Just whose side is he on?

[Scout26]

Obama threatens Congress that is they push for tougher sanctioins against Iran, it could lead to war.


Just how exactly?? 

Is Iran going to park a couple of their carrier battlegroups off our coasts?

Send their Long Range Bombers to fly into our airspace?

Have their Amphibious Invasion Troops/Fleets stage exercises near our shores?

Baring a "The Mouse that Roared" scenario, Iran could declare war on us all day, everyday, and twice on Sundays no one would know the difference.  I mean aren't we still "The Great Satan"?  Haven't we pretty much been at war with them since 1979? (Or at least they with us?)

Go ahead and send a couple of suicide bombers here and give that a go, because should you manage to rack up a decent body count, if President Obama won't Nuke your country 'til it glows, I guarantee that President Biden will, right after the fastest impeachment and trial in history.
 

[RoadKingLarry]

Wishful thinking. The majority of Americans no longer have the balls/spine/intestinal fortitude for any thing like that. 51% run the show and that 51%+ would rather bend over and kiss a goats ass than risk a conflict where there comfy existence might be in jeopardy. They're also too *expletive deleted*ing stupid to understand that by trying to appease your self avowed enemy you will lose it all.

Those that ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

[MillCreek]

Plus, does anyone here really think that the US will be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict?  I cannot see that feasibly happening.

[RoadKingLarry]

Hell, even if we were the recipient of a first strike nuke I doubt we'd be the second one to use a nuke.*





*yes, I am familiar with the events of August 6th and 9th of 1945.

[Perd Hapley]

Plus, does anyone here really think that the US will be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict?  I cannot see that feasibly happening.

Is that a joke? 

[MillCreek]

Is that a joke?  

Not at all.  Absent some sort of compromise of the Permissive Action Links or other parts of the nuclear command structure, or a coup or something like that, I just do not see the US being the first to use nukes in a conflict these days.   Do you think the civilian or military chain of command would do so?

[Perd Hapley]

Not at all.  Absent some sort of compromise of the Permissive Action Links or other parts of the nuclear command structure, or a coup or something like that, I just do not see the US being the first to use nukes in a conflict these days.   Do you think the civilian or military chain of command would do so?

I don't know. It just seemed like a gag, seeing as the U.S. was famously the first to use nukes in any conflict, ever.

[MicroBalrog]

Wishful thinking. The majority of Americans no longer have the balls/spine/intestinal fortitude for any thing like that. 51% run the show and that 51%+ would rather bend over and kiss a goats ass than risk a conflict where there comfy existence might be in jeopardy. They're also too *expletive deleted*ing stupid to understand that by trying to appease your self avowed enemy you will lose it all.

America already fought Iran once. It was called Operation Praying Mantis. Iran lost a pile of naval ships. The US lost two Marines who died in an aviation accident.

[HankB]

Q:  "Just whose side is he on?"

A:   Not ours. (That's been obvious for quite a while.)

[Hutch]

I don't know. It just seemed like a gag, seeing as the U.S. was famously the first to use nukes in any conflict, ever.

A quibble.  Nukes, as they exist today, are not the same thing, psychologically speaking, as the bombs we dropped on Japan.

1.  Virtually no one knew what they were.
2.  Them that did know, saw them as the next, new thing, likely to bring a less costly end to the worst period of warfare ever before experienced.
3.  Nobody else had 'em.

Completely different era and circumstances.

[Perd Hapley]

A quibble.  Nukes, as they exist today, are not the same thing, psychologically speaking, as the bombs we dropped on Japan.

1.  Virtually no one knew what they were.
2.  Them that did know, saw them as the next, new thing, likely to bring a less costly end to the worst period of warfare ever before experienced.
3.  Nobody else had 'em.

Completely different era and circumstances.

Not to mention that the leadership, and the people, of today are far different from what they were in 1945.

[TommyGunn]

Not to mention that the leadership, and the people, of today are far different woosier from what they were in 1945.

FIFY ... albeit not grammatically.  Probably ...