Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 185

Thread: Nuclear strike against Iran due end of March

  1. #16
    droid Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dominic
    an independent iran therefore poses a threat to the so-called american way of life -- and it's only by having a nuclear capacity that iran can be independent

    so even if iran were not run by what someone upthread refers to as "psychopathic fascists," a nuclear iran would be very difficult for an energy-hungry america (and the rest of the west -- face it, we're all complicit b/c we all enjoy the benefits relative to others) to deal with
    Kind of explains why the West has done everything in its power to prevent independent development in resource rich regions since forever. The 'threat of a good example' is far more dangerous in the eyes of political and military planners than the threat of a limited Nuclear defense. (which is all N.Korea or Iran could feasibly manage in the near future). Hence the demonisation of Cuba, Vietnam, Iran etc...

    Who was it that said that giving nuclear weapons to every nation is the best way to prevent war? In the current climate of global gangsterism, wild west style interventions, and disdain for international law - he might have been onto something....

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    NYC , Tokyo
    Posts
    1,914

  3. #18

    Default

    This thread is the best yet. Easily the funniest thing I've read on this board (and there have been a few!).

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    brixton, london
    Posts
    1,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Hotflush
    This thread is the best yet. Easily the funniest thing I've read on this board (and there have been a few!).
    my favourites are the comedy foaming-at-the-mouth neo-con satires that get posted here - can't we have more of those paul?

    alternatively you could always argue the point.
    Last edited by bassnation; 11-01-2006 at 04:20 PM.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    NYC , Tokyo
    Posts
    1,914

    Default Con foam

    Well, there's plenty of neo- con & Bush league actions to foam about (Jack Abramoff/Tom Delay , NSA wiretapscooping up every International call made , email & private mail taping )
    , some we are finding out about now / some have been tripping along unseen since they got the bright ideas .

    Sure, disinformation is only half the NSA's and their brothers budget
    but when you see & hear the news that Iran unsealing their nuclear facilities yesterday what does it make you think ?
    Removed enough from what's going on out there to be so 'over it' ?
    Oh it's a real cheery laugh alright

  6. #21
    Omaar Guest

  7. #22

    Default

    Yes...Blair threatens Iran with...the UN Security Council!

    Uh, that's a bit different to nuclear bombs.

    Face it, Hotflush is right, the premise of this thread is only slightly less absurd than you responses.

    Any contact with diplomatic and geopolitical reality would quickly disabuse you of the notion that the US can actively consider any preemptive strike, let alone nuclear.

    Where would they strike? Do you know how many suspected nuclear sites there are in Iran? (Hint: lots.)

    It's also absurd that you worry more about a non-existant US nuclear attack than the very real prospect of Iran's imminent nuclearisation.

    It also reminds me of Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter's scoop about the US plans to attack Iran in June.

    Last June!!

    Oops, that didn't go very well, did it?

  8. #23

    Default

    Also, I was wondering, why the end of March?

    Is it to coincide with my birthday, or what?

    Hmm.

  9. #24
    droid Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oliver craner
    Any contact with diplomatic and geopolitical reality would quickly disabuse you of the notion that the US can actively consider any preemptive strike, let alone nuclear.

    Where would they strike? Do you know how many suspected nuclear sites there are in Iran? (Hint: lots.)
    I actually agree with you that the chances of a nuclear attack against Iran are non-exsistent at the moment. A non-nuclear pre-emptive strike in the near future is a perfectly feasible possibility though.

    Remember Osirak?

    It's also absurd that you worry more about a non-existant US nuclear attack than the very real prospect of Iran's imminent nuclearisation.
    Yes. Truly absurd to worry about the most aggressive nation on Earth possibly attacking ANOTHER oil rich Muslim country who's development it has historically done everything in its power to control.

    Its much more satisfying to obsess about the evils of our official enemies, eh Oliver? No difficult questions to answer there...

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    brixton, london
    Posts
    1,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oliver craner
    Yes...Blair threatens Iran with...the UN Security Council!

    Uh, that's a bit different to nuclear bombs.
    thats how blair reacted for sure. but what did the americans say, oliver?

    Quote Originally Posted by oliver craner
    Face it, Hotflush is right, the premise of this thread is only slightly less absurd than you responses.

    Any contact with diplomatic and geopolitical reality would quickly disabuse you of the notion that the US can actively consider any preemptive strike, let alone nuclear.
    its already happened, twice in the last six years. pre-emptive attacks, that is, rather than nuclear armageddon.

    Quote Originally Posted by oliver craner
    Where would they strike? Do you know how many suspected nuclear sites there are in Iran? (Hint: lots.)
    that didn't stop them with iraq and there weren't any weapons there!

    after saying all that, i have to admit i'm not sure why they'd need nukes when normal ariel bombardment works just fine.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    w.yorkshire
    Posts
    2,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bassnation
    after saying all that, i have to admit i'm not sure why they'd need nukes when normal ariel bombardment works just fine.
    wash the fuckers into submission! whiter than white! (sorry marc)
    Last edited by matt b; 11-01-2006 at 09:02 PM.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    brixton, london
    Posts
    1,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by matt b
    wash the fuckers into submission! whiter than white! (sorry marc)
    lol, you know it took me a minute to get that joke - bit slow this morning! must remember to spell check my utterances

  13. #28

    Default

    How many times...there is no military option!

    Do you know how vexed the Bush administration is about that? How happy they'd be if your fears were true? How convenient an Osiraq option would be?

    But Osiraq is the point: it was a clear target. Blasting Saddam's one nuclear reactor (supplied by France) set back his nuclear programme decades (good work I think). But Iraq in 1980 is not Iran in 2006: Iran's nuckear programme is far more advanced. There's, what, about 18 known nuclear research/production sites in Persia. And US intelligence isn't even that good: there's no real actionable intelligence that could KO the production line.

    So, I ask again, where will they strike, o wise ones? What will they strike?

    Also, any kind of action can be met with strong measure by Iran: by racheting up their terror proxies from Iraq to the occupied territories to the Caspian States, or blockading the Strait of Hormuz.

    This has more significane in, say, the State Dept. that you seem to realise.

    Maybe, in fact, this is more your kind of idea: let iran go nuclear?

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    brixton, london
    Posts
    1,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oliver craner
    Maybe, in fact, this is more your kind of idea: let iran go nuclear?
    i'd like to see everyone disarm, including israel. that country has gone nuclear a long time ago. never see you shouting about them. they are easily as belligerent as iran alhough sharon is not quite as unhinged as irans leader. double stanards, oliver. maybe iran are just following the wests example.

  15. #30

    Default

    When in doubt, raise Israel. Tres bon.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •