Saddle up, Texas!

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

how'd paul do in his home district this time?  thats been a sore spot in the past

[red headed stranger]

We already have $5 a gallon gas.

We pay for our gas at more places than the pump. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

We already have $5 a gallon gas.

We pay for our gas at more places than the pump. 

a much ignored truth!

[makattak]

Iran has also been a big issue with oil and gas speculators.  Threats to cut of the strait of Hormuz have contributed to a spike in speculative costs.
Which is the sort of blustering that plays well for their domestic audience in response to the wests big talk about them wanting a nuke.  
Its funny how everytime we start talking big on Iran, they start acting like a 2 year old.  Huh.

This is quite true.

It's also why "invasion" has been our modus operandi for the past several decades. That or "targeted strikes".

It's because we can't make a credible nuclear threat. We have the capability, but the world knows we don't have the will for that.

If we WERE a credible nuclear threat, Iran wouldn't be acting like a two year old. As I've said many times, the United States is the most benevolent "empire" the world has ever known. (Please note I put empire in quotes because we don't actually have an empire. Just like with our nuclear response, we have the capability, but not the will. Also note, I'm not interested in an the US having an empire, just pointing this out.)

[Tallpine]

we don't actually have an empire

Somehow we keep forgetting to plunder after we conquer 

[De Selby]

This is quite true.

It's also why "invasion" has been our modus operandi for the past several decades. That or "targeted strikes".

It's because we can't make a credible nuclear threat. We have the capability, but the world knows we don't have the will for that.

If we WERE a credible nuclear threat, Iran wouldn't be acting like a two year old. As I've said many times, the United States is the most benevolent "empire" the world has ever known. (Please note I put empire in quotes because we don't actually have an empire. Just like with our nuclear response, we have the capability, but not the will. Also note, I'm not interested in an the US having an empire, just pointing this out.)

If there were a credible nuclear threat, the Russians, Chinese, or us would have miscalculated in times of crisis and we'd all be carving sticks to catch dinner by now.   There's a reason we have a no first-use policy, and it isn't just benevolence.   Signaling to nuclear armed rivals that you'll use nukes to settle your military disputes is crazy.

I keep hearing about how peaceful the "empire" is - what's the evidence for this?  How did that get measured?

[MicroBalrog]

If there were a credible nuclear threat, the Russians, Chinese, or us would have miscalculated in times of crisis and we'd all be carving sticks to catch dinner by now. 

You underestimate how reasonable everybody involve was.

And frankly I doubt this whole 'carving sticks to catch dinner' meme.

[TommyGunn]

If there were a credible nuclear threat, the Russians, Chinese, or us would have miscalculated in times of crisis and we'd all be carving sticks to catch dinner by now.   There's a reason we have a no first-use policy, and it isn't just benevolence.   Signaling to nuclear armed rivals that you'll use nukes to settle your military disputes is crazy.

I keep hearing about how peaceful the "empire" is - what's the evidence for this?  How did that get measured?

What "empire" are you talking about?
We used to have a "launch on warning" policy which worked.  Beyond that we pretty much didn't advertize how we'd play the game.  Signaling to nuclear armed rivals that you will use nukes to settle ..."disputes" is only "crazy" when the statement is made outside of any meaningful context.
If the  ..."dispute" had been a confirmed first launch of Soviet ICBMs against us, retaliating with our own nukes would be very justified.   Thank God it was never necessary.  
I suppose I should be used to "lack of context" in DeSelby's posts by now .... though.

[seeker_two]

Somehow we keep forgetting to plunder after we conquer 

....and looting....don't forget the looting.....

....in fact, we should add rape to the list, too....if our SOP was to capture and rape the leaders of hostile nations, they might just settle down a bit....

[De Selby]

You underestimate how reasonable everybody involve was.

And frankly I doubt this whole 'carving sticks to catch dinner' meme.

Had the US used or threatened nuclear weapons for anything other than a nuclear attack, it wouldnt matter how reasonable we thought were - the other powers would have correctly interpreted that as a sign that we were not reasonable.  They wouldve adjusted their policies accordingly, in a way that dramatically increased the odds of a first-strike by them.

How far society falls from a nuke strike depends on how many of the relevant brains get taken out - it isn't just the damage to infrastructure, which would be severe. 

[MicroBalrog]

Had the US used or threatened nuclear weapons for anything other than a nuclear attack, it wouldnt matter how reasonable we thought were - the other powers would have correctly interpreted that as a sign that we were not reasonable.  They wouldve adjusted their policies accordingly, in a way that dramatically increased the odds of a first-strike by them.

The USSR had no such no-first-strike policy.

How far society falls from a nuke strike depends on how many of the relevant brains get taken out - it isn't just the damage to infrastructure, which would be severe. 

With the proper civil defense measures - which at the time were taken by everybody - there would be no new stone age. There would be widespread horrors of many kinds, of course (think of the starvation seen in Soviet Russia during and after WW2), but civilization would continue.

[KD5NRH]

With the proper civil defense measures - which at the time were taken by everybody - there would be no new stone age. There would be widespread horrors of many kinds, of course (think of the starvation seen in Soviet Russia during and after WW2), but civilization would continue.

All we need is a nuke to get civilization back?

[roo_ster]

The USSR had no such no-first-strike policy.

With the proper civil defense measures - which at the time were taken by everybody - there would be no new stone age. There would be widespread horrors of many kinds, of course (think of the starvation seen in Soviet Russia during and after WW2), but civilization would continue.

They did in W Europe, at the beginning of any conflict, to soften up NATO forces.

[MicroBalrog]

Soviet plans for Western Europe explicitly involved a series of tactical nuclear strikes.

[zahc]

A local conservative talk guy said the other day that he agrees with probably 90 to 95% of what Ron Paul does, but that 5% or so is a doozy.

I feel the same about every other candidate, only with the percentages flipped. So the 5% 'doozy' isn't a deal breaker for me.