Oh No

[Odin]

Originally posted by Krill
Didn't Nostradamus predict that the world was going to end in 2006?

I thought he said 1999?

[GePap]

Originally posted by VJ

How do you know that?

I said nuclear facilities, NOT REACTORS. So the [] is utterly incorrect. Its no secret Iran has a civilian nuclear program-after all, the Russians have for years been helping the Iranians build a civilian reactor.

I think itrs safe to say Iran has less secret military facitilies than research ones-after all, secret undergorund bases are sort of expensive.

Iran has already enriched uranium. Iraq was nowhere at that step when Israel struck. They had one research reactor. The Iranians are well beyond that stage.

[DaShi]

So who's the fan?

[Elok]

Nostradamus said a lot of things. Some of them could be interpreted as "fulfilled." Others could be interpreted as "unintelligible nonsense."

Oh, and next time title this post, "Oh sh*t." I thought this was something stupid about cybering with Huangdi and ignored it at first.

[RGBVideo]

I said nuclear facilities, NOT REACTORS.

Sorry
My reading comprehension sucks

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by VJ
It's also pretty damn naïve to believe that either of those guys wished to drop a nuke on Israel, they're not as stupid as their citizens are.

Actually, I think that they are more stupid than the citizens.

[Sava]

Gepap: Interesting points. But you don't seem to be offering any alternative courses of action.

I must say that even if attacking the facilities just slows them down by a year or two, it is still worth it.

It just seems as if the benefits outweigh the possible drawbacks.

[DaShi]

You can't stop the inevitable, man! Just ask Inevitable G, yo!

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Oh No

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Oh Shi*

Originally posted by Az
I soooo hope we'll get them all

Not a chance. Which makes it stupid to try.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava
Gepap: Interesting points. But you don't seem to be offering any alternative courses of action.

I must say that even if attacking the facilities just slows them down by a year or two, it is still worth it.

It just seems as if the benefits outweigh the possible drawbacks.

1. Why must I offer an aletrnative? We are in a poor position.

2. Given that intelliegnce agencies put thier time to a nuke if they are seeking one at 5-10 years, we would have little clue if they are even slowed down. Personally I fail to see how making thier case for why they should have nukes internally, and undermining the international diplomatic drive to give Iran incentives to have only a civilian nuclear program is worth a shot in the dark.

3. The consequence for the US in Iraq and Afghanistan could be serious, specially in Iraq.

[Sava]

Yes, why try to solve a problem?

Just let it get out of hand.



If the doctor told me I had some tumors, but didn't know if he could get them all, I'd still want him to remove as many as he could.

Is this a solution? Maybe not. But it buys us time to come up with something better.

And who knows, maybe we will get lucky? Israel may get all the facilities. Iran may decide to abandon their programs.

I don't see anyone coming up with better alternatives.

[GePap]

Your analogy is flawed, because the "alternative" you support would fail to make anything better, and in fact would make the situation worse.

That is the point. An Israeli attempt by military force to destroy Iran's nuclear program would fail to stop Iran, strengthen the hardliners, and weaken the US and pro-US interests in the muslim world.

Sorry to say it Sava, but right now, you are sounding like a supporter of the Iraq war circa March 2003-the same talk of "doing nothing about the problem", and "no alternatives to this problem". And we all know how that brilliant idea has gone.

Well, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice....

[Sava]

But this is not an invasion. This is not a war.

Sorry. Strawman defeated.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava
But this is not an invasion. This is not a war.

Sorry. Strawman defeated.

\



1. A military attack always has consequences, whether it lasts a day, or 10 year.

2. The comparison is between your "arguement" and those pre-war. That somehow, "alternatives" must be given, that "nothing is not an option". That is exactly the same.

You must be channeling slowwhand.