PDA

View Full Version : Bachmann wants to bomb Iran



Adelaide
12-12-2014, 10:28 AM
Outgoing Rep. Michele Bachmann had some parting advice for President Barack Obama at the White House Christmas Party: Bomb Iran.

The Minnesota Republican told the Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/politics/bachmann-to-obama-at-white-house-christmas-party-bomb-iran/) in a story published Thursday that she gave the President her two cents this week right after her family took their picture with him at the event.

"I turned to the president and I said, something to the effect of, 'Mr. President, you need to bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities, because if you don't, Iran will have a nuclear weapon on your watch and the course of world history will change,'" she said.

Bachmann tells Obama to Bomb Iran - CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/12/politics/bachmann-bomb-iran/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

This is completely unsurprising from her, hence why I did not put it in the news section, and she's entitled to her opinion of course. What frightens me is that there are others out there thinking the same thing and it's not exclusive to one party.

I thought I'd start a poll on our own membership: should the US (and allies most likely who would get involved) bomb Iran's nuclear facilities?

Common Sense
12-12-2014, 10:46 AM
Could you imagine her as President???

Chris
12-12-2014, 10:49 AM
No, she's the epitome of Idiocracy.

Adelaide
12-12-2014, 10:50 AM
Could you imagine her as President???

No, but I really don't think she was ever going to be a serious candidate.

Adelaide
12-12-2014, 10:51 AM
No, she's the epitome of Idiocracy.

No offense, but I thought you would have liked her because of her Tea Party roots?

Howey
12-12-2014, 10:52 AM
Bachmann tells Obama to Bomb Iran - CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/12/politics/bachmann-bomb-iran/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

This is completely unsurprising from her, hence why I did not put it in the news section, and she's entitled to her opinion of course. What frightens me is that there are others out there thinking the same thing and it's not exclusive to one party.

I thought I'd start a poll on our own membership: should the US (and allies most likely who would get involved) bomb Iran's nuclear facilities?
There's a reason that nutty bitch isn't returning to the House.

Matty
12-12-2014, 10:53 AM
Oh brother!

Adelaide
12-12-2014, 10:54 AM
There's a reason that nutty bitch isn't returning to the House.

That's not necessary. As I said, there are also others in both parties that wouldn't mind seeing an attack on Iran.

Chris
12-12-2014, 10:55 AM
No offense, but I thought you would have liked her because of her Tea Party roots?

She's not Tea Party. She tried to hijack the tea parties, but the tea parties rejected her.



An article in Politico stated that many Tea Party activists see the caucus as an effort by the Republican Party to hijack the movement. Utah congressman Jason Chaffetz refused to join the caucus, saying "Structure and formality are the exact opposite of what the Tea Party is, and if there is an attempt to put structure and formality around it, or to co-opt it by Washington, D.C., it’s going to take away from the free-flowing nature of the true tea party movement."[6]

In an attempt to quell fears that Washington insiders were attempting to co-opt the Tea Party movement, Rep Michele Bachmann stated "We're not the mouthpiece. We are not taking the Tea Party and controlling it from Washington, D.C. We are also not here to vouch for the Tea Party or to vouch for any Tea Party organizations or to vouch for any individual people or actions, or billboards or signs or anything of the Tea Party. We are the receptacle."[7] [8]

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus#Relation_to_the_Tea_Party_movemen t

Matty
12-12-2014, 10:55 AM
Absolutely not! If Iran's nukes bother anybody let them bomb Iran! Personally I think it will be great fun watching Isreal disintegrate don!t you?

Adelaide
12-12-2014, 10:56 AM
Absolutely not! If Iran's nukes bother anybody let them bomb Iran! Personally I think it will be great fun watching Isreal disintegrate don!t you?

Are you being sarcastic?

Adelaide
12-12-2014, 10:57 AM
She's not Tea Party. She tried to hijack the tea parties, but the tea parties rejected her.

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus#Relation_to_the_Tea_Party_movemen t


That is my opinion, as well, but I thought we had argued over this previously and viewed it differently. My mistake!

Matty
12-12-2014, 10:59 AM
Are you being sarcastic?


First part no. Second part yes! But then it's Bachman who's the bitch for wanting to prevent the disintegration of Israel! So why not?

del
12-12-2014, 11:00 AM
tea parties

:rofl:

Chris
12-12-2014, 11:04 AM
My impression of Bachmann is she speaks before she thinks, and as a result says very outrageous things. Perhaps that's how she keeps her name in the public.

Paperback Writer
12-12-2014, 11:09 AM
Absolutely not! If Iran's nukes bother anybody let them bomb Iran! Personally I think it will be great fun watching Isreal disintegrate don!t you?

Considering that the only nation in the world who has owned nuclear weapons in their 65+ year history and actually used them is the US, I doubt Iran is a country you need fear.

Matty
12-12-2014, 11:11 AM
Considering that the only nation in the world who has owned nuclear weapons in their 65+ year history and actually used them is the US, I doubt Iran is a country you need fear.


I do not fear them. Isreal is the country they threatened to wipe off the face of the earth. Fun watching that is my point! That will be one great big oops! Yeah?

Common Sense
12-12-2014, 11:11 AM
Absolutely not! If Iran's nukes bother anybody let them bomb Iran! Personally I think it will be great fun watching Isreal disintegrate don!t you?

Oh Jesus...

Matty
12-12-2014, 11:13 AM
Considering that the only nation in the world who has owned nuclear weapons in their 65+ year history and actually used them is the US, I doubt Iran is a country you need fear.
That's what happens when you sneak up on us whilst we are sleeping on a Sunday morn. Start a war with us and then refuse to surrender.

Mac-7
12-12-2014, 11:14 AM
Considering that the only nation in the world who has owned nuclear weapons in their 65+ year history and actually used them is the US, I doubt Iran is a country you need fear.

Muslim fanatics are more problematic than Americans or even soviets.

Matty
12-12-2014, 11:14 AM
Oh Jesus...


Don't call Jesus. He won't answer!

Chris
12-12-2014, 11:15 AM
That is my opinion, as well, but I thought we had argued over this previously and viewed it differently. My mistake!

Nah, I've posted that wiki thing before. Each time I do it grows with more evidence. This time it added her own admission.

The Tea Parties are grassroots, the people, some of them (us). We are not politicians, we may support some politicians, but if a politician, or some news source says, one is Tea Party, it's wrong.

Common Sense
12-12-2014, 11:15 AM
Don't call Jesus. He won't answer!

Oh I know. Neither will Vishnu or Zeus.

Paperback Writer
12-12-2014, 11:35 AM
I do not fear them. Isreal is the country they threatened to wipe off the face of the earth. Fun watching that is my point! That will be one great big oops! Yeah?

Has any nation outside the US used a nuclear weapon on anyone? I can't recall. Perhaps you have that answer.

Matty
12-12-2014, 11:42 AM
Has any nation outside the US used a nuclear weapon on anyone? I can't recall. Perhaps you have that answer.
Atomic! Already asked and answered! Did you miss it?

Cigar
12-12-2014, 12:05 PM
Bachmann tells Obama to Bomb Iran - CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/12/politics/bachmann-bomb-iran/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

This is completely unsurprising from her, hence why I did not put it in the news section, and she's entitled to her opinion of course. What frightens me is that there are others out there thinking the same thing and it's not exclusive to one party.

I thought I'd start a poll on our own membership: should the US (and allies most likely who would get involved) bomb Iran's nuclear facilities?

I think there's two separate issues here ...

1) Should US Bomb Iran - No
2) and anything that comes out of the mouth of Michele Bachmann - who cares

Peter1469
12-12-2014, 05:03 PM
I voted no. But if a nation truly feels it is a vital interest for them to do so, then they should consider it.

The US doesn't have a vital interest over Iran and nukes- at least not to the degree of a pre-emptive strike

Bachman is religious right- an an extremist at that, not a valid member of the Tea Party(ies) who wants to defeat Israel and help cause Armageddon in order to hurry up the Rapture.

hanger4
12-12-2014, 07:47 PM
There's a reason that nutty $#@! isn't returning to the House.

Yaeh, pretty much cause she didn't run for reelection. :)

Captain Obvious
12-12-2014, 11:06 PM
Muslim fanatics are more problematic than Americans or even soviets.

Iran isn't Muslim fanatic.

They're just whack.

Captain Obvious
12-12-2014, 11:08 PM
Has any nation outside the US used a nuclear weapon on anyone? I can't recall. Perhaps you have that answer.

So that justifies rogue, unstable nations to acquire them?

Loaded question btw.

Peter1469
12-12-2014, 11:43 PM
Iran isn't Muslim fanatic.

They're just whack.

They have them. They are the 12vers. Radical Shias who think that man can cause Armageddon - in their world destroying Israel would work.

Captain Obvious
12-12-2014, 11:45 PM
They have them. They are the 12vers. Radical Shias who think that man can cause Armageddon - in their world destroying Israel would work.

I think they're more Arab then Muslim if that makes sense, the hierarchy that is.

The theocracy stuff is just a front.

Captain Obvious
12-12-2014, 11:48 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iKuMVqht4U

Redrose
12-12-2014, 11:49 PM
tea parties

:rofl:


9828

Peter1469
12-12-2014, 11:49 PM
I think they're more Arab then Muslim if that makes sense, the hierarchy that is.

The theocracy stuff is just a front.

The 12ver "philosophy" developed after Mohammed died- well after the Arabs had embraced Islam. The pre- Islamic Arabs had no similar view that I know of.

del
12-12-2014, 11:59 PM
iranian =/= arab

Peter1469
12-13-2014, 12:05 AM
iranian =/= arab

Iran = Persian.

Redrose
12-13-2014, 12:13 AM
Iran = Persian.


http://www.persiansarenotarabs.com/



So I say I don't want Persians with a nuke. They're used to blowing up sand. You know what happens when you blow a crater in sand? The wind blows, and the crater is gone.


You can't fight people who want to die.


They're all nuts.

Peter1469
12-13-2014, 12:16 AM
We don't have the political will to do what it would take to stop them. So the question is moot.

We could take lots of action to protect ourselves we just don't because we don't like to spend money on what-ifs.


http://www.persiansarenotarabs.com/



So I say I don't want Persians with a nuke. They're used to blowing up sand. You know what happens when you blow a crater in sand? The wind blows, and the crater is gone.


You can't fight people who want to die.


They're all nuts.

Redrose
12-13-2014, 12:22 AM
We don't have the political will to do what it would take to stop them. So the question is moot.

We could take lots of action to protect ourselves we just don't because we don't like to spend money on what-ifs.


I'm not a war monger by any means, but as long as we keep taking this passive "line in the sand" stance that they keep crossing, they will inch closer to a nuke they can use and we'll find ourselves in WWIII with a depleated military. The death toll will be massive. Wouldn't it be wiser to drop the hammer on them now, before it escalates? Sadly, we will suffer casualties either way, but much more if we procrastinate.

Peter1469
12-13-2014, 12:30 AM
I'm not a war monger by any means, but as long as we keep taking this passive "line in the sand" stance that they keep crossing, they will inch closer to a nuke they can use and we'll find ourselves in WWIII with a depleated military. The death toll will be massive. Wouldn't it be wiser to drop the hammer on them now, before it escalates? Sadly, we will suffer casualties either way, but much more if we procrastinate.

What WWIII? Generic scenario. Iran gets a nuke and incinerates NYC. We turn the entire Iranian plateau into a glass parking lot 20 minutes later. Too easy.

More difficult issue- they use their one or two nukes for an EMP strike. If we sit around with our thumbs up our ass, like we are now, that could = 90% dead within 18 months. That is worse case. But we can harden our grid to prevent the worse case. We just won't do it for what ever reason. But even in this case we would turn the entire Iranian plateau into a glass parking lot 20 minutes later. Too easy.

Redrose
12-13-2014, 12:42 AM
What WWIII? Generic scenario. Iran gets a nuke and incinerates NYC. We turn the entire Iranian plateau into a glass parking lot 20 minutes later. Too easy.

More difficult issue- they use their one or two nukes for an EMP strike. If we sit around with our thumbs up our ass, like we are now, that could = 90% dead within 18 months. That is worse case. But we can harden our grid to prevent the worse case. We just won't do it for what ever reason. But even in this case we would turn the entire Iranian plateau into a glass parking lot 20 minutes later. Too easy.


I use WWIII as an example of what we potentially risk. I'm not as optimistic as you are about our return fire making the ME into a glass parking lot. I like that, heat + sand = glass. You know there will be the pacifists, even if they are up to their arses in rubble, condemning anything resembling war. I still like preemptive strikes. We've shown weakness much too much as of late, and all that has accomplished is allowing them to get closer and closer to a viable nuke. That combined with the threat of home grown terrorists already here, we are playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded gun.

Peter1469
12-13-2014, 12:46 AM
Are the crazies in Iran going to aim at the US or Israel? Israel fulfills their silly prophecies.

Redrose
12-13-2014, 12:51 AM
Are the crazies in Iran going to aim at the US or Israel? Israel fulfills their silly prophecies.


Part of the prophecy. If they go for Israel, you know that pulls us in, whether we want to or not. Then we're in up to our necks....with a military at pre-WWII levels. I'm no military expert, but I feel we are allowing ourselves to be backed into a corner. This new conflict would have all the pitfalls of Desert Storm and Viet Nam all rolled up into one....fighting zealots on their turf, ill prepared.

The Xl
12-13-2014, 12:52 AM
Bachman saying crazy shit, nothing to see here folks. Is normal

Redrose
12-13-2014, 12:53 AM
Bachman saying crazy shit, nothing to see here folks. Is normal


What do you suggest?

The Xl
12-13-2014, 12:54 AM
I don't get why a nuclear Iran makes everyone piss themselves. We have a nuclear Korea, and their leader and people are far more batshit crazy, yet the world hasn't ended.

Iran wouldn't do anything, the nuke would probably be in their best interests anyway, it's the best form of self defense in this imperialistic world.

The Xl
12-13-2014, 12:54 AM
What do you suggest?

Nothing. Iran isn't a threat to our national security, at all.

Peter1469
12-13-2014, 12:55 AM
Part of the prophecy. If they go for Israel, you know that pulls us in, whether we want to or not. Then we're in up to our necks....with a military at pre-WWII levels. I'm no military expert, but I feel we are allowing ourselves to be backed into a corner. This new conflict would have all the pitfalls of Desert Storm and Viet Nam all rolled up into one....fighting zealots on their turf, ill prepared.

I am pretty high up in the military thing, and I wouldn't worry too much about Iran if I were you. Despite what the rabid Neocons here will try to sell you. They are con-men. I wouldn't trust them if I were you.


Iran is not backing the US into a corner. It is coming out of its isolation that has lasted since 1979. But that is a balance for them, since they have used radical language for so long.

Redrose
12-13-2014, 01:09 AM
Well Peter I hope you are right. It's out of our hands anyway. @The XI says Iran is not as loony as N.Korea, I agree with that. But NK isn't threatening to blow Israel off the face of the map. Last I checked, Israel is an ally.

We all have our fate in the hands of those elected officials in DC, I'm not too comfortable with that.

Peter1469
12-13-2014, 01:20 AM
Well Peter I hope you are right. It's out of our hands anyway. @The XI says Iran is not as loony as N.Korea, I agree with that. But NK isn't threatening to blow Israel off the face of the map. Last I checked, Israel is an ally.

We all have our fate in the hands of those elected officials in DC, I'm not too comfortable with that.

It is what it is. You can take reasonable precautions and the just get on with life.

Don't let the rabid noeccons drag you into a needless war.

texan
12-13-2014, 01:36 AM
I voted yes only because none of you know whether we should or not! Its all speculation. The truth is we don't know if we should or not!!!

the next thing I know you will be serving tea to terrorists and asking them kindly who they will blow up next. Idiots!

texan
12-13-2014, 01:38 AM
I voted yes only because none of you know whether we should or not! Its all speculation. The truth is we don't know if we should or not!!!

The next thing I know you will be serving tea to terrorists and asking them kindly who they will blow up next. Idiots!


BTW if talking nice would have gotten the information timely they would have asked. So stupid.

Max Rockatansky
12-13-2014, 05:44 AM
I voted yes only because none of you know whether we should or not! Its all speculation. The truth is we don't know if we should or not!!!
So you looked at the vote count before voting? :p

We shouldn't do to the Iranians what Japan did to us in December 1941 or what we did to the Iraqis in March 2003.

If the Iranians commit an act of war, then I'm fine with bombing the crap out of them, but starting wars is not the moral high ground. We should be better than that.

PolWatch
12-13-2014, 05:49 AM
Many people complain about our government being too big and intrusive. Yet they seem to feel we have the right to force our will on the rest of the world. go figure

Common
12-13-2014, 06:25 AM
Many people complain about our government being too big and intrusive. Yet they seem to feel we have the right to force our will on the rest of the world. go figure

Im not so sure keeping a nutcase Iran from having nukes is imposing our will. You can say well Nkorea and Pakistan already have them. True and thats scarey enough as it is the difference with iran getting them is that some isis religious loon could be in charge and we know how nuts they are.

donttread
12-13-2014, 07:54 AM
Bachmann tells Obama to Bomb Iran - CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/12/politics/bachmann-bomb-iran/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

This is completely unsurprising from her, hence why I did not put it in the news section, and she's entitled to her opinion of course. What frightens me is that there are others out there thinking the same thing and it's not exclusive to one party.

I thought I'd start a poll on our own membership: should the US (and allies most likely who would get involved) bomb Iran's nuclear facilities?

You mean a women who used power for self serving and war mongering instead of world peace? Perhaps we are finding as women come into power, as they should, that both sexes are corrupted by it.

donttread
12-13-2014, 07:59 AM
No we should not bomb Iran , or anybody else for that matter. Here are two points the WMD alarmist tend to ignore
1) Only one country was ever crazy enough to drop nukes and they did so upon women and children, twice.I will leave the reader to reflect upon the irony of that country somehow becoming the "world nuke police."
2) Since then: Take a mental map, see where the nukes are? Superimpose it over another mental map where wars have been fought ( not whom they were fought by, but where they were fought) Tell me where the maps intersect

PolWatch
12-13-2014, 09:54 AM
Im not so sure keeping a nutcase Iran from having nukes is imposing our will. You can say well Nkorea and Pakistan already have them. True and thats scarey enough as it is the difference with iran getting them is that some isis religious loon could be in charge and we know how nuts they are.

To me, the idea of bombing first & asking questions later is like approving of torture. America used to symbolize the shining city on the hill....even if we didn't really deserve that image all the time. I don't want to see us become the bullies of the earth. Pre-emptive is just another way of saying we are scared.

Max Rockatansky
12-13-2014, 10:20 AM
No we should not bomb Iran , or anybody else for that matter. Here are two points the WMD alarmist tend to ignore
1) Only one country was ever crazy enough to drop nukes and they did so upon women and children, twice.I will leave the reader to reflect upon the irony of that country somehow becoming the "world nuke police."......

Are you one of those historical revisionists who think the US shouldn't have used their weapons to end the war as quickly and with less causalities as possible? Do you believe the conspiracy theories that FDR/Truman used Japan as a testing ground and killed all of those people just as Japan was ready to surrender anyway? If so, how much history have you read about the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa?

Max Rockatansky
12-13-2014, 10:23 AM
Many people complain about our government being too big and intrusive. Yet they seem to feel we have the right to force our will on the rest of the world. go figureI agree such thoughts are far too common and are also hypocritical. OTOH, we also have those that love big government, support the US being the World Police in Bosnia and Haiti yet think we shouldn't do anything about threats until they are already killing Americans.

donttread
12-13-2014, 11:28 AM
Are you one of those historical revisionists who think the US shouldn't have used their weapons to end the war as quickly and with less causalities as possible? Do you believe the conspiracy theories that FDR/Truman used Japan as a testing ground and killed all of those people just as Japan was ready to surrender anyway? If so, how much history have you read about the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa?

I simply belief the unfettered truth. That WW 2 was fought and won by killing civilians to force Military surrender. Did you think London, Berlin and Dresden were "military targets?"

donttread
12-13-2014, 11:30 AM
Many people complain about our government being too big and intrusive. Yet they seem to feel we have the right to force our will on the rest of the world. go figure

One of the Donkephant's favorite ironies.

Max Rockatansky
12-13-2014, 03:36 PM
I simply belief the unfettered truth. That WW 2 was fought and won by killing civilians to force Military surrender. Did you think London, Berlin and Dresden were "military targets?"

Aren't those goalposts heavy?

Polecat
12-13-2014, 03:48 PM
I don't get why a nuclear Iran makes everyone piss themselves. We have a nuclear Korea, and their leader and people are far more bat$#@! crazy, yet the world hasn't ended.

Iran wouldn't do anything, the nuke would probably be in their best interests anyway, it's the best form of self defense in this imperialistic world.

Don't forget Pakistan.

Max Rockatansky
12-13-2014, 03:52 PM
The odds are good most of us will see a nuke exploded in anger within our lifetimes.

Don't forget your plastic sheeting and duct tape!

Peter1469
12-13-2014, 04:25 PM
The odds are good most of us will see a nuke exploded in anger within our lifetimes.

Don't forget your plastic sheeting and duct tape!

What if a US attack on Iran pissed off the wrong people and they conducted a surprise nuclear attack on the US?

I think if Iran has one or two bombs it is Israel that needs to be worried.

Max Rockatansky
12-13-2014, 05:02 PM
What if a US attack on Iran pissed off the wrong people and they conducted a surprise nuclear attack on the US?

I think if Iran has one or two bombs it is Israel that needs to be worried.Wouldn't all of those constitute an act of war?

Actions have consequences. If we attack Iran, other hostile nations with nukes may be willing to use them against us or sell them to the terrorists.

As for Israel, I think they'd go batshit crazy and nuke all the capitals and major cities of the Arab world.

Peter1469
12-13-2014, 05:30 PM
The term act of war is not helpful. If country A commits an "act of war" on country B, there is no physical law that forces country B to wage war. Also many actions that are minor are declared to be acts of war. It is all diplomatic talk.

Yes actions have consequences. That is why nations must think prior to taking military action. Do the opposite of what the rabid Neocons do. Pick and choose your battles bases of vital national security interests, reality, and rational thought.


Wouldn't all of those constitute an act of war?

Actions have consequences. If we attack Iran, other hostile nations with nukes may be willing to use them against us or sell them to the terrorists.

As for Israel, I think they'd go batshit crazy and nuke all the capitals and major cities of the Arab world.

Max Rockatansky
12-13-2014, 05:37 PM
The term act of war is not helpful.
Helpful to what???? If the USA sends an Army private on a mission into Iran, is it an act of war or not?

It either is or isn't regardless if whether Iran decides to retaliate for the action.

Green Arrow
12-13-2014, 07:04 PM
Thank the gods she's outgoing. The fewer neocon nutjobs like her the better.

PolWatch
12-13-2014, 07:08 PM
Thank the gods she's outgoing. The fewer neocon nutjobs like her the better.

the bad news: as you pointed out in another thread, the same electorate that put her in office will be picking the replacement. If that is the type of representation they want, they will elect someone like her.