and it hasn't worked.
I know you truly and honestly believe that, but it, much like a lot of stuff the left likes to believe, is really a matter of confirmation bias and blindness to other points of view. We'll have to agree to disagree and all that - I've wasted more than enough time years ago trying to convince you. Israel has been attacked many times and is in constant danger, yes, but they're also the most warmongering country in the region and have done so many bad and evil things that I can assure you, we'll look back on America's backing of Israel as one of America's greatest errors in this era some day. Israel's behaviour towards Palestine is horrible, Israel's rhetoric about Iran and Lebanon are dangerous and America's right wing tendency to believe and hold as self-evident anything Israel claims is dangerous for world peace. Creating Israel the way it was was a historical mistake that unfortunately can't be righted; I wouldn't be surprised if it was one day regarded of the same level of idiocy as the Versailles treaty, a "solution" to a war carrying the seeds of more death and destruction down the line in itself.
GasBandit
Staff member
Who has Israel ever gone to war against? What nation?
Hint - Palestine is not a nation.
If you're going to stick to one sentence replies: where did I say they'd ever gone to war? "warmongering" does not imply they've actually started a war, merely that they've advocated war (and violence), instigated a war, foster warlike ideas, or precipitate a war. Israel has done all of those and you damn well know it. Feeling threatened isn't a good reason to go about rolling your own muscles and being bullied isn't a reason to become the biggest bully yourself. Having been attacked in the past isn't a reason to be paranoid and hostile.
GasBandit
Staff member
It is when your attackers are still circling you, reloading their guns and chanting "Death to Israel," while simultaneously bankrolling terrorists that are constantly launching rockets at your population. The rest of that paragraph is one great big [citation needed]. Instigated a war? Precipitated a war? Wha?
okay, this is the part where I think you're not a real person
GasBandit
Staff member
GasBandit
Staff member
Hillary Clinton is expected to announce her candidacy on Sunday, and Marco Rubio soon after.
Iran has further torpedoed the so-called "deal" that it turns out hasn't actually been struck yet, by going one further past saying that all sanctions must be dropped immediately, now insisting that military sites will not be open to inspectors. You know, exactly the kind of place you'd expect nuclear weapon shenanigans to be taking place. It's become obvious that, despite what Obama administration officials have claimed, there actually has not been a deal even close to being finalized yet, and that their claims that there was a deal was just to delay Congress from shutting this farce down.
Iran has further torpedoed the so-called "deal" that it turns out hasn't actually been struck yet, by going one further past saying that all sanctions must be dropped immediately, now insisting that military sites will not be open to inspectors. You know, exactly the kind of place you'd expect nuclear weapon shenanigans to be taking place. It's become obvious that, despite what Obama administration officials have claimed, there actually has not been a deal even close to being finalized yet, and that their claims that there was a deal was just to delay Congress from shutting this farce down.
GasBandit
Staff member
A little thing called Corker-Menendez.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/09/politics/senate-iran-bill-veto-obama/
Without the US, no UN action has any teeth at all.
There was a Doonesbury cartoon a long time ago (during Bush I, I think) that was just different angles of the white house with that zig-zag voice balloon showing a telephone call and the text through all the panels went something like, "Thank you for calling the United States, the World's police force. For uprisings, press 1. For invasions, press 2. For..." etc.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Score one for the good guys. AF General Post, the zoomie jerkoff who was so dead set on retiring the A-10 warthog that he threatened anybody who spoke well of it with treason charges, has been shown the door.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/james-post-warthog-116864.html
The author of the article clearly has an anti-A-10 slant, because he keeps on lamenting how much it will cost to keep the A-10s flying, when the truth is it's cheaper to do that than to replace it entirely with a new platform - which would probably end up being the over-budget and underperforming boondoggle of a bad joke, the F-35, probably the biggest waste of time and money the United States Military has experienced in my lifetime. And I'm saying that as a guy who has relatives working on it!
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/james-post-warthog-116864.html
The author of the article clearly has an anti-A-10 slant, because he keeps on lamenting how much it will cost to keep the A-10s flying, when the truth is it's cheaper to do that than to replace it entirely with a new platform - which would probably end up being the over-budget and underperforming boondoggle of a bad joke, the F-35, probably the biggest waste of time and money the United States Military has experienced in my lifetime. And I'm saying that as a guy who has relatives working on it!
The A-10 just wasn't sexy enough (and probably not enough money to squeeze out in kickbacks) for him. It's an ugly plane. It's slow, which makes it perfect for ground troop support. It's a tough, ugly flying machine that was designed by a bunch of Brits that had a 30mm gatling canon that they decided to make it fly.
GasBandit
Staff member
That's exactly it. Nobody ever made a career (or got one in the private sector after retiring) from hanging on to technology that works, is reliable, and is low cost. Nope, gotta scratch Lockheed's back if you want a nice cushy gig after you hang up your stars. The guy started out as an F-16 pilot, so it's no wonder he's got no appreciation for what has probably been the most useful plane in the Air Force over the last 30 years.
I say it's ugly, in a kick-your-ass tone of voice. (I know that doesn't show) "Jet" pilots think it's ugly because it isn't super-sonic. Ground troops call it ugly, in that you want the bad-ass with the broken nose on your side in the fight. Enemy troops call it ugly because it scares the shit out of them.
I served in the AF, the A-10 was OUR plane, 174th, 175th and 176th Fighter Squadrons. The sound of that canon is like music to my ears. I've seen those planes take a ton of damage, but the pilot land the plane and walk away without a scratch. Our ugly little baby scared the living shit out of the Iraqi Republican Guard during Desert Storm and I wouldn't trade it for anything.
I served in the AF, the A-10 was OUR plane, 174th, 175th and 176th Fighter Squadrons. The sound of that canon is like music to my ears. I've seen those planes take a ton of damage, but the pilot land the plane and walk away without a scratch. Our ugly little baby scared the living shit out of the Iraqi Republican Guard during Desert Storm and I wouldn't trade it for anything.
A couple things need to change regarding how we handle air missions in this country...
- Close Air Support needs to be taken away from the Air Force and given to the Army as a job. The Air Force doesn't want to do it because blowing up tanks and generally being helpful apparently isn't a sexy enough job for their tastes, so let's let the people who actually appreciate what it does do it for themselves.
- The Army gets to let warrants fly. One of the biggest problems in the Air Force is that they only let officers fly (which makes it expensive) but also because they feel officers need to be extremely generalized so they will switch active duty pilots into non-flight roles after set periods of time. This not only means that Air Force pilots (that we spent millions training) get phased out fairly quickly, but it means that the pool of active pilots is always shrinking. Letting warrants fly (and make a career out of flying) solves two problems in one stroke: it gives us more pilots and it makes them cheaper.
- Close Air Support needs to be taken away from the Air Force and given to the Army as a job. The Air Force doesn't want to do it because blowing up tanks and generally being helpful apparently isn't a sexy enough job for their tastes, so let's let the people who actually appreciate what it does do it for themselves.
- The Army gets to let warrants fly. One of the biggest problems in the Air Force is that they only let officers fly (which makes it expensive) but also because they feel officers need to be extremely generalized so they will switch active duty pilots into non-flight roles after set periods of time. This not only means that Air Force pilots (that we spent millions training) get phased out fairly quickly, but it means that the pool of active pilots is always shrinking. Letting warrants fly (and make a career out of flying) solves two problems in one stroke: it gives us more pilots and it makes them cheaper.