We can't afford to let Iran "play" nuclear war games

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
There is a valid conclusion in the 1983 film "War Games" with regard to a computer game called Global Thermonuclear War. After trying all options to win via the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, it is concluded that there cannot be a winner and that the only way to win is not to play at all.

And in this day and age, everyone -- including Barack Hussein Obama and John Kerry -- must come to the realization that THE WORLD CAN'T AFFORD TO LET IRAN "PLAY."

Some elderly Americans remember a time when the threat of nuclear war was real. It was a time when quite a few people built fallout shelters and some school children had routine drills in which they were told to go to a certain room or hallway, get down on the floor and cover their heads.

Indeed, the threat of nuclear war was considered real by many Americans, but in retrospect, such war wasn't actually likely to happen. The world leaders of that era, while in opposition, were at least rational, feeling that if any nation launched a first strike, potential doomsday would result.

However, times have changed, and irrational, militant Islamists -- who don't value life, even their own -- are now part of the worldwide equation.

Kudos to the 47 GOP Senators who wrote to Iran to stand up for the Constitution and call out a president whose policies are paving the road to Iran's nuclear future and a weakening of America's status in the world. But those Senators apparently weren't the first to do something similar.

In 1983, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy reportedly made an offer to help Soviet leader Yuri Andropov "deal with Ronald Reagan" with regard to Reagan's nuclear arms reduction talks with the Soviet Union.

Kennedy's plan was revealed in 1991 when a trove of documents from the dissolved Soviet empire was released. Kennedy’s plan detailed a series of steps that would undermine Reagan’s negotiations with Andropov, at the same time strengthening Kennedy’s position and making Democrats seem as if they were leading a push for a world free of a U.S.-Russia nuclear war threat.

Obama doesn't seem to think it's America's place to decide who has nuclear weapons. But the U.S. does have a responsibility to stop irrational leaders -- including those in Iran -- from obtaining nuclear weapons, because certain Muslim extremists consider it honorable to annihilate their enemies and themselves. And "games" such as that can have no winners.
 
Last edited:

Spider

Member
You could also have added a paragraph on how Barack Hussein Obama is trying to help defeat Netanyahu in the upcoming Israeli election. As for the senators, it helps to remind some the branches of government are supposed to be coequal. McConnell and Boner would do well to remember that.
 

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
You could also have added a paragraph on how Barack Hussein Obama is trying to help defeat Netanyahu in the upcoming Israeli election.
Dear Spider:

Indeed, I could have mentioned that, because that's obviously the case. But that wasn't directly related to the points made in my mini-editorial.
 

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
There were no points made despite you're delusions to the contrary.
Dear Cool Rocking Daddy:

Let's take a further look at the Obama-Iran situation. It should be clear to everyone that IRAN IS NOT ON THE SIDE OF "THE GOOD GUYS" with its support of various terror organizations, such as Hamas. And is there any doubt that if Iran goes nuclear, it will provide nuclear devices to one or more of the terrorist organizations it supports?

In connection with the long and ongoing discussions regarding the U.S. and Iran, the rogue nation of Iran is pocketing around $700 million per month in sanctions relief. It's in the best interests of Iran -- but certainly not the U.S. or the world -- to negotiate forever while continuing to receive $700 million per month and spin its centrifuges to produce weapons grade materials.

There have been no apparent changes in negotiators, no change in positions and no significant movement of any sort. Nevertheless, Obama, in an apparent attempt to show he is "reasonable" and to enhance his legacy, seems hell-bent on achieving a deal, ignoring the logic that a bad deal is worse than no deal.
 
Top