PDA

View Full Version : Mike Huckabee on Iran



pjohns
05-05-2015, 01:00 PM
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said it very well, I think, in his announcement of a presidential bid today: If he were president, "hell would freeze over before [the Iranians] get a nuclear weapon."

And that, irrespective of whatever might be required to put a full stop to it.
And I agree.

Completely, and without the slightest reservation.

Bob
05-05-2015, 01:07 PM
I am listening to him wrap up his speech. Missed it earlier today.
Glad he wants no nuke bombs in Iran.

Question we all need to ask is... do they actually intend to make the bomb.

For if we take action, Democrats will swear to their grave Iran is a good country and we ruined it.

Same trick they pulled over Iraq.

Common Sense
05-05-2015, 01:12 PM
It's all well and good to make bold claims, but how would he do it? Would negotiations be an aspect or would sanctions and military might be his tools of choice?

People do understand that the current multinational negotiations with Iran have that goal in mind, do they not?

The Xl
05-05-2015, 01:13 PM
Another useless neocon

Bo-4
05-05-2015, 01:15 PM
Huckabee: End times with a smile and extra gravy.

Yay!

http://www.thebereanapproach.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/TBA_Images/Earth_on_Fire_Animated.gif

nic34
05-05-2015, 01:19 PM
"hell would freeze over before [the Iranians] get a nuclear weapon."

Or else what exactly?

The Xl
05-05-2015, 01:27 PM
"hell would freeze over before [the Iranians] get a nuclear weapon."

Or else what exactly?

More war, of course. Can't escape the shit, no matter if a democrat or republican is in office

Bo-4
05-05-2015, 01:29 PM
"hell would freeze over before [the Iranians] get a nuclear weapon."

Or else what exactly?

Or he'd turn the entire country to glass is my take.

Smart! :rolleyes:

PattyHill
05-05-2015, 03:47 PM
It's all well and good to make bold claims, but how would he do it? Would negotiations be an aspect or would sanctions and military might be his tools of choice?

People do understand that the current multinational negotiations with Iran have that goal in mind, do they not?

Yeah, well, this way Huckabee can bluster and know that someone else is actually getting it done...

pjohns
05-06-2015, 01:06 AM
It's all well and good to make bold claims, but how would he do it? Would negotiations be an aspect or would sanctions and military might be his tools of choice?

People do understand that the current multinational negotiations with Iran have that goal in mind, do they not?

One thing that could be done is to keep the sanctions in place--and make them even more severe than they already were. But President Obama, by pursuing a nuclear "deal" with Iran, which he then plans to take to the UN, is setting the predicate for other countries to lift sanctions, thereby making it a moot point whether America keeps its own sanctions in place.

Another thing he could do is to make it abundantly clear--abundantly clear!--that the military option is not merely "not being taken off the table," as it is sometimes (rather weakly) phrased; rather, it is a very serious possibility--and one, as concerning which, the US has very little compunction. (I never much liked Richard Nixon--and for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the Watergate imbroglio, that ultimately cost him the presidency--but I did like this one thing about the man: I have heard it said that the Soviet leaders, at the time, thought that Nixon was just a little unhinged--that he might just wake up one day, and decide that it would be great fun to nuke Moscow, irrespective of the consequences--so they always did tread lightly with him. I very much like that intimidation factor.)

pjohns
05-06-2015, 01:09 AM
"hell would freeze over before [the Iranians] get a nuclear weapon."

Or else what exactly?

Or else the US would do whatever might be necessary--without exception!--to prevent it.

Gov. Huckabee's apparent belief--and certainly, my own belief, also--is that no possible means of stopping Iran from acquiring nukes would be anywhere near as cataclysmic as Iran's actually obtaining nukes.

Either now, or ever.

Common
05-06-2015, 01:11 AM
Or else the US would do whatever might be necessary--without exception!--to prevent it.

Gov. Huckabee's apparent belief--and certainly, my own belief, also--is that no possible means of stopping Iran from acquiring nukes would be anywhere near as cataclysmic as Iran's actually obtaining nukes.

Either now, or ever.


PJ I used to feel the same way, few things. Iran has been supposedly working on one along time, still doesnt have it.
Would it be any worse if Iran had nukes than it is that Pakistan, North Korea and India already have them.

donttread
05-06-2015, 02:48 AM
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said it very well, I think, in his announcement of a presidential bid today: If he were president, "hell would freeze over before [the Iranians] get a nuclear weapon."

And that, irrespective of whatever might be required to put a full stop to it.
And I agree.

Well since our interventionism in the ME has worked so well so far why not make more war?

Completely, and without the slightest reservation.

donttread
05-06-2015, 02:53 AM
Text box again , the third paragragh in post 13 is mine not pjohns. What I was trying to say is interventionism and war have failed in the ME. For once let our government NOT chase failed actions with even worse responses

Mac-7
05-06-2015, 03:12 AM
PJ I used to feel the same way, few things. Iran has been supposedly working on one along time, still doesnt have it.
Would it be any worse if Iran had nukes than it is that Pakistan, North Korea and India already have them.

We don't yet know the cost of allowing N Korea to build nukes.

Someday the fat little dictator may be losing his grip on power.

He can't win but decides to take South Korea and Japan with him.

India got its nukes from the East during the Cold War.

And we looked the other way as Pakistan built their nukes to counter India.

Is any lib here arguing that the world is better off for having those two nuclear armed rivals facing each other?

Of the four Iran may be the most dangerous.

PattyHill
05-06-2015, 08:14 AM
PJ I used to feel the same way, few things. Iran has been supposedly working on one along time, still doesnt have it.
Would it be any worse if Iran had nukes than it is that Pakistan, North Korea and India already have them.


I don't know why we think we have some right to decide who has nukes and who doesn't. Having said that, I'm glad we're trying to keep Iran from getting them; fewer countries that have them the better.

If Iran does develop a nuke, if it ever uses it then it will be wiped off the face of the earth. I don't see them using it.

I'm more worried about a terrorist group stealing nukes from Russia or other places and using them. I know we've done a lot of work with Russia to secure their nuclear materials; that's a good thing.

Negotiations mean both sides don't get everything they want. Iran would have no reason to come to the table if starting to lift some sanctions was off the table.

Common Sense
05-06-2015, 08:18 AM
Is Huck going to stop Iran the same way Bush stopped North Korea?

Mac-7
05-06-2015, 08:30 AM
Is Huck going to stop Iran the same way Bush stopped North Korea?

Pit appears that n Korea already had the bomb when bush took office.

And Clintonites would point out that s Korea was afraid of a conventional attack from the north during a time when the south was being run by bedwetting libs rather than the more warlike conservatives.

So the US deferred to the locals and tried appeasement instead.

Common Sense
05-06-2015, 08:34 AM
Pit appears that n Korea already had the bomb when bush took office.

And Clintonites would point out that s Korea was afraid of a conventional attack from the north during a time when the south was being run by bedwetting libs rather than the more warlike conservatives.

So the US deferred to the locals and tried appeasement instead.

They may have, but their program intensified and the first test happened under Bush.

If that had happened under Obama, there indeed would have been bed shitting.

Mac-7
05-06-2015, 08:47 AM
They may have, but their program intensified and the first test happened under Bush.

If that had happened under Obama, there indeed would have been bed $#@!ting.

I don't know why a Canadian who can't even vote in our elections feels the need to make a partisan issue out of this but I suppose you have your reasons.

the South Koreans were afraid of a conventional attack from the north and chose to try appeasement over confrontation.

That applied to Clinton and bush.

Common Sense
05-06-2015, 08:59 AM
I don't know why a Canadian who can't even vote in our elections feels the need to make a partisan issue out of this but I suppose you have your reasons.

the South Koreans were afraid of a conventional attack from the north and chose to try appeasement over confrontation.

That applied to Clinton and bush.

Every time you bring up Canada, you show that your arguments are weak.

Mac-7
05-06-2015, 09:02 AM
Every time you bring up Canada, you show that your arguments are weak.

I only mentioned that you are a Canadian who is trying to drag a US foreign policy issue down to a cheap partisan cat fight.

Why when you can't even vote here?

Peter1469
05-06-2015, 03:44 PM
I only mentioned that you are a Canadian who is trying to drag a US foreign policy issue down to a cheap partisan cat fight.

Why when you can't even vote here?


Notice: Member thread banned. Repeated violations with warnings of the good faith rule. Attacks over nationality are not acceptable. Infraction next time.

Lineman
05-06-2015, 08:05 PM
He wont get a sniff at the nomination. We dont need a religious theocracy. And about those 4 cops murdered by his parolee....


Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said it very well, I think, in his announcement of a presidential bid today: If he were president, "hell would freeze over before [the Iranians] get a nuclear weapon."

And that, irrespective of whatever might be required to put a full stop to it.
And I agree.

Completely, and without the slightest reservation.

texan
05-06-2015, 10:09 PM
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said it very well, I think, in his announcement of a presidential bid today: If he were president, "hell would freeze over before [the Iranians] get a nuclear weapon."

And that, irrespective of whatever might be required to put a full stop to it.
And I agree.

Completely, and without the slightest reservation.

Sounds like "Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" John McCain should be his running mate.

pjohns
05-07-2015, 12:46 AM
Would it be any worse if Iran had nukes than it is that Pakistan, North Korea and India already have them.

Far worse, in my opinion.

That is because Pakistan, North Korea, and India are animated by rational considerations (or semi-rational considerations, in the case of Kim Jong-un and North Korea). The Iranian leaders, however--such as they are--would appear to be in the grip of an apocalyptic fervor: As they (apparently) see it, nothing could be more glorious than the return of the long-deceased Twelfth Imam, or Mahdi (in a rather perverse imitation of the Christian Parousia). So a nuclear conflict, killing hundreds of millions, would be a truly glorious thing, ex hypothesi. It would, after all, hasten the Eschaton.

pjohns
05-07-2015, 01:10 AM
Is Huck going to stop Iran the same way Bush stopped North Korea?

I think that is what is known as mere deflection. (It seems intended only to change the subject, and smear another Republican, rather than addressing the matter directly...)

pjohns
05-07-2015, 01:21 AM
He wont get a sniff at the nomination.

Whereas it is much too early to be certain of anything, I rather doubt that Mike Huckabee will receive the Republican nomination for president. Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Marco Rubio are certainly more likely possibilities.


We dont need a religious theocracy.

I am unaware of anything that Mike Huckabee has said that would indicate that he desires "a religious theocracy."

In any case, this thread is fundamentally about stopping Iran, through any means necessary, from obtaining nuclear weapons--whatever the cost might be.

And I would prefer to stay on-topic...

Ivan88
05-07-2015, 03:44 AM
Evidently he's one of those types that thinks we gotta give the anti-Christ fake Israel Israelistanis everything they want including Armageddon.

Revelation 16 lists the 3 unclean evil spirits/devils that seek to bring us to Armageddon:

THE DRAGON is all the pretenders adhering to the doctrines of the Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees that drive the beast and false prophet into biological and political plagues and pestilence of continuous wars and mass murder of the innocent.

THE FALSE PROPHET is apostate Mid-Eastern, European & American churches, who embraced the doctrines of the Pharisees and their defunct program, making the world drunk with the wine of anti-Christ false doctrine and example.

THE BEAST is one having horns like a lamb – the world Christian superpowers who have embraced Phariseeism and it’s derivatives, controlled by the money changers and led to do their bidding, especially in war. Rev, 13 And, “I saw a woman … arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her rebellion: drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” Rev.17:1-6
“Come out of her (mentality), my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.” Rev.18:4-5 https://raifwp.wordpress.com/

Peter1469
05-07-2015, 07:14 AM
I wonder how many actually believe that at the top.
Far worse, in my opinion.

That is because Pakistan, North Korea, and India are animated by rational considerations (or semi-rational considerations, in the case of Kim Jong-un and North Korea). The Iranian leaders, however--such as they are--would appear to be in the grip of an apocalyptic fervor: As they (apparently) see it, nothing could be more glorious than the return of the long-deceased Twelfth Imam, or Mahdi (in a rather perverse imitation of the Christian Parousia). So a nuclear conflict, killing hundreds of millions, would be a truly glorious thing, ex hypothesi. It would, after all, hasten the Eschaton.