Pages: 1 2 3

 

2007-02-03 19:41:13
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6955|Global Command
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 67,00.html
A PRIZE-WINNING Iranian nuclear scientist has died in mysterious circumstances, according to Radio Farda, which is funded by the US State Department and broadcasts to Iran.

An intelligence source suggested that Ardeshire Hassanpour, 44, a nuclear physicist, had been assassinated by Mossad, the Israeli security service.
This is excellent.
The only news in recent weeks to derail the  out of control freight train leading to U.S/Iran war is this.
I hope they/we hunt them down ruthlessly and scatter them like cockroaches in sudden light.

This is so much preferable to massive bombing.

?   
Is war with Iran a foregone conclusion?
2007-02-03 19:44:55
Big McLargehuge
Another Saturday night and I ain't got nobody
+259|7029|Philadelphia, PA
Mossad strikes again.
2007-02-03 19:46:23
SplinterStrike
Roamer
+250|6837|Eskimo land. AKA Canada.
I think its eventually gonna happen. A few years back, just when the Iraq "war" was starting, we had a funny caricature in the paper. It was the Statue of Liberty with Bush's face and on the manuscript was Afghanistan(crossed out), Iraq(crossed out), North Korea, Israel, Palestine and a few others. It was made to look like a to-do list, and I believe its pretty accurate
2007-02-03 19:49:06
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6981
War with Iran? lol. Methinks the US strategists need to have a good hard think about the consequences of that for the entire region. The west might as well kiss goodbye to all middle eastern oil for the forseeable future if war does occur. Anarchy will reign, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will fall and it would be difficult to see any path back. Remember how well Iraq is going? Remember that 9% of US oil comes from the Persian gulf?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-02-03 19:54:38)

2007-02-03 19:56:17
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6955|Global Command
9% !?!   We are fucked.
2007-02-03 19:58:26
Miller
IT'S MILLER TIME!
+271|7182|United States of America

ATG wrote:

9% !?!   We are fucked.
I say we take the oil after killing all who stand in our way.  Why not, that 9% is going to drive us mad.
2007-02-03 20:17:55
Skorpy-chan
Member
+127|6771|Twyford, UK
Go Israel!
Also, I saw something like this coming a mile off. Not the 'special forces hit' thing, but something similar to what they did when they took out Iraq's nuclear plant; ultra-long-range bombing raid with F-16s and F-15s and a couple of tankers.

Israel does seem to be the only western-ish power that's any good at politics these days. Everyone else tries to do things diplomatically, they just shoot the people making the trouble. Maybe we should call this sniper rifle diplomacy?
2007-02-03 20:19:22
kilgoretrout
Member
+53|6896|Little Rock, AR

CameronPoe wrote:

War with Iran? lol. Methinks the US strategists need to have a good hard think about the consequences of that for the entire region. The west might as well kiss goodbye to all middle eastern oil for the forseeable future if war does occur. Anarchy will reign, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will fall and it would be difficult to see any path back. Remember how well Iraq is going? Remember that 9% of US oil comes from the Persian gulf?
If it came down to war with Iran and our oil supplies were interrupted, we'd probably just take the place over and take all the oil.
2007-02-03 20:25:46
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|7194

ATG wrote:

is war with Iran a foregone conclusion?
With the current administration, yes.
2007-02-03 20:27:10
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|7079

kilgoretrout wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

War with Iran? lol. Methinks the US strategists need to have a good hard think about the consequences of that for the entire region. The west might as well kiss goodbye to all middle eastern oil for the forseeable future if war does occur. Anarchy will reign, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will fall and it would be difficult to see any path back. Remember how well Iraq is going? Remember that 9% of US oil comes from the Persian gulf?
If it came down to war with Iran and our oil supplies were interrupted, we'd probably just take the place over and take all the oil.
Russia and China wouldn't object to that in the slightest, would they?  I mean, it's not like that would cut off a huge chunk of their income or anything.  And it's not like they'd start wondering what the UN is for if anyone with superior military can just take over and rob blind any country/region they feel like anyway.
2007-02-03 20:27:44
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|7194

Skorpy-chan wrote:

Go Israel!
Also, I saw something like this coming a mile off. Not the 'special forces hit' thing, but something similar to what they did when they took out Iraq's nuclear plant; ultra-long-range bombing raid with F-16s and F-15s and a couple of tankers.

Israel does seem to be the only western-ish power that's any good at politics these days. Everyone else tries to do things diplomatically, they just shoot the people making the trouble. Maybe we should call this sniper rifle diplomacy?
Who's committing acts of war here?

Israel!

And it will Iran who gets fucked up.

What a strange world we live in.
2007-02-03 20:33:44
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6793|Columbus, Ohio

BN wrote:

ATG wrote:

is war with Iran a foregone conclusion?
With the current administration, yes.
"If Tehran doesn't comply by the end of the 60-day period stipulated by the U.N., the Security Council will consider new measures beyond the economic sanctions."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070203/ap_ … an_nuclear

US is not the only one saying things.  Take off your blinders.
2007-02-03 20:35:13
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7192|UK
Common lets everyone get paranoid. Lead us to the promise land!
2007-02-03 20:35:17
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|7194

usmarine2007 wrote:

BN wrote:

ATG wrote:

is war with Iran a foregone conclusion?
With the current administration, yes.
"If Tehran doesn't comply by the end of the 60-day period stipulated by the U.N., the Security Council will consider new measures beyond the economic sanctions."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070203/ap_ … an_nuclear

US is not the only one saying things.  Take off your blinders.
Blinders are off.

Iran is abiding by the nuclear proliferation treaty. I have not seen any evidence to suggest otherwise.
2007-02-03 20:43:25
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6955|Global Command

BN wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

BN wrote:


With the current administration, yes.
"If Tehran doesn't comply by the end of the 60-day period stipulated by the U.N., the Security Council will consider new measures beyond the economic sanctions."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070203/ap_ … an_nuclear

US is not the only one saying things.  Take off your blinders.
Blinders are off.

Iran is abiding by the nuclear proliferation treaty. I have not seen any evidence to suggest otherwise.
That was hard;


http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/09/iran.nuclear/
2007-02-03 20:56:43
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6981

kilgoretrout wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

War with Iran? lol. Methinks the US strategists need to have a good hard think about the consequences of that for the entire region. The west might as well kiss goodbye to all middle eastern oil for the forseeable future if war does occur. Anarchy will reign, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will fall and it would be difficult to see any path back. Remember how well Iraq is going? Remember that 9% of US oil comes from the Persian gulf?
If it came down to war with Iran and our oil supplies were interrupted, we'd probably just take the place over and take all the oil.
Like in Iraq? Quagmire city here we come. You'll have bombs going off on pipelines all across the region from Riyadh to Ashgabat.
2007-02-03 21:27:15
TeamZephyr
Maintaining My Rage Since 1975
+124|6955|Hillside, Melbourne, Australia

Miller wrote:

ATG wrote:

9% !?!   We are fucked.
I say we take the oil after killing all who stand in our way.  Why not, that 9% is going to drive us mad.
I do hope that you are joking.......
2007-02-03 21:32:12
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6955|Global Command

TeamZephyr wrote:

Miller wrote:

ATG wrote:

9% !?!   We are fucked.
I say we take the oil after killing all who stand in our way.  Why not, that 9% is going to drive us mad.
I do hope that you are joking.......
He is...I think.


Here's how we show them fuckers;
We go oil independent.
2007-02-03 21:34:46
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6871|The Land of Scott Walker

ATG wrote:

9% !?!   We are fucked.
Step 1 - Give finger to enviro-wackos
Stept 2 - Drill in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico
Step 3 - Give finger to OPEC
Step4 - lower gas prices for me
2007-02-03 21:39:32
TeamZephyr
Maintaining My Rage Since 1975
+124|6955|Hillside, Melbourne, Australia

ATG wrote:

TeamZephyr wrote:

Miller wrote:


I say we take the oil after killing all who stand in our way.  Why not, that 9% is going to drive us mad.
I do hope that you are joking.......
He is...I think.


Here's how we show them fuckers;
We go oil independent.
There's also the option of working towards doing away with oil altogether through alternative fuels. Work on using wind, solar and other renewable fuels and actually offering incentives to motor companies to come up with engines that use different fuels (such as hydrogen).

One way to go "oil independent" would to set an environmental example and to help move the Earth forward, and it would mean you wouldn't HAVE to meddle in the Middle East again.

But that would be appeasing the hippies wouldn't it..........
2007-02-03 21:41:19
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6955|Global Command

TeamZephyr wrote:

ATG wrote:

TeamZephyr wrote:


I do hope that you are joking.......
He is...I think.


Here's how we show them fuckers;
We go oil independent.
There's also the option of working towards doing away with oil altogether through alternative fuels. Work on using wind, solar and other renewable fuels and actually offering incentives to motor companies to come up with engines that use different fuels (such as hydrogen).

One way to go "oil independent" would to set an environmental example and to help move the Earth forward, and it would mean you wouldn't HAVE to meddle in the Middle East again.

But that would be appeasing the hippies wouldn't it..........
I'm sort of a hippy, does that mean I would get appeased as well?
2007-02-03 21:51:44
BeerzGod
Hooray Beer!
+94|6996|United States
Go Israel. Although, I don't think Iran would be as bad a place right now if that insane leader of theirs wasn't in power.... holy shit, deja vu.
2007-02-03 21:55:57
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|7091|NT, like Mick Dundee

ATG wrote:

TeamZephyr wrote:

ATG wrote:


He is...I think.


Here's how we show them fuckers;
We go oil independent.
There's also the option of working towards doing away with oil altogether through alternative fuels. Work on using wind, solar and other renewable fuels and actually offering incentives to motor companies to come up with engines that use different fuels (such as hydrogen).

One way to go "oil independent" would to set an environmental example and to help move the Earth forward, and it would mean you wouldn't HAVE to meddle in the Middle East again.

But that would be appeasing the hippies wouldn't it..........
I'm sort of a hippy, does that mean I would get appeased as well?
I guess you would... Lower electricity bills please everybody. Well, almost everybody.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2007-02-03 22:21:24
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6831|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

War with Iran? lol. Methinks the US strategists need to have a good hard think about the consequences of that for the entire region. The west might as well kiss goodbye to all middle eastern oil for the forseeable future if war does occur. Anarchy will reign, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will fall and it would be difficult to see any path back. Remember how well Iraq is going? Remember that 9% of US oil comes from the Persian gulf?
There are times when I wonder if the U.S. falling is such a bad thing.  Then again, I often wonder if it would be such a bad thing for the Middle East to just implode upon itself.

The way I see it....  If we are stupid enough to invade Iran, we'll deserve every one of the negative repercussions it would cause.  On the other hand, I can't say that I sympathize much with Iran either.

Ideally, we'd just assassinate the Ayatollah and all the ultraconservatives in Iran, so that the rest of Iran is free to live as they please.  Of course, that's a lot easier said than done.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-02-03 22:22:24)

2007-02-04 03:26:59
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|7194

ATG wrote:

BN wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

"If Tehran doesn't comply by the end of the 60-day period stipulated by the U.N., the Security Council will consider new measures beyond the economic sanctions."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070203/ap_ … an_nuclear

US is not the only one saying things.  Take off your blinders.
Blinders are off.

Iran is abiding by the nuclear proliferation treaty. I have not seen any evidence to suggest otherwise.
That was hard;


http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/09/iran.nuclear/
"Citing unnamed diplomatic sources"
Monday, March 10, 2003

That was hard.

Where have i seen this before...oh yeah. About 3 months before the iraq war.

To use the word of a great man "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

Last edited by BN (2007-02-04 03:27:14)

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard