Also from Vox, an interview with Political Science Professor Peter Feaver : https://www.vox.com/world/2017/11/17/16656856/trump-congress-nuclear-weapons-war

He says, in the instance that the United States is under imminent threat, the above applies, otherwise:

"The other scenario is that the president wakes the military up in the middle of the night and says, "Hey, I wanna do a nuclear strike," and in that setting, he would raise a lot of alarms throughout the chain of command. People would be saying, "Well, what is this? Why are we doing this?" It would require a lot more people to say, "Yes. This is the right decision." "

Nice find! BTW, isn't it easier to make money off of being extreme than moderate?>> ^kevingrr:

Wow. Every time I hear Chris Hedges speak speak more lies fly out of his mouth. Sam Harris is not, has not, and my guess will never advocate for a nuclear strike.
Per: Sam Harris Regarding Nuking the Arab World and Torture
Chris Hedges is good at two things.
1. Making fallacious straw man arguments where he distorts, misrepresents, and lies about his opponents position.
2. Making money off pretending to be moderate.

Wow. Every time I hear Chris Hedges speak speak more lies fly out of his mouth. Sam Harris is not, has not, and my guess will never advocate for a nuclear strike.

Per: Sam Harris Regarding Nuking the Arab World and Torture

Chris Hedges is good at two things.


1. Making fallacious straw man arguments where he distorts, misrepresents, and lies about his opponents position.
2. Making money off pretending to be moderate.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^BoneyD:
To tar and feather all Egyptians as being more accepting of rape is quite unfair. This was a crime like any other, but as one Redditor put it "The Middle East does not hold a monopoly on misogyny". (Click on the title link in the post to see the reference)

This isn't about tarring and feathering them...no one suggested that. I suggested the only thing we can do now is turn their entire country into Glass via multiple nuclear strikes...You Don't Fuck With Our Hotties World!!!


And the twenty or so Soldiers who saved her? Or the women who helped? And me wonders if this is sacasm or seriousness. Glass-ify a whole nation based on differences and subjective "hotness?"

>> ^BoneyD:

To tar and feather all Egyptians as being more accepting of rape is quite unfair. This was a crime like any other, but as one Redditor put it "The Middle East does not hold a monopoly on misogyny". (Click on the title link in the post to see the reference)


This isn't about tarring and feathering them...no one suggested that. I suggested the only thing we can do now is turn their entire country into Glass via multiple nuclear strikes...You Don't Fuck With Our Hotties World!!!

Excellently informative post. Thank you.

Sometimes we're vulnerable to accepting one side of a debate unquestioningly without hearing the other side, which is how many people seem to be approaching Reza Aslan's argument.

In reply to this comment by burdturgler:
Was good until around 4:20 but after that Reza is full of shit on many counts.

- It is complete speculation on his part that there is no nuclear weapon ambition or program in Iran. He mentions the IAEA in 2003 but in 2003 the IAEA said the following:

"it is clear that Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material and its processing and use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material has been processed and stored." (PDF)

Meaning the nuclear material could be stored anywhere and processed for anything. They don't know.

- Saying that the U.S. has taken all military options off the table regarding Iran is complete bullshit. Never happened.

- The C.I.A. has never said that Iran is "many many many years away" from having a nuclear weapon. Regardless, how did the CIA discover that India had nukes? Anyone? They caught them when they were just a year away right? No, the CIA and the rest of Earth found out because India detonated one. Making the argument that Iran isn't pursuing nukes based on the fact that they say so is foolish.

-Israel has nukes. They have had them for decades. To say they are threatening Iran with them is ridiculous. Israel has made no demands from Iran other than to recognize that it is a sovereign nation. The weapons are a deterrent against Iran and the other nations in the region which have said in no uncertain terms that Israel, as a nation state, should not exist.

- Just because some person ("Benny Morris" who is a hero of the Palestinians) wrote an article for the NY Times, does not make it the policy that Israel will launch a nuclear first strike against Iran. That person does not speak for the government of Israel. He doesn't determine the foreign policy of any nation. He does not control or affect in any way Israel's nuclear launch capability. In other words, it's bullshit.

-It has never been the policy of Israel to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike upon anyone unless they were themselves threatened by nukes. That is U.S. policy also. That doesn't mean you can't have a scenario where you strike first. Some people just refuse to understand this. They can not have an enemy on their doorstep that has vowed their destruction to obtain the weapons and strategy needed to carry that threat out. It's just that simple. We didn't allow the missiles in Cuba for the very same reason. Iran needs to dial back it's rhetoric and hate speech and get more in line with the international cooperation and dialog that it's people wants. The type of dialog we all need. Open handed Vs. clenched fist. But that isn't happening and now we see that elections there to make it happen have no meaning.

The hard line psychos in charge of Iran, not the people in general, view Israel as an abomination. They "should be wiped off the face of the map". I've seen this translated as "vanish from time" and several other iterations but however you want to play out the semantics of the translation of that quote from Ahmadinejad the end result is the same. He is echoing and fomenting the sentiment of his supporters .. Israel as a state should not exist. These are the same people who say the Holocaust never happened. Now I've seen some bad comments here, including someone wishing all Christians would die, but I hope most rational people can see this isn't just a religious point of view, it's a wish for genocide. They teach their children that Israeli's are less than human. They are pigs and it is good to slaughter them.

With that ugliness behind me, I will say, it is fun to watch Chris when he has a guest who isn't intimidated, but I don't see where he was "schooled" here. Reza is being naive at best. Iran knows what it's doing. It can't let itself be perceived as the weaker nation. Acquiescing to mandates and sanctions. They want to be a super power. They want to be at the table like India and Pakistan. They know they are close and have decades of work behind them (not in front of them) and will never give up until they have the same strength that is possessed by their perceived aggressors.

There won't be any dialog to stem the tide of a nuclear Iran with the current regime in power.

Does anyone honestly think a nuclear armed Iran is a viable option for world stability and peace?

Was good until around 4:20 but after that Reza is full of shit on many counts.

- It is complete speculation on his part that there is no nuclear weapon ambition or program in Iran. He mentions the IAEA in 2003 but in 2003 the IAEA said the following:

"it is clear that Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material and its processing and use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material has been processed and stored." (PDF)

Meaning the nuclear material could be stored anywhere and processed for anything. They don't know.

- Saying that the U.S. has taken all military options off the table regarding Iran is complete bullshit. Never happened.

- The C.I.A. has never said that Iran is "many many many years away" from having a nuclear weapon. Regardless, how did the CIA discover that India had nukes? Anyone? They caught them when they were just a year away right? No, the CIA and the rest of Earth found out because India detonated one. Making the argument that Iran isn't pursuing nukes based on the fact that they say so is foolish.

-Israel has nukes. They have had them for decades. To say they are threatening Iran with them is ridiculous. Israel has made no demands from Iran other than to recognize that it is a sovereign nation. The weapons are a deterrent against Iran and the other nations in the region which have said in no uncertain terms that Israel, as a nation state, should not exist.

- Just because some person ("Benny Morris" who is a hero of the Palestinians) wrote an article for the NY Times, does not make it the policy that Israel will launch a nuclear first strike against Iran. That person does not speak for the government of Israel. He doesn't determine the foreign policy of any nation. He does not control or affect in any way Israel's nuclear launch capability. In other words, it's bullshit.

-It has never been the policy of Israel to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike upon anyone unless they were themselves threatened by nukes. That is U.S. policy also. That doesn't mean you can't have a scenario where you strike first. Some people just refuse to understand this. They can not have an enemy on their doorstep that has vowed their destruction to obtain the weapons and strategy needed to carry that threat out. It's just that simple. We didn't allow the missiles in Cuba for the very same reason. Iran needs to dial back it's rhetoric and hate speech and get more in line with the international cooperation and dialog that it's people wants. The type of dialog we all need. Open handed Vs. clenched fist. But that isn't happening and now we see that elections there to make it happen have no meaning.

The hard line psychos in charge of Iran, not the people in general, view Israel as an abomination. They "should be wiped off the face of the map". I've seen this translated as "vanish from time" and several other iterations but however you want to play out the semantics of the translation of that quote from Ahmadinejad the end result is the same. He is echoing and fomenting the sentiment of his supporters .. Israel as a state should not exist. These are the same people who say the Holocaust never happened. Now I've seen some bad comments here, including someone wishing all Christians would die, but I hope most rational people can see this isn't just a religious point of view, it's a wish for genocide. They teach their children that Israeli's are less than human. They are pigs and it is good to slaughter them.

With that ugliness behind me, I will say, it is fun to watch Chris when he has a guest who isn't intimidated, but I don't see where he was "schooled" here. Reza is being naive at best. Iran knows what it's doing. It can't let itself be perceived as the weaker nation. Acquiescing to mandates and sanctions. They want to be a super power. They want to be at the table like India and Pakistan. They know they are close and have decades of work behind them (not in front of them) and will never give up until they have the same strength that is possessed by their perceived aggressors.

There won't be any dialog to stem the tide of a nuclear Iran with the current regime in power.

Does anyone honestly think a nuclear armed Iran is a viable option for world stability and peace?

I love how Chris Matthews almost develops apoplexy when Reza mentioned Mentalyahoo's (I can't spell that bastards name) threats about a preemptive nuclear strike...

What's the more likely scenario, the people with a bunch of bombs bombing someone or the people without Chris?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'tv movie, 1983, war, usa, ussr, nuclear strike, kansas' to 'tv movie, 1983, war, usa, ussr, nuclear strike, kansas, cold war' - edited by calvados

World in Conflict is your typical RTS but is easier to pick up and play instead of having to build your support infrastructures just to create fancier units. It's a fun and nice RTS game that I can actually enjoy instead of other RTS that tend to bore me somehow. WiC also focuses more on teamwork in the multi-player aspect of the game. The visuals are stunning and the effects are quite nice to watch, especially tactical aid strikes ranging from Daisy Cutter to Cluster Bombs to Carpet Bombing to the ever-entertaining Nuclear Strike.

There are 4 "How To Play" videos of the game available at Game Trailers, which can give you a bit of a glimpse on how the game plays. A quick search can reveal a number of World in Conflict actual gameplay videos.

#1 Basic Gameplay
#2 Tactical Aids
#3 Fortifications
#4 Game Modes

So.. was the "coming out of the trenches with guns ready" part of the actual test scenario? As in.. the tactic would be that ground soldiers go in after a nuclear strike?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'tv movie, 1983, nuclear strike, kansas' to 'tv movie, 1983, war, usa, ussr, nuclear strike, kansas' - edited by calvados

The worst part is that USA could have easily avoided the war and the nuclear strikes were totally unnecessary. Too bad the true motives and political setups are too complex to be taught to children in school, so everybody just remembers that Japan attacked first and USA had to defend itself and so on...

Oh LOL

Please Fletch, try harder and post something that doesn't come From MEMRITV and I will give credence to your views. But right now it's like saying Christianity is evil based on what you hear about it from the Westboro church. Am just glad that MEMRITV exists to satisfy your and ghostcake's perverse views on what is Islam and such.

Here is a direct link - http://www.memritv.org/

Notice anything? I thought you wouldn't. Too blind are the sheep to see, the continents slowly being split into 3.

"MEMRI has been criticized primarily for its choice of the content it selects for translation. Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for the UK Guardian newspaper, has criticized MEMRI for having a pro-Israel bias and agenda, and not being explicit about this on its website. He has written, "My problem with Memri is that it poses as a research institute when it's basically a propaganda operation", that material selected by MEMRI for translation, "further the political agenda of Israel, and ", and that, "MEMRI's website does not mention you [Carmon] or your work for Israeli intelligence. Nor does it mention MEMRI's co-founder, Meyrav Wurmser, and her extreme brand of Zionism ... Given your political background, it's legitimate to ask whether MEMRI is a trustworthy vehicle"

More recently, on his blog for the The Guardian, Whitaker claims that MEMRI misrepresented a segment of Tomorrow's Pioneers, a children's' television program produced by Hamas which showed examples of child incitement. Hussein Ibish, a spokesman for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee comments that "MEMRI performs a useful function but unfortunately they have a pro-Israel, right-wing agenda." He also says that: "There is of course some horrific stuff in the Arab press, but one tends to forget that the American press can also be very nasty.

Ken Livingstone, former British MP and the current Mayor of London, has stated of MEMRI that: "The translation and selection of quotes tend to portray Islam in a very negative light." He has accused MEMRI of "outright distortion". Ibrahim Hooper, a director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, stated in the Washington Times that "MEMRI's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible." William Rugh, former US ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, describes MEMRI as a service which "does not present a balanced or complete picture of the Arab print media. ...Quotes are selected to portray Arabs as preaching hatred against Jews and westerners, praising violence and refusing any peaceful settlement of the Palestinian issue."

Leila Hudson writes in the journal Middle East Policy, "MEMRI simultaneously highlights stories emphasizing the most extreme stereotypes of clashing Arab and Islamic civilization, which would not otherwise come to light. In effect, it amplifies the noise that most effectively distracts from the projects of engagement and negotiation. This is compounded by the interlinked series of websites, blogs and forums on the right wing of the think-tank periphery. Like the Israeli disinformation site Debka.com, MEMRI produces and amplifies noise, while buttressing the weak 'clash of civilizations' theory with selective extremist writing."

Hamas is a terrorist organization and is dispeakable in the actions that it carries out (suicide bombings), but putting them forward as speaking for the entire region from a religious point of view is just about the stupidest thing ever. Let's not look at the root causes that allow Hamas to gain power... am sure it has NOTHING to do with historical context of the conflict and you know 60 year oppression of the Palestinian people who basically have NO say in their lives.

No clearly this video shows that we are all mental over there and should be wiped out with a few nuclear strikes. What are you waiting for?

I wait for the bright sunrise.

This is serious. We're supposed to be a country that honors Habeus Corpus, does not condone torture, and most of all does not condone pre-emptive nuclear strikes against the rest of the world!

All other claims aside.. these three items need to be at the forefront of our principles in relation with the rest of the world.