Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorVylasni
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012
     
    I'm going to go out on a limb here and saying that 2012 will be the year of Iran. Expect some bad shit to happen with that one. No way Israel is going to let those boys get the bomb. If the Mossad can't kill enough scientists, they'll bomb the scrap out of those installations if they think the Iranians are close.

    Anyone else think this situation is going to get uglier?

    Vyl
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012
     
    The USA is supplying Israel with bunker busting bombs but it doubtful that Israel could manage the task themselves, if they try and fail, they may have to resort to using their own nuclear weapons or lose so much face and military prestige that more of their enemies will try it on.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012
     
    If they try, fail or succeed, many of their friends will back off miles, and many uninterested countries will become extremely hostile.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012
     
    Posted By: TrimThe USA is supplying Israel with bunker busting bombs


    Source? Israel doesn't have the capability to use the latest GBU-57's and the USA hasn't made them in any quantity (~15). Older generation (GBU-28's etc) won't penetrate far enough to worry Iran (and it's not even a given that GBU-57's will do the job).
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012
     
    Still they are between a rock and a hard place.
    Perhaps it time they negotiated for a peaceful settlement sincerely.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012
     
    Except for the horrible lack of co-operation from MIddle Eastern geography, we would be able to say that Israel is between Iraq and a hard place.
    • CommentAuthortinker
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012
     
    <http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=180_1254165874>

    These are the stealth-bomber dropped latest generation. But based on what happened in WW2 even the old generation bombs - if accurately placed can seriously screw the operation.
    • CommentAuthortinker
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012
     
    Posted By: VylasniI'm going to go out on a limb here and saying that 2012 will be the year of Iran. Expect some bad shit to happen with that one. No way Israel is going to let those boys get the bomb. If the Mossad can't kill enough scientists, they'll bomb the scrap out of those installations if they think the Iranians are close.

    Anyone else think this situation is going to get uglier?

    Vyl


    There is no feasible and acceptable way that Israel, or anyone else, can stop Iran from acquiring nukes. The program could be delayed by a year or 2, but not stopped.

    At the moment, we are seeing a lot of hysterical screaming about what a catastrophe it will be if Iran does succeed in arming itself with nukes. However, after Iran succeeds, then suddenly it will turn out to be a case of 'same shit, different day' for most of us. I do suspect that things will stabilise a bit in the Middle East though ...
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012
     
    Posted By: TrimThe USA is supplying Israel with bunker busting bombs but it doubtful that Israel could manage the task themselves, if they try and fail, they may have to resort to using their own nuclear weapons or lose so much face and military prestige that more of their enemies will try it on.


    Doesn't the irony of this get to you even a little? Israel may have to resort to using her nuclear weapons, secretly developed in defiance of the nonproliferation efforts of the world, to stop the Iranians secretly developing a nuclear weapons capability (note the difference) in defiance of the nonproliferation efforts of the world.

    Maybe we should just ban the naming of countries with words starting with "I". (Ireland- you'll have to go back to Eire, and I don't know what we do about Iceland and Indonesia.)
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012
     
    Posted By: TrimThanks a even older post.

    One strike could have ended Iran nuclear program in 2004

    ...and it would have re-started in 2004.
  1.  
    You are ignoring the tacit dimension. Explicitly, the Iranian nuclear capability is the excuse for waging war against Iran. But that's clearly not the real reason it's going to happen. Just like Saddam's WMD, Iraq's nukes or future nukes are just as effective in bringing about the real goals of the globalist banksters whether they are real or not. In fact, better if they aren't, because that makes the "cakewalk" all the easier.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: AngusMaybe we should just ban the naming of countries with words starting with "I". (Ireland- you'll have to go back to Eire, and I don't know what we do about Iceland and Indonesia.)
    What do you mean "go back to"? The official name of the country I live in is in fact √Čire, and the Republic of Ireland is the description of the state, but not its official name!
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: Duracell
    Posted By: AngusMaybe we should just ban the naming of countries with words starting with "I". (Ireland- you'll have to go back to Eire, and I don't know what we do about Iceland and Indonesia.)
    What do you mean "go back to"? The official name of the country I live in is in fact √Čire, and the Republic of Ireland is the description of the state, but not its official name!


    I am wiser now! I never knew that. I was under the impression that Eire (I laccents on this touch screen) was abandoned when the Dominion status was replaced with the republic. Sometime in the '30s ?

    Anyway I'm pleased that your country is unlikely to be developing nukes according to the "'I" criterion.
    • CommentAuthorblueletter
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012
     
    Posted By: AngusI laccents on this touch screen

    Not sure what you're using, but keep your finger on the letter for a sec and alternative options might come up.
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2012
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinYou are ignoring the tacit dimension. Explicitly, the Iranian nuclear capability is the excuse for waging war against Iran. But that's clearly not the real reason it's going to happen. Just like Saddam's WMD, Iraq's nukes or future nukes are just as effective in bringing about the real goals of the globalist banksters whether they are real or not. In fact, better if they aren't, because that makes the "cakewalk" all the easier.


    I couldn't agree more, except that I thought "banksters" should be spelled with a "w".
    • CommentAuthorscience
    • CommentTimeFeb 24th 2012
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 24th 2012
     
    Posted By: scienceFox being fox:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=83LDtji3iEY


    That's incredible. "We are the only country with the moral authority to launch a first strike but we have to be concerned whether the price of oil would rise to levels where it would inconvenience our energy profligacy." and with a straight face, too!