or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › More Iran Booga Booga
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

More Iran Booga Booga - Page 4

post #121 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Israel has 300+ nukes. It can take care of itself.

Nukes don't protect you from stupid people. They had 50 nukes when Egypt and Syria attacked in 1973, and they almost used them when it looked like they were going to lose the war.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #122 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978
I don't think he was suggesting land war, just bombing them and arming their enemies, which would probably result in a multi decade civil war.

I was not referring to a particular suggestion, rather to the general idea of the US waging war on Iran.

As for bombing them and arming their enemies, that would require an actual armed conflict with enemies likely to defeat the Iranian armed forces with the assistance of US bombing (perhaps following the example of that short Libyan internal conflict), since such enemies arent available, that option isnt either for the time being.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru
Perhaps the reason Iran would want to obtain nuclear weapons is to defend themselves from invasion and occupation by the United States, Israel, and other countries.

Its not that certain Iran actually seeks nuclear weapons (Khomeini was very opposed to them although hes dead now and his heirs have shown some flexibility on many issues).
If it desires such weapons its likely to obtain them off-the-shelf from elsewhere (some friendly fellow from a former Soviet republic or some Pakistani bigwig and whatnot) rather than going the hard way developing them in-house. Then again, they arent always reasonable so its open-ended.
Iran has been importing petrol due to their lack of refinery capacity (it officially claims self-sufficiency now though) which is remarkable for an oil exporting country, along with other failures to respond to various domestic demands. Yet it spends onerous efforts and talks plenty on endeavours such as this nuclear project or sending monkeys to space, it looks like white elephants to me.

Other than that, considering the size of Israel, the size of Iran, and the land distance between the two, the very idea of Israel invading and occupying Iran is quite ridiculous.
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #123 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Iran has been engaging in various acts of war against the US for a long time now.

I fully support attacks against Iran and the US should declare war on Iran. I don't support a war with any US troops on the ground or the ridiculous strategy of winning 'hearts & minds'. I support conventional mass bombing to start followed by possible nuclear strikes if necessary.

You are a war shit starter! we are engaged in 2 wars now.Go bury your head in quick sand with these concepts.
post #124 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

But what about protecting the profits of the largely private prison industry that capitalizes handsomely on criminalizing (mostly minority or working class white) youth?

Beat that drum sammi. Beat it!

Quote:

What is your proof that Iran has nuclear weapons? Fox News? AIPAC?

As much as I disagree with him, I don't think he claimed they had them currently.

Quote:

There is only one nation that has resorted to such. Japan 1945 (twice), possibly Basra area 1991, most likely Afghanistan 2001 (low yield nuclear bunker busters) and Iraq and Afghanistan 2003-present ("depleted" uranium munitions).

Wait...you just compared WWII to....nuclear terrorism? You compared depleted uranium shells with nuclear weapons used on civilians?

Quote:

And thats exactly why they, or any other nation, won't. Ever heard of the notion of "nuclear deterrent"? If Iran has designs on nuclear weapons, then who would blame them?

I would. They cannot be allowed to have them.

Quote:

It's their best chance of preventing being attacked by Israel, which has nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, is prepared to use them, and has an iron grip on US mideast policy.

Did I miss the part where Israel was threatening to wipe Iran off the map?

Quote:


FYI.. nuclear radiation and fallout is blind to national boundaries. A full scale nuclear attack on Iran would at the very least, endanger US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although the brass in the Pentagon are not concerned on that front - there's always a steady stream of naive kids enlisting -, there would likely be an outcry from military families at home...in other words, a PR nightmare. Not only that, but a first strike nuclear attack on a foreign nation (which never attacked anyone, and hasn't in 250 years btw), and would place every American abroad at risk.

We agree there. Nuclear weapons are obviously a last resort...and I mean LAST.

Quote:

In other words, nuking Iran, or anywhere, would be an incredibly stupid move.. and would backfire 100 fold.

Whatever. Save all that testosterone for a saturday night.

Yeah, again...we agree there. Then again, this incident does raise the possibility that we might attack their nuclear facilities. The problem there is we have to be prepared for blowback, so it might become a large operation.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #125 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

You are a war shit starter! we are engaged in 2 wars now.Go bury your head in quick sand with these concepts.

Those aren't wars, they are overseas contingency operations according to the geniuses in the White House. I am against overseas contingency operations, but I am open to war, real war.
post #126 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Those aren't wars, they are overseas contingency operations according to the geniuses in the White House. I am against overseas contingency operations, but I am open to war, real war.

As long as you are on the front line.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #127 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I'm not suggesting to nuke people as a first resort. I only see that as a possible option, if Iran were to somehow use their own nuclear weapons against the west, as a dirty bomb or something similar.

And if it's a terrorist act committed by a public faction, or a breakaway faction not supported by the Iranian Government? I bet you don't care, you'd still nuke 'em. I bet it makes you hard, just thinking about it.
post #128 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And if it's a terrorist act committed by a public faction, or a breakaway faction not supported by the Iranian Government? I bet you don't care, you'd still nuke 'em. I bet it makes you hard, just thinking about it.

And i bet if it were proven without any doubts that it was Iran that was behind it, then you and a bunch of others on the left would still be making excuses for them and every other enemy of the US.

As with many other things that you seem to assume about me, once again, you're totally wrong, and I don't particularly get any sexual satisfaction from any dead terrorists. At most, it would probably give me a few LOL's.
post #129 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Immanuel Goldstein View Post

since such enemies arent available

The Kurds beg to differ.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #130 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

As long as you are on the front line.

He would *NEVER* go on the front line. He has the typical talk of the duplicitous cowardly yellow-livered Chickenhawk... the type of people who advocate sending other people to war while deliberately AVOIDING service themselves. People who run and hide....

There is a long list of politicians and other public figures who qualify for the ignominious Chickenhawk Hall of Shame.

Two who really stand out:
Dick Cheney
Ted Nugent

Quote:
This twit pretends to be a tough guy, but in 1990 he confessed that to dodge the draft he crapped in his pants for a week before reporting for his physical. It's understandable why — he's a coward. What's harder to understand is why the Army lets him entertain troops at Gitmo and Walter Reed.

... and most of the cowardly bunch who lied the public into invading Afghanistan and Iraq, qualify for the Distinguished Fleeing Cross.

Ptah.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #131 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Immanuel Goldstein
enemies likely to defeat the Iranian armed forces
[]
since such enemies arent available
[emphasis added]

The Kurds beg to differ.

So they may, yet theyre not likely to defeat the Iranian armed forces.
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #132 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

And i bet if it were proven without any doubts that it was Iran that was behind it, then you and a bunch of others on the left would still be making excuses for them and every other enemy of the US.

Just like it was 'proven' without any doubts that Iraq had WMD? Or that Iraq was conspiring with Osama? Proven like that?
post #133 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Immanuel Goldstein View Post

So they may, yet theyre not likely to defeat the Iranian armed forces.

Yes they can, remember - all the Iranian military bases get bombed first and the Iranian air force gets wiped out. The Kurds could wage an indefinite war against a weakened Iran, and eventually take control of Kurdish Iran (and Turkey and Syria also).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #134 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Just like it was 'proven' without any doubts that Iraq had WMD? Or that Iraq was conspiring with Osama? Proven like that?

One purpose of having WMDs is to avert an invasion by a foreign power.
If that invasion does happen, especially by a militarily vastly superior power, then the defender would likely use those WMDs, the ace card, as a last resort in an attempt to save that country.

Iraq did nothing, because they had nothing. Furthermore, the Pentagon did not even bother to equip US troops and vehicles for simple IEDs, let alone biological, chemical, or nuclear (or dirty radiological) weapons. Why not indeed? I doubt that even the most psychopathic of the Pentagon brass would deliberately under-equip the troops in such a potentially dire situation. The DoD (and CIA) knew the score, and so did the Bush Administration.

The "WMDs" rationale was fabricated because it was an easy sell to the 'shocked and awed' US public in 2002. The real reason, as let out by Philip Zelikow, a former member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, was "the security of Israel". This would never have flown by Congress, (hence the "WMDs").

Saddam Hussein was a narcissistic egomaniac, and only nominally Muslim, who ran a largely secularized dictatorship. He would never have allied, or shared power with any foreign organization, let alone a Saudi born Muslim fundamentalist. It was well known that Saddam and Osama hated each other; bin Laden referred to Saddam Hussein as an "infidel".

In other words, the two reasons cited by the Bush Administration to go to war against Iraq were both untrue, and they knew that their main source was a proven liar.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #135 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

One purpose of having WMDs is to avert an invasion by a foreign power.
If that invasion does happen, especially by a militarily vastly superior power, then the defender would likely use those WMDs, the ace card, as a last resort in an attempt to save that country.

Iraq did nothing, because they had nothing. Furthermore, the Pentagon did not even bother to equip US troops and vehicles for simple IEDs, let alone biological, chemical, or nuclear (or dirty radiological) weapons. Why not indeed? I doubt that even the most psychopathic of the Pentagon brass would deliberately under-equip the troops in such a potentially dire situation. The DoD (and CIA) knew the score, and so did the Bush Administration.

The "WMDs" rationale was fabricated because it was an easy sell to the 'shocked and awed' US public in 2002. The real reason, as let out by Philip Zelikow, a former member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, was "the security of Israel". This would never have flown by Congress, (hence the "WMDs").

Saddam Hussein was a narcissistic egomaniac, and only nominally Muslim, who ran a largely secularized dictatorship. He would never have allied, or shared power with any foreign organization, let alone a Saudi born Muslim fundamentalist. It was well known that Saddam and Osama hated each other; bin Laden referred to Saddam Hussein as an "infidel".

In other words, the two reasons cited by the Bush Administration to go to war against Iraq were both untrue, and they knew that their main source was a proven liar.

Exactly. And the war loving assholes will deny that the same thing can happen with regard to Iran. Or, more likely, they don't really give a shit about what the truth really is, just like they didn't give a shit about the truth with regard to Iraq, since Saddam and his supporters 'deserved what they got'.
post #136 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Immanuel Goldstein
So they may, yet theyre not likely to defeat the Iranian armed forces.

Yes they can, remember - all the Iranian military bases get bombed first and the Iranian air force gets wiped out. The Kurds could wage an indefinite war against a weakened Iran, and eventually take control of Kurdish Iran (and Turkey and Syria also).

Kurdish Iran is a very small part of Iran.
And how much of it do the rebels hold at present? The last Ive heard, very little.
And what war are they waging currently? Not much

Before NATO started bombing Libya (thus weakening the Libyan army), Libyan rebels have already taken over sizable parts of the country (notably the countrys second city, Benghazi), not to mention they represented more than a small ethnic minority (Kurds make ~7% of Irans population).
Even taking over Iranian Kurdistan is a tall order for the rebels, not to mention the whole Iran (which I meant by defeating the Iranian armed forces: a complete victory rather than routing them here and there, sorry if I wasnt clear).

As for Iranian Kurds taking over territory in Turkey, a NATO member with a modern well-equipped army, thats even less likely.
As for Syria, it doesnt share a border with Iran.
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #137 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

He would *NEVER* go on the front line. He has the typical talk of the duplicitous cowardly yellow-livered Chickenhawk... the type of people who advocate sending other people to war while deliberately AVOIDING service themselves. People who run and hide....

There is a long list of politicians and other public figures who qualify for the ignominious Chickenhawk Hall of Shame.

Two who really stand out:
Dick Cheney
Ted Nugent



... and most of the cowardly bunch who lied the public into invading Afghanistan and Iraq, qualify for the Distinguished Fleeing Cross.

Ptah.


Cheney got deferments along with many other people. But I notice Bill Clinton (an actual draft dodger) is not someone you mention. Hmmm.....
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #138 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

One purpose of having WMDs is to avert an invasion by a foreign power.
If that invasion does happen, especially by a militarily vastly superior power, then the defender would likely use those WMDs, the ace card, as a last resort in an attempt to save that country.

OK...agreed. But that doesn't mean Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Quote:

Iraq did nothing, because they had nothing.

They did at one time, and they used them. The Iraq war was about failing to verifiably disarm. Iraq unquestionably did not do that.

Quote:
Furthermore, the Pentagon did not even bother to equip US troops and vehicles for simple IEDs, let alone biological, chemical, or nuclear (or dirty radiological) weapons. Why not indeed? I doubt that even the most psychopathic of the Pentagon brass would deliberately under-equip the troops in such a potentially dire situation. The DoD (and CIA) knew the score, and so did the Bush Administration.

That is a lie. All of it.

Quote:

The "WMDs" rationale was fabricated because it was an easy sell to the 'shocked and awed' US public in 2002. The real reason, as let out by Philip Zelikow, a former member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, was "the security of Israel". This would never have flown by Congress, (hence the "WMDs").

How is this shocking? In fact, this was basically stated in public. Saddam was a threat to an ally. I fail to see what the surprise is.

Quote:

Saddam Hussein was a narcissistic egomaniac, and only nominally Muslim, who ran a largely secularized dictatorship.

Agreed.

Quote:
He would never have allied, or shared power with any foreign organization,....

Speculation. Dangerous, unsupported speculation.

Quote:
let alone a Saudi born Muslim fundamentalist. It was well known myth that Saddam and Osama hated each other; bin Laden referred to Saddam Hussein as an "infidel".

TFTFY

Quote:


In other words, the two reasons cited by the Bush Administration to go to war against Iraq were both untrue, and they knew that their main source was a proven liar.

There were more than two reasons, though WMD was primary one. Your link shows that we already know...we got bad intel. But as for war, it's clear that the administration decided that after 9/11 we were no longer willing to deal with Saddam in the way he had been dealing with him. The risk that he might, in fact, cooperate with terror group out of mutual hatred of the U.S. was too great. This is reasoning I agree with, though he turned out not to have WMD.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Exactly. And the war loving assholes will deny that the same thing can happen with regard to Iran.

Who are those people?

Quote:
Or, more likely, they don't really give a shit about what the truth really is, just like they didn't give a shit about the truth with regard to Iraq, since Saddam and his supporters 'deserved what they got'.

It's much easier to demonize your political opponents than actually discuss things with them, eh tonton? Your statement is proof of that.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #139 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

OK...agreed. But that doesn't mean Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Allowed? Why the paranoia about Iran? Who are they likely to attack now, having not attacked anyone in 250 years? If they *are* developing nuclear weapons (an allegation without any proof), it's far more likely for deterrent purposes against the track record of others' aggression.

The hardliners in Israel who run the show there (and exert massively disproportionate influence in US foreign policymaking circles... both Republicans and Democrats)... have designs on creating a "Greater Israel" in the Middle East. Armed with a very large arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and supported by most NATO countries including the US and UK, Israeli expansionism is a subject of alarm in certain nations in the region.

Quote:
They did at one time, and they used them.

Iraq manufactured none of them. They were supplied to Iraq by.....

Quote:
The Iraq war was about failing to verifiably disarm. Iraq unquestionably did not do that.

How is it possible to verify that a nation has no weapons of mass destruction? That was a logically impossible (meaningless) demand. Ever tried to braid fog?

When the inspectors were ordered out before they had completed their searches, that made it quite clear that the Bush Administration was not interested in a diplomatic solution. They wanted war, they had set a date, and nothing was going to stop that craving.

Quote:
That is a lie. All of it.

Ask the troops! Both British and US. Humvees were not protected against IEDs.

Quote:
Speculation. Dangerous, unsupported speculation.

Who else did Saddam Hussein ally with while in power, outside of his support from the US during the Reagan Admin.?

Quote:
There were more than two reasons, though WMD was primary one. Your link shows that we already know...we got bad intel.

Bad intel? OMFG. Curveball was known by CIA to be an unreliable source and a known liar. So, you are excusing the Bush Administration for launching an 8.5 years long, $3 trillion war based on bogus by a known liar and opportunist, and they never even checked the veracity of his sources? Jesus H. $%^^ing Christ.

What would have happened if BushCorp had *accurate* intel.. ie the fact (known to many) that Iraq not *NOT have WMDs? The answer is the same... see above.. . the wanted the war(s) and they started planning in January 2001, 14 months before it got going.... and >8 months BEFORE 9/11.

Quote:
But as for war, it's clear that the administration decided that after 9/11 we were no longer willing to deal with Saddam in the way he had been dealing with him.

More bogus reasoning from the White House: They *knew* that Saddam Hussein was 100% uninvolved with 9/11... and any linkage to the two was "bearing false witness" to the extreme.

Quote:
The risk that he might, in fact, cooperate with terror group out of mutual hatred of the U.S. was too great.

Again, bogus. The administration knew the realities of 9/11, and knew that Saddam Hussein/Iraq did not partner with either the perpetrators of 9/11, and was even warning Iraqis to resist outside groups (such as Islamic militants).

Quote:
This is reasoning I agree with, though he turned out not to have WMD.

Which was already known before the war started. Saddam Hussein, shortly after the Gulf War had ordered all Iraq's chemical and biological weapons destroyed. This was revealed by Saddam Hussein's defector son-in-law (Kamel), questioned by both MI6 and CIA before he died.

There must be something severely wrong with the picture painted by BushCorp when evidence to the contrary appears in the US corporate "weasel/knee-pad/lapdog" media, which supported the war with neither rhyme, nor reason nor evidence.

Carry on.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #140 of 143


U.S. Bases in the Middle East

See where Iran is? Don’t you think they might be on edge because, oh, I don’t know…they feel threatened by the 40+ U.S. military bases surrounding them?

What if China had 40+ bases in Canada and Mexico? How would we feel?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #141 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post



U.S. Bases in the Middle East

See where Iran is? Dont you think they might be on edge because, oh, I dont knowthey feel threatened by the 40+ U.S. military bases surrounding them?

What if China had 40+ bases in Canada and Mexico? How would we feel?

And in the 1960s, the US got a bit antsy about a small nation, not far south, which was in possession of Soviet ICBMs armed with nuclear weapons which could reach any US city. The security given to a nation by the possession of nukes insured that the Soviets pulled back from the brink.

Iran has a similar problem of their own, just to their west.... Israel.. a nation whose hardliners - given half the chance - would nuke Iranian cities to smoking, glowing ruins if they could get away with it. If Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, who would blame them?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #142 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

And in the 1960s, the US got a bit antsy about a small nation, not far south, which was in possession of Soviet ICBMs armed with nuclear weapons which could reach any US city. The security given to a nation by the possession of nukes insured that the Soviets pulled back from the brink.

Iran has a similar problem of their own, just to their west.... Israel.. a nation whose hardliners - given half the chance - would nuke Iranian cities to smoking, glowing ruins if they could get away with it. If Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, who would blame them?

Would you not agree that hardliners on both sides want to nuke each other?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #143 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Would you not agree that hardliners on both sides want to nuke each other?

Well, they probably bluster a lot about it, to give an impression of being well-endowed. Some of the more insecure men tend to do that.... unfortunately, lots of them end up in positions of leadership...

But.. re likelihoods: add the prevailing wind factor. Fallout from an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel would get carried downwind over Jordan (Syria), Iraq, Iran, and beyond. An Israeli nuclear hit on Iran would send fallout over Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and so on... ie away from Israel.

Maybe neocon-weasel Obama wants to go to war against Iran so he can pick up another Nobel Peace Prize?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › More Iran Booga Booga