Winds of War

[Praxius]

This is just another case of a Republican using a meeting like this to stand on their soap box and shout out things they know will get them attention..... the more attention they get, the more they rile up those back home, the more votes they get.

It's not about reason, logic or doing the right thing anymore, it's about who can shout, thump their chest and act angry the most that gets the vote...... and that's not to say Canada doesn't have their own problems that are similar..... instead of our politicians calling for war and acting all angry for attention, they instead finger point at everybody else as being worse then they are and that they're the lesser of all the other evils..... in the end, they're still not working off of reason, logic or doing the right thing either.

Voters are angry and fed up, but rather then listening to those with logical solutions to their problems, they want to vote in the person who seems just as angry as they are because it's easier to relate to.

Even if many don't want another war that will end up in a dismal failure, it'll be another way to express frustration and anger at their own way of life and how nothing is getting done...... it's not about justice or global security, it's not even about facts or evidence..... people are angry in the US, people are having a hard time with a number of things...... so make others angry and have a hard time too.

And the argument in the original report:

"And if you use military force, if sanctions are not going to work, and a year from now it's pretty clear they're not going to work, what do our friends in Israel do?"
​

^ The same thing Bam Margera does..... "Whatever the F*ck I want" like what they always do.

Israel has a big military, they got nukes, they don't have any issues with fighting wars and blowing things up.... justified or not...... why do they need our help in fighting their wars....... oh wait, there isn't a war..... yet.

 

[Goober]

This is just another case of a Republican using a meeting like this to stand on their soap box and shout out things they know will get them attention..... the more attention they get, the more they rile up those back home, the more votes they get.

It's not about reason, logic or doing the right thing anymore, it's about who can shout, thump their chest and act angry the most that gets the vote...... and that's not to say Canada doesn't have their own problems that are similar..... instead of our politicians calling for war and acting all angry for attention, they instead finger point at everybody else as being worse then they are and that they're the lesser of all the other evils..... in the end, they're still not working off of reason, logic or doing the right thing either.

Voters are angry and fed up, but rather then listening to those with logical solutions to their problems, they want to vote in the person who seems just as angry as they are because it's easier to relate to.

Even if many don't want another war that will end up in a dismal failure, it'll be another way to express frustration and anger at their own way of life and how nothing is getting done...... it's not about justice or global security, it's not even about facts or evidence..... people are angry in the US, people are having a hard time with a number of things...... so make others angry and have a hard time too.

And the argument in the original report:

"And if you use military force, if sanctions are not going to work, and a year from now it's pretty clear they're not going to work, what do our friends in Israel do?"​

^ The same thing Bam Margera does..... "Whatever the F*ck I want" like what they always do.

Israel has a big military, they got nukes, they don't have any issues with fighting wars and blowing things up.... justified or not...... why do they need our help in fighting their wars....... oh wait, there isn't a war..... yet.

'Reason is Isreal cannot do more than one large air strike -
Perhaps you cound answer the question i asked Spade about??

 

[Praxius]

'Reason is Isreal cannot do more than one large air strike -

Really? They have all that military might under their belt that they keep tossing in Gaza and the West Bank..... they have nukes.... every citizen has to serve in their military for a period of time, conducted a number of wars when they first became a nation and attacked many of their neighbors and captured territory here and there...... one would think they'd be more then capable to do more then just a large air strike.

Perhaps you could answer the question i asked Spade about??

What question is that? This:
"What is your opinion on Iran having a Nuclear weapons capability complete with delivery system and the impact that would have in only the Middle East but from also Pakistan to Western Europe?"

To me, that's a loaded question as it can be applied to any nation. What if Mexico..... What if Venezuela.... what if any country had a nuclear weapon complete with delivery system that could target any nation we consider an ally or poses some random threat?

Hypothetically speaking, in any case, any country having nukes isn't a good thing and there will always be a number of countries opposed to them having nukes and fear they'll be the first to be attacked.

Just look at how Russia reacted with the missile defense systems in the EU....... their argument was that not only do those missile defence systems threaten their own security, but they could easily be fitted with nukes and pose a greater threat to them.

Oh but the US and other allied nations are behind the plans for those missiles..... and they'd never harm or threaten anybody, because they're the good guys :roll:

It doesn't matter...... there are other countries who will be out there that will have issues and concerns.

Regardless of your loaded hypothetical, there is still no evidence proving Iran is working in nuclear weapons, nor is there evidence of them planning on using them even if they had them..... even US officials and intelligence agencies have claimed they found no evidence.

Oh, but I suppose we should just attack them to be on the safe side huh?

Let's get into yet a third war over there based on assumptions....... let's start yet another bloody and long war only to end up finding out that they never were planning on making nuclear weapons in the first place...... like how Iraq never had WMD's........ like Afghanistan never had Osama anywhere in the country at the time of invasion...... let alone now.

After all, it's always better to send thousands more of our men and women off to die in an unjustified war and to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in an invaded country, leaving their country in a living hell and despair for decades to come.......

...... Just to be on the safe side.

No thanks.

Present evidence and proof first, then we'll talk about hypothetical situations about Iran having nukes.

 

[Goober]

Really? They have all that military might under their belt that they keep tossing in Gaza and the West Bank..... they have nukes.... every citizen has to serve in their military for a period of time, conducted a number of wars when they first became a nation and attacked many of their neighbors and captured territory here and there...... one would think they'd be more then capable to do more then just a large air strike.

What question is that? This:
"What is your opinion on Iran having a Nuclear weapons capability complete with delivery system and the impact that would have in only the Middle East but from also Pakistan to Western Europe?"

To me, that's a loaded question as it can be applied to any nation. What if Mexico..... What if Venezuela.... what if any country had a nuclear weapon complete with delivery system that could target any nation we consider an ally or poses some random threat?

Hypothetically speaking, in any case, any country having nukes isn't a good thing and there will always be a number of countries opposed to them having nukes and fear they'll be the first to be attacked.

Just look at how Russia reacted with the missile defense systems in the EU....... their argument was that not only do those missile defence systems threaten their own security, but they could easily be fitted with nukes and pose a greater threat to them.

Oh but the US and other allied nations are behind the plans for those missiles..... and they'd never harm or threaten anybody, because they're the good guys :roll:

It doesn't matter...... there are other countries who will be out there that will have issues and concerns.

Regardless of your loaded hypothetical, there is still no evidence proving Iran is working in nuclear weapons, nor is there evidence of them planning on using them even if they had them..... even US officials and intelligence agencies have claimed they found no evidence.

Oh, but I suppose we should just attack them to be on the safe side huh?

Let's get into yet a third war over there based on assumptions....... let's start yet another bloody and long war only to end up finding out that they never were planning on making nuclear weapons in the first place...... like how Iraq never had WMD's........ like Afghanistan never had Osama anywhere in the country at the time of invasion...... let alone now.

After all, it's always better to send thousands more of our men and women off to die in an unjustified war and to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in an invaded country, leaving their country in a living hell and despair for decades to come.......

...... Just to be on the safe side.

No thanks.

Present evidence and proof first, then we'll talk about hypothetical situations about Iran having nukes.

Israel would make 1 and only 1 large air strike - most likely flying thru with their permission, Saudi airspace. The Saudi's could only play dumb for so long - After the 1st and only air strike the jets - those that get back would have to be refueled, armed etc for an attack by possibly Syria, Hezbollah would definitely be in the game -

As to Nukes - Do you think Israel would use nukes?

As to Iran not working on Nukes read the IAEA reports - Whether they want enough to be able to assemble a bomb or bombs is the loaded question - I think they will assemble and test detonate a warhead.

Read the various speeches by the Iranian Elite - Iran realized back in the late 80's they need a nuclear capability - one reason would be to deter attacks - The other is now the question -

With Nuke Iran would cause more destabilization in the Mid East - Criley - Every one would want the same capability - Then what

Perhaps Iran threatens Israel if the pound to hard on Hezbollah - Then what - Same with Hamas - Israel would be boxed in Militarily with the threat of an Iranian attack.

One Nuke makes Israel uninhabitable. Just one.

 

[YukonJack]

Somebody once said that if Muslims laid down their weapons, there would be no more blood shed in the Middle East.

However, If Israel laid down its weapons, there would be no Israel in the Middle East.

 

[ironsides]

Iran has the capability to hit any target it want within a 2,000 mile radius. Now.

 

[Spade]

Spade, are you sure you are using the correct pronoun (capitalized in your post by me)? When did you ever do or say anything in your life that was not anti-American?

Nonsense! Grow up!

 

[petros]

Winds of war? Should SK attack AB because it blows and MB because it's sucks?

Every problem has a solution....

Thorium (

/ˈθɔəriəm/ THOHR-ee-əm) is a chemical element with the symbol Th and atomic number 90. Thorium is a naturally occurring, slightly radioactive metal. A Thorium atom has 90 protons and 90 electrons, of which 4 are valence electrons. Jöns Jakob Berzelius discovered it in 1828 and named it after Thor, the Norse god of thunder.

In nature, thorium is found as thorium-232 (100.00%). Thorium decays slowly by emitting an alpha particle. The half-life of thorium-232 is about 14.05 billion years. It is estimated to be about three to four times more abundant than uranium in the Earth's crust. It is a by-product of the extraction of rare earths from monazite sands. The formerly widespread uses of thorium, for example as a light emitting material in gas mantles or as an alloying material in several metals, have decreased due to concerns about its radioactivity.

Thorium-232 was used for breeding nuclear fuel – uranium (233), for example, in the molten-salt reactor experiment (MSR) conducted in the United States from 1964 to 1969. After most of the initial test reactors were closed down, Russia, India and other countries are reconsidering the use of thorium fuel cycle for the production of nuclear power.


We could have had Th energy right from the start but the USA wanted uranium so they could enrich to plutonium in the reactors to makes weapons.....

Molten salt reactor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Molten salt reactor scheme.


A molten salt reactor (MSR) is a type of nuclear fission reactor where the primary coolant is a molten salt mixture, which can run at high temperatures (for higher thermodynamic efficiency) while staying at low vapor pressure for reduced mechanical stress and increased safety, and is less reactive than molten sodium coolant. The nuclear fuel may be solid fuel rods, or dissolved in the coolant itself, which eliminates fuel fabrication, simplifies reactor structure, equalizes burnup, and allows online reprocessing. MSR is also known as a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), and pronounced "lifter".

In many designs the nuclear fuel is dissolved in the molten fluoride salt coolant as uranium tetrafluoride (UF4). The fluid becomes critical in a graphite core which serves as the moderator. Fluid fuel reactors have significantly different safety issues compared to solid fuel designs; the potential for major reactor accidents is reduced, while the potential for processing accidents is increased.[1]

More recent research has focused on the practical advantages of the high-temperature low-pressure primary cooling loop. Many modern designs rely on ceramic fuel dispersed in a graphite matrix, with the molten salt providing low pressure, high temperature cooling. The salts are much more efficient at removing heat from the core, reducing the need for pumping, piping, and reducing the size of the core as these components are reduced in size.

The early Aircraft Reactor Experiment (1954) was primarily motivated by the small size that the design could provide, while the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (1965–1969) was a prototype for a thorium fuel cycle breeder reactor nuclear power plant. One of the Generation IV reactor designs is a molten salt-cooled, solid-fuel reactor; the initial reference design is 1000 MWe with a deployment target date of 2025.

Another advantage of a small core is that it has fewer materials to absorb neutrons. The improved neutron economy makes neutrons available so that the thorium-232 can breed into uranium-233. Thus, the compact core makes the molten salt design particularly suitable for the thorium fuel cycle.

I know a place with ****lodes of salts and ****lodes of uranium.

Th is a by-product of making hi tech electronics from rare earth elements another handy mineral of our future right here in the Canadian west.

 

[ironsides]

CBC News - Nova Scotia - 'Neuter' Iran, U.S. senator tells Halifax conference

When will they ever learn?

Old men dreaming up wars... Where is the sanity of George McGovern?

Took it with him.

 

[petros]

John McCain whistles his esses like this guy.

 

[YukonJack]

John McCain whistles his esses like this guy.

So did and does, but even more so the liberal icon, lying forger Dan Rather.

John McCain whistles his esses like this guy.

So did and does, but even more so the liberal icon, lieing forger Dan Rather.

 

[petros]

You'd Rather not?

Things sure are dull since SRM took off for a role in "Planet of the Apes - The Musical" huh?

 

[Praxius]

Israel would make 1 and only 1 large air strike - most likely flying thru with their permission, Saudi airspace. The Saudi's could only play dumb for so long - After the 1st and only air strike the jets - those that get back would have to be refueled, armed etc for an attack by possibly Syria, Hezbollah would definitely be in the game -

Speculation on who'd join who based on what. Israel could also just send a bunch of ships, though they'd have a little bit of traveling to do. If Israel did attack first before any solid evidence or facts were established, then I don't see any reason why our nation should jump aboard and fight their fight..... we already did that for the US and look where it got us.

And if Israel did attack Iran first, who's to blame?

Iran?

I don't think so, in fact, that'd be enough justification for Iran to do whatever it is they might be planning, if they were planning anything in the first place.

Secondly, do you think any of Israel's neighbors would willingly allow Israel to send a massive attack force through their air space, or any of their space for that matter, in order to start a war that neighboring country would be pinned between?

Let's say Saudi A. did allow Israel to do as you suggest..... not only would they already be dealing with Iraq and the instability there, but they'd be also dealing with Israel taking shots at Iran over their territory..... and also be dealing with Iran, based on your above assumptions, lobbing missiles and other military attacks over their air space as well.

Eventually either Israel or Iran would directly affect Saudi A's people, territory or worse..... and then Saudi A get's dragged into this conflict and siding against whoever attacked them first.

If I was leading Saudi A..... I wouldn't be making any such deals of letting either country go through mine to start some petty unjustified war.

As to Nukes - Do you think Israel would use nukes?

Do you think Iran would?

Anybody who uses nuclear weapons in that area, regardless of who they targeted, would end up giving one or more neighbors, fallout. Once that happens, expect whoever get's the fallout to go against whoever shot that nuke.

Anybody who uses nukes, be that Israel or Iran, would be total idiots..... thus freaking over whether or not Iran is working on nukes or just power is an attempt at baseless fear mongering.

As to Iran not working on Nukes read the IAEA reports - Whether they want enough to be able to assemble a bomb or bombs is the loaded question - I think they will assemble and test detonate a warhead.

I've seen their reports along with a number of other reports since this whole debacle began and there is still zero evidence of them working on Nuclear Weapons. There were claims that they found enriched uranium that they "Could" develop further into nuclear weapon material....... COULD

That's not proof they would or are..... they "could."

Not enough to use to justify a large-scale war with Iran, based on "Could"

The US "Could" launch all their nuclear weapons and kill everything on the surface of the planet...... is that evidence that they will?

No.

And the other parts of those reports claiming that their inspectors weren't allowed in certain areas is also a baseless source of evidence.

Before Iraq was invaded, it was argued that because inspectors were not allowed in every place they requested, that that was evidence that they were hiding WMD's..... yet none were ever found.

I bet you that if you sent inspectors into the US to check up on a few things, those inspectors wouldn't be allowed to go everywhere they asked and the excuse would be something along the lines of "National Security."

^ That would be tolerated, yet if it's another country we don't like, say Iraq or Iran, I guess we're supposed to automatically assume they're hiding something and what they're hiding is what we assume they're hiding?

That's a real great way to royally screw up and end up looking like an ass when the dust settles.

Read the various speeches by the Iranian Elite - Iran realized back in the late 80's they need a nuclear capability - one reason would be to deter attacks - The other is now the question -

Considering at that same time, the fears of Israel already having nukes supplied by the US which Israel still won't openly admit..... and considering in the Middle East the most aggressive nation there over the last couple of decades has been Israel who have attacked their neighbors for territory they claim is theirs and have continually been aggressive towards their neighbors since they were put there..... I'd be a little fearful of Israel having nukes and possibly using them against me..... thus it would be logical to obtain nukes to defend myself from such an aggressor.

But Saying is one thing..... Doing is another.

At this stage, from the moment Iran announced they were working on developing Nuclear technology, they have clearly stated they need to for power and development of their own nation. So many other nations around them have finger pointed at their pollution and dependency on oil/coal for their power...... and while many other nations have nuclear power and while Iran is permitted to seek nuclear power based on their agreements made in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty they signed, which Canada signed as well (and we have nuclear power too don't forget)...... suddenly, they're not allowed to seek nuclear energy unless they get their resources from us and they're not allowed to develop their own technology independently.

^ I call BS on that because I don't remember any allied nation being constrained to such limitations and it's unfair treatment with no justifications other then paranoia.

With Nuke Iran would cause more destabilization in the Mid East - Criley - Every one would want the same capability - Then what

Oh please, don't act like Iran's the first to seek nuclear weapons as a means of defence/deterrence...... both the Soviet Union and the US stock piled millions of nuclear weapons over the decades as a means of deterrent, which later led to other nations doing the same thing...... it was the main reason why Israel was given nukes in the first place...... it was perfectly fine and ok for all of these nations to do this..... yet suddenly now that Iran "Might" be seeking the same deterrents, it's wrong.... it'll promote more nations to do the same.......

This sh*t ball started rolling with the Cold War..... don't blame Iran for a ball that's already been rolling for some time now.

Let's say Iran is building a nuke..... you could blame Iran for destabilizing the Middle East....... but I think it's more accurate to blame the US for giving Israel nukes in the first place which in turn was the main reason the Middle East has been destabilized for so long and is why any of Israel's neighbors might seek nuclear weapons themselves.

When it's just a fist fight, that's one thing...... once someone brings a knife into the fight, things escalate.... once someone brings a gun, things escalate...... once one country gets a hold of nukes...... don't expect the situation to not escalate.

Perhaps Iran threatens Israel if the pound to hard on Hezbollah - Then what - Same with Hamas - Israel would be boxed in Militarily with the threat of an Iranian attack.

Like I truly care...... Israel is not my nation, I signed no obligation to defend their country and based on recent history, Israel has been the only nation recently in that area to use military aggression against its neighbors, and if they keep on doing what they're doing, eventually somebody's gonna do something about it.

Besides, you're basing your entire argument on speculations, assumptions and "What-Ifs"

And you make it sound like Israel has a right to regularly pound the crap out of Gaza or the West Bank.... just not "Too Hard"

I suppose using white phosphorous bombs and cluster bombs in heavily civilian populated areas while using human shields isn't Hard enough for your liking?

One Nuke makes Israel uninhabitable. Just one.

One Nuke can make a number of small countries in the world uninhabitable..... give me one reason why I should care about Israel over any of those other smaller countries.

Regardless of all of this, you're still supporting military action against a sovereign nation based on zero evidence and facts..... just What If's and assumptions to be on the safe side.

As I said, we've already seen where that road takes us...... Twice..... I will not support a third.

And don't get me wrong.... I support our military and our troops..... but I will never support an unjustified invasion, occupation or any other form of military aggression on another sovereign nation without solid facts & evidence to justify our troops being sent halfway around the world to be blown up in some war.

And none of our leaders should be sending our men and women off to risk serious injury or death based on assumptions and what-if's.

Iran has the capability to hit any target it want within a 2,000 mile radius. Now.

And to add to that..... when was the last time Iran started a war with another nation?

Believe it or not, Iran overall is a passive nation in regards to dealing with it's neighbors...... compared to some countries out there.

 

[petros]

Who needs a nuke? Israel is due for heavy duty earthquake yesterday. Why nuke a self destructing area? Just sit tight and thumb your noses and when request for aid comes through keep thumbing.
Israel relies on it's neighbours for water as it is.

 

[Goober]

Speculation on who'd join who based on what. Israel could also just send a bunch of ships, though they'd have a little bit of traveling to do. If Israel did attack first before any solid evidence or facts were established, then I don't see any reason why our nation should jump aboard and fight their fight..... we already did that for the US and look where it got us.

And if Israel did attack Iran first, who's to blame?

Iran?

I don't think so, in fact, that'd be enough justification for Iran to do whatever it is they might be planning, if they were planning anything in the first place.

Secondly, do you think any of Israel's neighbors would willingly allow Israel to send a massive attack force through their air space, or any of their space for that matter, in order to start a war that neighboring country would be pinned between?

Let's say Saudi A. did allow Israel to do as you suggest..... not only would they already be dealing with Iraq and the instability there, but they'd be also dealing with Israel taking shots at Iran over their territory..... and also be dealing with Iran, based on your above assumptions, lobbing missiles and other military attacks over their air space as well.

Eventually either Israel or Iran would directly affect Saudi A's people, territory or worse..... and then Saudi A get's dragged into this conflict and siding against whoever attacked them first.

If I was leading Saudi A..... I wouldn't be making any such deals of letting either country go through mine to start some petty unjustified war.



Do you think Iran would?

Anybody who uses nuclear weapons in that area, regardless of who they targeted, would end up giving one or more neighbors, fallout. Once that happens, expect whoever get's the fallout to go against whoever shot that nuke.

Anybody who uses nukes, be that Israel or Iran, would be total idiots..... thus freaking over whether or not Iran is working on nukes or just power is an attempt at baseless fear mongering.



I've seen their reports along with a number of other reports since this whole debacle began and there is still zero evidence of them working on Nuclear Weapons. There were claims that they found enriched uranium that they "Could" develop further into nuclear weapon material....... COULD

That's not proof they would or are..... they "could."

Not enough to use to justify a large-scale war with Iran, based on "Could"

The US "Could" launch all their nuclear weapons and kill everything on the surface of the planet...... is that evidence that they will?

No.

And the other parts of those reports claiming that their inspectors weren't allowed in certain areas is also a baseless source of evidence.

Before Iraq was invaded, it was argued that because inspectors were not allowed in every place they requested, that that was evidence that they were hiding WMD's..... yet none were ever found.

I bet you that if you sent inspectors into the US to check up on a few things, those inspectors wouldn't be allowed to go everywhere they asked and the excuse would be something along the lines of "National Security."

^ That would be tolerated, yet if it's another country we don't like, say Iraq or Iran, I guess we're supposed to automatically assume they're hiding something and what they're hiding is what we assume they're hiding?

That's a real great way to royally screw up and end up looking like an ass when the dust settles.



Considering at that same time, the fears of Israel already having nukes supplied by the US which Israel still won't openly admit..... and considering in the Middle East the most aggressive nation there over the last couple of decades has been Israel who have attacked their neighbors for territory they claim is theirs and have continually been aggressive towards their neighbors since they were put there..... I'd be a little fearful of Israel having nukes and possibly using them against me..... thus it would be logical to obtain nukes to defend myself from such an aggressor.

But Saying is one thing..... Doing is another.

At this stage, from the moment Iran announced they were working on developing Nuclear technology, they have clearly stated they need to for power and development of their own nation. So many other nations around them have finger pointed at their pollution and dependency on oil/coal for their power...... and while many other nations have nuclear power and while Iran is permitted to seek nuclear power based on their agreements made in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty they signed, which Canada signed as well (and we have nuclear power too don't forget)...... suddenly, they're not allowed to seek nuclear energy unless they get their resources from us and they're not allowed to develop their own technology independently.

^ I call BS on that because I don't remember any allied nation being constrained to such limitations and it's unfair treatment with no justifications other then paranoia.



Oh please, don't act like Iran's the first to seek nuclear weapons as a means of defence/deterrence...... both the Soviet Union and the US stock piled millions of nuclear weapons over the decades as a means of deterrent, which later led to other nations doing the same thing...... it was the main reason why Israel was given nukes in the first place...... it was perfectly fine and ok for all of these nations to do this..... yet suddenly now that Iran "Might" be seeking the same deterrents, it's wrong.... it'll promote more nations to do the same.......

This sh*t ball started rolling with the Cold War..... don't blame Iran for a ball that's already been rolling for some time now.

Let's say Iran is building a nuke..... you could blame Iran for destabilizing the Middle East....... but I think it's more accurate to blame the US for giving Israel nukes in the first place which in turn was the main reason the Middle East has been destabilized for so long and is why any of Israel's neighbors might seek nuclear weapons themselves.

When it's just a fist fight, that's one thing...... once someone brings a knife into the fight, things escalate.... once someone brings a gun, things escalate...... once one country gets a hold of nukes...... don't expect the situation to not escalate.



Like I truly care...... Israel is not my nation, I signed no obligation to defend their country and based on recent history, Israel has been the only nation recently in that area to use military aggression against its neighbors, and if they keep on doing what they're doing, eventually somebody's gonna do something about it.

Besides, you're basing your entire argument on speculations, assumptions and "What-Ifs"

And you make it sound like Israel has a right to regularly pound the crap out of Gaza or the West Bank.... just not "Too Hard"

I suppose using white phosphorous bombs and cluster bombs in heavily civilian populated areas while using human shields isn't Hard enough for your liking?



One Nuke can make a number of small countries in the world uninhabitable..... give me one reason why I should care about Israel over any of those other smaller countries.

Regardless of all of this, you're still supporting military action against a sovereign nation based on zero evidence and facts..... just What If's and assumptions to be on the safe side.

As I said, we've already seen where that road takes us...... Twice..... I will not support a third.

And don't get me wrong.... I support our military and our troops..... but I will never support an unjustified invasion, occupation or any other form of military aggression on another sovereign nation without solid facts & evidence to justify our troops being sent halfway around the world to be blown up in some war.

And none of our leaders should be sending our men and women off to risk serious injury or death based on assumptions and what-if's.



And to add to that..... when was the last time Iran started a war with another nation?

Believe it or not, Iran overall is a passive nation in regards to dealing with it's neighbors...... compared to some countries out there.

Ref Saudi - Theare Sunni - Wahabi Sunni and Iran is Shia - They hate each others existence - they look upon the other as almost heretics - Saudi does look upon Iran as the pure enemy - and yes they could let the Israel's fly thru once - just once and play dumb.

 

[Cliffy]

It seems a recession brings out the war mongers like a full moon brings out the crazies. All this BS about Iran's nuclear ambitions and what they intend to do with it is no more than speculation All the fear mongering coming out of Washington in nothing more than that, WMDs all over again and the sheeple are getting all hysterical over nothing. Even if they are developing nukes, why is it that they are not allowed to protect themselves? They have just as much to fear from the US and Israel as Israel has to fear from Iran. And all this hysteria about a crazy president and fanatical Muslim fundamentalist regimes is nothing compared to the bunch of Christian fundamentalist loonies they just voted into the house of representatives. Iran is nowhere near the threat to world peace that the US is.

Holy Crap! Batman, it sounds like they should be dumping tons of Ritalin in the freaking drinking water around here.

 

[Colpy]

Cliffy;

And all this hysteria about a crazy president and fanatical Muslim fundamentalist regimes is nothing compared to the bunch of Christian fundamentalist loonies they just voted into the house of representatives.

Do have ANY idea how insane this is??????

I suggest you read up on Islamic fundamentalism in general, and Iran in particular.

Because, obviously, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[damngrumpy]

Colpy you are right many do not know what they are talking about in much of this.
Yes the Christian Fundamentalists who are connected with the Christians for Zion,
are crazy as hell. They support Israel, knowing that the Muslims and Israel will
fight and in the midst of this, the Rapture will occur and the Christians will be taken
to safety. There are large groups within the Evangelical Movement who believe this.
The other group the Muslim Fundamentalists believe if the sacrifice their life for the
cause they go to paradise anyway. The west has Christ coming back to reign for
a thousand years and the Muslims have the hidden Imam, coming back and the
Jews believe the Messiah will reveal himself. It is up to you and I to figure out who
is sane? Yes I say the last sentence in jest.
As for would Iran use the bomb, that all depends, and if they did they don't care a whit
about most of their neighbours. Iran is a majority of Persians and the other neighbouring
states are primarily Arab. Not all the Muslim faith goes by the same doctrine. There is
the Sunni version of Islam and the Sharia version of Islam. They almost live in two
different worlds. Then of course there is the terrorist groups who exploit all of Islam.
I think there is enough common sense within Iran to avoid using the bomb, and we are
not even sure at what stage they are at. There are other interested parties in the world
that would not take kindly to anyone using the nukes as a demonstration of force.
This is all a game to set up another arms race. America supports Israel, and the others
Germany, Russia, China and anyone who can make money are selling goods to Iran.
Why are we not taking action against the other big states if we are so concerned?
The answer Is MONEY. Create a situation that is much more threatening than is, reality
and everyone will cringe in fear. Once a foolish move is made however, I think these
same states would become very unstable and who knows what that outcome could be.
America is playing the fear card. Iran is playing the defiant card and the game goes on.

 

[Cliffy]

Cliffy;



Do have ANY idea how insane this is??????

I suggest you read up on Islamic fundamentalism in general, and Iran in particular.

Because, obviously, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

And I ask you, Have you ever been to Iran? All you have is a bunch of propaganda from the fear factory. You don't know these people personally and it seems to me that nobody at the fear factory does either. I have watched the lead up to the Vietnam war, the War on Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan and I know hate propaganda when I see it and I know how that inevitably leads to war. It is intentional. It is designed to demonize the enemy and sway public support to invasion.

I don't have to know more than I do about fundamentalisms of any sort. They are all nuts cases on every side. The loons at the Pentagon and in Washington are no less dangerous than those in Iran. Nothing but death and destruction will come out of this escalation in political rhetoric and anybody who supports this kind of stupidity will have an equal amount of blood on their hands as the perpetrators. But I have no doubt that the insanity will continue as long as their are sheeple who believe that armed conflict is the answer to everything.

 

[Praxius]

Ref Saudi - Theare Sunni - Wahabi Sunni and Iran is Shia - They hate each others existence

Sort of like the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland for a period of time (and somewhat still today).... as well as elsewhere in the world.

- they look upon the other as almost heretics - Saudi does look upon Iran as the pure enemy - and yes they could let the Israel's fly thru once - just once and play dumb.

I guess we'll just have to see..... if Israel can get away with such an attack, our country still shouldn't automatically jump into their war and do their dirty work they created.

If some countries were left to deal with the wars they started all on their own, chances are, there'd be less wars.