Nuclear Iran

did them evil eye rainians actually not only say:

we are gonna keep making bomb stuff

but

we gots 200 nutcases ready to blow you up
if you attack us?

Am I the only one that thinks this is becoming silly?
 
Winky said:
did them evil eye rainians actually not only say:

we are gonna keep making bomb stuff

but

we gots 200 nutcases ready to blow you up
if you attack us?

Am I the only one that thinks this is becoming silly?
Click to expand...
No
 
Winky said:
did them evil eye rainians actually not only say:

we are gonna keep making bomb stuff

but

we gots 200 nutcases ready to blow you up
if you attack us?

Am I the only one that thinks this is becoming silly?
Click to expand...
Not quite as silly as the option being bandied about of using 'tactical nuclear bombs' to take out the possible enrichment plants.
 
That being said let us postulate on the two most likely
outcomes regarding this scenario


A: We actually launch a ground invasion of Iran
to effect regime change


B: We continue the current policy of pontificating
resulting in Iran continuing to be a PITA but
business continues ‘as usual’

Am I the only one that has noticed an upswing in gas prices recently? heh
 
Winky said:
Am I the only one that has noticed an upswing in gas prices recently? heh
Click to expand...
It's the capitalist way to pass the cost increase (plus profit) on to the consumer. If you want to live in a capitalist system (and don't all the smart folks?) you're going to have to deal with this kind of stuff from time to time.
 
MrBishop said:
Not quite as silly as the option being bandied about of using 'tactical nuclear bombs' to take out the possible enrichment plants.
Click to expand...

Consider the source
 
Gonz said:
Consider the source
Click to expand...
What, Bush himself?

Didn't I hear that it was part of a speach he gave...or was it Rumsfeld or someone else who mentioned tactical nuclear strikes?

***

The mention of using nukes against Iran is shooting the price of oil up again, which means that I'm paying more at the tanks.

I think that tactical nukes are a non-issue. The backlash alone would be surprising and would open up a whole new kettle of fish...the atomic terrorist.
 
The source could be worst...Hersh seems to have a long history of uncovering stories and them turning out right on the money. :shrug:

Time shall tell the tale far better than I.
 
Might as well get used to it.
It's already too late, and if not, I don't think we'd go in before the Nov. elections,
and it'll be too late by then for sure.:confused:

I'm still hoping for a revolt there.
 
Luis G said:
Really? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm
Click to expand...

So those "balloon fillers", which were cleaned with chlorine bleach from top to bottom were just that, eh?

Also...your source listed three key points, two which backed my opinion...

"The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."

"There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD after sanctions were lifted... "
Click to expand...

and one which backed your opinion...

"The problem of discerning WMD in Iraq is highlighted by the pre-war misapprehensions of weapons which were not there. Distant technical analysts mistakenly identified evidence and drew incorrect conclusions."
Click to expand...

The next paragraph speaks volumes about the UN, though...

The ISG also published a list of people and groups to whom Saddam Hussein allegedly offered cheap oil in return for their support in trying to get UN sanctions lifted.

Many on the list - drawn from official Iraqi documents - are from Russia, France and China - countries which opposed the war in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Now we know why Russia, China, and France were against the war. If the sanctions had been lifted, then points that help my opinion take on a whole new meaning, don't they?
 
chcr said:
It's the capitalist way to pass the cost increase (plus profit) on to the consumer. If you want to live in a capitalist system (and don't all the smart folks?) you're going to have to deal with this kind of stuff from time to time.
Click to expand...
Is there a cost increase?
 
Gato_Solo said:
Now we know why Russia, China, and France were against the war. If the sanctions had been lifted, then points that help my opinion take on a whole new meaning, don't they?
Click to expand...

it's fairly well known that they're just as hip to operation:eek:ilgrab as we are, and have just been jockying for position in the largely untapped and possibly massive oil deposits in western iraq. of course they didn't want us getting there first...
 
Gato_Solo said:
So those "balloon fillers", which were cleaned with chlorine bleach from top to bottom were just that, eh?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but since your goverment has already accepted they haven't found any wmd, then those were clearly not wmd.
 
flavio said:
Is there a cost increase?
Click to expand...
*sigh* $70 a barrel for crude? Not paying attention?

The cost goes up and gets passed along to the end user. The profit margin is built in therefore profits go up. It's not pretty and I'd be just as happy as everyone else to have them lower their profit margin. Never gonna happen though. :shrug: It doesn't make them evil but it does make them capitalists. You don't really believe that anyone but you cares what you pay for gas, do you? Ask Prof what he pays for a liter (he'll want you to spell it litre though ;) ).
 
Well then U.S. petrol is closing in on canucki prices
we gotta find out what the price for the golden go
juice is for Starya and convert to American prices!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top